Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />#02-2755 Fire Station Plat/Var/CUP <br />February 22,2002 <br />Page 2 <br />exterior lighting and street lighting. He was advised that all site lighting would have to comply with <br />City codes and be shielded and directed downward, and that Orono has no plans to add decorative <br />street lighting on Willow in this area because it is a rural neighborhood. Planning Commission <br />discussed the issues and recommended as follows: <br />I.Approval (6-0) of preliminary plat as presented, subject to MCWD approval of the wetland <br />mitigation and stormwater management plan. <br />2.Approval (6-0) of the setback variance for the fire station, finding that the variance is <br />supported by the hardships as stated in the staff memo and that the variance will have no <br />impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties; with the condition that if the 6th bay is <br />not built, the station must meet the required 50 ’ setback. <br />3. Denial (6-0) of the CUP for tower height based on the following findings: <br />a; It will have a potential negative visual impact on the neighborhood due partially to its <br />non-icsidential character <br />b) I's use for training purposes has a potential to become a nuisance in this residential <br />neighborhood, especially if it becomes a training center for other departments. <br />c) The need for the excess tower height has not been demonstrated, and there may be other <br />options, such as building it 5 ’ further into the ground. <br />d) The potential impacts of the tower in this residential neighborhood cannot be satisfactorily <br />mitigated. <br />It should also be noted that the City has consistently denied building height variances for homes and <br />institutional buildings in single family zones. Two most recent examples arc the Minnetonka Art <br />Center and the Burton residence on Rainey Road. <br />Other Issues of Note or for Discussion <br />1.Will park fees be due for this plat? Technically, the fire station is neither a residential use <br />nor a commercial/industrial use, and has little if any impact on park needs. It would not be <br />unreasonable to waive park fees or exempt Lo* 1 from them, given the fire station use and <br />City ownership. However, the future development of Lot 2 may be residential and <br />have a parks impact. Park Commission has not reviewed this plat. Staff recommends that <br />park fees be deferred for Lot 2 until it is residentially developed (see item 4 below). <br />Will Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fees be due for this plat? Again, the fire station is not <br />strictly a residential, commercial or industrial use, so applicability of the Trunk Fee is <br />questionable, but the fire station is hardsurfacing about 60% of Lot 1. The S&D Trunk fee <br />for Lot 1 if treated as commercial property would be $6,480 per acre or £q>proximateIy <br />S13,200. Lot 2 could be come a residential site, and the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee