Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketMelanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bill Melanie Curtis Friday, February 24, 2012 4:37 PM 'Koch, William (Judge)' Mike Gaffron RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) 11-3518 Koch.pdf; Koch 11-3518.pdf; Pages from Orono Sept.pdf; Koch 11-3518.pdf; RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Please find attached the following: 1. 3 invoices: a. 20110221 -August 2011 b. 20120006 -September 2011 c. 20120038 -December 2011 2. Clarified detail from Invoice 20120006 3. 2/15/2012 email First, let me say, I am not avoiding any of your questions. I'm sorry I did not respond in a timelier manner; staff's workload this week prevented me from responding sooner. Invoice 20110221 is attached along with the engineering back-up detail. This invoice is related to charges incurred in August (Aug 1-Aug 31). Invoice 20120006 reflects billed time from September as indicated on the re-scanned Billing Backup -Title sheet (Attached as "pages from Orono Sept.pdf"). Based on this information I can confirm that you have not been double billed for Bonestroo's time. It seems each of your emails ask primarily the same questions; questions I've already answered or provided you detail as requested. Your question regarding Darren's travel time was answered in my February 15th email to you. Yes, you were billed travel time for this meeting as it was not a regularly scheduled day for our engineer to be in the City and it was a meeting scheduled, at your request to occur as soon as was possible. The unusually excessive amount of review time spent on this application was necessary primarily because you did not follow direction given and employ a qualified engineer to design appropriate plans for the project. Much of our engineer's time was dedicated to responding to your inquiries and substandard plans. Securing an engineer, admittedly, was a bit more difficult that it should have been. Through our efforts to assist you in location a qualified engineer, it became clear that your project constraints (timeline, equipment preference, existing plan) also hindered your ability to find an engineer willing to take on your project. In my opinion, had you secured a qualified engineer and submitted appropriate plans from the start, the ultimate review cost of this project would likely not have exceeded the $500 credit plus the amount indicated in the December invoice of $135±. I should note, late in the fall the City Council decided to solicit RFPs from local engineering firms and as a result Bolton & Menk, not Bonestroo/Stantec, now serves as the City's consulting engineer. The billing delay I informed you of previously unfortunately resulted from Bonestroo's merger with Stantec; however I do not believe this contributes in any way to the resulting invoice amounts or any perceived errors in billing. Bill, I hope this sufficiently answers your questions; I believe we've answered your questions to the best of our ability. If you have any new questions please let me know. Thank you, Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 1 Direct Dial: 952 .249.4627 Fax: 952 .249.4616 P lanning & Zoning Office 952 .249.4620 Email : mcurtis@ci.o rono .mn .us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm -----Original Message----- From : Koch , William (Judge) [mailto :William .Koch@courts .state.mn.us] Sen t: Wednesday , February 22 , 2012 9 :58 PM To : Melanie Curtis Cc : Mike Gaffron Subject: RE : Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie (and Mike): It has been a week since I last contacted you about this , and I have not heard anything . I would appreciate a response . Also , please check your records to make sure this invoice has not already been (at least largely) paid . On October 27 , 2011 , we paid $2 ,259 .50 for Invoice No. 20110221 . Since Invoice 20120006 covers billings from Sept 19-28, 2011 , it would appear these amounts were already billed . Please see my October 14, 2011 , e-mail to you which spec ifically addressed the September meeting and the travel time issue , among other th ings . I never really got an answer to my billing questions at that time . And I feel as if my questions are being avoided this time . I have prepared a check for Invoice 20120006 but cannot send it until I hear back that there has not been an inappropriate double-billing for the September 2011 work. I would also like a response to the issues I raised below. I expect to not be charged any "late fee" or other interest on Invoice 20120006 until we have had a chance to meaningfully address my questions . Please let me know if you plan on charging any such fees before this matter is resolved . I have prepared a check for Invoice 20120038 (which we just received), and will send that in tomorrow. Thanks . Bill 612-348-2050 (work) 612-743-3210 (cell) From : Koch , William (Judge) Sent: Wednesday , February 15 , 2012 4 :30 PM To : 'Melanie Curtis' Cc : Mike Gaffron Subject: RE : Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie : I would like more information about the three hours we got charged for Philip Caswell "solicited engineers , follow up on available engineering firms to perform slope analysis " on September 21 . Since I told you , the Engineer, the Planning Board , and the City Council throughout this process about all the engineers I had contacted and how tough it was to identify someone w illing to work on such a small residential project, I appreciated getting any referrals from the City ... but getting billed $561 for that "service " seems unreasonable (although it does confirm that even the City 's Engineer could not , apparently , easily identify an eng ineer to do the slope stability analysis , as I have been saying all along). I must tell you I think the Engineer 's billing on this case (and the City 's oversight of that billing) leaves much to be desired . I am continually troubled about being charged for transport time to/from the engineer's office to the City they serve , and not being told at t hat time or earlier that we would be charged for their transit time (at full rate , no less), or that we could meet with them on their regular day in Orono to elim inate that expense. Please make sure this "travel charge " is communicated to the City Council , so they are aware of this charge to the City 's residents . I would expect Stantec would be willing to drop that charge to keep the City as a client; or the City should consider another local firm . As a resident , I 2 ask the City to approach Stantec for a reduction in this bill, or ask the City to consider a reduction in the invoice paid to the City for at least that portion of the invoice. Bill P.S. Further, any charges for the discussion about Max Green's stamp should be reversed since I did what the City and its Engineer requested -only to have the Engineer (and the City) then change its requirement. When told we needed an engineer's stamp on the hill plans, I asked for the City and the Engineer to identify specifically what type of engineer review was needed. I even asked if it should be a civil engineer, a structural engineer, a soil engineer, or a different engineer. I was told it just had to be an engineer who would sign off on it; the City and the Engineer wanted another private engineer to review the plans and sign-off on it for liability purposes. That's what we did, after contacting all the engineers I have earlier identified. But we were then told that was not good enough ... and charged roughly $1,000 for that review, the meeting, etc. From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:29 PM To: Koch, William (Judge) Cc: Mike Gaffron Subject: RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Bill Thank you for your email. Attached please find a more legible (hopefully) billing detail. Also I hope with the following I can clarify your questions on the substance of the bills. The 7.5 hours of plan review you are questioning covers all of our geotechnical engineer's time: 2 hours were for the initial 9-8-11 plan submittal signed by mechanical engineer Max Green. There were 5 hours of time dedicated afterwards on emails and phone calls addressing questions from the applicant, applicant's consultant and city staff regarding the submittal. The meeting time in question included a 1 hour mtg/discussion between the engineer and city staff on how to move the project forward. The other 3 hours consists of the applicant-requested 1.25 to 1.5 hour meeting at city hall (plus 1.5 hour prep/drive time). This was a sole purpose trip with about 12 hours notice. There are a considerable number of correspondence items -emails, plans and other correspondence (approximately 135+ emails/files) -for this project of which it was necessary to review. To explain the billing delay ... In September our engineering firm, Bonestroo, merged with a national engineering firm, Stantec. As part of the merger, the two companies had to also merge their accounting software programs. Unfortunately there were a number of issues with the software merger resulting in a significant delay in passing the bills on to the City. This has been a source of frustration for both the City and residents receiving bills and we apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. As I understand it we have just received the December billing information from Stantec which includes a final bill for your project of $134.50. Please add this amount to the amount you were recently billed $2591.50 + $134.50 = $2726.00 is the total due. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you -Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> 3 Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us<http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/> City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm From: Koch, William (Judge) [mailto:William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us]<mailto:[mailto:William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us]> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:46 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie: We have received the latest (and, I hope, last) invoice for the work out at our house. I was surprised to see such a large bill, and that it was for the period ending September 30. I am not sure why the delay in getting the invoice. More importantly, I would like to better understand what went into the 7.5 hours for "plan review/comment letter" and the 4-hour meeting with staff. Those entries seem excessive -especially given the large invoices in the past. Finally, the last page that was sent to us, which I believe had some detail for the entries, was pretty much illegible. Thanks for looking into this and getting back to me. I continue to be concerned about the rather open-checkbook nature of this review by the City's Engineers, and do not know what reviews the City does to ensure its residents are being billed appropriately for such review. Bill 612-348-2050 (work) 612-743-3210 (cell) 4 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: Koch, William (Judge) [William .Koch@courts .state .mn .us] Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:58 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Mike Gaffron Subject: RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie (and Mike): It has been a week since I last contacted you about this, and I have not heard anything . I would appreciate a response . Also, please check your records to make sure this invoice has not already been (at least largely) paid. On October 27 , 2011, we pai ctl $2 ,259 .50 for Invoice No. 20110221 . Since Invoice 20120006 covers billings from Sept 19-28, 2011 , it would appear these amounts were already billed. Please see my October 14, 2011, e-mail to you which specifically addressed the September meeting and the travel time issue, among other things. I never really got an answer to my billing questions at that time. And I feel as if my questions are being avoided this time. I have prepared a check for Invoice 20120006 but cannot send it until I hear back that there has not been an inappropriate double-billing for the September 2011 work . I would also like a response to the issues I raised below. I expect to not be charged any "late fee" or other interest on Invoice 20120006 until we have had a chance to meaningfully address my questions. Please let me know if you plan on charging any such fees before this matter is resolved . I have prepared a check for Invoice 20120038 (which we just received), and will send that in tomorrow. Thanks . Bill 612-348-2050 (work) 612-743-3210 (cell) From: Koch, William (Judge) Sent: Wednesday , February 15, 2012 4:30 PM To: 'Melanie Curtis' Cc : Mike Gaffron Subject: RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie : I would like more information about the three hours we got charged for Philip Caswell "solicited engineers, follow up on available engineering firms to perform slope analysis" on September 21 . Since I told you, the Engineer, the Planning Board , and the City Council throughout this process about all the engineers I had contacted and how tough it was to identify someone willing to work on such a small residential project , I appreciated getting any referrals from the City ... but getting billed $561 for that "service " seems unreasonable (although it does confirm that even the City's Engineer could not , apparently, easily identify an engineer to do the slope stability analysis, as I have been saying all along). I must tell you I think the Engineer's billing on this case (and the City's oversight of that billing) leaves much to be desired . I am continually troubled about being charged for transport time to/from the engineer's office to the City they serve , and not being told at that time or earlier that we would be charged for their transit time (at full rate, no less), or that we could meet with them on their regular day in Orono to eliminate that expense . Please make sure this "travel charge " is communicated to the City Council , so they are aware of this charge to the City's residents . I would expect Stantec would be willing to drop that charge to keep the City as a client; or the City should consider another local firm. As a resident , I ask the City to approach Stantec for a reduction in this bill , or ask the City to consider a reduction in the invoice paid to the City for at least that portion of the invoice. Bill P.S . Further, any charges for the discussion about Max Green's stamp should be reversed since I did what the City and its Engineer requested -only to have the Engineer (and the City) then change its requirement. When told we needed an 1 engineer's stamp on the hill plans, I asked for the City and the Engineer to identify specifically what type of engineer review was needed. I even asked if it should be a civil engineer, a structural engineer, a soil engineer, or a different engineer. I was told it just had to be an engineer who would sign off on it; the City and the Engineer wanted another private engineer to review the plans and sign-off on it for liability purposes. That's what we did, after contacting all the engineers I have earlier identified. But we were then told that was not good enough ... and charged roughly $1,000 for that review, the meeting, etc. From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:29 PM To: Koch, William (Judge) Cc: Mike Gaffron Subject: RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Bill Thank you for your email. Attached please find a more legible (hopefully) billing detail. Also I hope with the following I can clarify your questions on the substance of the bills. The 7.5 hours of plan review you are questioning covers all of our geotechnical engineer's time: 2 hours were for the initial 9-8-11 plan submittal signed by mechanical engineer Max Green. There were 5 hours of time dedicated afterwards on emails and phone calls addressing questions from the applicant, applicant's consultant and city staff regarding the submittal. The meeting time in question included a 1 hour mtg/discussion between the engineer and city staff on how to move the project forward. The other 3 hours consists of the applicant-requested 1.25 to 1.5 hour meeting at city hall (plus 1.5 hour prep/drive time). This was a sole purpose trip with about 12 hours notice. There are a considerable number of correspondence items -emails, plans and other correspondence (approximately 135+ emails/files) -for this project of which it was necessary to review. To explain the billing delay ... In September our engineering firm, Bonestroo, merged with a national engineering firm, Stantec. As part of the merger, the two companies had to also merge their accounting software programs. Unfortunately there were a number of issues with the software merger resulting in a significant delay in passing the bills on to the City. This has been a source of frustration for both the City and residents receiving bills and we apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. As I understand it we have just received the December billing information from Stantec which includes a final bill for your project of $134.50. Please add this amount to the amount you were recently billed $2591.50 + $134.50 = $2726.00 is the total due. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you -Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us<http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/> City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm From: Koch, William (Judge) [mailto:William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us]<mailto:[mailto:William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us]> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:46 PM 2 To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Melanie: We have received the latest (and, I hope, last) invoice for the work out at our house. I was surprised to see such a large bill, and that it was for the period ending September 30. I am not sure why the delay in getting the invoice. More importantly, I would like to better understand what went into the 7.5 hours for "plan review/comment letter" and the 4-hour meeting with staff. Those entries seem excessive -especially given the large invoices in the past. Finally, the last page that was sent to us, which I believe had some detail for the entries, was pretty much illegible. Thanks for looking into this and getting back to me. I continue to be concerned about the rather open-checkbook nature of this review by the City's Engineers, and do not know what reviews the City does to ensure its residents are being billed appropriately for such review. Bill 612-348-2050 (work) 612-743-3210 (cell) 3 WILLIAM KOCH 3251 CASCO CIRCLE ORONO MN 55391-9717 Quantity CITY OF ORONO PO Box66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Phone: 952.249.4600 Description 1 Engineering Consultant Sept 2011 File 11-3518 INVOICE Date Number Page 01/26/2012 20120006 1 Customer No. 105332 PAY BY: 02/25/2012 Unit Price Net Amount 2,591.50 2,591.50 Balance Due 2,591.50 PLEASE NOTE: In accodance with Orono City code (Chapter 14, Section 14-110, paragraphs A and B) at the end of each calendar year the City of Orono can assess all unpaid Invoices to the property taxes of the property associated with said invoice. Invoices not paid by the due date are subject to a late fee equal to 10% of the invoice total. MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: CITY OF ORONO PO Box66 Crystal Bay MN 56323 1111111 lllll 111111111111111111 Stantec Bill To City of Orono Aocounts Payable 2750 Kelley Parkway POBox66 . Crystal Bay MN 55323 United States INVOICE Invoice Number Invoice Date Customer Number Project Number Please Remit To Page 1 of3 652518. December 21, 2011 92786 193800284 Stantac Consulting Services Inc. (SCSI) · 13980 Collections Center Drive Chicago IL 80693 United States Federal Tax ID 11-2167170 Project Dncrlptlon: 000139--11000-1 Orono; City of-General Private 2011 Shntec Project Manager. Stantec Office Location: Currant Invoice Due: For Period Ending: Amundsen, Darren T St. Paul MN $2,691.50 September 30, 2011 Due on Receipt Top Task 518 L.ow Task 618.001 erofeasmDII §!mdl:iU Category/Employee Pl'Qject Manager Low Tnk 518,001 Subtotal LowTnk 518,002 !rafssslgo1! Servla, Category/Employee Project Manager Low Task 518.002 Subtotal Low Task 518.003 frafu1k!!Yt SaooJtH Category/Employee Project Manager Low Task 518.003 Subtotal Top Task 518 Total INVOICE Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle •General Professional Servlcea Subtotal Plan review/comment letter Prafesslonal Servlcea Subtotal Meeting wHh City Staff Professional Services Subtotal ,o,- Invoice Number Project Number Hours 2.25 2.25 2,25 Houra 1.00 7.50 8.50 a.so Hours 4.00 4.00 4.00 ~3 i_jD ..... 3ol.-\ Rate 164.00 Rate 164.00 187.00 Rate 164,00 Page 2of3 552518 193800264 Current Amount 369,00 388.00 369.00 369.00 Current Amount 164.00 1,402,50 1,566,5() 1,566.50 1,566.60 Current Amount 656.00 658.00 G&G.00 656.00 2,591.50 ~o INVOICE Invoice Number Project Number Total Fees & Disbursements INVOICE TOTAL (USD} Page 3of 3 .552518 193800284 $2,591.50 $2,591.50 Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: To: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:29 PM 'Koch, William (Judge)' Cc: Mike Gaffron Subject: Attachments: RE: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) Pages from Orono Sept.pdf Bill Thank you for your email. Attached please find a more legible (hopefully) billing detail. Also I hope with the following I can clarify your questions on the substance of the bills. The 7.5 hours of plan review you are questioning covers all of our geotechnical engineer's time: 2 hours were for the initial 9-8-11 plan submittal signed by mechanical engineer Max Green. There were 5 hours of time dedicated afterwards on emails and phone calls addressing questions from the applicant, applicant's consultant and city staff regarding the submittal. The meeting time in question included a 1 hour mtg/discussion between the engineer and city staff on how to move the project forward. The other 3 hours consists of the applicant-requested 1.25 to 1.5 hour meeting at city hall (plus 1.5 hour prep/drive time). This was a sole purpose trip with about 12 hours notice. There are a considerable number of correspondence items -emails, plans and other correspondence (approximately 135+ emails/files) -for this project of which it was necessary to review. To explain the billing delay ... In September our engineering firm, Bonestroo, merged with a nationa l engineering firm, Stantec. As part of the merger, the two companies had to also merge their accounting software programs. Unfortunately there were a number of issues with the software merger resulting in a significant delay in passing the bills on to the City. This has been a source of frustration for both the City and residents receiving bills and we apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. As I understand it we have just received the December billing information from Stantec which includes a final bill for your project of $134.50. Please add this amount to the amount you were recently billed $2591.50 + $134.50 = $2726.00 is the total due. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you -Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial : 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtis@c i.orono .mn .us Website: www .ci.orono .m n. us City of Orono Office Hours Mo nd ay -Fr id ay 8 :00 a m t o 4 :3 0 p m From: Koch, William (Judge) [mailto :William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:46 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Latest Invoice (Invoice 20120006) 1 Melanie: We have received the latest (and, I hope, last) invoice for the work out at our house. I was surprised to see such a large bill, and that it was for the period ending September 30. I am not sure why the delay in getting the invoice. More importantly, I would like to better understand what went into the 7.5 hours for "plan review/comment letter" and the 4- hour meeting with staff. Those entries seem excessive -especially given the large invoices in the past. Finally, the last page that was sent to us, which I believe had some detail for the entries, was pretty much illegible. Thanks for looking into this and getting back to me. I continue to be concerned about the rather open-checkbook nature of this review by the City's Engineers, and do not know what reviews the City does to ensure its residents are being billed appropriately for such review. Bill 612-348-2050 (work) 612-743-3210 (cell) 2 Melanie Curtis From: mrjandassoc@gmail .com Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday , December 06, 2011 3:14 AM Darren .Amundsen@bonestroo .com; Melanie Curtis 'Koch, William (Judge)' Subject: Global Stability Study Attachments: 11-163 Final Report Mod.pdf Melanie and Darren: Attached is the W illiam Koch Residence revised global stability analysis report prepared by CDP , forwarded at the request of my client , Bill Koch . Bill asked me to add and sign my Minnesota PE Stamp to the report , which includes my PE number and to resubmit the report to you . He also asked me to attach the soil boring locations and testing data , but that information is already contained within the report . If you need any additional information , please feel free to give me a call. Respectfully , MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, P.E. I PRESIDENT-CEO 8609 Lyndale Avenue S, Suite 200 I Bloomington, MN 55420 Office : 952-303-5312 I Mobile: 612-490-3071 Email : mikej@cd p-us.co m Website: www.cdp-us.com From: Koch, William (Judge) [mailto:William.Koch@courts.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, December OS, 201110:28 AM To: Mike Johnson (Civil Design Professionals) Cc: Jim Smith (Concept Landscaping) Subject: FW: Global Stability Study Importance: High This is always a bit of a frustrating process . Mike: Could you please sign and affix your PE number to your letter and then scan/email/email it to Melanie Curtis and Darren Amundsen as soon as possible, along with the soil boring locations and testing data as set forth in Darren's letter? I would like to get this to them today . Thanks. Mike and Jim : I hope you are able to hook up to make sure whatever information each of you needs from the other is provided. I fear the snow and icing up lake means a no-go until the spring for our project . Bill From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Monday, December OS, 2011 10:22 AM To: Koch, William (Judge) Subject: Fwd: Global Stability Study 1 • -----Forwarded Message ----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@c i.orono .mn .us > To : "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchs i.com > Cc: "Darren Amundsen" <Darren .Amundsen@bonestroo .com > Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 8:27:32 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: Global Stability Study Bill Please see the attached comments from our eng ineer. Once the requested information is submitted and approved the permit for the stairs and slope work will be ready to issue. Thanks, Melanie Melanie Curtis Planni ng & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fa x : 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952 .249.4620 Email: mcurtis@c i.orono .mn .us Website: www.ci.orono.mn .us City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8 :00 am to 4 :30 pm From: The Kochs [ma ilto:mnkochs@mchs i.com ] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 201112 :18 PM To: Melanie Curtis; Darren Amundsen Subject: Global Stability Study Melanie and Darren: Based upon input from the City and its engineer (as well as Kyler Bender of Northern Technologies), we (again) contacted Mike Johnson of Civil Design Professionals and had him arrange for new soil testing of our hill. I have attached his report , which shows the hill is stable --contrary to the finding of Marty Gray earlier. Mr. Gray did his analys is based upon hand augers. That was a quick (yet, unfortunately, inadequate) review of the soil conditions . We brought in CDP to arrange for a more in-depth study. New and deeper rig-based samples were obtained , and additional testing was done on the soils . The new analysis shows the hill to be stable . As Mr. Johnson reports , there should be no concern about global stability of the hill. He does not believe any wall system (including the existing walls) is needed for global stability. As you might recall, I had asked on September 25 if we had a new analysis run and the hill showed to be stable, would the City and its engineer accept that and not require an engineered wall design. Melanie wrote back (with a cc : to Darren) that: "If the data from the soil borings demonstrate the hill is stable that will be sufficient information for you to proceed with your project. However the walls may not be necessary if the hill is deemed stab le." It now appears the hill is stable and no walls are needed. Please let me know if we can now move forward with our work on the hill --with or without the existing walls or any subterranean system. Thanks . Bill 612-743 -3210 (cell) 2 612-348-2050 (work) P.S. I cannot help but think if we had the more thorough soil sampling at the start, we could have saved so much time, money, and angst. 3 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Melanie and Darren : The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12: 18 PM Melanie Curtis ; Darren Amundsen Global Stability Study CDP Final Report(11-12-11).doc Based upon input from the City and its engineer (as well as Kyler Bender of Northern Technologies), we (again) contacted Mike Johnson of Civil Design Professionals and had him arrange for new soil testing of our hill. I have attached his report , which shows the hill is stable --contrary to the finding of Marty Gray earlier. Mr. Gray did his analysis based upon hand augers. That was a quick (yet, unfortunately , inadequate) review of the soil conditions . We brought in CDP to arrange for a more in-depth study. New and deeper rig-based samples were obtained , and additional testing was done on the soils . The new analysis shows the hill to be stable . As Mr. Johnson reports, there should be no concern about global stability of the hill. He does not believe any wall system (including the existing walls) is needed for global stability . As you might recall , I had asked on September 25 if we had a new analysis run and the hill showed to be stable , would the City and its engineer accept that and not require an engineered wall design . Melanie wrote back (with a cc : to Darren) that: "If the data from the soil borings demonstrate the hill is stable that will be sufficient information for you to proceed with your project. However the walls may not be necessary if the hill is deemed stable." It now appears the hill is stable and no walls are needed. Please let me know if we can now move forward with our work on the hill --with or without the existing walls or any subterranean system . Thanks. Bill 612-743-3210 (cell) 612-348-2050 (work) P.S. I cannot help but think if we had the more thorough soil sampling at the start, we could have saved so much time , money , and angst. 1 November 12 , 2011 William Koch 3251 Casco Circle Orono, MN 55391 Re: Slope Stability Analysis 3251 Casco Circle Orono, MN Dear Mr. Koch CIVIL DESIGN PROFESSIONALS As requested , Civil Design Professionals (CDP) has conducted a professional slope stability analysis of proposed modified slope at 3251 Casco Circle, in Orono , MN. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the long-term stability of both the proposed slope with the new retaining wall system and fill cover and the proposed slope with fill burying the existing retaining wall system. In addition, CDP was asked to evaluate the Slope Stability Analysis Report previously conducted on the slope by Gray Engineering, LLC for accuracy . CDP was provided the following information for use in our analysis (attached): • William Koch Documents submitted the City of Orono 1. Existing Lot Survey by Advanced Surveying and Engineering Co . dated July 1, 2011 2. Hennepin County Property Tax Map-Tax Year 2011 3. Sub-Terrainian Wall System Section -Concept Landscaping 4 . Stair System Plan-Concept Landscaping 5. Stair System Elevation and Typical Section-Concept Landscaping 6. Planting Plan -Concept Landscaping 7. Sub-Terrainian Walls Buried (Replace Rotten Timber Walls)-Concept Landscaping • Grading Plan -Otto and Associates , dated 9/7 /11 • Gray Engineering , LLC Slope Stability Analysis Report, dated August 4 , 2011 • Gray Engineering , LLC Slope Stability Output CDP performed a site visit on Monday October 24 , 2011 , to meet with Independent Testing Technologies to identify soil boring locations. Soil borings were subsequently drilled on Tuesday October 25 , 2011. The borings were required to determine the actual soil strata at the slope as well as to retain in-situ soil samples , which were later tested for peak shear and cohesive strength. Global stability analysis is highly sensitive to assumed soil strength values , therefore obtaining soil strength data is critical on steep slope applications such as the slope on your property. The borings were drilled on either side of the lot near the top of the slope to provide the best representation of the existing slope strata using only two borings. Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave . 5 ., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com Please find attached the following information which was obtained from the soil borings and used to assess the long-term stability of the proposed slope: • Grading Plan w/Soil Boring Locations (1 and 2)-Otto and Associates, dated 9/7/11 • Independent Testing Technologies, Inc Soil Boring B-1 (10/25/11 • Independent Testing Technologies, Inc Soil Boring B-2 (10/25/11) • Direct Shear Test (Sample A)-Date Reported 10/31/2011 • Direct Shear Test (Sample C) -Date Reported 10/31/2011 Site Observations: The existing slope is approximately ~50' in overall length and drops in elevation~ 35', resulting in a slope angle of approximately 35°. There is an existing stairway made of timber which winds down the slope, extending from the top of the slope to the bank near the lake. There are three existing timber walls. There is one wall near the top of the slope, one near the mid slope and a small wall near the base of slope. The walls were previously cut and installed into the bank to accommodate the installation of the timber stairway. The existing timber stairway and retaining walls are relatively stable but are experiencing deterioration. To my knowledge the existing retaining wall was installed over 20 years prior. It is also my understanding that there have been no slope failures in the vicinity of the Koch Residence, as per William Koch. Project History: It is my understating that a new staircase is to be constructed above grade on posts with concrete footings, extending down the existing slope as shown on the Stair System Plan created by Concept Landscaping. Concept Landscaping has proposed removing the existing timber wall and creating a new timber wall structure and burying the retaining wall structure with fill so it is no longer visible. The slope is then to be vegetated as shown on the Planting Plan created by Concept Landscaping. The City of Orono required the slope be analyzed and approved for global stability after the proposed new retaining wall was constructed and buried with fill to the finished grade shown on the Grading Plan prepared by Otto and Associates. Gray Engineering, LLC (Gray) was subsequently contracted to analyze the slope. To obtain the necessary information for the analysis, they self performed 3 bucket auger borings at undisclosed locations near the top of the slope. They extended two borings to a 10' depth, and 1 boring to a 6' depth. The material was predominantly classified as sandy lean clay by Gray. Gray then performed a global analysis for the project using GSLOPE Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis software, recognized and approved software within the geotechnical engineering community. Gray assumed the strength of the native site material to be <p = 28° and C = 50 psf. After inserting this and other strength of material parameters into the global stability analysis software, it yielded a safety factor of 1.03. Gray therefore concluded that this safety Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave. 5., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com factor did not meet the required minimum and suggested that additional engineering of the retaining wall system would be required. The minimum safety factor for a global stability analysis is typically required to be a minimum of 1.3 throughout the retaining wall engineering and geotechnical engineering community Civil Design Professionals (CDP) was contracted to evaluate the global stability analysis prepared by Gray Engineering to verify if their procedures and conclusions were accurate. Discussion: As previously discussed, the issue of slope stability is highly sensitive to the strength of the materials that make up a given slope. Just a slight modification in the assumed strength of the soil within the slope can radically change its resultant safety factor. Therefore determining the soil strata and having material testing data on the site soils is critical in determining the most realistic safety factor of a slope. Upon review of Gray's slope stability analysis, two items stood out that could have a large impact on the accuracy of their resultant safety factor and corresponding conclusions: 1. The boring depths are too shallow. It is critical to have borings extend close to the bottom of the slope if possible to determine the actual soil of the slope. Soil and its associated strength can vary radically from top to bottom of a slope. Therefore potential failure planes can extend deep into the slope along weaker layers of soil strata if they exist. The borings used in Gray's analysis fail to extend to even l /3 of the overall slope height. In Grays's defense, they failed to approve the slope, but had they assumed a higher shear strength of the material in the top 10', they likely would have approved the slope for they assumed the same soil strata from top to bottom of the slope as shown in their stability analysis. 2. Gray made a conservative assumption of the strength of the soil in the slope from the simple hand auger borings. Hand augers are useful in certain conditions to determine soil strata. However, hand augers are not only limited in how far they may extend, but they do not provide blow counts, a very useful parameter in assessing soil strength. A blow count reading provides an estimate of the density or compaction of the soil. The denser the soil, the higher the correlating strength values. There are publications available that can be used to estimate soil strength from associated blow counts. However, it is virtually impossible to make an educated assumption of a soil strength from a simple classification only. Therefore Gray was forced to make a very conservative assumption of the strength, resulting in an obvious failure in their slope stability analysis. It would be impossible to have any degree of safety on a 35° slope comprised of soil having only a strength of <p = 28° and C = 50 psf. The existing slope, timber stairway, and timber walls have remained in a relatively stable condition for over 20 years, yielding no evidence of external or rotational movement throughout the area. There is no evidence of previous slope failures, and from my understanding there were Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave. 5., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com also no known slope failures in the vicinity. There are very large mature trees at the top of the slope, and trees on the slope that provide additional stability to the slope with their root systems. The global stability results of 1.03 from Gray's report appear extremely low given all these conditions. Gray's conservative assumption for the strengths of the soil were however reasonable given their lack of available information. CDP therefore arranged to have soil borings and in-situ soil samples taken to better approximate both the soil strata and the strength of the site material. Testing Results There were two borings taken on the site (See Grading Plan w/Soil Boring Locations (1 and 2)­ Otto and Associates, dated 9/7/11) near the top of the slope. The borings confirm that the slope is made up of predominantly Sandy Lean Clay (CL), in agreement with Gray. There is a 6' pocket of Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt (SP-SM) found in boring 2. CDP assumes this to be localized pocket, for none of Gray's hand augers exposed Poorly Graded Sand and there was no Poorly Graded Sand found in boring 1. Therefore Poorly Graded Sand was not used in the analysis. As soil borings 1 and 2 indicate, there were three (3) thinwall samples secured by Independent Testing Technologies, Inc. (ITT). One sample (Sample C) was taken from Boring 1 @ 20' and was classified as Sandy Lean Clay (CL) by ITT. Two samples (Samples A and B) taken from Boring 2@ 15' and 20' respectively, both were also classified as Sandy Lean Clay (CL) by ITT. Direct Shear Tests were run on samples A and C by Soil Engineering Testing, Inc. (SET). SET classified samples A and Bas Sandy Lean Clay (CL) and sample Casa Clayey Sand (SC). Two direct shear tests were authorized for the project, so CDP instructed SET to run Direct Shear tests on samples A and C to obtain representative strengths of each material. The direct shear tests yielded the following results: • Sample A: Sandy Lean Clay with little Gravel (CL): Peak Strength <p = 32.7° C = 226 psf. • Sample C: Clayey Sand with little Gravel (SC): Peak Strength <p = 31.7° C = 316 psf. Slope Stability Analysis CDP ran a serious of four (4) global stability analysis (see attached) using the same GSLOPE Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis software used by Gray. The two different shear test results obtained from SET were modeled both with and without the timber retaining wall in the slope. Following is the summary of the results: Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave. 5., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com Slope Stability Analysis (Cont) • Sample A: Sandy Lean Clay with little Gravel (CL): With retaining wall: Without any retaining wall: • Sample C: Clayey Sand with little Gravel (SC): With retaining wall: Without retaining wall: Conclusions: SF= 1.63 SF= 1.61 SF 176 SF 1.76 Based on the results from the GSLOPE Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability, the proposed design prepared by Concept Landscaping including burying a newly constructed retaining wall slope yields a minimum safety factor of 1.63, which exceeds the minimum industry safety factor requirement of 1.3. In addition, burying the existing retaining wall with fill to reach the proposed finish grade yields a minimum safety factor of 1.61, which also exceeds the minimum industry safety factor of 1.3. Therefore it is my professional opinion that the design plans originally submitted to the City of Orono are structurally sound and can safely resist any future deep seated global stability failure. It is also my opinion that the constructing a new retaining wall is not necessary to satisfy global safety requirements. Simply burying the existing retaining wall with fill to finished grade also safely resists any future deep seated global stability failure because the slope is stable under its own strength without the retaining wall as shown in the GSLOPE results. In addition, there are tree roots and vegetation that further help stabilize the existing slope. However, the slope in the fill area must be bench cut, and all organics and unstable surface material removed. The fill material must then be strong enough to resist a surface failure. Surface slope stability is beyond the scope of this report. The method of stabilizing the surface slope was not addressed in the original plans submitted by Concept Landscaping. Gray's analysis revealed a much lesser safety factor due to their use of a very conservative assumed soil strength due to their lack of information. When inputting soil parameters that are reflective of the actual strength of the soil, an increased safety factor of global stability results, which exceeds minimum industry standards. The conclusions retained are based on my professional opinion. These opinions are arrived in accordance with accepted engineering practices in this time and location. No other warranty is implied or intended. Should additional information become available, this report may be modified based on the new data. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave. 5., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com Sincerely, Michael R. Johnson, PE Civil Design Professionals • 8609 Lyndale Ave. 5., Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 • Office 952-303-5312 • www.cdp-us.com Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Subject: Melanie: The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Friday, October 14, 2011 11 :42 PM Melanie Curtis Invoice, etc. I appreciate getting your response. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your analysis. And you did not answer my questions --particularly about the travel time for the purported two-hour site visit to our house or how to appeal the invoice. Are we and the rest of Orono's residents expected to pay for the City's engineer to travel roundtrip from its office near St. Paul, and at full rate? Also, I cannot agree with your statement the City and its engineers have been serving us well in this process, or that the level of review in this case is serving us or the City well. Yes, I expect responses from you to my e-mails. No, I do not agree you need to send every e-mail to one or more engineers to get responses. Importantly, the basis of the City's alleged concern has changed throughout this process. Also, while there was a request for soil stability calculations in the July 26 memo you forwarded to us on July 27 and Phil Caswell said it should be a geotechnical engineer, I sent you a partial list on July 29 of at least 17 engineers I had contacted by that date to do a soil stability analysis and nobody would do it, or design an engineered wall for our site. We contacted approximately three dozen engineers/firms, with the same negative response. Neither the City nor Boonestroo has ever addressed the fact that the City and Bonestroo have repeatedly approved the same plans proposed for our site for other sites without any failure of these projects. (I believe this is what led to Tom Kellogg calling me in late July to apologize about the way this was being processed.) You will recall you said during our September 20th conference that you would immediately look into the site where Concept Landscaping's system was approved in one day by the City (you and Lyle) and Boonestroo (Tom Kellogg) last year. Please clearly let me know if there will be an adjustment to the invoice that was recently sent, and please let me know if we will be billed for travel time for Darren to participate in the September 20th conference, which was not the cooperative effort I had expected it would be --you will recall I asked for the meeting so you and Boonestroo could ask our engineer and our contractor any questions in an effort to address your stated concerns, and yet when I asked for questions, neither you nor Darren had any questions, and the rest of the meeting was a frustrating restatement of the City and Boonestroo saying "just find an engineer" and me again asking for the City and Boonestroo to identify an engineer who has done this type of work on small residential sites. Thank you. Bill 1 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: Darren Amundsen [Darren .Amundsen@bonestroo.com] Wednesday , October 05, 2011 3:50 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE : Invoice 20110221 The August 1 site visit includes prep time (project status, review, and print plans), some drive time from St. Paul to Orono (15-20min), city hall to the site, site review, discussion with city staff -I possibly could have charged more drive time (max½ hr) to 4725 North Shore Dr or the meeting after the site visit. I do not get paid, nor do we charge for me driving home from city hall. .. August 2 time was spent still trying to figure out the submitted plans, and developing an acceptable proposed grading plan for the site The comment on Phil's time is not specific enough, but Phil has prepared 2 email responses, 3 formal design review memos, 1 set of example calculations, and 1 telephone conversation record/phone call See attached for upcoming September bill info and remember this likely won't be billed until mid November with accounting system switchover. There are rumors going around that we can bill this if we really need to though ... Darren Amundsen, PE Associate Bonestroo , now Stantec Tel 651-604-4894 Cell 65 1-775-5623 darren .amundsen@stantec .com stantec .com Bonestroo has joined Stantec. a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability, depth and diversity of talent, and technical expertise . The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified , retransmitted , or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization . If you are not the intended recipient , please delete all copies and notify us immediately . ~ Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2011 2:04 PM To: Darren Amundsen Subject: FW : Invoice 20110221 See below. From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:37 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Invoice 20110221 1 Melanie: We continue to want to work cooperatively with the City. We have made arrangements to have Mike Johnson and Civil Design Professionals complete new soil borings as I have earlier discussed with you --we decided to go with Mike and his company since Kyler Bender had said that Northern Technologies could do the soil work but would not do any engineering review should that be necessary, and he recommended Mike for that work. I am not sure the timing of this new soil work, but have arranged with our neighbors to allow access to our hill through their yards. We hope to have that work done this week, but I am waiting to hear back from Mike. Of a more immediate concern, we received the most recent invoice from the City for work related to our property. I am concerned about the amount of that invoice. Please let me know how we properly file a request to have it reviewed or object to the invoice. I do not want to incur any late fees I know we agreed to pay for certain expenses by the City and its engineer, but some of these charges appear to be inappropriate. I would be interested in having the City review the invoice to ensure this full amount was intended to be invoiced. The most troubling entry is a two-hour site visit to our property on August 1 --we live 7 miles from City Hall and we have a 60' wide lot. The only way for there to be a two-hour site visit is if we are billed door-to-door from Boonestroo's offices in St. Paul, which is 30 miles from our house. I certainly hope the City does not bill the residents of the City for the travel time of its contract engineers to travel 60 miles roundtrip to Orono for their work. Such travel should be worked into the contract bid to work for Orono --it should not be a default to add a couple of hundred dollars to every site visit for City residents (Darren's time is billed at $164/hour. Rather than a maximum of 30 minutes travel time from Orono City Hall to our house, we were apparently billed for at least an hour and a half travel time ... and at full rate.} I am also concerned that we were billed for 3.5 hours of Tom Kellogg's and Darren Amundsen's time with you on August 2, and significant time for Philip Caswell to prepare a minimal memo and prepare "responses" to my comments. We are more than willing to pay reasonable charges related to this matter, but I do not believe the current invoice is appropriate. I believe the City and Bonestroo owe a fiduciary duty to City residents to not incur unnecessary expenses, and to ensure accurate billing records. I look forward to hearing from you --and do not expect to see a charge for this billing inquiry (please let me know if you believe there will be any such charge}. Thank you. Bill 612-743-3210 (cell/home} 612-348-2050 (work} P.S. I just spoke with the City about the payment of the first invoice back in early September --the payment was applied to our water bill (so we showed a very large credit on our water bill} rather than the engineering invoice. Sandy said she would take care of making sure that went to the proper account. 2 • Pnase Number I ask Number t:.mp1oyee Name uate 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/18/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/19/2011 518 Plat 11 -3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/20/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/21/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen, Darren 07/22/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Ph ilip 07/26/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/26/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 07/27/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen , Darren 07/27/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 001 General Amundsen, Darren 08/01/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 001 General Amundsen , Darren 08/02/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Kellogg , Thomas 08/02/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 08/11/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 08/12/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen, Darren 08/12/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 001 General Amundsen, Darren 08/16/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan rev iew/comment letter Caswell , Philip 08/18/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell, Philip 08/22/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell, Philip 08/23/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 09/13/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell, Philip 09/14/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell, Philip 09/16/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Amundsen, Darren 09/16/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 001 General Amundsen , Darren 09/19/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 09/19/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 003 Meeting with City Staff Amundsen , Darren 09/19/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 001 General Amundsen, Darren 09/20/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell, Philip 09/20/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 003 Meeting with City Staff Amundsen , Darren 09/20/2011 518 Plat 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 002 Plan review/comment letter Caswell , Philip 09/21/2011 1 otal Hours I otal t3illing c;omment 0 .50 0.50 1.00 0 .50 0.50 2 .00 0.50 2 .00 0 .50 2 .00 2 .00 1.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 2.00 1.00 2 .00 21.25 0 .50 0 .50 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 .00 3.00 13.25 82 .00 82.00 3251 Casco Circle prelim comments on stairway improvements 3251 Casco Circle prelim comments on stairway improvements 164.00 3251 Casco Circle prelim comments on stairway improvements 82 .00 4$ qq~ 82.~ 374 .00 82 .00 374 .00 82.00 328.00 328 .00 253 .50 187.00 187 .00 82.00 41.00 374 .00 187.00 374 .00 ~5.50 ..,. ~ ~7 . '=7 ~ 93.50 93.50 187 .00 164.00 41 .00 187.00 164 .00 164.00 187 .00 492 .00 561 .00 2334.00 Plan review and memo prep Responded to questions re review comments ; phone call emails from applicant , followup with city staff site visit review emails from property owner, provide possible proposed grading plan, discussions with city staff Plan review , discussions with city staff regarding plan requirements. Rev 'd resubmittal 3251 Casco Gire. -prep 'd Conv . Record email review and plan submission status review prior to planning commission meeting review status and discussion/emails on project status and how property owner should/can proceed Prep'd supplemental memo Response to Koch comments Response to Koch comments Corresp. re ME stamp on submittal Corresp. re ME stamp on submittal Corresp re recent submittal , response letter 9-20 meeting prep Respond to comments ; corresp following meeting discussion with staff -how to move review/project forward further discussion with applicant's engineer and city staff, provide example calcs Corresp before/following meeting meeting at city hall Solicited eng ineers Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Phil Caswell [Phil.Caswell@bonestroo.com] Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:32 PM Melanie Curtis Cc: Darren Amundsen Subject: RE: residential slope stability project Melanie, We have no problem accepting another engineer's analysis and determination that the slope is stable, provided he supports it with actual soil data (rather than assumptions) and a rational analysis. We have no better information to say that it's not stable. We just want someone (who's qualified) to provide support for his professional opinion. We must adhere to the 1.3 minimum slope stability safety factor, however. We are all about good science and common sense, too. I also spoke to a couple of others on behalf of Mr. Koch, to see if there might be interest in taking this on, with varying degrees of success: Hayward Baker (Contractor) Ryan Benson, P.E. (952)851-5500 NO -referred me to engineers Wenzell Engineering (Engineer) Lowell Wenzell (952) 888-6516 NO Engineering Partners (Engineer) Greg Greenlee, P.E. (952) 884-0481 YES -have home owner call. Veit Companies (Contractor) Greg Norris (763) 428-6756 POSSIBLY -have home owner call Please forward this information to Mr. Koch for his follow-up. Philip J. Caswell, PE Associate Direct 651-604-4766 Cell 651-271-7635 phil.caswell@bonestroo.com • Bonestroo has Joined Stantec, a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability, depth and diversity of talent, and technical expertise. 1 Fr om: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 20111:58 PM To: Darren Amundsen Cc: Phil Caswell Subject: FW: residential slope stability project FYI -Bill's response to providing Steve Johnston's contact and the plans submitted for Roedel at 4725 North Shore Drive ... From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:57 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: mgreen64@comcast.net; Jim Smith (jhsmith3102@frontiernet.net) Subject: Re: residential slope stability project Melanie: Thanks for passing this along . I want to let you know I spoke earlier today with Max Green, and we are going to bring in another engineer (if needed and possible) to do the calculations you are requesting . I have already put in a call to Michael R. Johnson , the other engineer who had expressed interest in working on this with us . I will also reach out to Kyle Bender. Depending upon their responses (and their anticiapted fees, etc.), we may be interested in re-testing the soil stability on the hill using an ATV-based auger and a new geotechnical/soils engineer. As I told you , Mr. Johnson had earlier questioned the nature of Marty Gray's analysis -both in the manner of testing and certain assumption . Based upon his experience, Mr . Johnson felt Mr. Gray's determinations were too conservative . As we move this painfully forward , however, I would appreciate your input and Darren's input of how receptive you would be to a new (and , of course , potentially different soil analysis). We are not trying to cherry-pick the results ---this is all costing way too much for us to be that slick (and it's just not our way) --but I want to know if the response we will get will be along the liones of "well, that's interesting but since one engineer said the hill is unstable , we have to go with that." I do not want to waste time or money. I want the decisions regarding the hill Uust like with hardcover) to ·be based upon good science and common sense. Bill P.S. By the way , that hill work at 4725 North Shore Drive is not at all what we would want on our site (and I know that is not what you are suggesting) --even as designed, it looks like it is effectively 100% hardcover. The fact that the soil did not stick to the rocks, as is evident in the picture, is a shame but seems like it could have been expected . Most of the stormwater on that site now likely rushes right into the lake. That's a true shame. It is also just plain ugly. (By the way , Robert Race came highly recommended to us to contact but I don't believe he ever returned any of my calls ... although I might have ultimately heard from him that he was retiring and no longer doing residential projects .) -----Original Message ----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci.orono .mn .us> To : "Bill Koch (mnkochs@mchsi.com)" <mnkochs@mchsi.com> Cc : "mgreen64@comcast.net" <mgreen64@comcast.net>, "Jim Smith Uhsmith3102@frontiernet.net)" <jhsmith3102@frontiernet.net> Sent: Wednesday , September 21, 2011 11 :37 :39 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: FW: residential slope stability project Bill Please see the information below from Steve Johnston of Northern Technologies. Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2 · 2750 Kelle1 Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtis@ci.orono .mn .us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8:00 am to 4 :30 pm From: Darren Amundsen [mailto:Darren.Amundsen@bonestroo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:12 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Fw: residential slope stability project From: Steve Johnston [mailto:steve@northerntechinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 08:27 AM To: Darren Amundsen Cc: Kyler Bender <kyler@northerntechinc.com> Subject: FW: residential slope stability project Darren, Thank you for the referral. Yes this is something we would take on. Assuming you are looking to hand this off please have the homeowner contact Ky ler Bender in our office to discuss the work in more detail. Best regards, Steve Johnston, PE Regional Manager / Principal Engineer 0 ---- Minneapolis • Fargo • Grand Forks Celebrating Our 15th Anniversary in 2011 6588 141 st Avenue NW Ramsey, MN 55303 (763) 4 33-9175, (763) 323-4739 fax Steve@northerntechinc.com www.northerntechinc.com From: Darren Amundsen [mailto:Darren.Amundsen@bonestroo .com] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:51 PM To: Subject: residential slope stability project 3 Steve, I'm working with an Orono resident that is having great difficulties finding an engineering company to work on a • slope stability project. Preliminary soils analysis by a Marty Gray shows the slope is unstable. The resident wants to eliminate the existing wood retaining walls/stairs cut into the hillside, regrade the slope to its original condition, and build new stairs above the ground. Is this something that Northern would tackle? This is on the lake and about 25-30' high. Darren Amundsen, PE Associate Direct 651-604-4894 Cell 651-775-5623 darren.amundsen@bonestroo.com 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo has joined Stantec, a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability, depth and diversity of talent, and technical expertise. 4 *5. NOR the C MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday , September 26 , 2011 7:00 o 'clock p.m. app ve the Second A VOTE: yes 5, N s 0. *6. #11-3518 Wll.,LIAM H. KOCH , 3251 CASCO CIRCLE , VARIAN CE AND CONDITION:ALUSE PERMIT -RESOLUTION NO. 6078 Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6078, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit and Hardcover Variances per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966, 78- 967, 78-1247, 78-1283, 78-1286(B) & (D) and 78-1288, for the property located at 3251 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #11-3514 ROGER AND MEGAN REMARK, 141 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE -V NCE Rahn oved, Printup seconded, to direct Staff to draft a resolution approving a wet nd and buffer setback v iance for the property located at 141 Chevy Chase Drive. VOTE: A s 5, Nays 0. *8. RECO NITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER L RESOLUTION . 6079 Rahn moved, Printup conded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 607, , a Resolution of Appreciation to Linda Feuss for Dedicate Service to the City of Orono. VOT . Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. Printup commented he has spoken with evin Landgra r about the Planning Commission appointment and that he was excited to fill the vacancy. rintup ed that Landgraver is on vacation and was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Printup moved, Franchot seconded, to ap int Ke · Landgraver to the position of Planning Commission member effective immedia ly. VOTE: es 5, Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 10. OLD CRYSTAL B ROAD UPDATED COST ESTIMA SAND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Amundsen stated the ajority of the information contained in his report was disc sed at the last meeting and that Ron Olson ill be providing some additional information on the financial s · e . Olson stated a t relates to the MSA bonds that were sold last November , the City sold$ 660,000 in bonds to the Old Crystal Bay Road project. The other question that was raised at the la Council meeting s regarding when the funds would have to be used. Olson indicated he spoke with e MSA Office t they did not have a definite timeline for when the funds would need to be used. The A had indic ed they had one city that had paid off the bonds for a project but actually never completed th pr ·ect. ---------------Page 2 of 10 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 TO: William & Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: ZONING FILE: 11-3517 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 26 September 2011 COPIES: Via Email Bob Swanson And Jim Smith Variances and Conditional Use Permit 26 September 2011 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. Please arrange to sign the original resolution at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolution. Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plans and as noted in the approval resolution . Changes to approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. A permit must be obtained no later than September 26, 2012. 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. If you have questions please contact Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, at mcurtis@ci.orono .mn.us or 952.249.4627. Date Application Received: 07/19/11 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/05/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/04/11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: ii A 11 ~ministrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis //' '--(/ Title: Planning & Zoning Coordinator Date: 21 September 2011 Item No. p Agenda Section: Item Description: #11-3518 -William Koch -co Circle CUP & Variances -Resolution Zoning District: LR-lC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, ½ acre/100' Lot Area: 15,655 sf (0.35 acre) Lot Width: ±60' List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Draft Resolution Council Packet 09/08/11 Draft Council Minutes 09/12/11 Application Summary: At the September 12th meeting the Council approved the applicant's request to repair and restore the area within the 75-foot setback including a new stair system and a hardcover variance allowing reconstruction and reconfiguration of the driveway. The applicant's request for a hardcover variance to construct a lake side patio was denied. The attached draft resolution reflects the Council's action. Planning Commission Recommendation On August 15, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 to Oto recommend approval of the hardcover variances to allow the driveway reconfiguration as well as the lakeside patio . The commission also recommended approval of the CUP for the work in the within the 75' zone to allow the stairs and the slope stabilization. Planning Staff Recommendation The applicant has indicated he is experiencing difficulty locating an engineer who is qualified and willing to take on his slope project. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to accomplish this goal and issue the administrative zoning permit. At this time Staff recommends approval of the resolution as drafted granting a CUP for lake slope restoration as well as hardcover variances to reconfigure the driveway and construct lake access stairs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should consider adopting or amending the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-966, 78-967, 78-1247, 78-1283, 78-1286(B) ~(D), and 78-1288 FILE NO.11-3518 Council Exhibit A WHEREAS, William H. Koch and Lauriit Koch, a married couple (hereinafter "the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3251 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally descri)jed as follows: Lot 11, also that part of vacated Lake Shore A venue, and of th~~act of land lying between said vacated A yenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonk;a, which lies between the Easterly ext~ii.~ion of the Northerly and Southerly lines of said Lot 11, Spring Park, HennepiniCounty,Minnesota. (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicants havetmade application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to conduct la11d alteration actiyities within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966, 78-967, 78-1247, 78- 1283, and 78-1286(B) & 78-1286(D) to allow for the stabilization and restoration of the lake slope. Construction of a new lake access stair is also proposed; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow 4,087 square feet of hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone to allow construction of a lakeside patio and retaining wall, and reconfiguration of the existing driveway. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11-3518. Page 1 of 5 2. The Property is located in the LR -1 C, Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 dry acres and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 15, 2011 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and hardcover variances based on the following findings: a. The lot is 0.35 acre in area and has 60 feet of width. b. The lot is provided with City ~ewer. c. The Applicants' existing> driveway was not built to current dimensional standards ai:itlis not functional. >' d. The slope is slowly slumpi~il~ew'1t4 and the lake access stairs are tipping lakeward and are urisa:fe. The conditional use permit is necessary in order to conduct land alteration activities to repair the slope and construct a safe stair system •. e. The Arplicants have submitted slope restoration plans which are ·~urrentlyU11der review by the City engineer. f. t'lieA,pplicants' plan indicates that a subterranean wall/support system will· "pe :utilized .and the resulting slope planted with vegetation resulting, iµ a natural~loolcing slope when viewed from the lake. g. The Councilf9:un,d no practical difficulty exists which would support granting of the reqµested 75' to 250' zone hardcover variance for the lake side patio and retaining wall. h. The 75' to 250' zone hardcover variance for the lake side patio and retaining wall would serve merely as a convenience to the Applicants and the Applicants will not be deprived of a substantial property right by denying the hardcover variance. 1. The Applicants' request will alleviate a practical difficulty with the driveway inherent to the Property and not created by the Applicants. Page 2 of 5 J. The Applicants' request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will result in minimal negative impact on adjacent properties. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance and conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to conduct land alteration activities within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka including a lake access stair per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78- 966, 78-967, 78-1247, 78-1283, and 78-1286(B) & 78-1286(D) in order to repair and restore the stability of the slope; hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow reconfiguration of the driveway within the 75' to 250' zone; and hereby denies the portion of the 75' to 250' zone variance to allow a 416 square lake side patio and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey, driveway and slope plans submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A, B & C. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover shall not increase above the existing and approved levels as follows: 273 s.f. of hardcover (6.1%) within the 0-75' zone; and 3,671 s.f. of hardcover (35%) within the 75' to 250' zone. Applicant is advised that any requests to increase hardcover beyond the allowable limits established in City Code Section 78-1288 shall require City approval, and will not likely be approved. 3. Slope stability and structural design calculations must be submitted for review along with the plans and geotechnical investigation report. These plans must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the administrative zoning permit for the land alteration activity on the lake slope. 4. A general planting plan shall be submitted for the administrative zoning permit review. This plan shall show a general planting pattern over the slope area. It shall Page 3 of 5 provide enough detail to determine or state the density of the plants as proposed. This plan shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the closing of the escrow account. 5. The Applicants must retain a qualified third party to review actual site conditions and determine whether or not design parameters used are valid, as well as to observe the work throughout construction operatie:ps. The erosion protection of the slope directly affects the stability of the slope therefore proper erosion protection shall be used. Major work itemsmusf bedocumented as being or not being in conformance with the approved construction drawings. Similar to Special Inspections in the International Building Code, this servi2~ cannot be performed by the Contractor doing the work. Submittal of the inspe6tion reports is required prior to the closing of the escrow account. 6. Authorities granted by Jhis resolution run with the property not with the Applicants, but are permissiv:e only and must be exercised by obtaining a zoning permit for the land alteration within one year of the date of Council approval, or conditional use permit will e~pire 011. that date (September 26, 2012). ,\':~:, ' 7. Violation of .or #~i+zcompliance with any of tlle. terms and conditions of this resolutioi;t .~hall constitute a violation of the zoaj11g code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. ' ' ' \,i 8. The undersign~~App!Jf~ts have read, :t.111derstand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution\an~ on behalfof the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, l:iereby agi-e~ to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. · Page 4 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26th day of September 2011. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Property Owner( s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor This inst~eni\Va; asknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 20_ by William H. Koc!t;1husband ofLaura D. Koch. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY Of HENNEPIN Notary Public This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of _____ , 20_ by Laura D. Koch, wife of William H. Koch. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ---------- 'OJ,; ~. Y5'1Jee ~ Y }]Je or ,.Et-0.d . eroiitli. l.sProPe rtyr,8 fo11, 01!,.y_. r--._.l(•>o , ..... ~-~, ~ !;,~ ( . ~ -\;'.9>1.<f ij, f .l(•>o._,. 9>o._e [~•>1. 0. I -s•>o. 95<,:? ~~ .-87., .. : •>Jf1r._,.-·, .l(•>s., .l(•>s.s 0 Existing Dwelling 0, -,< . _;,••>.a PROPOSED Cl\US!ll!D ROCK (NOT -\;'. '9;,. . ~9>~ o, I _,., ,20•'>,0;,. ~ \ '96a .l( ____________ co~n As HAADcOVER)--i •os,_,. &s•.o 96, ----. -.. -• .l(••s , ' ' PRoPosEDRETAJNINowALL-----, : ;Benchmark: : , )(se1-.s 1 , '-._~f>6.1 9>se ,' TS" Maple~;,,$;'; ;,.,~~ ,' ..;:,J;'J: ~ ' ' ' N 69 "38'35" £ ,,'Toof manhole 964.6·,\'••1.s: ' ,..I /'> I --255.68"-<-;-/ !9°!;.§Found'JA" --1#9.84-_')11811.g ~'2f" Mop/• ' ( ~ ... < , , \ ;,,,,,.;< ___ . , ' ;,.,,,_,. \ -\;'.g••.J; ·•~ .• :0>~.e ) >efles'- 1 D e ,,'c k 23. ,, <:) 19.8 Existing Dwelling ' t:ll Existing Dwelling ~ x •• "-, ' I --- 'I ' \ '' ' ' 92~., ~ !<i .._ V) ~ I 8-I ~ \; \Ji ---t ·•<•.s '.C .i,,.. '-I ci' "" .i,,.. I • --,,_i l'tj ·•:,9,_,. ~ . ~ 929.,1 QI ~ [ II ~ Ill lrt (I m~ >< t/) =-0 o=c -·---· :i::-g ONOHO .::10 All~ !!OZ BL 1nr C3Al3::>3H ----- I I I I I --_J I I I I l I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C\ ~~ \ .:ri~~~ \ ~ti \ f.11 ' f°~11' ', -cl ' Resolution Exhibit B I ____________ .......__ MEADOWOOD II25 Nathan Lan< North I· Plymouth, MN 5S44I t 763.478.6987 I www.m.adowoodinc.com DESIGN: 'i?Pe, ~Wf\1'-1(,(:>N I SCALE: I" "-8''-0•1 I .f,il..L t ~E...Y«.,+t DRAWN! ;:;,~I DRAWING: ,6 91',i), APPROVED: -----;il,5\ ~ C/RCJ.E "flld/1t ~L-_..,i,,_._..,,_ ..... ,.. __ "'.i.-· ,,,....._ .... 1, # \.1'I \.Tl 1 ~ CX) KOCH RE\IISED 8/2/2011 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 954 6' 948 941 RED NUMBERS ARE EXIST\t~G HILLSIDE ELEVATIONS 5' 1-----11 4' 3.5' 3.5' 933.5 J----~ 7" 12" CONCEPf LANDSCAPING ------RISE, TREAD 35' 952-472-4118 SEE SLRVEY FOi< EXACf STAIR SYS1™ PLACEM:NT e,.n, 963 942.5 40' m :;u >< (I) :::r tJj -·O O" -10' ;::;: E: J ~g 929.4 co~EIVED AUG05·,-i''i r.lTYnc ,...-,~,.~ ~ "" \'1 I lb co TYPICAL SECTION 2x6 ~ CEDAR PLO\,\/ED GUARDRAIL WITH 1" ANNODIZED ALLUMINUM SPINDLES. 4" oc # 1--1,___ ___ _ 0:oAR CECKING & SfEPS 2x6NOr5/4 CALV.HANGERS ~-+-__,. 2x8-rREATED .us-rs AND CROSS ME!v1BERS 3 2x12 TREATED JACKS 4x4 TREATED POS1 \ TYP,SLOPE WNCREfE F0011NG 8" 42"ro48" 13rnED RECEIVED AUG 05 2011 ('":) t-' 4:1= \.>J \j1 co KOCH1 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION 965 KOCH REV. 8/2/2011 933.5 20' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 i .. L, -1 p-300 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC '\ 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL -FILTER ROCK \ft, DRAIN TILE 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL TIMBER TIEBACK 4' ON CENTER 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL -8' VERTICLE TIMBER ANCI-OR 4' OC 40' & RECEIVED AUG O 5 ?rl11 CITY OF ORONO # ~ \JI I > CX) 931.5 929.4 933.5 1111 KocH4 REv. 8/2/2011 """ . '-1 r , 1 T 3O~os10N ctoNTRoL l]I ------1948 -FILTER ROCK T, I I( DRAIN flLE 1 '! c MH941 4' IMBER TIEBACK ON CENTER 20' 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL 8' VERTICLE flMBER ANCH'.JR 4' 0C 40' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING ('") 952-472-4118 ~ RECEIVED AUG05 2011 CITY OF ORONO Date Application Received: 07/19/11 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/05/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/04/11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval:''" 1 Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis IV..,, Title: Planning & Zoning Coordinator Council Exhibit B Date: 8 September 2011 Item No. 1 Agenda Section: Item Description: #11-3518 -William Koch -3251 Casco Circle CUP & Variances ~eselt::tti61'1 Mc.- Zoning District: LR-lC, One Family Lakeshore Residential,½ acre/100' Lot Area: 15,655 sf (0.35 acre) Lot Width: ±60' List of Exhibits : Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Proposed Survey Proposed Plans PC packet 08/10/11 PC Action Notice Draft PC minutes 08/15/11 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zone in order to remove and replace the existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new, lakeside patio and reconstruct the lake yard stair system . A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance within the 0-75' zone . In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property; variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 3,363 square feet (or 29 .9%) of hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans . The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. In 2006 , the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover (landscaping &walls). The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and configured to avoid an existing tree which has since died . The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio . The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75'-250' zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover above the existing level (and 724 square feet over the amount approved in 2006) resulting in 38 .9% where 32.8% currently exists. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a pervious patio design with a catch basin and pipe to drain stormwater to the existing rain garden . Finally, the lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system . A conditional use permit (CUP) is required due to the amount of disturbance #11-3518 8 September 2011 Page 2 of 2 proposed. The stair system hardcover is considered allowed hardcover within the 0 to 75' zone yet will be acknowledged with this application. Planning Commission Recommendation On August 15, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 to Oto recommend approval of the hardcover variances to allow the driveway reconfiguration as well as the lakeside patio. The commission also recommended approval Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and hardcover for the stairs. The applicant should submit a revised survey showing the proposed grading plan and an engineered design for review prior to issuance of the administrative permits for grading. The Council should discuss the additional hardcover requested within the 75' to 250' zone. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should discuss the CUP and hardcover variance requests and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council's decision. ' ~:,,, ---' u. 7 Drive_, I I I I I '0 I 23. 1, e 19.8 Existing I I I 19.8 I I I I I .io :~ :~ I t I '\ Existing Dwelling Dwelling --256.83-­ N 69 "31 '50,, E ' Existing Dwelling I I I / / / / I '':: I I I I I \ \ I I t '. CD I (.11 I 0 I I I ' I I I I I I : I I I I I I I \ \ , ' I , r I I I I t \ \ \ I I I I 1 I I I ,\... \ I I I l bosterly e.xten-p;ion,' Qf rhre I '. Nqrthe_rly ~irje qf1 l f rtl.-:~ ;n' 81~~# ONOHO ~O All::> 11oz a L 1nr 03/\13:>aM I I I I I I I I I I --_J ------- ' I I 1 l \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ (>\ ~~ \ ·.:Dift \ ~t~ \ i~:z: ' r fl' ', ~ \ \ •Il-25•N-,rh-an•L-,n•< N•or-,h•f•· P•ly-mo-ut•h, •MN-55•44•1 •, •76-3.4-78-.6-98•7 •, •ww•w.•1t,.••d•ow-oo•d,•n,•.,o•m 1.1..i.--MEADOWO OD DESIGN: 'f:re.-6wat:1~N I SCALE, 1"~s-·-0° I Biu_ ;-~E..~ DRAWN : 'e;>h, DRAWING: ;;, q,?. APPROVED: ----;i:25\ ~ 6~ .,.,.,,,,.,,, ~1-........ ....--...... .. ..r--~ .... -· J'f"'.. .... . ONO~O :JO A.LI~ lf~" 6 ~ IIJr 03J\13:.l3H □□ □□ 4'I. · □ :f ~ ~' : _S' I '-----=o--....J,L,--J--1.--~-V' ' L-------"L------: r-----------.. 1 I ' -__ , --------------! ~ll~Z-=-S ~Na~,h~an•L~a-ne~N~or~,h-1 ~Pl-ym•o•u,•h,•M•N•5•54•4•1 •1 •7•63•.4•78•.6•9•87••,w•w•w•.m•,.•do•wo•o•di•nc•.co•m----• MEADOWOOD DRAWN: &,?, DRAWING: __,,l=Pl=c...,:l.c:..__ , ... ,n DESIGN: Boe. "7NPrN~N I SCALE, l""t'-o'' I B1u... l<o,,. u. fH.TS'! ts,/;,..0/10 7/,;,_7/,0 ;:~:~'..":,_..,,/_~~-"'.-f"'T-.~-"•-.. -,.-,,.;.-~ ~~:!.~ ~:C:~._ 0 =i -<-- 0 'i1 I __.. 0 co :::0 f'-..) Q Cl z 0 :x, ,., m 0 m < m p ;p. en' w· a::. < l >I I It. ,. "t ~ " t') i I :c I l­a.. w C :E: ::, :E: z :E: ■: co PERMEABLE PAVEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS i IS• WIDE SUPPORT MARGIN ASTM No. 8 STONE IN-FILL ~ 12• SETBACK 1 r ASTM No. 8 STONE BEDDING ·~·~•)'"t'"-!''t''< ~11 ,;1 <''c 9 11i:"l'\J 1 \!5(1 'o'1111111 I• If I• j- -~ -~ ~-~-~~;,.,6'\)..6~~~~~..----,. J~~~,,~:,'!:~;; __ A~1-.... , ,,<ir--1~1 J l ! - I , - "'-~ ,> • , .. -if>,;q:. 4• DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE MNf DOT CLASS 2 AGGREGATE MIRAFt FIL TERWEAVE,. WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ,-,- u, 2007 MEAD0W0OD INC. SPACED AND SLOPED TO DRAIN ALL STORED WATER (OPTIOHAL+ MEADOWOOD ~- ~r,J ~ (!;;'r'f -H?~ -:al'c5(}\: .' -ntg ~:oNtMVt!O R::>¢H~ ,a,:.a :Ne>IS30 I ,,.,_ .... ,,, ....... , .... ~-.,,_ ... ,..,...,.,. I :Q:31\0l:iddV - ,,O-.,'a~tcf :3,v:,s - fl• bl rL ·•~•u ''7•~ :NMVl::1O a OOA\OQV31'\I ---u-10.,_·,a-!pO-OMO-pc,_u,· .. _ ..... _I._L8-'69-·\ll-H-9L-I -Itt_,s_N_W '.;.q1n-ou1~,{ld;.;.l .;.ql..;JON.;.,_u•1~u•.:.•p•.;.;;.N ;;.;S'ZII f --------if!~ --------------------- RECEIVED ,1111 1 9 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 # \.)J \JI I ~ (X) KOCH REVISED 8/2/2011 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 954 6' 948 941 RED NUMBERS ARE EXISH~G HILLSIDE ELEVATIOI\JS 5' 1----114· 3.5' 933.5 I II 7" RISE, 12" TREAD CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 35' SEE SLRVEY FOR EXACl' STAIR SYS1EM PLA<:a'ENT C-n' 963 942.5 40' 10' J 929.4 CONf.McEIVED AUG O 5 : 'i' 1 r.1Tv f"\C l""\nru ·~ ~ \.)J \Tl I > ex, TYPICAL SECTION 2x6 ~ CEDAR PLOWED GUARDRAIL WITH 1" ANNODIZED ALLUMINUM SPINDLES_ 4" OC ~ 1--,__; ___ _ 0:oAR CECKING & STEPS 2x6NOr5/4 CALV.HANGERS h1-~2x8TREATED ~STS AND CROSS MEMBERS 3 2x12 TREATED JACKS 4x4 TREATED POST \ TYP, SLOPE WNCRETE FOOTING 8" 42"w 48" fu?Jw RECEIVED AUG 05 2011 4:1= \.)J \'1 co SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION KOCH REV. 8/2/2011 KOCH1 965 p-300 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ~4' BURIED TIMBER WALL -FILTER ROCK \] ;:,_ DRAIN TILE 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL 933.5 ID CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 TIMBER TIEBACK 4' ON CENTER -8' VERTICLE TIMBER ANCI-OR 4' OC 40' RECEIVED AUG O 5 n111 CITY OF ORONO # \.>J \Tl I > co 931.5 929.4 933.5 11 KocH4 REv. 8/2/2011 #~a= 1111111111 --1111111111948 -FIL iER ROCK •' DRAIN ilLE 'I c WH941 4' IMBER TIEBACK ON CENTER 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL 8' VERilCLE ilMBER ANCHJR 4' OC 20' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 40' RECEIVED AUG 05 2011 CITY OF ORONO Date Application Received: 07/19/11 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/05/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/04/11 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coo r dinator Mv 10 August 2011 11-3518, William Koch, 3251 Casco Circle CUP/Grading & Hardcover Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC, One Family Lakeshore Resident ial , ½ acre/100' Lot Area: 15,655 sf (0.35 acre) Lot Width: ±60' Application Summary: The applicant is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zone in orde r to remove and replace the existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new patio and reconstruct the lake yard stair system. A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance in the 0-75 ' zone. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the CUP and variances with conditions. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. ExhibitJ . Exhibit K. Exhibit L. Exhibit M. Exhibit N. Exhibit 0. Background Application Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Proposed Survey Proposed Driveway Plan Proposed Patio Plans Proposed Slope Stabilization & Stair Plans Dirt Work Calculations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Resolution No. 5436 2006 Building Permit Survey Site Photographs -by Applicant Aerial Photography-Bing City Code Sections Property Owners List Plat Map In 2006, a new home was constructed on the prope rty; variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 3,363 square feet (or 29.9%) of hardcove r within the 75' to 250' zone in conjunct ion with the approved plans . Resolution No . 5436 is attached . The patio FILE #11-3518 10 August 2011 Page 2 of 5 shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. They would also like to construct a lake-side patio. Finally, the lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is allowed hardcover within the Oto 75' zone yet will be acknowledged with this application. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-lC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100' Actual 15,655 s.f. (0.35 acre) ±60' Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Area Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Zone in Zone Hardcover 0-75 4,486 s.f. 0 s.f 263 s.f.* 273 s.f. (0%) (5.9 %) (6.1%) 75-250 2,627.5 s.f. (25%)/ 3,450 s.f. * 4,087 s.f. 10,510 s.f. 3,363 s.f. or {29.9%} per (32.8%) (38.9%) Reso/5436 250-500 659 s.f. 197 s.f. 93 s.f.* 125 s.f. (30%) (14%) (19%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. In 2006, the City did not have an As-Built Survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover. Those modifications appear to be largely additional retaining walls resulting in an additional 87 square feet of hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone. The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and configured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75'-250' zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover over the existing level (and 724 square feet over the amount approved in 2006) resulting in 38.9% where 32.8% exists. The 400 square foot patio design includes 16 square feet of retaining wall, permeable pavers, a catch basin to collect stormwater and a pipe to direct stormwater to the existing rain garden which may need to be enlarged or modified to account for the additional volumes. FILE #11-3518 10 August 2011 Page 3 of 5 The additional 10 square feet within the Oto 75' zone is considered allowed hardcover as it is to be part of the new stair system. Conditional Use Permit Earth movement which exceeds 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the lake requires a CUP. The applicant is currently working towards development of a stabilization plan which meets city engineer approval. This plan should be certified by the applicant's engineer and finalized prior to the issuance of the administrative grading permit to begin the work. The public hearing should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion prevention or stabilization of slope, natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover and impacts to adjacent properties. The city engineer will review the plans from a stability and safety perspective. City Code section 78-1286 offers guidance for reviewing this type of CUP. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. Comment: The proposal will be reviewed to assure limited exposure of bare soil and establishment of stabilizing vegetation. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. Comment: The City requires the applicant have an erosion control plan and collects an escrow security to assure the applicant and contractor will maintain erosion control protection throughout the duration of the project. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. Comment: The city engineer will review the slope stabilization plans to assure protection of the slope as well as the lake. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat.§ 103G.245. Comment: Alterations below the OHWL or within a bluff impact zone are not proposed. FILE#11-3518 10 August 2011 Page 4 of 5 Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. Comment: The final grading plan will be reviewed by the city engineer to assure the project does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. A riprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969. NA Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations below the elevation or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. NA Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the oning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono':t oning Code. Staff finds the applicant has a practical difficulty in the orientation and condition of the existing driveway. The driveway was not constructed in conformance with the approved plan and therefore has a shallow back-up area which does not meet the current minimum driveway standard. The applicant's proposal now slightly exceeds the required minimum and appears to be more functional. Staff supports granting the hardcover variance to reconstruct the driveway; granting a CUP and 0-75' hardcover variance to allow slope stabilization and construction of a new stair. Finally, while the applicant's proposal includes permeable pavers and a sub-grade system to treat the excess stormwater from the patio, the current code does not discount pervious pavers. FILE #11-3518 10 August 2011 Page 5 of 5 The planning commission should discuss the patio and make a recommendation regarding the hardcover variance. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission identify a practical difficulty which supports granting the hardcover variances? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 5. Does the Commission find there are additional conditions which should be placed upon the CUP approval? 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the grading work within the 0 to 75 foot zone as well as a hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the driveway. The applicant should submit a revised survey reflecting the proposed grading plan prior to placement on a City Council agenda . Further the applicant should be required to submit plans and necessary information to satisfy the city engineer regarding the slope stabilization at the time of the administrative land alteration permit following Council approval. The planning commission should discuss the hardcover variance to allow construction of the 400 square foot patio area and make a recommendation . .. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , MN 55356 Main : 952-249-4600 fax : 952-249-4616 Mailing Address : P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay , MN 55323-0066 Application # / / -3.!S/? Date Received: 7/~D /11 r · Staff: Fee: _$.:..._7_0_0 ______ _ Renewal: $350 ----'---:,---,--::--::--,=--..,....,----=-- After -the-fact: $1,400 Double Fee Escrow Fee: $600 / $2,500 This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application . Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 3 Z5 / CA--..5co Ct/lCt'.<-d ~D -7/7 Property Identification Number (PIN): zo -,n -z-3 -'f -000, Date Property Acquired (month/year): Zoning District: fl /Z-ca8 □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. I APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name : Wt t---l-/4,zJ ti . lt4?c td Phone (home): t;,1 1--, i.-f3 -5 z..10 Phone (work): {o /2,, -i±? -"Z.e,S-o Complete Address: 3 2-5""/ c..A 5e,_c, c:::....,,'L-c-L.£ City , State & ZIP oll-Dtvo HAI S-~3~/~C/7l7 Email: 07 ,a k.och s@ ,rrnh }/, co/YJ Fax : fol'2--S?J fo -9 3 / (o OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Na me: let u..-1 lhn ti -/Lo c-i--1 At.YD ?:-t-b--LM D , KA cf-I { MAil/Lt er,) Phone (home): S /frn e Phone (work): Complete Address: City, State & ZIP Email: \J,--Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): toe-t-1,4,u-e-Tttfl-5?:Zr h-f fi-1¼-g-/Jl¼,,Je-c:zs wE ~~:) t-1 ~ Afffeoyep : (i) ILEft..ACf2l'.{e&r-;/ - k~·t0;,T{L4.t,;:;::r,W ~ 7>/2..Ju€2.J."tf f)u.e-7P h>/l.JV GW>4:1.f F541w/Le ; © ~c...GMG'l':7'r) ~NSrt w..c;np,J §F l.A-t:e: A-cc G3 'i' ..sn:::-12;5> UI-Q!> ,1l,e,\..ID:iatL cP R.Bre1AJ/AE:. 1cA:'-<-:) -12 - RECEIVED JUL 19 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 REQUIRED SU BM ITT ALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed . Not Enclosed Applicable @r □ Escrow Aq reement siqned Ill' □ Escrow received -A-vtl--c,.:; ~ -, /J14vi.oe1) ~ □ Pre-Application Form (g',.. □ Application Form !ff □ Practical Difficulties Documentation □ / □ Certified Property Owners List -cneo e:12-l?O f?!o")',..,{ J.iF,,J,vef1AI U51/4\;;; i;v-_,, □ Survey (meetinq ALL requirements shown on paqes 5 -6) liJ' / □ Proposed Plans g,-" □ -Hardcover Calculation(s) -M-/3<-<-tL---r' A-NV P1l.a.J.g-~ □ Ii]/' Septic System Site Evaluation Report □ ~ Wetland Delineation □ ~ Wetland Buffer Evaluation □ ~ Buffer Improvement Plan Q/' □ /JJ---A/,.77'/~G Pu:rl'-i rt,,2-/-If'-'-PfH5T"'[)S ere,_. ✓ APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to prov ide all information required or requested by the Planning Department , • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in rev iew of this appl icat ion , and • Ce rti fy that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete applicat ion being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Ac knowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed . • The Owner he reby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff , consultants , agents , Comm ission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of th is request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting , please make arrangements to have an authorized rep resentative attend in place of the applicant/owner and adv ise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confident ial. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is informat ion which generally cannot be given to either the publ ic or the subject of the data . Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records other governmental agencies required by law . If you refuse to supply the information , the applicati n may not be issued Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: Owner's Signature: Owner 's Signature : Date : di.AL'-/ 2--C> 2a l 2.. Date: 7 ~ Date: c;:}-µl/'/ Zo 2.Q I Z.. Date : <2),t t--'f I Zo , '2.ol Z. 7 -13 - RECEIVED JUL 19 201'1 CITY OF ORONO #3518 Application# / / -35/ ~ Date Received ? -/ 9 -/ / Amount Paid I I'-/~(), 00 CITY OF ORONO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and OTHER LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3 -z...s-J CA--sco Ct/LC...L-G' c::,--l....z:,tv0 M N S-S-3 91 " Type of Application to be Filed v?w<EWtt'::f i-A:14if A<;c.g;s f A-7fo , Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z.o .! 1n -z.3 -'I 3 ..!o=o , APPLICANT Name (,;.J,~ltM. 1-1--/4,c._H Phone (home) 0 t z..-1<U -s2-1 0 Phone(work) 0 12--Z-4 £'--2.0n::> Address s z..=n CA-5b:, C-1/LC....L.C City o-/4-0NO Zip 5:>°.59 ( OWNER (if different than applicant) Name -------------------------Phone (home) ________ Phone (work) ________ _ Address City _______ Zip ___ _ Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land . FEES -CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ___ $700 .00 Residential Accessory Use ___ $700 .00 Institutional (church, school, etc .) ___ $700 .00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___ $700.00 Duplex ___ $700 .00 Commercial/Industrial Use v $700 .00 Land Alteration Permit __ Grading and filling -designated wetland or floodplain ]- --Grading and filling -501 cu. yd. or more plus $700 Escrow ___L_ Grading , seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ___ $350.00 Renewal Fee (IF no change from original application) ___ After-the-Fact Fee -Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ___ $700 .00 Commercial Site Plan Review, PLUS consultant fees ___ Commercial Site Plan Review Escrow, $10,000 minimum ___ $200.00 Easement Vacation, with Subdivision Application ___ $700.00 Easement Vacation without Subdivision Application ___ $700 .00 Rezoning ___ $700.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ___ $100 .00 Appeals ___ $700 .00 Zoning Code Amendment __ RPUD / PUD /PRO/ PIO -see Fee Schedule RECEIVED ___ Other -see Fee Schedule CUP and Other Land Use Applications Last Updated: November 19 , 2010 8 JUL 1 92011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL$ 1. ./ 2 . '5' 3 . 4 . ✓ 5 . _L_ 6 . _L_ 7. ___L 8 . ~ 9 . ,...::.;A Completed Application Form . Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map . List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center , A-603 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis , telephone 612-348-5910). -o ~DeiLk"'D Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) -refer to handout for survey information . Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topograph ic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). t,,:>t U-,,{A--µ H -/C...OC.H , M~ Gi::> Construction plan , if applicable (see staff for requirements). l,,A1.,U2-,4-P . /Coe.I-I _,,., As an addendum to this application , please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this applicat ion . YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents , plans , etc . to be submitted .) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application . Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included . APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator , agrees to pay additional fees (s jme not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this appli ion , and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknow ge and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City sta , consultants, agents, commission members , and Council members for purposes of investigation and v ification of this request. Applicant must have all subm ittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting . Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unab le to attend a scheduled meeting , p lease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting . CUP and Oth e r Land Use Appli cations Last Updated: No ve mb er 19 , 2010 9 RECEIVED JUL 19 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 ATTACHMENT A William H. and Laura D. Koch Variance Application 3251 Casco Circle July 20, 2011 Page I ofS Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Introduction We bought our house in November 2008. The house had earlier been built by Dwell Development (Mark Gaylord), and had been subject to a prior resolution (Resolution No. 5436) by the City regarding hardcover. We are not seeking any improper use of our property. Our request is in keeping with the local community, and will not impair anyone's enjoyment of their own property or the lake. The requests will also not threaten water quality. We would like to replace/reconstruct a paver driveway system that has failed in two ways. First, the actual pavers are falling apart in places. We have spoken with the manufacturer, Cobble Systems (Tai Shuford), out of Florida and, while they acknowledge they had improper moisture content in some batches of their paver manufacturing process that has led to failures, they offered only limited assistance. Additionally, we are concerned if that product was ever proper for a cold climate environment. Second, the pavers have sunken quite considerably in areas, such that we have very noticeable "waves" throughout the driveway. Our car bottoms-out no matter how slowly we exit the garage, and it is almost impossible to shovel the driveway in the winter given all of the "pockets" in the driveway surface. Additionally, the current driveway configuration is difficult to navigate from one of the garages we are always running over the lawn in places. There is no backup apron or suitable apron depth to allow even our small Prius to enter and exit that garage without some very serious, sharp angles being employed. We would also like to address what appears to be an original railroad-tie step and retaining wall system leading down to the lake.1 This system appears quite old and is deteriorating in places. It is also not retaining the dirt on the hill as one would hope -there are washouts and other indications of more minor failures throughout the hill. We would like to use a system that will mimic the current steps and minimize the hardcover by removing the above­ ground retaining walls. And we want to replace the current slippery and dangerous steps with code-compliant steps. 1 We also wish to address the dilapidated rip-rap along our 60 feet of shoreline. We had explored the possibility of using a "Blue Thumb" natural-planting plan urged by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to augment the rather fractured rip-rap that currently exists. The vast amount of open water impacting the site, however, we were told made a planting solution inappropriate. Then, as if on cue to accentuate that determination, our neighbor a few houses down (and former Orono Mayor) suddenly suffered a large loss when spring winds and high water levels resulted in the loss of many feet of lakeshore following an apparent effort to employ a Blue Thumb approach; that failure had to be addressed on an emergency manner. That same loss on our site would likely have been catastrophic given the steep slope of our hill, limited "landing" at the shore line, and the steep slope of our lakeshore -had we experienced that type of washout along our shoreline, our entire hill could have been lost. ORONO 3518 William H. and Laura D. Koch Variance Application 325 I Casco Circle July 20, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Finally, we would like to construct a lakeside patio for the rear of the house. A version of such a patio was shown as having been approved by the City on the plans provided to us when we bought the house. In fact, last year, the City (Evelyn Turner) had said we could build a small patio without any further review. That direction, we have now been told, was in error. Still, we would like to construct a permeable paver patio on the lakeside of the house, incorporating a stormwater retention system that will help ensure the lake and water quality are protected. We are working with a recognized leader in the field of designing stormwater management systems in such projects. We believe this new stormwater collection system will actually improve the quality and quantity of stormwater control over the status quo by capturing, slowing, and directing more stormwater into our two existing rain gardens. 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." We are not proposing to use the property in any manner inconsistent with the current zoning of a single-family residence. Our proposed projects will not negatively impair anyone's use of their own property, or anyone's use of the lake. In short, our projects are consistent with the uses employed by all of our neighbors. 2. "The plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." As mentioned above, we have a deteriorated driveway that was installed as part of the initial construction (with which we were not involved) involving substandard pavers and substandard installation. The design of the driveway also does not allow for "easy" use of one of the two garages. Additionally, the hill going to the lake is at the highest point of any property on Carman Bay. The existing steps and retaining walls are near the end of their useful life, and we would rather have a purposeful plan to address those systems before there is a failure requiring an emergency response. This factor is inapplicable with respect to the patio. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." We live in a residential, lakeside community of single-family homes. The projects, individually or collectively, will not alter the character of the area in any way. The driveway, of course, is needed to access the house from the road. The steps to the lake are needed to access the lake, which is allowed under state law. And, the patio, would simply provide us an uncovered outdoor space to enjoy the lake -looking up and down the shore, every other house appears to have a patio or large deck facing the lake. Our proposed patio would not be visible from the lake, and would be largely set back behind existing trees or building lines such that it will not even be visible from inside our adjoining neighbors' homes. Indeed, even if our northern neighbors (with whom we are ,1111 192011 #3518 William H. and Laura D. Koch Variance Application 3251 Casco Circle July 20, 2011 Page 3 of 5 friends) are out enjoying their deck, they would not see our patio. And our southern neighbor, a retiree living alone, has a fence along our property line that will -especially with our trees -block our patio from view. Of course, just as with their own outdoor spaces, our patio would be visible if our neighbors stood in their backyards and looked back toward our house -just as their above-ground decks are visible to us. There is nothing about the proposal that is inconsistent with the local area. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." There is no direct economic consequence related to the variance, except for the large out­ of-pocket expenses we will be incurring. We had no expectation of having to replace the driveway. While we expected that "someday" the steps and the retaining walls might need to be replaced, we did not envision the large amount of work ( engineering, removal, planting plan, Conditional Use Permit, etc.) that would entail. Even the patio is a larger expense then we would have expected given the need ( environmentally, regulatory, and ethically) to ensure we effectively manage stormwater runoff to protect the quality of the groundwater and the lake. We moved to Orono for the lake, and we have no intention to harm it. Additionally, we moved to Orono so our children could enjoy growing up in the community, and would have wonderful memories when they return with their own children -we are not builders looking for momentary maximization of our investment in our property and the community. 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable. 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Not applicable. 7. "The Board or Council may permit a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." .1111 1 9 2011 3518 William H. and Laura D. Koch Variance Application 3251 Casco Circle July 20, 2011 Page 4 of 5 This consideration only applies with respect to our steep hill to the lake. Both of our immediate neighbors have above-ground steps leading to the lake. Our proposal accomplishes the same access, with limited impact with the soil. Additionally, our proposal would return the hill to a more natural slope that is not visually "cut up" by retaining walls. While we understand from City staff that we could replace the existing steps without need for a Conditional Use Permit or variance, to not address the retaining walls at this time would be a mistake. The walls are deteriorating. We have a plan that will remove the retaining walls while retaining the integrity of the hill and returning it to its more natural slope; we believe City staff agrees it makes sense to address the retaining walls at this time. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district where the land is located." One need only ride a boat up and down the western shore of Carman Bay to see our hill is unlike any other ( although it is, of course, quite similar to our immediate neighbors) it is the highest point on that shore with the most vertically exposed shoreline. To the extent it is similar to our immediate neighbors, they already have above-ground steps leading to the lake -as well as rip-rap along the shoreline. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The driveway provides us access to our garages from the road. It is not an extravagant design. There is no turnaround or circle, or even a backup apron. It is truly all that is needed to safely and effectively use the driveway to get our cars in and out of the garages. Additionally, we are currently well under the approved hardcover in this portion of our property. The steps and underground retaining wall system is needed to allow us access to the lake. We have no access to the lake other than down our hill. The current system is dangerous -it has a variety of rises and runs for the in-ground steps, which are deteriorating and slippery, without the benefit of any railings. (By way of example, we had an experienced contractor out to the site -who was warned about the steps -who took a tumble down the hill off the step while he was reviewing the site. This is, unfortunately, a more common occurrence than we would like.) The patio project will allow us to more fully enjoy the exterior of our home and property, while not leading to any increased visual "noise" or clutter for those on the lake or even, in fact, our neighbors. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." ,IIH 1 9 2011 #3518 This is true. William H. and Laura D. Koch Variance Application 3251 Casco Circle July 20, 2011 Page 5 of5 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Our driveway and steps/retaining wall are not currently working as intended. The driveway is crumbling and a bit treacherous. The steps are very treacherous. While we would love to not have to spend all of this money, we understand it really must be done - we would like to minimize even higher costs that would be incurred if these projects were done on a piece-meal manner. This consideration is not applicable to the patio. Summary We would like to make repairs to our driveway and lake steps ( and shoreline) to address inherent deficiencies on our property not of our making. The addition of the patio, which was included (at least in part) in plans originally approved by the City would allow us "to put to use the property in a reasonable manner" that ''will not alter the essential character of the locality." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2011). We have attached the survey from May 2, 2006, which shows the small patio was approved at the time by the City, as well as a letter from April 29, 2010 from the City saying such a patio could be constructed without a permit. Additionally, attached are the proposed plans for the projects, and a photo of the current retaining walls and steps to the lake (actually, these are from the early spring, and the condition of the retaining walls and steps have not improved). We have attempted to bring the best contractors to the task -contractors who understand the importance of a lakefront lot, and contractors who have experience in the local community and with the City. We are responsible stewards of the environment and take that responsibility seriously. In addition to moving to Orono for the nature and the lake, we have long championed environmental issues -not only in our choice of two hybrid cars (beginning even before they were "fashionable"), but also in much of at least one of our careers as an environmental criminal prosecutor and litigator, as well as training as a civil/environmental engineer. We want to do what is right by the lake and the environment -of course, we would also like to be able to have a smooth and appropriate access to our own garage, a safe passage to the lake, and be able to enjoy outdoor lake living like all of our neighbors. These are not mutually exclusive goals. We look forward to answering any question the Planning Commission or the City Council may have. ,1111 19 2011 3518 I Drive_,, Existing Dwelling t\ \\ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \' _ .lr95., ' '·0 PROPOSED CRUSHED ROCK 0 '97. o, )(956.ii --------C~~D AS HARDCOVER)~-T PROPOSED RETAINING WALL --9bo----------)(98. ) ----I 'S_9/ ,2o•f;fa~~ ' \ -968, >..3:A , , , I ' ' ,✓l3enchmark: : ,>... To of manhole 964.6--k118 : ... '9 /' 4.s ., 1 '8S, nd/ 3 '4~ 1 N 6938'35 11 E ' --255. 68~-;- --111-9.8 -88.9 ~-2•( Maple / ( ~6'8,< / \ .lr9s8./ -__ _ / / )r9>1 J \ )(989 ~ 988_9 19 • ..., .-¥---- ' >1.8 ) )ef}s9_ 1 0 e c k I 23.1, 19.8 Existing I I I I '< I .CQ : f!1 :~ / t I I I I Dwelling --256.83-­ N 69"31 '50" E ,\\\\\\\\ Existing Dwelling I I .lr~s<1 I \ ' I I I I )(Je<J I I I I ft" I I I • I I I I I I I I I I fJr I • I \ I''~ ]!)' 1 I VLL.0 L.V/ 11 II L.J 1'..V\...n 1 O1.LL ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 10 1 Minnetonka, r-.m 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 www.advs ur.com SUR VEY FOR : BILL KOCH SURVEYED : May 26,20 1 I DRAFTED: May 27 ,20 1 I REVISED : Jul y I, 20 11 REVISED: Ju ly 14, 20 11 to show cu t out in deck and reduced hard cover. EVISED: Jul y 20, 20 11 to show proposed sta irs, diffc re nl pa lio, dri ve realignment. LEGAilSESCRIPTION : Lot 11 , a lso that part of vacated Lake Shore Ave nu e, and of the lract of la nd lying between said vacated Avenue and the shore of Lake Min ne tonka, which lies between the Easterl y extens ion of the North erly a nd Sou th erl y lines of said Lot 11 , Sprin g Park, Hennepi n County, Mi nnesota. LIMITAT IO NS & NOTES: I. Show in g the length a nd direction of bou ndary lines of the above legal descri ption. The scope of our serv ices docs not include determi ning w hat you ow n, w hich is a legal matter. Please check the legal description wit h your records or co nsult w ith competent lega l counsel , if necessary , to make sure that it is co rrec t, a nd th at any matters of record , suc h as casements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been show n. 2. Showi ng the locatio n of ex isti ng improvements we deemed import a nt. 3. Settin g new monuments or verifyin g ol d monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing eleva tions a nd con tou rs to show the topography of the s ite. The elevations shown relate on ly to the benchmark prov ided on th is survey. Use th at benchmark and chec k at least one other featu re show n on the map w hen determining other e levati ons fo r use on this site . 5. While we show proposed improvements to your propcny, we no! as fami lia r wi th your plans as you are nor arc we as fa miliar wi th the requi rements of gove rnm en tal agenc ies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confinn that the proposa ls a rc what you intend a nd subm it the survey to such gove rnm ental agencies as may have ju risdi ct ion ove r your project to gai n their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe w ith pl astic plug beari ng State License Number 9235 , set. unless oth erwise noted. CERTIFI CATION : J he reby certify th at this plan, s pec ifi cat ion , report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision a nd th at 1 am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyo r unde r the laws of the Sta te of Mi nn esota. (LIYM4 }\ G?rv1ai.,_,_._ao --(a;;;t't1. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 NOTE We understand tha t a va ri ance was a pproved for hardcowr on this property as follow s: 0 -75 from OHW 297 sq. ft. 75 -250 from OH W 3,363 sq. ft. 250 -500 from OHW 35% XIJ70.J ci,W= Ci ~if""' ~ XIJ70.i Vl n \,J C (') \J1 ~ c:... ;o Ci .... C m ~ 0 n >, ,-0 ..- I .,, ,::,:, N m 0 N -Xlm.2 CX) ;o I'-..) < 0 c:::) m z -C -0 XIJ70.7 x-:e2.~ e:~istin9 XN7.0 e:~istin9 X i70.II GRAPHIC SCALE ii---~ -==-=i j i ~ '~ ·~ ·~ ~ ~ ~ 11) j ·~ ti' I§ \ ~ ·~ 1 ~ " (INPU?) ~ Drw. No. 110226 ~ ! ID 0 I ' ' . ' r Ill l , If! \ ~irl · , i8 \:) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~, ---4 ------------ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ I I I I J I I I I I ,- I I I RECEIVED JUL 1 9 20 11 CITY OF ORONO #3518 8 T~f# ONO~O :JO A.LIO ~~u z BL IIJr 03J\1303H f :z; I I WDJ □□ '·--------------------- I I I O ' L ___ ---~------' ;------------: ' ' -__ I -----------___ , ---....... ------......-~ MEADOWOOD Il25 Nathan Lane Nort h I Plymou t h, MN 5 5 441 I 763.478 .6987 I www.m,adowoodinc.com OESIGN: B<,e, -!;,y;JA N~N I SCALE: l"=t'-0" I Biw.... l<o(.tt CRAWN: I?,?, CRAW I NG: 1 "~ ::i. APPROV EC: -----3251 ~ D Rt..l.E- {p / I 7/---7/10 Ftd,n1i-,...i.ibir,...,.tod .... octn ofa,,yl"'tToloh.op ... r,ricu,y Qo.-. M LFi-rn C ATE: r~.-0)0 R EVIS E C : r .,,.,.., .... ~rm .. ..,o{M,,d_.,_,K, rvN O I I NNE.:/"' , ~1 _.... co l""-0 C) co PERMEABLE PAVEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS ::a m 0 m < m p .;p. en' w· ii: \ 4! >I I i. .. '7" f .. tr) i i ::c I l­a. w Q :c :::, :c -z :c • co ID 2007 MEADOWOOD INC. r IS• WIDE SUPPORT MARGIN i 12• SETBACK ASTM NO. 8 STONE IN-FILL ~ 'r ASTM No. 8 STONE BEDDING l'.>-<#.:?-~l~•~;-\JJJIJJlllJIIJlllJI t JUIJI < It V UJIIHU llllclllJJ,111111 I • It : ... ,.,, ..• , ... '• . ' - , , -.;·9 ~ . , .. -ii-,,::. 4• DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE SPACED AND SLOPED TO DRAIN ALL STORED WATER (OPTIONAL}. I ti'"H 1J)'; :i: 1 ,;t , . ,, MN(DOT CLASS 2 AGGREGATE MIRAFI. FILTERWEAve· WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ; ,-,- MEADOWOOD ~- I f z. ------------ ~Il2~S~N~atl•,=~L-an~eN~o-rth-JP•ly•mo•ut•h.•M•N•S5•44•!•1•76•3.4•7•8.6•98•7•i•w--.in,•,d-ow-oo-di-nc-.co•m---MEADOWOOD DESIGN: et:,e, ~N~ DRAWN! e,,:?1 DRAWING: I CF-I I SCALE: J"s'i,°-(;>'1 I APPROVED:---­ J;J,,.,,t._J"Ml'l,ko~""ic,.,•f""Y'r,trioltN.p"'t'Wbly B1U-4-J.sw~r.:.. ¥cc.rt :?..:2.51 ~ (!,,/Pc!,J.E ~ \.)J u, 1 > co KOCH i1EVISED 8/2/2011 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 954 6' 948 941 RED NUMBERS ARE EXISTING HILLSIDE ELEVATIONS 5' r----I 3.5' 933.5 Ji---~ 7" 12" CONCEPT LANDSCAPING ..__-111 RISE, TREAD 3.5' 952-472-4118 5€E SLRVEY flJ! EXAC1' STAIR 5Y51™ PI.ACENENT c_n, I 4' 963 3.5' 40' 10' ~ J ~ 929.4 CUffifuEIVE D 17 AUG O 5 ·, '1 ' 'i CITY OF ORONO * \.>J \Tl I > co TYPICAL SECTION 2x6 ~ CEDAR PLOWED GUARDRAIL WITH 1" ANNODIZED ALLUMINUM SPINDLES. 4" QC CEDAR CECKING & S1EPS 2x6Nor5/4 GALV.HANGERS -~2x8TREATED JJISTS AND CROSS MEMBERS 3 2x12 TREATED JACKS 4x4 TREATED POST \ TYP, SLOPE CONCRE1E FOOTING 8" 42"ro48'' ~ED RECEIVED AUG O 5 2011 CITY OF ORONO ~ \)J \j\ CX) 931.5 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION KOCH REV. 8/2/2011 -FIL fER ROCK I-½ KXH1 965 P-300 EROSION CONfROL FABRIC \-4, BURIED flMBER WALL \ -, DRAIN flLE 4' BURIED flMBER WALL 933.5 72lJ CONCEPf LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 flMBER flEBACK 4' ON CENfER r, 4' BURIED flMBER WALL -8' VERflCLE flMBER ANCH:'.JR 4' OC 40' RECEIVED AUG05 7fl11 CITY OF ORONO # '->J \JI I > co 931.5 4 ,, KocH4 !<Ev. 8/2/2011 963.5 //11✓·:( //~ff 111114==----==1 ,-::([Y !:->· 3O~0SION CtoNTR0L : 11 a --..... 11948 -FILTER ROCK 8_;, DRAIN TILE 'I @ WH941 4 , IMBER TIEBACK ON CENTER _J 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL 8' VERTICLE TIMBER ANCHOR 4' 0C 20' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 40' RECEIVED AUG 05 2011 CITY OF ORONO Concept Landscaping 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 Koch hillside soil movement and fill requirements; Restore Hillside. Material movement; Remove old timber walls and steps 120 timbers Install new timbers in sub-terrainian system 117 timbers Install filter rock Soils movement Remove soils for walls and tiebacks Reinstall soils Total soil and material movement 39.03 cubic yards. Excess soils to be used below Fill hillside stair and wall area to restore natural slope; Section 1 -see survey Section 2 -see survey Section 3 -see survey Section 4 -see survey Section 5 -see survey Section 6 -see survey NET result -haul in 8 cubic yards of soil cubic yards -8.89 8.67 10.67 -30.14 19.69 10.45 2.67 3.50 3.11 2.96 3.56 2.67 #3518 RECEIVED AUG 05 2011 CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) o-7 5, 1 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. S.F. D. Sidewalk X S.F. X S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. Wood Steps X 230 S.F. Ret. Walls X 33 S.F. G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 263 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4486 S.F. B A 263 B 4486 100 5.9 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X S.F. Length Width S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape S.F. Wood Steps X 273 S.F. X S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 273 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4486 S.F. B A 273 B 4486 100 6.1% % 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'1 75-250' 250-500 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 2096 S.F. Length Width X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. B. Garage X S.F. C. Driveway (Cobblestone) X 765 S.F. X S.F. D. Cobblestone Patio 24 S.F. S.F. E. Deck X 241 S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. Ret Walls X 122 S.F. X S.F. G. Other Screen Porch X 202 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3450 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 10510 S.F. B A 3450 B 10510 100 32.8 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 2096 S.F. Length Width S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway 973 S.F. S.F. D. Concrete X S.F. X S.F. E. Deck 254 S.F. S.F. F. Landscape New Rel. Wall 16 S.F. Old Retaining Walls 122 S.F. Patio 400 S.F. G. Other Screen Porch 202 S.F. Cobblestone Patio 24 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 4087 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 10510 S.F. B A 4087 B 10510 100 38.9 % 1 SETBACK ZONE' (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-5001 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 93 S.F. X S.F. D. Stoop X S.F. X S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. G. Other shed X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 93 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 659 S.F. B A 93 B 659 100 14.1 % 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 125 S.F. X S.F. D. Sidewalk/Stoop X S.F. X S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 125 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 659 S.F. B A 125 B 659 100 19.0 % 1 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 4 3 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-350 (B) AND 78-1288 FILE NO. 06-3176 WHEREAS, Mark W. Gaylord , a single person , and Lori A. Anderson , a single person , (hereinafter "the applicants") have interest in the property located at 3251 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described below, and WHEREAS, Patricia M. Diegre, a single person, is the owner of the property located at 3251 Casco Circle within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 1, SPRING PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property "); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B) and 78-1288 to allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot with a lot area of 0.38 acres when 0.5 acres is normally required; a lot width of 60 ' at the shoreline and 60' at the 75 ' setback when 100' is normally required ; and a hardcover variance request to permit 29.98% hardcover within the 75 '-250 ' zone when 25% is normally allowed . NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOL V ED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was review ed as Zoning File 06-3176. 2. The property is located in the LR -1 C, Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 0 .5 acres and a minimum lot width of 100 ' at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Pa ge 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 4 3 6 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on February 21, 2006 where a majority recommended approval of variances based on the following findings: a. The lot is significantly substandard in area and width and the existing structure and hardcover on the lot are nonconfonning. A residence has existed on the property for many years. b. There is no additional land available to bring the lot width or lot area into conformity. c. The hardcover variances as requested are in line with the levels of hardcover variances approved on rebuild applications with similar lot conditions. The proposed residence meets the structural lot coverage limitation of 15%. d. The proposed structure complies with all lake yard, side yard, rear (street) yard, and average lakeshore setback requirements. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B) and 78-1288 to Page 2 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___ 5_4_3_6 _ allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot with a lot area of 0.38 acres when 0.5 acres is normally required, a lot width of 60' at the shoreline and 60' at the 75' setback when 100' is normally required, and a hardcover variance to permit 29.98% hardcover within the 75'-250' zone when 25% is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not increase above the level of 297 s.f. or 6.6%. Hardcover in the 75'-250' zone shall be limited to 3,363 s.f. or 29.98% and within the 250'-500' zone shall be limited to 35% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicants are advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicants are advised that a building height variance will not be granted and approval of the schematic design plans do not in and of themselves warrant approval of the exact design as shown on the plans. 4. Applicants shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their penneability as non-hardcover surfaces. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (March 13, 2007). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants' heirs, Page 3 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 4 3 6 successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 13 th day of March, 2006. ATTEST: ,',, X::r(/l-;_,_;1.? ,, 1-. 1>1 ~,;( __ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Applicants/Property wner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN l1-,;_,f,:;1-4~~ Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of ·k.t. ·,Jj. , 2006 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. --------'!'5~41--3~6..-- ·?· _.\l The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this r::_ day of /J'i•L':, i: , 2006 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. RACHEL DODGE ic:: NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ,, My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 201 o ·'.~Z-'8'"'~-x~~:e:-~~~~~~~~ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public .,,.,,, ' This instrument was acknowledged before me this /t./ day of Aft 1 ) by Mark W. Gaylord, a single person. b·\. 1/'1'"'""· n.t\RBARA G. SILUS ~ ... • 1 r-u::uc. MINNE::OTi\ . , ,: 1 .. ::.:;~1;·n:::s;on Expirt:s J:n. 31, L008 = = ST ATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public , 2006 This instrument was acknowledged before me this / f ~ay of 8-pr ( l , 2006 by Lori A. Anderson, a single person. Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 '1 3 6 This instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of _____ , 2006 by Patricia M. Diegre, a single person. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS MARK GAYLORD REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Property located in Section 20, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota '° rn '<:3" LO \ \ :n.z.2 \ _,,.,,,• \ _,,.,.,,. ~ \ \ \) \ ~ \i \) t ~ The only easements shown ore from plats of record or information provided by client. ~\~~e~byotir!fy b!~~~Qt~~5 s j~f 0th~:b~~~ ~~~~~~leJer;~~e~~dtit~e of ";. " ' ... \ ', \ location of all buildings and visible encroachments. if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us \his 16\h day of January 2006. I Rev i-06-06 Added Proposed House !Drown By 9 . .M.vn.,,,.., File Name 1------------------------j sp-11-lfb101358inv7J529.dwg Fax No. 560-3522 l,fumeapolis, Minnesota 65428 :§ur-u-.ryorz fSar49 .. C!J.rrtifirute u ~ "o ~Q ¢­ °'I" -~~ ~ ~ ~ -Q t~ N \'<\ \\ I\ ll\~ c--('l I \r, C:::.t- Lot 11, Block 1, SPRING PARK Signed INVOICE NO. 73529 F.B.NO. 1013-5ll, 59 SCALE: 1" =~3=o,_· __ 0 Denotes Iron Monument a Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only xDOO.O Denotes Exisllng Elevation @)oenoles Proposed Elevation __,,.._ Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades ore subjecl to results of soil lesls. Proposed building informolion must be checked with approved building pion and <lovelopmenl or grading pion before excavation ond construction. 574.0 Proposed Top of Block '373.5 Proposed Garage Floor ~ Proposed Lowesl Floor Type of Building Full easement Lakeside Basemerlt Lookout Windows QQj{ fOJl___ Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 ·--.. MARK GAYLORD LOT Established in 1962 SURVEYS COMPANY, LAND SURVEYORS INC. REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis , Minnesota 55428 Pr.operty located in Section 20, Township 117 , Range 23 , Hennepin Count y, Minnesota §ururyorz Q1rrtifi.ratr ~ ,,.. I \ The only easements shown ore from plots of record or information provided by client. "!., "\ \ \ We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described _land and the locat ion of oil buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Survey ed by us th is 16t h d a y of J anua ry 2006. \ "'-" " \ \ \ Rev 2 -0b-06 Add ed P ro osed Hous e Drown By g_ JA,= \ \ \ 1-------------------------jFile Nome sp -1 1-1fb1013 5S inv 73 529.d wg J-5-Fr I !:! Floer E l~v ¾S.O \ . 968 . .3~ ~ 1-5-Fr \--::._ ,~r Floor Ele v ,~ f¼e.e "\ Lot 11, Blo c k 1 , SPRING PARK \ Lc::p ,ce 92S.4 INVOICE NO. 73529 F. 8. NO. __ 1_0_1 _3_-_5 s~,_5 9_ SCALE: 1 " 30' -~----- 0 Denotes Iron Monument □ Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevation @Denotes Proposed El evation .. Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE : Proposed grades ore subject ta results of soil tests. ":>74.0 ~73 .5 ~0?.3 Proposed building information must be checked with approved building pion and de ve lopment or grading pion before excavation and construction . Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Fu l l Basement Lakeside Basement Look.out Windows ~PY I ! uU~ Charles F. Anderson, Minn . Reg. No. 21 753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 10~ 828\ ■H 1 2-.0\ \ .325\ -• ..ll l . I "' a. ., ::; -" ., ~ b) C Cl) ,_ a. D m ~ ~ ~ 0 C Sec. 78-1282. Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the shore setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1 )--(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 59 3rd series,§ 2, 5-11-2009) Sec. 78-1283. Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures or other improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to allow the city to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(G)), 2-24-1992) Sec. 78-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a) No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline or within the bluff impact zone with a diameter of six inches or more ( or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff, provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the council. Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit, but such trees must be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. (b) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(1)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series,§ 7, 7-11-1994) Sec. 78-1286. Topographic alterations/grading and filling. (a) Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this article. (b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. (c) Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: (1) Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. (2) All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction. (d) Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: (1) For movement of one through 500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. (2) For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. (e) The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: (1) Grading or filling in any type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: a. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; b. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; c. Fish and wildlife habitat; d. Recreational use; e. Shoreline or bank stabilization; and f. Noteworthiness, including special qualities, such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by other sections of city ordinances or by other local state or federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, state department of natural resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. (3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. (4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. (5) Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat.§ 103G.245. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. A riprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969. (f) Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations below the elevation or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series,§ 1(10.56(16)(J)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series,§ 8, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series,§ 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series,§ 2, 4-4-1998; Ord. No. 28 3rd series,§ 17, 8- 22-2005) Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) 't,ardcover allotment. The following hardcover restrictions apply to all properties in the Shoreland Overlay District: ( 1) 't,ardcover zones. a. Within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, no hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed, except for driveways, stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. b. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hardcover. C. hardcover. d. hardcover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent (2) Zone to zone crediVdebit. a. The allowed allotment of hardcover for the 250 feet to 500 feet zone or the 500 feet to 1,000 feet zone may be increased up to an unused square footage of allowable hardcover of a zone closer to the OHWL. b. Unused hardcover cannot be transferred to a zone closer to the OHWL. c. If hardcover is credited from one zone to another, additional hardcover may not be later added to the zone closer to the OHWL if the presence of such hardcover would have prevented the crediting. d. The allowed hardcover in any zone shall be decreased by the amount of legal non- conforming hardcover in the zone next closer to the OHWL. (b) Additional hardcover provisions. (1) Overhangs: a. Where an overhang is supported by a post, the area under the overhang to the outer edge of the post shall be considered as hardcover. b. All but the outer two feet of an unsupported overhang ten feet or more off the ground shall be considered hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 1]. (2) Decks: Hardcover may be added under a deck attached to a principal structure if the deck is conforming or legal nonconforming and the added hardcover is otherwise permitted. (3) Driveway easements: The following principles apply where one or more properties (secondary property) gain its driveway access from an adjacent property (primary property) by virtue of a driveway easement: a. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves both the primary and secondary property is considered hardcover for the primary property. b. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property is not considered hardcover for either the primary or secondary property. c. The area of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property shall not be included in the lot area of the primary property for purposes of calculating hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 2]. (c) Future improvements. The following items shall be included in hardcover calculations regardless of whether they are proposed to be construction at the time of building permit application: (1) Proof of a two-car garage (detached or attached). (2) For all garages a driveway, subject to the standards in paragraph (d) of this section. (3) A 24 inch wide sidewalk from the front door to the driveway. (4) The minimum stairway or landing at all exterior doors as required by the building code. (d) Driveways. All driveways shall comply with the following minimum dimensional standards: (1) Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a driveway apron with minimum width equal to the width of the overhead door(s). For purposes of this section, a driveway apron is that portion of a driveway that extends 15 feet from the garage door(s) on an end loading garage. (2) Driveways serving side loading garages shall provide a minimum turn around or back up depth of 20 feet, as measured from the garage door(s). (3) Minimum driveway taper ratio shall be 2: 1. (4) Driveways shall be at least eight feet in width at the street or private road. (5) A turnaround shall be provided for a driveway with direct access to an arterial or collector roadway, or for a side load garage as determined necessary by the city planner. The minimum dimensions of the turnaround shall be eight feet in width by 12 feet in depth. (6) "Wheel strip" driveways are allowed, but the entire width of the driveway (from outside to outside of the strips) will be considered hardcover. The following drawing is included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 3]. (e) Compliance. (1) It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. (2) Nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except: a. A roofline may be changed but the roof may not be extended over unroofed portions of the structure. b. An additional story may be added over roofed portions of a structure. c. An open or screened porch may be converted into a two or three season porch or year round living space (including replacing a post foundation with a perimeter foundation) provided hardcover is not increased. (3) This section is independent of lot coverage regulations in the city Code. Accordingly, a property must conform to both hardcover and lot coverage regulations. RUN DATE : 7/19/2011 HENNEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY lNFORMA TION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS UST) PAGE: I 38 20-117-23 42 0031 DS&KJOWEN 3486 IVY PL DA YID S & KAY J OWEN 3486 IVY PL WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0008 ROBERT G LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR ROBERT G LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0053 PA TRJCK J NEUVILLE 3271 CASCO CIR PATRJCKJNEUVILLE 3271 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESE AS 1T APPEARS THIS DA TE ON THE RECO 38 20-117-23 43 0006 MARYL TUCKER TRUSTEE 3466 IVY PL MARYL TUCKER 3466 IVY PL WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0009 LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 DA TE: JUL 1 9 2011 sl -,L--, -----Ht-J~=..:::.v-~~r:---- RECEIVED ,1111 202 011 CITY OF ORONO 38 20-117-23 43 0007 WILLIAM H KOCH ET AL 3251 CASCO CIR WILLIAM H KOCH LAURADKOCH 3251 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 THE CASCO CO 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ClTY OF ORONO PARKS PO BOX66 CRYSTALBAYMN 55323 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3 518 .---------- For more information contact: \\ \I Hennepin County GIS Division 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis .info@co.hennepin.mn .us Map Comments: 3251 CASCO CIR ORONO,MN 3 I Print Date: 7/19/2011 Map Scale: 1" = 183' Buffer Size: 150 feet 2.0-11 -23-42 Park Parcel D Buffer Region Selected Parcels 2.0-117-23-41 20-117-23-44 II I I \I \I II II I 11 -.:-....-----II -Major Roads Minor Roads "I ,~. ·~r ". -~..-.-apped u !l.v.1.i \L_ ----=---__::--__ ~__::----- RECEIVED ,!Ill 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ZONING FILE: 11-3518 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: August 16, 2011 TO: William & Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance DATE OF MEETING: August 15, 2011 COPIES: The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of hardcover va r iances for the driveway and the patio, and CUP as requested. The applicant was encouraged to assure the rain gardens would accommodate the additional patio hardcove r . The Commission also recommended requiring engineered plans for the slope stabilization project consistent with Staff recommendation. At least two weeks prior to placement on the City Council agenda the applicant must submit a proposed grading plan must shown on a certificate of survey. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, September 12, 2011 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning & Zoning Coordinator, Melanie Curtis at mcurtis @ci.orono.mn.us or 952 .249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the im created by the granting of the requested variances? Staff recommends approval of the setback variance as proposed. Fabric or pl tic underlayment should b emoved from all landscape areas on the property in order to reduce hardc Thiesse asked hether any of the roads are private . Lev ang noted the house is located that area. Thiesse stated the more important issue is the adjoining property . 11 Kent Welkin , 4615 Tonkav iew, state Wildhurst Trail. Chair Schoenzeit opened the / ,4 ... -.• There wer/o pubhc co, Alexander mov , Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Applicat1 No. #11-3517, 1299 WiHlhurst Tr I, granting of a side street setback variance, subject to Staff rec VOTE: ~Y. 6, Nays 0. I' 3. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 6:39 P.M. -7:07 P.M. William Koch , Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75 foot zone and 75 -250 foot zone in order to remove and replace the existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new patio and reconstruct the lake yard stair system. A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance in the 0-75 foot zone. -----------------Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property. Variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 3,363 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. They would also like to construct a lake-side patio. In addition, the lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system .. A conditional use permit is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is allowed hatdcove]" .within the 0-7 5 foot zone. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. In 2006, the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appears to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover. Those modifications appear to be largely additional retaining walls resulting in an additional 87 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and reconfigured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75-250 foot zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover over the existing level and results in 38.9 percent hardcover where 32.8 percent exists. The 400 square foot patio design includes 16 square feet of retaining wall, permeable pavers, a catch basin to collect storm water and a pipe to. direct storm water to the existing rain garden which may need to be enlarged or modified to account for the additional volumes. The addition 10 square feet within the 0- 75 foot zone is consi4ered allowed hardcover as it is to be part of the new stair system. Earth movement which exceeds 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the lake requires a conditional use permit~The applicant is currently working towards development of a stabilization plan which meets City Engineer approval. This plan should be certified by the applicant's engineer and finalized prior to the issuance of the administrative grading permit to begin the work. The public hearing should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion prevention or stabilization of slope, natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover, and impacts to adjacent properties. The City Engineer will review the plans from a stability and safety perspective. Staff finds the applicant has a practical difficulty in the orientation and condition of the existing driveway. The driveway was not constructed in conformance with the approved plan and therefore has a shallow back-up area which does not meet the current minimum driveway standard. The applicant's proposal now slightly exceeds the required minimum and appears to be more functional. Staff supports granting the hardcover variance to reconstruct the driveway, granting a conditional use permit, and a 0-75 foot hardcover variance to allow slope stabilization and construction of a new stair. While the applicant's proposal includes permeable pavers and a sub-grade system to treat the excess storm water from the patio, current City code does not discount pervious pavers. Page3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Issues for discussion include the following: 1. Does the Commission identify a practical difficulty which supports granting the hardcover variances? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 5. Does the Commission find there are additional conditions which should be placed upon the conditional use permit approval? Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the grading work within the 0-75 foot zone as well as a hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the driveway. The applicant should submit a revised survey reflecting the proposed grading plan prior to placement on a City Council agenda. Further, the applicant should be required to submit plans and necessary information to satisfy the City Engineer regarding the slope stabilization at the time of the administrative land alteration permit following Council approval. Thiesse stated asked where the City is with their review of the hardcover ordinances and whether permeable pavers would be included in that. Curtis indicated that review is still ongoing and there has not been a final determination. The Planning Commission will need to act under the existing code. Landgraver noted there are four sets of hardcover numbers listed in Staff's report and asked how those numbers progressed. Curtis stated in the 75-250 foot zone, the 2,627 is 25 percent, which is allowed by code. The 3,366 square feet was approved by variance in 2006. The 3,450 square feet is what currently exists on the property. There weresomeminor changes to the grading and retaining walls during the construction of the home, and without the as,..built survey requirement, it was not noticed during inspection of the home. Curtis noted the applicant is over his hardcover limit by 634 square feet over what is existing with what he is proposing, for a total of 4,087 square feet. Landgraver asked whether that consists primarily of the patio. Curtis indicated it includes the patio and the adjustment to the driveway. At the time of original construction, they were attempting to avoid a tree, which has since died. In addition, construction of the driveway involved some removal of trees but not tree trunks, which has caused some settling. Bill Koch stated the house was built at the time they purchased the property in November of 2008. When they purchased the house, the survey showed there was a 142 square foot patio that appeared to be MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. approved from the documents that they received. Koch indicated he then met with Planner Evelyn Turner approximately one year ago and were told that he could put in the patio without any permits. At that same time the driveway was failing and the decision was made to reconfigure it. Koch noted he does have a civil and environmental engineering background and that he is aware of the hardcover regulations in Orono. In designing the larger patio, it was treated as being 100 impervious, which it likely will not be. Currently there is a small paver landing that they would like to replace and install a retaining around the whole thing to keep it secure. It is a 142 square foot patio. Koch stated they would like to keep one section open to act as a planter area. As it relates to the larger patio space, there is a catch basin to catch the runoff and be diverted into two rain gardens. Koch commented there should be plenty of capacity to catch that runoff and that he does not expect any storm water from that area to reach the lake or the neighbors' properties. Koch indicated he does have some concerns with the soil in the area of the retaining wall. Soil borings were done at the request of the City and showed that the soil in the area is apparently clay with thin layers of sand. They are looking at options to properly stabilize that. The City has requested an engineer sign off on that part of the project. Koch indicated he has spoken with a couple dozen engineers but that he has found no one who is willing to sign off on a small residential project. Koch stated he would like to deal with the wall before there is a failure. Koch pointed out on the overhead the area of the top wall that is bulging. In addition, some of the logs are deteriorating. Koch stated he got Concept Landscaping involved because of their experience in dealing with similar hills. They have developed a subterranean wall system for the site. Because of the failure plane, Staff has expressed some concern withjt and so a representative from.Concept Landscaping is here tonight to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would look at the professional engineer signature to help ensure that the system designed will work properly and it also affords the homeowner some type of warranty. Koch noted most professional engineers carry one million dollars in liability insurance and that Concept l,an,dscaping carries two million dollars. Koch reiterated he is not sure if he will be able to find a professionaiengineer who would be willing to sign off on this project. Schoenzeit. stated that is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission but that in his view the applicant more than likely will not want to proceed without that engineer sign-off. Levang indicated she has some questions regarding the driveway and asked what the reason is for widening the driveway. Koch stated at the time the driveway was originally constructed, there were two large trees in the immediate area. The trees were bare at the time they moved into the house. Given the configuration of the driveway, it is very difficult to access the garage and that they would like to reconfigure it to allow for better access. Levang asked what type of paver would be installed. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Koch indicated it would be the same type of paver as proposed in the back. Schoenzeit asked whether the driveway work would also include removal of the stumps. Koch indicated the stumps would be removed. Schoenzeit asked how the proposed patio changes affect the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated the patio is at grade and does not impact the average lakeshore setback. Koch noted there is a wall of evergreens that screen the patio from the one neighbor. .The home on the other side has no windows on the wall facing their house. The patio would be set back from their deck area as well and there should be minimal impact to the neighbors. Levang asked whether they have contemplated planting some additional trees in that area. Koch pointed out there is also a fence in the area that obSC\lTeS approximately half of the patio but that they would be willing to plant some shrubs if~hat is a concern of the Planning Commission. Koch indicated he has spoken with the neighbors and that they are not opposed to the project. Curtis noted the City has not received any comments from the neighbors. Levang asked if there are any plans to expand the existing rain garden. Koch indicated they do not have any plans to expand that at this point. Levang asked what the retaining wall would be constructed of. Robert Swanson, Meadowood, il:1:dicated the retaining wall would be a modular block wall. Leskinen asked if the patio would require additional or special maintenance over the years to prevent runoff down the slope. Swansqn stated the bioactivity that is created in the open core aggregate will not allow any more of an inch to three~quarters of organic matter to build up within the paving surface, which are designed at three inches. The pavers should never .seal off entirely, but in the event they did, there will be a zone of clear aggregate that will be installed to help prevent that. If there is not 100 percent percolation through the pavers, there is a slope to the catch basins, which will catch any water that then would be diverted into the rain gardens. Leskinen asked if the pipes would ever have to be flushed out. Swanson indicated they do not. Swanson stated the soils will percolate to a certain degree down to 50 degrees. A pipe that comes with an overflow that is located under the paver surface will also divert the water into the rain garden area. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. ·-Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jerry Luesse, 3249 Casco Circle, stated he is here to support the application of the variance and other requirements. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Schoenzeit commented the configuration of the driveway appears reasonable. The question is whether the applicant should be allowed expansion of hardcover for the patio. Thiesse pointed out the drainage system that was described for the patio may not work on the driveway. Swanson stated they were not proposing to do the driveway as a permeable surface. Thiesse noted the rain garden on the 2006 survey is larger than what is being proposed and that all of the water on that side of the house does drain to the northerly property currently. Schoenzeit suggested taking Staffs recommendations and to have the size of the rain garden verified by the City Engineer. Thiesse commented rain gardens are a great item but that he wants to ensure it will work properly. Schoenzeit noted they are adding additional hardcover which will increase the runoff. Koch stated they have not had any problems with it in the past but that they would be willing to enlarge it if the City Engineer felt that was necessary. Curtis asked if the rain garden on the south lot line is similar in size to the rain garden on the north side. Koch stated it starts approximately 10 feet out from the back of the home and then goes approximately 20 feet. Koch indicated he has not altered it. It is a very shaded area and it is difficult to get anything to grow .. in there. Landgraver asked how the drainage on the south side of the house flows from the garage. Koc1ljni:iicated it goes pretty much in a straight line down to the rain garden. Landgraver noted that rain garden is not as prominent as the other rain garden and that the concern of the Planning Commission is to ensure that there is adequate capacity with the additional hardcover. Schoenzeit encouraged the applicant to verify the capacity of the rain garden. Koch stated he does not have a problem with that. Schoenzeit commented that Staffs recommendations and requirements appear to be sufficient to address that concern. Levang asked what Staff would do in the event the applicant is not able to find an engineer to sign off on the project. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated Staff has been working with the applicant to explore other solutions and that they would continue to work towards a solution. If a solution cannot be reached before the application goes before the City Council, the Council would need to determine whether that requirement could be waived. Thiesse asked whether the fact that the applicant is unable to get an engineer to sign off on that portion of the project would impact the rest of his application. Curtis indicated if need be they could separate that portion of the application. . . . Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of' pplication #11-3518, 3251 Casco Circle, granting of the conditional use permit in of der to removf and replace the existing paver driveway and to reconstruct the lake yard stair system per Staffs recommend~tions and requirements. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recomme._d _approval of Application #11-3518, 3251 Casco Circle, installation of the patio. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. > 4. #11-519 BAUERDESIGNBUILD,LLC,ONijEHALFOFRYAN INC., 550 OL CRYSTAL BAY ROAD : COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN MPANIES US, W, 7:08 P.M. -7:39 PX . ' Gaffron stated the applica is requesting industrial site plan ap oval for expansion of the newly vacant office/warehouse industrial 8 'lding at 550 Old Crystal Bay oad North, which is located on the southeast comer.of Wayzata Bo evard and Old Crystal B Road. The proposed expansion follows the recently r~viewed replat ofLots 1 cl , Block 2, Crys Bay Business Center, and is proposing is to move the bounda~ between the two s further so IBM Technic~l would lik o remain in this area and have a rchase agreement with Ryan for the building at 550'0ld C tal Bay Road, subject to the ability toe and that building by constructing a 20,000 square foot · ,o-story addition to its south end. The 140'x O' addition will have a defined height of 30 feet with artiahRarapet at 34 feet near the southwest comer. he existing building has a defined height of 24 et with the northwest comer parapet at 27 feet. The prop sed use is manufacturing and marketin product. This property is located in the Industrial District an · s a permitted use. ~%ss to the site is proposed to be relocated further south along Old Crystal Ba Road and is not ,.,..,ipated to require any significant changes to tum lanes or striping. -----------------Page 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. Council Exhibit C Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to direct Staff to draft an amendment to the development agreement between the City of Orono and Ryan Companies US, Inc., with the understanding that the building can remain on the site until December of 2020, or if empty for 24 consecutive months, the building would need to be demolished by July 1st of the following year. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. 11-3517 PATTI M. HYLEN, 1299 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE.-RESOLUTION NO. 6071 Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6071, a Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-:330 for the property located at 1299 Wildhurst Trail. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE & CUP William Koch, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposingfo remove an existing porch and construct a new 28' x 11' addition with partial .second story on to the rear of the existing home at an 11. 7 foot setback. The existing home is set backfrom the side streetlotline alongTonkaview Lane where a 35-foot setback is normally required. In qrderto construct an additi◊n, a side street setback variance is required. The proposal will be couf'orniing with respect to hardcover as well as structural coverage limitations. A conditional use permit isaJso required due to the amount of earth movement in the 0-75 foot zone. In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property. Variances for lot area, lot width, and hardcover were granted, allowing3,363 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. In 2006, the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover consisting of landscaping and --------~-------Page 10 of 42 ----- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. walls. The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and reconfigured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75-250 foot zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover above the existing level and 724 square feet over the amount approved in2006 resulting in 38.9 percent where 32.8 currently exists. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a petvious patio design with a catch basin and pipe to drain storm water to the existing rain garden. The lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicant would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A conditional use permit is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is considered .allowed hardcover within the 0-7 5 foot zone. The Planning Commission voted 6to Oto recommend approval of the hardcover variances to allow the driveway reconfiguration as well a.s the lakeside patio. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and hardcover for the stairs. The applicant should$U~mit a revised survey showing the proposed grading plan and an engineered design for review prior to issuance of the administrative permits for grading. The Council should discuss the additional hardcover requested within the 75-250 foot zone. Bill Koch, Applicant, stated when they purchased the home, there was a lake-side patio that was approved which was never constructed~ Koch pointed out the area of the patio on the proposed plans. He has contacted Meadowood, who has done a considerable amount of work with permeable pavers, and they have designed a patio plan and drainage system that feeds into both rain gardens that are on site currently. Out of that 142 square foot area, there is one area that would be a planting area. There would also be a retaining wall to protect the integrity of the rain garden. The stair system would be done by Design Concepts. Koch noted the City was insistent on getting an engineer to review and approve it. Koch Page 11 of42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. indicated he has spoken with 27 engineers to see if they would be willing to review and approve it. He finally found an engineer from Wisconsin who did visit the site and has put his stamp of approval on the plan. A grading plan has also been completed and provided to the City. Rahn noted the home is only five years old and that the City should have a survey showing whether the patio was approved. Curtis indicated there was an approved patio that was not constructed. The as-bumsurvey completed this year showed that the site exceeds the 29 .9 percent hardcover that was approved. Some minor changes were done on the lot that resulted in the increase. The City did not have an as~built survey requirement at that time. The house was built as approved but there were some landscaping changes resulting in the increased hardcover. Rahn noted the hardcover is currently at 32 percent and the applicant is proposing 38.9 percent. Koch indicated there was a hardcover variance granted at the time the house was constructed. Rahn asked if the 2006 survey is hl. the _Council packet. Curtis indicated it should be in the packet as well as the resolution. Rafu1,:suited the driveway needs to be enlarged to be functional but that he is having a difficult time understanding why it is over on hardcover since the driveway is less than what was approved. Rahn indicated he is not sure where the overages occurred. Koch noted they did not construct the house. Rahn stated in his view the driveway needs to be redone and the stairs are something that would typically be allowed, but that he would not be in favor of the patio until he receives additional information on the hardcover overage. Rahn commented that it is a matter of choice on what they want to construct and still comply with the hardcover requirements. Page 12 of 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis displayed the 2006 survey on the overhead. Rahn stated the driveway depicted on the survey looks like the driveway that is now being proposed. Rahn stated he is still curious to know where the additional hardcover came from. Curtis indicated Staff has not done an analysis to determine where the increased hardcover exists. Koch stated they were looking at keeping the deck but extending it out. Koch stated theywanted to make sure the patio was located behind the fence, which blocks it largely froin view from the adjoining neighbor. There is also a row of trees that would help block the patio. Koch noted the driveway is failing and needs to be replaced, but that he would rather have the patio approved and then work on making the driveway smaller than what has b.een proposed. Koch indicated they would like to enjoy the lake with a patio. Bremer indicated she would be amenable to the stair system since they appear to be reasonable. Koch commented the existing stair system is unsafe. Bremer stated the configuration of the driveway is a personal choice on the part of the applicant and that sh~ also i~ having a difficult time .determining where the extra hardcover came from. Curtis noted they currently are over by 87 square feet and they are requesting an additional 724 square feet. McMillan asked how many retaining walls have been added since the house has been constructed. Curtis indicated she does not have those figures. The total retaining wall footage that currently exists with the 75-250 foot zone is 122 square feet. McMillan commented that oftentimes these retaining walls are a necessity and that in her view it is somewhat of a penalty to be including retaining walls in the hardcover numbers when they are required -----------Page 13 of 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. due to the topography. McMillan noted the City does have a hardcover task force that is reviewing the City's policies and ordinances regarding hardcover but that at the present time they are required to look at the application under the current regulations. Koch indicated he has a civil and environmental engineering background and that the retaining walls are designed to retain the water and prevent runoff into the lake. The retaining walls act as retention ponds. Curtis stated another discrepancy in the surveys is the 2006 survey reflects 11,219 square feet in the 75- 250 foot zone and the current survey depicts 10,510 square feet in that zone. The two percent increase is a combination of the additional hardcover and the change in the zone. Bremer noted the zone got smaller by approximately 700 square feet. Koch stated the original surveyor is out of business and that another surveyor performed the hardcover calculations. The amount of land in the various zones has changed, which has resulted in the increased amount of hardcover in one zone. Rahn stated the driveway requires 208 square feet of hardcover, which he would be fine with, and that he is also okay with the stair system. Rahn stated until the hardcover task force comes back with their recommetfdatfons, he would not be okay with approving the hardcover for the patio and that the City cannotkeep raising the amount.of hardcover on the lots. Franchot commented in his view the entire proposal is reasonable and that the patio is not large in size. Franchotstated he is in favor ofitems that keep the water on the property, which has been done, and that he would vote in favor of the plan as submitted. Bremer noted it was originally approved in 2006 for 3,363 square feet of hardcover. There currently is 3,453 square feet, which is 90 feet over what was approved. Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Council Member Rahn that the deck might not be justified. The City sees a number of requests for additional hardcover similar to this request but that the City needs to enforce the hardcover limits even though the patio seems like the one thing the previous property owner would have constructed but didn't. Page 14 of 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. Koch noted the plans did show a 142 square foot patio, which was approved, and that in his view the builder was trying to cut costs at the time of construction. McMillan expressed a concern about adding additional hardcover for a patio. McMillan indicated she is okay with the driveway and stairs but that she would only approve a maximum of 142 square feet for the patio, which was part of the original resolution. Rahn asked what the sidewalk is constructed out of on the north side of the house. Koch indicated it is constructed out of wood. Rahn noted the 2006 survey called for a permeable grate and that the City might not have included the sidewalk in their hardcover calculations. Printup asked whether the applicant would be interested in separating out the patio portion of the application and revisit it later. Koch indicated he would prefer nQtto do that and that he has spent approximately $12,000 in surveying costs getting to this point. Koch stated he would be willing to look at reducing the driveway but that he would fllso like to construct a patio. Koch noted the proposed patio would have a catch basin going to the rain,gardenbut that they would not be able to construct that if they are limited to the 142 square feet. Koch indicated he does not want to go through this process again in order to come up with a new design. Franchot stated he does not see what the difference would be to separate it out. McMillan commented that the hardcover task force may come out with some changes that would impact that portion of the application. Franchot noted the applicant's proposal for the patio is to make it a pervious surface. Rahn pointed out at some point in the future a new owner of the property might not like the patio and rain garden and remove it. The task force has not yet come to a decision regarding pervious surfaces. Rahn Page 15 of 42 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. stated the driveway is a legitimate issue but that he is not sure where hardcover can be reduced. Rahn stated he would rather have a workable driveway than reduce the hardcover in that area. Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve Application #11-3518, William Koch, 3251 Casco Circle, granting 208 square feet of hardcover for the driveway, granting a conditional use permit to construct the lakeside stairway, but denying the lakeside patio. McMillan noted the City has denied similar patio requests in other applications. Rahn commented that is typically the case where a new owner would rather have the additional hardcover. Koch stated the house size is exactly the same as was approved. Bremer stated it is unique why the lot size has changed and that perhaps the 0-75 is starting back further because the shoreline is eroding. Koch indicated the shoreline is the same. Gaffron st~edthe likelydifference between the D,200 and 10,500 is that in 2006 they included the 11 or 12 feet by 60 feet in the 250-500 foot zone in the 75-250 foot zone. Gaffron noted he does not have the hardi;over calculations from 2006 but that in his opinion that is where the difference comes from. Mattickstat~dthe Council will need to vote on what is before them now rather than what happened in 2006 and that the applicant has no vested right in the variance that was granted in 2006. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays {,Franchot Opposed. *8. #11-3519 BAUER DESIGN BUILD, LLC o/b/o JEM TECHNICAL MARKETING CO., INC., 550 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND EASEMENT VACATION -RESOLUTION NOS. 6072 AND 6073 Page 16 of 42 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Subject: Melanie : The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi .com] Sunday, September 18, 2011 11 :28 PM Melanie Curtis Re : 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 9-16-11 I will work with Max Green and Jim Smith (who has been on vacation since the City Council meeting , and pretty unreachable) to get a meaningful response to this . I am not comforted by the position of the city and its engineers on this issue . As you know, I spoke with more than two dozen individual engineers and engineering firms to try to find someone who would be willing to even get involved in what they all see as a small residential project. As I told the Planning Commission and the City Council , the individuals and firms with whom I spoke were not interested because of the size of the project. I asked you (the City and Bonestroo) if you wanted a structural engineer, a civil engineer, a geotechnical engineer, etc . to review the proposed underground wall system --all I was told was it had to be "a licensed engineer." We were told this was for our protection (although from what, I cannot tell) and the City's protection (although from what, I cannot tell). Obviously , none of us want the hill to fail. We found a licensed engineer (recommended by one of the other engineers I had contacted), Max Green , who does mechanical and forensic engineering , and has worked for years with a company that installs lifts on hills like ours . He has had full access to the survey, the soil analysis , the grading plan, Jim Smith's plans , and Bonestroo's comments . He signed off on work proposed by Jim Smith as submitted to the City , and he also reviewed the grading plan to see if it made sense for the site. The grading plan , as you know, was prepared by Paul Otto , the surveyor --which is what you and Bonestroo earlier required , that the surveyor include it on the survey . That was Paul's work , as was indicated when it was first submitted to the City . The fact that Max also signed off on it does not change that it was Paul's work --that should be added comfort for the City and Bonestroo --and not an area of concern or added review costs to be passed on to us . I would like to set up a telephone conference (or a meeting , if it can be held promptly) with you , me , Tom Kellogg, Jim Smith and , if needed , Max Green . We have got to get to the bottom of this so we can move forward . My schedule is very tight, but I will try to make time available to meet whenever you and Tom can do so . Finally , I would like to understand what it is that you are actually requesting when Mr. Amundsen writes "slope stability and structural design calculations must be submitted for review along with the plans and geotechnical investigation report ." We have already submitted the slope stability analysis and we have already submitted all the design information for the underground wall system and the steps . What does he mean by "structural design calculations"? Bill 612-7 43-3210 P.S. I have only located one other engineer who expressed a potential willingness to get involved with the site (after we had arranged to have Max do the work) --it was this engineer (whose name escapes me and I will have to search my notes) who told me he was quite confident the manner in which Marty Gray , our geotechnical engineer, did the soils work likely miscalculated the slope analysis to be much more conservative than needed since he used a hand-auger to test the soils . That engineer was confident if we spent another $2 ,000-$3 ,000 (and incurred about a month-long delay due to the availability of such rigs) for a drill-type auger the numbers would come back to show the hill was stable as is . Of course, there was no guarantee on that and we have already spent $10 ,000 -$12 ,000 on this approval process . And , importantly , we had found a licensed engineer with experience with lakeside hills who could review the plans . -----Original Message ----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci.orono .mn .us> To : "Bill Koch (mnkochs@mchs i.com)" <mnkochs@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday , September 16, 2011 12:21 :30 PM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: FW: 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 9-16-11 Bill Please see the attached memo from our engineers. It appears they requi re additio nal clar ificat io n and/or inf o rmation before they can approve the plans. As we discussed, this information is not needed prior to Council's approval on Sept 1 26th. Any additional information requested, at this point, would be required prior to the issuance of the permit to conduct the work. Also, I will be leaving early today if you respond and I don't get back to you right away. You may also contact Darren Amundsen or Phil caswell directly if you have specific questions. Contact info below. Melanie Melanie Curt i s Planning & Zoning Coord ina t o r City of Orono 2750 Kel ley Parkw ay Oron o, MN 55356 Dire ct Di a l : 952.249.462 7 Fa x: 95 2 .24 9 .4 616 Planni n g & Zo n in g Off ice 952.24 9 .4 620 Email: mcurtis@ci.orono .mn .us We bsite: www.ci.orono .mn.us City of Orono Office Hours Monday -Friday 8 :00 am to 4 :30 pm From: Darren Amundsen [mailto :Darren .Amundsen@bonestroo .com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:28 AM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Phil Caswell Subject: 11-3518 3251 Casco Circle 9-16-11 Darren Amundsen, PE Associate Direct 651-604-4894 Cell 651-775-5623 Philip J. Caswell, PE Associate Direct 651-604-4766 Cell 651-271-7635 phil .caswell @bonestroo .com 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www .bonestroo .com Bonestroo has Joined Stantec, a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability, depth and diversity of talent, and technical ex pertise. 2 Sept@!mter li, 2t}11 Mel.nie Curtis itlinnin~ ,ma Zr,nin!!I C!icmlinitilr City ef eren@ Pest fJffice 110x ie Crystil 8.iy, MN 55323 Re: 3251 CiSC8 Circle File N0. ltlffl13~-11(tH-1 File Net. 11-351i !tear Melinie: 2335 Hi!hway 3e W St. It!!~, MN 55113 T~I i51-i3i~ F.ix i51-i;3i-1311 www .lHnestre1t.c1im #10nestrae We hiV'! reviewea the Jtl.ins for a 11rr,lilesell retainin!!I Wi system .nit stairwiy .it 3251 Cisc• Circle. The ,1ins ire alitetl ,-1-11. We hive the fell•win~ cemments with re!ilrGls t• e~!!linet!rin!!I mitters: • Sleite stillility ilni structural ilesi~n calculiti1ns must ~~ sulilmittea f~ review .iill&R!J . with the 111.ns inil ~<i~chnic1!l l investi!!iti•n re111irt. • The ~rilfiiin~ !ilin is ae::cei,tiltle. Hewtver it is unusue1I te hiive twtJ -[i'refessi@nal si!n.ture-s en @ne Jti;m. A n.irritive sh8ulti lie llf0Vi~ (em the ~Ian) .ex!l'liiinin!J• .. ny relatienshii, r,r res11@nsrltility ea1ch f'refessienc1I mmy heve $rl the ~ra<llin!l ll)liim. • The sullmittee itlans were si~neil lty l'llilx A. Green, ~~istriti0n Numli>er 1s1"1. Mr. Gr~n ~lileitl"S t• 1te licE!Tlseil te jiriilctice mecha1nic-.l en~neerin!!I in the St.ite tf w· Minnestiti. lllease piri,vicie informati,m shawin!J thiilt this structuriill .inf! g c nic..l;-----, 1traject is within his areiil 8f firictice int!I exjjertise. ~ W t o {, . If yeu hive iilny ~uestitms, ftlesse Cill me .it (iS1) 61'4-'4"'4 Glr senlll in em.ii t ~If-1/l.,/,l/\ (l) VV. ll.rren.«murnlsen@ll0nestrilf.l.Cilm . -0 ~ Sincerely, B•NESTR•• ltirre--n ii.mun1sen ~f ~JeJ b</LM~W Or C1i \ at l ,vtli1f')S ·tD IVlu\JK , p P'h] \9~ rC&{IYY1 (Vl(J /JV %i~t6llV1 g {fl 'rYW'tef2- . J -~~ , . MJf ,vvett< (,,I,'? I c:( ~ giivl~#iS-/~~ct A 1-1. Ii 00 : i •• ......• ,r \.~ ... ~~ "°"' r~1 -p,..-,o1 ~ 51,w_..,, ~~~~ ... """""'''an, • det1otu Iron monument found o dtnOtnltonplpeNt A ond 11'\0t~ed 01 SN)Wr1 · ~ S o■n ot.e, •oil bor1n9 Q <Mnotu percolation lnt hoi. Grading Pion on Lot 11, SPRING PARK, Uenn~m County. Allnneso to ,.- Grading Plan ~ ~. ro 'i : l \ . ·-~ ·(P :., \s- ·'5 \':'.) ro 'o ':'.) ' ~ \ <;)') ,. \ I J:c i,:e,1:,y certify this pl an , opecifi - c.:i. ~i o n, or ort, W&a pr epared by mo or iro ot. auperv1s1on and th &t I a.111 y Regist ered Pro:teaaiona.l Engineer u l"d er tho l&YS o:t tlio Stat.a oz Minnesota.. \_~••"'' '?7,-%~C7 ~ j Da. te 'l O r ' ' Registration No • .1.llil fltlHJ.EeTlOC.CnoN­ io ll l ,S,,,,,,,CPAlfJ<.~c..-il ,<.,._,_.a. ~tottt.t«-rlP'Ort,i.,.., _,.,,.., I) No_...,. r. ,.,,_ --...... fli. U..4 ~ 1; ,,,_. c.,, , &e,a1o1i a.,,w ... ,.,,,, ._. ._._-. J),.... .. ~,_,,.,.,u.,. ~i;f.,;~ &..OPE E1IOStOH CONTACl 8l>,Nt(ET MU,U.ATION ~-C,.ttQOlln'•~ IIIW,. I N•t"W'-.O'°""'M~IDG.UC. =~:::. , .... ""' ............... , .. CIONtU, .. 0,N:"00!,. ,. ~~..ii-Z~~T..:~ •\..OT ~tr8d•M""""' .. ,.._._'9'Cll~"ICl-l'LI.. .. ~-=""",~..,."ID • '11..41' ~f-=-,._,. • .u a~ t1 •t ~_.,,._.. .. ~a.ff'DG"'9W•~ Silt Fence Detail '-....... ., ~:;:r::::.,...,_ William Koch ~1..;:~- f,..._-.----,.,,_-"..,.,---....,....,..,....---.-,,_-...,-.. ---. M.L.H . 1" = 10' P.E.O. 917111 $. ___ ,_ no ,w..~..- ~#3" I I SSOCfATCS ,.,. (11J)IIU-.j$22 Job ,,,_ _,.....,..,_.., 1-11-0189 r.- t. ·117'\ 1 ·2 (II 1st .... /" ,, iftV ·•• ( I he reb y oertifythatt.hieplan, epeoi f i- cati o n, or report, WU prepared by me or urd e r my direot. auperl'iaion. and th&t. I &lll a :u ly Regiatere4 ~tonal Engineer un :er the, la,re o~'UlellaMotKiN\Hota . • -:;-,....7_,/ /] g ~, Date q/?/r / Reghtr&t.1on No.~~~ 933.5 931.5 / 943.5 963.5 953.5 KocH4 !<Ev.812/2011 i---.... 1 948 -FILTER ROCK 'l:'RAIN lll.E 8' VtRliCLf 1M3f.R ANCH'.R 4' OC 20' ' R F' I LMS:: ,6.ft-k, 952-472-4118 40' CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 TO: William & Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: ZONING FILE: 11-3517 Revised NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 15 September 2011 COPIES: Via Email Bob Swanson And Jim Smith Variances and Conditional Use Permit 12 September 2011 VOTE: 4 FOR 1* AGAINST *Dissenting Councilmember indicated the plan as proposed was acceptable . Motion: The Council voted on a motion to approve the conditional use permit and 0-75' zone hardcover variance to conduct the lake access stair and land alterations within 75' of the lake and the hardcover variance within the 75-250' zone to allow the driveway reconfiguration. The Council also voted on a motion to deny the 75'-250' zone hardcover variance to allow construction of a lakeside patio . Next Meeting: Your next meeting is scheduled for the September 26, 2011 Council meeting for approval of a resolution reflecting the motions referenced above. Also, as you are aware, revised plans certified by a qualified engineer are required to be submitted prior to issuance of an administrative land alteration permit and prior to the commencement of work on site. 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. If you have questions please contact Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, at mcurti s@ci.orono .mn .us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., 450 AND 550 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORT d) Bremer moved, seconded, to direct Staff to draft an amendme the development agreement between th of Orono and Ryan Companies U nc., with the understanding that the building can remain on t · e until December of , or if empty for 24 consecutive months, the building would need to be demo of the following year. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Bremer move ranchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6071, a Res · n Granting a o Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 for the property located at 1299 >N"'l'aan,n VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #11-3518 Wll,LIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIAN CE & CUP William Koch, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to remove an existing porch and construct a new 28' x 11' addition with partial second story on to the rear of the existing home at an 11. 7 foot setback. The existing home is set back from the side street lot line along Tonkaview Lane where a 35-foot setback is normally required. In order to construct an addition, a side street setback variance is required . The proposal will be conforming with respect to hardcover as well as structural coverage limitations. A conditional use permit is also required due to the amount of earth movement in the 0-75 foot zone. In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property. Variances for lot area, lot width, and hardcover were granted, allowing 3,363 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. In 2006, the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover consisting oflandscaping and walls. The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and reconfigured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75-250 foot zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover above the existing level and 724 square feet over the amount approved in 2006 resulting in 38.9 percent where 32.8 currently exists. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a pervious patio design with a catch basin and pipe to drain storm water to the existing rain garden. The lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicant would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A conditional use permit is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is considered allowed hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. -----------------Page 7 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) The Planning Commission voted 6 to O to recommend approval of the hardcover variances to allow the driveway reconfiguration as well as the lakeside patio. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and hardcover for the stairs. The applicant should submit a revised survey showing the proposed grading plan and an engineered design for review prior to issuance of the administrative permits for grading. The Council should discuss the additional hardcover requested within the 75-250 foot zone. Bill Koch, Applicant, stated when they purchased the home, there was a lake-side patio that was approved which was never constructed. Koch pointed out the area of the patio on the proposed plans. He has contacted Meadowood, who has done a considerable amount of work with permeable pavers, and they .• have designed a patio plan and drainage system that feeds into both rain gardens that are on site currentlyi Out of that 142 square foot area, there is one area that would be a planting area. There would also be a retaining wall to protect the integrity of the rain garden. The stair system would be done by Design Concepts. Koch noted the City was insistent on getting an engineer to review and approve it. Koch indicated he has spoken with 27 engineers to see if they would be willing to review and approve it. He finally found an engineer from Wisconsin who did visit the site and has put his stamp of approval on the plan. A grading plan has also been completed and provided to the City. Rahn noted the home is only five years old and that the City should have a survey showing whether the patio was approved. Curtis indicated there was an approved patio that was not constructed. The as-built survey completed this year showed that the site exceeds the 29.9 percent hardcover that was approved. Some minor changes were done on the lot that resulted in the increase. The City did not have an as-built survey requirement at that time. The house was built as approved but there were some landscaping changes resulting in the increased hardcover. Rahn noted the hardcover is currently at 32 percent and the applicant is proposing 38.9 percent. Koch indicated there was a hardcover variance granted at the time the house was constructed. Rahn asked if the 2006 survey is in the Council packet. Curtis indicated it should be in the packet as well as the resolution. Rahn stated the driveway needs to be enlarged to be functional but that he is having a difficult time understanding why it is over on hardcover since the driveway is less than what was approved. Rahn indicated he is not sure where the overages occurred. Koch noted they did not construct the house. Rahn stated in his view the driveway needs to be redone and the stairs are something that would typically be allowed, but that he would not be in favor of the patio until he receives additional information on the hardcover overage. Rahn commented that it is a matter of choice on what they want to construct and still comply with the hardcover requirements. Page 8 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Curtis displayed the 2006 survey on the overhead. Rahn stated the driveway depicted on the survey looks like the driveway that is now being proposed. Rahn stated he is still curious to know where the additional hardcover came from. Curtis indicated Staff has not done an analysis to determine where the increased hardcover exists. Koch stated they were looking at keeping the deck but extending it out. Koch stated they wanted to make sure the patio was located behind the fence, which blocks it largely from view from the adjoining neighbor. There is also a row of trees that would help block the patio. Koch noted the driveway is failing and needs to be replaced, but that he would rather have the patio approved and then work on making the driveway smaller than what has been proposed. Koch indicated they would like to enjoy the lake with a patio. Bremer indicated she would be amenable to the stair system since they appear to be reasonable. Koch commented the existing stair system is unsafe. Bremer stated the configuration of the driveway is a personal choice on the part of the applicant and that she also is having a difficult time determining where the extra hardcover came from. Curtis noted they currently are over by 87 square feet and they are requesting an additional 724 square feet. McMillan asked how many retaining walls have been added since the house has been constructed. Curtis indicated she does not have those figures. The total retaining wall footage that currently exists with the 75-250 foot zone is 122 square feet. McMillan commented that oftentimes these retaining walls are a necessity and that in her view it is somewhat of a penalty to be including retaining walls in the hardcover numbers when they are required due to the topography. McMillan noted the City does have a hardcover task force that is reviewing the City's policies and ordinances regarding hardcover but that at the present time they are required to look at the application under the current regulations. Koch indicated he has a civil and environmental engineering background and that the retaining walls are designed to retain the water and prevent runoff into the lake. The retaining walls act as retention ponds. Curtis stated another discrepancy in the surveys is the 2006 survey reflects 11,219 square feet in the 75- 250 foot zone and the current survey depicts 10,510 square feet in that zone. The two percent increase is a combination of the additional hardcover and the change in the zone. Bremer noted the zone got smaller by approximately 700 square feet. -----------------Page 9 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Koch stated the original surveyor is out of business and that another surveyor performed the hardcover calculations. The amount of land in the various zones has changed, which has resulted in the increased amount of hardcover in one zone. Rahn stated the driveway requires 208 square feet of hardcover, which he would be fine with, and that he is also okay with the stair system. Rahn stated until the hardcover task force comes back with their recommendations, he would not be okay with approving the hardcover for the patio and that the City cannot keep raising the amount of hardcover on the lots. Franchot commented in his view the entire proposal is reasonable and that the patio is not large in size. Franchot stated he is in favor of items that keep the water on the property, which has been done, and that he would vote in favor of the plan as submitted. Bremer noted it was originally approved in 2006 for 3,363 square feet of hardcover. There currently is 3,453 square feet, which is 90 feet over what was approved. Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Council Member Rahn that the deck might not be justified. The City sees a number of requests for additional hardcover similar to this request but that the City needs to enforce the hardcover limits even though the patio seems like the one thing the previous property owner would have constructed but didn't. Koch noted the plans did show a 142 square foot patio, which was approved, and that in his view the builder was trying to cut costs at the time of construction. McMillan expressed a concern about adding additional hardcover for a patio. McMillan indicated she is okay with the driveway and stairs but that she would only approve a maximum of 142 square feet for the patio, which was part of the original resolution. Rahn asked what the sidewalk is constructed out of on the north side of the house. Koch indicated it is constructed out of wood. Rahn noted the 2006 survey called for a permeable grate and that the City might not have included the sidewalk in their hardcover calculations. Printup asked whether the applicant would be interested in separating out the patio portion of the application and revisit it later. Koch indicated he would prefer not to do that and that he has spent approximately $12,000 in surveying costs getting to this point. Koch stated he would be willing to look at reducing the driveway but that he would also like to construct a patio. Koch noted the proposed patio would have a catch basin going to the rain garden but that they would not be able to construct that if they are limited to the 142 square feet. Koch indicated he does not want to go through this process again in order to come up with a new design. Franchot stated he does not see what the difference would be to separate it out. McMillan commented that the hardcover task force may come out with some changes that would impact that portion of the application. Page 10 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #11-3518 WILLIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Franchot noted the applicant's proposal for the patio is to make it a pervious surface. Rahn pointed out at some point in the future a new owner of the property might not like the patio and rain garden and remove it. The task force has not yet come to a decision regarding pervious surfaces. Rahn stated the driveway is a legitimate issue but that he is not sure where hardcover can be reduced. Rahn stated he would rather have a workable driveway than reduce the hardcover in that area. Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve Application #11-3518, William Koch, 3251 Casco Circle, granting 208 square feet of hardcover for the driveway, granting a conditional use permit to construct the lakeside stairway, but denying the lakeside patio. McMillan noted the City has denied similar patio requests in other applications. Rahn commented that is typically the case where a new owner would rather have the additional hardcover. Koch stated the house size is exactly the same as was approved. Bremer stated it is unique why the lot size has changed and that perhaps the 0-75 is starting back further because the shoreline is eroding. Koch indicated the shoreline is the same. Gaffron stated the likely difference between the 11,200 and 10,500 is that in 2006 they included the 11 or 12 feet by 60 feet in the 250-500 foot zone in the 75-250 foot zone. Gaffron noted he does not have the hardcover calculations from 2006 but that in his opinion that is where the difference comes from. Mattick stated the Council will need to vote on what is before them now rather than what happened in 2006 and that the applicant has no vested right in the variance that was granted in 2006. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Franchot Opposed. #11-3519 BAUER DESIGN BUILD, LLC o/b/o JEM TECHNICAL .. ......, .......... """' INC., 55 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, COMMERCIAL SIT EASEMENT VA ON -RESOLUTION NOS. 6072 AND 607 Bremer moved, Franchot sec ed, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6073, a Re tion Vacating a Dedicated Drainage and ity Easement within the Plat of Crystal Bay Business '--'"J,.--L_2nd ty Located at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na ----------------Pagellof28 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651 -636-1311 www.bonestroo.com September 16, 2011 Melanie Curtis -fteonestroo Planning and Zoning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 3251 Casco Circle File No. 000139-11000-1 File No . 11-3518 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the plans for a proposed retaining wall system and stairway at 3251 Casco Circle. The plans are dated 9-8-11. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • Slope stability and structural design calculations must be submitted for review along with the plans and geotechnical investigation report. • The grading plan is acceptable. However it is unusual to have two professional signatures on one plan . A narrative should be provided (on the plan) explaining any relationship or responsibility each professional may have on the g rading plan. • The submitted plans were signed by Max A. Green, Registration Number 16191. Mr. Green appears to be licensed to practice mechanical engineering in the State of Minnesota . Please provide information showing that this structural and geotechnica l project is within his area of practice and expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) 604-4894 or send an email to darren.amundsen@bonestroo.com . Sincerely, BONESTROO 0 -~ Darren Amundsen cc: Phil Caswell, Bonestroo A ..• ,I ~ ~ ,._. .... , _,,. r f\ NOrr: ~~&:::.Z.~,~ • denotH iron monument found o-..'""'.,.. ... A ond morked o• shown:~ $ denolu aoJI borin9 (ii dtl"OlH pereok,llon t..t hole Grading Pion ot1 Lot 11, SPRING P~RK. Honnepln County, Minnesota Grading Plan .,,~ MO.£CTLOCAnat- ~ .. ~ '."~ ".~ \~. •,:, \'~ 'o * ~ \ th is plan, epe oifi­ qrt wa.a pre pa r ed by me or ireot' ■uperv1s1on and that I a.DI y Registered Pr~eaa1onal Engineer un de r 1.he la,ra ot tbe State ot JiUnneaota.. •1"' ~ft c?. ~ • · < ~ ' • ' Reglstntion No, ...!.fil..g_!, _,.,,.,. ~ ~ ,,:~~ ,,::61 .,..__..,. I) Ht.~,. tllh,,_,. ... 1/tJt all.4 ~ l)....,..C.t.4~0.-.W._..t_.,,.,,._...._ J)...,.,.~,.,,.,~ $.$;?£ St..OPl:E~CONTROl 111..AHKET INSTM.i.AtlOfll IWWOf-CATIUOln'&&NilCITI IQll. 1,IN•.._.....ait_,_M.,....'IICIWC. , ... "U._,,_" __ "'_~--•-c---. -'-~~~..r.:...ze.;:~-:r.::.:: .. :;i.;;:;,,Mft.N."'"'-1.---l'C,WO.U., ...... N. ~c.J:?.~.h.-TirL~,:~-,m,.=a ._.....,.._,fOG'.,,__..m..,... Silt Fence Detail _., .... , 9/7/1 1 William Koch _,..,, M.L.H. --1· = 10' 0-Mol.,,. P .E.O . ""'L ... $~ ,.....,a.ru.,lltwt .,.._IJNU,IJ (1'13__.m _/113__,,,,, ........ "'""" 1-11-0 189 ~ _,_ ~, "'"'~ k. • {I I '>/111" /T "/Z (<'~V' \ ( 1 ho reb y oe r tity tha.t. this pla.n, apeo i fi - oatio n, or repon WU prepa.red by me or ur :le r my direot. npe&"T1■lon and th&t I alll a ,!u ly Regiaten4 ProtM■loaal Engineer un se r the la.n o~tu.E. IU.l\l\eaota., ..-;;>n /.?~E /'J. Da te .!iif:./J_ .Regiat.r&t.1on No • ..1fil2.l 943.5 953.5 963.5 KocH4 REv.8/2/2011 I R 948 -flL fER ROCK ... ~,.11.E 8' VERTICLE iM3ER ANC~ 4' OC 20' 40' c.o-uPT I.Al'{"P.,CAPt-lG 952-472-4118 Ra Council 09/12/11 Item Description: Application Summary: #11-3518 -William Koch -3251 Casco Circle CUP & Variances Bill Koch is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zone in order to remove and replace an existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new, lakeside patio and reconstruct the lake yard stair system. A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance within the 0-75' zone. In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property; variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 29.9% hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. Also, in 2006, the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover (landscaping & walls). The proposed patio shown on the plans was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and configured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio . The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75'-250' zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover above the existing level (and 724 square feet over the amount approved in 2006) resulting in 38 .9% where 32.8% currently exists (and 29.9% was approved). The applicant is proposing to incorporate a pervious patio design with a catch basin and pipe to drain stormwater to the existing rain garden . The existing lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating . The applicant would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. The City Engineer is currently working with the applicant toward an acceptable plan to be approved with an administrative land alterations permit following the CUP approval. A CUP is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is considered allowed hardcover within the Oto 75' zone yet will be acknowledged with this application. On August 15, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 to Oto recommend approval of the hardcover variances to allow the driveway reconfiguration as well as the lakeside patio. The commission also recommended approval of the CUP for the work on the stairs and slope . Staff recommends approval of the CUP and hardcover for the stairs . The applicant should submit a revised survey showing the proposed grading plan and an engineered design for review prior to issuance of the administrative permits for grading. The Council should discuss the additional hardcover requested within the 75' to 250' zone. Tonight the Council should discuss the CUP and hardcover variance requests and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council's decision. The applicant and his representatives are here for questions . l OCJ l O r Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bill Melanie Curtis Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1: 10 PM 'The Kochs' Tom Kellogg ; 'Darren Amundsen'; 'Phil Caswell'; 'jhsmith3102' RE : Koch Residence -Slope Stabilization and Stair Replacement I've had some more time to go through your email again and have added a few more responses to your itemized po ints. Please see my additional responses below in RED . Melanie From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 5:03 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Tom Kellogg; Darren Amundsen; Phil Caswell; jhsmith3102 Subject: Re: Koch Residence -Slope Stabilization and Stair Replacement Melanie : I was just about to write to you to let you know that the 28th(?) time is the charm . After speaking with more than two dozen engineers who have not been interested in our project, we have found one who is good to go . In fact, he was out at our site yesterday, and met with Jim Smith and reviewed his plans. He has already reviewed more data about the plan and has a very good preliminary feel about the proposal. There may be a little tweeking involved , but he was very positive . I would like to note a couple of things (okay , more than a couple): 1. More than the City , we do not want the hill to fail. If it fails, it causes us more heartache and cost. We would be simply throwing good money away. We want to protect our property and the lake even more than the City . Your stated desire to not have the slope fail is reassuring. Apart from a strong desire, however, the City has an obligation to follow a standardized process that helps protect all lakeshore owners, including future ones, from such failures. 2. While we have had an impossible time getting engineers interested in this project, it has never been about Jim Smith's design . The engineers have never seen the design or visited our property . Any claim or inference to the contrary in Phil's memo is misplaced. As I have repeatedly told you and Tom Kellogg, the lack of interest is in getting involved in a "small residential project" involving a steep hill on a lake . Even those engineers or firms who advertise residential engineering work have told me they have largely gotten out of doing such engineering, particularly of walls . (Candidly, it likely cannot help that we are in Orono . We truly enjoy it here and are glad we moved here, but I have heard from several engineers , "Oh, your are in Orono. You do know what the last two letters of your city's name spells, right?" Th is seems to be a tired joke among contractors and engineers, as I have heard it from several sources .) Retaining an engineer is the responsibility of the home owner, and the City does not refer or recommend particular engineers. Our engineer routine ly reviews submittals from homeowners, prepared by local eng ineers, for slope stabilization projects, the majority of which are approved and constructed. 3. In looking at Marty Gray's diagram yesterday with the engineer and J im Smith , we all realized that Marty did not seem to have the proper scale on the vertical components of the underground wall system --and I want to make sure the City and Bonestroo understand the underground walls are currently designed to have 8' vert ical supports every 4-5' feet in front of the 4' vertical walls . Marty's drawing shows different length vertical posts , and none of them look to be 8'. It may be that a longer vertical support is needed, say about 10-12' to get pas the arguable filure s lope (see more about this below). But reliance alone on Marty's presentation of those vertical supports is inappropriate . 1 City Staff and our Engineer are trying to help move this toward resolution . We can only rely on what is submitted. There is/was no explanation included with the submittals describing which of the information is incomplete or inaccurate. 4. We have been bending over backwards to find an engineer to get involved with this site , even though I understand no other city on Lake Minnetonka would require an engineering review of this type of system . Can you identify any other city in the area that would require an engineer to sign off on our design? (I've inserted my response from the prev ious email for continuity.) Your statement regarding Orono be ing the on ly lakeshore city to require engineered designs for this type of project is not quite accurate. I know most Lake Minnetonka cities have similar requirements for this type of project. The language in our Shoreland regulations is taken from the DNR's model ordinance which is designed to meet the DNR's requirements for the City's administration of the State's rules. Specifically, I spoke wit h the following cities today"to verify my understanding : Shorewood, Wayzata, Excelsior and Mound. Each of these cities have almost the identical language in their Shoreland regulations as Orono 's 78-1286(e) (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. In some cases the words "the city engineer" were replaced with the words "qualified professional " but I understand from my conversations with staff from each city the meaning is the same or similar. Their permitting/approva l processes were similar to Orono's in that they each require supporting plans and engineering certification as deemed necessary for both proposed slope projects and response to catastrophic fail ures. 5. The City of Orono has allowed Jim Smith to construct underground walls like this numerous times around the late for the last 1 O years . And , just last year , the City and Bonestroo approved the use of a wall such as this in one day --with you and Tom Kellogg signing off. I am not sure where the sudden concern comes from with regard to our site . If our hill failed , I expect the City would rush approval of Jim's design as it has in the past. We are trying to be proactive so there is not a failure , but it sure is getting tiring being held to a different standard than others . I am not sure which project you are referring to; if you have a property address or homeowner name please advise so I can properly respond. 6 . When I met with you and Tom Kellogg early on in this project , I raised that it might be appropriate to construct a small wall at the base of the hill to retain any surface erosion from creeping in to the lake . (And , as Marty Gray's analysi shows , .there is natural erosion that has resulted in several feet of topsoil down closer to the lake than along the slope of the hill -­ eactly what I was referencing with you .) You both were adamant that such a wall would not be approved and was a non­ starter , and was not needed in any event. You noted that you had been involved with worse hills than ours and had not approved walls for those hills . While I recognize a short wall would not hold back a significant hill failure , I wonder what systems the worse-hills-than-ours developed to address slope stab ility issues . When we met, we discussed several potentia l projects on your property. I reca ll discussing alternatives to address your stair and wall slope concerns. We did discuss the City's view of new walls on the lakeshore and that typically we don't allow walls at the base of the slope in the place of other natural methods of stabilization . Walls such as these are typically reviewed as part of a CUP and hardcover variance review. At that time I believe it was your desire to replace the sta ir system in-kind through an administrative permit. 7. You have long maintained the need for the engineering review was for our protection , as well as the City's . As I have said , Jim Smith has $2 million in insurance coverage . He has installed dozens of these systems w ithout incident. The engineers we contacted have $1 million in insurance coverage (I am not even sure about our current engineer). There is very little added financial "protection" to us for bringing on an engineer , but we have done that. We do not want to install a system that is likely to fail. I am still at a loss from what the City feels it needs the "protection" of the engineering review -­ it would not appear to be protection of the lake s ince Orono appears to be the only city requiring such an engineering review. Additionally , the City is not a party to any contract so the City could not sue the engineer if he signs off on a plan . And I cannot see how the City would have any liability , in any event. If the City believes it has financial exposure from us should this go forward without an engineer (which we do not believe w ill be necessary), we have long offered to sign a waiver of any such liability . If there is some other reason "protection" is needed , please tell me . The best protection is to have the slope designed and constructed properly . The engineer's and contractor's insurance isn't a protective measure, but only exists to fix a failure . Protection is needed for future owners of the property -after the engineer, contractor, and current property owner are gone. 2 8. We want to be responsive to the City's and Bonestroo's concerns, but I really want the City and Bonestroo to be reasonable . The City staff and its engineer are obligated to ensure that the City's laws and rules for development are followed -no more, no less. 9. Another engineer who had expressed a potential willingness to get involved in our project (after the engineer we are going with had gotten involved) said he feels Marty Gray was wrong in his soil analysis . He feels his method of hand­ augering (which we had to do to meet the tight timeline for the Planning Commission meeting due to the mobilzation lead time needed for an ATV-mounted rig) yielded a much more conservative estimate and analysis than is likely approp r iate for the site . The engineer stated that if a different boring method had been used he was confident the slope stability would have been quite a bit higher, and would not have the same failure concerns . He said such a likely outcome would show the underground system would be wholly appropriate for the site . (Indeed , that position is corroborated by the mere fact that our hill has not failed, even though it has had a non-code wall/stair system for the last 20-30+ years . The only bulging in one wall appears to be in an area where soil has washed out from behind the wall such that frost heaving may have caused the bulging .) That engineer's belief inthe stability of the hill was consistent with Tom Kellogg's statement to me when he called me a few weeks ago to , in part, apologize for the manner in which our application was being processed and offered to answer any questions I might have , when he said he was confident the soil anlaysis would show the hill/slope stability "would be fine ." The method of soil sampling and stability analysis was performed by an engineer licensed in Minnesota, solely at his discretion. Any other professional opinions, analyses or designs, based upon engineering calculations and judgment, stamped by a licensed engineer, may be submitted for review. Perhaps this (other) engineer should be retained. 10. My understanding of a geog rid system after talking with two different engineers who are familiar with those systems (after you first raised it as a possibility in the last week), is that it would require quite a bit more excavation than what we are proposing . And the cost would be undoable, with the need to bring a crane by barge into our site . I cannot envision such a system ever being feasible . This is entirely possible. There are several viable methods for stabilizing a steep soil slope. Installed cost is one factor to take into consideration. This must be compared to other methods, however, taking into account the system design life, or life cycle cost, to determine the best value. We expect to be in a position to have an engineer sign off on a slightly modifed design as the City and Bonestroo have long required. I hope/expect this will be sufficient to address the City and Bonestroo's concerns . I understand you are now willing to not require the grading plan prior to the City Council meeting , but we expect to have the grading plan to the City by August 29 as you had recently requested , although we are still waiting for our old surveyor (Jim Parker) to get his data to our new surveyor (Paul Otto). We appreciate the extra breathing room on this , if needed. Finally, could you please tell me what the timing of approval of the administrative zoning permit would be following action by the City Council? We would like to keep this entire project moving forward in a timely manner Bill -----Original Message ----- From: "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn .us> To : "Bill Koch (mnkochs@mchsi.com)" <mnkochs@mchsi .com> Cc: "Tom Kellogg" <tom .kellogg@bonestroo .com>, "Darren Amundsen" <Darren.Amundsen@bonestroo .com>, "Phil Caswell" <Phil .Caswell@bonestroo .com> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10 :50 :52 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: FW: Koch Residence -Slope Stabilization and Stair Replacement Bill Please see the attached comments from Phil caswell (Phil is one of our engineers who works with Tom Kellogg at Bonestroo) regarding a subterranean wooden support system. As you know, City offices close at 11:30 on summer Fridays. If you have follow up questions please feel free to contact Phil caswell directly. Phil's contact information is pasted below. I would appreciate being copied on emails so I can remain in the loop. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the imp eated by the granting of the requested variances? Planning Sta ecommends approval of the setback variance as proposed. Fabric or plasf should be remo d from all landscape areas on the property in order to reduce hardcoy, Thiesse asked wheth any of the roads are private . Gaffron stated it is fully developed a · s time and that he does ng ·kticipate any further development. Levang noted the house is located very clo to the road and , at there does not appear to be a ditch in that area. Thiesse stated the more important issue is the dr ,· ween this property and the boulder wall on the adjoining property. Kent Welkin, 4615 Tonkaview, sta Wildhurst Trail. Chair Schoenzeit opened t mments regarding this application. osed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m . Alexander · oved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. #11-7, 1299 Trail, granting of a side street setback variance, subject to Staff recommendations. VOT . Ayes 6, Nays 0. 3. #11-3518 WILCIAM H. KOCH, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIAN CE, 6:39 P.M. -7:07 P.M. William Koch, Applicant , was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75 foot zone and 75-250 foot zone in order to remove and replace the existing, crumbling paver driveway, install a new patio and reconstruct the lake yard stair system. A CUP is also required due to the amount of disturbance in the 0-75 foot zone. -----------------Page2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property. Variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 3,363 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the existing hardcover. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. They would also like to construct a lake-side patio. In addition, the lake slope wall and stair system is comprised of wooden timbers and is rapidly deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs, install a subterranean support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A conditional use permit is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The stair system hardcover is allowed hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. The home was constructed generally according to the approved plans. In 2006, the City did not have an as-built survey requirement and there appears to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover. Those modifications appear to be largely additional retaining walls resulting in an additional 87 square feet of hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The proposed patio was not constructed and the driveway was reduced and reconfigured to avoid an existing tree which has since died. The applicant would like to reconstruct the driveway and construct a lake-side patio. The applicant's proposed hardcover changes within the 75-250 foot zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover over the existing level and results in 38.9 percent hardcover where 32.8 percent exists. The 400 square foot patio design includes 16 square feet of retaining wall, permeable pavers, a catch basin to collect storm water and a pipe to direct storm water to the existing rain garden which may need to be enlarged or modified to account for the additional volumes. The addition 10 square feet within the 0-· 75 foot zone is considered allowed hardcover as it is to be part of the new stair system. Earth movement which exceeds 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the lake requires a conditional use permit. The applicant is currently working towards development of a stabilization plan which meets City Engineer approval. This plan should be certified by the applicant's engineer and finalized prior to the issuance of the administrative grading permit to begin the work. if/ The public hearing should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion prevention or stabilization of slope, natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover, and impacts to adjacent properties. The City Engineer will review the plans from a stability and safecy perspective. Staff finds the applicant has a practical difficulty in the orientation and condition of the existing driveway. The driveway was not constructed in conformance with the approved plan and therefore has a shallow back-up area which does not meet the current minimum driveway standard. The applicant's proposal now slightly exceeds the required minimum and appears to be more functional. Staff supports granting the hardcover variance to reconstruct the driveway, granting a conditional use permit, and a 0-75 foot hardcover variance to allow slope stabilization and construction of a new stair. While the applicant's proposal includes permeable pavers and a sub-grade system to treat the excess storm water from the patio, current City code does not discount pervious pavers. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Issues for discussion include the following: 1. Does the Commission identify a practical difficulty which supports granting the hardcover variances? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 5. Does the Commission find there are additional conditions which should be placed upon the conditional use permit approval? Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the grading work within the 0-75 foot zone as well as a hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the driveway. The applicant should submit a revised survey reflecting the proposed grading plan prior to placement on a City Council agenda. Further, the applicant should be required to submit plans and necessary information to satisfy the City Engineer regarding the slope stabilization at the time of the administrative land alteration permit following Council approval. Thiesse stated asked where the City is with their review of the hardcover ordinances and whether permeable pavers would be included in that. Curtis indicated that review is still ongoing and there has not been a final determination. The Planning Commission will need to act under the existing code. Landgraver noted there are four sets of hardcover numbers listed in Staffs report and asked how those numbers progressed. Curtis stated in the 75-250 foot zone, the 2,627 is 25 percent, which is allowed by code. The 3,366 square feet was approved by variance in 2006. The 3,450 square feet is what currently exists on the property. There were some minor changes to the grading and retaining walls during the construction of the home, and without the as-built survey requirement, it was not noticed during inspection of the home. Curtis noted the applicant is over his hardcover limit by 634 square feet over what is existing with what he is proposing, for a total of 4,087 square feet. Landgraver asked whether that consists primarily of the patio. Curtis indicated it includes the patio and the adjustment to the driveway. At the time of original construction, they were attempting to avoid a tree, which has since died. In addition, construction of the driveway involved some removal of trees but not tree trunks, which has caused some settling. Bill Koch stated the house was built at the time they purchased the property in November of 2008. When they purchased the house, the survey showed there was a 142 square foot patio that appeared to be Page4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. approved from the documents that they received. Koch indicated he then met with Planner Evelyn Turner approximately one year ago and were told that he could put in the patio without any permits. At that same time the driveway was failing and the decision was made to reconfigure it. Koch noted he does have a civil and environmental engineering background and that he is aware of the hardcover regulations in Orono. In designing the larger patio, it was treated as being 100 impervious, which it likely will not be. Currently there is a small paver landing that they would like to replace and install a retaining around the whole thing to keep it secure. It is a 142 square foot patio. Koch stated they would like to keep one section open to act as a planter area. As it relates to the larger patio space, there is a catch basin to catch the runoff and be diverted into two rain gardens. Koch commented there should be plenty of capacity to catch that runoff and that he does not expect any storm water from that area to reach the lake or the neighbors' properties. Koch indicated he does have some concerns with the soil in the area of the retaining wall. Soil borings were done at the request of the City and showed that the soil in the area is apparently clay with thin layers of sand. They are looking at options to properly stabilize that. The City has requested an engineer sign off on that part of the project. Koch indicated he has spoken with a couple dozen engineers but that he has found no one who is willing to sign off on a small residential project. Koch stated he would like to deal with the wall before there is a failure. Koch pointed out on the overhead the area of the top wall that is bulging. In addition, some of the logs are deteriorating. Koch stated he got Concept Landscaping involved because of their experience in dealing with similar hills. They have developed a subterranean wall system for the site. Because of the failure plane, Staff has expressed some concern with it and so a representative from Concept Landscaping is here tonight to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission would look at the professional engineer signature to help ensure that the system designed will work properly and it also affords the homeowner some type of warranty. Koch noted most professional engineers carry one million dollars in liability insurance and that Concept Landscaping carries two million dollars. Koch reiterated he is not sure ifhe will be able to find a professional engineer who would be willing to sign off on this project. Schoenzeit stated that is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission but that in his view the applicant more than likely will not want to proceed without that engineer sign-off. Levang indicated she has some questions regarding the driveway and asked what the reason is for widening the driveway. Koch stated at the time the driveway was originally constructed, there were two large trees in the immediate area. The trees were bare at the time they moved into the house. Given the configuration of the driveway, it is very difficult to access the garage and that they would like to reconfigure it to allow for better access. Levang asked what type of paver would be installed. -----------------Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Koch indicated it would be the same type of paver as proposed in the back. Schoenzeit asked whether the driveway work would also include removal of the stumps. Koch indicated the stumps would be removed. Schoenzeit asked how the proposed patio changes affect the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated the patio is at grade and does not impact the average lakeshore setback. Koch noted there is a wall of evergreens that screen the patio from the one neighbor. The home on the other side has no windows on the wall facing their house. The patio would be set back from their deck area as well and there should be minimal impact to the neighbors. Levang asked whether they have contemplated planting some additional trees in that area. Koch pointed out there is also a fence in the area that obscures approximately half of the patio but that they would be willing to plant some shrubs if that is a concern of the Planning Commission. Koch indicated he has spoken with the neighbors and that they are not opposed to the project. Curtis noted the City has not received any comments from the neighbors. Levang asked if there are any plans to expand the existing rain garden. Koch indicated they do not have any plans to expand that at this point. Levang asked what the retaining wall would be constructed of. Robert Swanson, Meadowood, indicated the retaining wall would be a modular block wall. Leskinen asked if the patio would require additional or special maintenance over the years to prevent runoff down the slope. Swanson stated the bioactivity that is created in the open core aggregate will not allow any more of an inch to three-quarters of organic matter to build up within the paving surface, which are designed at three inches. The pavers should never seal off entirely, but in the event they did, there will be a zone of clear aggregate that will be installed to help prevent that. If there is not 100 percent percolation through the pavers, there is a slope to the catch basins, which will catch any water that then would be diverted into the rain gardens. Leskinen asked if the pipes would ever have to be flushed out. Swanson indicated they do not. Swanson stated the soils will percolate to a certain degree down to 50 degrees. A pipe that comes with an overflow that is located under the paver surface will also divert the water into the rain garden area. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Page6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jerry Luesse, 3249 Casco Circle, stated he is here to support the application of the variance and other requirements. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Schoenzeit commented the configuration of the driveway appears reasonable. The question is whether the applicant should be allowed expansion of hardcover for the patio. Thiesse pointed out the drainage system that was described for the patio may not work on the driveway. Swanson stated they were not proposing to do the driveway as a permeable surface. Thiesse noted the rain garden on the 2006 survey is larger than what is being proposed and that all of the water on that side of the house does drain to the northerly property currently. Schoenzeit suggested taking Staffs recommendations and to have the size of the rain garden verified by the City Engineer. Thiesse commented rain gardens are a great item but that he wants to ensure it will work properly. Schoenzeit noted they are adding additional hardcover which will increase the runoff. Koch stated they have not had any problems with it in the past but that they would be willing to enlarge it if the City Engineer felt that was necessary. Curtis asked if the rain garden on the south lot line is similar in size to the rain garden on the north side. Koch stated it starts approximately 10 feet out from the back of the home and then goes approximately 20 feet. Koch indicated he has not altered it. It is a very shaded area and it is difficult to get anything to grow in there. Landgraver asked how the drainage on the south side of the house flows from the garage. Koch indicated it goes pretty much in a straight line down to the rain garden. Landgraver noted that rain garden is not as prominent as the other rain garden and that the concern of the Planning Commission is to ensure that there is adequate capacity with the additional hardcover. Schoenzeit encouraged the applicant to verify the capacity of the rain garden. Koch stated he does not have a problem with that. Schoenzeit commented that Staffs recommendations and requirements appear to be sufficient to address that concern. Levang asked what Staff would do in the event the applicant is not able to find an engineer to sign off on the project. ----------------Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 15, 2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated Staff has been working with the applicant to explore other solutions and that they would continue to work towards a solution. If a solution cannot be reached before the application goes before the City Council, the Council would need to determine whether that requirement could be waived. Thiesse asked whether the fact that the applicant is unable to get an engineer to sign off on that portion of the project would impact the rest of his application. Curtis indicated if need be they could separate that portion of the application. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application #11-3518, 3251 Casco Circle, granting of the conditional use permit in order to remove and replace the existing paver driveway and to reconstruct the lake yard stair system per Staff's recommendations and requirements. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application #11-3518, 3251 Casco Circle, installation of the patio. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. #11-3519 BAUER DESIGN BUILD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF RYAN CO 550 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN RE Technical Marketing, and Gaffron stated the ap · cant is requesting industrial site plan appro for expansion of the newly vacant office/warehouse indust · building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Ro orth, which is located on the southeast comer of Wayzata: oulevard and Old Crystal Bay . ad. The proposed expansion follows the recently reviewed replat of Lot and 2, Block 2, Crystal y Business Center, and is proposing is to move the boundary between the tw ots further south. Ryan Companies platted Crystal Bay Busi s Ce r in 2007 and constructed the existing 40,000 square foot building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road no n 2008. The building has remained vacant and the interior is unfinished. JEM Technical Marke · g manufacturer of high performance hydraulic, electro-hydraulic, and pneumatic cartridge ves an · currently based in three buildings in Long Lake. They would like to consolidate their bus· ss and are rap outgrowing their existing facilities. JEM Technical would like to rema· m this area and have a pure e agreement with Ryan for the building at 550 Old Crystal Bay ad, subject to the ability to expan at building by constructing a 20,000 square foot two-story ciition to its south end. The 140'x140' a ·tion will have a defined height of 30 feet with a partial par et at 34 feet near the southwest corner. The ex · g building has a defined height of 24 feet with th orthwest corner parapet at 27 feet. The proposed use · manufacturing and marketing a product. · s property is located in the Industrial District and is a pe · ed use. Access to the site · proposed to be relocated further south along Old Crystal Bay Road an anticipated to r uire any significant changes to turn lanes or striping. Pages Subject: Background 11-3518, William Koch, 3251 Casco Circle CUP/Grading & Hardcover Variances Public Hearing In 2006, a new home was constructed on the property; variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover were granted allowing 3,363 square feet (or 29.9%) of hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone in conjunction with the approved plans. The patio shown on the variance approval and building permit survey was not constructed and therefore not included in the applicant's existing hardcover calculations. The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their paver driveway. The existing pavers are sinking and deteriorating and the layout is not functional. They would also like to construct a lake-side patio. Finally, the lake slope wall and stair system is rapidly deteriorating. The applicants would like to remove the existing stairs, install a support system to stabilize the slope and construct a new stair system. A CUP is required due to the amount of disturbance proposed. The home and site were developed generally according to the approved plans. At the time, the City did not have an As-Built Survey requirement and there appear to have been minor changes during the construction which resulted in additional hardcover. The applicant's proposed additional hardcover within the 75' -250' zone result in 634 square feet of additional hardcover over the existing level (and 724 square feet over the amount approved in 2006) resulting in 38.9% where 32.8% exists. The 400 square foot patio design includes 16 square feet of retaining wall, permeable pavers, a catch basin to collect stormwater and a pipe to direct stormwater to the existing rain garden. Conditional Use Permit Earth movement which exceeds 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the lake requires a CUP. The applicant is currently working towards development of a stabilization plan which meets city engineer approval. This plan should be certified by the applicant's engineer and finalized prior to the issuance of the administrative grading permit to begin the work. The public hearing should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion prevention or stabilization of slope, natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover and impacts to adjacent properties. The city engineer will review the plans from a stability and safety perspective. Staff finds the applicant has a practical difficulty in the orientation and condition of the existing driveway. Staff supports granting the hardcover variance to reconstruct the driveway; granting a CUP and 0-75' hardcover variance to allow slope stabilization and construction of a new stair. Finally, while the applicant's proposal includes permeable pavers and a sub-grade system to treat the excess stormwater from the patio, the current code does not discount pervious pavers. The planning commission should discuss the patio and make a recommendation regarding the hardcover variance. Staff Recommendation FILE #11-3518 10 August 2011 Page 2 of 2 Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the grading work within the 0 to 75 foot zone as well as a hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the driveway. The applicant should be required to submit a revised survey reflecting the proposed grading plan prior to placement on a City Council agenda . Further the applicant should be required to submit plans and necessary information to satisfy the city engineer regarding the slope stabilization at the time of the administrative land alteration permit following Council approval. The planning commiss ion should discuss the hardcover variance to allow construction of the 400 square foot patio area and make a recommendation . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #11-3518 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of August, 2011. ~~ Monica A. Fadness CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on August 15, 2011, beginning at 6 :30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications and vacation request: 11-3517 Patti Hylen, 1299 Wildhurst Trail, LR-1B zoning district, requests a side street setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the rear portion of the home 11 .7-feet from the street side lot line where a 35-foot setback is required and a 9.4- foot setback currently exists . 11-3518 William H . Koch, 3251 Casco Circle, LR-1 C zoning district, requests a conditional use permit for grading in excess of 10 cubic yards within the 0-75 foot zone in order to reconstruct the lake access stair and remove existing, failing, retaining walls ; a hardcover variance to allow 6 .1 % hardcover where 5.9% currently exists within the 0-75' zone to reorient the stairs ; and a hardcover variance within the 75 '-250' zone in order to conduct landscaping activities including new retaining walls, a new patio and repair and reconstruction of the existing driveway in more efficient configuration resulting in 38.9% hardcover where 32.8% currently exists. 11-3519 Bauer Design Build LLC on behalf of JEM Technical Marketing Co, Inc., 550 Old Crystal Bay Road N, Industrial zoning district, requests a commercial site plan review in order to construct an addition to the existing building; vacation of the existing water main utility easement is also proposed . The water main will be relocated and a new easement will be granted over the water main in the new location . 11-3520 Harold & Sandra Wingerd , 1376 Baldur Park Road, LR-1C zoning district, request hardcover variances in order to reorient the garage doors and driveway access to the property. The applicants request a variance to allow 40.24% hardcover within the northeast 0-75' zone where 40 .83% currently exists ; a variance to allow 13.25% hardcover within the southwest 0-75' zone where 9.21% currently exists ; and a variance to allow 46 .5% hardcover within the 75 '-250' zone where 37.23% currently exists in order to realign the driveway completely within the subject property. 11-3521 Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle, LR-1 C zoning district, requests variances in order to reorient and reduce the existing lakeside decks , reorient the driveway , add dormers on the lake side of the home, and construct a garage addition on the street side of the home . An average lakeshore setback variance and a variance within the 75'-250' zone is required to allow 30 .5% hardcover where 30 .5% currently exists are requested in order to change the location of structural hardcover. 11-3522 Steiner & Koppelman on behalf of Nancy Bigos, 3350 Fox Street, LR-1A zoning district, requests an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the existing home partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by, August 9, 2011 if possible. Interested persons may review the application at City offices. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono B~ Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on July 30, 2011. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office 2 RUN DATE: 7/19/2011 38 20-117-2342 0031 DS&KJOWEN 3486 IVY PL DAV1D S & KAY J OWEN 3486 IVY PL WAYZATAMN 55391 3 8 20-117-23 43 0008 ROBERT G LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR ROBERT G LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0053 PATRICK J NEUV1LLE 3271 CASCO CIR PATRICK J NEUV1LLE 3271 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESE~ AS IT APPEARS THIS DA TE ON THE RECO HENNEPli\ ;NTY PROPERTY INFORiVIA TION SYSTEM (PROPERTY 0 38 20-117-23 43 0006 MARYL TUCKER TRUSTEE 3466 IVY PL MARYL TUCKER 3466 IVY PL WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0009 LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 DATE: JUL 1 9 2011 sl..,,___/--1-J.J,.l~"'-"""'~~----- RECEIVED ,1111 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO ,RS LIST) 38 20-117-23 43 0007 WlLLIAM H KOCH ET AL 325 I CASCO CIR WJLLIAM H KOCH LAURADKOCH 325 I CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-2343 003 I THE CASCO CO 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO PARKS PO BOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 RECEIVED JUL 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO PAGE: 1 #3518 Hand-Delivered Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Application #11-3518 Dear Ms. Curtis: 3251 Casco Circle Orono,MN 55391-9717 August 5, 2011 #3518 This is in response to the City's request for additional information as set forth in your letter of July 27, and the accompanying memorandum from the City's Engineer (Bonestroo). Based upon our discussions since you sent the letter, I understand the City is waiving the earlier request for a couple of items, which will be noted below. The City and Bonestroo asked for the following additional information: Revised Survey The City wanted to ensure the certificate of survey included the following information: setback zones from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, the proposed structures, all proposed hardcover, and the average lakeshore setback. Following a site visit by you and Darren Amundsen ofBonestroo, the City has waived its requests to have us include existing topographic contours extending 50' beyond our property boundaries, as well as a request for an indication of the total cubic yards of proposed earth movement on/off the site.1 I have asked the City to waive the requirement to provide the existing and proposed stormwater drainage on the site given the site visit you accomplished, the existing survey, and the mere fact that our property has very definite drainage patterns -water from the driveway seeps into the ground beneath the driveway, or flows slightly into the road or to the sides of the driveway. Additional storm water, if there is a very heavy rain, would flow down our two side yards and into our two rain gardens -if it makes it that far. Our back yard is very flat, and the water simply seeps into the ground; there is no runoff onto our neighboring properties, or any real flow of water down the hill. The survey has been revised to show the proper placement of the proposed steps. Our contractor, Jim Smith/Concept Landscaping, discovered recently that the steps were not placed in the correct location on the survey earlier submitted by Jim Parker/ Advanced Surveying & Engineering. The earlier improper placement of these stairs made it appear as if there was more 1 While the City and its engineer have waived this requirement, we are including some additional information that will largely address the material that is expected to be taken in/out of the property with regard to the three projects. Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page 2 of3 earth movement required. As it is currently shown, we believe any earth movement would be rather negligible. Slope Stability Calculations Enclosed is the Slope Stability Report for our hill, and the proposed step and underground retaining wall system. This was completed by Marty Gray of Gray Engineering, LLC, in Minnetonka. Mr. Gray is a licensed geotechnical engineer, as was requested by the City and Bonestroo. Mr. Gray's found our hill is made up largely of clay soils, with a few much smaller veins (1" -2") of sand. As his report indicates, the proposed new construction has a factor of safety calculated at 1. 034. Because of these results, we understand the City and Bonestroo would like us to retain an engineer to help review/design the retaining walls. Although the current proposal meets code requirements, there is concern about a possible failure if the retaining wall system is not properly designed. As we have said repeatedly, we do not want the hill to fail -more so than anyone. We are looking to identify an engineer capable (and willing, given the very small size of this residential project) to work on this with us. As I have shared with you, I have been in contact with more than two dozen engineers and engineering firms, and not a single entity has wanted to work on such a small residential project. We will keep at it. More Detailed Drawings for the Steps/Walls Enclosed are more detailed cross-sections for the proposed steps and the proposed underground retaining wall system. I believe these drawings address each of the issues identified by Mr. Amundsen in his memo. Correct Inconsistencies As mentioned above, the last survey submitted to the City had the proposed stairs in the wrong direction. In essence, the depicted stairs were too far to the right (looking from the lake) and started at the wrong elevation. That is corrected on the revised survey which is enclosed. We tried to identify the source of Mr. Amundsen's reference to the 967 .5' elevations in his memo. That appears to have come from one of the initial submissions we made, which was based upon a rough, in-field determination of the elevation of the top-of-the-slope conducted by Concept Landscaping. That was obtained by "shooting" the hill with an eye scope to prepare a bid for the project; this was not an exact elevation. In contrast, the work depicted on the survey properly shows the elevation of the top-of-the-slope as being between 963. 7' and 965. 5 '. As indicated on the proposal from Concept Landscaping, the steps would go to about 965 .1 '. Indeed, looking at the survey, our property does not rise to the 967.5' elevation until about where our house is located. Grading Plan (Preliminary) Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page 3 of3 We have attached the preliminary grading plan for the slope. I understand the City would like us to formalize this on the survey for the City Council meeting, and the City does not need a proposed grading plan for the driveway or the patio. Conclusion I believe we have addressed each area raised by the City and Bonestroo . It appears we will have more work to do with regard to engineering review/design of the proposed retaining walls. We are working on that. We would very much like to stay on track with the Planning Commission meeting on August 15, and the City Council meeting on September 12. Thank you . Enclosures 1. Revised Surveys 2. Product In, Product Out Estimate (Meadowood) 3. Soil Movement Estimate (Concept Landscaping) 4. Slope Stability Report, and attachments 5. Schematic of Proposed Stairs and Underground Wall System 6. Cross-Section of Typical Stair Section 7. Cross-Section of Underground Wall System 8. Cross-Section of Stairs and Underground Wall System 9. Diagram of Correct Placement of Stairs on Survey (highlighted) 10. Grading Plan for the Slope Attachment 1 110226 20/117 /~} Jf OC:::H, BILL A8 1V ANCE 'StUfl;VE'Fl!NG & ENw;NEEIHNG ,C<J. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 www.advsur.com SURVEY FOR: BILL SURVEYED: May 26, 2011 BRAFTED: May 27, 2011 REWSED: July 1, 2011 REVISED: July 14, 2011 to show cut oufin deck and reduced hard cover. REVISED: July 20, 2011 to show proposed stairs, different patio, drive realignment. REVISED: August 4, 2011 to show different stair location, landing elevations. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, also that part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said vacated Avenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the Easterly extension of the Northerly and Southerly lines of said Lot 11, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: l. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: 11 • 11 Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surve~under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~ar~P.E. &~235 NOTE We understand that a variance was approved for hardcover on this property as follows: 0 -75 from OHW 297 sq. ft. 75 -250 from OHW 3,363 sq. ft. 250 -500 from OHW 35% X970.3 970.8 X970.9 ' ' ~ '\i ~ X971.2t. ~ X971.2 970.5 X970.7 X970.6 I.I) \ \ \ \ X965.2 X963.1 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 •~--.,.i:Ale:..■--Ri~-.. ■■··~ J 11111· 1 ( IN FEET ) Drw. No. 110226 Attachment 2 I. L25 Na1 h:1 11 Lane Nort h , P lyrnoud1. MN .5~ I 763.478.6987 I fax: 763.478 .2925 I infi.1(?!. d owoodi nc.co m I mcadowood in c,com August 3, 2011 Bill Koch 3251 Casco Circle Orono, Minnesota 55391 Re: Product In, Product Out Proposed Driveway: MEADOWOOD • Product out within the property line is 1,024 square feet divided by 27 = 37 .9 yards of compressed material to be removed. • Product outside of the property line is 186 square feet divided by 27 = 6.88 yards • Product out consists of existing concrete pavers (3" thick) & a combination of compressed aggregate sub-base & site soils. Existing surface elevations and conditions vary . • Product in will equal product out in its final compressed state including the pav er surface . Proposed "Permeable" Lakeside Patio : • Product out includes 24 square feet of 4" concrete • Product out consists of existing site soils or about 17. 8 yards in its naturally compressed state • Product in will consist of various sizes of open core ( clean aggregate) with some compactable aggregate for structural edge support. All quantities are measured in tonnage: ¾" minus compactable limestone = 9 ton, Total clear aggregate with about 40% void space = 19 ton. Respectfully submitted, Bob Swanson #3518 RECEIVED AUG -5 2011 CITY OF ORONO Attachment 3 Concept Landscaping 3153 Priest Lane Mound , MN 55364 Koch hillside soil movement and fill requirements ; Restore Hillside. Material movement; Remove old timber walls and steps 120 timbers Install new timbers in sub-terrainian system 117 timbers Install filter rock Soils movement Remove soils for walls and tiebacks Reinstall soi ls Total s oil and material movement 39 .03 cubic yards. Excess soi ls to be used below Fill hill s ide stair and wal l area to restore natural slope ; Section 1 -see survey Section 2 -see survey Section 3 -see surve y Section 4 -see survey Section 5 -see survey Section 6 -see survey NET result -haul in 8 cubic yards of soil cubic yards -8.89 8.67 10 .67 -30.14 19.69 10.45 2 .67 3.50 3.11 2.96 3.56 2 .67 #3518 RECEIVED AUG -5 2011 CITY OF ORONO ONOHO :fO AllO !!OZ 9 -9n'1 03/\13031::1 362.~ \ xssJ ,s.s ~..,~ 1:. 0 ..., \ \ % ~ ,'< ~ ,, 8l~~# \ \ T' x gsJs \ \ \ ~ t~ \~. ~ I'~ ~ V) \ \ \ l ~;.l• ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ... ~ Q - ~ ~ Q ..... ~ Attachment 4 Gray Engineering, LLC August 4, 2011 Mr. William Koch 3251 Casco Circle Orono,MN 55391-9717 Project GE 11-339 (by e-mail only) Re: Slope Stability Report, Steps and Retaining Wall Improvements, 3251 Casco Circle, Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Koch: As you authorized, Gray Engineering, LLC (Gray Engineering) has performed hand auger borings and conducted a slope stability analysis for the steps and retaining wall improvements at the referenced site. Background Information William Koch provided Gray Engineering 6 pages of Stair System Plan prepared by Concept Landscaping , last updated August 2, 2011. Also provided was the Request for Further Information, dated July 27 , 2011 , from the City of Orono. Hand Auger Borings On August 3 , 2011 , Gray Engineering performed 3 hand bucket auger borings along the slope of proposed new construction at the site. HAB-1 963-964 Topsoil, black with organics 962-963 SC , Clayey Sand, dark brown 954-963 CLs, Sandy Lean Clay, brown, moist, with layers of SP-SM, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt. End of Boring . HAB-2 950.5-951 Topsoil, black with organics 941-950.5 CLs, Sandy Lean Clay, brown, moist, with layers of SP-SM, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt. End of Boring. HAB -3 929-933 .5 Topsoil , Slopewash, dark brown black with organics 927 .5-929 CLs, Sandy Lean Clay, Brown, moist. Boring terminate due to ob struction. #3 518 RECEIVED AUG -5 201 1 CITY OF ORONO Slope Stability Analysis August 4, 2011 GE 11-339 3251 Casco Circle Using GSLOPE Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis software, Gray Engineering was able to perform a slope analysis from the information obtained from the hand auger borings and the plans provided by Concept Landscaping. Results of the slope stability from the proposed new construction had a factor of safety of 1.034. Typically slopes require a factor of safety of 1.3. Conclusions Based on our analysis of the Slope Stability, the factor of safety does not meet the required minimum and additional engineering of the retaining walls system will be required. General Engineering services provided by Gray Engineering for this project has been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in Minnesota under similar time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. Thank you for using the services provided by Gray Engineering. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Marty Gray at 612-616-3601. Marty A. Gray, PE License Number: 41263 August 4, 2011 I hereby certify that this plan, specifications or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision And that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer Under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Attachments: Boring Location Sketch Slope Stability Analysis Diagram 1 IZl ,:: 0 -a "' <.) # \.>J \J1 I > co 0 ~~ 0 -G'> .,, I 0 en :0 ~ 0 = z 0 HAB-1 953.34 40' HAB-2 :0 m 0 m 933.5 10' -< m FLA1 LAWN 0 ~~~ij~i~ifJ\?}liji;jgJi#?l;Jti) 9294 3 L----------------.-------------7r~:;:;-'R,;:-----n');:;;;~Titi;:----------------------. oo Drawn B : IUlil~~J&._- .§ GRAY ENGINEERJNG, LLC MAG Soil Boring Location Sketch ~ 16801 THE STRAND 0-, "' '7 - MINNETONKA, MN 55345 612-616-3601 t§ GRA YENGINEERINGLLC@USF AMIL Y .NET none 3251 Casco Circle Orono , MN Sheet: WI of: 1 0 =i -< Water Vertical Timbers Topsoil Clay # \.>J \.Tl 00 950 940 930 l> :It c:: Gamma C f 62.4 0 90 1000 120 0 120 50 Phi d - 0 45 22 28 Piezo Surf 1 1 1 1 ·x· . . f .~ . I \ ' I Gray Engineering LLC -Minnetonka, MN GE 11-339 3251 Casco Circle 8-4-11 Slope Stability 950 940 930 -------------------------------- 0 ·G, ~ !l--~----;----~--~--~---------------- I I I I "Tl 0 :D 0 z 0 I 1:11 r--., = < m C 50 100 8/4/2011 11 :38:23 AM 1:12011 Gslope\GE 11-339 William Kock 3251 Casco Circle.gs! Gray Engin eering LLC -Minnetonka , MN F = 1.034 Attachment 5 # "" \.Y1 I > co 0 =i -< l> C 0 -G') ,i I 0 c.n :D r-.,) 0 = z 0 KOCH =8,1212011 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 954 8 948 941 936 RfU NUlv!BERS ARL IX6TIMG HILL(:>l[i[ FL[V.A.TIONS 5' t-----il 4' 963 3.5' 40' 9425 3.5' 933.5 ~I 7" RI~ 12" TREAD CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 3.5' ~.fE"~vEY flR EX)Cf ST,'IR 5 Y5® Pt~ CJ)• 10' j 1,~~A·~__,.,_~ -929.4 CONT OUR Attachment 6 0 =i l> -< C: 0 G") "Tl I 0 <:J, :D "" 0 ~ z 0 "" \J1 I > co JJ m 0 m -< m C TYPICAL SECTION 2x6 ~ CEDAR f'I..O'wED GUARCRAJL WITH 1" ANNGVIZED ALLLMINLM SPII-OLES. 4" oc # / I r-, __ _ I GAL V, HANGERS ANDCROSS~S 3 2x 12 TREATED JACKS 4x4TREATED P03T \ TYP.SLCff mtRE1EF~ 8" 42"TO 48" l3JRw Attachment 7 # ~ \.)7 I ' co 0 =i -< )> C 0 -G") -,, I 0 ~ :D ,....._, 0 ~ z - 0 KOCH1 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION 965 KOCH REV. 8/2/2011 933.5 20' CGNCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 954 ~..;" r-300 EROSION cmTROL ;,,H■ ■ FABRIC 1~, '1/ \4, BURIED TIMBER WALL -FILTER ROCK \ ' DRAIN TILE 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL Tl~ER TIEBACK 4' ON CENTER , . 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL i. -8' VERTICLE TIM3ER ANCH'.JR 4' OC 40' Attachment 8 # \.N \.Tl I > co 0 =i JJ ~ l>-c:: m 0 C") 0 .,, I m o c:J"I - ::D r--..) < 0 = m z C Q 931.5 ~ KocH4 REv. 8/2/2011 ;:..' >-~,! b ,,f,it•l 1 ]' , • f"l; r. ~ . 1 I !1 ~u lj :-:.·--. •. --;::>. ,, ·,, ~ ·.~1_l \l~ 963.5 .... ;:-:111'i !i,11 .11 [lf1~ I Ii:'. 1li ij"I>i ... -.· .•.11 1 ~~1 ,[,Ll!r{h · . t1·1T I {--:-~· ~ :> · r::.·< V 1 ·~1 I ·u,1 . ,· I I rrt·'IJ ; ·:I , . : , dl-rf . t------·-11 ~ -f_ .. I ... ::•1: J.~1\ ~.J[rn[r_11~1'lln l~-V r 1-30Jl FRmW =Rlll 953.5 r\f[! 1 l~l!u11~I 1~-952l--- .. 1:ij:[.1 · 11·.;r ·.~~~----··-,· r.1--~ll:•1 I ~11 I l'I'°' I,·, :I' \1 • I :JL3U 1 . , 1---. ·-.-·· -{ ..• I '. ~-i(j1. . ; : i I' ! I: I. :Ti I I• I .!jLI_' I! IT ·Ill "1'-t ' ---I I! .. 'I, I I 'DRAIN TILE 1[1 1 -• I f 1111' ~ill ! ,,,_ ........... 941 ___ ;_::.:: JI". r:.1i 1 !>1: 1 · • IMBER TI EBACK 4' ON CENTER ;ii.'.1(_f 1 .• ~Al =~~ .. I I I 4 BURIED TIMBER WALL 1IJ'k ·I -'I 933.5 ! f ~1-' .. -: I-8 VERTICLE Tltv5ER ANCl-k'.JR 4 ' OC .• 'I 11 20' CCNCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4 118 40' Attachment 9 X962.~ I ' I i.9 65.2 \ x~s2.A ', \ \ \ \ X96i\3, \ \ I X963.1 I X962.5 ··x~\1-~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ #3518 \ ·, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ I (j \ RECE\VED AUG -5 2011 C\TY OF ORONO' Attachment 1 o THI<; I s €,e:11vGr Dta...-1~-,;, i1 d\"-'\.S t"T""'H· ,-,4:;Bif ,T.,.f ';'7'.'i1:<1_,1V .-e,;,-TiOfS:7iE'.ITiT•7l. Tir" ~fY ..M:.L~~~n ·a ·;un·-r -!nI-1l-tfE0" 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 www.advsur.com SURVEYED: May 26, 2011 DR.AFIED: May 27, 2011 ,REVISED: July 1, 2011 ·REVISED : July 14, 2011 to show cut out in deck and reduced hard cover. ·REVJSED : July 20, 2011 to show -proposed stairs, different patio, drive realignment. REVISED: August 4, 2011 to show different stair location, landing elevations . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, also that part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said vacated Avenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the Easterly extension of the Northerly and Southerly lines of said Lot 11 , Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2 . Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3 . Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: 11 • 11 Denotes 1/211 ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235 , set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and cr:::::l ~e60:C:ws of the State ofMinneso~ ~arker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 NOTE We understand that a variance was approved for hardcover on this property as follows: 0 -75 from OHW 297 sq. ft. 75 -250 from OHW 3,363 sq. ft. 250 -500 from OHW 35% X970.3 970.8 X970.9 , ' ~ , C) .... X971.21. ~ X971.2 970.5 X 970.7 X 970.6 J} - ' ~-CJ en ~ ' 0 \ X 967.0 X965.2 X963.1 GRAPHIC SCALE 40 ( Ilf FEET ) Drw. No. 110226 #3518 RECEIVED AUG O 5 ZiJ11 CITY OF ORO NO C 0 -..... ·­-.Q ::3 a. 'i- 0 -> G '1lJ i: < c °' l:i:: ~ C C: Q) I 0 .c C: ::>. Cl 0 !! 0 Cl) <I) C C ~ 15 .s (11' i5 fl)' t2) -Ql >, .JZ a: .e: Ill -·w- a, o ~o .c c( i;; la ~\ Cl) o iw1.g> C O ::I:1 Cl) OC.t-3 -lt rAa E (I) CIS C 0 ·-oa:~ :!le;::= w 111· O ,2 >,-C: -c.!:l.0 •• :::l G · ._ Ill-3,. -0 Cit Cl> JI: 0 a 1'11' a~ o -~ -0 :[ C .Q l!)~uic-a .0 ·;: 3 -.s ·o·a,J!e §.£t~01o (;'):Sci~­ :.. CJl',.i=""'"~ .gc::~llll c: l'lS e ·-.JZ <,, ... :i:_g • ·-(3, -JI: !l.cn..ti:"!ll~ .c 0 · a .c =:,_a ::'.ti.J.l:J.oo ~= a::!.s ' 1_:_, :· \~. ' ' . • . . ' . :1, :· .-. i~_~·!'~' . -' ' , , LEAA!-N,QTIC~ / : "' '!1Ej'(": Pc\li9 <lnd . .'reRai[ ard ;r~qpn· of the home,. and cpnl?lruct a . CIT)' OF ORO~O ' .. •;· · ·stq.1c!!on bf tfle ex ist jrig drivel'fc\Y ifl garage addition on the street side 27f!0 !<t;lley f'il fky,,ay, p.a. ~Ol( . , m9re ~ffiGi!)nt •i;:q~fi~~r~tior . re ~~it• of the home. An 11ver[!ge l11kesl]ore ' . . -~Ii · , · :\ . /0 _jn g :i ri ,8s ·;9 %. ·flarcfopver IV~fi!re s!ltpack variance . and a variance . , Crystal Bay,' M~ -553i3 ', · • ~2 :iio/o ·cur(ently exj~ts'.''.. •· .. ,-·• within the 75'; ~59'.z9n_e is required Pl]one (9~~) ~~~-4§90 , :;• . · •· ;. · 1 ' to allow 30.5% hardcf?yer, ~h!;!fe · Fa)!: (9~2) 249~461(i .,· •.', ';' •·•. 11-3519 -' Bauer • Design Build .39 .5% ~~rr_ently existl\ ilP~· requesti , ·' ,: .... , i: ... ,• ' LLC on behalf of ,-JEM .Technical ' '· ed in order to change the location NOTICE QF PU!,'ILIC'H.EARiNQ M[!rket'ing Co, Inc ,, qqO Old Crystal of structJral hardcover:':. • ': 1 .. P~ANN,1!11~ COMMl$SION, Bi;IY Roa9 N, ·lndustri[!I i oninQ di~-. . . . . . . trict , requests a comme,rcial site ! 11-3522 -Steiner & Koppelman The Orono Planninp CprhmissiO[l : .· pl an·rey)~W iri qrpe,r to f:s,mstruct ari ori behaifof ~ani:yl}igos;-335_0 Fox will · hold a · public h!Jilr jng 'i[l jl]e ,: .. !!cjcji!ion :, to . \~\l ,existi ng 'buiidi[lg ; Street, LR s~A .. io~ing ,., district , Ororio Council ct1a,mp~rs at t•. i, ,.V.!!!!iatiof1 of t!le . l)Xi~\iflQ waier main , •'. reque$1s ~n ~veraQ!i la~es~'?\8, ;,~t-- 2780 ~elley Parkway Ofl, August 15, ·., '/\.Jliljty •_ easenwnt i~ !!l~q propp~ed .' , 1 pacl< vwiane~ tq ,allow _conl>tniction 2011 , begiilning ·[!t 6,3Q p.m : on the ,' ... The W!!le('main wi!! :~e _rEll.Rc~ted , '., of an , addition to _t!le ex!stihg home rna\ler of re':'iewing t!le fo!lolJYiflg ~/and '·.i., ne,w e'[!semen_t will !:le · grant-f partially aheaq_1· pf m f •,aVeff!Q!l . land .use ?PPlications and v~~ation :, . Eld py~r _the we1t~i"rnain in th$ new i l[!keshore SEllb~ck lihe ... ··. _ request: : ;. : . !09~t19n . ;.-;-... j . --~---~ .. -~ .;:11/':~ ~:,.;:-~~t•\:1.:\· ·r·:·. ··;. . . . . , . I •. ,', . ";' AUpersons ~ishirig to be' heard are • 11-3517 -Patt r'Hyle~. 1299 ' • 11 :3520 _: Har61d &" Sandra h mcouragetl,,to attend these meet- Wildhurst Trail, LR-1B zoning dis-Wir19erd, 1376 Baldur Park Roaq , f:, ing$,.:'fhi~:i~nqf afinal _~Q!30d°aahd ' Irie!, requests a side stree,t setback LR-1 G . zoning district ; request t is subjecuo ,change prior , to·:tt,fil variance to allow cons\r\Jclion of an ha,n;tcover variaric~s in , order \o , -hearings: ;.Written comri\~nts are addition to the rear portion • of _ the , •,reorient . the, -Qara~e ,door~ and .;;, accepte~ an~ Sh?41~ q•\&y ~rnitted , home ·11_.7-feet from the streiit side driveway ac~~ss to the property. \:':IP !~El, f::!ly 1~!, Qrqp~ -~Y~ .. Al'JQUSI . !t !' lot line where a 35-foot setback is .. .' The applican.ts ·request a varianc!J i_1...:.gp1}_,:·1f ... ,P<;>~~.--.i~!l'l.·' ;\li)te.~~5\El.d, .· pe .. r- required and a 9.4-foot :,etback to allow -40.24% hardcover within l0.ieyo11i, ms1y -revjev,,.t'1e,'iiPl>!~c~ti9n at . currently exists. . ;the n?rlhea,1>1' 0-75' './;o,rie where, '.J~j\y',gffip,1~,':::. Fpr~~n.,~PP9ifllfr)!=i~);', · · -" . · , 40.83% curri mtly ex ists; a variance please call (952) 24t4~?0. •.: .· .. • 11-3518 -William H . Koch~ 3251 to allow · 13.25% hardcover within , ·····,Ir~ •. :, :, · ..• :.,, ''t/-"J''i•. ·,, -_;Ii,~ ' , ·''. • V. 1,. '·• • ,:••·'·("~·;_ -··(,. .. ! .. • .>•"t'l!' C_asco Circle, L R-1 C ~onin g di ~·•'.'_' the :,outhw~st : ?·75' ~O[l~ where :_-t:;i!Y 'of ,(?r?,r9,~ 1,:-i) '.'!,:,.\,t?.f,1rf': ,;}J; \ 11· tp ct,,requests a cond1bonal use .. Q.21°/~·cimently el(ISI~; 11 n~ a van-:' 11:!Yr R!11nr.mg GO,r'flfT1[~liig.11,<-;)/;;:, .. {,;,,, perrpit for grading in excE!~s qi JO , ance to <1llow .1ffl:5% h<lrdcove'r •. ,;,}/;:,.'\.\:., :·; ,f.,:., t'·. •/ ·,1 '':;;· •/-'.J,: cubic yards within the · 0-75 ·loo\'· within th'e · 751-2'50' zone,· where · ,,po~t.e~ !!ll'.J)r9n,0_ City Officeli''. · · i orie. jn . order to re,construct the . ,. 37.23°1.?,currently !')Xist~ in orde~ 19 ._ ,•'.qrys\~I ~~y P(!S)0ff!ce · ... -,,. \ake i\c1:ess st;;iir <!ng re.fT)ove ElXist-. , re.align · tt1t , grivew;;iy , completely :!l,prig Lake Pqst Qffipe d> if]g , failing , reta jping yvalls; a h~rd, .,. ~ilhi~ tti!i SIJ ~i ~r;t'p,rpperty. ,/ :,;;; . . N(lviirre P.os) <;)ffice ' .!::: · C?<?,Y~L,~~f!ap9e t9 allo~·s :1~/o h~rd :-1' -~'.r ··1· • •. · • -~ .•. • -~ ', ·-i_ ';i,;,: · :~t,~.::\P.,; 1< \\:t· t){>·?~ · 1;·.1-:\f ._ ~ .cqyer yihere 5,~;'/•.curre.ntly e)l1sts /; n •;3521 '\:'o 'ram1 ;:H13 lf11(lf,.,q131 _'.-· .. ,1Melan11t <;;~r!1s -,:;;.,:;,,;;.,,)1,;,.<· -;-',/q ~ · w1)1:tjq *~ ·o,7s· zone .to rf)o riertthe . : . C ~sco ',9ircJ!':l; L~, 1 c;: , zq~if1\i''qis• ,Planning _ & ·zgf'!jri~ popr!linator , ;:_: f ·~t ~fr~, ,a~d ,a ha,rqcqyi,i r ·vwi<1nce,1,1,Jr.ictu~~'{~S~~ y~rj ~fii:;e~.ip;ora er:to .~ ; ' : .: ' ... ,, '' ·. >, . ' R:, ~ , w1th1h the 7p'·2sp'_zorie, Jn 9rc;ler too:,,:;reon~rt., anq /;dy9~ I~!;!. e)IIS),!flg I r(P4'?_l1shep /CT Th~ 1La~~r arid ,The , -conduct ·: landscaping .. ,.act1v1t1es·' •,,. lakeside decKs, :reorient , the dnve-Pioneer ·1newspapers;1 . Ju/}4--30,, ; !~~,~~ii1_9,.. ~ew :· '.~~iii~_i.t ~~1,1:/~;: 't:f y;-_&dq 9 9r'tiie,°fs 'on t ~e·'J,~~1)i~~ , 201 1;:~:. ~:i ;:"..; \;::::,~. •: ',,'\Li)~:~ ;;f j ~ 1 ·t .. , .. ()7 ... , --~_,,,~ g it ~~ c( :E ~ 10;; .., (IS:::J " ! - -~cu>-'-E OD . ' c c..2-" _:g QJ , e 7 "' "' '--\~ o E~u-~ -1: __ £ Oci(l)O U ' :,·;.:. .S-0 o :::, -o -o ---~ o a . '"".2 utu ·->c ~ ·O.o Ill Id u, (l) '-tt ..c: o, 0 . \ rd GS .£ CO ·-~ c ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~=~ ~ a.,·.::: a u .. .o »llil: >, Q. :::, Ch . Ql "1:) . ::,· !IS .._ t1J n,. (lf~IU< -0 .cS Q i!)ll'JQ "D t iii ..... (') .s g •v in 1G ~I= -:. I 3 l:t: Ol ~ .£ ~ ,.; -.!::: rtJ ~ ~ c,Oa_.· "-cg(!)~ -(O.<lf CO 1111N1E a. Ill m.i 0 ~12 C>·t00..0,o Ql ,_IC3/: CU "'tl:::, £-U><C ~ £~ ~ Ol~~ m ~c>_CI'> ~ o~~ ~ £~~ .c -a> E ·->o -....il!:CI')~' -:-.Ccm-113 ....,i.;;CG"lllll CO :i:a:::a, -0 >, Cl) ca-.0. 1:l ·;:: Cl ~ Jg" :J U) >, m C 0 :; E ... .2 C co -CG· a: ~ .. u g "tr ._ • C 0 .,, --~& .. ... ... ti Ill :::, C11 c, , =-111'0 Ill • .., ii E~u; ·;; Qt •• "' i; > 1,1., •• ti, 0. ! -=- E ..o • • E •1::r; 8 Oou :,. -~-~ D -!.aw -a .C_-.. 8 ·;;g:~ou ~---.l:1-:::,· •'"'j,:,ce ii&J;.., "'00 ... c: ,:i, ""= .. 0 ••• .ir; --~ .. ~:s "ci c.-. ~ ~"O al .... -,. .!!8eJ..c: ~ .. :::,1jO t;g,E•~ u . -.! 3~=­.Si:ea: -;c::,~ -=-a,_.._._ S.t~te Qf MinA~Ggta, eoun.t¥ of b:h:toi:ienpi11. Keittl P., Andi(&PO, be.in~ duly SWQm, Qij o~tb ~sw~ that hij is ijtl 1uttiadied ~gent aod e.mpl~~e, of th!3. publisher gf tt)e ll~W~()ijP,fH ~Al)WD a~ TH i: PIO• NE8 R, Lcmg L@ktl, Mion~$Qta, a.nd bai full know!, adg~ Qf tjle. factil which au-e ~t~t.~d bele,w: A,)Th~ new~p~,u q~s complied with P.11 thi mq~i~.e• mant~ c0.nstltut1qg QYl;llifications ~a 1;1 q1,1a1tfu~d oewspiper, tis prn~i~~Q by Minn~liQtij 5'tatut1 331 A.02, 331A.cr,, and o.ttier ~ppllc~bl~ laws, IJl!i ::~::~oled ~f ,~ e C:¾ A:) Qr0 V\O -___ __ whieh i;, attact:ied. was out frQm tt:-ie co1umns Qf 1,ta!cl riew$.p~l:)lH, ~i:i(d wa(; pr<inted and pu_bliEahed _a~Oij e~ch week f~r . sµ~ce~s1v43 w~ia~. Aat, Information (1) LowHt cla~l!ified rate paid b.V eommol'C'li&I l.!SBl'.5 tor OQffl• parabl• 11P•QQ: $1i.5Q por i,u;,i. (~) Ma1tlmum raw 1IIC1¥1Gd bV low fQr &l~O~ motwr: 115-tQ. (3) Alitll 19tiu1ltv r,bti.~d for 11,?Qll(f waw.i~. ST.AO pttr 1~,b. . each l'~ltlo.~, 'ilJ~i.fJ!,lhl~ l!l'ff~I ljij,4{), . i 1 • ' ·-.. ~"f1:f ·' · LEGAL NOTICE · ,·1 the ,garage doors .,arid driveway ;; • ,; >'· ,' .,.CITY 8F ·ORONO, ' , · ,: .acciiss -to t.he_P-f~perty. '•'The a~pli- , · 27'.50",Kelley .Parkway,. P.O.,Box ·66. · cants .•request · a ,variance to .allow ., · Crystal Bay, MN .55323 40 .24% hardcover within tiuf no.rth- Plione (952) 249-'4600 east 0-75' zone where ,io:83%·cur- 'Fax (952) 249-4616 · . ,renUy +exists;·. !\ _variancjl 'to •.allow , , , , , , . , ., 13.25% hardcover within the south- ,, NOTICE OF PUBLilC'HEARING west 0-75' zone where '9.21o/~ 0 cur- .. PLANNING ·.COMMISSION · rent.ly exists;. and ,a·. variance to '' ,, -·' ,, .. allow 46.5% · hardcover ;withirf the ,'.\The ,Oronq 'Planning . Gommi;sion · 75' 0250' zone 'Where'· .37'.28% cur- . '.i will ·hold :a. ,public, h~aring in . ,the ren_tly exists in order .to r!lalign the · ·~··orono CouncU:Chambers, at · ; .. · .driveway completely,within. the sub­ , .. 2780 Kelley Parkway 6n August -~5. · .• ;ject property;, ··' ;:, .. <'.:,"·' · · 2011, beginning at 6:30,p.m .,on'the 'i' · ··-, •. : . :'.' · .,t;, I, 'matter 'ot reviewing the following · ·•. 11,3521 .-Tami ,:!Helmer, .3131 I •. land . use .applications· •ar:id ' vacation ;, ., Casco Circfe,.LB-lC,zonil)g;distr:ict, 1 re~uest: :' , · , .. , , ;-.' ·· ·retjuests .variances·ir;i 0f?_~~.(Qi~eori- , .. , : . . . .-., · . .. _ · . ,, .. ent. and ·r9!!uce •,th~· ex1st1ngr•la~e- :' '~ 1H~517--Patti .Hylen, 1299 , •: ,side decks ,.reorieiit .•the driveway, Wildhurst Trail, ,LR-1B ·zoning -dis-: add dormers ·on the lake•,side of the , trict, requests a siae· street setback, ·, ·., ho!Jle, and c;oristruct a gar~ge :addi­ !, variance to allow,constn1ction otan :.(,)!ion on .the street side,~! the'iiqme. addition ·to the ·rear portion of :the :An averageJakeshore setback vari­ home ·u. Heel from the :street side · · ance: and a variance within the 7$' -I· .. · • . lot line .~here a ·35;foot .setback. is j · ·250•,:zonj:r '.is ·:required ·to ' allow • · required .and a 9.4.foot ·setback cur-.30.5% hardcover ,where 30.5,% cur-, . \:) ·renl!Y exists. rently exists are reguested in order ·':.?,,. · · · · · · · , to chang~ the Jocatior.i -ot,,slr)Jctural · • 1-1-3518 -William H. Koch, 3251 . hardcover. . · • : ..... .J .. ,·: · : ;_ CascoCircle ,LA-1Czoning~istrict,•1 ·.~.=~,. .. ~·. ·/;,:··,.:.,, .. , . __ .'1: •:·· -• . requests a ponditional .,use , permi.\ ~ ·! -1:1'03522 -: Steiner,-& ,Koppelman ': j or-grading • in excess. of '.1_0 ~culiic • ·onil?.~hall ,of·Nancy:B,gos, 3350 Fox ! \'.'·yards _.witt\in •,the ,·0-7,5 ,fpof·zone',in ·. :.,_Str.e~) •• , LR 0'1iA .:ioniiig :,.ilistrict , f, ::. oraeno reconstr.uct the:lake.access .\ -tequestir ,ara ·,average fa!<~share set­i/!. . stair · and remove : eicistipg,:_1 1ailing; · ~ .. back:variance·to~allC:iw ·constructiori c:: .. ret,aini11g · .wall~; •,a ."hardcover .. :va:ri" · of :an additi~n\toAhe-existing home ance Jo .,allow 6:1%' hardcover .. partially . ahead. of :the ·average where ·5.9% · currently :ex.ists wit!iin , .1 1akeshore setback line. · · ,. ·.-~the._0~7.~';zcine~to .reorie.nt _the Stairsr ~ tr·Y. ,_ ·:_, -~ ... ~·,'_.:;-:·.:-•~-~~;._\ , ~ ~._,an~ a,hardcov~r .vari~_nce withinth~ ;~IJ ·pe~~ons _,wi~hing ·t;i~.t:i~ard are '·. ,7.5's250'•,zone •·m order ·to ,.conduct ,,•,encouraged to ·a ·these meet: ..'iand~caping ·activities'including new . , ings. 0 This'.is •riet I agenda and , ::·i'etainil]g ;,wal!s;: :a ,·nel'{,:patjo(and •is subject :to change prior ,·,to .the l ; ' repair .. afiif ,rec6nstruciion ·.: of l the :hearings: /Written ,comments are l existing driveway ,in more :efficient :accepted and ·shouid b~·su.6mitted . configuration ·resulting :i!l. 38 ,9% . to .the .City of ,Orc;mo, by,;,.August ,9, ha_rdcpver_~ >,yh~~e.:32 :8%' :c;ur!~ntl~ ;:;~01:1 ·if .. eosi;i.b~e._,j ,~.~~(E!~•e~, per: exists . · . : · : . ,, , ·. ,· .. i:~-·'·'··• ,;·.,.sons·may.,rev1ew :Jt:1e ,apphcallQn at . . : /. '>:: .,·,:; ; .v :'. :Pi'¥ offices.,: ,F.o.r ~aif !~J)PQ.irtment; 11-.3519 ,.,... ,Bauer.· Design . :Build' ' :please-call ·(952):249,,~620. •·· ·. ' , LLC '.,o~ behalf ' of ;JEM ,:i·echnical '· ·. , , ; : . · -· .. ,. <~;'::•,;;.: ' l' . Marketing C.o, lnc.,:550 Old Cr.ystal , ... ,C1\y of,Orono , .... , ·• , .. ,.•,,.·"· · .. · Bay ,Road •N/·lndustrial ·.zoning dis: . 'ijy: ·Planning Comrriiss1on'c ' trict,. r.equests ·, a coinri\ercial site "• ·. · -"" · . ' "· ; ' ··i}i/ ' ,. . plari review in ol'.der to ·constr11.cl an . Posted .at: ·, Orono·.:city, Offices . additiol'] 1to the existirig•' building; 'Crrstal 'Bay ·Posl'.C'i>ffide ., .':~ -·vacation ·QHhe existirig:water.main Long Lake Post Office .-·".•,:-~ utility ·easement , is. £!ISO proposed ,. Navarre Post OfficEf . . '. The water maln ··wlll be ·relocated , .. , •,:. ' ,. -··,,( ,·.~: ,.;;,,,;n:[ 'and:•a new easement will be·grant• .Melanie.Curtis " , ..... ·· -.ed over·the watermain in the new · ·.-P,laririing;·&;zonlng ·co.'?1"9in,ator . . 1oc8.tiC:m:r ~.:.::·# , ... ,~.t •:·\•··--~ :· : \ · · :·.:···~-_ · _ ...... _ :~;:_._ .. -t ~--~::· ·;.·· · -~r· •. ·. , . . "<.:, · ···. · ·· ·· 1(Published-in .The t tsket ··snd 'The • ·11-3520 ' --Harold & Sandra 'Pionee ( n~~sp~pers, ;~l)!Y . 30, Winge(d,.-1376 .B,aldur Park Road,· 2011 ,)-, .. _ ,-.,,--~· -. .:.o:, . LR-'.IC .,zenii:,g district, r.equest hard•· , 1 -· {' .,;. · · cover Variances in order to -reorient :• ·" ·-· · ·-: · CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 William & Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUBJECT: Zoning Application# 11-3518 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for a conditional use permit and variances for property located at 3251 Casco Circle. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: ✓ Two (2) original scaled copies of the certificate of survey, and a reduced copy (ll'x17' or smaller), indicating the following: o setback zones from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, o the proposed structures, o all proposed hardcover, o the average lakeshore setback, o existing topographic contours extending 50' past the property boundaries, o existing and proposed stormwater drainage, and o proposed site grading (please indicate total cubic yards of proposed earth movement on/off site). ✓ Submittal of the requested information identified within the enclosed memo dated 07 /26/11 from Bonestroo. Application #11-3518 is incomplete. If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by August 5, 2011 by 10 AM in order to remain on the August 15, 2011 Planning Commission agenda. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or email at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator c: Bill Koch -via Email Jim Smith -via Email Jim Parker -via Email Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us Memorandum To: Darren Amundsen Project: Koch Residence From: Philip Caswell, P.E. Client: City of Orono, MN Re: Stair Replacement -Structural Review I Date: 7-26-11 I File No.: 139-11000-1 #Bonestroo 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com I have performed a preliminary structural review of the drawings submitted for replacement of the stairs and slope stabilization on the subject property, but cannot perform a complete review without further information. Please have the information listed below submitted, and we will then complete our review. 1. Provide slope stability calculations signed by an engineer licensed in Minnesota. Proposed slope is steeper than 1.2: 1. Slope failure surface is likely deeper than bottom of buried timber wall. Parameters of existing soil must be determined for analysis. 2. More detailed drawings are required, clearly showing buried timber wall and elevated deck/stair framing member sizes and dimensions. Elevated stairs are considered a deck. Provide structural calculations for reduced-section 2x12 stringers. Drawing(s) must also include connection details, call-outs and connector product data. Hardware for treated wood must be hot-dipped galvanized (G185 minimum). 3. Correct inconsistencies in drawings. Note that top-of-slope elevation in section is 967.5, while plan views indicate it to be 965.1 (2.4' difference). The comments provided above are related only to the structural/geotechnical considerations of the proposed stair replacement, and are preliminary. There may be other, non-structural, requirements not addressed by this review. Additional comments will be provided following the final submittal review. J:\STRUCTURAL\Projects\Orono MN\Koch Stair Replacement\City_CaswellP"Memo 072611 Preliminary Review.docx [TNS 06-2010] Page 1 of 1 J IVL£0 LV/ J l //LY l'..V\..,rt, OlLL ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy, No. !O! Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 www.advsur.com SURVEY FOR BILL KOCH SURVEYED: May 26, 2011 DRAFTED: May 27,201 I REVISED: July I, 201 I REVISED: July 14, 2011 to show cut out in deck and reduced hard cover. EVISED: July 20,201 I to show proposed stairs, different patio, drive realignment. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11. also that part of vacated Lake Shore A venue, and of the tract of land lying between said vacated A venue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the Easterly extension of the Northerly and Southerly lines of said Lot 11, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services docs not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you arc nor arc wc as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees arc. We suggest that you review the survey to confinn that the proposals arc what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • '' Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~~~J1IR~%~~~1~2-3_5 _____ . NOTE W c understand that a variance was approved for hardcover on this property as follows: 0 75 from OHW 297 sq. ft. 75 · 250 from OHW 3,363 sq. ft. 250 500 from OHW 35% '\Sl I • CD X"7!>.> C"'.i ~ xv,n.a V, n C, C"'.i ..... ~ n .,..... ('::, xa:n.2 ·""" X"7!>.7 1;:~i5tin9 Xlit87.0 x .... , X"'-'• uistin9 X'70.& \ ' GRAPHIC SCALE "-tj 'f i ( IN !'BET ) ~ ti ~A ·~ ~ ~~ j ~ ~ '@ ~ ~ ~ \~ ~i Drw. No. 110226 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGIN EERIN G CO. RECAP OF HARDCOVER AT 3251 CASCO CIRCLE , June 29 , 2011 ZONE 0-75 75-250 250-500 500-1000 AREAINZONESQUAREFEET 4486 10510 659 0 ALLOWABLE HC per Res . 54 36* 297 336 3 231 0 TOTAL HC EX ISTING 263 3450 93 0 TOTAL HC AFTER PROPOSAL 273 4087 125 0 UNDER OR (OVER ) 24 (724 ) 106 0 * The square footages are those listed in the resolution, except that the 250-500 is calculated from the 35% shown in the resolution. Attached are city worksheets for each zone, please review your survey and these worksheets with the city to be sure they agree that the items shown as hardcover are indeed hardcover under their interpretaion of their ordinances. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Surveyor and Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. James H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 TOTAL 15655 3891 3806 4485 (594 ) RECEIVED ,1111 22 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject : Attachments: Bill Melanie Curtis Tuesday , July 19, 2011 4:15 PM 'The Kochs' Jim Smith Uhsmith3102@frontiernet.net); 'Bob Swanson'; James H. Parker (JimP@advsur.com) RE: 3251 Casco Circle admin@ci .orono .mn.us_20110719_ 135249 .pdf; 3251 Casco Cir_Engineer Edit.pdf ; Variance Application -entire packet 2011 amended for practical difficulties .pdf Jim Smith dropped off his proposed plan this afternoon (attached). I forwarded it to our engineer; he requested additional information. At a minimum our engineer needs detailed sections showing the wall, the ground and the proposed steps at the location of each red line shown on the attachment titled "3251 Casco Cir Engineer Edit'. From the provided plans it is still unclear to me what exactly will be done. The subterranean walls are shown to be 8-feet in height each separated by 8-feet. Retaining walls (above or below ground) over 4-feet in height require an engineered design. My recommendation to you continues to be to hire an engineer for the design of the lake yard grading, walls, and stairs . The lake yard project w ill trigger a CUP. I agree with your thoughts below -if you have to go through the CUP process for the lakeside improvements it may make sense to include your hardcover changes. I've also attached a Variance Application packet. The total cost for review of this application (CUP+ Va ri ance) will be $1400 plus the escrow which you have already submitted. In addition to the engineered design, the CUP application will require your lake yard plan to be shown on the survey by the surveyor -including the proposed grading. Our engineer is typ ically available on Thursdays. If you would like to d iscuss this with our e ngineer and me this Thursday please let me know so I can include it on our calendar. As you know, our deadline for the August PC meeting is July 20th (tomorrow) at noon. I would advise you to make your application to meet the deadline. You can withdraw within one week and have your application fee refunded if you change your mind. Talk to you soon -Melanie From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:54 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject : Re: 3251 Casco Circle Melanie : I wanted to let you know that if we need to get a Conditional Use Permit for our hill project , we will likely submit an application for the full variance for the larger driveway , the small patio , the large patio , and the hill. It was our hope to get this all done quickly (and were prepared to go with only the smaller driveway and revamped hill to get that done , waiting until next year to apply for the patio work). But since the re will be in a built-in delay for the hill , we figure we might as well try to get it all (or as much as possible) approved at this time. Jim will be putting together the application/permit/etc . for the hill work , and I will be pulling everything togethe r for the other projects . We will work to get it all to you by noon tomor row. Please let me know if there is anything else you will need , or any additional questions that need to be answered o r issues to be add ressed . Bill 1 Melanie Cu rtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: To : Monday , July 18 , 2011 10:57 AM 'The Kochs' Subject: RE : 3251 Casco Circle escrow check I'll wait to look at Jim 's plans. If I understand what you've described, the amount of dirt work will trigger a CUP. Jim should be aware of this. In any case, the deadline for the August PC meeting is July 20th ; you have not missed it. From: The Kochs [mailto :mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 7:53 AM To: Melanie Curtis Su bject: Re: 3251 Casco Circle escrow check Melanie : I am truly not sure where the breakdown is occurring between me and Jim Parker , and I apologize for any confusion this has caused . I don't even know why he put our original plan for the driveway on that survey since it is supposed to be an "as-built" survey . Our current plan for the driveway will largely mimic the current design --except that we would like to "square up" the transition from the driveway to the front walkway as indicated on the survey (it will be the same square footage , and we are just moving a little pie-shaped piece from one area to another). Additionally , if we can remove a little more in that general area and move it further toward the road we will be able to remove a bit of a "pinch" or "choke point" that has us currently always driv ing on the lawn . The outcome should not increase the total square footage of the current driveway , and would not be noticeable at all. I have asked Bob Swanson to provide me a drwaing of the new plan ... and we will simply outline it on the "as-built" survey in a different color to note where it will go . Jim Smith has all the plans available for you , and w ill plan on dropping them by early this coming week . I am truly hoping we do not need to go before the City Council for approval of a Conditional Use Permit since that will delay what we are t rying to do here ... and we missed this past Wednesday's deadline if we also need to go before the Planning Commission - -please tell me that is not needed (otherwise , you will hear the scream of frustrat ion all across Orono). You will recall we did not submit a variance since we did not want to take the extra time further delaying these projects that have been in a holding pattern since March . Thanks . Bill -----Original Message----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci .orono .mn .us> To: "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchsi .com > Cc: "Jim Sm ith Uhsmith3102@frontiernet.net)" <jhsmith3102@frontiernet.net>, "Bob Swanson" <bob@meadowoodinc .com> Sent: Friday , July 15 , 2011 10:31 :53 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE : 3251 Casco Circle escrow check Bill Thank you. The attached survey reflects changes to the footprint of the driveway. I assume you are still planning for an in-kind replacement? Additionally, please have Jim Smith contact me to discuss the extent of his work within the 0-75' on the stairs and walls . I want to understand the project as I believe a conditional use permit will be required -as we discussed earth movement within the 0-75' zone exceeding 10 cubic yards requires a CUP . 1 Thank you, Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordina tor City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial : 952.249.4627 Fax : 952 .249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952 .249.4620 Email : mcurtis@ci.orono .mn .us Website: www .ci.orono .mn .us Summer Office Hours (Monday, May 23rd to Friday, September 2nd) Monday -Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm Friday 7:30 am to 11:30 am From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:39 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Re: 3251 Casco Circle escrow check Thanks , Melanie. I am meeting today with both Bob Swanson and Jim Smith to finalize things . Attached are the revised (and final?) as-built survey and as-built hardcover numbers . I am having the originals sent to me so I can get them to you early next week with the revised permit materials . It looks as if Meadowood could go to work as early as next week if they can get the permit approved that quickly. Bill -----Original Message ----- From: "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci .orono .mn .us> To : "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchsi.com> Cc : "Bob Swanson" <bob@meadowoodinc .com> Sent: Thursday , July 14, 2011 7:58 :16 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE : 3251 Casco Circle escrow check Bill You are correct. Also it appears we have a check for $50 from you. Typically we shouldn't take in your permit fee until we issue the permit so I didn't realize we had it sitting here. So as in my previous ema il I think you (or Bob) should provide me with a revised request and I will put the appropriate perm it number on the application (permit # 2011 -00205) so it is tied correctly to the escrow we already have. When you have the revised survey submit that with your minor changes .... 2 From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 201111:22 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: 3251 Casco Circle escrow check Melanie: We did drop off a check with Orono for the $2 ,000 escrow on April 8. I have attached scanned images we received from Wells Fargo showing it was deposited by the City . Please let me know if there is an second escrow amount due . Thanks . Bill P.S . I am still waiting to hear back from Jim Parker about the revised as-built survey . Also, with the driveway, we may want to square off a little corner near the front walk (we are talking an area of maybe a foot or so), but will expect to "correct" for that elsewhere in the design. I am meeting with both Bob Swanson and Jim Smith at the house on Friday to , hopefully , put the final touch on things so we can get the matters submitted to the City very soon --and , hopefully , get your blessing to proceed in the very near future . -----Original Message ----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci.orono .mn .us> To : "Bob Swanson" <bob@meadowoodinc .com> Cc : "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12 , 2011 1 :47 :39 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE : Bill Koch Driveway (permit# 2011-00205) Bob Bill sent me the attached survey via email last week. As I understood it, Bill was going to speak with the surveyor about the accuracy of certain items shown on the survey. Once this is resolved, please provide two full sized copies of the as­ built survey with the permit application. Please complete the attached application for a driveway replacement (also check the minor land alteration box) _and have the Kochs sign the attached erosion control escrow agreement. A check for $2000 escrow and $50 permit fee will be required at the time of permit issuance. If, as you suggest, the driveway is to be replaced in-kind there will be little review. Only requirements that the footprint is not changed or expanded and that erosion control measures are followed. A final inspection is required after the work is completed. Melanie 3 From: Bob Swanson [mailto:bob@meadowoodinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:49 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Bill Koch Driveway Hello Melanie, Bill & Laurie Koch have decided to forgo the variance process and proceed with the driveway replacement in the current footprint. I know that both Bill and I have submitted different pieces of the puzzle for approval but I'm un-certain as to what you might need from me at this time in order to proceed with the project. Please let me know. Regards, Bob Member of the Minnesota Storm water Partnership Bob Swanson President 1125 Nathan Lane North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Ph : 763-478-6987 F: 763-478-2925 www.meadowoodinc.com bob @meadowoodinc .com 4 S1A1R S>YStEM PLAN KOCH I ~·· 'f){IDvV (). S e0'16Vl ~c,llj sti!,(~ 965.1 937.0 ..J I ~----:• 7" RISE, 12" fREAD 933.'5 FLAT" LA'WN c_n• I KOCH2 40' CONCEPf LANO$CAPING 10' 952-472-4118 RECEIVED . - JUL 197011 CITY OF ORONO 931.5 TYPICAL 3 2x12 TREATED JACKS HANGERED 933.5 12" 4x4 TREATED POST CEDAR PLOWED GUARDRAIL wl 2x2 SPINDLE 4" oc 2x8TREATED JOISTS / \TYP. SLOPE CONCRETE FOOTING 42"w 48" BuRIED I If ~ V clJ KOCH 40' KOCH3 CONCEPT LAN[)CJCAPING 952-472-4118 RECEIVED JUL 19701' CITY OF ORONO 96: KOCH 933,5 1 1 II / "-~~I::::::::::::::::::~;~;;::::::::::::::::::::::-1 p 40' KOCH3 CONCEP-r LANOSCAPING 952~47M~IVED JUL 1 9 7011 CITY OF ORONO PLANTING PLAN KOCH KOCH PLANTS 5PRE>,Gao lvbw CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 1 • ,..,,._,w,_ I II J.NPER,Wrew, Oxvm,, VARIGA1EIJ VllllR>U,\ DNAlif °""""""" Oo.;,'l<XV, lsmn DAYl.lY, SraLA l.u.c.DNAlif~ f.lrorA !xD,rov ·-f.lrorA, V-,;Arff> RECEIVED JUL 1 9 201 1 CITY OF ORONO SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 9651 T(l)P OF ·•Hl l:L . KOCH I 8 ' 16' 94 9.3 I 40' 8 ' D 24' BOTT(]v1 OF HILL 933.5 10' 929.4 e-n • KOCH CONCEP, LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 RECEIVED JUL 1 9 7n11 CITY OF ORONO 933,5 931.5 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION KOCH --FIL. TER ROCK KOCH1 965.1 FABRIC TIMBER TIEBACK 4' ON CENTER ID CONCEPT LANDSCAP ING 952-472-4118 l , -4' BURIED TIMBER WAL.I.. "/ _:_ 8' VERTICLE TIMBER ANCH0R 4' OC 40' RECEIVED JUL 197011 CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County Property Mao. Print Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County Property Map. -Tax Year: 2011 Toe oata containec1 an ttiis page is derived from a compilation ot remtdS and maps and may contain ~ that can only be dfSdosed: by an aa:urate ,;;ur;"-'I performec1 by· a licensed land surveyo c. The perunen,,-and area (S<luar<> filotage and acres) are. ap[)<IDdma.teS and may contain disae(landes. The infomiatio-n cfn this ~ St\6ulc1 be use<1 file relia"enca purposes only. Hennepin COuru,,, does not 11uarantee the accuracy' or material herein cnntained: and is not re.sponsib le O:lc any misuse oc misre.presentation of ttus information oc its deri"3tives. 7 (53) 38 H Selected Parcel Data Parcel ID: 20.-117-23-43-0007 Owner Name: WILLIAM H KOCH E'f AL Parcel Address: 32.S.1 CASCO CIR, OR.ONO , MN 55391 Property Type: RESIDENTIAL I.AK Homestead: H.OMESiEAD Area (sqft}: l.5901 Area (acres}: 0.37 A-T-6: TORRENS Market Total: $1,l.SS,ooo.oo Tax Total: $-1.2,765.96 http://gis.co .hennepin.mn. us/HCPropertyMap/Locator .aspx Date Pr inted: 7/9/2011 5:59:46 AM Current Parcel Date: 7/6/2011 Sale Price: $1,3.75,000.00 Sale Date: 11/2008- sale Code: 7/9/2011 I 10226 20/117/23 KOCH, BILL ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5.300 S. fhry, No, IOI MJ11111!1011k!!., MN 55345 Phone ('152) 4741964 FIil (9S2J 225 0502 Wl\'\'1,111iv1>11r,cnm SURVEY fOR: BILL KOCH SURVEYED: May 26, 2011 DRAFTED: May 27. 201 l ~Julyl,2011 LEO AL DESCRI!'TJON: Lol J 11 also thal pa11 of vacated Lake Shore An~nu\?1 and of lhc tract of land lying hctwccn said vacated Avenue aud the !ihorc of Lake Minhetonka, whir.h Hts between th!! EasterJy .extension of the Northerly and Southerly Hues of~aid Lot 11, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, UMITATIONS & NOTES: l, Showing the length and direction of boundmy liucs of the nbovc J1,gc1l dl!scripticm. The stopc of our .services docs nm include dctcnnining what you own, which is a h.•gal maucr, Please check th<.> legaf description wfil1 your nJcoi-ds or consult with competent legnl counsel, if 11ecess11ry, to make i,;urc that h ls corrcct1 and dmt any matters of record, ~uch ai; casc111cuts. that you wish show,1 on the survey, havt\ been ~ho\\'It 2, Showing the loratlon of existing imJlrovemcms we dcen1lld i1npo1tmlt, 3. Selling new monuments or verifying old mom1rncnh; to mark the comers. of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of thC! site, The elcvatiom show11 relate only 1-0 the bet1chmark provided ou thL'l ,;urvey, Use thal benchmark and check at least one other fomurc shown on the map when clo1.ennining other cJcvations for use ou this site, 5. WhJlc we show proposed improvements lil your property, we not a~ familiur with your pl1111s as you arc nor arc we as familiar with the requirements of governmental ngcnrics as their employees nrc. We fiUggcsl thal you rt>view the survey to confirm that !he proposals nrc what you intend und submit 1he !->Urvey to such govc11un.e111al ngcndes as may have jurisdiction over your project lo g,1in their approvals if you e:-.iu, STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVF.NTJONS: 11 • 11 Denotes 112n ID pipe with plastic ptug hearing S!ntc Lit:ense Number 9235. set, un!c.~s 01hcrwisc noted, C'fil(!'JFICATlON: I hereby certify that this phm, specif!Cmfo11, report or survey was prepari;d by me or u!ldcr my direct :;uJtcrvision and that 1 nm a licensed ProfrssionaJ Engineer ·,md Profossionul Surveyor und1.~r the laws of the Sttttc of Minnesota, c,,.._T".': }j llir1~a _________ _ amcys H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 NOT!". Wt: undcrs1and that a varian1,:c wa:; upprovcd for h,mlcovcr 011 thi.s prope11y as follow;,;: () -75 from OHW 6.6% 75 -250 from OHIV 29.98 % 250 -500 from 011\V 35% X970.l ri ~ X!H09 (,f) ~ Q ri .... ~ n ';;' X97\.2 xino1 XllT0.6 X~7,◊ Xt61,~ . \ x~~·\ x~~1 , . .i:\':_~ 0 £~Jstin9 ~ / )0~3.1 \ \ GRAPHIC SCALE -=-:::J I i (INFU'I') \ \ \ \ \ j Drw. No, 110226 SURVEY APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER AND CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR ALLOWING SMALL PATIO (May 2, 2006) ,IHI 19 2011 3518 Est.eblished 'in 196? LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ·____MA.RK G}. YLO~]L LAND SURVEYORS RE:G!S'l'ERED UNDER THE LAWS OF S'l'ATE OF Mitil'ftSOTA 7!!01 7~rd AWQU• .i,;:..-u,, . (1e3) ~~3093 WinneepoU1:; itint}Hat.e. 5S"28 rax-No , SS0-3522 Propert)' lo,6led in Section 20. Towashlp ll 7 , R°onge 23, Henil~'pin ·county, Mi,mesoia \ • \ .,,. \ .,,. ~.,,. \ \ ~ -\ <> \ (\ \ ~ '0. .; Qi· ~- 'i ·"!. •, \ Th• c;mty . easement~ ,h<fwn <lf'e from pJat~ .er record o, lnfo(rrw:itic;:,_n provii;fe:d bY, ~tierit . We h•r•b):' _ ~•r~ir)1 ,hol i~~-ts -<;a true on~: c:o~i;t,~t r:epf'e~entot:on of o wr;ve)". of tlie-boundonea of \he above· d_escnbe.d ,and ond the 'IQ~QiiOn of CIII buildin9-s' gnd vi$ibJ~: ef1(;rpoch(n.en($·, if Dl't)"1 from · or :<on ioid lond .. · Surveyed tzy y~ t~1~ njh 1.oy ,.6! :Janvc.ry-,io.o&; ... • .. ~06--06 Adoea· Proo~ ~o.a0t ___ =l°""'"" 'ay $, .JI......,,, file Name §ururgtlrs - i•~-=1 _1-1 f b l <.'11S6i,iv?.3°529 .eu,,~ "" (') \31 ~ :_ :::0 0 = m· I [ ' -n --" 0 0 co m ::0 I"-,) < CX) 0 C) m z __,. ~ C 0 Lot I J, Block I , SPRING PARK '"" INVOICE NO. 73529 F.B .NO. 10 13-58 59 SCALE: 1" = ~· 0 Q.e,ri<:1tes Iron f,,AoniJrn8n~ o Den~t•s Wo<,<j Hob s,1 f'or e1;1eovotlon only · xOOO:o Oenot•i (v:ieti()g Eltvotion @oend.tc~ PropOt:~ ~~11~p9n --,If--b:9note$ Svrfo~a Droinoqe. NOTE: ~t'opo5ed grbd~s ora e:ubjed to res.ult, ·.ol sell les\,; .. ~if~i~: _J,u~~t~~ ;~~:~1~v.~ b~tlding pion ar:,d deve1cpri,~nt or gradlng pl.or, berore &kcoYC_U.on Ond Cor.isln.Jc t1ofl, •' ~ Propos<d Top of Block ~ Pr:op9sed Caroge floor %:>:? Pr<lPOe~d.' LC"(-e~t F,oor Type ol 9 ,,;1din9 s;q~•a~ F,.,H ea·•....,;e~t LIJ~SA,em~n:. Lqc,i<.o.Jc wi,id.aw• ·Chol'1e5 r . And.~r,<>n. Min<1: Reg ~ No .. 2175, or Cr99ory R. Pril!ICh. Uinn , ~"'l-f:lo. ·24992 LETTER FROM CITY NOTING PRIOR APPROVAL OF 142 SQUARE FOOT PATIO, WITH NO NEED FOR PERMIT (April 29, 2010) .1111 1 9 2011 3518 --------------- CITY of ORONO April 29 , 2010 William and Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 553.91 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Koch: Street Address: 2750 Kf!tl~y Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mwucipal Offices Mailing Addr8$S: P.O, aox 66 Crystai Bay( MN 5S323-00.66 Delving further into the variance file from when ypur house was constructed I found a patio of 142 square feet was allowed but not constructed. Enclosed are the approved hardcover calculations and survey. You could .construct the patio adjacent to the ~~en porch ·as long as it did l'i.ot encroach on the rain garden. A permit is not required forapatfo. · lfyou have any questions feel free to contact me. ::,~ -fvZturner cfty Phmner .952-249-4623 etumer@ci.orot10. nin .us T~epbone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249•4616 www.ci.orono.mn.ns RECEIVED .1111 1 g 20 11 CITY OF ORONO 3518 SURVEY OF PROPOSED AS-BUILT .1111 19 201'1 3518 110226 20/117/23 KOCH, BILL ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. S300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 www.advsur.com SURVEY FOR: BILL SURVEYED: May 26, 2011 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: KOCH DRAFTED: May 27, 2011 Lot 11, also that part of vacated Lake Shore A venue, and of the tract of land lying between said vacated A venue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the Easterly extension of the Northerly aod Southerly lines of said Lot 11 , Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: 1. Showing the length aod direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. Toe elevations shown relate only to the benchmarlc provided on this survey. Use that benchmark aod check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on th.is site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: 11 • 11 Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision aod that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~00004 :H 6L~QD ~H. Parker P.E. & P .S. No. 9235 NOTE We understand 0 -75 from 75 -250 from 250 -500 from --.. o.rt for hardcover on this property as follows: s,, g o -r o&--H ~~ F, ~ -iJJ \) t f t ~ \.11 I ~ C0 CJ ~ 0 ,, 0 :::0 0 z 0 c.... C r- ___. co I",) c:::, ~ f ~, I A1 m 0 m < m 0 n ~ ~ Q X970.9 n .... ~ ~ ~ x uu. X970.7 \ • E);5 tin9 XII07.o \ GRAPHIC SCALE XUD.11 -:::a::::J I j r ( IN FEET ) Drw. No . 770226 PROPOSED DRNEWAY REPAIR/REPLACEMENT RECEIVED JUL 19 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 J---f ~ E i ,i ,,i ~ l (.,[iJ~t ! -,--~ f z L f-- J { 1-. [ '{ ,:-~ +-- ~ l . I ~ <.. ll i l ~ ... --~'11111 ii 111 r2:. ~ i G'fj -ix.~ !! -----· --· ---------·----. -~-\_o1 ---------i---- ~ I > --' (!) r-,.;:, c:J II25 Nathan Lane North I P1yinouth, MN 55441 DESIGN: Bt,e,. 6#a:N:#:ON DRAWN: e,.,~,_ DRAWING: ) oF1 DATE: 7•B·l/ REVISED:------ I 763.478.6987 I www.1ne-adowoodinc.com I SCALE: r•::~l'iffoH APPROVED:----------­ ftdtral Ja,w prohibit1 r'-'froduttion of arty rare of rhi• prorrittary dt:$lp withOUf prnniuiao of Mu1dowood0 frK, I i MEADOWOOD B1w..... ~ ~VRif:... ¥oc.tt 3.1.51 ~(;,./~ r-,._ . M PLANTING PLAN ~~'~ ,. -~-~ »<(· IX! \~~) ~-~ -1 \ 1 ·.-. --,r-:-/ \ / / /\ -~v Y\i, 7 -;_f!--' -,- 1 '.\ I . i\ ,-1~-~~ ' 8 KOCH -:rr' ~-.~~ '~i~ KOCH PLANTS CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 I II ( ~ "''"I"" ) e \ ' ~._/ ,,-. 'l-._, I \ ')'. -I ->:}t,,,•,~ :r-:;., - '>f'.f' j; i~ 8 ) / \ v -i.:-. -. Sr!REA,Ga.o tvruo ® ~ A;mo,y WATFJV. ® ,A.Nf'ER, w-. ® Ca.l~C!.flf Q.Mf"'-~ '°i -1-i.·' Dxw=, V Al<k:A1ID © V lllU<IIJ,\D.vAl'f~Y (3:) DOGWoo:>,isN<TI @ DAYLn. Y, SmLA @ LLAC.0.Vm~ ~ Ome€RRY, BlAfx ® 1-bsrA,~GD,rov ~ 1-bsrA, VAREGA1ID @ 0 ~2 0 r- '"fl ---' 0 co :::0 r--.· 0 c:. __,. z ~ 0 # \N \.Tl I ' co ,, m (") m -< Jffl C (') ~ S:: 0 = i1 _.. 0 co ::0 0 z 0 ......., c::> __., - # \.N \J1 I > co ::0 m (") m ~I C ST AIR SYSTEM PLAN KOCH 953.34 937.0 965.1 I II 7" RISE, 12" TREAD 933.5 FLAT LAWN c..n' KOCH2 40' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 10' 952-472-4118 929.4 -- --' (0 r-,-..;; c:::) -~ "" \Tl I > CX) SUB-TERRAINIAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TIMBER WALLS 9651 T (VP OF HILL KOCH . • 8' 16' 949.3 I 40' 8' • 24' OF HILL ----------------. 933.5 10' " 929.4 c..n, KOCH CONCEPT' LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 (') ~ 2 ::0 m 0 -0 ,, ~ m 0 co < ;o f'-...) m 0 C) -C z - 0 =i:i= 931.5 \.N ----~ \.Tl I > CX) 933.5 SUB-TERRAINIAN WALL SYSTEM SECTION KOCH -FILTER ROCK i--,., H , DRAIN TILE KOCH1 965.1 _,,_ __ FABRIC TIMBER TIEBACK 4' ON CENTER ·f.+..; 4' BURIED TIMBER WALL -8' VERTICLE Tltv1BER ANCH:'.)R 4' OC 2(J 40' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 _.:,. (0 ~) Ci 931.5 ''-"I 929.4 \JI I > co TYPICAL , \ 4x4 TREATED POST I ! CEDAR PLOWED GUARDRAIL i I w/ 2x2 SPINDLE 4" oc TREX DECKING & STEPS i il-jl ...,__t _ r l',i 2x8TREATED i JOISTS I 3 2x12 TREATED JACKS V'-TYP. SLOPE HANGERED 933.5 CONCRETE FOOTING 42"-ro 48" 12" BlJRIED 7lIJ KOCH KOCH3 40' CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 952-472-4118 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with 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 local, state 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. First Middle Address e-/L..010 o c::::::) M Al City / State I u £rstand my rights as stated above . CUP and Other Land Use Applications Last Updated : November 19, 2010 10 Last ~53?1-~717 Zip 6/Z-34?-u;~a {w) Phone RECEIVED JUL 19 2011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® 38 20-117-23 42 0031 DAVIDS & KAY JOWEN 3486 IVY PL WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0008 ROBERT G LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0053 PA TRICK J NEUVILLE 3271 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 Etiquettes fadles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® i I J A -Bend along line to Feed Paper -expose Pop-up Edge™ 38 20-117-23 43 0006 MARYL TUCKER 3466 IVY PL WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-2343 0009 LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 RECEIVED ,1111 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO i I J • Sens de rh;,rn1>m1>nt Repliez a la hachure afin de I reveler le rebord Pop-up™ ] I @ AVERY® 5160® ! 38 20-117-23 43 0007 WILLIAM H KOCH LAURADKOCH 3251 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 CITY OF ORONO PARKS POBOX66 CRYSTALBAYMN 55323 RECEIVED JUL 202011 CITY OF ORONO #3518 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY J. For Office Use Only: City Planner: PC Date : City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.) Meeting Date/Time: What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: SiteAddress: 3~5/ CA--.sco 0/Lc...e-,£. crll...o10 0 , HAL 5 5 .s S /,......<=j ]/7 / , Property Identification Number (PIN): z.o -117 --z..5 -4-3 -cJ oD 7 Zoning District: ______ Size of Property: t.,0 fu n :x: z..,0 >< L <ao x· 24,c;- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Lake/Front Yard Setback □ Hardcover 0'-75' C!3"'Hardcover 75'-250' □ Hardcover 250'-500' □ Hardcover 500'-1000' □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Lot Width CB-o ther: Mi5Vex..,,ex.JT 'l5F ,M~ 7tb4N ID 0_-l/3 I c. VA--/h7S /IV l.-A-~--:S!to-,(2£ 5 e7YJ -,4c..JL. Cse?Z Cg:;,1,Yl}r72 c7A),&-L u!<E": Per'½-1 n: A-Pj!ucen,,;.Af) Applicant's (µH,L PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Applicant and/or Owner has received the Practical Initials: Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, Owner's JoH'IL and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their Initials: formal variance application . Applicant's ~H--JL. BILLS AND ESCROW: Applicant and/or Owner shall pay for consultant expenses Initials: incurred in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in Owner's initial application fee, as well as provide an escrow in the amount of Initials : t<J}f-J<... $ Z..aDo to guarantee payment of the above. -~y f'il.evl V<f!D OTHER INFORMATION: Owner Signature: ccepted without a pre-application meeting during -9 - Date: du L:j 2-0 2..o " , Date: du_c.,y-'lo t.-o t I RECEIVED .II II 1 9 2011 CITY OF ORONO 3518 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Melanie Curtis Tuesday , July 12 , 2011 1 :48 PM 'Bob Swanson' 'The Kochs' Subject: RE : Bill Koch Driveway (permit# 2011-00205) Attachments: Attachment 12 (07-06-11).pdf; Escrow Agreement -Zoning Permit w Erosion Control.pdf; Zoning Permit Application.pdf Bob Bill sent me the attached survey via email last week. As I understood it, Bill was going to speak with the surveyor about the accuracy of certain items shown on the survey. Once this is resolved, please provide two full sized copies of the as­ built survey with the permit application. Please complete the attached application for a driveway replacement (also check the minor land alteration box) and have the Kochs sign the attached erosion control escrow agreement. A check for $2000 escrow and $50 permit fee will be required at the time of permit issuance. If, as you suggest, the driveway is to be replaced in-kind there will be little review . Only requirements that the footprint is not changed or expanded and that erosion control measures are followed . A final inspection is required after the work is completed. Melanie From: Bob Swanson [mailto:bob@meadowoodinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 201110:49 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Bill Koch Driveway Hello Melanie, ------- Bill & Laurie Koch have decided to forgo the variance process and proceed with the driveway replacement in the current footprint. I know that both Bill and I have submitted different pieces of the puzzle for approval but I'm un-certain as to what you might need from me at this time in order to proceed with the project. Please let me know. Regards , Bob Member of the Minnesota Stormwater Partnership Bob Swanson President MEADOWOOD 1125 Nathan Lane North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Ph: 763-478-6987 F: 763-478-2925 www.meadowoodinc .com 1 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Melanie: The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:00 PM Melanie Curtis Conditional Use Permit Application, Zoning Permit, Pre-Meeting Form, Variance Conditional Use Permit (07-20-11 ). pdf; Variance Application (07-20-11 ). pdf; Pre-Application Meeting Form (07-20-11 ).pdf; Zoning Permit (07-20-11 ).pdf Here is (largely) what I expect to be dropping off at your office before you show up to work tomorrow. In addition to these materials, I will include a check in the amount of $1,400 as you said is needed for the CUP and the variance. Also, I expect to receive tomorrow the Certified Property Owner List which I have already ordered from Hennepin County. Finally, I will supplement this submission with a revised survey (3 copies) including the steps and final proposed hardcover calculations, as well as the plans for the driveway (I have plans for the smaller driveway, and the larger driveway plans have been prepared but I just do not have them at this time). I sincerely hope this has everything you need. If it does not, please let me know as soon as possible. I am totally swamped tomorrow until about 3:00, but I will do my level best to get you whatever additional information you might need to ensure we get before the Planning Commission (and then the City Council) at the earliest opportunity. Bill P.S. I called Civil Solutions after we spoke but since it was 5:06 p.m. nobody was in their office (they close at 5:00). I left a message for Penny, and I hope to talk with them tomorrow. I also spoke with Jim Smith and he will try to respond to your questions tomorrow --there may be some confusion about the height of the underground walls, he is proposing 4' walls, but 8' columns. I am not sure if that design approach would still require engineering. (Also, I confirmed that his firm carries $2 million insurance coverage should there be a failure, and he said most engineering firms carry approximately $3 million in coverage.) 1 3518 Application# ____ _ Date Received ----- Amount Paid ----- CITY OF ORONO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and OTHER LAND U SE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Addre ss 3 ~.,,-I :,r .. C, ,1..G ~ Type of Application to be Filed ___ -i...,~-.,,,--~-r~~~~~~---- Property Ide n ·fication Number (P .1.D .)--'ZC--'<=----___,_.:....:.._=--=--=c_---=---'=---- APPLICANT ame !,, 1 • 14 ., Phone (home)_~~• 2~~~--~--Phone(work) __ ~-~--~-- Address <' .,-, E City-"-----'---- OW N ER (if differ ent than applicant) Name __________________________ _ Phon e (home) _________ P hone (work) _________ _ Add re ss City _______ Zip ___ _ Date P roperty Acquired (month /year) I (do) (do not) also own th e adjacent parcels of land. FEES -CONDIT I ONAL U SE PERMITS - ___ $700 .00 Residential Acce s sory Use ___ $ 00 .00 Institutional (church . school . etc .) ___ 700 .00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___ $700 .00 Duplex $700 .00 Commercia Vlndustrial Use ~ $700 .00 La nd Alteration Permit __ Grading and filling -designated wetland or floodplain ]- --Gradi ng and filling-501 cu . yd . or more _L.. G rading , seawall. retaining walls within 75' of lakesho e ___ $350.00 Renewal F ee (IF no change from original application) ___ After-the-Fact Fee -Double Current Applicalion Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ___ 700.00 Commercial Site Plan Review, P LU S consultant fees ___ Commerci al S ite Plan Review Escrow, $10,000 minimum $200.00 Ea sement Vacation , with Subdivi sion Application $700 .00 E asement Vacation without Subdivision Applicalron ___ $700.00 Rezoning $700.00 C omprehensi e Plan Amendment $100 .00 ppeals ___ S700.00 Z oning Code Amendment R P U D / P UD / P RD / P IO -see Fee Schedule Other -see Fee Schedule CUP and Other Land Use Application Last Updaled Nov ember 19. 20!0 8 plus $700 E scrow REQUIRED SU BM ITT ALS 1 ../ 2 . --5-3 . 4 v 5 . 6. _..L.... 7 . ~ 8 . ~ 9. ~ Completed Application Form . Describe request In detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners wilhin 350' of the subject property. labels and plat map . List. labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department or Finance , Government Center. A-603 300 South 61 h Street , Minneapolis. telephone 612-348-5910). t> m Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) -refer to handout for survey Information . Atlach legal description lo application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades) List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). >t-Jc-<.,... 1-f >" '-'~ Construction plan. if applicable (see staff for requirements). r. ,.., As an addendum to this application , please attach a separate hst of any other persons you wish notified of this application . YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FO R REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED . {Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans , etc. to be submitted .) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application . Please remember that your application Is not complete if the above informa tion has not been included APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator . agrees to pay addiltonal fees (s t tjme not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this appll_9e ion , and certifies that the informalion supplted Is true and correct to the best of his/her kno"'edge . ~ Applicant's signaWre L A'.,-..{J ===::S--., Dale bu , 'c ;.,.,, 1 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowtedges and agrees lo this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants , agents , commission members, and Council members for purposes of ,nvesllgaUon and ;ificatJon of th,s r~~ Owner'ssignature~.d,/ ~x Date iB L' z,,,,, Applicant must have all submitlals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comm1ss1on Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month . Applicant must be present al all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting . CUP and Other Land Use ApphCSIIOOS Las! Updati!d November 19 , 20 10 9 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with 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 furn ish certain private or confidential ,nforma!ion. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used lo 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 perm,t or license 3 The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license . 4 . If your requested permit or license requires Council action lo approve , some information may become public 5 You have certain rights under MS 13.04 (see following page) to review pnvate data on yourself 6 . Your full name 1s required to process this appltcalion or permit. Address ch City / / State I understand my rights as slated above. CUP and Other Land Use Applicallons Last Update-ti No vember 19, 201 0 Last 10 ,'2 :J.li-z"'r-a (w) Phone City of Orono Zoning Permit A .--------'.__,'---------------------, Mai/mg Address PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Street Address 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , MN 55356 Fax . 952-249-4616 Date received· Escrow# and amoun . Permit Fee : Approved by . Notes : Main· 952-249-4600 www c, orono mn us Name Phone Address . Contact Person : _ _.g........,_='-c...v=-_..~a...==-......_ ____ Contact's phone number Email t:11" k.cd, , @ m h,, ·, ec:ro Applicant 1s : Contractor PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION : Name : Phone (day). Ma iling Address : Email and/or Fax Overall Project Description : .Sl:?if I Check TYPE OF PERMIT Box Dock , Residential -Permanent dock on any lake or initial seasonal dock not on Lake Minnetonka (permanent dock requires CUP) Dock , Commercial Escrow for erosmn control and engineering review cos ts ✓ Driveway Permit (Ne eplacem~ Also reciuired is a Minor or Maier Land Al!eration Permit Land Alteration , Major (grading, filling or excavating) more 500 cubic yards or ✓ more than 10 cubic yards in lakeshore setback (also requires CUP) Escrow fo r erosion control and enQineerinQ review costs ..,.,,, Land Alteration , Minor (grading, flllfng or excavating) -500 or less cubic yards outside of takeshore setback or less than 10 yards in lakeshore setback Escrow for erosion control and engineering review costs Retaining Wall measuring under four feet require a zoning permit. Retaining walls measuring more than four feet (from bottom of footings to top of wall) require a building permit (Tiered retaining walls are considered one wall unless the walls are separated by twice the height of the lower wall ) Escrow for erosion control and =inPerinQ review costs ✓ Stairway to Lake (New-etfReplacement), Escrow for e rosion control and engineering review costs Structure Permit for other structures not requiring a building perm it but regulated by the zoning code (including, but not limited lo accessory building of less than 120 square feet . detached deck or platform and sport court) Escrow for erosion control and enqineerinQ review costs ✓ Tree Removal or intensive veQetation removal in 0 to 75 foot zone ,. -• ~L J (over) ZIP "f'S3'11,,. ·no (Circle One) ZIP · cosT * $30 + engineering review costs $50+ engineering review costs $2,000 No charge S30 As determined by CUP $50+ engineering review cos ts $2 ,000 $50+ engineering review costs $2,500 $50+ engineering review costs $2 ,000 $50+ engineering rev iew costs $2 .5 00 No charoe. *Permit fee will be collected at the time the permit is issue d. ( ) APPLICANT/OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: • Applicant agrees lo provide all intormalion required or requested by the Planning Department ; • Owner agrees to pay the City of Orono for engineeri ng consultant review c osts wh er e applicable ; • Applicant certifies thal the information suppl ied is true and correct to lhe best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reiect it unlll it is complete; • Applicant acknowledges the attached Escrow Agreement is completed and signed by Owner; • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as eilher pri vate or confiden tial Private data is infomiation which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the pubhc or the subject or the data Our purpose and intended use of this in formation is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies requrred by law. If you refuse to supply the information . the application may no t be issued. The undersigned certify that the inf rmation supplied is true and cor ,.ct lo the best of their knowledge. ,, Applicant's Signature : Date . <-)1 .. u y l t 2P I I Prop erty Owne r's Signature . Date: lo/ I SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS : Except for tree removal permits. all permits TYPE OF PERMIT : require a completed application form , escrow agreement (signed by the property owner) and escrow check from owner , two cop i es of all plans , and three copies of all grading plans or surveys /site plans Dock , Residential Seasonal Dock -survey showing proposed dock Permanent Dock-plans as approved by CUP and copy of LMCD perm it Dock , Commercia l 1 . Structural plans for the dock 2 . Survey showing the proposed location of the dock 3. Copy of LMCD permit Driveway Perm it 1 All Minor or Ma1or Land Alteration Permit requirements 2 . Hardcover calculations, ex isting and p roposed 3 . Driveway plans Land Alteration , Major 1 Plans as approved by Conditional Use Permit 2 Erosion control plan or copy of MCWD Erosion Control Permit Land Alteration , M inor 1 Grading plan including existing and proposed contours (Less than 10 cu yds . within 75' of 2. Amount of fill to be imported and/or exported and haul route lake or less than 501 cu .yds 3 . Amount of earth to be moved around on site elsewhere.) 4 . Erosion control plan or copy of MCWD Erosion Control Permit Retaining Wall 1 . Plans for wall(s) 2 Unless repair or exact replacement of existing wall , submit an updated survey with grading plan including exis ti ng and proposed con tours 3 Hardcover calcu lation wo rkshe ets 1f in shoreland district 4 . Erosion control plan or copy of MCWD Erosion Control Permit Stairway to Lake 1. Construction plans for stairway , including footings 2 . Topographical survey of property with proposed stairs shown 3 . Erosion control plan or copy of MCWD Erosion Control Permit Structure Permit 1 . Plans for structure . 2 . Survey of property wi th proposed structure shown and wilh setbacks to property lines, other s1ructures on property and the septic system indicated . The general locat1on of any sewer and water services should be shown if applicable . 3 . Grading plan 1f grading is required 4 . Hardcover calculation worksheets ,f in shoreland district 5 . Erosion conlrol p lan or copy of MCWD Eros ion Control Perm it Tree Removal Call : 952-249-4600 to schedule inspection L.tsl Updated . April . 2011 ZONING PERMIT ESCROW AGREEMEN T Pe r m it # I -wl,.G ">- AGREEMENT made this --lliH day of ______ ...._ __ , 20-1.L , by and between the CITY OF ORONO , a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and fh',,') l.,, 1-f ("Owners"). Reci tals localed at 1. A buildlr.19 permit application has been filed for a zoning perm1l for ~ I ~ , ,1.,....~ the ("SubJeci Property"). legally described as _'-__ ,____,.---'-','--'--"-...,c....e....;;'---~----'---- Hennepin County Minnesota 2. Owner requests the City lo rev iew this application . 3 The City will commence its re iew of the application and Incur costs associated with said review only if the Owner establishes an escrow to ensure reimbursement to the City of tis costs . NOW THEREFORE , T HE PARTIES AGREE AS FOL LOWS : 1. DEPOSIT OF ESCROW FUNDS . Contemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement the Owners shall deposit $ I UtR--with the City All accrued interest , if any, shall be pa id to the City 10 reimburse the City for lls cost in adrhinistering the escrow account. • ·. .._.,'f I 2 . PURPOSE OF ESCROW . The purpose of the escrow is to guarantee reimbursement lo the Cit y for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred (including planning , engineering or legal consultant review) or will in cur in reviewing the plan . Eligible expenses shall be consistent with expenses the Owners would be responsible ror under a zoning permit applicat ion . The escrow will also guarantee reimbursement to the City for all out-of­ pocket costs the City has incurred to assure tha t the work is completed 1n accordance w1lh the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the provisions of Orono City Code Chapte r 79 . The financial security may also be used by the City to eliminate any hazardous conditions associated v,, 1th the work and to repair any damage to public property or infrastructure that i caused by the work (including planning . engineering , or legal consultant review ) associated w1lh p e r mi t #. ~ if compliance with the approved zoning permit 1s not accomplished 3. MONTHLY BILLING . As Lhe City receives consultant bills for incurred costs . the City will in turn send a bill lo the Owners. Owners shall be responsible for payment lo the City within 30 days of lhe Owners' receipt of bill. 4 . DISBURSEMEN T FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT . In the event that the Owners do not make payment to the City wi thin the lirnerrame ,outlined in #3 above. shall issue a Stop Work Order until the Owners pay all expenses invoiced pursuant to #3 The City may dra" from the escrow account without further approval of the Owners to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred . 5 . CLOSING ESCROW . The Balance on deposit 1n lhe escrow , if any, shall be returned to the Owners when the rev iew has been completed and written notification is rece i ved from the Owners requesting the runds 6 . CERTIFY UNPAID CHARG ES. If the project is abandoned by Owners , or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow, the City shall have the nght certify the unpaid balance to the subject property pursuant to Minn . Stat §§ 415 .01 and 366 012 CITY : CIT Y O F ORONO OWN By : _____________ _ A , Its. ______________ _ Internal Use Only: C Original to Planning Department C Copy to Street FIie Crty of Orono Pre-Applicatron Meeting Fo r m (This form i to b com I t cl b a crty Pl. nner durin you pr -app1tcat1 n meetmg,) Meeting D L ,me: What ishe purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-ap Ii on rn etlng aid the pficant rn pmpartng a complete pr posal, inform th m of the procedure and m ulrements of th city co e. and identify pot1c·e-s or regula ns that .ere-ate opportu rl!es or problems or the proposal. PROPERTY INFORM ATIO ; Site Address . Property ld13nU11ca lon Numb r (Pl }. _ ---=-_...1'--,=----.:_------"-'=.:;..--'-""''--~=....::.:c....,;::. ________ _ Zoning Disbi · _____ Size of Property: A pli'cant s Initials: Owner' lnl ials· Appl! nt's Initials 0 Rear Yard Setback O La e/Front Y rd Setbac D Ha rdcover 2501-500' □ Hardcover 500'-1000' □ LotWi th C. -9- 2. APPUCATIO E CROW AGRE MENT Zonfng App lic tion #__!_ - Recita fs e CITY O F 3. Tl e City i V'.iflfn ta comme Its revie t r "1e pohcalion c n lticur costs assoc, ted tlh s i rev1aw orily I th Ap .hc:ant e.,tablishes an escrow to nsure 1mbur;emenl lo lhe Cily of its COlitt NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEPOSIT OF ESCROW FUNDS. Cootempcran ously • ith Ule e e u Ion of th1 E crow Agreemen the ppll~nl shall depo lb $_..-__ With th . c( y All ccrued in-teres~ if ny shall be patd fo e City Q refmbvrs Ci y for it ~ 10 &mlhisl ring he -.,crow .ccount. 2. PU RPO E o ESCROW. The purp . e o thP escrow I to guarani e re1m ursement to h c, y for all o t~o • ockel costs the City 1as lnc~r ed (ioc:;lud1ng planrnng en rneering, or regal consultant r y!e1.t) or wlll inc in meeting with the-Ap lfc nt. re.viewing the plans, and prepa!ing nda packet r teri t for City Councrt rnvie o appl ·on II r CJ • Eli ,bl ex · se shall b consist nt wit 1 expenses Appl! n would b re pom;ibl ro oMer a :ron-ln nd subdi11fsion plie on . MONTHLY BILLI G. As City r ceives consultant b1fl for incurred costs. U1e City wtll lJ'I tum ppllcant h I be r Pon i I for paym n o th City wi hin 30 days of the CLOSING ESCROW. Th Bc1I-nc 011 d posit in he , r v ew ha been completed. , ff any, hall b ~ re urn d to the 6 , CERTIFY UNP'AID CHARGES . If e proJ Cl Is banctoned by Appliean , or . the ellg1 I ex l'ISes locun b the Crty exc ed he amount in scrow HI C ty shan ve the l'ight to certify the u p Id bafan to the ubje property plJrS Ha ,,..,,,. Stat.§§ 4 tS.01 and 366.0 2. / CITY: CITY OF ORONO By;, ______________ _ !ts. _____________ _ -10- . . l,T ; s /Jiu. 0 (1 lc7-I I EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DE.SCRIPTION A-t.80 t.<- ~€ -4,\)i) w,~ K:-e J,,.> a,:: V-~ 'T1 -r;'l-.l+ea-~ 1l v'A~ 1C t-1 e '( ex~stor,../ ~ -:n, Eftl-'1 A'1\J ~7),f e:,t,,L>f "-;~ -ff} t..cr-I( $/'l'U J . P. -11- C. City o.f Orono Var iance Application N 5532 ·006 lve !: ------ Appllc l will be notifr d within 15 da to th s us o lh pl ced on Planning Commission Agendas . r ) OWNER INFORMATION : (Com I le leg f Nm . Phone (home ): Co tple Add ~: C1 Y, St & 21-P Email ax: ---~--------- -12- REQUIRED SUBMfTTALS : All of h rollowln information rn J t ml t by the pplic tlon de di r e d, te In ord r for your p II ti n t be pro d , Not II cable a ·1~_.,...--,--..,._-------- □ □ 0 □ □ □ □ 0 Cl □ cpo_rt __________ ~---~i D Cl CJ -- ANO/OR OWNER: prov1 111nform,1Uon r ulre or r u tad y th Pl nmn Oep rtmont, • • Applicant· S!gnatur Appncant' s Signa ur · Own r's Sign ture: OWne s Signature : (staff Ima no cov r ·n lhe or in nd or con ultar\t e 1 p lcaton ., nd PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATJON FORM Fw;d \:,. \\ \' \\ ouh! like t1·, Ct.instruct ,\ t.il .. ,sid.: paliLl f, 1r th1; n.·~•r ftf tlk house :\ Vl.'rs,on o( ,;u,11 a 1x111;1 \\J~ :,;hn\\fl .is h:n i11g hi:<:n appt\1\C'd hy th,: City 1.>n th,: plans pr,)vi .. h:..l fn u;-; \\h\."fl c\~ bought ihi..-h,Hts;:.: In fart. hist ~c,u, th;: Cit)-< f:H.'lyn Tm1H.::n had said w,· i.'\Hl!i! bmid a small pallv wirhnu1 any fi1rth.:r n.:\ ,cw That 1.hr"·.:t1mi, ,.,,\." h;1\,: fW\V ht.'-.'11 lt1ltl, \\.ism error. StilL \\t.: .,., r1uld like h) co1blrm:t a pcnui:.·abic pan:r p.uio tHl the lakes1tk: of th'-· hou!-<.\ m,:,:Hvoratin.l:! a ,a, ,mm ,11<·r 1cti.:m1o!l ,:;;yqcm th;1t '" di hdp -:•n;;.uri: dt.:~ bk\' and \\ .lh::r quality ,.;re prutcckil W "-' ~m.· v. ,>rktng \\ 1th a t\!1:ugm;,cd l.:adcr m ih,., fidtl ,,f dcsi!;rrtng "h•ml\\ atcr m.11m~1:m.:nt :;y:;kms !!l ;,,11\..h pt,1 llX'!:-W.: h..:linc this lH."A SlOilH\\;U1.·t ,:olh:1:tion 'i~SlCnt wm acumily impro,e rl1~ qu.,!ii: a11.I \1wmi11y ,.,f swrmw.1t1:r ctmlm! oYt.·r the status qui} h} ~· .. 1ptunn~. '.'>inwin1ci. and ,,in\~-:-t ntt)rt:: sfunn~ ah .. ~i it Ht) our 1v.-u , .. x r~;ting r~un t!arth.:ns L ··lht· fffOf>t'rt) o\\net pmpo-.e~ to ust· (h4• prop~rt) in a n•.1,-onnhk manner not flt:nnitt<'d h~ tht· Zoning C'baph.·s·." \\''t.,, are lh)i iir.,)pt}$ing to use the pt'i.lpt.Tl) Ht uny n1ann~r tncon~i:~t~ut \~;Hh the currt:nt .11 111111~'. ;t ~in~k-family n:stdcnl.'.r:. Om pn1p1,st·d prn_1<:cts ,qli 11,it ih:ga!f\ dy impmr :in:,,,ni:··,., li>l: \if i.11..:ir m\n pn,p.;ny, •>t .myon..:',-u::;-.: nf !hi;; lab:. !n :,i.ort, ow pn:iicd~ .m: c\Ht~•tSt\.~rn ,v!1l1 th.t: U~;;s enlph)vc-.l hy all of our nt:i2:_~bbt)rs. 2. ..'I tw pH~ht of the fandm,ner clttl' fo dr<"tHli>Hmcf.'s unique 10 his prope1·ty uot cn:ah·cl by the landonner:• \'-m1.:mi,)t11.::.! .1b1wc. \\C' ha._c a d,.-r.:nnratt.:d dnH·,,~,y that ,\;is 11ht.1!lcd ~Vi part M the w1t1:d constn1.::t1t.m 1.\\ ith wtuch w,; wen.' not mvuln·,..!} imoh:ing ~uhsund,mi p.n~rs and :;ub~Lllllkm.J mstail:.ition. The <ks1gn of thi..'. dri" ,;;'.way alst, do1.'S noi alk1\\ f,Jr ".:a":·· ns,: the l\\ (: garages. ,\d,ti1i1m;ill}. !bi.' hill going. fn the take is at th..: hi~hi:~t pomt of an: prop1:ny (Hi Cannan !by lht' l.'Xistmg :-.l<:ps anJ rdammg walls art: nt'ar th-: end {)f thl.'ir !tsi:ful life. and \h' \\nu!,! t\Hhc·r h~iv~ u purpv::;efoi plan to addrcs:. those :.-ystcms b1:fon: th .. :r,: is ,1 fai!tm.• rc1.111i1 mg .m cmi.:rg.em:y response. 3. --·rhl' \ arhmre. if granted. will not alter the essential character of the locality.·• w~: live m a re:::1<lcmiaL !.1k~side ct1mnuuu1y 1.'lf ;;ingle-family h .. ,m-.,s Th1.t projects, inili,1Ju.il!y 1.Jr colkctivdv, \V!ll not alfcr the character of ihe area in Hs~Hr, n ;i1:d l .:ti;►,J, 1 \ f~t~. \; \ i -\r;\1 '-''.YJ; 1n1.~nds1 ar;: ,,ut cnj,lyrng I!K'II ded,, the\ ,,\,oulJ fl(ii sc1.• our pati-1 And our southern ndJ?.hl:t1,r. a rdm:v livin;! ahm..:,, h;.1s a fonc\.' :tlong (•1.ir prnp-.:ny lml.' that \HI! i:sp1.·c1;1ll:, \\:llh ctff tr.;:r;.'s. hiod, (Hit p<ltm fr.,im , ic,,. Of ~'O\trS('. JUS!. as ·with their ,:.w11 ~1utd1,or sp.K.:s. ,,ur p.Hi,-. w,,uld hi.' \ i::-ibh: if c,ur nciglib\►rs stood i11 thdr h..1ckyards anJ k)• . .lk(.'d h~td tO\\,.trd our h1Ju:-.1: 1ust as thdr ab.,,r-,gnnmd <kd;.s arc \ is,hk to u;.; ·1 h .. ~r~· i-. nuihrnr .ihont th~ fH\l{k~sal tha1 is tl11.'1lblSICUt t\ lih th;; loGil .. m.:a -t ··Fconomic considl'rndon~ alottt• do not corbtitute prnctkal diffirultil"~ if rt'.a,ouabk UH' for the prope,ny t>Xists under flu.• tt•rm,-of the Zoning ClrnpCt>r:' lli,:n.:· 1, n,, dir,:ct s.·1.:,,u, . .inll: ('1.ms1.'\.)111.mri.: rdat.:1.! hl the \.an;mci.:, t:\.:~·pt 11.•r ihi: larg~ ,Jul­ ul.·p1.,d,1.•i ;.'.'\J1Cl!:,i.:'S v.·,: \\ ill he irn:urrnii;. \\'1; h,ul Ill) e,pectatillll or b.1,mg h) r..:ria(..: !h;.: dfrn:\\ ,lj \Yhik we 1.·\p\.:'1.:tt:d that ··&omc.t,1y'' ih\! skps and lhc· n.:t.tininr IN .. tlb might ll~-:J to b<.: r,:phKcti, \\ t,; <lid HO{ en•, h,ion th,: l,.trge amount nr \\Or!.. {l..'ll~!ilh'• .. Tlllt!, li.'.llh}\ :iL piawin!-' pbn. Condn1,1t1al Ls,..· (\:rmiL ct.:,) th.1! w,)ul~l e.nt.1H EH·n tlk' p.llllJ is a brg-:r ;:\p1:1th: th.:.·n \\~ \\1.1ulti han: cxpctt(:d g1,en th..:-n\.'cd (cn\ironm.:mally, re~~uLttor,. and t.'thic,1llyi tiJ cnst1R' W!.'. •.:ff.:,;:tndy man,tg~ ~tnrmwakr rnn,>ff lt.l proh:t·t the qualit:,. of i.hc t.:r,nuHlwaicr and th\! lak<.' \\',: ll1(Wtd t,i Or(Hl(' for the· Ltkt:, a11d \\t: h;.1,-: no inlcntiim lo harm it A<lditiona!ly. \\(' m,ned t(l Ornnu ..;n our chil<ln.:n l'.(lU[d ..:uioy g.ro\\ll1f u11 in the ~·tmmrnnu y and w11utd h:tvt' \\ 11t1t.krful meinorii:s -.vhcn th.:\' return with tbeir own chi\,.h•11 \\~ .lfc not builders hx1kin~ fix moin~tH,try rnax1mi,1,aliPn ,,f ,1ur imcstm.:nt in ,iur pn.,pcrty and lhl: ,:omnrnnily 5. 0 Prnctkal difnculties include~ but an.• nut limited to, inadequatt< :icct•ss to direct sunlight for solar N1tt·g~ ~)!'.>1tms. VarianN~s slulll b~ granted for earth ~hd1ercd construction as defined in ~linnesota Shuutes. Section I 16J.06, Suhd. 2, whcu iu harmon) n ith thh Chapter.'~ b.. ··Tht· Board or r\ppcah and Adjustmt>nb or (be Conndl may not pt't'mit as a rnriance any u~e that is uot alloited oude1· this < '.hapfer for property in the zone \\here tile affected pt>rson's land is tocatc.>d." 7 "The Board or C'oundJ may penuit a rnrianct> the tempor.ary ust> of a one-famil) dwelling as .i two-family dwtlling:• Not applkahl-.' 8. ··The sp\:dal conditions applying to tbe stru\'ture or land in question are peculiar to surh proprrty or immediately adjoining propert~-:~ H,i:-t·ons1dcraliP11 \'!ii) ,1pplic:,; \\ iih rc::--pcd lo .. ,w· '.ikt:p lull t._1 the l.ih•. Both of our :mm,:i.hak m:ii;hbor . ., h,.t\.<.: .i.bt>\ t·-g:mund sti:p:~ k~:<liu;; tu the ht~i.:". Our pt\lp1.1sal al'Clnnpli:;h,;;;;. the 1,~mK· ;11.'.<:;:ss, \\ilh hmi!td tmp.:1d \'\ ith 1fw Sl•iL Additionally, our prnp\1S,tl w(iutJ n.:turn th .. · hili to a mon: natur::11 sklp1.· that i::-1wt , i~ually '\;ul up"' hy ri:taimn~; walls. \Vink "' i: umkr:;tJH<l from l 'ily ~t.iff th;.H \\ , . .: cin1kl r;;pla..:c \h(' i;.'Xisting ,i~·p:; \\ Hlwut nc\!'d fr,r :, C,rntiitHHtJl Lst:' Pt.·m111 or v:1ri,uic,.:, to n,1! addn:ss the r1.'taum1~, \\,lllts ;11 thi::. 11111-: ;,,(ml.J !,,,, ,i mist.:1h•. Th,.: ,,~dls arc dt.:·l...:rinratmg. W..: have .1 plan 1ha1 \\Ill t\'.tnP\'i,; thl..' rt•t~1111ini;_ \\ -ills \,hik· r,:tainmg th.: int.:tri1y nftlw hill anJ rdm-mn1! I! !\• ib lii\>rc natural sl1Jp1.•: \\(' hdtev-:· (ii, stJff .i~n.'cs it 111ak-:s ~\:lb<:: w achlr,,·ss :he rt:>tainmr \Yati:~ ,Jt thi~ tin1c. 11. ..'ffw cnndition'.'i do noc appl,\ {.!elleraU, to otlh.'t' fond or ~trm·oir,·s in thi: dhu·kc \\hen• llu.· land is loc.Ht•d." Om:: n..,:~d only mk a hoat up ;mJ down th~ 1.\t:::,,h:rn ~hor,., ,,( ( 'arman }by f.l sec (~llr hiil !$ unhkt.· unj other tallhuugh n i:-.. of i..'\ltllsc. tjtl!h.'. :-:imi!ar ll.' 1H1r imm<xli:H..:: rw1ghhnrs'i • tt h tiK high1..'"it pcnm 1,u that _.;fo-,r1.· "i1h !he nt,)st v~rtkally ;;·:q,~1Scd shor1:line l,, th1.· 1..•xti.:nt it. is si1nibr !n 011r immi:1ii~:lt' 111:1ghhors. th-:y .drl.'~1dy han: ai"w~•-g:r,nmd steps h.-.idin~ t,) 1h,.: bk;: J-" ,, di :1s np-rap along tht: :-!wrdill;:. I 0. "The gnrnliog of the ttpplk,trfon is ncccssar~ for tbe pn•senntion and en.ioyment of a ~ub-.1m1tial 1u·op<"rty right of the, appliratU.'' l he Jrivl;'\\,I\ p11)\ idc~ u, <1nc-;::-; t\1 our garage-; from lh.: ni,1,l. It i:--r1t 1t an extr:iv.1g;mt ,k,if.n. Th,:r1.: b n,:, tumarom1,.! \Ir i:lr<"k._ itr ('\.l."n j h.11:kup .. ,pron. H is truly all that is n,;;:cds:d to saft·ly an.J cfkctivdy US\.' th.: drin•v. .iy \IJ gci our c;.trs in mhl out of tih: gar:1¥,cs. Addition~i!iy. \\.;" ;m: cum~nll'.', \,dl un<kr !ht.· .!i'>pr,w,:,J hardcoYl.'r in this portion r~f \·Htr property llt,: $fcp~, and uuJ,::rgrou11t.i r"'Uming w;1tl :;yst~m is ri.:ctlc<l r~) .illnw us ,tt·e.:si'.i to tile lake W..-bn: n1.1 ai.::cc!>s tn the lake uti11.·r 1.h.111 dowu oor hilL The cum:m system is dangerous it !ms a \ a1 ii.:~tj of rises ~1wl nm~ for t.hl.' in-ground sh.·ps. \' ludi are deti:rituaring and •dipp;.:ry. \\ ithoul the bcndrt nf an:, railings. l By \'-ay of l.'x:impte, \H' had an experienced n,nu:.lctor ..:>ut W th,· site who w~ls warnc<l about the stcl1s who tuok a nunhk d1.)\\ n th<.! hill (1ff the step whik he was revi1:wmg the sit.:. flus is, unfortuuardy, a mon.c conmmn occurrt:-n(c than \H, \\(mid likc.l Th.: fMth• proj-!ct ,\ill a!lo,\ u;; to mon: ti.lily enjoy t.h~ exterior of om home ~md propt.>11j, -.~hile not kadiog to .i.ny in,.:reasc<l visual .. noise" or duttcr for lhns~ on the l.akc or eVCfL in foct, (lllr neit?,hbors 11. ··The g1·anliug of tbe proposed ,arian<'t" will not b• any wa)' impair bealth. safety, comfort~ morals, or in any other n~spect be contrary Co the intent of tht' Zoning Code:• I 2. he i' true. · fb rautiog appH nnt. but · 1 ,tri,u1c ar to alk a ·on ·cni •or1.1 IO th Thi 1..· n. ill til.ln i n t appli ,ibh: t h p ,ti \<ltliti f the retainin , .w th nd ummn o our ri · ~\ ,, } n t ( lU m,1king. r U1 pr ~~ ts. 111d ph t of th urr nt arc fr m lh • ·url. pr1ng 1 and th1: · nJilt n 1 nd ·r·wn OOlU1\lt1iLy an ' noa m1 om.mi [on or th tt :RVFY \PPROVf:J) HY CITY ENtTl"Nfl:R A:\D Cl lY BULDJS<, lN:iPl'CTOR ,\UOWING SMAl.f PATIO ( ~fay 2, :;'!OOti) l l· l Tl'.R f·RO\l en, NOl l~li PRJOR APPRO\'AL Oi 142 St)i '.:\RF FOOT P'\TJO. \Vrfli i\iO NEFD FOR PHtMl i u\pri l 2q. :X!l ()) I • ref., ,__ ________ ----- CITY of ORONO iWl ipnl Qffi , l,.ot 4.ddren 27~ I! 11 1 ., ) Oror. ~• 553 cl ph 11 {9:51} 1@-460ff • a {95 lJ 1494 . i W\fVl'.ci.oro,.o.nm.u 'l 006 • ■ 't • e © ~ @ ;\ @J 6 @ @ ~ l J ~ J j J ' J ,IC J J t 1 ... i! CD !j) ~ 0) ! ~ f r--,. ~ ~: STAIR SYSTEM PLAN KOCH 937.0 o..c..-· ;;:;,00. •--------------------------;.... ........ --4r--------~--- 7,1 12•J r-1, ;~ T~--AO 93.3:5 FLAT LAWN t;.rl' ~~929.4 ~ CCNa:P'f LMV9CAR-(; 952-472-4118 _) ...J SUB-TERRAfNJAN WALLS BURIED REPLACE ROTTEN TlMBER WALLS 9651 P ~H~· . KOCH e, 1 1.3 · ,. OF HLL 933.5 c:.('}l 10' KOCH TYPICAL 9335 ID' 40' dNl:P'r V.W;;CA; %2-472-4118 I z . --- PERME·ABLE PAVEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS . , tQ : ----J,, :i::. l­o.,._ u.J Q 4 ;:::, ~ ~ ,: .. (X) 2007 M~AD<>WOOD INC , i JS• WIDE SUPPORT MARGIN L ASTM No, 8 STONE IN-FILL. .,.. I -1·p,q: ' 4• l>IA'HETl;R PERFORATED PIPE SPACEP AND SLPPEO TO ORA.lN ALL STORED WATER (OP+lOUM;} 12• SETBACK MN/DOT Cl.ASS 2 AGGREGATE MJRAFl F IL TERWE;AVE WOVEN GEOTEXTllE MEADOWOOD Via E-Mail Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356-9387 Re: 3251 Casco Circle Dear Ms. Curtis: 3251 Casco Circle Orono,MN 55391-9717 July 6, 2011 As we have been discussing for several months, we would like to complete several projects on our property on Casco Point. Two of the three projects are to address on-going problems with our site, and one is to address an earlier "approved" lakeside patio. We would like to: 1. Replace our deteriorating paver driveway; 2. Replace our deteriorating steps and retaining walls going to the lake; and 3. Install a small patio on the lakeside of our house. 1 Background Our home was built in 2006, and we bought it in November 2008. As part of the initial approval for the home being built, the builders went before the City Council and received approval to exceed the general hardcover limits on the site. When Resolution No. 5436 (Attachment 1) was passed on March 13, 2006, our property was identified as being historically nonconforming due to its size and the fact that a residence had long been in existence on the property. The City also noted that the hardcover variance then requested was in line with the levels of hardcover variances approved for other rebuild applications with similar lot conditions, and noted the proposed new home would meet the structural low coverage limitation of 15%. The City further recognized that the increased hardcover was "necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City." The City approved a 1 As we have also discussed, we would like to eventually install a larger patio on the lakeside of our house using a state-of-the-art stormwater collection/management system in conjunction with permeable pavers to manage stormwater on the site to minimize its impact on water quality for Lake Minnetonka; we do not want to do anything to negatively impact why we moved to Orono in the first place. We understand that is not possible under the current rules in Orono. It is our hope the City will decide to replace the current hardcover rules (which are, at best, rough approximations regarding the control of stormwater runoff) with a science-based system that protects the quality of water in Lake Minnetonka from stormwater runoff. We will wait to see how the City decides to move forward with the review it is currently undertaking. We are not asking for approval of this larger patio at this time. Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page2 variance allowing for an increased hardcover on the property , while allowing the existing stairs/retaining walls down to the lake to remain. That resolution permits the following hardcover: 297 ft 2 or 6 .6% (0 '-75 ' zone); 3 ,363 ft 2 or 29.98% (75 '-250 ' zone); and 35% (250 '- 500 ' zone). Additionally, the small patio was included in the plans approved by the City Building Department (Tom Kelley and Lyle Oman). The Surveyors Certificate from Charles Anderson dated January 16, 2006 , was the same one attached to the Resolution, and there is a stamp and signatures from Messrs. Kelley and Oman that they "approved" the "site plan" and the "grading plan" on May 2 , 2006 .2 (Attachment 2) The hardcover calculations that were contained on those plans were later used by Evelyn Turner when she wrote to us on April 29, 2010 , after I met with her and she reviewed the City's files and said we could build the small patio without requiring a permit. (Attachment 3). In our discussions with you since February 19 , we have more recently learned there is now some concern that the earlier approvals by the City were either provided by the wrong person/department or were based upon incomplete information. You asked us to complete an as-built survey and provide more detailed plans of our proposed projects. We retained Advanced Surveying & Engineering to do the surveying work. According to their work (Attachment 4), the as-built hardcover calculations follow : 263 ft2 or 5.9% (0'-75 ' zone); 3,463 ft 2 or 32.9% (75'-250 ' zone); and 93 ft2 or 14.1% (250 '-500' zone). As you can see , we are well within the approved hardcover for two of the three zones , including the zone closest to the water. The 55 ' -250 ' zone appears to be 312 ft2 over. For comfarison purposes , we are under the allowable hardcover by 33 ft2 in the 0 '-75 ' zone , and 138 ft under the allowable hardcover in the 7 5 '-25 0 ' zone. Therefore , in total , the site is currently 141 ft 2 over the hardcover permitted by Resolution No. 5436. While Resolution No . 5436 did not require the builders to construct two rain gardens on the site to further help control any runoff, one of them is included in the attachment to the Resolution. That rain garden is shown on Exhibit A to the resolution, along the northern property line. In fact , the builder constructed two rain gardens (the other being on the southern property line), and those gardens continue to be in place. The above "overage" in hardcover does not account for any "credit" that might be appropriate for the second rain garden. Specific Requests We would like approval from the City to undertake the three projects mentioned above. 2 Mr. Oman also signed off on the building plans for the overall construction of the house, which included a slightly re-configured (and smaller) lakeside patio . I now understand from talking with you that you believe the Building Department was approving the plans for the house only and was not approving the actual plans including the small patio ; you said the patio falls outside the authority of the Building Department. There is no such disclaimer on the plans. Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page 3 Replace Driveway. Our driveway is crumbling and wavy. It appears as if the driveway was installed improperly and constructed of a material not appropriate for Minnesota winters. As I just learned today from one of our neighbors, the area where the driveway is falling away most from the house was filled in after construction of the house when a "sink hole" developed in the area. I am not sure what happened there, but I am hoping it was simply a construction issue. In any event, our car currently scrapes its front bumper when we back out of the garages due to the extreme drop-offs. Also, in order to maneuver out of one of the garages, we need to sharply angle the car, yet it is still hard to back out without running on the grass. We have contacted Bob Swanson with Meadowood, Inc. to do the driveway replacement. We chose Mr. Swanson and Meadowood due to his involvement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnehaha Watershed District and others to review and develop new stormwater guidelines aimed at improving the control of stormwater runoff and to proactively develop new environmentally sensitive (and scientifically based) guidelines. Essentially, he is one of a "new" generation of contractors that embraces the environment and looks for ways to protect it through the projects he builds. He developed a plan to use permeable pavers for our driveway that have been shown to work in Minnesota. His layout differs slightly from the current layout of the driveway to allow for easier access to our second garage, and to "square up" some rather odd curvy boundaries to the driveway. You already have those plans (Attachment 5), and the outline of those plans is included in a survey completed by Advance Surveying & Engineering (Attachment 6). Replacing and reconfiguring the driveway as currently recommended by Meadowood would actually add 208 ft2 of hardcover in the 75'-250' zone and 32 ft2 in the 250'-500' zone (still well below that approved for this zone in Resolution No. 5634 for the 250'-500' zone). We could likely do some minor tweaking on the replacement driveway to get the numbers down a bit, but we would like to talk with you about what is truly needed. In short, our driveway is a mess right now. Small Patio. We also asked Mr. Swanson to develop plans for the small patio on the lakeside of the house. We asked him to protect the current rain garden in that general area, and attempt to improve the flow of any surface water into that rain garden to make it even more effective. He developed a plan, which you already have. (Attachment 7)3 Adding this small patio and the necessary steps/retaining wall to protect the rain garden as currently recommended by Meadowood would add approximately 163 ft 2 (the 200 ft2 value 3 The small patio would tie in to any later-approved larger patio's stormwater management system (Attachment 8), which we are prepared to ask him to install at this time, even as we await application (and hoped for approval) next year for a larger patio to go on top. You have already been provided a schematic of how that stormwater management system would be constructed. In essence, although permeable pavers would be used for the patio(s), we would plan a worst-case scenario that the pavers would become impermeable, and use a collection point and underground piping to direct stormwater directly into the rain gardens. Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page4 used in the calculations from Advance Surveying & Engineering are "conservative" numbers that are higher than the number Meadowood has stated would result). (Attachment 9) Steps/Retaining Walls to the Lake. We sit high above the lake, with a steep hill containing an old railroad tie step system with two large retaining walls. The steps and the retaining walls are starting to show their age and will need to be replaced. I understand from you that the City does not really care how we address those conditions, but asks that we do so within the current footprint of the steps and retaining walls. We have contacted Jim Smith with Concept Landscaping to come up with a plan. We chose Mr. Smith because of his extensive work on Lake Minnetonka, including with the City of Orono and, I believe, every other city on the lake. Additionally, he and his company appear to have the expertise to address the unique situation with our hill in an environmentally sensitive and sound engineering manner. We wanted to come up with a plan that is less visible from the lake and provides more protection for our hill. Currently, there is a ravine/washout area in one portion of the hill, and we fear the hill will slowly wash away down into the lake. There is no retaining wall or other physical barrier helping to hold the hill back. We understand the City has worked with Concept Landscaping on many projects, including the recent washout/erosion problem just a few houses away from us (at the house of the former Mayor of Orono). Mr. Smith recommends removing the current retaining walls and replacing them with a subterranean wall system that will not be visible, will secure the hill, and could actually hold back some water and allow it to percolate down in the soil, rather than run into the lake. Continuing to follow the existing step path (which was requested by the City and will reduce the visual impact of the steps on the lake) would result in a new, reduced, hardcover calculation in the 0'-75' zone from 263 ft2 (5.9%) to 230 ft2 (5.1%). This plan is shown in Attachment 10. We could reduce the hard cover from these steps even further if we were to go with a more direct route down to the lake, as our neighbors to the north have done, but I understand the City would rather we stagger the steps to make them more hidden from the lake --we are willing to do that, and incur the additional expense in doing so (not to mention the additional expense to build subterranean walls), but we would appreciate the City recognize these additional efforts by us in the area closest to the lake with a slightly greater hardcover allowance on the areas further from the lake. Just to put this in perspective, the effort to install the subterranean wall system and the follow-the-general-path steps is estimated to cost about $32,000.4 In contrast, the cost to demo and remove the current retaining walls and steps is "only" $3,570. Each step and landing to accomplish the follow-the-general-path request adds to the overall cost of the project. And, finally, we are looking at spending another $6,000 to improve the old rip-rap on the site to protect the shoreline -the very high water we've had this spring (and the extreme washout just a few houses away) show the importance of protecting the shoreline to protect the lake.5 4 The overall estimate for the work on the hill is more than $50,000. 5 As I had discussed with you earlier, we had considered a more "natural" and "soft" shoreline project through planting native grasses and the like. We had consulted the Blue Thumb guide and spoke with a contractor that has installed such projects (but, apparently, not on Lake Minnetonka). Concept Landscaping told us about their experience doing test plots with the City of Orono and others; given our site conditions, they strongly advised Melanie Curtis City of Orono July 6, 2011 Page 5 Replacing the steps and retaining walls as recommended by Concept Landscaping ( and following the City's requested existing-footprint plan) would reduce the hardcover in the 0'-75' zone by at least 33 :ft2. Further reductions in hardcover could be achieved if we took a more direct route down to the lake. And, again, this replacement of the steps and retaining walls would result in the removal from view of two larger above-ground retaining walls. We would like to receive whatever approval the City can provide, or feels it must provide, to allow us to consider a more direct route the to the lake to allow us to reduce the hardcover in the area closest to the lake. Conclusion The conservative hard cover calculations for all three projects are contained m Attachment 11, and the survey done by Advance Surveying & Engineering is attached as Attachment 12. I hope this additional information is helpful, and will allow us to quickly get approval from the City so we can move forward with at least the hill work and the driveway. We would also, of course, like to complete the work on the small patio ( and at least the prep work for the stormwater management system under the patio area) as well. But we understand if the patio project(s) need(s) to await modification of the current hardcover regulations. I had hoped to meet with last week or early this week, but that was not possible given your work schedule. You asked if I could meet next Tuesday through Thursday, but my job commitments will likely not permit that. I could still meet with you tomorrow morning, or any time on Friday. Please just let me know if either of those times would work. In the meantime, I hope this letter and attachments will help answer many of the questions you have had. We are prepared to spend some $100,000 on our property-money we never expected we would have to spend when we bought the home less than three years ago -but we want to ensure we do it right, and with the City's blessing. Sincerely, William H. Koch Attachments (via e-mail) against that and then, a few weeks later, our neighbor experienced the significant washout after they tried to install a more natural shoreline barrier instead of rip-rap. Given the slope of our hill and the limited about of set back from the shoreline to the hill, we cannot afford to gamble on losing five to eight feet of shoreline ... our hill would be in the lake. Melanie Curtis From : Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Melanie : The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Thursday , May 19, 2011 3:57 PM Melanie Curtis bob Re : Status of Approval? Sorry about any confusion . We will get a survey done and get the as-built hard-cover calculations to you . It is ou r hope that will allow both the driveway and the patio to be constructed . It may take a week or two to get the survey done . Let's see what the actual numbers are ... Melanie , at one time I had a copy of the City resoultion that was adopted for our property. I cannot find that any mo re and cannot find it on the internet. Could you please e-mail me a copy of the resolution? Thanks . Bill P.S . I will be your contact person for this project --just so it is easier on all of us. -----Original Message ----- From: "Melanie Curtis " <MCurtis@ci.orono .mn.us> To : "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchsi.com>, "bob" <bob@meadowoodinc .com> Sent: Thursday , May 19, 2011 10 :27 :31 AM GMT -06 :00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: Status of Approval? Gentlemen -I believe there may have been a misunderstanding about me contacting Bill following my conversation with Bob. It was my understanding that Bob would bring Bill up to speed on what we had discussed and then instruct Bill to contact me. It helps me if I have one contact person concerning one project. I have found that this will avoid miscommunication. I am happy to work with both of you, however please note, it adds to the confusion when we meet or discuss the project separately. Bill -Regarding Evelyn's approval of the patio project -based on the variance and the hardcover numbe rs approved and bu ilt it does appear that you have "room" in your hardcover numbers to construct the patio. The only thing that may have changed since that time is that I have a better understanding of the projects you intend to do and the hardcover as it exists on site may actually be at or above the level approved. As I discussed with Bob, I can issue a permit to allow you to construct the patio, however because the reconstruction of the driveway is not an in -kind construction, and the driveway was not constructed consistent with the approved plan initially I believe your property exceeds the approved level of hardcover. I can't allow you to reconstruct your driveway and construct the patio without additional survey/hardcover information. As discussed with Bob, I can allow you to reconstruct your driveway at this time but the additional allotted "patio" hardcover will be added to the driveway and you would be maxing out your levels. I could not approve a patio administrative ly; variances would be required at that point. Please advise. Melanie 1 From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:56 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: bob Subject: Status of Approval? Melanie : Bob contacted me last week following his meeting with you regarding the latest information on our sought-for approval to replace our driveway and install a small patio on the lake side of our house . As you know , our driveway is falling apart due to the substandard pavers used and the poor installation --we've got pavers that are literally crumbling away and pretty dramatic waves in our driveway that make our car scrape as it goes in and out of the garage . We received approval more than a year ago from Evelyn Turner for the patio project, and she said no further approvals were needed (although we would need a simple permit to do that work). I understand that things may have changed from the City's perspective, even though nothing has changed on the ground . I am a bit confused and disheartened by this turn of events . It appears as if the hardcover numbers used in one of the plans submitted to the City are different than as the project may have ultimately been built --although the numbers are consistent with the building plans signed off by the City and used by Ms . Turner for her calculations saying we could construct the patio . Bob said you may now want to have a survey done of our site before any approval might be forthcoming . Because he said you said you would call me (although you and he discussed his giving me a heads-up call), I have waited to contact you . Unfortunately, I have not heard anything further from the City . I would appreciate understanding from you as clearly as possible what you feel is necessary , and the basis for any such request. And I would like to have it in writing so I can act on it or respond to you in an intelligent manner. Our driveway is a wreck . Our patio was already approved based upon the same numbers you appear to now question (but that were part of the detailed plans submitted to and approved by the City when the house was being built before we ever came into the picture). We would very much like to get our projects going , and done promptly and properly . Thank you for your attention to this . Bill P.S. If you like , I would be happy to have you come out to our house and look at the driveway and the proposed patio location . I cannot imagine there would be any negative environmental impact from either, or both , of these projects (or even the larger patio we would like to propose if/when Orono modifies its hardcover regulations in favor of a science­ based stormwater management protocol). 2 RECEIVED MAY 11 1011 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED MAY 11 7fl1\ CITY OF ORONO Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Tuesday , May 10, 2011 4:42 PM Melanie Curtis Subject: Re : 3251 Casco Circle Melanie : You are correct about our copy having all the weird colors/smears . I will ask Bob to get you a diagram that will show the overlay on the document you provided to us . I hope this will then be able to be approved promptly so we can get going with the project. The driveway is starting to eat up our cars as we try to go in and out of the garage ... ! feel like the bumper of our Prius will be left on the floor of the garage any day now. And all the "waves" in the driveway have only gotten worse with the recent rain. It is hard to believe something as solid as a driveway on pretty flat ground can have such movement to it. It will be nice when that is taken care of. I expect we will soon be back to talk with you about our hill to the lake . Thanks . Bill -----Original Message ----- From : "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@c i.orono .mn .us > To : "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchs i.com > Cc : "bob" <bob@meadowoodinc .com > Sent: Tuesday , May 10, 2011 1 :42:56 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: 3251 Casco Circle Bill I just received your voicemail. I don't have an as-built survey in the file. I don't believe we required as-builts when your house was constructed. The survey we have is the proposed survey. I believe I made a copy for you when you were here. Yours had a bunch of colored smears on it if I remember correctly. Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial : 952 .249.4627 Fax: 952 .249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email : mcurtis@ci.orono .mn .us Website: www .ci.orono .mn.us 1 Melanie Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Melanie (and Bob): Thanks for your response. The Kochs [mnkochs@mchsi.com] Thursday, April 28, 2011 11 :36 PM Melanie Curtis bob Re: Follow-Up 1. I will ask Bob to prepare an overlay over the existing driveway footprint, or a site plan showing the proposed dirveway, grill area, and lakeside patio (both the planned small patio and potential bigger patio). Basically, though, the current driveway configuration has a rather odd wavy line as it widens to go into the second garage, and it is a bit awkward to back out of the driveway without driving onto the lawn. We believe this design was selected to accomodate two large trees that were along side the driveway --but which we had to remove since they were dead (we were told be the tree folks it was likely because the soil around the trees were too compressed during construction of the house). While the trunks were ground up a bit, the roots are still there (as are some of the trunks), so we will still need to work around them a bit. The new design "squares up" some of the wavy lines. We are not expecting there to be a net gain of hardcover, and we certainly would not want to have to remove anything after installation. Too much money is being spent to later remove things. While it would be nice to be able to make the driveway wider and have room to actually turn around on the driveway, we know that is not possible --we have no plans to increase the footprint of the driveway to accomplish those things. 2. The grill area will not be on top of or feed into the underground system. The grill area is adjacent to one of the rain gardens, and is a natural low spot on the site. The crushed rock will simply be placed above mud/dirt. Nothing can seem to grow there due to the shade and moist conditions. There will be no landscaping cloth or other barrier to impede water in any way from entering the ground. And, again, the area is right next to the rain garden, which would intercept and trap any water, preventing it from doing anything other than simply percolating into the ground. 3. The new patio will be a permeable paver system, not simply a concrete pad. The only real issue is that if we hope to be able to expand the patio once Orono adopts new stormwater management regulations (which I believe it will based upon the science), we need to do the work below the soil surface now to set the site up to collect any water that might collect on any future unmaintained expanded patio. This is because site access is an issue, especially once we build the smaller patio we are planning. We do not want to have to remove a one-year old patio to expand it in the future, so we plan to install the catchment basin (my term) so that any future patio can be constructed on top using the plans we have already prepared. As Bob and I discussed with you and Mr. Kellogg at our first meeting, the catchment basin would ensure that even if the permeable pavers were not maintained, any rainwater would be collected, slowed, retained, and dissipated in an environmentally sound manner. It would be designed to capture water from an impermeable patio, and then slowly feed it into the rain gardens or into the soil in a controlled manner. We have provided a general cross-section of the design to be used to install this system. (And, based upon the numbers I have seen, this system would be better than simply having sod in place. Actually, in a different regulatory climate, installation of this collection system should act as an off-set against other perceived hard covery on our property. I understand this is not currently possible.) Finally, I have been talking with a couple of landscapers/construction companies about the hill/steps to the lake. We may very well need to tackle the steps before we do anything else so we do not damage the new driveway and patio by later doing the work on the lake side of the house. It appears as if "simply following the current steps" is anything but simple given the code requirements we would have to now satisfy. As I said before, the angles, the uneven terrain, the retaining walls, etc. make it largely impossible to simple follow the current layout (even though we like the meandering nature of the current layout). It appears we will need to follow the existing layout in all but one ~5 foot section ... which will allow us to then remove and/or cover some of the steps and retaining wall with soil and plants. Again, we expect to use an elevated wood/engineered wood system that should minimize impact on the hill itself, and allow water to more easily penetrate the soil and not wash down into the lake. I expect to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to see if they migh have any grant money available to help us offset some of the cost since we are trying to return the hill to a more native (and environmentally favorable) plant habitat. Thanks again for staying on top of this, and please let me know what additional information you might need or questions you have. 1 Bill 612-743-3210 -----Original Message ----- From: "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis@ci.orono .mn.us> To: "The Kochs" <mnkochs@mchsi.com> Cc: "bob" <bob@meadowoodinc .com> Sent: Wednesday , April 27, 2011 3:57:50 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE : Follow-Up Bill I apologize, I was out the day you sent this email and it appears to have been lost in the sea of messages I received that day . I was just following up on your permit and found it. Again, I apologize for my delayed response ! Bob's explanation to my questions was a little confusing. A site plan with proposed improvements would help a lot. However, after re-reading everything here is what I think the plan is, please clarify if I am incorrect: 1. New driveway sketch looks like the existing driveway. Narrative says two big trees are now gone and it will be changed. Without a more detailed site plan I can't be sure the changes will not make the driveway bigger. I would like to rely on the as-built to assure this doesn't happen, but we won't have confirmation until after the driveway is installed. I would hate to have to require removals at that time. Please submit a more detailed plan, perhaps overlay the proposed over the existing on the survey ... ? 2. Grill area will be crushed stone -this doesn't appear to have any underground "system". Is this correct? 3. The rest of the patio will be concrete unless the owners choose permeable pavers with an under drain system. Is this correct? For clarification of my above assumptions I've copied my questions and Bob's responses directly below: Hello Melanie, The following is in response to your questions respectfully: 1. 3a. rain garden. 3b. I have attached a copy of our standard permeable paving stone cross-section for your review. The Crushed rock grill area water will be filtered through the aggregate and released into the existing At this time the smaller patio will be installed using standard construction specifications. That will only be modified to accommodate stormwater if the Koch's elect to install the Permeable System for future considerations. 3c. I am not certain that I understand the question. Are you referring to the elevations of the newly built retaining wall & step system? If so refer to the spot elevations that I have provided. Please call my cell# (612) 719-5439 with any other needed questions or clarification. Regards, Bob Bill My apologies for sending the correspondence to your work email account. I must have just grabbed the most recent one I used. Sorry about that . In response to below: 1. I just looked through the materials Bob provided at our meeting and don't see a copy of the standard cross ­ section. Please have Bob email this to me . 2. I will need an as-built hardcover calculation completed at the end of the project to verify compliance, particularly since your proposal is not in the configuration shown on the survey. 3. Regarding the crushed rock grill area -is this area to be drained to the underground storage system? Also, will the new patio areas be contributing to the underground storage system once installed? If so please indicate on 2 the plans the extent of the system below grade and the system structures extending above ground should be identified. The top down view of the patio areas are not clear in this respect. McjU\I gi: Csp-Qll if 'l52.2'f-'1.'f·621 [8] k asp:gppagpimk I .sq From: The Kochs [mailto:mnkochs@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 1:49 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: bob Subject: Follow-Up Melanie: I wanted to follow-up to ensure you have all the information you currently need to approve the work on our driveway, and lakeside patio area . Bob Swanson provided additional information to you on April 14 in response to the questions you raised, but I do not know if you still need additional information . Please let me and Bob know if you are still looking for additional input as you consider approval of the projects . Thanks . Bill 612-743-3210 (cell) P.S . We continue to meet with various folks to look at the hill/steps to the lake . I hope we will be able to come up with a succesful plan that will ensure the stability of the hill , reduce runoff to the lake, and allow us to actually safely walk up and down to the lake . 3 Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: To: Cc: Wednesday, Apri l 13, 2011 3:57 PM 'Koch, William (Judge)' 'bob@meadowoodinc.com' Subject: 3251 Casco Cir -Permit# 2011-00205 Bill Your permit details have been sent to our engineer for their review. In reviewing the materials for your project it appears we need or will need the following additional information: 1. Plans and details for the underground system; 2. Existing and proposed hardcover calculations; and 3. An as-built survey upon completion of the project. The as-built should show all the installed improvements, hardcover, catch basins, any grading, etc. this way we can assure conformance with the hardcover limits for your property as well as assure that the underground system will accommodate your site's needs in the future (future patio, etc). 4. On your plan where the grill is located in an area that says "crushed rock". Is this area to be lined under the rock? Perhaps a cross-section of the areas would help understand how the patio will work with the underground system as well ... Is that something Bob has already drawn up? Call me if you have any questions. Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtis@ci.o rono.mn .us Website: www .ci.orono .mn .us 1 Melanie Curtis City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Minor Land Alteration Dear Ms. Curtis: 3251 Casco Circle Orono, MN 55391-9717 April 8, 2011 RECEIVED APR 1 1 20 ·11 CITY OF ORONO This follows our various discussions, and our meeting on March 28 with Tom Kellogg and Bob Swanson. Again, I appreciate you and Mr. Kellogg taking the time to speak with us about the projects my wife and I had hoped to complete at our home. Based upon our discussions, we have decided at this time to not pursue the retaining wall at the base of our hill on the lake or the larger lake-side patio. Instead, we will ask the City to allow us to replace our existing paver driveway (since it is crumbling and sagging in a pretty drastic manner), and add a smaller paver patio in the rear.1 Enclosed is the Zoning Permit Application for a Minor Land Alteration, which is what we understand is needed. I have also enclosed a check for $50 (filing fee) and a second check for $2,000 (escrow fee for erosion control and engineering review costs). We would appreciate our permit being considered as quickly as possible; I expect it would go before the Planning Commission at its May meeting and before the City Council in June. -\ ~ ;-4---ea""'+ h.e.-91'.-,,v-e._d ~ s~, Mr. Swanson, of Meadowood, Inc., believes the driveway project can be completed in only a few days. I expect the patio project to take a little longer since they need to remove some existing pavers and we will likely need to have some in-ground sprinklers and pipes moved. The driveway will generally follow the existing pattern, although we would like to make it a bit more uniform in its shape since the two large trees the mandated its existing design died and had to be removed. The slightly modified plan would allow us to back out of our second garage door without having to take a sharp turn while we are about two-thirds of the way out of the garage . We will again put in a paver driveway, rather than a less expensive (and less pervious) asphalt driveway . This paver treatment will be repeated in the rear of the house, where we will replace a small paver landing at the base of the porch steps with one to complement the driveway and extend out into a small yard patio. This patio is designed to include a garden area adjacent to one of our rain gardens. We want to incorporate a stormwater-sensitive design that will capitalize on our existing rain gardens. 1 We still expect to approach the City (and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as may be necessary) regarding replacing our rather dangerous steps down to the lake . We have to wait, however, until the weather gets better and we can get some proposals for how best to accomplish that task . As we discussed, we hope to be able to landscape the hill and shoreline in a way that will adopt the City and MCWD goal of achieving a more natural shoreline by planting more native plants, and to "soften" the shoreline by interspersing plants among the old rip-rap that is currently in place. We also want to try to minimize the visibility of any steps (and the existing steps, since it sounds as if the City would like us to keep them in place to help stabilize the hill) from the lake . Melanie Curtis City of Orono April 8, 2011 Page 2 This patio area is designed to fit within the hardcover limits already approved for our site; the rear patio in the enclosed site plat shows the earlier-planned patio that was approved but not built . Our plan shows the site contours, the plans for the patio area, and the erosion control plan as noted by Mr. Kellogg. As we discussed on March 28, we would like to ultimately have a larger patio on the lakeside of the house. Because we want to protect the water quality of the lake -after all, that's why we wanted to live on the lake -we have asked Mr. Swanson to develop a plan that would manage stormwater runoff. It appears the plan he has would actually improve on the current water control on the site, and be better than "just grass." I understand the City of Orono is beginning to review its hardcover rules and, after appropriate review and input from the community, environmental groups, scientific entities, regulators and the like, may be in a position to address the current hardcover rules. Because we are confident the City will want to embrace a better and more accurate way of capturing, limiting, re­ directing and "treating" stormwater on-site, we believe the City will embrace the type of technology we are suggesting. Of course, the City is just starting its review process . We would like to have Meadowood install the below-grade elements of a hoped-for future expanded patio. This added expense at this time would put in place a type of catch basin in that area to slow down and "treat" stormwater in-place. As we discussed on March 28, the system would direct a certain percentage of stormwater above a certain level into the existing bermed rain gardens . This project area will be returned to grass, but would then be easily retrofitted, if approved later by the City, with the larger patio. If we do not do that portion of the project at this time, I understand it would be difficult to do later due to the equipment involved and the damage that might then be done to our new driveway and smaller patio . As always, please let me know if you have any questions. We want to be open with the City and to address any concerns you might have. Thank you. Sincere! , Enclosures 1. Zoning Permit Application (Minor Land Alteration) 2. Zoning Permit Escrow Agreement 3. Surveyor's Certificate, Driveway Plan, Lakeside Patio Plan (3 sets) 4. Check 5123 ($50 Application Fee) 5. Check 5124 ($2,000 Escrow Fee) RECEIVED APR 11 2011 CITY OF ORONO MARK GAYLORD LOT Established in 1962 SURVEYS COMPANY, LAND SURVEYORS INC. REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Property located in Section 20, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. ~ "" \ \ \ We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 16th day of January 2006. ~ ~, Rev 2-0G-OG Added. Pro osed. 1--fouse Drawn By 5. ~ \ \ File Name i------------------------; sp-11-1fb101358inv73529.dwg Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 §urueyors 2-s-rc 11,tF/oarElsv 969.0 ffiertifi.rat.r Lot 11, Block 1, SPRING PARK \ RECEIVED CITY OF ORONO topiCG: 929.4 INVOICE NO. 73529 F. B. No ___ 1_01_3_-_5_8_, _59_ SCALE: 1 " 30' 0 Denotes Iron Monument □ Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation .. Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. 974.0 973.5 96S.3 Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Full Basement Lakeside Basement Lookout Windows QWf Signed __________________ _ Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 or (') ~ 0 .,, 0 :::0 0 z 0 ::J> -0 AJ .......... --" "" C) :::0 m C') m -< m 0 ; .. .,. -• • ~ ~ Jr 'll ' ~ f 'N '--.t ., '1 I' -iv . ~ °' tt i ! ; .fl' 1l \! :z. i' t 1 ~ i ~ ! t ~ f J) r • f f1' t If j l. ll ~ t f 1f' i X w ~ < {1l i -( ............ E 0 () 11 1'12:S Nathan Lane Nort,h 1, Pl,y1nouth, MN 554 4 1 ' ' ~· ~~~ 0ESJIG•N:,. · • ~~· 0R'A WN: M : DR•AW,ING: ;l.,Df,~ DATE: t,/~O ., REVl~-EO:•-~------ i Z., l'. i : ~- 763.4·7 8 . .6 9.8 7 . _w,w;w.inea;;f:owo o d i nc,com I SCAL E ,: \ f''. :S , e;Q.: APPRO~EO: r..rrn1 i-·,""-1,;.,~o1 ·;..,~',...,;i,;;;~ Jo i.if .... ~·pr,..._.,..o11~f•~;hc;' 1 · ' /·. I; ,, -1 ' ' .r· } w f. ., t : <r () :J ):>, ""'O 0 ::::0 .,, ~ 0 ~ :::0 r--v 0 c::> ...... z -0 ::f + ff jj ~; :::0 m 0 m -< m 0 ; ~ :z. i I ~ J 1~ _J;) ii.-¢" ~ (Jl ,., :j I ~ I I I I I l j I I I l I J:) ~ ..J:> ' 0 ,r I .J:) a­ (1> L"\ r <. 2. ~ I -0 0 ~ f I O t L--_____ _.L ______ : l I . -V .., . . r: .. ----_J,------' ~ --------------------~--_J L -----------_: ,e i I □-~·w¥1 I -=P. l'il . ~ z.. j~ ~ ~ --~:.,i I F =-~-~ ·-~ ~ ----·--·------~-===---=-· z ~ ~ }Tl "t) ~ ~~ . ~ ~ U'-~ ~ ):)~ ~i .-.. -.~.--~ II25 Nathan Lane North I Plymouth , MN 55441 I 763.478.6987 www.meadowoodinc.com MEADOWOOD · DESIGN: ~e.:, kv:JR-,,~t4 I DRAWN: lb,~, DATE: DRAWING: j Oi-=A REVISED: -4/ftJ/JI f ' SCA LE: I ''::..-4•-o" AP PROVED: FrJrral L.r,.., rrnhihir, reproduction of any part of chl5 prorri('1ary Joi~ without ~rmWton of Mudowood, Inc. I Blw_ 4· L:rru R, e:. t-<o ~­ Z>J.51 CR,~ &Rt!LE:... n~ M,.._,",:::.~-n::\, &;' ,5 :2Q I April 29, 2010 William and Laura Koch 3251 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 55391 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Koch: CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Delving further into the variance file from when your house was constructed I found a patio of 142 square feet was allowed but not constructed. Enclosed are the approved hardcover calculations and survey. You could construct the patio adjacent to the screen porch as long as it did not encroach on the rain garden. A permit is not required for a patio. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ City Planner 952-249-4623 eturner@ci.orono.mn. us Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us updated 2.15.2006 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ~ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = S.F. Length Width 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. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other Wood steps at Lake X = 297 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4 496 S.F. B A 297 B 4,496 X 100 = 6.6 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = S.F. Length Width 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. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other Wood steps at Lake X = 297 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 297 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4,496 S.F. B A 297 B 4,496 X 100 = 6.6 % updated 2.15.2006 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ~ 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = 1,088 S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = 200 S.F. C. Driveway Grallel X = 152 S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk Concrete X = 140 S.F. Wood X = j j8 S.F. E. Patio/Deck Concrete X = 78 S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = 21 S.F. Walls H. Other Concrete Pond X = 45 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 1.842 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 11.219 S.F. B A 1,842 B 11,219 X 100 = 16.42% % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House House X = 1,660 S.F. Length Width 76 X = S.F. X = S.F. 8. Garage X = 575 S.F. C. Driveway X = 705 S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk X = 145 S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck X = 142 S.F. X = S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Retaining X = 30 S.F. Walls H. Other Egress Wdw. Well 30 S.F. X = TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3,363 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 11,219 S.F. B A 3,363 ..,_ B 11,219 X 100 = 29.98 % updated 2.15.2006 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSh'EET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ~ 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = 94 S.F. C. Driveway X = 166 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. G. Retaining X = S.F. Walls H. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 260 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 900 S.F. B A 260 B 900 X 100 = 28.9 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X = 95 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. G. Retaining X = 9 S.F. Walls H. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 95 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 900 S.F. B A 95 B 900 X 100 = 10.56 % MARK GAYLORD LOT Established in 1962 SURVEYS COMPANY, LAND SURVEYORS INC. REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Property located in Section 20, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. ~ "' \ \ We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 16th day of January 2006. Rev 2-06-06 Added Fro oeeci I-louse Drawn By ~ '\ \ \ File Name 1--------------------------l sp-11-1fb 101358inv73529.dwg Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 5542B §urueyorz Lot 11, Block 1, SPRING PARK \ toplc.t11 929.4 INVOICE NO. 73529 F. B. No. --=1_01_3_-_5--'B ,~5 9_ SCALE: 1 " 30' 0 Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set □ for excavation only xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevation ~ Denotes Proposed Elevation • Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. 974.0 973.:;, 965>.3 Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Full Basement Lakeside Basement Lookout Windows ct]f Signed __________________ _ Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 or