Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2019 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE c- ❑ COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please c mp,tette°3thefollawingafo�mat�on fontcity;records ` ``; '. rr _ �R ' , „` F, a PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. _al/nSo;) (Fl &Pi ins I,c.esko - Sery i Cc L 411 -oodoO3 2. G/916/ AfIIrL 04o/1'P Grzz.vo2 iwe L/9/P ooc)ia y 3. $ Ø4" CICS 474 /9- ap400-L L4 - 6 060 0 -C 5. GM k-'\M' of II9S Roc LA i9 - 000©03 6 C-rA_- o?- 1 O s D`-(iP OO N LA - (Ct o c,c;,v 7. cn 1 )- GG� (-co LK- et- oc0004- 8. Te)5 \fit ( ` 9. � ck (i-t2A a.4 7 77�1��t�9� r�-jam 11Al #t, l/� '6J-it'd 0. 1. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC -WAT� Agenda Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 2019, 6:30 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356 'krsHO'ti 952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet— located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. Council Representative: Aaron Printup Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes New Business 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2019. 2. LA19-000003 FineLine Lakeshore Service, 1795 Fox Street, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 3. LA19-000004 City Homes, 3369 Crystal Bay Road,Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 4. LA19-000005 Steve Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road,After-the-Fact Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. LA18-000104 Gary Anderst, 3382 Shoreline Drive,Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 6. LA19-000006 Todd Cushman /Rick Brama, PID 33-118-23-11-0060, NW Quadrant Willow and Wayzata Blvd, Concept Plan (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 7. LA19-000002 Scott Gates, 4400 Deering Island, MUSA service from Mound to Deering Island, Concept Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 8. Update on February 11, 2019 City Council meeting. 9. Other issues for discussion: • Planning Liaison for March 11, 2019 City Council Meeting: Kevin Landgraver Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us—follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke, and Dennis Libby. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19,2018 Landgraver moved,Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 19,2018,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA18-000062 SVEN GUSTAFSON,387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT, 6:33 P.M.—6:37 P.M. Sven Gustafson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a revised preliminary and final plat approved in 2018. This application only involves 387 Orono Orchard Road, which is the property with the existing home. The developer recently sold the northern lot and completed an administrative boundary line adjustment between the two properties. The boundary line adjustment created a more substantial building area on the north lot and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property. The existing driveway access point will continue to serve the separate northern lot, which is not part of this subdivision. A new private driveway access is proposed to serve both of the properties as shown on the grading plan. A maximum of two lots can be served by a private driveway. The previous plat was approved for five lots. The revised preliminary plat is less dense and conforms to the RR-1B zoning. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and individual septic sites have been submitted for each lot. The home on Parcel A is proposed to remain at this time. All of the RR-1B setbacks will be met. The revised subdivision plan reflects the applicant's desire to protect significant tree stands along with removal of invasive and diseased trees on an as-needed basis. The applicant is continuing to follow the guidance in the Conservation Plan as far as tree protection. The goal of the design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Engineering comments will be forthcoming once the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received,reviewed,and approved the stormwater plan. If the Watershed District requires changes to the plan, it is recommended the applicant respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. If the comments result in significant changes to the plat layout, it may be brought back before the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The property is proposed to be served via a private driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of Parcel A and meeting up with the existing drive. The driveway will be expanded to serve Parcel B and an access easement should be established for each of the proposed lots. A maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the forthcoming recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. Lemke asked what the gradient is for the driveway. Curtis indicated she does not have that information available tonight but that the City Engineer is looking at that. Curtis noted the City does not have driveway standards. Thiesse asked if the septic is allowed within the setbacks. Curtis stated the septic sites will be required to be conforming and that the applicant has plenty of options for relocating them. Landgraver asked if it is conceivable that the larger lot could ever be subdivided in the future. Curtis indicated it is precluded by this application. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, noted they had approval for a private lot and five lots previously,but after reviewing the number of trees that would be lost, it was determined it would be better to have three larger lots. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Landgraver stated the application is pretty straight forward and that he is okay with it subject to the comments of the Watershed District. Lemke commented in his view it is an improvement. Libby stated he had a chance to review the application earlier and that it is pretty comprehensive. Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000062, Sven Gustafson,387 Orono Orchard Road,preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. LA18-000087 ROBERT BROOK, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE,6:38 P.M.—6:47 P.M. Robert Brook,Applicant,was present. Page 2 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 6-foot tall privacy fence to be constructed in the side street yard between the two driveway entrances. Ferndale Road is a local street, and per City Code, a maximum of a 42-inch tall fence is allowed. Staff finds the request to be reasonable. While not a county road or state highway, Ferndale Road is a busy street that connects Orono to Wayzata's downtown area. City Code would allow for a 6-foot fence in this location if the home was located on a major thoroughfare. The applicant has stated the high volume of traffic and use of the road has created a burden on the property. The shape of the lot is also unique compared to its neighbors in the shape and location of the principal structure sitting close to the right-of-way where separation could improve safety conditions for the property. The questions the Planning Commission should discuss the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance and they should consider the impact of the proposed fence upon the neighborhood as well as existing and anticipated traffic conditions. Barnhart stated it does seem reasonable that a 6-foot high fence be allowed given the level of traffic on Ferndale Road. Lemke asked whether the fence on the western side of the property is existing and is also a 6-foot fence. Barnhart stated that fence can be six feet high and that the variance is only being requested for the proposed fence in the front yard setback. Thiesse asked whether Staff has any traffic numbers. Barnhart indicated he is not aware of any numbers and that he can check with Wayzata to see whether there have any traffic counts for the road. Thiesse stated if the high amount of traffic is the reason for the variance, he would like to see some documentation of that. Todd Irvine, Landscape Architect, stated the property owner is unable to be here tonight. The proposal is pretty straight forward. The house is very close to the intersection of County Road 15 in addition to being located on a busy road. There is also a large gravel leftover area that people use to park when they go for walks or bike on the trail. Part of the reason for the fence is to attenuate the noise from Ferndale and also provide some privacy from the cars parking in that gravel area. Irvine noted the right-of-way on Ferndale is a little wider than a normal right-of-way and that it is 22 feet from the edge of the road back to the proposed fence location. Irvine stated in his view it will not impact cars visually as they drive down Ferndale. There are also fences and hedges much closer to the street further down the street than what is being proposed here and it is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Landgraver asked what the finished product will look like from the street side. Irvine indicated it will be horizontal cedar 1 x 6's and the posts will be kind of hidden to create a contemporary feel to it. The fence will either be natural stained or black to match the trim on the house. Page 3 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke noted the plans state the fence will be painted black. Irvine stated he was not aware of that but it appears it will be painted black. Thiesse asked if there is a row of arborvitae in the front. Irvine indicated there is not. There is a row of arborvitae over to the east and the other fence is located on the neighbor's property. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Lemke stated in his view a 6-foot fence is not intrusive in that location but that he would prefer a more natural color than black. Landgraver commented he normally is not a fan of fences,but given the location and the traffic,he would be in favor of it. In addition,the fact that it is not being extended along the whole property line lessens the harshness of the fence. Libby asked whether the applicant could incorporate more greenery or a berm to help mitigate some of the privacy issues. Irvine noted the area is pretty-well treed already and that they have a concern that any additional trees would be shaded out. An arborvitae hedge was planted further down. Libby asked whether the fence is more for private or noise abatement. Irvine indicated it is more for privacy and that the house is one level. Erickson stated he has a high level of comfort for this variance given the number of unique factors for the variance. The shape of the lot is unusual,the house is close to the road,there is the nearby parking area, and it is very close to a county road. Erickson noted that county road is the most highly traveled road in the city and that he would approve the application. Landgraver moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000087, Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road West,fence variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. LA18-000091 AJ HELGERSON,2870 GOLDENROD WAY,VARIANCE,6:50 P.M.— 7:20 P.M. AJ Helgerson,Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant recently purchased the home and is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioning unit within five feet of a property line and within the drainage and utility easement, which is not permitted by City Code. This is a new home, constructed in 2018. When the home survey was first Page 4 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. submitted,the proposed plan showed the A/C unit on the west side yard where it was noted as not permitted for being placed in a drainage and utility easement and within the side yard setback. The air- conditioning unit was relocated to the north side and is currently located within two feet of the property line and completely within the drainage and utility easement. Due to noise concerns,the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting air-conditioning units from being located within setbacks. Barnhart noted this property has an opportunity to move the A/C unit to the rear yard of the property to meet City Code. Granting this variance would serve as a convenience and the submitted request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. The options are for it to be located in the front or rear yard. The applicant has provided some information with some concern about having it in the back yard since that is where his children will play. In reviewing the standards, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the existing A/C unit to remain in the side yard since it appears to be more of a convenience for the applicant. If the Planning Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves the request, it will be contingent on an executed encroachment agreement and moving the A/C unit to the west side of the property. If it is necessary at some point to perform work within the side yard setback,the applicant will assume responsibility for the cost of the relocation. Thiesse asked whether four other properties within this development have had to physically relocate their air-conditioning units. Barnhart indicated four other properties within this development, in addition to this property, all had A/C units installed in nonconforming locations. The four other properties were able to move the A/C unit to meet City Code. Landgraver asked if those other homes were occupied. Barnhart stated to his knowledge one was occupied and the other ones were in various stages of completion. Thiesse stated in his view this situation is a little bit different since the houses are much closer together than in other developments. AJ Helgerson,Applicant, stated he is here asking for forgiveness versus permission. The air-conditioning units for some of the other houses have already been changed. Helgerson displayed a picture of the property when it was first staked taken on October 14,2017. The certificate of survey from David Weekly Homes is dated October 12,2017. By that date the building design had been denied by the City of Orono due to the air conditioner being located on the side of the house it was on,which was never told to them prior to purchase. The builder then moved the air- conditioner to the south side of the building. In talking with a couple of people in the neighborhood and the next-door neighbor to the south,they were told they had to move the air-conditioners. Helgerson indicated he asked the builder to explain to him what was going on and the builder's response was very vague but that they have to move some of the air-conditioners. Page 5 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Helgerson indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued from the City to David Weekly. The temporary certificate of occupancy stated all exterior improvements had to be completed,driveway completed as shown on the survey, final grade completed as shown on the survey, and erosion control needs to remain in place until the sod is down. Orono issued that certificate of occupancy to David Weekly 48 hours prior to when they closed on the property and there was no mention by the City of any air-conditioning unit or any variance being required. That was dated March 28 and the closing was to occur on March 30, which was Good Friday. Because there was an issue with the fireplace,the closing took place on April 2. In an email dated October 5 from Jason Thomas of David Weekly Homes it stated that the City of Orono is requiring a new certificate of temporary occupancy and that they have to get the air-conditioner worked out. Helgerson noted this is the first actual document he has in his possession that they are not supposed to be living in the house until the air-conditioner issue is worked out, six months after they purchased the property. Helgerson noted they did not place the air-conditioner there knowing that it was in violation and that it was six months after they moved in that they were told about the problem. Four other houses in the development had the air-conditioner on the side versus the back but only one was actually occupied at the time. One of them was the very first house in the development,which has a gigantic bump-out that they placed the air-conditioner behind. Helgerson indicated since they did not know about the problem initially,they did not have a choice not to purchase the property. The other people who purchased homes in the development had the choice to walk away or get it changed with the builder. Helgerson stated in his view there is a hardship. According to the legal definition of a hardship,there is a case to be made. In addition to there being a monetary hardship to relocate it, some local realtors have indicated that there is between a$17,000 to$40,000 decrease in value because of noise and safety. The neighbors prefer the air-conditioner where it sits currently, which is against the neighbor's garage. Helgerson indicated they have already made improvements to the house,such as a deck and concrete pad for a play area. The proposed location where David Weekly would like to move it is directly below a window where they are planning to build another builder. Helgerson stated in his view this is a very different situation from the other homes that had to relocate theirs. Helgerson stated relocating it to their back yard would impede their ability to use that area. Helgerson stated they were also supposed to have a berm for privacy and to block the noise from Highway 12 but that the builder decided not to do that. Helgerson stated there is lots of noise from the highway versus an air-conditioner. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Jason Bergman, Goldenrod Way, noted they are proposing to move it over to his side and that he fully supports that along with everything else Mr. Helgerson said. There is noise from trains that pass by the front yard and noise from cars on the road. Bergman commented this is not a typical development and that the houses are extremely close together. The area where the air-conditioner is proposed to be relocated is very wide and someone could drive a jeep through there. Bergman indicated his wife also supports it. Page 6 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jeremy Phillips, 2860 Goldenrod Way, stated he would agree with everything his other two neighbors said and that they did pay a significant premium to be on that side of the road with the idea that they would be next to the swamp. Helgerson stated if the Planning Commission looks at what happened,the need for a variance was a shock to them. Helgerson noted he is on the fire department and that he realizes they need to get equipment in and out of there and have access to the area. When the final grade was being done, large bulldozers went through that area so it is more than wide enough for an air-conditioner. Helgerson stated if he could ask for an encroachment agreement,he would prefer to go that route. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Erickson stated after reading the staff report,he had developed a high level of comfort in denying the variance, primarily because of the other four homes that had moved theirs already. Erickson stated he understands this one does involve an unusual set of circumstances which led to this situation,but uniqueness as it relates to a practical difficulty relates directly to the property, such as the shape or topography of the property. Erickson commented he has sympathy for Mr. Helgerson over the way that this developed,but when he looks at just the property, it is hard to see how it is different from the other properties in the neighborhood. Erickson indicated he is inclined to follow Staff's recommendation. Lemke stated he understands Staffs recommendation,but given the situation and the neighbors' comments, in his view it is the best location for it. Lemke stated this might be an okay solution and that he is leaning more towards approving the variance. Libby stated without playing the blaming game, it appears there was not a lot of transparency in this situation. Libby noted air-conditioners built nowadays are high efficiency and quieter and that he is sensitive to children playing. Libby stated as far as some of the compunctions here about the electrical hazards and children playing,that can be alleviated with the unit being located above the ground, but when you start talking about the issues with the planned improvements,that could be a practical difficulty if the air-conditioning unit is actually moved. Libby asked if the builder is willing to actually relocate the air-conditioner at no cost to the homeowner. Helgerson indicated they are going to move it to whatever location the City decides. As to the point of it being off the ground and elevated, it is currently elevated, and if it is relocated to that one corner, it cannot be elevated since it will be under a window. Libby stated due to the circumstances, moving the air-conditioning unit would be preferable,but if there is no place to relocate it,that is another situation. Helgerson noted it could be relocated to the other side,which is a lot wider, and then it will be off the ground in that location. Landgraver stated he tends not to approve after-the-fact variances but that the argument has been rather compelling. The builder was relatively new to the area and overlooked the notation on the plan. Landgraver stated he is kind of against approving the variance but that there are extenuating circumstances, and if the City Council approves it,there should be an encroachment agreement. Page 7 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances and practical difficulties. In addition,the City allowed them to build so close to the property line,which did not allow the air-conditioner where it typically goes,which is on the side of the house, and that this was an unintended consequence of the smaller side yard setback. If it is relocated to the back, it would be impeding their use of the back yard and it would be under a window,which is not ideal. Thiesse stated in his view it is more of a builder education than anything else and also a safety issue. If there is an encroachment agreement,he would be in favor of the variance,but that he would like the City to have a discussion about the 5-foot side setback. Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000091,AJ Helgerson,2870 Goldenrod Way,variance,subject to an encroachment agreement. Erickson asked what steps the City can take to not set a precedent and prevent it from happening again. Thiesse stated in his view they can't,but in his mind the air-conditioner is in the right spot and that the City currently does not allow it. Libby noted the variance carries forward along with the encroachment agreement and hopefully any future homeowner will know about it. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Landgraver opposed. 4. LA18-000098 JEN AND TONY ISHAUG,4245 CHIPPEWA LANE,VARIANCES,7:21 P.M.—7:29 P.M. The applicant was not present. Barnhart stated the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance for a detached garage. The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1,000 square feet or smaller to be forward of the principal building, subject to conditions,which includes the requirement that the building should be consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and designed the garage to fit these requirements. The new accessory building ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot setback instead of the 100-foot required setback due to the topography of the property. The improvement will be consistent in character with the principal structure. This house is located at the end of a dead-end street so the impact to the neighborhood is relatively minimal. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site. Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property,the request for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable. There are no issues with the proposed grading. When the building permit is submitted,the associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall. Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. Page 8 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if Staff has confirmed that Chippewa is a dead-end road and there is no right-of-way that continues past the property line. Barnhart pointed out the cul-de-sac and the proposed building. Thiesse stated to his knowledge the right-of-way also ends there so there will not be a through road constructed there at some point. Landgraver asked if the adjacent property to the east is landlocked. Curtis indicated they front on Watertown Road. The applicant was not present. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Lemke asked if there are any trees that will be removed as part of this project. Barnhart indicated he has not spoken to the applicant,but that it is his understanding some trees will be removed. A picture of the site shows the trees in that area to be around two inches in girth. Landgraver asked whether any screening was proposed between the accessory structure and the street. Barnhart stated it does not appear so and nor is any required. Libby commented it appears the applicant has made a concerted effort to match it to the principal structure and that there does not appear to be a lot of soil disruption or change in grade. Libby stated it is a nice design. Landgraver noted they already have a four-stall garage. Erickson commented he likes the sketch. Landgraver moved, Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000098,Jen and Tony Ishaug,4245 Chippewa Lane,front yard setback variance.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. LA18-000099 JOHN ORTIZ,835 FOREST ARMS LANE,VARIANCES, 7:29 P.M. - 7:38 P.M. John Ortiz,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the construction of an addition to the home on the lakeside of the home with a pergola covered deck completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also proposed is a new 30-inch raised patio. Based on the Page 9 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. neighboring home locations,the existing home is approximately 19 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant would like to construct a small addition to the home over the deck on the lakeside but not further toward the lake than the existing home. An open pergola-roofed area is proposed to be constructed lakeward of the new addition on a new elevated patio. The patio will be elevated 30 inches from grade,which is permitted in the average lakeshore setback. The existing lake side grade-level deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio and then elevated 30 inches from existing grade. Construction of an addition to fill in a notched-in area to the home and an open pergola-roofed area on the new patio is also proposed. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home and approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The patio is less than 42 inches from grade and therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants' home encroaches into the average lakeshore setback line and there is no conforming location on the lake side of the home to construct structural improvements. The neighboring properties likely have no lake views over the applicant's property as both of the adjacent homes are oriented away from this property. A variance to allow the structural improvements to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. The applicant's property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the subject home. It has no lake view of the applicant's property and their home is oriented to the south. The neighbor to the north faces more directly west toward the channel rather than over the applicant's property. The properties along the lake side of Forest Arms Lane have deep lake yards and the homes are situated nearer to the street side of the properties. The depth of the lake yards,combined with the curvature of the channel shoreline, result in difficulty for the property owner in identifying a conforming location for improvements to their property. In addition, there are mature trees separating the applicant's property from both of their neighbors which will likely screen most of the views of the improvements. Staff finds practical difficulties supporting the variances given the location of the existing home,the orientation and location of the neighboring homes,the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Planning Commission's packet. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the home addition and pergola as shown on the proposed plans. Approval should be subject to the applicant providing an updated survey accurately depicting the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements prior to issuance of any permits for the project. Landgraver asked what the constraint would be for a second story to be placed on the pergola in the future. Page 10 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated they would require a variance for an expansion. Jim Sweeney, Mom's Design Build, stated he can answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Landgraver commented this appears to be an example where the views are not being impacted by the proposed variance. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is the view and that the City has received letters from both neighbors stating that it will have no impact on their view. Thiesse stated the applicants have very little area to develop and that he takes that as a practical difficulty. Landgraver stated to his recollection there was a similar application from one of the other houses on the street. Curtis indicated the City reviewed variances for this lot and possibly another lot in 2014. Landgraver stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances that support the variance. Erickson stated one aspect of this goes back to the uniqueness factor,which is oftentimes looked for in variance applications, and that relates to the fact that it is a channel lot. Erickson noted there are also five other channel lots and there could be more lots that are located on the channel. The City looked at another lakeshore lot where the shoreline jutted out and created a peninsula,which none of these have, and as a result it would be difficult to refer to this as unique to this property. Lemke stated in this situation the proposal works perfectly and that he is fine with it. Libby noted variances are taken on a case-by-case basis and that he does not see any detrimental outcome from this so he would be in favor of approving it. Lemke moved,Erickson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000099,John Ortiz, 835 Forest Arms Lane,variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. LA18-000102 MARIA LARENAS AND CHARLIE AND CO DESIGN,2455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES/INTERIM USE PERMIT,7:39 P.M.—7:50 P.M. Maria Larenas,Applicant, and Corbin Benson, Builder,were present. Curtis stated the owners of the property have retained an architect to design a new home on the property. Their goal is to reduce the number of nonconformities to setback and hardcover while designing a functional home for the property. Due to the existing lot size and width,the project requires variances to lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback,hardcover, and an interim use permit for grading activity Page 11 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. within 75 feet of the lake. Previously this interim use permit would have been reviewed as a conditional use permit. The applicants are proposing to construct the home to conform to all setbacks, including the 84.7-foot average lakeshore setback as determined by the home to the west at 2465 North Shore Drive. The home to the east is currently vacant and does not contain a principal structure. The plan reflects a raised terrace/patio area which is situated partially within the previous/existing home footprint. The portion within the existing home footprint qualifies as an in-kind improvement. However,there is a narrow portion which does not qualify. This elevated terrace encroaches, at most, approximately 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Further,the terrace is an encroachment due to the applicants' grading plan for the lake yard which proposes to balance out the side-sloped yard. The proposed home will have a first-floor elevation of 950.5', which is 4.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. Curtis noted the red line on the sketch illustrates the first-floor elevation of the home to the west. The proposed terrace, including the curved wall, sits at about 951.5 feet,which is 42 inches from the new grade and 3.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. The interim use permit is requested to allow approximately 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback and for the establishment of new engineered grade elevation. The applicants do not wish to modify the grade to result in a taller home than what is allowed but,rather,they wish to balance the slopes on the lake side from an aesthetic and drainage standpoint. The terrace exceeds 42 inches from existing grades within the average lakeshore setback as a result. The current property has a 29.6 percent hardcover level, including 772 square feet of hardcover in the 75- foot setback. The applicant is proposing 29.3 percent hardcover,which is a 176 square foot reduction, including removal of all of the existing non-conforming hardcover in the lake yard. A total of 2,320 square feet of driveway is proposed, not including the car court area. The applicants have attempted to reduce the impact of the home and the proposed structural/building coverage is 1,547 square feet less than the maximum footprint allowed. This is being done to reduce the total hardcover on the site. The driveway accounts for approximately 16 percent of the proposed hardcover and 4.74 percent of the site. Public comments were received and have been included in the Planning Commissioners' packets. Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the property's shape, size and orientation which support the requested variances for lot area, lot width,average lakeshore setback, and possibly hardcover based on the length of the driveway and the shape of the lot. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the lot width, lot area, and average lakeshore setback variances. As it relates to the hardcover variance,should the Planning Commission determine that practical difficulties exist supporting the proposed level, a recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance would also be appropriate. Regarding the interim use permit,the proposed plan conforms to the standards of IUP review. The grading will be tied to the building permit review and reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of the IUP. Landgraver asked which lot is currently vacant. Page 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the home to the east has been demoed and there is an accessory structure on the property which does not factor into the average lakeshore calculation. Because there is no home on the property, the calculation is made from a distance rather than a line. Corbin Benson,Charlie&Company Design, stated there are two main variance requests,and those are the hardcover variance for the driveway and the average lakeshore setback for the terrace. Benson stated his understanding of the intent of the setback is to keep that terrace as low as possible. One thing that is interesting about the property is that it transitions from the higher elevation to the west down towards marsh land,and so a lot of the existing slope gradually runs down the width of the lot. The property owners would like to flatten out that area, keep the terrace within 42 inches, and maintain the character of the shoreline. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Erickson stated he would like to congratulate the applicants in their effort to fit the project into the City's existing ordinances in spite of the handicap that it is a one-acre lot in a two-acre zone. The applicants have done a terrific job in complying with that and still have a viable project. Libby stated the dirt movement appears to be very complementary and the efforts to reduce the hard surface on the property are commendable. Landgraver stated he agrees with what has already been said. As it relates to the hardcover,whenever the Planning Commission is approving a blank sheet,they do try to have the hardcover comply, but given the need for the long driveway, that should not be held against them. Thiesse indicated he is agreeable with that. Lemke commented he is a little upset about the amount of hardcover. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Erickson moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Maria Larenas and Charlie and Co. Design,2455 North Shore Drive,lot area,lot width,average lakeshore setback,and hardcover variances as well as an interim use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. LA18-000103 ALL ENERGY SOLAR ON BEHALF OF ELEANOR FERRIL,240 WAKEFIELD ROAD,VARIANCE,7:51 P.M.—8:21 P.M. Eleanor Ferril,Applicant, and Isaac Lindstrom,All Energy Solar,were present. Barnhart stated the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is proposing to install a solar array on a rack to be installed in their rear yard. Solar arrays are a permitted use in all districts and the requirements that they be screened from view as much as practice presents challenges as it is virtually impossible to screen the roof of a building. The intent is, however,to minimize the visual impact of the improvements on the neighbors and protect against glare and reflection. Because the solar array is located on a rack,a variance is required to allow a ground mounted solar array where only those mounted to a roof are Page 13 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. permitted. At the rear of the property there is a large berm so it will likely be screened from the Luce Line. However,the solar array would be visible to the house to the south. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The applicant has provided some additional information regarding the glare of these arrays. The proposed location within trees at the southwest corner of the property is intended to offer a visual buffer from the neighboring properties. Some of the impacts include glare,tree removal. The Applicant and the property owner are here tonight and would be happy to address the glare issue. Barnhart noted glare might be a misnomer to a point since what they are proposing is photovoltaic that absorbs the sunlight. The property owner will also provide some information on tree cutting. There is currently quite a bit of buckthorn and other invasive species in that area and their plans are to remove that and replant with native vegetation. Barnhart commented this is a difficult one regarding a recommendation from Staff since solar arrays are allowed but not on a rack. Thiesse asked if the property owners would be allowed to put an accessory structure there. Barnhart indicated they are. Thiesse noted the applicants would be allowed to place solar panels on top of the accessory structure and not be required to go before the City for approval in that situation. Thiesse stated he did sit in the parking lot across from the trail and that the house was visible so he is not so sure the rack will be hidden. Barnhart noted he was on the trail and not the parking lot and that he could not see beyond the berm. Lemke asked if this would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart indicated it would not be since it would not be a building or a structure. Thiesse asked what the City's intent was for requiring solar panels to be placed on a roof rather than a rack. Barnhart noted he was not with the City at that time but that it likely related to a massing concern and an impact to the neighborhood. Landgraver stated to his belief the discussion revolved around solar panels being less intrusive on the roof versus their back yard and that the Council felt people could go through the variance process if they wanted something different. Thiesse noted the applicants are pushing the rack as far away from the house as possible, which is probably against the intent of the ordinance. Isaac Lindstrom,All Energy Solar, stated this location was chosen because it has the best access to sunlight, which is the primary goal, and that they have designed the best system available for her needs. Page 14 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pictures of the house and property were displayed. Lindstrom noted even in the fall the roof is shaded pretty considerably by a tree,which is the primary reason it was not proposed for the roof. There is an approximate 15 percent shade loss in the proposed location. Landgraver asked how the Planning Commission can be assured that these will not create a lot of glare. Lindstrom indicated the purpose of the panels is to absorb sunlight and that it would not make sense if the panels are reflecting a lot of that sunlight. The panels manufactured nowadays are covered with an antireflective coating to make sure there is minimal glare, and, in fact,vertical windows generate more glare. Lemke asked if they have a steel or glass surface. Lindstrom indicated they have a glass surface with an antireflective coating but that he does not have the exact specifications. Libby commented he would like to have solar panels on his home but in the winter time they would not gather enough energy to make it feasible. Libby stated this is a technology that has changed and rapidly accelerated in proficiency within the past three years. If someone looks at solar gardens and farms, both private and public, in order for them to use this as a technology, many of them have to be ground mounted, and that this might be something for the City to discuss in the future. Libby stated in his view solar panels themselves are effective and produce more energy than they did two years ago but that there are other methods of gathering solar energy. For example, in Europe they are using a solar array that tracks the sun and those are relatively unobtrusive. The panels also close up and fold down to protect itself from the elements. Libby indicated he would tend to be open-minded about the placement of the array as long as it is not intrusive to the neighbors. Lemke asked if these are fixed panels. Lindstrom indicated they are fixed panels with a 35 percent tilt. Ferril stated they moved into the house 36 years ago and it was solid buckthorn that she thought was pretty until she took a course at the technical college. The lot is just short of three acres and is very beautiful. There are a number of beautiful trees and the buckthorn has been removed. Along the Luce Line is a ridge. Ferril indicated she has tried to get solar for a long time but was told in the past that the roof is too shaded. One day she went up to the top of the hill and saw that the area was eroding. Ferril stated she asked if there is a possibility of putting it by the Luce Line and hiding it with native vegetation that will grow up to the bottom of the rack. Ferril indicated she met with Keith Parker with the DNR about the Luce Line, and he was fine with her clearing it out as long as she paid for it. Ferril indicated she keeps planting more trees and flowers on her property. In addition, Prairie Restoration will work with her on a landscaping plan and that she will probably plant low mow fescue or Page 15 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Pennsylvania sedge underneath the rack and then prairie grass around it. Ferril indicated her idea is to have a mosaic garden out by the Luce Line. Libby asked if there will be acid batteries and an inverter. Lindstrom indicated there will be micro-converters that attach to each individual panel that convert the energy into AC/DC current. Libby asked where the acid batteries will be stored. Lindstrom stated there will be no batteries being installed as part of this design. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Kris stated she lives behind the subject property and that their topography is higher than this lot so they will look down on it. Kris stated she is in full support of alternative energy, but their concerns relate to what it will look like and that they also had a concern about reflection during the winter. The prairie grasses will not do them any good since their house is above this property. When the Planning Commission considers these individual situations,they also need to take into the topography of the lot and the surrounding area. Kris noted they were told the array will be nine to ten feet tall. Kris stated in spite of all that,they are in support of the proposal. Ferril pointed out there are some trees along the top of the hill where their roots are being eroded. In addition,the limbs are dying and dropping off down onto the hill. The hill itself is quite steep and currently it is kind of a jungle. Prairie Restoration would like to clean that up and carry the debris away and do erosion control. As far as the landscaping is concerned,even if someone is looking down on it, there will be enough variety of trees and plants to help shield it. Ferril indicated she has a lot of faith in Prairie Restoration and that they will certainly work with Kris and her husband to see that it works. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Landgraver stated the variance process allows for some guardrails and the neighbor has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal. The applicants would be able to put up a shed instead of a rack and put the panels on the roof and the City would not be discussing this. Landgraver stated in his view this is an interesting proposal and that there is good faith among the neighbors. Landgraver stated in his opinion it will set a good precedent and give people an opportunity to see how it looks. Libby commented he is proud to be part of a community that has some guardrails against certain things, but that he is also glad to be part of a community that is progressive. The applicant desires to obtain electricity from the sun and that he tends to be in favor of the applicant being able to do this without an accessory structure. Erickson stated he does not have solar at his house,but he was among the first to adopt a significant amount of prairie grass around his house,and after a few years it has turned into an asset. Erickson stated he appreciates the effort the applicant is doing in that regard. Lemke stated he is in agreement with the comments by Commissioner Landgraver and that solar panels on the house or an accessory structure would be more obtrusive. Page 16 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement. Part of the intent of the ordinance was to keep it close to the house but the applicants have done the opposite of that and moved it as far away from the house as possible. If the area is turned into prairie, it will be more visible, and it will be difficult to screen since the panels need to be exposed to the sunlight. Thiesse stated the use of solar energy outweighs those concerns and he would be in favor of it. Landgraver asked if he is suggesting that the City review their code that it be X feet from the house. Thiesse stated in his view it should be closer to the house and that he is not really in favor of making that area prairie. Libby moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000103,All Energy Solar on behalf of Eleanor Ferril,240 Wakefield Road,variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. LA18-000095 CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON,690 BROWN ROAD NORTH,SKETCH PLAN,8:22 P.M.—8:42 P.M. Chuck Alcon,Applicant, and Michael Stedman,Developer,were present. Barnhart stated the applicants are proposing a sketch plan for a 7-lot single-family residential development on the 24.37-acre parcel. Each of the lots meets the required 2-acre dry buildable requirement for the zoning district. Rezoning is not being proposed. Plat improvements would include extension of the road to serve the seven lots. The property is located in the MUSA and the ordinance requires it to be served by sanitary sewer. The main question for the Planning commission is two of the lots do not meet the lot width requirement. As noted in the staff report,the width of Lot 3 is based on the distance at the building setback line adjacent to the right-of-way. In this situation it is an arc 50 feet back, which is approximately 143 feet of width by definition. That would be within a 75-foot creek setback. The house,however,will actually be built back further into the property and will be approximately 200 feet back. The strict reading of the rule requires it to be measured at the building setback line. While the lot is large, it does not meet the strict requirements for width. Lot 6 is a lake lot. In this case width is measured at two locations. One is where the lines intersect at the ordinary high water mark and then the other is 75 feet back from there. That distance for Lot 6 is 185 feet. The actual main footage is 209 feet but it does not meet the strict reading of the lot width requirement. The width at the 75-foot line is conforming. Barnhart stated there really is no opportunity to adjust the side property lines to achieve the 200 feet and the applicant is requesting some flexibility to the lot widths. The applicant is proposing vegetation and buffering along the north and south property lines as well as along the road. The land use and proposed density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property. The property currently contains one house located on the south side. This house will be retained on what will be Lot 6. The existing driveway off of Brown Road serving this house will be removed. Access to the subdivision will be a new private road off of Brown Road. This private road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The new road appears to line up with the exit drive out of the Sugarwood development to the west. The 50-foot Page 17 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. right-of-way is consistent with Orono Code. The paved width is not defined but is required to be 28 feet for this number of lots. The length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 927 feet,which is less than the 1,000-foot maximum. There is an existing trail on the west side of Brown Road North. The plans do not suggest any interior sidewalks or trails through the development. The plans also do not show any proposed park land dedication. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need for additional park land. At this stage the applicant is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission prior to submitting a formal application. Thiesse asked if everything else is compliant except for those two lots. Barnhart indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the lot line could be adjusted between Lots 3 and 4. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated Lot 4 does not meet it either. Gronberg stated he is aware of at least 15 other applications that do not meet the width requirement. Some of the lot lines can be adjusted to meet the 200 feet but then you would get ugly lot lines,which is why it has not been an issue at the end of a cul-de-sac in the past. On the lakeshore lot,there is 619 feet of lakeshore. When you measure point to point,one lot is 15 feet short. At the 75-foot setback, all the lots are compliant. At the average lakeshore setback, Gronberg stated they are proposing a straight line between the two adjoining houses. The house to the north is located way across the ravine and the other house further to the north is a lot closer to the lake because the lake curves. Gronberg noted they are 275 feet back from the lake with two of the houses that are being proposed and that they would like to go on that sightline to line the homes up straight. Barnhart noted the average lakeshore line has no impact on this property. In the past the City has artificially created a setback, but when it comes to the building permit, issues come up. If Lot 4 is developed first,the average lakeshore setback is at one distance. If Lot 5 is developed first,the average lakeshore setback is almost in the road. As a result,the City might want to create an artificial setback line in this situation. Barnhart indicated he is not looking for solutions at this stage. Barnhart noted Lot 4 does not meet the width requirement. Staff does not measure Lot 4 at the cul-de-sac since Lot 4 is a lake lot and it would be measured at the lake. The average lakeshore setback is something that will need to be looked at. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback line is to protect lake views. Barnhart stated that is correct. Thiesse noted those homes are not impacting any lake views. Barnhart stated it might become an issue at some point in the future. Page 18 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson stated he is comfortable with it as proposed,but as it relates to the lot line between Lots 5 and 6, if that was bumped five feet,they would have 201 feet on one side and 190 feet on the other side, which is closer to the requirement. Gronberg pointed out the 206 feet is along the lakeshore and the other two northerly lots are at the minimum. Gronberg stated it is 200,200, 185 point to point, and along the actual lakeshore they are all over 200 feet. Barnhart noted back in 2015 for 800 North Arm,the Planning Commission supported a width variance. Mike Stedman, Developer, commented this is a very special property and probably one of the last large properties in Orono that offers City sewer and water. The key aspect to the development is the low density and great effort has been made not to impact the wetlands. Landgraver asked if he has met with the neighbors. Stedman indicated a neighborhood meeting was held on January 10,which in his view was positive. A number of the neighbors were surprised that it was only seven lots but overall appeared pleased with the development. Thiesse asked if there is anyone who would like to comment on the sketch plan. There were no public comments. Landgraver stated as it relates to lot width, in his view there has been a good faith effort to accommodate irregular shaped property and that the applicants are attempting to comply with the spirit of the law. Because the house is so far back on Lot 3, it does not appear the lot width rules are meaningful for that lot. Erickson commented the plan appears to be well done. Libby asked what the lakeshore lots will be priced at. Stedman indicated they do not have any final pricing yet,but they are probably looking at$1.5 million plus for the lot and house. Libby commented it is an interesting project and he would be in favor of it. Thiesse stated he is in agreement and that there could be some flexibility to the lot width for those two lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. UPDATE ON JANUARY 14,2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported at the January 14 meeting,the City Council approved an average lakeshore setback variance for 2710 Pence Lane. At that meeting the Council directed Staff to look at changes to the average lakeshore setback language. Page 19 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Barnhart noted Kevin Landgraver's third term ends at the end of March. Bruce Lemke's second term also ends at the end of March but he is able to serve another three years. Commissioner Chad Olson is nearing the end of his first three-year term. Barnhart stated the City has had two people apply and the City Council will be reviewing those in the next couple of months. The Planning Commission will need to appoint a new chair as well in March. Landgraver stated it might be helpful to have the Planning Commission chair be part of the interviews. ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Erickson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 20 of 20 Date Application Received: 01/22/19 �Ot VO Date Application Considered as Complete:01/22/19 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/23/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator 'IkEs H o4cc From: Melanie Curtis, Planner 11'1GG Date: 19 February 2019 Subject: #LA19-000003, Fine Line Docks o/b/o Thomas & Kelsey Hamilton, 1795 Fox Street, CUP Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a permanent dock. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The applicant wishes to install a permanent dock through the wetland area to reach the open water of the Long Lake Creek channel. Because of the permanent nature of the dock structure within the floodway, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required.The dock does not fall under LMCD jurisdiction.A DNR aquatic vegetation management permit has been issued for the cattail removal. The proposed dock will extend approximately 195 feet from the shore. Applicable Regulations: CUP (Section 78-1117) Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Permanent docks may be allowed as a conditional use within the floodway following the standards and procedures set forth in City Code Section 78-1148 and further subject to the standards set forth in Code Section 78-1119. Wetland- Permitted Uses (Section 78-1606) A dock not exceeding 8 feet in width,which provides reasonable access to the lakeshore, is permitted through the wetland. Conditional Use Permit(Sections 78-916&78-1119) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted,the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; Docks are anticipated accessory uses on lakeshore residential properties.This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Docks are listed as allowed accessory uses in residential zoning districts.This criterion is met. FILE#LA19-000003 19 February 2019 Page 2 of 4 3) Adequately served by police,fire, roads, and stormwater management.This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; Not applicable. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The permanent dock is not expected to generate an excessive demand for public services.This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; There are other seasonal and permanent docks in the general area,there is no proposed change of use.This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; No change is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.This criterion is met. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; There are other seasonal and permanent docks in the general area,there is no proposed change of use.This criterion is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed permanent dock is not expected to impair property values or impact permitted uses in the area.This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; By the nature of the dock it will project from the land,through the wetland,and into the open water of Long Lake Creek. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise,glare, vibration, odors,fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness,or other means;This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties,traffic congestion,or unsafe access; This residential dock on a single family property is not expected to generate excessive traffic or be an inconvenience to adjoining properties.This criterion is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural,scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; By the nature of the dock it will project from the shore into the creek bed.This criterion is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts;The applicant will be informed of this requirement;and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare.This criterion is met. Additional standards for floodway conditional uses (Sec. 78-1119). A conditional use must not cause any increase in the stage of the one percent chance or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. Accessory structures, as identified in section 78-1118(1), may be permitted, provided that: (1) Structures are not intended for human habitation; FILE#LA19-000003 19 February 2019 Page 3 of 4 (2) Structures will have a low flood damage potential; (3) Structures will be constructed an placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters; (4) Service utilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, within these structures must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed; (5) Structures must be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with the FP1 or FP2 floodproofing classifications in the state building code.All floodproofed structures must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. (6) As an alternative, an accessory structure may be internally/wet floodproofed to the FP3 or FP4 floodproofing classifications in the state building code, provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and does not exceed 576 square feet in size. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following criteria: a. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure,there must be a minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure,with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; and b. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. (d) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 103G.245. (e) A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the one percent chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. (f) Floodway developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Orono's concurrent jurisdiction over permanent docks is primarily via the City's floodplain regulations,which provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. Both permanent and seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessory structures,so with the exception of the RS District,one cannot have a permanent or seasonal dock without a principal residence structure.This property is zoned RR-1B. There are no specific Building Code construction standards for docks. The City will require that a zoning permit be issued to document the existence and construction of the permanent dock and FILE#LA19-000003 19 February 2019 Page 4 of 4 action of this CUP.The portion within the wetland is limited to 8 feet maximum width; as proposed the dock is 3.5 feet wide with a 7' x 20' platform on the end at the open water. Permanent docks (i.e.those docks with permanent pilings which cannot be removed without heavy equipment) sometimes result in requests by property owners for winter de-icing,to avoid ice damage.The proposed dock will be located in a fairly well protected area,so the potential for ice damage or the need for de-icing is relatively minimal. There appear to be other permanent docks in the area, and the city has received no documented problems or issues. Another potential concern would be whether the work is in a sensitive habitat or spawning area, and whether the permanent dock might affect navigation or winter vehicular traffic on the lake. Other than the aquatic vegetation management covered under the DNR permit, neither of the above concerns appear to apply to this application. Public Comments Public comments were received and are attached as Exhibit G. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the CUP, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for construction of the proposed permanent dock subject to the following conditions: 1. The dock may be allowed as long as it conforms to the permit issued by the DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of applicable agencies; and 2. The dock is not to be used for commercial purposes or rented. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Survey Exhibit D. Dock Plans Exhibit E. DNR Aquatic Plant Management Permit Exhibit F. MCWD Correspondence Exhibit G. Other Jurisdictional Emails Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Exhibit K. Aerial Photos Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/22/2019 Address: 1795 FOX ST WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0311723440006 Land Use Number: LA 19-000003 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: THOMAS J HAMILTON Address: KELSEY M HAMILTON 1795 FOX ST WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: JOE BRIDGE Address: contact@finelinedocks.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: JOE BRIDGE contact@finelinedocks.com Associated Contact: THOMAS J HAMILTON Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: New Dock Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit 1.4 Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: jle— FineLine Lakeshore Service - FTSE PO Box 626,Mound,MN 55364 952-472-1172 phone number • concacc@finelinedocks,com • www.finelinedocks.com City of Orono: FineLine Lakeshore Service has been hired by Tom Hamilton to install a dock per the plans submitted with this application that will be 3.5' wide and 192' long with a 7'x 16' platform at the end going to the left. This dock will be going through cattails to reach open water 150'from the starting point. The dock will extend approximately 42' beyond the cattails. The dock framework is galvanized steel and the decks that sit on top of the framework are constructed of cedar. This dock will stay in year around, but can be easily removed. Joe Bridge FineLine Lakeshore Service 952-472-1172 wz 550'12" ATTACHMENT A zm„ N �° :,,,,,,--...-,%11....__4040, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR j P, 17 90.93 `drys �— THOMAS HAMILTON F=i „;._-_-_-7.7---=,-, iA 1 �,.w' OF LOT 2,BLOCK 1,FOX ISLAND dm 1 1� ° HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA on J' � v \. 5 27°00.00"W �, = i —�✓ :-16604 VI 1_ "�� 1' L ; F M s. s • A0 , :, ,,,„t--"',(,:, -` - V^s } N 6 5496 } �&��l ,. �JOJ ° ,00 E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ( r) ., a 2 6 5 90 00 n\ �it`;.. 55700 I )9o,,w,®° ® .°,.,°..°..°o.,oW c..xo�a r mm= z 5 Y } } s\ 3 I \ } ate., )ht �ik; �, �\ } �o�a.°ro«.o,.eo.°e °�a..°m.e a°°m. e \ I t II ` � l 4 4,.�° i....33Z Ng v� 1 LOT 2 Ifs 1',)', 1.+I?°� �2 \ 1 �,`\ l � S 5616'29 W CREEK cion / I 3. n 0 0 , \ _- g, J.S. I __..--N 69°19'34"E 553.93__.. U 1 O 5 89°19'34"W (667.93—— \\\u"" } } / \\ 1 vala? 1 O V v, ro.., } ,,,„,,,.,,,,,,..i. it Ilhx .., €a.� 0 } RPO',..\'`''' } ti 1),I I�E \ VI el ` �V � Vi}� fin-,11 ,�O�P pP 1 11lpr� i rY �j !,g^ o too 200 400 z V, Pyo , II: - l/ ,)i �'G�O� mgr, 'Ii' 3 �� -r" SCALE IN FEET 1 55 .l�' } i iInr � 5°' �, -- ��t11� - ' PROPOSED 91 11 \\\�-- // ,, } 1795 ,K f 1 aW g HOUSE DETAIL \, '3¢j! PENINSULA DETAIL i`f E l 1. 31:1' SCALE 0 -I. H -' -40 0 CO = 01 -' 9 m i X 3 Z cr) = — • = 01 CO CD _.... 24-8'Sections=192' Total Dock Length -., I •-s, -, 2 , ...,, co 00 co co co co co co 1 co 1 co CO ,_,11 .. 1 i^...? ."--' -....-1 .-G 5 - 7,--,- .7.; 'X+ Main Dock 3'6"We p-: End of Cattails 150' Er' from Dock Starting rb -, Point-42'Dock in Open Water • .i? = ,..., (16 =-) = ••••=- ,-.- n -- .-. ,.....) C Total Platform Area= o wz, 0 ,..., . c„.....es. • `'''-' L"'"-4 Fad et> cot) 136.5 square feet c 0 p-t (D -- -- ce) - ._---,. a. Z CD 0 —S 0 ---, DEPARTMENT O F .. ,:., Msz, . Permit Number NATURAL RESOURCES 2019-0010 MNDNR PERMITTING AND REPORTING SYSTEM AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: Permanent & Non-Transferable Contact the Authorized Issuer(listed below) if you have any questions regarding this permit. The Commissioner of the Natural Resources, pursuant to authority by law, hereby GRANTS THIS PERMIT to the person whose name appears below, for the purpose specified,dates inclusive as shown, in the conditions hereinafter set forth: Project Name: Control Method: Tom Hamilton Mechanical Control County: Watershed: Resource: Hennepin Mississippi River-Twin Cities Unnamed (27085900) Permittee: Authorized Agent: TOM HAMILTON JOHN BRIDGE 1795 FOX ST. 3006 ISLAND VIEW DR. ORONO, MN 55391 MOUND, MN 55364 (507)319-3678 (612)986-1125 tom@vikingmat.com contact@finelinedocks.com Lake Address (if different): Authorized Control Area: Mechanical control of emergent plants adjacent to permittee's property. Extending 15.0 feet along shore and lakeward a maximum distance of 300.0 feet. T117N-R23W-S10 NENE; UTM zone 15N,455231m east, 4979006m north Authorized Action: Mechanical control of emergent plants.All plants cut and pulled must be immediately removed from the water body and deposited above the ordinary high watermark. Mechanical removal must be done in a manner that does not alter the course, current, or cross-section of the lake bottom. If you plan to dispose of the aquatic vegetation someplace other than on your property, please complete the aquatic plant transportation authorization form provided with your permit. This permit does not authorize work to be done with draglines, bulldozers, excavators, suction dredges, hydraulic jets or other power-operated earth-moving equipment. If you plan to dispose of the aquatic vegetation someplace other than on your property, please complete the aquatic plant transportation authorization form provided with your permit. Issued Date: 02/05/2019 Effective Date: 02/05/2019 Expiration Date: Permanent & Authorized Issuer: Title: Email Address: PhdlierfifitilbgAr Shane McBride Aquatic Plant Management Specialist Shane.McBride@state.mn.us 651-§4t779 This permit is granted subject to the following CONDITIONS: MPARS revision 20180319,Permit Issuance ID 68696,printed 02/05/2019 Conditions(Continued): NOTICE OF CONTROL DATES:The permittee or their agent must notify the DNR of the planned pesticide treatment date(s)at least 24 hours but no more than 10 days prior to treatment.This notification requirement does not apply to permanent channel nor AAPCD permits. Failure to notify prior to beginning work or violation of other terms and conditions of this permit, including failure to remove signs in a timely manner, shall be grounds for revocation of this permit or refusal to renew. Notifications are to be submitted via MPARS by clicking on the Treatment Notifications tab, unless instructed otherwise. ANNUAL SURVEY:The permittee or their agent must complete an annual survey indicating the actual treatment dates and the amount and type of herbicide used no later than December 31st. The survey will be sent to you in the fall. ENFORCEMENT: Impacts to aquatic plants outside permitted area or without valid permit may result in enforcement action. CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS:The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources does not vouch for the effectiveness of any treatment method or operation nor does it stand as arbiter whether or not any such method or operation has been satisfactory.This permit is permissive only and no liability shall be incurred by the State or by any of its offices, agents, or employees by reason of the issuance of it or by reasons of acts or operations of the permittee.The permittee shall be solely responsible for any damage or injury to persons,domestic or wild animals,waters, or property, real or personal of any kind, resulting from the permittee's acts or operations, and at all times the State of Minnesota, its officers, agents, and employees,shall be held harmless from any liability for such damage or injury. NON-TRANSFERABLE:This is a non-transferable permit. If property ownership changes,this permit is invalid. cc: Brent Grewe, Conservation Officers, Minnetonka; brent.grewe@state.mn.us Page 2 of 2,Permit Number 2019-0010 12/17/2018 Gmail-1795 Fox Street-No Permit Needed Gid Joe Bridge<finelinedocks@gmail.com> 1795 Fox Street - No Permit Needed 1 message Erin Manlick<emanlick@minnehahacreek.org> Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:26 PM To:"finelinedocks@gmail.com" <finelinedocks@gmail.com> Cc: "Christine Mattson (Orono)"<cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us> Good afternoon, No MCWD permit is needed for the proposed dock installation at 1795 Fox Street in Orono as the MCWD does not regulate dock permits for Lake Minnetonka. A permit from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District may be required. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you, Erin Manlick 1 ) Permitting Assistant Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MINNEHANA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (952)641-4586direct(direct) 15320 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55345 www.minnehahacreek.org https://mai l.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=20268aa420&view=pt&sea rch=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1620132137535476117&simpl=msg-f%3A16201321375... 1/1 From: Elizabeth Showalter To: Spiegel,Jason(DNR);M Cook; Melanie Curtis;Thomas Dietrich;Ellison,Daryl G(DNR) Cc: finelinedocksgmail.com;V Schleuninq Subject: RE: Proposed Dock on Long Lake Creek Date: Thursday,December 20,2018 11:22:32 AM Attachments: image004,onq imaoe005,nnq imaoe006.nnq jmaoe007,onq jmaoe009.nnq image010.nnq Hi Matt, We do not have any regulations on docks, but I believe we encouraged the applicant to contact the DNR on aquatic plant removal and the City for a dock permit.The City of Orono does require dock permits.Thanks for keeping us all in the loop. Elizabeth From: Spiegel,Jason (DNR) [mailto:jason.spiegel@state.mn.us] Sent:Thursday, December 20, 2018 7:10 AM To: M Cook<mcook@lmcd.org>; Melanie Curtis<mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>; Elizabeth Showalter <eshowalter@minnehahacreek.org>;Thomas Dietrich <TDietrich@minnehahacreek.org>; Ellison, Daryl G (DNR)<daryl.ellison@state.mn.us> Cc:finelinedocks@gmail.com;V Schleuning<vschleuning@lmcd.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Dock on Long Lake Creek Hi Matthew, If they plan on cutting the cattails for the dock channel they need to get an aquatic plant management permit and can contact Rob Dodd (rob.doddc state.mn.us) here at DNR for that. No other permits are needed from us as long as all the requirements of the attached fact sheet about docks are met (less than 8 ft wide, no longer than needed to reach navigation, doesn't impede/block others use). That should be it for this location, but it is always wise to check with the City to be sure, as some local governments do have additional dock ordinances. Jason Spiegel North Metro Area Hydrologist Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5822 Email:jason.spiegel( state.mn.us mndnr.gov IMDEPARTMENT OF i NATURAL. RESOURCES II 13 P From: M Cook<mcook@lmcd.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 4:19 PM To: Melanie Curtis<mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>; Elizabeth Showalter <eshowalteraminnehahacreek.org>;Tom Dietrich <tdietrich@minnehahacreek.org>; Spiegel,Jason (DNR) <jason.spiegelhstate.mn.us>; Ellison, Daryl G (DNR) <daryl.ellison@state.mn.us> Cc: finelinedocks@gmail.com; V Schleuning<vschleuning@lmcd.org> Subject: Proposed Dock on Long Lake Creek Hello all, The LMCD recently received an inquiry regarding a dock installation project on Long Lake Creek located at 1795 Fox Street in Orono. The LMCD does not appear to have jurisdiction at the location indicated for the docks (see attachment). As I understand it,the LMCD's jurisdiction begins just north of the bridge over Long Lake Creek as it opens into/becomes Tanager Lake.Therefore, LMCD staff will not be formally reviewing this project for any permit and/or adherence to the LMCD Code. I'm not sure which agency(ies) are responsible for such matters in a case like this, so I look to you for assistance in guiding the potential applicant(the applicant's dock installer copied on this email) through any necessary review process. Feel free to give me a call with any questions. Thanks, Matthew Cook Environmental Administrative Technician I Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200 I Mound, MN 55364 Ph 952-745-0789 I Fx 952-745-9085 I mcook@lmcd.org To preserve and enhance the Lake Minnetonka experience t D Connect with Us www.facebook.com/LakeMinnetonkaConservationDistrict www.twitter.com/LakeMtkaCD www.lmcd.org From: Nivin MacMillan To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Hamilton Date: Tuesday,February 12,2019 1:22:20 PM A new letter. Dear Melanie, Thank you so much for being so helpful about the boat dock my neighbor wants to build. Following your advice I did have a conversation with Mr. Hamilton. He assures me that he only wants to take a small fishing boat out with his small children. So my concerns about the noise of jet skis are alleviated. Looking at various maps it is hard for me to understand exactly where this dock will be in relation to my property and view. I still have some reservation about the location of the dock. When I am home I will come up to Orono to try to get a better understanding. Again, thank you for your help. Sincerely, Nivin MacMillan On Feb 8, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtisAci.orono.mn.us>wrote: Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning &Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtisAci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK. RUN DATE:01/23/2019 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 02-117-23 33 0010 38 03-117-23 44 0003 38 10-117-23 12 0001 A HARRISON&I L HARRISON TR R J&K S CATHCART ETHAN H DE NARAY 1410 SHORELINE DR 1695 FOX ST 860 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ALFRED&INGRID L HARRISON RICHARD&KATHLEEN CATHCART ETHAN H DE NARAY 1410 SHORELINE DR 1290 WAGGLE WAY 501 CARLSON PKWY#323 WAYZATA MN 55391 NAPLES FL 34108 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 02-117-23 33 0014 38 03-117-23 44 0004 38 10-117-23 12 0003 R J MIGLIORI&J L MIGLIORI NIVIN S MACMILLAN S SUMNER&J ODEGARD 1655 FOX ST 1685 FOX ST 930 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 RICHARD J&JOAN L MIGLIORI NIVIN S MACMILLAN JOSH/SHANTELLE ODEGARD 1655 FOX ST 1685 FOX STREET 930 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 0013 38 03-117-23 44 0006 38 10-117-23 12 0004 HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH T J HAMILTON&K M HAMILTON J A FOSTER&L T FOSTER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1795 FOX ST 940 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY THOMAS J HAMILTON JEFFREY A&LUCY T FOSTER REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY KELSEY M HAMILTON 940 BROWN RD S 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 1795 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0002 38 03-117-23 44 0007 38 10-117-23 12 0005 E PIDOT&A HUMPHREY HASHEM ABUKHADRA TRUSTEE KELLY B KROMER 1925 FOX ST 1775 FOX ST 1005 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ELLISON PIDOT HASHEM ABUKHADRA KELLY B KROMER ANDREW HUMPHREY 1745 FOX ST 1005 HERITAGE LA 1925 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0003 38 03-117-23 44 0008 38 10-117-23 13 0008 MARY B RAE TRUST OMAR ABUKHADRA TRUST S L BYRNES JR&P S BYRNES 680 BROWN RD S 1755 FOX ST 1025 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MARY B RAE JENNIFER LOTZ PAMELA&STEPHEN L BYRNES JR 680 BROWN RD S 17 ORIOLE AVE 1025 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 BRONXVILLE NY 10708 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0004 38 03-117-23 44 0009 38 10-117-23 14 0005 T R BROWNE&S R BROWNE ANAS ABUKHADRA DENNIS L LIBBY 760 BROWN RD S 1745 FOX ST 1000 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS R BROWNE ANAS ABUKHADRA DENNIS L LIBBY 760 SO BROWN ROAD 1745 FOX ST 1000 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0005 38 03-117-23 44 0010 38 10-117-23 14 0021 SHEILA M MILLER REV TRUST ANAS ABUKHADRA I L JACOBS/A JACOBS REV TRST 800 BROWN RD S 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 990 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 SHEILA M MILLER ANAS ABUKHADRA IRWIN L JACOBS 800 BROWN RD S 1745 FOX ST ALEXANDRA JACOBS WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 1700 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0006 38 10-117-23 11 0002 38 11-117-23 22 0009 ANAS ABUKHADRA ET AL HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH 1815 FOX ST 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ANAS ABUKHADRA HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY 1745 FOX ST REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY ORONO MN 55391 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 03-117-23 43 0007 38 10-117-23 11 0003 HASHEM ABUKHADRA TRUSTEE I L JACOBS/A JACOBS REV TRST 1735 FOX ST 975 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 HASHEM ABUKHADRA IRWIN L JACOBS 1745 FOX ST ALEXANDRA JACOBS WAYZATA MN 55391 1700 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0008 38 10-117-23 110004 T HAMILTON&K HAMILTON ETAL GERALD&TIFFANE FERRER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 980 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS J HAMILTON GERALD&TIFFANE FERRER KELSEY M HAMILTON 980 HERITAGE LA 1795 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 1/23/2019 — ---Fa* $t _ 11 .%174,If>. - '<I ' ' \IIIIIIIIIIIIIIItlli'J::'''.fr5:' ' - . t ,!yh r1 4i S= '' d .4e s e '::'', 4000, 0 �, ,.." '';' '4.'''..1:::7„,',!;;;',...;1;;), mit a 4 ' ' ...,„,,,.. ,, . ..,..„,,,, '..,,,,:.:.,;,t.-.1' i,"t ,,,,//,' ' ' - 41iiiill. . ., i Buffer Size: 500 0 100200 400 Feet Map Comments: I i i I I I I I I 1795 Fox Street This data (i) s furnbhed 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (i)is fumshedwithnowarranty of any khd; and (ii) is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shal not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin CountyGiS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us . __ FnY St Fri S: ci>t Y'. f s C fir,. , f fir' •4 Dock Location - i! m . Y Fox 5t :741: tom, ), 'f.,.::,,q r.}t 3 •5 ' a '' l'::'1, fT-11i ;,�. ` _`{ } t . E 4t, 'nary 6 � / ! ` .✓ ;i}' • : F ,. ' ' �• Pr <. �� rt�y z• : �yc. £�. ;irt z C , : w-r ,,t''' F i y t ,.Aw..t ,fi t 4F % • / ' 114. 1 Ak , n I �rr .„, : ' rwii y -t 1 0�+\ a � tz "Nli.A)6..,,,,,i.,,,z,SIL,ItAt,,,,,ketlk....,i1IV.t.,,c7,-.11;itiv).(,(,!::‘1Z.;,..:i..!,,..41,,,,,,,:f i . , ' � a �, 4r-1,,A Att, ,., , 1.1+1 r „, ,,.,,r. . zert.. • X I �P \ t Pk�{r „t �\ fit. s�•f <...7 '61 ri m ' e{ .�a• «,. �� on ITanag rLakeccessto Facing southwesterly Tanager Lake Date Application Received: 01/23/19 �T Date Application Considered as Complete:02/08/19 1 VO 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/09/19 rr To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members F j �~ Dustin Rief, City Administrator �kESHO¢� From: Melanie Curtis, Planner YlIGG Date: 19 February 2019 Subject: #LA19-000004, City Homes LLC o/b/o Joshua & Nicole Jabs, 3396 Crystal Bay Rd, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following approvals in order to redevelop the property: 1. Lot Area Variance; 2. Lot Width Variance; 3. Rear Yard Setback Variance; 4. 75-foot lake setback; 5. Hardcover Variance; 6. 75-foot setback Driveway Width Variance; and 7. Height Variance. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to build a new home on the property. The lot is nonconforming with respect to area and width, and the 75 foot setback from the lake bisects the lot. Variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover, driveway width in the 75-foot setback are requested in addition to a 75-foot setback, and rear yard setback variances for the house and deck. In the past,to support a different house and detached garage,the rear yard was graded to create a low flat area, requiring retaining walls.The applicant is also proposing to restore the grades to better flow into the neighboring lots.As a result, a variance is also requested to the defined height calculation. FILE#LA19-000004 19 Feb 2019 Page 2 of 6 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350&78-1279-Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Front 30'from the Crystal Bay Road 35' 36' Rear 30' 33' 23.7' House 15' Deck East Side 7.5' 10.8' 7.5' West Side 7.5' 11.2' 7.6' Lakeshore 75' 69' ±70' The existing home encroaches up to 2 feet into the average lakeshore Average setback;the proposed home will conform to the average lakeshore Lakeshore setback. Section 78-350-Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100' Actual 6,041 s.f. (0.13 acre)* 48' @ 75'/48' @ OHWL *As with other lots on Crystal Bay Road, in evaluating lot area and hardcover, we ignore the square footage of the improved drive lane of Crystal Bay Road, in this case 1,028 square feet of Crystal Bay Road. Section 78-1403-Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,041 s.f. (0.13 acre)* Allowed: 2,000 s.f. Proposed: 1,567 s.f. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier Tier 1 6,041* s.f. 1,510 s.f. 2,089 s.f. 2,501 s.f. (25%) (34.5%) (41.4%) Applicable Regulations: Lot Area & Lot Width Variances (Section 78-350) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met;such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met; 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and FILE#LA19-000004 19 Feb 2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant's request for hardcover,setback, and height variances results in the property's inability to conform to all of the standards above.Therefore, lot area and width variances are required in order to redevelop the property.The ability to develop the property consistent with other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted. Rear Yard Setback Variance (Section 78-350) The property's±130 feet of depth is challenging, particularly due to the applied average lakeshore setback at approximately 70-feet from the OHWL,the 75-foot lake setback, and the 30-foot rear yard setback.The required setbacks leave an approximate 36 foot deep building envelope which is not unreasonable, however is inconsistent with the two neighboring properties and many of the rebuilds in the immediate neighborhood. Hardcover;75-Foot Setback Variances (Sections 78-1680&78-1700) The existing home to be removed encroaches into the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks. The new home is proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback and will encroach approximately 5 feet into the 75-foot setback with the covered stoop,the home will encroach about 2 feet. The proposed hardcover level of 41.4% is a 412 square foot increase from the existing conditions.The increase is primarily resulting from the increased building coverage. The proposed home is nearly twice the size of the existing home. However,when you include the existing detached garage,the overall proposed building coverage level is only increasing by 355 square feet. The applicant is not maximizing the proposed building coverage due to the limiting setbacks and hardcover. Driveway Width Variance (Sections 78-1282;78-1680, 78-1681) The Code permits certain hardcover improvements within the 75-foot lake setback.An 8 foot wide driveway is permitted in this area. Crystal Bay Road is a narrow roadway; its 20 foot width does not allow for reasonable on street parking. The applicant has proposed a driveway with an 11.5 foot curb cut and a 25 foot wide garage access and parking area. The hardcover regulations in the code specify a minimum width to match the garage doors serving the home which is reasonable. Section 78-1282 which specifies an 8 foot maximum width appears to be in conflict in this circumstance with Section 78-1681 which requires specific minimum widths. Based on an aerial photo analysis, many of the properties along Crystal Bay Road have driveways exceeding 8 feet in width within the 75-foot setback. Height Variance (Sections 78-1&78-350) The Code limits building height to a 30-foot maximum based on existing adjacent grade elevations. The existing lot topography appears to be the result of grade manipulations to facilitate the rear yard detached garage.The retaining walls along the rear property line created a flat area inconsistent with the adjacent neighboring properties and a 'natural grade'.The applicant proposes to fill in this area and return to the original grades. The highest "existing grade"from which the height calculation is based is 939.3' rather than 946' as is the highest FILE#LA19-000004 19 Feb 2019 Page 4 of 6 grade in the proposed grading plan.The defined building height based on 939.3' highest existing is 36.7' (6.7'taller than permitted). When using the applicant's restored highest grade of 946' the defined height calculation is conforming at 30 feet. Building height means the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch- type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing 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 Zoning 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 Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also 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 Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small lot includes difficulties in its small size and width, manipulated topography,and proximity to the lake. The lot is also challenged by Crystal Bay Road which runs through the lake yard.The average lakeshore setback is proposed to be met protecting views of the lake for adjacent properties. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to develop a nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot,in the proposed location within the lake,and rear yard setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property's reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The hardcover level, grade correction, and encroachments proposed within the lake yard appear to be reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The uniquely small size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the FILE#LA19-000004 19 Feb 2019 Page 5 of 6 neighborhood. The proposed hardcover level and necessary grade correction are unique to the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home designed to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also 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 Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property's substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The property's substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. However the past grade manipulation by installing retaining walls is unique to this property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area, lot width, rear yard and lake setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. The hardcover, driveway width, and proposed building height variances are also necessary to the preservation of this same property right. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested hardcover, driveway width, height, lot area, lot width, rear yard and lake setback variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The variances for lot width,lot area,and lakeshore setback are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant.The additional variances are also necessary as the property has considerable practical difficulties affecting development. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use FILE#LA19-000004 19 Feb 2019 Page 6 of 6 permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size, shape, and location of the roadway and lake affecting the property which justify the variances allowing development. The City adopted ordinances over the past few years to address inadequacies in the small, and/or narrow existing properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75-foot setback for hardcover on Tier 1 lots. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at the time of building permit. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. 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? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval variances as requested as they are supported by practical difficulties. If the planning commission makes the same conclusion, approval may be appropriate. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary& Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit 1. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/23/2019 Address: 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 1711723440017 Land Use Number: LA 19-000004 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: JOSHUA JABS &NICOLE JABS Address: 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Erich Hastreiter Address: 3918 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 erich@cityhomes11c.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Erich Hastreiter erich@cityhomesllc.com Associated Contact: Kathryn Alexander kathryn@alexanderdesigngroup.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Variances for New Construction Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application '- Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application 3 Conditional Use Permit I-- Site Plan Application i Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application C Applicant Signature: t;LL4114--- Narrative for the variance requests at 3369 Crystal bay Rd.,Orono for Joshua and Nicole Jabs 1) Summary. Given the unique lots on crystal bay road that don't meet lot area or lot width requirements,the property conforms to the general characteristics of other residences in terms of size and setback(in front of adjoining rear setbacks),while maintaining livability by focusing on conformance with characteristics of the neighborhood, restoring the lot to natural grading/ contours and removing largest existing non-conforming structures 2) Moving house back would increase hardcover for driveway and create issues with large structure on each side of property including tall existing carpark inside the 75' setback on the east side 3) The Rear variance improves on the existing property as the current garage is only 9.5'to the rear of property,the garage will be removed and property will then be 23.7'to the rear and carry a greater rear setback then either neighboring properties. 4) Height variance. This is a unusual property as the rear grade was flattened with retaining walls to build the existing non-conforming garage and we would like to restore the natural grade and contour of the area and neighboring properties.the grade of the property was modified significantly in the past and presents a challenge in the height restrictions and the rear yard livability. Again, bringing the grade closer to its natural state will significantly improve its fit with adjacent properties and provide a more realistic view for which to view the house height (flat lot vs graded lot)and the rear access (which both neighboring and most properties enjoy today). 5) Lot Area/Lot width :As with other lots on Crystal Bay Rd,the lot doesn't meet either the lot area or lot width requirements, but the proposed structure conforms with the overall characteristics of the street and meets both side setback and average setback requirements. 1/24/2019 View File PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA19-000004 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response:The property owner desires to construct a new residence with a structural footprint of 1,521 square feet,below the 2,000 square foot allowance and smaller than the adjacent footprints. Overall,it conforms to the neighborhood and balances the unique challenges of Crystal Bay Rd. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response:The lot along with the majority of residences on Crystal Bay Rd don't meet the City's minimum lot area and lot width requirements. Additionally,the grade of the property was modified significantly in the past and presents a challenge in height restrictions and rear yard livability. Bringing the grade closer to its natural state will significantly improve its fit with adjacent properties and provide a more realistic view for which to view house height (flat lot vs graded lot)and the rear access(which both neighboring and most properties enjoy today). 3.The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Most of the homes in the immediate area require a significant level of variance.The two lots on either side of the subject property would require the same number of variances if built today and the most recent was built in 2003.The new home as proposed would require less footprint and hardcover than either of the adjacent properties and remove the most extreme violation of existing structure in the removal of an existing garage that encroaches significantly on the rear setback.Overall,the home appears to be consistent in scale with the adjacent homes and in the neighborhood. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: NA 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 116].06,Subd.2,when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: NA 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. Response: NA 7.The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: NA 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: NA 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response:This is mostly accurate,with the exception of the adjacent properties and prior grading of the lot. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response:The owner is granted a 2,000 square foot structural footprint,but is proposing a 1,521 square foot footprint with an overall build in conformance with adjacent properties and the characteristics of the neighborhood.The structural placement would keep intact the average lakeshore setback to alleviate concerns with the large adjacent properties and minimize hardcover impact from a driveway,which will include an apron to further reduce hardcover. 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. Response: NA 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response:The unique characteristics of the lot are typical for those on Crystal Bay Rd and create a number of challenges in meeting regulations while building a residence that conforms to the neighborhood.The proposal will result in a structure that fits well in the area,starts to restore the natural grading of the lot, removes the largest existing non-conforming structures,and blends into the front(structural)and rear(grading)characteristics of the adjacent properties,all while minimizing hardcover. https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=78837320&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true 1/1 kin 3 Ii: 9v....-.\ `\ 5 SEA E C7^34 ! \\ r I g i i W W o r i ('/ _ \\ I1 II'\ ` I \ F Iii re z III g off m -�- W,JO Z o+ �`�� 8 o UfnW� � e / �a �s $�+ LLZUZ y� i ti�vv:_ vg 1f4 0 a' o ! Op�gE 3*� - i t\ \\, �_ LUZ 6 LL Q Ii ' r ,�"'°Ce= Z w(nWQ Z v~ w FFi V A �� W hid a 1 7 _ LL \ ss Z I ____...0 .:i. Li, i Q N 1 O g w O L a^ ! CERTIFICATI SURVEY FOR JOSHUA AND NICOLE JABS OF LOT 14, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0•KEM\NNEjCNKP X40. ,-,--F,45-1.-3�, -- 1� i, D i g'�`:R CRySS pY ,..--;r, , g:,.. ....... \ ,,.r, _ EW•. eyP Le j.�� ii u �' _,Y,.,. 14 :SK` lel't,' SEONi ' PROPOSED Dte \ ix \\ — e, y / PROPOSED \I _ \\ ,% m` HOUSE�� \ L'IV o sur \ 44 \\ tbI a ` \\,-4,7.......„,--i_ \I � g1 s.50 -PNo__— DaO� ‘ ..j ...,00 RETANi INC WAS N. �\ 1N� .Y. ph J i I APROPOSED ELEVATIONS:(per architect,verify) '\1 1)Garage=1939.51 2)Mole floor =[950.0f 3)Top of foundation= LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14.WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH This survey intends to show the boundaoes of the above Leached property. lomono house and garage.to be removed,and toponraptry,and the proposed ®tian of a proposed hone,dnveAay and grades esreon.It does not intend 0 20 40 80 to eww any other Improvements pr enowatmenm. 40aY440440440 0:Denotes found iron marker 0:Denotes set iron marker *dm.. —:Denotes existing contour Denotes proposed=tour SCALE IN FEET ° :Derotea lxpposad spot elevation Bests for bearngs Is on an assumed dawn. v.,a rREVISIONS MEC ,a_M _�, /� GRONBERG&ASSOCIATES,INC. "PA9F ^1d°'I'ni Owe °in^'^0. CIVIL ENGINEERS,LAND SURVEYORS.NO PLANNERS PROPOSED Rau // oED CAPY 445 N.WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE,MN 55356 t tt a bIRbRFf Sava � drt- ....�...r<.u�u tPs> PHONE:952-473-4141 FAX 952173-4435 I I ______________>[,------7--- e'..2 '- !r _ . .. k =7:7 ill ; 14 rZ 0 11.111111 _1=1 II 3 ii- iliMMINME M.:: E raL. 4. 1 — — arr. I I !,' RT-h_ 1 4 ,.. d < dl ; © T NIDE ELEVATION ! / / !! I — f — --- 4 : -, O FRONT(NORTH)ELEVATION . .n,...,,..,,..— IGF 5 u..,.., . rz 1 --- --- G 672 z-1 b. ..,......1 ESI, ____ I ill i 1 ! i Mt ROM S t 1 - ___ ---- $ I 01�N= i z ® < BT�S�DE ELEVATION z 0iIUL1LU_- ---- 12 ,_� - of r .2 , z4tYII G) REAR(SOUTH)ELEVATION -- ; ,1111111111 'III _ .. 1 11 1 I11 r 1 M. ri 11 L • � '_. _,._ Ffr...... Y\ ..,�T�. Z 1tlit IJ s y: f 14 d 9 v� I I1 3 , . I BGI1 FOOTAGE HAN- 1462. �� r LCUER _ I UFPER- 66 L_ I lir A S I } ram TOP W — .,' DECK- x,41 U y r,L r. r...J I .� } ,moi TOTAL PM- 37!11 W a E = 1 I t t I ✓�'�"^ GARKaE- 6631 TT) r. uaw "�'1 r� + 3.,•• s SPORT OU 651 IP 7y� 1T i JT SPORT COURT 5601 y COVERED BAL. 1311 ps 666 A FOUNDATION PLAN a) LOLLER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ip a 111 -.s Al, . _ 111,.._.1....,..,Li i-L LIM 4110 1; 1 E 1 SQUARE FOOTAGE IG ..p. ' _ _ _ FL HAM- 14052* ( "• ,„,„____________E, r LOSER FR- 11d ' i 16611 ROCf TOP - DECK- 3641 '-"_ H TOTAL FM- 37111 _ • GARAGE- 6631 [- -IV J ant ................. ']nlu� _ L11. .•" 1'IECHH70R- 65� 4 1- SPORT COURT 5600 ; N l O£ r I CO137 COVERED BAL. 1 \ I 5'a v • ! Pi,--�T ""'� "'� ' tel, \ v 1`I4 © MAIN LEVEL BOOR FLAN ® UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4 OF 5 c-- ._,__ r„,1 1_1___ I 1 ___, :1 pil I■ I I lia. • II , aiF o El milik. (--- -) 4/2 4M i t P / j' — —4 92JAFE FOOTAGE I I 4m Nan FLAN- N620 I I 7'-6' - .. -` r COLLET FM.- 12BI L ,, V / t w RODE TOP UPPER- 16611I�f E DECK- 364. p TOTAL FM- 3171 I0' b'/ �� 4/2 k !TR I r r GARAGE- 693• Y ROOF I I SPORT CCURT 560$ � TOP 1I COVERED BAL Ino hpp DECK fr I.6' u u . 1 2,6"/ A az. LL a 6> (1) ROOF oaf ® CAA �M IL*�j C P.,ROM MS oanowait cox.091,K City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: X36" Cic'ine� .et kc/AD.D C.7.485)Es„o��° :Prepared b Dae: P y G R o, E c Aff,0 e4 rej. t �rtrc' 1_2_i 9 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) el Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Survey Hardcover Item(Describe) Length x Width (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A //Oct/€' 83 9 S.F. B GARAGE 3 2 7 S.F. O Cart/C. Qd/t/EGt/AY 853 S.F. D S7-6das 3S S.F. E IA, AFrat/,Va✓G 1414L F F Y7 S.F. *1Es-.IToti Arm.,vi,vc t ,A Lc6 S.F. G t.4106,8 S`T'aoP S S.F. H S.F. S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. 0 S.F. P Q _ S.F. S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F._ (1) Total Existing Hardcover Z i 8 7 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1604): . 44,0 0, rreiA-G L!/,ILL I' 2 S.F. /e rYrteic.- .' .tlr ”.f! c.y rvG Ga✓ t�c. y6 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover '8 S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 2 O R9 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 70 6'9 «r J.ttelt — /022 al!FAL ei r gL.fang' = 6 0 Yi S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage I(3)+(4)] 3 y S8 % (Proposed Hardcover next page) This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page8of9 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: E9 CRYSTAL 8A ��'fffHOFt Prepared by: .GP�tiefieC A5i0c/ATo /Aic. Date: G /-/7-/ P Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) * 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: i•ROPOSED HARDCOVE In the following table, identify a items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width (Example) (Garage) (Square Feet) A �o� �E (24'x 30')_ (720 S.F.) B Co U F6 CO f7O op /S2/ S.F. C Dg/i2EulA Y6' S.F. C aC Ci< f IrFp y'Y S.F. E /{Erot ptiG 4+14L.LS o S.F. F - S o S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. S.F. K - S.F. L S.F. l+t S.F. N S.F. 0 T S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R — S.F. S S.F. T S.F. lJ S.F. V S.F. W V S.F. X S.F. X S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): 2 SS / S.F. F .c ETA 4.4- 4.cr.,1.s go S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover ( S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)L SO S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 706-9 Gel AAFA - /028 / • C 17Ac BAY'/EGNA Bt4C'kr010 C oY/Y/ S.F. S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)) `1/. Y O X Subdivision Application-January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 s ` i y y r . t . �� e----' • .- %__3 .,, rt .. �, t. 0 0 •11 *, . " /!';....,)!, 9i�� f° ! 'j ! � q#,l4p -p3i`ff . 714 t• 0 i # P74 4 kfP ` �, Ye!, } ' 411lig ®r:..'7,11.10'.."4-1147194•50t""''' 1 p I' 4.k1,1'. r�ccG:ttk, i} iAf i ,;„,1 or ' + ' , I �4m'i •`,i.. Li '-,',I,& 11/4 ijf • t 44 •Lu-�' do -\i a I .". • 0V . 'MI • •ile. -'' ' ''',:';:',„.'ZrIpi,r,''' ';'";'.-`i,,'' "' ' dr '4"4-1--' '' til "i x/ e Sr bil E s' Q1 w ate < ' . .., ter,. N r�� � ztz d,c It, , ? s "grafi-iii*yai a � �-'' t -�y, mak` -'m'`«`�' • 6rd ,� s y ;• x g -�(L . iR�y ' ,4 1 % aj2 1y ,,,li „f d :'1'44'''':','-:,.::...,.''')::,.1' '''.. v ' �n�1 ,+'at.d61 'e fiver' am$ �” ay,� a 1,6, ..v..,, ,, ._ A • 4. *4 . gi "i.k.1 , y . "m i + i �. y, a .re-k YM'-'_ r cr . x411,9' 9® ,. f' i4 *a �. - } rr P 1, I r,�,1t. 'o- qr�-, iiiii4wili roc' i f — a : , , ,... t, MN,.' i1 Li # �?f"1 r s L / u: I . a N _ k \ \ , ...64 • :1: ._ . i:` rte✓ • -er . `Th t s w� T; ' e - _INF *'' 4 ' ,,..4..!„. ' - ' '' ' ' ' ' .,,;r,'. - "-':4.,,,,, - .-„..-,,,,,,,,,,. ., -,..._- -. „ , s - .....,.... .. . .- .......„ •tr, , „..,-.-. . ,-_,_ -.... .. .• -_, , - , ,.. ,... .4.$, -.142*-;- . sOs— -o-,-, .. F.�. §y !, a' 4 its. F F ; . ewe i' 4„, F. k .4 i IIt , a - -_- „,... ?' _ yam - _ .` " , °' i +' s,R s .r# ' ' 4, ,L,3. 3.4 ,3 , i, . r g - _' iia< ,� jF`, ty fat n - �`;f ' `- ,* s' ,10":, ' ` k 3 a /�, • , .:-. '''..,:%Dei `4.,:::-.1:11 '2 - :t 1*elitifiAtAik:i ' :: :' . .—_-::1:::, • A1-41 .11 ' p • 4100P yam. : .' 'ile,..-- ..v'- ' _ rr ` :„.1„..,:_er,,,_..... ,._., Via , is rF, , _ . ....ffAride'V';"4.-,,,,,-1; ,• ''.:.7... '''''. t',','Thrk.A 4,7,4-..„..„:44,-..v..- ,44?..,.or'.. ' -, --...-:'': - ' ' ' ' rr �g st'x -u, ,,41.4111.„1_,:,-,,,.z_,;...,,, ,., 4i;_,„4,71.1t,N;„ _. ,_,,i\ -- - _At_ -. t...74,s717:4-1.1,041„5„, ,,,,,,,_"1.-ri-tr.fi4.'`-nia 1 -,..w` 'f .' . ' — • ,, ', aK 4*41,0,',...,,,, i,0: __..__Am.,24.„.?* -,,,,,,,:,:- ',...4-..... ' 4.r. _ . _ - r:lix,'11:::;,2,,,141,411411-744*:::';',..,,,1-7,,,,„,,t1-s..fs%_474404-1,y,,*,,,, ' - - ,` ' ' „,.1''''"*.—*s;'.*:.' ;,!;;P-4-2t;1'"ii,p,*147t;41.4.4,,, ?..:: s, ',1 .-a, ' s, fix.,.. m 5 d fi"Y } Ts ^s a ar tial � '> �S �` -: -<« ? _ , *:,:;*%:1 r - .-r .,-- • .4 -,',. ,II =7. : li dr. k'''t-44Teri i ' /I�f't" 4 Y• S-i..yr,__I 4�'!'v-k,...\ • ,�,v.�K�Yrz—a . �t - � � if ,...4113-..t :,;(,--,,%' • 4.:,i - n ; °tea 3 sy : '.,':::; F Y ;,..r...--,--.....`.7.- ---terry _ j \ R V i �- a r - E+_ '' ' s.. �" - �y _,5 .t J ate{ g _ / ,:.:. . -..---5Z-..--- ''.-i - ''*.-IAtA,---'-i'V'''• ''',:-.AME4,77imit,,,,4fIZZAVATII6-!::- ,„ii,...--.e.'',;:,2r.,44!.---.7-'.., -r*F,-- , giF ww ~ yam`t-weu"" . -aa *t,.{ ? }}'"' .3+,n9 , .� i tit s a,N ;:-... : . --,0.* �� .. is ! ,.„,.y...11,,.a rt,r, 1411; 11' 4.:4;.:, r'-;. ..g i. • 0• 1$ }�fLI. !1 +� (p >f .fat 'f y r{ g',St li f Li • ‘., ,..1„:5,-....o ip. - i !silrd it Itt l .r '^P.. is • y+a� SSA\ r to° w--,- —_,:. ., eft t(l".&',.ik ti ri ft A.' ' ' i# ' .' 2,% .'.': • • ,„ , ! / "f! . ` ° 'r p srl(r' Kd• ' � r�:/ �J 0$l 4il ' ., , , k.----,,... i-.!...7 A.i. ,i.44.0!Ed: .,..., ,, - !.4 ,•...47:4;..,;•4:::-).-.7; ,,,,,.' 1!.. ,. , •. .• �C if4 [ [J /� rrt dI . NAT t A . I -,,,,.“.,4. spa q • -j y f F .. F _ ,_ yg ->,__ sF!"� ' ..ems ..... 41 . Cr s .. .a Q w .... _" f .. 'art. 2,--•*: t_ 4 ..-f r . .a} ; • is_ • �"s � �. � '^ mss_ • ft •is t •. s. �,�+, .•-..--. fi} 41:-•5f11•;."!:!,:.-• o ' . > r^ . t •;:i4C.f " fit - t jf, '..k.a.,i1-44,•;,41,1).14*,..i4 •,•,:. 1 ' 4 Iter"-•' -°` r' Y 4fi :} �*r - =:-.----,,,i,,,,,.-0 - t r€. .` r- c _s � zfi 11/4 - .> °' - ti' ` -- u�54,44,,,,...A,',,, - �'� - r� _ � - � � � , ---.-41/..i,,,!, f � r N i�r �� �.� �� tq � k�� t ,s f;. - u - at 4.�»}� r �y y ' � ; n r ,. � " am ax +9m, u' if .�k 4> _y t yF r A j* - 2•p } -kms y { F Was , y{" s r�9 ,�, # a r --.. r.'- i . - �= ` a 14.1.\'''''' E - I V p AP 4 ! -`+ IS 1! 42 Fet.'♦ 1_f j\ : 1; } 'y u aM 40°, . . " lAitrP — -'-- • tr r ° x , - . . _?.-..,•;'-._ 5-; � ---,—%-,;.;: � ,ter � "1.0'; `I � � •�.� a �x --:',,-.4r-';- sip'.r Z'x _ -fix- " -' .. •�.S a « -41..i ,', -r. . ` I. r� _ it . +**s1 a , t. . pry wry; ; ,- K • a ,' . Map laYete 0 �4 v 0 it - .. +'o Subject t i` ti %,-0,1 - , -.:;,---;('''' \ ' \ -- t'S •'NAY %A 1 4 +; / 1 j • :VY i �— m: ` t _ � 1 :'''''''''''''..'.-.-''-- l 7 1 s. ... { i, \` \ fir' i t }� v r' t `t 0 • r Subject Y S :-...:1.'-'-:::-::::4-:-'-- - i , lit...-.4.;.'. ' \ \\ ' 't , . . \ '; ‘ -\\ '', \ \ A. \ 4 w \ , �\ \ .c.• � .. \ k \ a ' . \ ,.rte-' :* subject ,, - . *‘..'.„‘:1/4. . /\\.... ' , ) ' ,44 .),..,\\: v1, • Y F ;•:•, ,.• . ,-----7.-----'. .3 • -4---.--- .....- ........ ` . - V :.7------"-- . '. ) .1 :,.... ,,4A ,,iiiiiiiiii;. .•c.''''.'i -- ' ...... - --., - 1 .,4,1toir. ,7. . 7„,,..,:,,,.. . ........... :,.,,..,:t.. .. ,,,.., . ..,.. , , . ,.., , ....... Subject .... . . t _. _... ... ._ ,. ..,..,41,.... . ........, "-:'. S. .„. „...,,,...,_ . .. . . . . -.-,;- 14,. -----. ..,-. -Ei: ' S. t-- r- ' - , ,..,........-----,----- il ,, . •,,, -•:- • . e• ------ • ' \ -- -,, .. . OtirsP"--- . - , ----4) df . . , . ,,.. -:'1.1, -! - \ RUN DATE:01/24/2019 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 17-117-23 34 0052 38 17-117-23 43 0001 38 17-117-23 44 0017 HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH R P MEYERS&J E MEYERS JOSHUA JABS&NICOLE JABS 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2195 BAYVIEW PL 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY RICHARD P&JANICE E MEYERS JOSHUA JABS&NICOLE JABS REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 2195 BAYVIEW PL 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 17-117-23 41 0017 38 17-117-23 43 0115 38 17-117-23 44 0018 DALE OLSEN&JONMARI OLSEN TOWN OF ORONO JOSHUA JABS&NICOLE JABS 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 DALE OLSEN&JONMARI OLSEN CITY OF ORONO JOSHUA JABS 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD PO BOX 66 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0018 38 17-117-23 43 0116 38 17-117-23 44 0019 TODD OLSON&ANGELA OLSON WEST WING LLC GREGORY A HELMER 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3407 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 TODD OLSON WEST WING LLC GREGORY A HELMER 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3407 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0019 38 17-117-23 43 0117 38 17-117-23 44 0020 C M MCSHANE&R A MCSHANE TOWN OF ORONO S H LEIGHTON&M C JOHNSON 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3393 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 CHAD&REBECCA MCSHANE CITY OF ORONO SUSANNE H LEIGHTON 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD PO BOX 66 MATTHEW C JOHNSON WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 3393 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0021 38 17-117-23 43 0118 38 17-117-23 44 0021 J D&T J HOFER YOUSRY I ELSHAZLY WILLIAM L WOLFSON 3339 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3415 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3399 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 JONATHAN&THERESA HOFER YOUSRY I ELSHAZLY WILLIAM L WOLFSON • 3339 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3415 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3399 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0022 38 17-117-23 43 0119 38 17-117-23 44 0022 SEAN R FOY/TERRESA K EGGERS TOWN OF ORONO CATHERINE L SWEET 3345 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3405 CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 SEAN R FOY CITY OF ORONO CATHERINE L SWEET 3345 CRYSTAL BAY RD PO BOX 66 3405 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0023 38 17-117-23 43 0120 38 17-117-23 44 0023 JULIE B LENSING SCOTT A BROWN TOWN OF ORONO 3349 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3435 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 JULIE B LENSING SCOTT A BROWN CITY OF ORONO 3349 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3435 CRYSTAL BAY RD PO BOX 66 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 41 0024 38 17-117-23 43 0121 38 17-117-23 44 0025 ANTHONY&SHELLEY HEREDIA JON&KELLY EISS CLEMENT F BIRCH JR ET AL 3355 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3445 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2205 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ANTHONY&SHELLEY HEREDIA JON&KELLY EISS C BIRCH JR/B SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2768 GALE RD 3445 CRYSTAL BAY RD 5705 VILLAGE TR WOODLANE MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 MOUND MN 55364 38 17-117-23 41 0025 38 17-117-23 43 0123 38 17-117-23 44 0026 R A LUZAICH&J N URAL TOWN OF ORONO HPA BORROWER 2018-I MS LLC 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2215 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 RICHARD A LUZAICH CITY OF ORONO HPA BORROWER 2018-1 MS LLC JENNIFER N URAL PO BOX 66 180 N STETSON AVE#3650 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CHICAGO IL 60601 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0034 38 17-117-23 44 0016 38 17-117-23 44 0027 PAUL J&LOIS E REHMAN VIRGINIA E LOFRANO TRUST TERESA ANNE KOCH 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2225 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PAUL J&LOIS E REHMAN VIRGINIA E LOFRANO TERESA KOCH 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2225 BAYVIEW PLACE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE:01/24/2019 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2 38 17-117-23 44 0028 38 17-117-23 44 0067 38 17-117-23 44 0110 M P MCDONALD&P J MCDONALD M D WILLIER&H D WILLIER S C JOHNSON&B M SCHAUMBURG 2245 BAYVIEW PL 2314 OLIVE AVE 3290 NAVARRE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL P MCDONALD MARK D WILLIER S C JOHNSON&B M SCHAUMBURG PAMELA J MCDONALD HEATHER L WILLIER 3290 NAVARRE LA 2245 BAYVIEW PL 4018 SUNSET DR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 17-117-23 44 0029 38 17-117-23 44 0068 KELLY A&SHAUN S RIOUX C P KNOWLTON&E KNOWLTON 2253 BAYVIEW PL 2306 OLIVE AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 KELLY ADELIA RIOUX CHRISTOPHER PAUL KNOWLTON SHAUN SCOTT RIOUX ERIN KNOWLTON 2253 BAYVIEW PL 2306 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0030 38 17-117-23 44 0069 LAUREN E HATTARA MARGARET A WOOD 2265 BAYVIEW PL 2300 OLIVE AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 LAUREN E HATTARA MARGARET A WOOD 2265 BAYVIEW PL 2300 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0031 38 17-117-23 44 0082 JAMES R ANDERSON D M MATSON&SHANNON WOLCOTT 2275 BAYVIEW PL 2200 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 JAMES R ANDERSON DALE M MATSON 2275 BAYVIEW PLACE SHANNON WOLCOTT WAYZATA MN 55391 2200 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0041 38 17-117-23 44 0083 KRIS A&BRETT FERRELL J L SCHNECK&P M SCHNECK 2250 BAYVIEW PL 2230 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 KRIS ANN FERRELL J L&P M SCHNECK 2250 BAYVIEW PL 2230 BAYVIEW PL S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0042 38 17-117-23 44 0096 M BRASSINGTON/M BRASSINGTON B A WILSON&C A WILSON 2240 BAYVIEW PL 2300 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MICHELLE M BRASSINGTON BLAIR&CAROL WILSON 2240 BAYVIEW PL 2300 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0063 38 17-117-23 44 0104 VALERIE T COYKENDALL CLAIR T ROOD 2344 OLIVE AVE 3240 NAVARRE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 VALERIE T COYKENDALL CLAIR T ROOD 2344 OLIVE AVE 3280 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0064 38 17-117-23 44 0105 TIMOTHY C LIVINGSTON CLAIR T ROOD 2338 OLIVE AVE 3280 NAVARRE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 TIMOTHY C LIVINGSTON CLAIR T ROOD 2338 OLIVE AVE 3280 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0065 38 17-117-23 44 0108 J T JACOBSON&L D JACOBSON C P BLOCK&C R BLOCK 2328 OLIVE AVE 2260 BAYVIEW PL ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 J T JACOBSON&L D JACOBSON CHRIS&COURTNEY BLOCK 2328 OLIVE AVE 2260 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0066 38 17-117-23 44 0109 PATRICK W SULLIVAN G ASHDOWN&G M ASHDOWN 2318 OLIVE AVE 3286 NAVARRE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PATRICK W SULLIVAN GLEN ASHDOWN 2318 OLIVE AVE GRACE MARIE ASHDOWN WAYZATA MN 55391 3286 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 1/24/2019 '41--p4_,- __,-i..e#---, €.k `�} ,�, .- 4 ado- rf _ N� <.`*� ,n. ,i..,; ..2q,,I.,....-::-.41,1,:-07.0i--.R-,,,,r r .4,-,-,;::,m,-* ,.:,.t-„,:ificz,,..r..,,,, ,-,--,ii.im,,4:•:,•.A.,,,,F,..tv,,;-..-74....,.1,iig ---,...7---.4W,,,I*,..-,,-,,, v.:-..--%..s., _ � r'r. rr „ ,,„ ,, ...4,, A ..,v., - Cyt �` 1', �di, , a -4°'�t - .f' f v _ WW : h .rrt ae, "ntF f W 3?? y ,, ::... . , � .i ": f a,:4,à&twSbi°i , '�• a , ' ;, z -vs .-c L`_ 3r 4 .qii y` ^i ;.;:4-'.'.I------.i.:04,...--, z-- b - ,i,rzt LL ` -S q :q t' ` _ # �, : a .4,1: `, Ilk` 329 -3iALt..1•1:-.-_,,,--&;144,...--11,.."A-14.1V31•t-_,, x--.V1"4- :-.-.0--...0f-t sit''; ) . a 339 Y g ->kms€ :10 Rc: °,s. -}. 1. Via; . "�� i. k ��-fit '''.:Wt''';.: 427l '56 zu5 s g Sd '. -- ' Pte. �3 x. "7,wT -..",,.:.:.:4;„,.°4'..".,JUZ. .. • ,264 �_ `.. _ 5` ,w. . - "' •f F. ie d 3399 34057) 3240 4 � 286tm, • Sh 3441 3290 tib\S\\ tin i 2200 'r41 '--. 22:30 \- " / 224E as. 225 0 • ' i � 2205 (42) 226D " ' ore) 2215 2195 Oft rn 2300 n 2225 3303,.; m ..0.. Afr Cm �' 253 2293' n 2296 :: teat :2300MI R19 r' A 3427 .-;.. 0400, 40 } 2328-, _ _,,, 3¢438 23Ut4 rip Wil . 2338 2344 G+lt . e'. . is aai i a3, fi. ) eel 2305 RI) t2aA8 3436 3414 , 2350 lam) f`+� If- 97. 3320 6 il`4 V 2314 2327 tri 0 t (4) , . 4413435 3433 3405 2 1 39 2354 -0 3324 2380 _ ' s' t Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: IIIIIIIII 3369 Crystal Bay Rd This data (i) s furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (i)is fu m shed with no warranty of any kind; and (ii) is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shal not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: 01/23/19 O�T Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/01/19 VO 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/02/19 '; 1 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members 1 Dustin Rief, City Administrator �kEsxo � From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h1GG Date: 19 February 2019 Subject: #LA19-000005, Steven & Kimberly Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road, ATF Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicants are requesting approval of an average lakeshore setback variance in order to allow construction of a new the elevated screen porch lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background In 2016 the applicants built the screen porch addition to the home which exists on the property today, without proper permits. Following a stop work notice for the unpermitted construction, in 2017 the applicants applied for and received an after the fact approval of lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and 75-foot hardcover variances allowing the porch to remain, subject to engineering review and a building permit(File#17-3979). There were delays and the variance expired. The applicants have reevaluated and revised their project.They have reduced the size of the screen porch eliminating two of the variances, although an average lakeshore setback is still necessary. The applicants propose a 26' x 26' screen porch on the lakeside of the home 76 feet from the OHWL, as much as 14 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330&78-1279-Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 30' 31.3' house No change NW Side 10' 50.2' No change SE Side 10' 46.5' No change Lakeshore 75' 81' 76' Average Lakeshore 20' encroachment 14' encroachment FILE#LA19-000005 19 Feb 2019 Page 2 of 5 Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 46,050 s.f. (1.0 acre) Allowed: 9,210 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,297 s.f. (7.1%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay Total Area in Zone Allowed (2016) Existing Proposed District Tier Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 1 46,050 s.f. 11,512 s.f. 5,726 s.f. 6,253 s.f. (25%) (12.4%) (13.6%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The existing illegal screen porch was constructed encroaching up to 20 feet lakeward into the average lakeshore setback.The applicants' revised request results in a 14 foot encroachment. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing 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 Zoning 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 Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also 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 Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Construction of a screen porch addition on the residential property is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Neighbors have indicated that the screen porch encroachment into the average lakeshore setback does not block their views of the lake; therefore this criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances permitting the construction of the screen porch within the average lakeshore setback in a residential zone, all while not blocking views are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls;The request to permit construction of the FILE#LA19-000005 19 Feb 2019 Page 3 of 5 screen porch lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the cove and the unnatural curve of the shoreline causes the extreme setback.The encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line is supported by neighbors.The adjacent property owners have indicated that they will not be adversely impacted. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The visual impact on neighbors' lake views resulting from of the addition is minimal;the owners home location, and the surrounding home locations were not created by the Owner.This criterion is met.; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The location of the screen porch addition in the existing location does not alter the character of the locality.This criterion is met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also 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 Minn.Stat.§216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a screen porch is an allowed use in the LR- 1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties.This criterion is met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.There is an existing home on the Property which includes limited lake yard area to construct a conforming screen porch.This criterion is met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The proposed screen porch is not out of character with the neighborhood.The unique shoreline and the cove area in front of the Property provide additional visual separation from the lake.This criterion is met. FILE#LA19-000005 19 Feb 2019 Page 4 of 5 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The requested variances would not be for the sole convenience of the Applicants.This criterion is met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. 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 The requests has neighbor support.Additionally,due to the position of the home,and neighboring homes, in relation to both Shadywood Road and the lake,Staff finds there are practical difficulties supporting average lakeshore setback encroachment for the reduced 26'x 26'screen porch. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has not reviewed this project as there are no changes to the grades on the site. Public Comments Public comments have been received supporting the applicants' request. The comments are attached as Exhibit F. Issues for Consideration 1. 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? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission identifies practical difficulties supporting the new screen porch encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, a motion for approval would be appropriate. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Porch Plans Exhibit F. Public Comments Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Aerial Photos FILE#LA19-000005 19 Feb 2019 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/23/2019 Address: 2740 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Parcel Number: 2111723240065 Land Use Number: LA 19-000005 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: KIMBERLY K SCHOTTLER Address: 2740 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Applicant: Name: Steve Schottler Address: 2740 Shadywood Rd Excelsior, MN 55331 sschottler@msn.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Steve Schottler sschottler@msn.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Lake Setback, Average Lakeshore Setback, and Hardcover Variances -ATF Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application 4k7.1. Vii , Applicant Signature: H 4 * .M Variance request for 2740 Shadywood Road r I Orono MNrit r . ......... Applied for by: Steve and Kim Schottler Requested variance A cove on one side of for backyard porch: our property creates a 0 2740 Shadywood Rd Orono, MN practical difficulty. • 2730 Shadywood Road 65' deck to cove Neighborhood • 2760 Shadywood Road 95' deck to lake F -cts: • 2780 Shadywood Road 86' deck to lake • 2800 Shadywood Road 75' patio to lake • Our house 144' porch to lake We have a unique NOTEWORTHY " Y�'' '' k `' roe A cove is on } one side of our ,-,, property. • Porch to the first point „~```, of thecove - thiswas This cove creates a an area dug out for a practical difficulty. boathouse is: 0 Due to this cove, the 75 feet, 2 inches house next door to ;. (measured 11/17/17) ��� � � � r ���, us (on the cove side) sits further back impacting our • Porch to MAIN cove is: allowances and set-backs. 102 feet Nearly 150 feet from main lake. We are using the land in a 75 feet from reasonable manner. dugout boat ruse cove area. Our plight is due to circumstances unique to 102 feet from our property. main part of cove. • We have a unique property with one side of our property being on a cove which creates a practical difficulty. Reason for • The cove creates a special condition applying to the structure in question and is peculiar to our property and immediately adjoining property. variance: • The condition this cove presents does not apply to many other structures in the district. Not many houses have a cove on one side. The cove • Thegrantingof our application is necessaryfor the preservation and • creates a pp enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Our home sits practical so close to the road and far from the water even with our porch. We need a variance to have a porch. difficulty. • We are using the land in a reasonable manner. • nearly 150' from the main lakeshore • 75' from the first point of cove lakeshore (an area dug out for an old boathouse) • 102' from main part of cove „.•” , a ,,, , IA- ,, 4 Photos from i,., neighbors (cove side) >. deck and yard ' king at our porch: 2730 Shadywood Rd _----. 11I '''�11 l Jz 1 V ♦ ,ate• _ . 4ft .. k r ‘:, Photos from neighbors (main �� 1 M lake side) backyard f ti. r: .4. Y looking at our porch. t :r R 4 s Y • Neighbor needs to _ . : , look back towards kr, 4 the road to see our porch: r 2760 Shadywood Rd M _ 1:$,‘ " ff . , lot View from ' ur porch to the cove and lake All surrounding neighbors �Thank you for strongly support this your variance request. • We hope you will , as well . 1/24/2019 View File PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM L.419-000005 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response:N/A 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response:We have a unique property.One side of our property is on a very small cove.Due to this cove,the house next door to us(on the cove side)sits further back impacting our allowances/set-backs.It's worth noting that the neighbor on the cove side is in full support of our porch and has stated they cannot see our porch from their property. The cove side neighbor provided photos from their property.Please see photos at the end of these questions. Our porch sits back nearly 150 feet from the main lakeshore,75 feet from the cove lakeshore. The porch we're requesting a variance for sits farther back from the lake than any of our neighbors'homes. 3.The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response:It's a straight forward porch.The neighbors have all commented on how much nicer it makes the house look.The house has been rundown for years.The porch does not alter the character of the locality. 4.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response:N/A 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 1163.06,Subd.2,when in harmony with this Chapter. Response:N/A 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. Response:N/A 7.The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. esponse:Candidly,we're not sure if this applies.Kim's parents,Don and Mary Ann Grimstad,have been married 60 years.Kim's dad has Alzheimer's and Kim's mom has bone cancer.Kim's mom has been determined to care for Don in their home, but it's become too much.We hope to move them into the main floor bedroom of our home.The attached porch we're requesting a variance for will be the only outside they know. 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response:The peculiar setting of having a small cove next to us is the reason we need a variance.Our house sits very close to the highway.The porch still sits nearly 150 feet from the front shoreline,75 feet from the cove.Farther back than any of our neighbors properties on both sides.No neighbors can see our porch from their properties.Both neighbors provided photos from their properties and can be seen at the end of these questions. 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response:Most homes don?t have a small cove next to them and can build much closer to the lake.The porch still sits nearly 150 feet from the shoreline.The cove greatly impacts our allowances/set-backs. We?re going to keep the house as-is,but ask for a variance for the porch.It?s still far from the lake and doesn?t impact any neighbors?views. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response:N/A 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. Response:No,it will not in any way impair health,safety or comfort of morals.We have full support of all our neighbors(please see letters provided). 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response:Although we were told the house is a tear down,we're keeping the house as-is. ue to the small cove which greatly impacts allowances/set-backs,we will never e able to have anything close to the water. le ask you to please alleviate difficulty caused by this small cove and grant us a variance that would allow us to keep the porch.The house is so close to the highway,this isn't a convenience we're asking for,but a necessity for us to have this porch. https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=78848286&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true 1/1 Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria,describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines(attach additional sheets if necessary): Our practical difficulty stems from the location of our property. We are located in the corner of a bay, right next to a very small cove. Because of this, the house on the cove side sits back and impacts our allowances/set-backs. Our house sits very close to the highway. Even with the porch, all of our neighbors houses on both sides are much closer to the lake. We are much farther back from the lake than any of our neighbors. Every neighbor strongly supports our request for a variance. We appreciate your time and thank you for reviewing our request. MEASUREMENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES AND OUR PROPERTY TO THE LAKE 2730 Shadywood Road 65' deck to lake in cove 2760 Shadywood Road 95' deck to lake 2780 Shadywood Road 86' deck to lake 2800 Shadywood Road 75' patio to lake Our house 144' porch to lake 75' porch to cove Our house — 2740 Shadywood Road This picture if from the farthest part of the porch to the lake. It sits nearly 150 feet back from the lake. Our house from the lake. Our house from the cove. 2730 Shadywood Road Our neighbor's house on the cove side. They cannot see our porch. ii, , ''.t Ai , ,� �. .� w � . . tl , .A T f I „ j 1-i .., ,,,,,:.,-, „..::-..,,,k,...„,„0,,,,,...,,,,, ,,...,:_,...„:„., ,_ . ..„,.....,,,.,,,,,..,,,,..,,,,„.„4., ,, „,i.„2„,,,,,:.,..._.„,,,,,. ., .X . J/ ., p 4T Q~ ''ti...' f, / 2760 Shadywood Road Our neighbor's house. They cannot see our porch. .41 ut' Our neighbor's house at the farthest point of their property lakeside. You have to go through the bushes and then look back to see our porch. r, • M.r c k 3 haaS { A • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: N6637•W 104.0 PUT STEVE SCHOTTLER / 96.76 COMP LEGEND // \ Inscribed• 0 Set any,5,5D / / a°p[m acro pnnu Monument / i %` � \\\\\\J •? rt W Tract.D REGISTERED LRD SURVEY RD.a20, AM/ / / ♦ • •„•,em• ` � IMor An Com* moo.Mea no,thaeM or the Z moon i CO Net rept that port frog northeeeterb,or .� F q” `"e-, \,• ., Tract b"..31 sotsoathea*Warty from m od Dti westerly / u- �`�� r .ma P1°a• .1 l'..7.0 come mct 9".W o pont m the north lint I eaa / �'t` I U tl' ` .act 9!7.57 feel wet from dere mrtneeet comer of sold / ,c Trott T". /d Q / a,d/ N, /\ ] MUeMma�piN Watl�ereement lar bMeay p,npore awl, ayy /d R�/� �__ - ••�a��1f \{ O Net o oc M A 1wt ar 4.emleea'].50 , e" ' { cc; ,..., yy 1, tet f n re" �� -/NT� Z MMport m Tract ro"REGISTERED LOA sURAT x am I `// I "ape'• • / ra / S ..or ..f.ry m�esoL-one Hdn mrd�wleM aol ...n Com! eu, y�., / ,\a; iispma so w-.1-"r.one a r-IT" d ie.t wwq mmt...t.aEtnmer ar ele ,•,,,�'•. •`v - \�._ 7 Trod i.ethn,up° Tract v-.zm M nod.e.n tamer el.eb T�; % I S . �Y 4a SJ ,7 \‘,..." .., ald 2`" y,a it../ki..;\. \ >.. #�- _ �! arae ' ` `i. y _, lot Area to DM-45.050 SF / I 24;4,/L RDD Ea, S% 6),I «e /P • °: ioli 'l Blterninou Concrete D-eNcok Aemren en ate lar °ea;rmmle y '. iu^ ° =aperass Dock ExcHARDCOVER \ ae• t Te N. \wOOe'14* a ..aa :i •.,\ a \ ' \ rote Dr.*, i ___ s„.\ � \\R0 o 0 20 40 OD moo..m the Dashed siding �" f+. FACT — mr evidence in the MR and/or no e. m oor°me'"eronDDNty m by the utIllty c Dr amM Mrtla sol a SCALE IN FEET b 'As, hereby rxm, w eur...o report ea KW*M� 212-17A°,1"„„7,.' tare REVISIONS ewuo me ar my ay wr ��� W.BROWN LAND SURVEYING.INC. SHEET 242-16 n wee+G� �..r®e. rre 22a W a iowN LAND ma.VmeEnNG,tmc. lora ai Rp,,..a ° matToAvEr eu�Eav amass E<3/Ir] y B oBus o..FAX�� the But Lis of a Bet 1St. ./ NR .7., _,__.......____ Etea] 1 of 1 n...,m.vr.m. . .t_s.MN REG 13230 ° '' ENO.,WewroSURvEvewor_mM City of Orono go�,o Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 2740 Shadywood Rd. 405n00.� Prepared by: W. Brown Land Surveying Date: 01-18-2019 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) CD Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Hardcover Item(Describe) Length x Width Survey (Square Feet) (Example) ' (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A House Irregular 2,621 S.F. B Proposed Screen Porch 26.0'x26.0' 676 S.F. C Bituminous Driveway Irregular 2,110 S.F. D Concrete Garage Apron Irregular 112 S.F. E Concrete Sidewalk & Stoop Irregular 699 S.F. F Deck 11.6' x 11.6' 135 S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. J S.F. S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 6,353 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): F Deck 11.6' x 11.6' 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 6,253 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 46,050 to OHW S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 13.6 (Proposed Hardcover next page) This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 of 9 O i0 N., Van Heel Dream Builders vnnu Fe, 2375 Orkla Dr Golden Valley MN 55427 Lic.#BC001592 763-438-9920 Ii °KTP! �_2( - :e) Vc- f\ 6c4lp Q qo 1,11 t`>" AOOb J 0 l7 Van Heel Dream Builders vnNVl I 2375 Orkla Dr Golden Valley MN 55427 tic.#BC001592 763-438-9920 � C DEc v411_ -=10 y -- f lLT Il ALf / 0 .11 , 3Z\.. ),3t1\ \ii 1.11 II Van Heel Dream Builders vAN rt 2375 Orkla Dr [2-----___2_1_.--=.11.1 e. - ,: v �- ,.._._.._ Golden Valley MN 55427 Lic.#8C001592 763-438-9920 , I IX "l lx/ i, 7:. i. t 1 § .7?. ny �� 4Fi p :w v -sem z .c , xr. ..xwrwwrrr rrrsrsrwr wrrr rtsrtswttwtv;xfis.t4..***r...,,,trt*iiFtx****.*****.******fir*+x4 rfi+' ,elryr ,crsrx-s.vvrr..<xr nrt r,.'*nx*x+tsvrrtY**lr ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (We) .4. '1A ,"" ." of( / �3 cAG ek,o-r. -ir [print name(s))s [print address] h verevi ed e plan for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at mss. •ii, /0 " also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. /7 I 2,0 - y-Swner mete 1 ,,-' Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 0) Variance;Application—January 2017 Page 15 k1 l ti II of '4 it 1'. PC y. ' 'ti Exhibit G "' • • ' `� #LA19-000005 .. , :1„:,,:i.... } r `` i ' , a;. -.1."'1,,. t S K- . . ,, , l • <: I jVis'. <_ �jr ., Y' '.74 - . . . - '. - �i • ••:�+. a ..m- r' _..._,. ...- -'7st ' _ a . z� \ 07/ 18/2017 .:N - ..,;:ii;:-.;:....,„-..-.-.::::,-; .-.,;,-.-- . •--...-1'' rt fe •fi �t .�fr`^. ; .. .. i - ,. ,,. —' - _,,13. _.._ __ --.. p _M. .-. .,... ,: fit's 09/ 12/2017 I ' R.4 1,:• i 'h -- Y . Fl t • f 8 ...f • ;may 4ti. ♦. 4 ARE., ` a4, ric :litho AVR liar i c I •• 3 L f v y, wv� _ i' V / tiV . t. • Yrs -. .' T' .'fir #E ji 1. —w.. • R - ' : '`°r.f.o.�. .; � is t '•� _.."`ice-w... ' y. r 09/ 12/2017 • pC ,r4.43 ` Exhibit H ' AN #LAI 9-000005 ,.. x ' b • ;A4. :r»`Distance:11.3 ..`• `# P �\ d'.a `*' t=g4 b Feet �' '..;it - a7 .� r� rn g " t. ' ,rel , ," 3fi t`Ar, . -xfPf 7 e /' _ -^.'''' // ` /:.'*../'` C- lam_ 1 / -1 Al,. s. / .' .. }` .. Ate.-' ' "-'''''''7'` - '," 1111r-44.,,i-4/07--- �...�_^ .. Y 4,..t, '2.4r 4 b -q,'u¢ yam % 4 rF . 4 k . e • tr - _, /. : %'".l $° N ;, • RUN DATE;12/13/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:i • • 38 21-117-23 13 0023 38 21-117-23 24 0030 38 21-117-23 24 0043 HANS BERGH&SHARON BERGH KELLY A LABATT CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST 2800 SHADYWOOD RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2610\VEST LAFAYETTE RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 HANS BERGH&SHARON BERGH KELLY A LABATT CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST 2800 SHADYWOOD RD 2700 SHADYWOOD RD 2610 LAFAYETTE RD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0003 38 21-117-23 24 0031 38 21-117-23 24 0044 S S NEWRAI&J E NEWRAI KELLY A LABATT THOMAS P LOWE TRUSTEE 2705 SHADYWOOD RD 2700 SHADYWOOD RD 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 SOHRAB S NEWRAI KELLY A LABATT THOMAS P&MARGARET L LOWE JULIE E NEWRAI 2700 SHADYWOOD RD 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2705 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 • EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0004 38 21-117-23 24 0032 38 21-117-23 24 0045 M D&R A MEEK B A KVAM&J C KVAM TRUSTEES MARGARET L LOWE 2725 SHADYWOOD RD 2720 SHADYWOOD RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 MICHAEL D&ROBERTA A MEEK JOHN C&BEVERLEE A KVAM MARGARET L LOWE 2725 SHADYWOOD RD 2720 SHADYWOOD RD 2630 LAFAYETTE RD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0005 38 21-117-23 24 0035 38 21-117-23 24 0046 JOHN MATACHEK S R&P A BECK THOMAS G WINTZ REV TRUST 2735 SHADYWOOD RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2680 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 JOHN MATACHEK BRAD NAYFACK THOMAS G WINTZ 2735 SHADYWOOD RD 772 JAMACHA RD#311 2680 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EL CAJON CA 92019 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0009 38 21-117-23 24 0036 38 21-117-23 24 0047 R L LITTLE&D A LITTLE J R GAGNE&V L GAGNE ANTHONY KRIER&ROBIN KRIER 2775 SHADYWOOD RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD • ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 RICHARD L LITTLE JAMES R GAGNE ANTHONY KRIER&ROBIN KRIER 2775 SHADYWOOD RD 2615 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2655 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0016 38 21-117-23 24 0037 38 21-117-23 24 0048 CHERYL&DARWIN LUNDSTROM THOMAS G WINTZ REV TRUST MARGARET L LOWE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2635\VEST LAFAYETTE RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 CHERYL&DARWIN LUNDSTROM THOMAS G WINTZ MARGARET L LOWE 4201 SUNSET DR#514 2680 SHADYWOOD RD 2630 LAFAYETTE RD W SPRING PARK MN 55384 ORONO MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0020 38 21-117-23 24 0038 38 21-117-23 24 0049 THOMAS J&SHARON D CASEY MARGARET L LOWE J R GAGNE&V L GAGNE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2615\VEST LAFAYETTE RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 THOMAS J&SHARON D CASEY MARGARET L LOWE JAMES R GAGNE 4501 SHORELINE DR#14 2630 LAFAYETTE RD W 2615 WEST LAFAYETTE RD SPRING PARK MN 55384 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0021 38 21-117-23 24 0039 38 21-117-23 24 0054 R C SCHWALBE&D E SCHWALBE ANTHONY KRIER&ROBIN KRIER CKONE LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2785 SHADYWOOD RD , ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 RICHARD SCHWALBE ANTHONY KRIER&ROBIN KRIER CKONE LLC DIANE SCHWALBE 2655 W LAFAYETTE RD 161 PRIMROSE LA 8125 NARCISSUS ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MEDINA MN 55340 VICTORIA MN 55386 38 21-117-23 24 0028 38 21-117.23 24 0040 38 21-117-23 24 0055 JAMES 0 GINTHER ET AL J T ENGLER&E A ENGLER J G WARNER JR&W J R WARNER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2760 SHADYWOOD RD 2693 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 INDIVIDEO JEFFERY T ENGLER JAMES G WARNER JR 2760 SHADYWOOD RD WENDY I ROAL WARNER EXCELSIOR MN 55331 2693 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0029 38 21-117-23 24 0041 38 21-117-23 24 0056 JOHN R MATACHEK R A CARTER&J M CARTER BETH A PAULSON 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2780 SHADYWOOD RD 2695 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 JOHN R MATACHEK RICHARD&JEANNE CARTER BETH A PAULSON 2735 SHADYWOOD RD 2780 SHADYWOOD RD 2695 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RUN DATE:12/13/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2 38 21-117-23 24 0059 MARLYSJOGLE 2771 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 MARLYS J OGLE 2771 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0060 T M RANDGAARD/M J BARRETT TR 2765 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 THOMAS M RANDGAARD 1730 KENWOOD PKWY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 38 21-117-23 24 0061 S E LEIGHTON&D L LEIGHTON 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 STEVEN E LEIGHTON DONNA L LEIGHTON 8830 POINTE VISTA DR VICTORIA MN 55386 38 21-117-23 24 0062 DEREK C PFLUG&JACK T PFLUG 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 DEREK PFLUG JACK PFLUG 6211 CARDINAL AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0063 S SHANNON&C SHANNON 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 RANDY&TRACY GUSTAFSON 19565 ROSEDALE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0064 J R MINER&S L MINER 2730 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 JAMES R MINER STEPHANIE L MINER 2730 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0065 KIMBERLY K SCHOTTLER 2740 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 KIMBERLY K SCHOTTLER 2740 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0002 S R BECK&P A BECK TRUSTEES 2795 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 BRAD NAYFACK 2795 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0003 JAMES E ZIMMERMAN 2745 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 JAMES E ZIMMERMAN 2745 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 97 21-117-23 13 0017 HENNEPIN COUNTY • 97 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TONKA BAY MN 00000 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTN:REAL ESTATE MANAGER 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/13/2018 261 'w 1 - .,26,0Ey, oil 2607 _ 2616 0a) 2610 NA .sf 2650 11k^ = ' 2660 r ' 2695„ pal2, X670:" 2655 WI ' t7. 2690 ON 1 j� 2700 a k _ 72031 B , `tl 720th �- 2 t5 qi • ) «:Y '2760 4ni 1 iI `f f# " / 2600 R7f i 2771 -.. 27651 , 7731 raze / ++ 278541 t 2746 s' 4 #4240 4250 42 Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: I I I I I l I I I 2740 Shadywood Road This;pldetaetanes(s)omrafur ccnur'sachedy (iA)SIs fISnb' with now tihr eprnoese r ingeontiseasatnygo pknrdosaensd.H(enii)neispinnotCousuntab tylsehafornobgael,tdenger iur anydanege,injury or loss resulting from this data. For mere Information,contact Hennepin CountyGtS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis7nfa®ferviepin.us Date Application Received: 12-20-2018 ��1 VO Date Application Considered as Complete:12-20-18 60-Day Review Period Expires: April 19,2019(extended) To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator ikt sttov-‘" From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: February 19, 2019 Subject: #LA18-000104, Gary Anderst o/b/o Narrows LLC, 3382 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting to consolidate the Narrows business and the Lakeroom restaurant into one business,to allow one liquor license. A secondary request is to adopt a new Conditional Use Permit to consolidate the conditions imposed previously. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Background Gary Anderst represents the owner of the property, Narrows LLC. Narrows LLC operates the Narrows saloon and is in the process of opening up the Lakeroom. A steakhouse type restaurant. In 2000,the City has issued a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant (a restaurant providing liquor and live entertainment(The Narrows). In 2013,the city issued a CUP (via resolution 6353)to permit the creation of a new Class II restaurant, (the Lake Room). The Conditional Use Permit included a requirement that the new restaurant hold a separate liquor license from the Narrows Saloon. Since the original CUP in 2000,the City has granted a number of Conditional Use permits for the property, summarized in the table below. Reso#11Descriptjon ; . Date case# . 4530 Class II Restaurant and live entertainment 10/9/2000 2604 Amendment to 4530, expansion of Class II restaurant into dry cleaner 5440 and hair salon, add outdoor patio 3/27/2006 05-3121 5937 Health and Sport Club (since expired) 5/24/2010 10-3466 Class II Restaurant (Lakeroom), amending previous CUP for outdoor 6353 patios 12/9/2013 13-3615 6457 Amend 6353 for vestibule design 10/27/2014 13-3615 Resolutions 4530, 5440, and 6353are attached as Exhibits F, G, and H. Since the most recent Conditional Use Permit in 2014,the original property owner passed away; FILE#LA18-000104 February 19,2019 Page 2 of 6 his brother has continued work on developing the Lakeroom restaurant. The now-owner questioned the need for a separate liquor license. Consolidating both businesses into one liquor license is considered expansion of one of the businesses, requiring at least an amendment to the CUP. Application The applicant proposes a new conditional use permit intended to replace existing conditional use permits on the property with one, consolidating their approvals, conditions, etc. into one document. In the past the use of the property for a bar featuring live music has generated concerns from the neighborhood and City Council related to noise. Many conditions were imposed on the business to address these concerns. Some of these issues may have been a function of a substandard ventilation system that required doors to be propped open for fresh air and to ventilate smoke and heat. That ventilation system has been replaced to meet the design requirements of the space, and the bar no longer allows smoking, consistent with State regulations. Regardless, much of the physical changes to the building have been completed, including door systems. The City has not received a noise complaint about the Narrows for some time. Reviewing the history of CUP's issued for the businesses,there seems to be a benefit for both the city and the business to consolidate and review the conditions imposed, and consolidate them for clarity. Narrows The current configuration of the Narrows saloon is shown in the attached Narrows seating plan, labeled as exhibit D. The Narrows Bar is 28'4" x 56'3" (1,593.56 sq.ft.). That configuration seats 128 persons as shown. 128 people are not the capacity of the space. A stage is located within the bar area, along the east wall. The stage is 12' by 15', (180 sq.ft.) The Narrows space includes an exterior patio, shown on Exhibit B. This patio allows seating for 24-30 patrons,and includes a fencing enclosure and a fire pit. No expansion of the Narrows space is proposed at this time. Lakeroom The Lakeroom restaurant includes seating on two levels, plus the patio to the north. The patio appears to support 30-36 patrons, and is shown on Exhibit B. Hours of operation Hours for live entertainment were stipulated by Resolution 4530. Live entertainment shall end at 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 am each night. No expansion of the Lakeroom, beyond that authorized by Resolution 6353, is proposed. Hours for the restaurant were stipulated in Resolution 6353. The restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 am to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. FILE#LA18-000104 February 19,2019 Page 3 of 6 The owner requests that the hours of operation for the restaurant side be permitted to be extended to 1:00 p.m.,to be consistent on both sides. Parking. As noted with resolution 6353, applicant shall work with city staff on a plan to establish a handicapped parking spot within the city lot. No motorcycle parking is permitted on the public sidewalk. These requirements will remain in the proposed resolution. Staff and the applicant established a spot near the patio entrance, but this may need to be adjusted as the parking lot is adjusted. Dumpster Enclosure. The original site plan for the Lakeroom showed a proposed trash enclosure approximately 15 feet north of the outdoor patio area. The owner requested and received Council approval to relocate the dumpster enclosure to the north side of the city parking lot. The Dumpster enclosure shall be built prior to relocating the dumpster to the new location. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-646-Setbacks: B-1 DISTRICT Required Existing and Proposed 16.5'—lot line Front 35' 6.5'—Highway easement 2'—sidewalk easement Rear 35' 29' West Side 15' 3.4' East Side 15' 8.2' Section 78-646-Lot Area/Width: B-1 DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 20,000 s.f. (0.46 acres) 100' Actual 13,656 s.f. (0.31 acres) 112' Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 13,656 s.f. (0.31acre) Allowed: 2,047 s.f. (15%) Existing: 5,367 s.f. (39.3%) Proposed: No Change Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover FILE#LA18-000104 February 19,2019 Page 4 of 6 Tier Tier 3 13,656 s.f. 4,780 s.f. 13,656 s.f. 13,656 s.f. (35%) (100%) (100%) No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed beyond what has already been approved. It should be noted that hardcover standards are difficult to meet in minor retrofit use applications. Applicable Regulation:Conditional Use Permit(Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted,the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The use of the property for a restaurant/bar is consistent with the Commercial designation. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Class II restaurants are a conditional use in the zoning district. 3) Adequately served by police,fire, roads,and stormwater management;The property is served by municipal services, no issues have been identified or are anticipated. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system;There is adequate services to support the intended use. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost;The business is not anticipated to generate demand of public services beyond a typical amount for the type of business. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The use is consistent with a commercial use. Building design and applicable regulations are added to address noise concerns. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This is true. The immediate neighborhood is a suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/bars are expected. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The immediate neighborhood is a suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/bars are expected. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Not expected to impact adjacent uses beyond what should be expected for a commercial use in a commercial zone. Excessive noise has been mitigated with the building design and regulatory conditions. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Use is contained within a building. Exterior patio is not a use requiring screening. FILE#LA18-000104 February 19,2019 Page 5 of 6 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise,glare,vibration, odors,fumes, dust, electrical interference,general unsightliness,or other means; The plan and regulations are intended to address nuisances listed. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties,traffic congestion,or unsafe access; Access to the site is via county roads. City parking lot provides parking. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; Not Applicable to this site. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lights added beyond previously approved and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare.This statement is true. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Analysis Consolidating the Narrows and the Lakeroom Conditional Use Permits does require some discussion. Recall that Conditional Use Permits issued to the property, not the property owner, and consolidation of the two businesses could permit expansion of the live entertainment portion of the business,to the possible detriment of the neighboring property owners. Staff proposes to codify the size of the Narrows and the stage as follows: The maximum area for a stage and or live entertainment shall not exceed 15 feet by 12 feet. The maximum area to receive live entertainment shall not exceed 28'4"x 56'3" (1,593.56 sq. ft.). An expansion of one or both of these parameters shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Working with the property owner, Staff proposes consolidating conditions imposed previously into this revised resolution, in addition to new and modified conditions. These proposed conditions are provided in Exhibit I, and show all the conditions for Resolutions 4530, 5440, and 6353. Changes are highlighted by strikethrough for deletions, and by underline, for additions. The conditions are subject to change pending City Attorney review. Public Comments To date, Staff has received one phone call with questions, but no written public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission have issue with the proposal to combine the businesses that cannot be mitigated by conditions? 2. Does the Planning Commission have concerns with consolidating the two businesses into one CUP? 3. Does the Planning Commission have concerns with lengthening the hours of operation for FILE#LA18-000104 February 19,2019 Page 6 of 6 the restaurant side to 1:00 p.m. daily? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. General Layout (RR and Patios) Exhibit C. Lakeroom Floor Plans (Upper and Lower) Exhibit D. Narrows Floor Plan and seating layout Exhibit E. Property Owners List/ Map Exhibit F. Resolution 4530 (New Saloon, live music) Exhibit G. Resolution 5440(Expansion) Exhibit H. Resolution 6353 (New Restaurant) Exhibit I. Proposed Conditions Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 12/20/2018 Address: 3382 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 1711723440100 Land Use Number: LA18-000104 Application Submitted Agent on behalf of property owner By: Owner: Name: NARROWS LLC Address: PO BOX 36 NAVARRE, MN 55392 Applicant: Name: Gary Anderst Address: 3380 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN 55392 anderstg@centracare.c om Contact Information: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Commercial/Industrial Use Land Use Application Amendmend Application Type: Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: CtiKitPLAJ , 400 —— i-L- 0-8-- - 201-6 --52'-8" NI 5 _____8,__ 01511.16 —1 Xl5T1NG ,_,4 '.. grammiv —6'-.8'L T PATIO 1 <dC CC''''31 . ircAl --6 l--1 elr 1711 -, . r re prr T I n] i I Cs:..1 •0. , X1-11NG/ of 10 • , - Q • a • • r • -----' LE1 PA 0 .../....1„,,,i_ SEM sib MEN r " / ••• EM1 . II • II N cc[ D • To. 473 I I ---1 -1 C11 lEI 'l; — 00 CO lc, 0 0 NW V/6,All• remecorr:116N:4 5GA ;[ I WM= 1 i le=i 7 2E VaL4R5FROMERIVN DL) II • 1 IMIIIIN — .<goo U. , _ - - KifQ-N • IIIIC fit5CALRANI" . ., T02.4 .11 46 p.m ' ---''' '-'....-- — —7/./ braft4 8A451£fff- _I < 9_ . 'OR'VaLtark":5ZIMILITA" MBE ,--. ... . _ kfk \--KO • • L,,4,,, EDI b CO • • 1 _ Ek5116 5fla • I :,•;.05,‘, III 0051A6 OM Ir-ItLi • CEDli D Ian t- S'N NM • fin L ri = El 'i - ENTVY A . -.1 11 . I 1 . ___ --- ----- . 98 -26 _ 100' ._______ l.ake Pam / NiroerN,Pestarai/Bar 6 cA•_ " 11- LAK 100M" Wlf- ( A-ro) MAN FI-001: - " 11.-.' \IA0W5" Wlf- ( °KO) o < _ - X 10'-0" X 7 I • • • • _ , _I _J I - _ mil MN - 30x48 MI MI _ MP MP I L _ _ 30x48 KITCHEN 30x48 I 11111 IIM 1.11 MI 1 _ _ ( 30x48 30x48 1 MI - 1 a a , 1 �' ( 24x30 - -) CI MUM• 30x48 a • I[1 II► = =,:11. ` •' . . `24x30 1 larglin Ell t 041, 24" ■ ■ 24x30 - -4 rMiLitt30x48 •, 24rj1 � ( . 24x30 ' W la a'' a ) EID 30x48 C 24x30 �, .,---IL ) U ',..--, -,__,-, ',,___-4 I JI -� �� 4-Th <Th. ..---, , 24x 30 •.___, ,..-/J J .___.< �J C < GOB COB 74x3f 74x31 74x31 74x31 74x3f 24x 10 -f I 4 — P3LI" 71<49r"—ter ' �i.� I / ..' H • • . \ . • �` f . ' 0. lig i1 q �� . . . E . • , w....... i ii. f r� I�a ° a` j i.I 1 m --.Z-). I 1, 1 1)4' -45 j" r41.0, . li ' - 3: O O O O .OttA‘ 0 . j ' v71J O 3( _ . i. iv0 I _ii 7'0" 1 16'9" N A ---=7:".• 0 0 0 . am— k: 0 i • O )) 0 .....„. Ilr 0 al 41.v.1 .„---.7-..:- • 0 5 0 0 yO 0 - 0 ARP ...,-,--7-•.- ',1"-,r on 21r .Ur 0 f.0 io C.) csj N •.._1...}.'" Jig' i',) El NC_ Zi (1) 0 . . 0 .. .,.,...,... .,,.. ..,. .. 0 „..... ,.,:„,... 0 !4+ Aff. Iff• . ' 1 1.8" . . ;Z11'.6 0 . ,. 14'Cr' /W4giN ...,•,_. ,1 0 0 .., ZN 4 `mc-ille 0 I \ kg . ...41.*: co --.... fi V > ---%-...;7e----. ;'..-•=-% 0 ...----.. \.. .1 ,0 I) 0 0 Pi A 0 :1 .,..„, -,"•:•Trfr- r,,--Ar Zo k -.)) ((C 0 _,F' CO 13 8"I ,‹ \ c,) Cn n Z-‘1 c•-, • o 1 0 0 C) 7--- 15'0" 45'04 0 0 , • .1 Li 0 _ , .lio, 'op b ..4f..` - - 00 *f0: '1-•'.;-,. 'vvill..- 0 ,.•,.,,'.,-,,, '.•,i--.• ..,.. i 4v1,01.: 001 g:'-',.;,‘, ..: ',,-• .,:', T 11" 12'5" Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/20/2018 !•3 01 r 2205' 13473 3457 3443 2195 2300 - 2215 2225 2245., 2260 148 ( ' PI 60 r? ,k} ) ; 2253 2300 :3477= ?3465' '3449. 22EYii �i22Q6 '��O•�2314.':£e ,,` fir/ aa) � .4 r . 071 2265.2275 ', 3460'(181 t4 0//�, ,.tug 2328 0.4 i •3438 -_ :3422 "" '23 04 <' 2318.tot 2330 (39 480 '3472 (�f :3452 {gi f3' Vil �� ,, ', 2344 t 2305 ' 4o oa *„ ' ) _ ' ,3444 3436 3414 v '-1 2350 �t , 3320 :. Lrivit3'ystti eAv - - "" ,•, 231, . 27 ) =3475 3. : x.34 la 341" 3433 is PIP 7359 .. l i 4953477 3473. 3405 . i t34i) k, on 3472 a 484 3408 jri 1 `� �L'" { 1 ' '$'1 pl 1C 2380 ii 2377 R4. i�1 3 47 7 i I C411 .1 kWh . 2385 ___ 34)5* *1 33=10 l 4801472 3 415 3900 :,•i,'''.'-'4,1-,;,-:, t t m! �t 3601 ; 1 2420 '171 LI 3423 Int) 3333 - 2500 2445 1411;91 ri-10 2480 t I ,fib 2456I1) '�r 2455 ilei (-et 11 2507 Il), 7 2465 Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: l i i i l ( ! ) I 3382 Shoreline Drive This data (i) 's furn'shed 'AS IS' with norepresentation aslo completeness or accuracy;(i)isfurnished with nowarranty ofany kind; and (II) Is notsuitable for isgal,engineering orsune)ing purposes.Hennepin County shal not boilable for anydarrege,injury or loss resulting from this data. For mare information,contact Hennepin CountyGIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,Mt455487/gis.infoohe nepin.us • RUN DATE:12/20/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 17-117-23 43 0023 38 17-117-23 43 0080 38 17-117-23 43 0099 CARL E BORG III&C G BORG CITY OF ORONO 3400 PROPERTIES LLC 3414 LIVINGSTON AVE 3408 LYRIC AVE 3400 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CARL E BORG III&CAREN BORG CITY OF ORONO 3400 PROPERTIES LLC 3414 LIVINGSTON AVE P 0 BOX 66 3400 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0062 38 17-117-23 43 0081 38 17-117-23 43 0141 DAVID BERNARDY&EMILY RUD CITY OF ORONO STEVEN J KING 3433 LIVINGSTON AVE 3408 LYRIC AVE 3473 LIVINGSTON AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 DAVID BERNARDY&EMILY RUE) CITY OF ORONO STEVEN J KING 3433 LIVINGSTON AVE P 0 BOX 66 3473 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0063 38 17-117-23 43 0082 38 17-117-23 43 0142 R S SIECKMAN&1 J SIECKMAN TOWN OF ORONO RICHARD W BLOOMQUIST • 3435 LIVINGSTON AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3440 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ROBERT S&JULIE J SIECKMAN CITY OF ORONO RICHARD W BLOOMQUIST 3435 LIVINGSTON AVE PO BOX 66 1510 ANDERSON AVE APT 122 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 BUFFALO MN 55313 38 17-117-23 43 0064 38 17-117-23 43 0083 38 17-117-23 43 0154 • DENNIS L HEGER CITY OF ORONO E F WAROLIN&N WAROLIN 3443 LIVINGSTON AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3405 LIVINGSTON AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 • DENNIS L HEGER CITY OF ORONO ERIC&NICOLE WAROLIN 3443 LIVINGSTON AVE P 0 BOX 66 3405 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0065 38 17-117-23 43 0084 38 17-117-23 44 0005 CAROLYN M TILLOTSON HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TOWN OF ORONO 3445 LIVINGSTON AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 CAROLYN M TILLOTSON CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO 2500 SHADYWOOD RD#400 P 0 BOX 66 PO BOX 66 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17.117-23 43 0075 38 17-117-23 43 0085 38 17-117-23 44 0008 E L MURRAY&P S ROSS HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO 3468 LYRIC AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 E L MURRAY&P S ROSS CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO 3468 LYRIC AVE P 0 BOX 66 P 0 BOX 66 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0076 38 17-117-23 43 0086 38 17-117-23 44 0009 F L&S E MITTELSTAEDT G T CONLON&N J CONLON MARVIN GARDENS LLC 3444 LYRIC AVE 3465 LYRIC AVE 2377 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MR/MRS FRANK L MITTELSTAEDT GREGORY T&NANCY J CONLON MARVIN GARDENS LLC 3444 LYRIC AVE 3465 LYRIC AVE 2948 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0077 38 17-117-23 43 0087 38 17-117.23 44 0015 REAL ASSETS LLC JULIE MARIE FLYNN CITY OF ORONO 3438 LYRIC AVE 3473 LYRIC AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED • ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 JOSHUA&MILLIE MUTIZE JULIE MARIE FLYNN CITY OF ORONO 3438 LYRIC AVE 3473 LYRIC ST P 0 BOX 66 ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0078 38 17-117-23 43 0095 38 17-117-23 44 0060 CITY OF ORONO L BENZEL&D BENZEL TRSTE A D SPILSETH&T C TURNQUIST 3422 LYRIC AVE 3468 SHORELINE DR 3324 NAVARRE LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CITY OF ORONO SANDRA HOLMAN ANDREW D SPILSETH 2700 KELLEY PKWY 3468 SHORELINE DR T CODY TURNQUIST LONG LAKE MN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 3324 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0079 38 17.117-23 43 0098 38 17-117-23 44 0063 CITY OF ORONO GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP VALERIE T COYKENDALL 3408 LYRIC AVE 3416 SHORELINE DR 2344 OLIVE AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CITY OF ORONO GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP VALERIE T COYKENDALL P 0 BOX 66 C/O COURTLAND RE 2344 OLIVE AVE ' CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PO BOX 112 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKA MN 55318 RUN DATE:12/20/2018 IIENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2 38 17-117-23 44 0064 38 17-117-23 44 0099 38 20-117-23 12 0033 TIMOTHY C LIVINGSTON CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE REALTY LLC 2338 OLIVE AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3465 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 TIMOTHY C LIVINGSTON CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE REALTY LLC 2338 OLIVE AVE PO BOX 66 PO BOX 3 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 38 17-117-23 44 0073 38 17-117-23 44 0100 38 20-117-23 12 0034 STEVEN R MORKRID NARROWS LLC BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 2314 SHADYWOOD RD 3382 SHORELINE DR 3423 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEVEN R MORKRID NARROWS LLC BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 2314 SHADYWOOD RD PO BOX 36 34321 MYRTLE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 NAVARRE MN 55392 UNION CITY CA 94587 38 17-117-23 44 0074 38 17-117-23 44 0101 38 20-117-23 12 0051 JONATHAN AUGE/ERICA VERDEGAN LEROY DAVID KOEHNEN S E STRALEY&M K STRALEY 2327 OLIVE AVE 3360 SHORELINE DR 2497 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55331 JONATHAN AUGE LEROY KOEHNEN STANLEY&MARLENE STRALEY ERICA VERDEGAN 3360 SHORELINE DR 2497 KELLY AVE 2327 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0075 38 17-117-23 44 0102 38 20-117-23 12 0052 ANDREW A PRATT/JAMIE L PRATT S H SCHMIDT/S I SCHMIDT TRST M PLEWKA&R L DODSON 2339 OLIVE AVE 2385 SHADYWOOD RD 2499 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55331 ANDREW A PRATT STEPHEN&SUZANNE SCHMIDT MARK PLEWKA JAMIE L PRATT 2986 HIGHLAND BLVD ROBIN LYNN DODSON 2339 OLIVE AVE MOUND MN 55364 2499 KELLY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 17-117-23 44 0076 38 17-117-23 44 0106 38 20-117-23 12 0053 JOSHUA D KRAUSE PHYLLIS HENDERSON BRENT D LINDGREN 2359 OLIVE AVE 2308 SHADYWOOD RD 2501 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55331 ' JOSHUA D KRAUSE PHYLLIS HENDERSON BRENT D LINDGREN 2359 OLIVE AVE 2308 SHADYWOOD RD 2501 KELLY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 17-117-23 44 0079 38 17-117-2344 0111 38 20-117-23 12 0054 LOUISE A GANGELHOFF SHADYWOOD BUILDING LLC MARGENE M REVOR 2341 SHADYWOOD RD 2380 SHADYWOOD RD 2503 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55331 LOUISE A GANGELHOFF SHADYWOOD BUILDING LLC MARGENE M REVOR 2341 SHADYWOOD RD 5314 SHORELINE DR 2503 KELLY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 MOUND MN 55364 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 17-117-23 44 0080 38 20-117-23 11 0002 38 20-117-23 12 0055 TO\VN OF ORONO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS KELLY COVE HMOWNRS ASN/ORONO 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2420 SHADYWOOD RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 CITY OF ORONO VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS KELLY COVE HMOWNRS ASN/ORONO PO BOX 66 PO BOX 65 2501 KELLY AVE CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 17-117-2344 0084 38 20-117-23 11 0015 S T MCNELLIS&R L BALTES BRIDGEWATER BANK 2350 OLIVE AVE 2445 SHADYWOOD RD { ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55331 SAMUEL T MCNELLIS BRIDGEWATER BANK RACHEL L BALTES 3800 AMERICAN BLVD W11100 2350 OLIVE AVE BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0085 38 20-117-23 110024 VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC LUND REAL ESTATE HOLDNGS LLC 3340 SHORELINE DR 3333 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC LUND REAL ESTATE HOLDNGS LLC P 0 BOX 65 ATTN VON P MARTIN CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 4100 WEST 50TH ST SUITE 2100 EDINA MN 55424 38 17-117-23 44 0094 38 20-117-23 11 0032 LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS DELANEY FAMILY LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS DELANEY FAMILY LLC P O BOX 41 PO BOX 721 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 LONG LAKE MN 55356 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Heimepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. • 1. ---O 3434876 = .�,w CITY of ORONO rl t 1rR1 . �� i��; !�'�.��G� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL slkESFle" NO. 4 5 2 0 C'3 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.40,SUBDIVISION 4(D) FILE#2604 WHEREAS, James Anderst, is owner of the Narrows Saloon, (hereinafter "the applicant")and Donald McCarville is owner of the property(hereinafter"the owner")located at 3380 Shoreline Drive within the City ofOrono(hereinafter"City")and legally described as follows: Attached"Exhibit A",(hereinafter"property");and WHEREAS,the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to permit the property to be used as a Class II Restaurant per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.40, Subdivision 4(D);and WHEREAS, The City of Orono had issued a building permit to expand the use into the former Minnetonka Photo space in the adjoining building;and WHEREAS,The Orono City Council approved,on July 24,2000 the applicant to proceed with the buildinz expansion subject to the applicant requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the use of the building,including live entertainment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: hititttgaMtneritiCeEtiiM FINDINGS Ef3a491 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#2604. • 2. The property is located in the B-1,Limited Business Zoning District where a CIass II Restaurant is permitted by conditional use. A Class II Restaurant is defined as "Fast Food,Convenience,Drive-in,and Liquor Store Restaurants.A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in Packages Page 1 of 7 C?' 0� CITY of ORONO ` XRT�.. °''') S .�l/4;�;. � G'�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL cESSOg NO. 4 5 3 0 . prepared to leave the premises to be consumed;or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served,or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment." Section 10.40, Subdivision 4(D). 3. The applicant had appeared before the City Council on July 24, 2000 to request approval to proceed with the interior remodeling and restroom addition,which had ' been started. The restrooms are being expanded for handicapped accessibility. The conditional use permit would permit live entertainment and expansion of the floor area. The Council did vote to allow the remodeling to continue even though a conditional use permit should have been required before the building expansion began. 4. The City of Orono had issued a building permit to allow additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon which includes expanding the bar into the former Minnetonka Photo space,now vacated. The property is located in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District in which a Class II Restaurant is defined as a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment. Expansion of the building requires the owner to obtain a conditional use permit since CIass II Restaurants are allowed by CUP. 5. City files indicate no CUP has ever been issued for a restaurant on this property. The use has required a CUP in the B-1 zone since at least 1967. Expansion of the facility into the former Minnetonka Photo space and a 4'addition to the bathrooms now requires a conditional use permit. Also,the B-1 district requires a commercial site plan review before a building permit can be issued. Normally a commercial site plan review has not been required for minor interior space remodeling,but this application involves expansion of the building envelope. 6. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held public hearings on August 21,2000 and September 18,2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1. It was the minority opinion of the Planning Commission that requiring the "live entertainment"to end at 12:00 a.m.may be putting undue restrictions on the business. Page 2'of 7 ' CITY of ORONO 1.0' 'tS �YJ \\���i'�i 4�0,,/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �SK� NO. lL Q 0 7. At the August 21, 2000 public hearing it was noted during live entertainment performances doors on the Narrows Saloon had been left open creating noise from the building that could be heard in residential areas hi the neighborhood. 8. The additional seating may cause added demand for parking around the site. The busiest hours for The Narrows would be evenings on weekends when there would be little demand for parking spaces in the municipal lot located to the north side of the building. 9. The building is allowed signage based on the front footage of lot,per Section 10.M of the zoning code. This building is limited to 60 s.f.of signage. 10. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a Class II restaurant with live entertainment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public,will not adversely affect light,air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties,nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 11. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use 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 per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.40,Subdivision 4(D),subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install a two door system at the rear entrance to meet all State Building and Fire Code standards. The purpose of the doors would be to allow customers to enter and exit the building without allowing noise to leave the building. They should be spaced so one door would close before the second door is opened. Page 3 of 7 /61V 0 CITY of ORONO A lir \re> '�i; 1 G~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL \�ES0-01 NO. .2 fit All doors shall remain closed at all times, except when entering or exiting the building. 2. Live entertainment will end at 12:30 a.m.each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m.each night. 3. The front door shall not be used as an entrance during the period of time the building is used for live entertainment. A one year time period is required for the applicant to monitor the use of the building and the front entrance. After one year the City of Orono will review the use of the building in relation to the live entertainment and noise levels generated by the live entertainment use. 4. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs.No signs can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of Orono. 5. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 6. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date(October 9,2001). 8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms 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. 9. The undersigned applicant and owner has read,understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,his heirs,successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 7 //O ®� CITY of ORONO `� �,, xAj;:in-- F, „,4,4 ~// RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kEsxa NO. 45 "R0 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October,2000. stY, . m' tea •}tgOlerk Gab •el Jabbour,Ma or --------� rtP operty Owner plicant STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City CIerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. "elh! RACHEL i: � wGTutvE>�A Notary Public tJart.3f,a7os Page 5 of 7 j' � '\ CITY of ORONO ,l , } 1�R1'"& \�l ( RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �kEsi J NO. 4 $ 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this_ day of S y?ic , ,20W before me a Notary Public within anl.for said county,personally appeared Dana m°Ca4-vi 11e, c f M *y Xbra Id /Yl Cant;lle I,;nown to to be the person(s)described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they)executed the same as his(their)free act and deed. °' RACHEL DODGE 'c - iIORAAYAI LC•IRNELM w CalltiegegOsa.41.2005 cz.c___/�( COO/9L-ems Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ' 'day of S i-er-s,be2 2001 before me a Notary Public within and for said county,personally appeared o r rr d r>ct e,-sf, pcvn y�Allicno n two m to o be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they)executed the same as his(their)free act and deed. .4: RACHEL DODGE j _ �-,> 1C < 2+'_t.;=`' HOMY PUOL C•►EII .OTA ,,zzreN�rtkea bpYlNna1,zoos Notary Public Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 4530 LEGAL DESCRIPTION • D.,. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5,BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF tip LANGDON PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED NI BEARING OF NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 105.5 FEET; o h THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 24 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 91 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 36 MINUTES EAST TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE QO OF THE WEST 104.5 FEET OF SAID LOT 5;THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5;THENCE WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO DESCRIBED AS PINS#17-117-23 44 0100. Page 7 of 7 • • EXEDDIT A RESOLUTION 4530 LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5,BLOCK 3,TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH ALONG THE.WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 105.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 24 MINUTES FAST A DISTANCE OF 91 },EET;THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 36 MINUTES EAST TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 104.5 FEET OF SAID LOT 5;THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5;THENCE WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO DESCRIBED AS PINS#17-117-23 44 0100. Page 7 of 7 3 4348?6 X3932 co OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR )01) C.1 OF TITLES Kt' HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA C1 CERTIFIED ILEO ON SEP 2 0 2001 REGI TRAR ;'TITLES BY DEPUTY l,; .d . . , .----, s . r-- c O _= ; ,�- CITY of ORONO , iM� p RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL l r-vOA + 54 4 0 `4kESH0g' NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-644(4) AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 78-1403 FILE #05-3121 • Draft#2 3-24-06 WHEREAS, The Narrows, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, represented by Cindy Sudheimer, single, and James Anderst, single, (hereinafter "the applicants") is owner of the property located at 3380 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter"City") and legally described as follows: III That part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County,Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the West line of said Lot a distance of 105.50 feet; thence along a line bearing North 74 degrees 24 minutes East to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 112.00 feet East of the West line of said Lot 5; thence South along said parallel line to the South line of said Lot 5; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants represent Orono Liquor, Inc. which operates the Narrows Saloon, a Class II Restaurant which has to date operated in the easterly 60 feet of the principal building on the property per a Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council via Resolution No. 4530 adopted on October 9, 2000; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for an amendment of the existing Conditional Use Permit, such amendment intended to permit expansion of the Class II Restaurant use into additional portions of the property, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-644(4); and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion would incorporate into the allowed Class II • Restaurant use area the portions of the principal building on the property formerly occupied by a dry cleaner business and a hair salon, formerly addressed as 3384 and 3386 Shoreline Drive and comprising approximately the westerly 40 feet of the principal building; and Page 1 of 9 • ‘14?v 0 CITY of ORONO s �l. ,"1SI ii ai � titi � ;�, �i +0, RESOLUTION OF THE C�IT�Y0000NCIL 1 ESH.OSN' NO. • • WHEREAS, the applicants additionally propose to develop an outdoor Smoker's Patio at the rear of the building, such area to be enclosed by fencing and vegetative screening; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed expansion on June 20, 2005; July 18, 2005; and September 19, 2005, during which meetings all interested members of the public wishing to comment on the application were provided the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the applicants' original proposal included expansion of a kitchen area outside the existing footprint of the building, and included proposed outdoor seating with food and liquor service at the front and rear of the building; however, as a result of the ongoing review the applicants revised their original proposal a number of times in response to • recommendations by the Planning Commission, and on September 19, 2005 the Orono Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the expansion of the Class II Restaurant use subject to a number of conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the revised proposal on October 10, 2005, and at the request of the applicants tabled the application for further revision. A further revised proposal was submitted by the applicants and reviewed by the City Council on March 13, 2006, at which time the Council voted 4-0 to direct City staff to draft a resolution incorporating findings and conditions for approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#05-3121. 2. The property is located in the B-1, Retail Sales Business District where a Class II Restaurant (i.e. a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment) is permitted by conditional use. 3. The conditional use permit granted via Resolution No. 4530 in October 2000 IP permitted live entertainment and permitted the floor area devoted to Class II Restaurant use to encompass approximately 60% of the 50' x 100' one-story building. The current proposal would expand such use to 100% of the building. Page 2 of 9 • p • = H CITY of ORONO � ‘l �' �i ��' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� M�int 5 4 4 0 kESIIO NO. 4. The existing Class II Restaurant use with liquor service and live entertainment has generated public comments with regard to occasional excessive noise levels due to the live music being audible in the surrounding neighborhood during live entertainment performances, primarily because entry/exit doors were propped open. To the extent that the applicants can reduce noise levels that emanate from the premises by making physical improvements to the building,by adding specific sound-reduction building design elements, and by more attentively managing the site operation, applicants should be required to take such measures to reduce the negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Conversion of the two former retail spaces to restaurant use will increase the number of parking stalls required by City ordinance for this building. The parking required by code for the current restaurant use plus the two retail spaces was 38 • stalls. The parking required by code for the expanded restaurant use is 46 stalls. • The size and layout of the property allows for only a handful of parking stalls within the property; both the current and proposed level of restaurant use requires a majority of its parking demand to be met off-site in the adjacent municipal parking lot. A variety of factors limit the level of confidence the Council has with regards to whether the municipal lot can adequately handle the parking demands of all its users, which include employees and patrons of the abutting businesses; the Park- and-Ride users; the City Park users; and other undefined users. To add complexity, parking stalls in the municipal lot have not been numerically or spatially apportioned to the various businesses and other users. Parking is on a first-come, first-served basis. The applicants have provided a parking study that, when extrapolated to accommodate the restaurant use under the revised expansion proposal, suggests that actual peak parking demand for the restaurant will be approximately double the number of code-required stalls, but such demand will occur at times when other users of the municipal lot are not at peak demand. The Council concludes that by eliminating the outdoor seating from their original proposal, the applicants have reduced the potential increase in parking demand to 111 a level that is anticipated to be.acceptable and reasonable. • Page 3 of 9 1 O� 0 --,-,,t,' CITY of ORONO '4'4A 3 ►III ti �� 1� 4^l �' _ G~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ikEsl;og� NO. 5 4 4 O • 6. The only building expansion outside the existing building envelope is an 88 s.f. vestibule to be located immediately west of the existing restroom wing. The vestibule meets all,setback requirements. The vestibule increases the lot coverage by structures from 5,260 s.f. (38.5%) to 5,348 s.f. (39.2%) where only 15% lot coverage is normally allowed. Granting of a lot coverage variance is supported by the need to provide a main entryway oriented to the municipal parking lot, and to provide for energy efficiency and noise management. The City Council finds that granting a variance to allow lot coverage by structures to increase from 38.5% to 39.2% will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will the granting of said variance depreciate surrounding property values or be inconsistent with the intent • and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The building is allowed signage based on the front footage of lot, per Zoning Code Section 78-1468. The building will be limited to 112 s.f. of total signage. 8. No additional exterior lighting has been proposed for the expanded restaurant use. Any such lighting will be required to meet the standards of the Zoning Code. 9. The proposed site plan includes 5 decorative trees to be placed on or in the sidewalk at the front of the building. The Council finds that establishment of vegetation along the business frontage in Navarre is a positive amenity and should be encouraged. Because the proposed tree locations are within the County highway easement, and adjacent to the City sidewalk easement, the applicants should be advised to coordinate placement of trees with the appropriate County and City authorities to ensure the appropriate species, locations, and maintenance. 10. The proposed site plan and operation includes a dedicated Smoker's Patio to be established at the northwest corner of the property adjacent to the building. The 827 s.f. patio area will be surrounded by a 6' high fence and an arborvitae hedge to limit the visibility of the patio from off-site, and to provide patrons with an attractive area to smoke. The Smoker's Patio is proposed to be furnished with tables and chairs, but restaurant and liquor service will not be provided, and no IIP liquor will be allowed to be brought to the patio area. The Council finds that the proposed manner of use of this patio does not add to the parking requirement for the restaurant use. Page 4 of 9 0 (14) 0 • )4 CITY of ORONO ",„ 5,,', iM G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �.. l,0`1 . 5 4 4 0 `gkESY104 NO. 11. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use 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 variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1403 to allow lot coverage by structures to increase to 39.2% where only 15% is normally allowed, and grants an amendment to the conditional use permit granted via Resolution No. 4530 adopted on October 9, 2000, such III amendment for the specific purpose of allowing expansion of the Class II Restaurant use into the remaining 40% of the building per Section 78-644(4), subject to the following conditions: 4111 1. This approval is based on the building layout and site plan by Carisen & Frank Architects, latest revision date March 3, 2006, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The interior layout for the expansion shall be substantially as shown on Exhibit A, except as noted herein, and any deviation from Exhibit A that the Planning Director determines is in conflict with the intent of this approval, shall require further review by the City Council. 2. It is the Council's intent that all reasonable precautions shall be taken to eliminate noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from operation of the Narrows Saloon. Therefore,the following noise-reduction measures shall be adhered to: a) Primary access to the Restaurant shall be from the proposed vestibule at the rear of the building. b) Secondary access shall be from the proposed interior vestibules at the most westerly existing doorways at the front of the building. • • c) Access doors shall not be propped open for any reason except during deliveries. d) The existing front center double doorway shall be made inoperable for access and III may be converted to a straight segment of wall conforming with the perimeter facade wall of the building. • Page 5 of 9 • 0 0 CITY of ORONO V•4141(Y� ��41 iM�C �vG RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kES00 NO. .5 4 4 0 e) The most easterly front double doorway shall be converted to an emergency exit only, and shall be provided with "Panic Hardware" and an alarm system. This door shall remain closed at all times except in an emergency. f) The easterly of three access doorways to the Smoker's Patio shall be provided with a self-closer mechanism as shown in Exhibit A. (Better options: This door could be provided with a separate vestibule adjacent to the main entry vestibule, to help contain noise... or it could be moved to the west side of the new vestibule...) g) The interior double door between the "Private Party Room" and the adjacent seating area shall be provided with self-closer mechanism and shall remain closed during live entertainment. The proposed double folding door from the Party 4111 Room to the patio area shall be converted to a swinging door, and shall be provided with a self-closer mechanism. The intent is that the ability must be maintained to have a 2-door system between all outside access doorways and the live entertainment. g) Applicant shall provide evidence that the HVAC systems provided in the building shall be sufficient to handle all anticipated loads and not require access doors to be propped open for ventilation purposes in any season. h) Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 3. Per the conditions of resolution No. 4530, live entertainment shall end at 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each night. 4. The Smoker's Patio is approved on the condition that there shall be no food, beverage or liquor service provided to the patio area, and no food, beverage or liquor shall be brought to or consumed in the patio area. Signage to this effect shall be prominently displayed at all entrances to the patio area. The patio area is intended only to provide a place for restaurant patrons to smoke, and therefore is not included in the parking requirement calculations. There shall be no amplification, speaker system or other sound emitting devices in the patio area or anywhere outside the building. The smokers patio may be furnished with tables and chairs for the convenience of smokers. The Smoker's Patio is approved on a one-year trial basis only; at any time during the first year of operation, the Council may review and reconsider this use to determine whether it has caused any noise issues, parking issues, or other issues. The Council specifically reserves the right to Page 6 of 9 • o o � -= ; CITY of ORONO 'eliiiArttk'v RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL -4ZCESIOVI' NO. 5 4 4 0 require that the Smokers Patio use be limited or eliminated if it is determined to be causing problems. 5. The Private Party Room shall be completely separated from the bar/dance floor space as shown in Exhibit A, with the exception of the doorway at the northeast corner of the room. Complete separation means that the proposed east wall of the Party Room shall be floor-to-ceiling. 6. Applicants shall work with City staff to devise a suitable parking layout for the spaces shown on Exhibit A, to ensure those spaces do not conflict with the use of and access to the municipal lot. No motorcycle parking will be allowed on the sidewalk at the front of the building, and such notice shall be posted on the premises. The City prohibition on motor vehicle parking in the municipal lot between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. • shall be also posted on the premises. • 7. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No signs can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of Orono. 8. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. 9. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (March 27, 2007). 10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms 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. 11. The undersigned applicants and owners have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution_in the chain of title of the property. • • Page 7 of 9 O O ==f Vw� CITY of ORONO 1� 44 �; �M; _ �C,� RESOLUTION OF TH5 CITY COUNCIL `�kEsgOg' NO. 4 4 0 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of March, 2006. ATTEST: LX/,i-4.2 i ___/2-e---, v ' ' , , lati, , -,---- . inda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson,Mayor Property Owner/Applicant roperty Owner/Applicant 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this al day of itlevica, 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. .:• KRIISTI B.AND BLIC- NNotary Public RS 0ON A KA--,-.3 ./34.,v, � --' MyNOTARY Commission Expires Jan.31,200�1 STATE OF M I;;t.N--. = ! 'r,�r///l✓-.s- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this of , 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. . I�IlJ.r✓YI- - .l !�./.lJ1.../11../f!J!..1 `� til IP Oft 0, .RACREL DODGE k ,i--4.-0..--e /J���� alk. , a, ` •, N !:GThRVPUBLIC-MINNESOTA Notary ublic (l -,:•:v r,Ry Corinission Expires Jan.31,2010 Page 8 of 9 r ‘Iv o 0 CITY of ORONO . OiW C) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL `9kESS04 NO. 5 4 4 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 7 This instrument was acknowledged before me this NA day of ML , 200/by J ,,.,¢/A, b. A i+�.J.Ln s' , a single person, on behalf of kl atrnoc.J s L L G , its Ck;_g_4 fria t . — ,d(‘ 4-- .y,J"t PETER W.JOHNSON / NOTARYPISUC.& 1ESOTA No ublic III *001111111110111410.1m.31.2110 ill STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006 by , a single person, on behalf of , its Notary Public i • Page 9 of 9 1,628 /- • ZONING INFORMATION 4:14.2E''/ nin I Ajacent lot zoning P.elai. - I Use nosing Resta Retail /- I Baser /ID. __ Parking 4rea ' Existing parking required 1,610 t. r gam Total • 49'.5 ter • I Use proposed. RAntthal - ' ,. I Stomp -__—_- 37'•S'_-___— 11'-11 iN_, I Out& I Wood fence 6'•O'high -—- I Parkin required 3,698 x • I New Vestibule i utdc COann limned planting I 1 05 . r -_T I • Total. ��n. area w/arborvitae - ',.y��'•, a'Y ,• I • I' Patein provided in mu a7f1 _ � Existing rest rooms to B �' • ` y remain. ..t_i'- 100'•0' I lot aRi...._....__...._...._......... ( — — — — '— 'T t}-' { • Min.lot size required._..._..._.. • ——Kma' —+ _ 20'._'`;, '- 3ty-0' 21Y-0' 4 20'-0 • ___.._.... 15,-2• • Min.lot width required............. Colored concrete ? • / Screen trash area w/chain `r Front b:setbad_.........__._._... pavers in smoker's link fence with slats I Min.Fmnl lot selbarY required... patio area ' ( — Min.rear bl setback....._...__... New Smoker's Patio til - required ,4 &istin stir to remain. • e'-a' 8,,0• -- Min.rear lot setback g Min,side lot setbacsetback �j I i � Provide new handrails to' -�"'�- I Min.side lot setbadt required_._ N.. .�;!l. conform w/code. rash Maximum required lot coverage. existing I • bl Deli entrance Maximum allowable building he doors • I I AI •'�,r I .I I r �� I Builddng height_.__._._.._.... .oodgab gate-exit r wl l Eii . ues�ne panels del�very �—- kk I BUILDING CODE INFORMATIO x • a pa _ - ' j" I Code Applied 4 tV74 °Pa^ New. In /doortxil from a, ` ;' l r >t*=.���''x •-..rma•,=<= .__—._—_as madiying and i i 111111 p � 82 I .�__._.�...__._..._ New Stair + ew In &doom f 13 a 11110I11III11° I E�xlosure 1;' _ \ 8`1' 6 £LJ _ '� Existing It r Occupancy Group.___....._....._ open in4l;^, '��•�■ patio.Door to have ckser. .' =i_ 11 Kimhen I ..,..._._._..._...._._..__._.._..._ t�r i�a bathrooms V Hostess stand Pull tabs - II I Construtlion Type ���'.%\m� emwe stairs&from!1 II Kitchen I T all. raiz, Q/ V �- u I r-`II General Building Limitation Heigf —,a ew arched gin oririing 3 .-4 I I Maximum allowabk buiWi he �^ 0 '� eon gratil Flooi a i_r_. Mixinghdght__._..._.__. ...._ Walkway ;�;-• —9 ••*� [ e. I Moog gross between ct=+--- . i Ezistrn whim aro.--.- buildings __._. buildin s I§ %1 = ' 5 •tinkled(9031.1.21 R tied w g � §..1 ° .••• • • • • • • ' a� I huanompamIwdd 00wm r-- Fie Resistive Requirements �� I 4s' � _• - ��� � olh •�• !T a C7 - • - - _ bl`m'i Exterior kw; WaII�.._..._.�'_ �Hardwa MI, " I••• ._.,I • • - ((S�II Exterior No Be Wills_._.__._ Store re % `� ••' '� '8 I Fxterbr N e Bening Wall las that �'I., / '�U le Parry Roo �: •••• 'Aim= •••••••• ♦ I Floor/ Non gearing Wall.._...... Flood Ceiling...__._.._.._..,_._.., Fume in 4 I=I ' •• •.•{ •.• • • • •: Sege&dance r Roof/Ceiling....._......_..__.._._... windows New.:r • .s-3 p' • • reit I Stair Fnebsura..._.._..._..__.__. alongnorth . .R •• 'x !a�1 wall. Remove GG,, Remove stair E.isting bar • kE7 I existing J: . `I'3 • ; 4 �" I 1 Openings:P gc •(entrance 6 _ _ ■+I 9 • ♦ fi SouthOpen wall B2'fire separation-- North• .nsir & I1, .• ■Io • • • . I Noah wall 82 fire separation-- • I cansWc I I I Well wall 139'ffirere a new :� • • •• ••• • •• East will I� ,. . ul. Emergenry exit • separation---. ii ♦ ♦ ` coo , g r I Arrxssibility: �'�pI�IK�� 3.4 • . • ./. E \ ■ % �� —00,, , \ Accessible Floor. __ fII II lII'I II II I IIII I !f !III!! Doc No 105187312 Certified,filed and/or recorded on Jul 24,2014 3:00 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County,Minnesota Martin McCormick,Registrar of Titles Mark Chapin,County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 97 Pkg ID 1134817M Doc Name:Conditional Use Permit Document Recording Fee $46.00 • Document Total $46.00 Existing Certs New Certs 1141576 • This cover sheet is now a permanent^art of the recorded document. /1/3-74° O O CITY of ORONO D. RESOLUTION OF rS en COUNCIL 1. `pir o~ NO. 9S. k'Es801' • A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CLASS H RESTAURANT USE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-644(4); AMENDING A PRIOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO SECTIONS 78-1403 AND 78-1405 FILE#13-3615 WHEREAS,Narrows, LLC,a Minnesota limited liability company,represented .by James Anderst,single,(hereinafter"the applicant")is owner of the property located at 3382- 3386 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: • That part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5;thence on an assumed bearing of North along the West line of said Lot a distance of 105.50 feet;thence along a line bearing North 74 degrees 24 minutes East to its C F intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant.112.00 feet East of the West line of said Lot 5;thence South along said parallel line to the South line of said Lot 5; thence West along said South line to'the point of beginning. (hereinafter the"property");and WHEREAS,the applicant represents Orono Liquors which currently operates the Narrows Saloon,a Class II Restaurant which has,to date,operated in the easterly 60 feet of the principal building on the property per a Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council via Resolution No.4530 adopted on October 9,2000;and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an amendment of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the Narrows Saloon by developing an outdoor seating area adjacent to the Narrows Saloon and within the property boundaries, such area to be enclosed by fencing and vegetative landscaping;and WHEREAS, the applicant has additionally applied for a second conditional use permit to allow development and operation of a separate Class II Restaurant in the westerly 40 feet of the existing building,pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-644(4);and Page 1 O O CITY of ORONO A ;` ?r Z ;k RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1.. q('`�gNit o" NO. 6. 3 5 3 4kEsSo4 WHEREAS,the additional Class II Restaurant is proposed to include an outdoor seating area separate from that proposed for the Saloon use,such area to be enclosed by fencing and vegetative landscaping;and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission held. public hearings on the proposed expansion on August 19, 2013 and October 2I, 2013, during which meetings all interested members of the public wishing to comment on the application were provided the opportunity to be heard;and WHEREAS,the applicant's proposal includes construction of an approximately 70 s.f. vestibule at the rear of the new restaurant which would.increase the lot coverage by structures from 38.6%to 39.i%where 15%lot coverage is allowed per Zoning Code Section 78- 1403(a)(1);and WHEREAS,the applicant's proposal includes installation of a trash enclosure to be located at the rear of the property less than the required 10' setback from the side lot line and less than the required 5'setback from the rear lot line per Section 78-1405(A)(5&6);and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the proposal on November 25,2013 and voted 5-0 to approve the application and direct staff to draft an approval resolution for consideration, incorporating appropriate conditions and restrictions, including screening and buffering the rear seating areas per the submitted elevation and plan depictions. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#13-3615. 2. The property is located in the B-1,Retail Sales Business District where a Class II Restaurant (i.e. a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment)is permitted by conditional use. 3. The property is 13,656 s.f. in area(0.31 acres) and 112 feet in width, less than the required 20,000 s.f.lot area for the B-1 District but meeting the B-1 lot width standard. Page 2 avi3110 CITY of ORONO A `^`;x?, r„ D+ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1 '�. iotV � ti� NO. 6 3 5 3 <1 it 4. The conditional use permit granted for the Narrows Saloon via Resolution No. 4530 in October 2000 permitted live entertainment and permitted the floor area devoted to Class II Restaurant use to encompass the easterly 60' or approximately 60% of the 50' x 100' one-story building. The current proposal would create a second,separate Class II restaurant within the westerly 40'or approximately 40% of the building, and additionally would establish new outdoor seating areas for each of the two restaurant uses. 5. The new restaurant use will not be directly accessible from the Saloon but will share the rear entry and restroom facilities.The westerly space in which the new use is proposed is approximately 40' wide x 50' deep,or 2,000 s.f. of floor area (4.000 s.f.including the basement level).This new proposed restaurant includes a • dining area with bar and kitchen on the main floor, with a second bar and additional seating in the basement. These-spaces will be separated from the . portions of building occupied by the Narrows Saloon by an existing wall. An additional hallway will be created on the main floor from a portion of the existing Saloon area to allow access from both businesses to the restrooms yet maintain separate entrances for each restaurant. 6. The existing CUP for the Narrows Saloon allows a Class II Restaurant use with liquor service and live entertainment. Because of concerns about potential excessive noise levels due to live music being audible in the surrounding neighborhood during live entertainment performances, conditions were included in Resolution No. 4530 requiring establishment of a 2-door vestibule system at the rear of the building, which was constructed and remains in place. This vestibule currently serves as the only entrance to the Saloon opening to the parking lot at the rear of the building. Under the new proposal for an outdoor seating area to serve the Saloon, this vestibule will no Ionger serve as the rear entrance and will only provide access to the outdoor seating. The proposed shared entrance along the west side of the restroom wing will serve as the primary entrance to both the Saloon and the new restaurant use. 7. Conversion of the retail space in the westerly 40 feet of the building to a new restaurant use will increase the number of parking stalls required by City ordinance for this building. Additionally, because food service is intended for both proposed outdoor seating areas, those areas although seasonal and weather- related in terms of actual parking need, must be taken into account when determining the parking demand for the expanded use. The parking required by Page 3 (04*°- O • CITY of ORONO Sar_ rl ljY Ai 1�1 .� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �'44 +,ryjjr„� �p� NO. 6 3 5 3 kESH04' code for the expanded use including the Saloon, the new restaurant, and the outdoor seating areas is shown in the following table: Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Total Saloon Saloon Restaurant Restaurant Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Public Space Public Space Public Space* Public Space Square footage 2,174 s.f. 550 s.f. 2,750 s.f. 600 s.f. 6,074 s.f. Stalls @ 1 per 80 s.f. 27 stalls 7 stalls 34 stalls 8 stalls 76 stalls *Includes basement seating area The size and proposed layout of the property does not allow for parking stalls to be situated within the property; both the current and proposed level of restaurant use requires its parking demand to be met off-site,either in the adjacent municipal parking lot, which currently contains approximately 122 striped stalls,or in on- street parallel parking along the north side of Shoreline Drive which can accommodate approximately 15 vehicles. A variety of factors limit the level of confidence the Council has with regards to whether the municipal lot can adequately handle the parking demands of all its • • users,which include employees and patrons of the abutting businesses;the Park- and-Ride users;• the City Park users; and other undefined users. To add complexity, parking stalls in the municipal lot have not been numerically or spatially apportioned to the various businesses and other users. Parking is on a first-come,first-served basis. Other business properties abutting the municipal lot also have varying numbers of available stalls within their property boundaries that are not included in the 122. These additional stalls, mostly not striped,number approximately 15-20. The conditional use permit review conducted for the Narrows Saloon CUP in 2000 indicated that 154 parking stalls are needed by code to serve all businesses having rights to the City-owned lot. That analysis was based on rough estimates of square footages(based on footprint size) of the businesses that existed at that time. There has been no appreciable change in the extent of neighboring business uses since that time. As a result of the parking concerns,as part of a 2005 request for expansion of the Saloon into the westerly 40' of the building, the applicant hired a consultant, Benshoof&Associates,to complete a new parking study relative to that proposed Page 4 O O CITY of ORONO .3 l(1` fir ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,�o NO . 6353 Ikzsilovexpansion and use of the City parking lot. That study concluded that total post- Narrows Saloon expansion parking required per City Code would have been 57 stalls,based on a public interior floor area of 3,698 s.f. plus 827 s.f. of a then- proposed smokers patio area,totaling 4,525 s.f. public area(4,525 sf/80 sf per stall=57 stalls]. The study went on to conclude that actual peak parking demand for the expanded restaurant would be approximately double the number of code- required stalls, but such demand would occur at times when other users of the municipal lot are not at peak demand. No formal parking study has been completed for the current application. Factors which will ultimately impact the actual parking demand for the proposed use include the level of success of the new restaurant and both outdoor seating areas; seasonality of the outdoor seating and impacts of weather;and actual level of use of the basement public spaces. Council concludes that the parking requirements established in the code appear to be met when taking into account parking availability in the City lot and along Shoreline Drive,and the anticipated offset in times of peak demand between the restaurant uses and other users of the available parking. 8. The only building expansion outside the existing building envelope is an approximately 70 s.f. vestibule to be located immediately west of the existing restroom wing. The vestibule meets all setback requirements. The vestibule increases the lot coverage by structures from 5,270 s.f. (38.6%) to 5,340 s.f. (39.1%) where only 15% lot coverage is normally allowed. Granting of a lot coverage variance is supported by the need to provide a main entryway oriented to the municipal parking lot,and to provide for energy efficiency. The City Council finds that granting a variance to allow lot coverage by structures to increase from 38.6%to 39.1%will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will the granting of said variance depreciate surrounding property values or be inconsistent with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 9. The building is allowed signage based on the front footage of lot, per Zoning Code Section 78-1468. The building will be limited to 112 s.f.of total signage. 10. Exterior lighting is proposed for the outdoor seating areas.Any such lighting will be required to meet the standards of the Zoning Code. Page 5 O O CITY of ORONO -r, �,r- A I ` �x�3+ Z RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IA 9k i �� No. 6 3 5 3 velikESFI04' 11. The proposed trash enclosure is proposed to be three-sided masonry with a gate allowing access to two dumpsters. The proposed location of the trash enclosure is consistent with the layout of the City parking lot which is hashed to allow for garbage trucks to back up to the dumpsters. The Council finds that this condition supports the granting of the variances to side and rear setbacks for the proposed dumpster location. 12. The proposed outdoor seating areas serving the Saloon and the new restaurant are adjacent to and facing the parking lots. The Council finds that the proposed landscaping and screening as depicted in the color renderings submitted by the applicant will help to aesthetically improve the general area and is anticipated to be a catalyst for similar aesthetic improvements to this area of the Navarre business district. Therefore, the applicant should be required to incorporate the depicted wrought iron fencing, brick-faced pillars and arborvitae plantings into the final landscaping. 13. The City Council additionally makes the following findings with respect to the conditional use permit requests for the new restaurant use and the expansion of the existing Saloon use: (1) The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding commercial district. (2) The site of the proposed use contains no unique natural features which would be impacted,and there is no increase in hardcover proposed. (3) The proposed aesthetic improvements would complement the area and improve the visual character of the immediate commercial neighborhood. (4) Negative impacts of the proposed use on vehicular and pedestrian circulation are not anticipated (5) Potential new demands on services and infrastructure due to the proposed use are not anticipated to be excessive (6) The proposal is generally in conformance with City plans for parks, streets and walkways. (7) The proposed restaurant use is located in one of the few areas of Orono where a Class 11 restaurant would be allowed consistent with the Community Management Plan. (8) The proposed use is not anticipated to have a detrimental effect on the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Page 6 O CITY of ORONO It `/��+ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL nth �1.i, o~ NO. 3 5 3 9kEs80- (9) The proposed use incorporates sufficient landscaping to reasonably screen undesirable features and to enhance the image of the development. (10) The proposed use is not anticipated to create detrimental disturbances to surrounding properties based on adherence to the conditions of approval. . (11) The proposed use conforms to all pertinent requirements of this chapter with the exception of the variances noted herein. (12) The proposed use will incorporate efforts to conserve energy whenever practical. 14. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use and variances 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 variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1403 to allow lot coverage by structures to increase to 39.1%where only 15% is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 78-1405 for construction of a trash enclosure to be located less than the required 5 feet . from the rear lot line and less.than 10 feet from the side lot line;and grants an amendment to the conditional use permit granted via Resolution No. 4530 adopted on October 9, 2000, such amendment for the specific purpose of allowing expansion of the Narrows Saloon Class II Restaurant use by adding an outdoor seating area of approximately 550 s.f.; and grants a conditional use permit for establishment of a new separate restaurant use within the westerly 40%of the building per Section 78-644(4)and including a 600 s.f.outdoor seating area,subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is based on the building interior layout plans (upper and lower level)by Premier Restaurant and Equipment Company dated 3/7/08 and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the site plan by Gronberg and Associates dated 9/6/13 and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The interior and outdoor seating layout and dumpster enclosure location for the Saloon and new restaurant shall be substantially as shown on Exhibits A and B, except as noted herein, and any deviation from Exhibits A and B that the Zoning Administrator determines is in conflict with the intent of this approval, shall require further review by the City Council. Building signage,landscaping and screening for the outdoor seating areas shall be established in conformance with the depictions attached hereto as Exhibit C. Page 7 Or °'-1/0 CITY of ORONO K'.x�i jRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL It. I o'' No. 635esiio¢' 2. The outdoor seating layout and landscaping for the Saloon, although not depicted in Exhibit A,shall follow the same general design and landscaping as depicted in Exhibit A, B and C for the new restaurant use. 3. It is the Council's intent that all reasonable precautions shall be taken to eliminate noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from operation of the Narrows Saloon,the new restaurant, and their outdoor seating areas. Therefore, the following noise-reduction • measures shall be adhered to: a) Because the Saloon does not have a vestibule for its doorways accessing the Shoreline Drive side of the building,primary access to the Saloon shall be from the proposed new shared vestibule at the rear of the building during the times that live entertainment is occurring. b) Exterior access doors to the Saloon shall not be propped open for any reason except during deliveries during the time that live entertainment is occurring. c) Applicant shall provide evidence that the HVAC systems provided in the building shall be sufficient to handle all anticipated loads and not require access doors to be propped open for ventilation purposes in any season. d) Applicant shall not have live music piped to either of the outdoor seating areas.Any amplification,speaker system or other sound emitting devices in the outdoor seating areas, such as for providing soft dinner background music shall be kept at a low volume so as to not become a nuisance,and shall cease at 11:00 p.m. e) All other noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance and so as to not become a nuisance. 4. Per the conditions of Resolution No.4530,live entertainment shall end at 12:30 a.m.each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each night. Except as modified herein,all terms and conditions of Resolution No. 4530 with respect to the Narrows saloon shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Hours of operation for the new restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Liquor service to the outdoor seating areas shall be subject to review with each annual liquor license application. 6. Applicant shall work with City staff to devise a plan for establishing handicap parking stall within the city lot. No motorcycle parking will be allowed on the sidewalk at the front of the building, and such notice shall be posted on the premises. The City Page 8 �O O CITY of ORONO a+ lt; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ri !iiiii% ' � . 6� NO. 6353 prohibition on motor vehicle parking in the municipal lot between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.shall be also posted on the premises. 7. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No signs can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of Orono. 8. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. A separate liquor license will be required for the new restaurant and its associated outdoor seating. A liquor license for the Saloon reflecting the added outdoor seating area will be required. 9. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date(December 9,2014). 10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms 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. 11. The undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,his heirs, 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 this 9th day of December,2013. ATTEST: Rachel Dodge,City Clerk Y Lili Tod McMillan,Mayor ersw'r Pr perry Owne Applicant Page 9 0 O CITY of ORONO A l' `it , .'r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .. �YA II , I C '44 NO. 6353 gEsxoB STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this 24) day of J(,t ram__ ,2014 on behalf of Narrows,LLC by James Anderst,a single person,,its Owner. sg-eztd- =' BARBARA G.SILUS-SNotary Public Cl NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA M f Commiss,on Ezpres Jan.31,2018 Page 10 re-> Lc) . rn • I g. • `=rim- ' .-1 • s i i i . '! • .frr. ' e.4(fa--1.-'''— m;ti; • . • - •ii Ills ;.. • c • • II p iii ' 1�3. . ..• . • . .• .. .-- f. , . ., -.' . .: . , . . • _ ill § • ly-C l i 9 v'�' ,■�■, '�.,. �i j �� li-. ® i .4 Ali 4' • • • ilrli ...1 • 7 21 j • i Obit C ■ �Ig Q •..•. •.. • •..• @ a� Q S. • • •. • • r. 'J • '\ • • • • • • i ONOlfO�O - i • Alm --��— • C. •�1 •• ••.::•• . ••f l 1� r{ i U I90 • (F-4‘,)- Z do 133Hs .0341303H . . • ON NOI1111OS321 - 5rwin1�✓]FIiuS N0 `?M:%x)4 X!. V1181HX3 • g. i rdo73(1 • '• . . . - 71 WOO m.cpwrgi 1.... Mana2Braekr414141 :enix-w.(rs)XV.i:ooge-ttg 0-90 -Ow net.swogiviri zivemi abirwwon OLIL sisllopads Ogee awaspooj. - . '•MraTidowlif%WNW 'all 'AU . 'al 321111X11 IN31,113SVO•331AtI3S000i VI0S3NNINI 432121VAVN G-n,PJ\--Acs ---S3A110- f — ZI I 'DU Ci tor= OM UV= A.N V dIA109 INSINd11103 iNVIAIIVJL831:1 3M3C--___vra toisms's"3°a . --...T.71..7T mos Z ihNinielimilliiiilint Aeilimmile •Vissa...4 Z (\I E5 01 L7 FA • T • . , = Cr)LU 4 . X 11..1 i 0 4 I UJ W (f) Z • % •1 • 0 k' • • CC -.P r.v-a r:I mo PI i ma ra ro k r a m m ir.o...an•Pi rim a,..ap•a ra&tram...4mi roams mew o ra rai ea rim a ra.. •.",wi'V f11 ,--- 0 iramed u0i — o,..L. • 1r . a:E_ E--, I..ei _NN-;-.. nil • "—'-=.•.---.---4;.*: I4P1 C.) 1 •. c? /1 Ill s .:. 1,',-, :„...-'1--... Z.3 4 "t•A•,t) .3...p.:.,17.,i/ 1 1 ill 1 ,• . vm IC !. • . "' II 4 - Pgil • /N 0 —— ...4iiiii14 ___Z-11* _1(0) la=_-7., !:77-,'cr' .il2S:=:-...; .....fi . 4 ..5 4 ;t , 4 - 10 0 -... ha ----, .. '1 -, 01.•.'''E' . 4 FM i1:1,id • (ft 0 4 4 I 47* 1 P • .,..,.E.,11d pril Ali -______ 4 . % tglir .1N •Il -6.-cl -,./Ar. 0 T 9(-1,, k )• I Wr m 11 . W' . .• . 0 1 • r I • $ 10,01-----': 1-1:•111.',00.1 til 0. A. (tti; A6N%' 1 o• , 2:\INI.I.c.10i-j_0 • ' :110111 . A 4 Ilir4rilt V * 4 Its.3.1..g07, 3-:•.k,)...1_ ,iiil • Ii3c,0,1 0 00.000 x - )0. :c __, ig _...„..40, • , . — re-....-4,,----- --y ----— ----1,-\\..... --z -_-- '11,--E....7A" ------- IIIIII 4 • .-41,- • timrir /„...--- • 4 III 4ii". 11 ' ••• 2 ill • 0aoEvn 0 ttlei'l i U kaiku- 0 5,4 p i! lir i..:rTh k 4, 66_ li 14 ' :#: '. ...., •k . Ih.., . h ,111111111iri 1'0 mig I •- Li ' : 1.. I I 0 41 A., 0 . . . • • i 1 y v • • . • • . , • , . 6353 • Sf?05jg1? CITY OF ORONO CERTIFICATE OF'SURVEY FOR NARROWS, L.L.C. IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I 1 1 • •06-26k :a: f\ N��ez4. ..co E .. I ��R t ,runs' s,a,''".� \E r �,IP C _ wmeea.e >r . 13031110 EXISTINGROOM PATO rte'—3 Y 3 MOM=PATO '1 e.pe c 28 1 ammo EXISTING i BUILDING 3 III x r X3352 I =O it rte- 2 vamp rat mare, =f—� r ^ \ ..r N 89.11'30" W 112.01 —2 w .m Taw utter aaa:a ( 2 mowers er urmm \somr,x ar COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 ":, m,_. n SHORELINE DRIVE LEGAL DESORPTION OF PREMISES Thot part of Lot 5,Block 3.Tornsite of Longdoe Pork described as follows: Peg t the Southwest corner of odd Lot S:thence on on assumed bearing of North along theossWest Inn of sok,Lot et distance of 105.50 feet,thence along a lire Pewits;North 74 degrees 24 minutes East to its intersection with a One drown parole)with and distant 112_00 feet East of the West fare of said Lot 5:thence South along,sod parall fine to the South line of add Lot 5:thence West along sod South inn to the pent of beginning. 1 o: denotes iron marker I Seairgs shown Ore p e hosed,gen en oened datum. ' 0 This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above descraed property.the location el an eeistl g bugling.ad the proposed location of a proposed polio.eel and addition m A m ,hereon ft does not purport to stew ony other improvements or encroachments. Z m X M Or x —20 0 20 10ID WilliI- l - Qm r SCALE i N N 2 2 2 . • _ 0 - `w AAAA GRONBERG AND e` =I' ------=-=�....•..........^ / ASSOCIATES INC. 11.-- '"d••,. G'SURVEYORS WI E PLA.LAND • SURVEYORS A 91tN 005 se LAND —a,sZrb i .a:—,r.,., m.ee 1 a_._e Oirakeenl . . - . Council • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR - Exhibit B NARROWS L.L.C. frs.veas,: . IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I '1 Il'\ ' ' , N 21A47127012 -I 2 E -....- i 1 .-4:-..k... i SEED ., ...ELECTRIC DtSTREILITON EASEMEW,..I , ' ?i 0 ..........pER DOC.NO.5752551 ' ,. . . . :..... .. _..L tc'cl .•. ....... i• g clo,tosoo „, i,.. \ ___ _ _r--7. V)0 7 .... ' ---'51-------UNDERDROIAD ° AN:: Ofho AVI.11 (r) ••• 'Ttro....'"6,51, 2-V.A.frEAT411553,%.,.. L- " ! '- Lri . 0 -- .-I'rtik,F. on • o %. r -,• no. 2iT...F.'"--------- •41, OUSTING .55 PROPOSED PATIO , 1122 q I:, EXISTING v . PROPOSER PATIO ...,,I BULONG ,") .i..0 ..I a. NU'- t..) .. BUILDING EXISTING 1. 1 • a BUILDING I Ig 1 r #3382 i I 15 I 0 . ILI tn 0) x in 1 M >< I I— tu •9 '::.a 141.3 *9".3: '.11 27A 27 '.7 40 117 1 R Y M cn 2 —1 . . 2 170.11CTE lg. r_ ... t:_rutz.61.1u.A.,titiErzwaktr--....)5811-7.51,?_--0,-___TLi-t, 1 i _. RECEI' r..)C —I 1 " i ( f —I co 0 — 5 . 1777 Male;LAO/P'ARK '. ..14GENVAY EASEMENT PER DCC.NC.5711513". ______..... CUT.1 ...... .. . ...... ... . ...... . .... -: ,-,. CONONT2 12,1.22 V 1 NOV 15 CITY OF C NJ-11 ozZ° CP% C.4 01 (JJ rr) • 11:7.11:101:301:111°130 aana��1:1 y. .,.t• - aY•I .��-.,.3 JC,,� 1�8.�e.: T 1 r•nJ-; =.3'iltPi�r t•fi ft i kyr f ` ,t ` n,ll 1l1 _ � � • l� Ppr $�is i • °.l4: ,� • � 111" 1 Jar-Am .IIon tS • ��(, .a _:Y Yfiwa H .d i. . 1 y�- !�F.1 . O �1 JI L. kF ,•I , _.il �—F• •.. �� i'CR'�i ...a....na .�, W •. • it • : 1 E 30 i 133HS ON N0111110S38 01191HX3 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO SHEET 2 OF 3 r "r NI 1-I5 ki TLIc.c..,) 14AI-1 F11415I-I LAIN De•c°l'"T.''' 16''''11/=3 8.t..4,DEI to pRorizuSio9Ffo.L.,1,1 WALL Z--...--"---- '3 RE'c.ESED LILIES 14E4.,111APAr-r / --'- ....- - 0 1,,,IIDE z,, or.o Tp..usluis 4, i I -z,.Rec...E•ss ED LINE s 111v.A , I"A.P,stzr r'”..A.,,,--)" • . e J.:1--. 91.4itvg.—vvRoposici4 I;I . • -',,..-. .4„.1.,,:107.;;., -''• . ,,,,,, . ,, f---11 - --- 204(4d1110".-F--'----71-:----_-.-----_- ,,,.--.=-„,----..-,.. , --• '. . ...- 4 ',''' •=-------4:-.-,- ------r---- r.r...,,{,'" , _- '.,"; '1:----1 ---4-1 - .. -.,, ,„-- gr.-. .In-` ..:____..nrnifir• , iti)'/".,,), Z.--,' ‘.1"°7&--,1•,- •:.--;.-",, •"e..' :.., ''. • ,.: 't i 'i;,,,. '1 1 ...-;_-.-7-1-a°-;X:,7-1!ssr;i7• i':. f7,11114".iTiliii:',91'- 1 ••!",..- ,. .",,„4•,\,,„ ..-,..-;,71:11k; ,. --- -..— —$,, . 4:,, ...,-....:- 1,-..: E1.1.1 'it. .1 1 i'll'II I' •-o--7-?1-1" l'Ill•r)Ti It____ ile,'•,,i-44.1:14.-;;;IL _ ,-,__L.- 1- ,', .i.,e: :tf....t.•16,7„.....„4,0,,,,..„.:_ .•:- . .,/• 1 . ....-t, ,.-.. ._--' .t.;‘,-; _- .....--...., f',,, , b, ' !..,/,'1,IVIIi:0".-',14:-*.,11,-1.--''•,..• .."-:-/:11"t-'1.'•:.'!!, ,1::''— .k.""----It.4. ----.4--' ''''''41-, Lt. 47...4"1.......,__;•••••.''.:711 ,,..-- tet• „„,_,_aimiL4,-.--. - -- f - . :-,:74 ..,__-.--.:1--P- ',-'-*ZN'.------i`-": : ..._.„,.. --,r, . .... ,J-1.,.it. ri,-,iI7,--•-_,' 1 .-t s's,.,.,___:',..=-tr.:.---..:7-=71,-- ;,-_-_-,..__,- -,-_.-.Ar•-•-• • . -.-.._ I' ' ----•"' _•-•••-:---. --• ..,-,,- sa___. • ....- ,, .-0-----i_r ..:: —_,---,-,_ ___..-z. . __ , 1.1_______ ---r-'--- '--4---!-L.,--_,-.-E 6:'s• --- — . ' — '2 if -,..-.------c- ---1.v_---±:_=-3::::..--c-- --- , _,....- ... •••,_ - - -...,:.---e•...4- - ,-,---.6-m---. --- -5_,...... -- ,,-tt....-----.- - ;-1 — - .., _.....--- --,.,..._. . , -- t4Npril4 5Tut."--co-• - - - -_ --- - .... •Ar..:kwoe..-i<Davi Nt, - , Ey TEF.i0 R. NALL 1-17ZATH ENT ... p..mi.c.t....4.1 i-14.4- LI AFxci-1 IT et:4 I.t'1 72 2i4-S 1/13,4 RECEIVED SU B1 2013 CITY OF ORONO C44 C)1 c....,.4 re-) Lr) rr) . • . . _2,0. . c•A•loto , .. c 0.,:,'• :—i.1.4_. • , ),1 i,,a.,,,tYdv,i:--rx"-y.,..•1•4. Clat'''3°3 i1---•--,- - ,•14 ''' I II.-_:. - '.• - ?3'-;'--' -'--'.-'4'-'• ;"'!.'1 I!- '-"•i•t-' -2,''''!'•'-,-;--'1.:-'-11--...7-r-V7!t'" •.-1 -,:..c.i..--..-...--- •.' v.I • 1••'';•-:•l A ..'. •.-... 1 .. • . 1 1 ;t!. - 1...t •.):3.•-)75 11' •-•••'' -i-"'"-,i'll,-.:::.Y#' ....•' .1.• r.laii&t.r.t,w2T,`, '' "''W-.. - --r cr3 '" ' ' ''..i•,-,1 jiial••' -'.;,-•,,..... .•* ?...,.- '- _._•:;• •' '. '•;$'01:1:31: ,,2-'?'1'2%'...' O'r" _:-V. r.-.' • 1. . •1. c-, • 7-- 0 •'')401.V.o°1i"--t' ''''''. ---''-.- .• ': -en . :.i.,- `411.4"-t.Di: ' '''''',-----:---- .1-•-'-'"---- ..•'.1 • ' ' . , .- • t; . '-1".',.. -' 1 ' , • •• ,.p:7;4-,,__._ .g.V tx-s.,V-rt 4',-j't. .. — •''•-• t ''.' . .41-T.I ' I t ..,..e..fis'iii ••• .1 . ,' ..._.. — ...-.. . ., . . ... .. ....--.. --7` • . '-'•‘-'...P.:.,.t.,,Y t....-4.II414.411 . . .\> 'V 100 IP..1.L•? .'1,,':7'. 1.: !Ai ' ,!.•,....!, •;',.11 ,1111-4 :-.ji,A, ..,‘,...; •11,-,N4 . L-1,..t .J '-:11,,y 1,l' 1,1.1..1,1,1 • • . 1.,ILI 3.rt---:•••-.,•11: 11 Is-4 ' . • • .. -14.11 • ... . . . • E JO£133HS - ON NO1111-10S3i1 3 1181FIX3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned,being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Orono,Minnesota,certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the meeting of the Orono City Council on December 9th,2013,with the original thereof on file in my office,and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand of icially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this 9i"dday of ,2014. p� ^ '4' Llea.t.-AC.-ems &CT__ ri,.:,:,y City Clerk :. .,l r:'Q.: .. is Proposed Conditions Following are the conditins included in Resolutions 4530, 5440, and 6353. These form the basis for proposed conditions for the combined Bar/Restaurant now known as the Narrows and the Lake Room. Resolution 4530 Live Entertainment 1530 1. The applicant shall install a two door system at the rear entrance to meet all State Building and Fire Code standards. The purpose of the doors would be to allow customers to so one door would close before the second door is opened. 4530 1b. All doors shall remain closed at all times, except when entering or exiting the building. 4530 2. Live entertainment will end at 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m.each night. - . - . . . -- - - •-- - •-- building is used for live entertainment. A one year time period is required for the applicant to monitor the use ofthe building and the front entrance. After one year the City of Orono will review the use of the building in relation to the live entertainment and noise levels generated by the live entertainment use. . . . . .. ... . _ .. - -• ... _ . .. • e . .. 4 530 5. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 4530 6. The sale ofintoxicating liquor requires the business have avalid liquor license with the City ofOrono. 4530 7. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by use permit will expire on that date(October 9,2001). 1530 8. Violation of or non compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution • . - . •: . •. -• .:-, hall automatically terminate any authority granted herein,and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. . e - --.. recording ofthis resolution in the chain oftitle ofthe property. Resolution 5440 Class II Restaurant eastern 60 feet ., . ... .... . ..' . :. . : . . - Architects, latest revision date March 3, 2006, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The interior layout for the expansion shall be substantially as shown on Exhibit A, except determines is in conflict with the intent of this approval, shall require further review by the City Council. 5440 2. It is the Council's intent that all reasonable precautions shall be taken to eliminate noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from operation of the Narrows Saloon. Therefore, the following noise reduction measures shall be adhered 5140 2a. Primary access to the Restaurant shall be from the proposed vestibule at the rear of the building. 5410 2b Secondary access shall be from the proposed interior vestibules at the most westerly existing doorways at the front of the building. 5440 2c Access doors shall not be propped open for any reason except during deliveries. 5110 2d The existing front center double doorway shall be made inoperable for access and may be converted to a straight segment of wall conforming with the perimeter facade wall of the building. 5110 2e The most easterly front double doorway shall be converted to an emergency exit only, and shall be provided with "Panic Hardware" and an alarm system. This door shall remain closed at all times except in an emergency. 5110 2f. The easterly of three access doorways to the Smoker's Patio shall be provided with a self closer mechanism as shown in Exhibit A. (Better options: new-vestibule 5110 2g. The interior double door between the "Private Party Room" and the adjacent seating area shall be provided with self closer mechanism and shall remain closed during live entertainment.The proposed double folding door from the Party Room to the patio area shall be converted to a swinging door,and shall maintained to have a 2 door system between all outside access doorways and the live entertainment. 5110 2h. Applicant shall provide evidence that the HVAC systems provided in 5110 2i. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each night. beverage or liquor service provided to the patio area,and no food,beverage or liquor shall be brought to or consumed in the patio 'arca. Signage to this effect shall be prominently displayed at all entrances to the patio area. The patio area is intended only to provide a place for restaurant patrons to smoke, and therefore is not included in the parking requirement calculations. There shall be no amplification, speaker system or other sound emitting devices in the patio ar a or anywhere outside the building. The smokers patio may be furnished with tables and chairs for the convenience of smokers. The Smoker's Patio is approved on a one year trial basis only; at any time during the first year of operation, the Council may review and reconsider this use to determine whether it has caused any noise issues, parking issues, or other issues. The Council specifically reserves the right to require that the Smokers Patio use be limited or eliminated if it is determined to be causing problems. 5110 5. The Private Party Room shall be completely separated from the bar/dance floor space as shown in Exhibit A, with the exception of the doorway at the northeast comer of the room. Complete separation m ans that the proposed cast wall of the Party Room shall be floor to ceiling. 5110 6. Applicants shall work with City staff to devise a suitable parking layout for the spaces shown on Exhibit A,to ensure those spaces do not conflict with the use of and access to the municipal lot. No motorcycle parking will be allowed on the sidewalk at the front of the building,and such notice shall be posted on the premises. The City prohibition on motor vehicle parking in the municipal lot between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. shall be also posted on the premises. 5440 7. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent from the City of Orono. 5110 8. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. 5110 9. Authorities granted by this resolution arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one y ar of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date(March 27,2007). 5110 10. Violation of or non compliance with any of the terms 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. The undersigned applicants and owners have read,understood and hereby agree to the terms of this recording of this resolution.in the chain of title of the property. Resolution 6353 Class II Restaurant ...grants an amendment to the conditional use permit granted via Resolution No. 4530 adopted on October 9, 2000, such amendment for the specific purpose of allowing expansion of the Narrows Saloon Class II Restaurant use by adding an outdoor seating area of approximately 550 s.f.; and grants a conditional use permit for establishment of a new separate restaurant use within the westerly 40% of the building per Section 78.644(4) and including a 600 s.f. outdoor seating area, subject to the following conditions: 6353-1. This approval is based on the building interior layout plans (upper and lower level) by Premier Restaurant and Equipment Company dated 3/7/08 and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the site plan by Gronberg and Associates dated 9/6/13 and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The interior arid outdoor seating layout and dumpster enclosure location for the Saloon and new restaurant shall be substantially as shown on Exhibits A and B, except as noted herein, and any deviation from Exhibits A and B that the Zoning Administrator determines is in conflict with the intent of this approval, -shall -require further review by the City Council. Building signage, landscaping and screening for the outdoor seating areas shall be established in conformance with the depictions attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6353-2. The outdoor seating layout and landscaping for the Saloon and restaurant ; although not depicted in Exhibit A, shall follow the same general design and landscaping as depicted in Exhibit A, B and C for the new restaurant use. 6353-3. It is the Council's intent that all reasonable precautions shall be taken to eliminate noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from operation of the Narrows Saloon,the new restaurant, and their outdoor seating areas. Therefore, the following noise-reduction measures shall be adhered to: 6353-3a. Because the Saloon does not have a vestibule for its doorways accessing the Shoreline Drive side of the building, primary access to the Saloon shall be from the proposedshared vestibule at the rear of the building during the times that live entertainment is occurring. 6353-3b. Exterior access doors to the Saloon shall not be propped open for any reason except during deliveries during the time that live entertainment is occurring. 6353-3c. Applicant shall provide evidence that the HVAC systems provided in the building shall be sufficient to handle all anticipated loads and not require access doors to be propped open for ventilation pw-poses in any season. 6353-3d. Applicant shall not have live music piped to either of the outdoor seating areas. Any amplification, speaker system or other sound emitting devices in the outdoor seating areas, such as for providing soft dinner background music shall be kept at a low volume so as to not become a nuisance, and shall cease at 11:00 p.m. 6353-3e. All other noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance and so as to not become a nuisance. 6353-4. Per the conditions of Resolution No. 4530, live entertainment shall end at 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each night. Except as modified herein,all terms and conditions of Resolution No. 4530 with respect to the Narrows saloon shall remain in full force and effect. 6353-5. Hours of operation for the new restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Liquor service to the outdoor seating areas shall be subject to review with each annual liquor license application. 6353-6. Applicant shall work with City staff to devise a plan for establishing handicap parking stall within the city lot.No motorcycle parking will be allowed on the sidewalk at the front of the building, and such notice shall be posted on the premises. The City prohibition on motor vehicle parking in the municipal lot between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. shall be also posted on the premises. 6353-7. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No signs can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of Orono. 6353-8. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. The liquor license shall reflect outdoor service on the patios.A - --- • . .. . - - - - - - _. -- -0- _ - ... .. ... - area will be required. 6353-9. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by opening the restaurant application for a building permit within 6 months one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (December 9, 2011 September 11, 2019. ). 6353-10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms 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. 6353-11. The undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of theproperty. Additional Proposed Conditions Dumpster enclosure. Dumpster enclosure may be moved to the location permitted by City Council on City property. Dumpster enclosure shall be constructed prior to relocating the dumpster from the subject property. The maximum area for a stage and or live entertainment shall not exceed 15 feet by 12 feet. The maximum area to receive live entertainment shall not exceed 28'4"x 56'3"(1,593.56 sq ft). An expansion of one or both of these parameters shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Date Application Received: January 23,2019 ���VO Date Application Considered as Complete:February 1,2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator yet lkts H O From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: February 19,2019 Subject: #LA19-000006,Patrick Brama Trident Dev. o/b/o University of St Thomas, Outlot A, Stonebay, Concept Plan review Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comments regarding a proposed multi- family residential structure. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests feedback on the proposed apartment building concept. Background The subject property is located at the NW corner of Wayzata Blvd West and Willow Drive North. This parcel is Outlot A of Stonebay, and was originally contemplated for office uses. The City had reviewed at some level a possible bank,and a possible gas station on the site,but not project was built. The most current draft of the Comprehensive Plan guides the property for High Density Residential,20-25 units per acre. The developers are working on behalf of the current property owner,the University of St. Thomas. The developers propose the construction of a 2- 2.5 story market rate apartment building on the property. Site improvements include the apartment building with between 75 and 90 units, underground parking, and surface parking, trails, and landscaping. Review Process The concept proposal is the first step in the RPUD process. Of note,this proposal is based on the formal acceptance by the Met Council of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan,which guides the subject property for high density residential (20-25)units per acre. The project cannot proceed beyond concept review until the Met Council has accepted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Following Met Council acceptance of the Comp Plan,the project will require master plan approval, zone change(to RPUD), and platting(from the Outlot designation). All of these actions require a public hearing, and notice to all property owners within 500 feet. Many of these actions will occur concurrently. Analysis Access. Access to the site is planned via two curb cuts onto Kelley Parkway. There are no curb cuts on the north side of Kelley Parkway to have the intersections line up. There is no proposed vehicular access onto Wayzata Blvd or Willow Drive. Any intersection with these roads would not be supported by staff, Hennepin County, or the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian movement. The developer shows an extension of the trail along the west side of Willow Parkway, south to the Willow Drive/Wayzata Blvd intersection,where a cross walk is planned. A trail is planned as part of the Wayzata Blvd"turnback"project. This trail will likely FILE#LA19-000006 February 19,2019 Page 2 of 4 be located in the County ROW, south of the subject property. There is also currently a sidewalk along the south edge of the Kelley Parkway ROW, adjacent to this property. Internal pedestrian connections with the sidewalk and trails is suggested. Parking. City code requires 2 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit. With 75-90 units, 150-180 parking spaces would be required. Preliminary drawings show 117 parking stalls under the building, and 61 surface stalls. The number of stalls support up to 89 units. Entrance to the underground parking is located in the west end of the building, facing north. Building The building is L shaped with the slightly longer edge fronting Wayzata Blvd West. The apartment units are a mix of studio+, 1, 1+,2, and 3 bedroom units. Possible floor plan is attached as Exhibit B. The units are proposed to be market rate. The building meets the prescribed setbacks from all streets. Building elevations have not been finalized,but the applicant anticipates the use of a material and color palette consistent with the Stonebay development, shown on Exhibit D. Building Height. Lately, building height has been an issue with multifamily projects. The applicant has reviewed the history relative to this issue and proposes to meet the 30 foot height limit established by the City Council. The calculation of building height includes siting the building within the existing grade. Grading plans are typically not completed for concept plans. The building height,design, and color will be reviewed in near final form as part of the Master Plan approval process. Utilities. The property will be served by city water and sanitary sewer. Stormwater will be collected on site and sent to the sub-regional pond, as was anticipated by the original Stonebay development. Current treatment and retention rules will apply and will be reviewed by the City Engineer and watershed district. Landscaping. A Minimum landscaping plan has been developed. The RPUD standards spell out with some specificity landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan developed as part of the master plan will be reviewed for consistency. RPUD analysis. The full excerpt of Section 78-626 which regulates the RPUD process is attached as Exhibit F. A summary follows: 1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or tied No. Part of the Stonebay RPUD to adjacent RPUD 2 Uses. Allowed:Multifamily residential 3 Sewer availability No. Sewer is available and the density is greater than 1 unit or 2 acres 4 Density. Each development in the No,assuming approval of 2040 RPUD district shall have a density Plan within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. FILE#LA19-000006 February 19,2019 Page 3 of 4 5 Incentives. The city may utilize None requested incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. 6 Floor Ratio Ration,up to 1.0 No.Not final,but approximately 0.62 7a Setbacks No. Setbacks met 7b Height,stories,roof style No. Height will meet 30 feet,3 stories or less,and a residential style roof is proposed. 7c Outside storage No. None proposed. 11 10%Private Recreational Area No,none yet shown (Active and/or Passive) 12 Common Ownership No. Property to remain in common ownership 13 Signage No. Signage plans not yet developed 14 Landscaping No.Landscaping Plans not yet developed 15 Architectural Standards Plans not developed,but are anticipate dot be based on Stonebay palette. 16 Flexibility from standards None requested at this time 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested 18 Building Permits Expected 19 General regulations applicability Expected 20 Lighting No. Lighting plan not yet developed 21 Trails No. Shown Though additional information is necessary to complete a comprehensive review(Landscaping, Lighting, Signage,Building elevation,etc.),the applicant is not requesting flexibility from current standards. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-622- Setbacks: DISTRICT Required Proposed(approximate) Front(Willow) 35 40 Rear 35 40 Street(Kelley) 35 50 Street(Wayzata Blvd West) 50 55 Parking Lots 20 50 Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Does not apply as lot is greater than 2 acres. FILE#LA19-000006 February 19,2019 Page 4 of 4 Section 78-626(6)Floor Area Ratio Total Floor Area Floor Area Ratio Total Lot Area (excluding below Ground parking) 160,848 s.f. (3.69 acre) 100,218 sq. ft. Allowed: 1.0 Proposed: 0.62 Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier Tier 4 80,828 s.f. None 71,077 s.f. RPUD 160,848 s.f. (50%) (44%) Public Comments To date,no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission have any issues or concerns with this proposal? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Site Plan/Floor Plan Exhibit C. Narrative Exhibit D. Design Palette Exhibit E. Staff Comment Letter dated February 1, 2019 Exhibit F. Section 78-626 RPUD Standards Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/23/2019 Address: 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED , MN 00000 Parcel Number: 3311823110060 Land Use Number: LA19-000006 Application Submitted Agent on behalf of property owner By: Owner: Name: UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS Address: 2115 SUMMIT AVE MAIL CODE AQU219 ST PAUL, MN 55105 Applicant: Name: Patrick Brama Address: 3601 18th Street South, #103 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Joe Radach Associated Contact: Dean Stienessen Associated Contact: Joe Rozmiarek Associated Contact: Tony Gleekel Project Description: Market-Rate Apartment Development: St. Thomas Property Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: sii GENERAL SITE INFORMATION: m OVERALL SITE:160,867 SF(3.69 ACRES) 59 TOTAL SURFACE PARKING STALLS m IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: law PARKING/SIDEWALK:28,913 SF ,..t...-......a. O� BUILDING FOOTPRINT:42,164 SF ��,,,,,,, f TOTAL: 71,077 SF 44%<50% FLOOR AREA RATIO(FAR.) �� !* ——-- 1 SITE:160,867 SF s -k_,....) i BUILDING(ALL FLOORS):142,382 SF - — PERCENTAGE:0.89PERCENT<1.0 F -- 8'-0'WIDE WALKING TRAIL /// I E€F Bry. 1 .,..\--\4, ,Z-v..6-.,"Z Vy v / Gy tl a 111 I$ Z A/ W P°� / m LU 5/ a 0 �G/ fis �� ryo e / // 1'. O 0 El ® 1`° I� J " IQ I § II.. 01 TOTAL SURFACE PARA.STALLS 111 Ul 0 lobby1SPQ 26tl 1 1btl 2ba 2 I 2 6th 1�eathea2ba 1 ba t ba 2 btll 0# . lbw eros etalr l2 btlt tr. LO in bNzeb swag zba l2 bm 1 I 1btl 1 b w - i 50-0'BUILDING SETBACK — +-500'-0" I I I I I I I WAYZATA BLVD WEST i/11 OPTION#3 ,= o e .ry\ J L 280,zw,z n+ S o a 2,6 v 0 -, BTW TOTALS 39 „ . _ „Irk - -- 1 1i !i 35 AV/ !§i ar o r11 I III 1111 1 111' �\ $i Bi J 117 parking stalls N ai a she — :',,tif 1 III 11 1 % r g' $i `a, i N parking .., a• s€i s§aa 2 J ,, •Iiirltp . 1st floor w II z: __ O_4 ®0 2Fv.:: :.!..; lt,:n --10 = :,.t' t,,T tv!' -,',;:n- 2,11. 1....:! 1..!?, ,'.t Ell 2nd floor MINIIIIIoo MI ooao 3rd floor TRNTl.)evelopmentL.LC' 3601 18`h Street South • Suite# 103 • St.Cloud,MN 56301 Phone:320.258.4438 • 320.252.3603 January 23,2019 Jeremy Barnhart,AICP Community Development Director Members of the Orono Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono,MN 55356 RE: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(RPUD)CONCEPT PLAN APPLICATION FOR MARKET RATE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Mr.Barnhart and members of the Orono Planning Commission: Trident Development LLC is pleased to submit this request for your consideration of a residential planned unit development(RPUD)concept plan application for a market-rate apartment development in the City of Orono. The following narrative is intended to generally describe the proposed project,as well as the experience of the development team. OVERVIEW— The proposed project is a 75-90-unit market-rate apartment building located on a 3.69-acre site in northern Orono near the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard/Willow Drive North. Offen Bros Nursery and Harvest Moon are located just to the east of the subject property,and the Stonebay residential development is located directly to the north. The current property owner is Central Orono LLC (University of St.Thomas). This project is a 2-2.5 story,wood-framed,apartment with a mix of structured underground parking and surface parking. Trident Development LLC will be the project manager and Granite City Real Estate LLC will likely be the long-term operator. Trident Development and Granite City Real Estate have a long history of successfully developing,owning,and operating multi-family living projects. Because Trident Development and Granite City are partners,additional care is given to:the design/quality of the building, how it will last the test-of-time,how the project fits within the community,and how well it will serve the needs of residents. This development will address an unmet need within the Orono market-rate apartment living marketplace by providing 75-90 high-quality market-rate units to the community. Page 1 of 8 DEVELOPMENT TEAM— Trident Development,LLC is based in St. Cloud,MN and has considerable experience in the development,construction,and ownership of high-quality multi-family living communities around the State. Trident's team of real estate professionals have over 40 years of real estate experience. Please visit Trident's website for examples of completed projects,information on projects currently under construction,and to learn more about their team: https://www.tridentdevelopmentmn.com/. If desired,the developer would be honored to arrange a tour of completed projects for elected officials or staff. PROJECT TIMING— It would be ideal to obtain all government approvals by June 2019,close on financing by July 2019,and begin construction in August 2019. Depending on weather conditions,construction is anticipated to take 12-14 months(Fall 2020). We thank you in advance for considering this RPUD concept plan application and look forward to your comments and recommendations. Please feel free to contact me at(320)258-4438 or(612)242-6097 if there are any questions. Regards, evelopment,LL , ( "..., ..av• Roger r Sr.Vice resident Enclosures [preliminary project details on following pages] Page 2 of 8 PRELIMINARY PROJECT DETAILS [following pages] Page 3 of 8 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The building will be designed as a 75-90 unit,2-2.5 story,wood-framed structure with a pitched roof,and heated underground parking. The building will include wood-framed construction on pre-stressed concrete plank deck over an underground parking garage,with hydraulic elevator service. A mix of studio,1-bedroom, 1-bedroom+den,and 2-bedroom apartment homes is anticipated. This market-rate apartment project will include generous landscaping and outdoor amenities. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The developer intends to design the structure with materials,styles,and design complementary to the adjacent Stonebay residential development. Exterior materials are anticipated to utilize a complimentary blend of cultured stone and lap siding. An emphasis will be placed on the main building entry point by introducing additional amount of cultured stone. The architectural design is expected to implement a series of dormers,together with variation of vertical plane(bump-outs)providing visual interest. A variety of complimentary exterior material colors are proposed to create visual appeal and soften the mass of the building size. The developer will be utilizing HMA architects to design,draft,and submit building plans,elevations,and visual renderings. Additional architectural detail will be provided when a formal RPUD application is submitted. DWELLING UNITS This project will offer a variety of market-rate apartment units. This project does not include low-income units. Below are current preliminary unit projections. These specs will be updated with the next submittal. Unit Style Quantity Square Feet studio+den 10-25% 550-700 1-bedroom units 25-35% 800-1050 1-bedroom+den 5-15% 925-1050 2-bedroom 30-45% 980-1,250 3-bedroom 0-5% 1,150+ Each apartment unit is currently anticipated to be furnished with: • Wall-to-wall carpeting • Luxury vinyl plank flooring in kitchen,baths and laundry rooms • Brushed nickel door hardware,light fixtures and faucets • Complete kitchen appliance package including frost-free refrigerator,electric range/oven,built-in micro-waves and dish washers. • Each unit is equipped with a washer and dryer • Heat and A/C is provided by gas-fired"magic pack"equipment • Mini-blind window treatments • Generous closet space • Balconies or private patios Page 4 of 8 FEATURES AND AMENITIES This apartment community is anticipated to include the following amenities and features: • Spacious entry lobby with seating attractive design • Community room for resident parties and family gatherings • Spacious outdoor patio • Fitness center with gym-quality equipment • High-speed internet access • Private tenant storage lockers • Centralized mail delivery area,with automated parcel lockers • Security and surveillance camera system • Controlled access entry system • Parcel handling system • Extensive open space preservation and trail system ZONING The subject property is currently zoned RR-1B PUD. The subject property's designation within the 2040 Orono Comprehensive Plan is Urban High-Density Residential(20-25 units per acre). The developer is applying for a residential planned unit development(RPUD)concept plan review. LOT SIZE City RPUD code requires a minimum five(5)acre lot. The subject property is 3.69 acres. RPUD code allows for exceptions if:the subject property is located directly adjacent or across a public street from a property which was previously developed as a RPUD;and if the subject property is located within an area where the proposed development provides a transition between an existing commercial area an existing residential development. Both cases apply for this project. Stonebay residential development,located immediately north of the subject property,is an approved RPUD. A large commercial business district exists immediately to the south and east of the subject property. MINIMUM FAR City RPUD code requires a maximum floor area ratio(FAR)of 1.0. The subject property is 3.69 acres in size, or 160,848 square feet. The developer anticipates the total gross building size(all floors)to be between 65,000 and 120,000 square feet;which equates to between a 0.404 FAR and a 0.746 FAR. DENSITY The subject property's designation within the 2040 Orono Comprehensive Plan is Urban High-Density Residential(20-25 units per acre). The total lot size,for the subject property,is 3.69 acres or 160,848 square feet. 20 units per acre=73.8,25 units=92.25. The developer is estimating a 75-90-unit development will be proposed for this project. NOTE:the proposed density will be updated and refined for the next submittal. Page Sof8 BUILDING HEIGHT City RPUD Code allows for a maximum 30'high building;as measured from the mid-point of the roof,to the highest existing elevation. The developer is planning a 30'building height. ROOF PITCH City RPUD Code does not allow flat or mansard roofs on multifamily residential projects. The developer is programing a pitched roof,with a similar look/design as the adjacent Stonebay residential development. It should be noted,the developer is proposing a"half floor"of units within the roof area(currently assuming 9-units). This approach is similar to the nearby/recently approved apartment project designed by Weber Architects(2745 Kelley Parkway). PARKING City RPUD code requires a minimum two(2)stalls per residential unit. With the building having 75-90 total residential units planned,a minimum 150-180 total parking stalls will be provided by the developer. Additionally,the developer anticipates a minimum one(1)stall per residential unit will be located within the proposed heated underground parking garage. City RPUD code also provides certain"parking lot landscaping requirements"for surface parking lots that exceed 100 stalls. At this point,the developer is anticipating a surface parking lot far less than 100 stalls. NOTE:the proposed parking stall count,including the mix of underground and surface parking,will be updated and refined for the next submittal. VEHICLE ACCESS City staff has indicated a preference,and potentially a requirement,that any/all access points for this project to be located on Kelley Parkway,a city street;and that no access points will likely be allowed on Willow Drive North or Wayzata Boulevard. The developer is proposing the project be directly served by Kelley Parkway with one or two new access points. Internal to the site,care will be placed in the design of the parking lot to allow for the flow and circulation of both residents'vehicles and larger vehicles;such as fire apparatus and delivery trucks;which allow delivery trucks to safely and efficiently enter the site,without turning around. FIRE SAFETY An automatic fire suppression system is provided throughout the building(NFP 13),which will be monitored 24 hours a day. The developer will work with Fire Department and Building Official to properly locate a riser room,mechanical room,fire suppression controls/systems,and a lock box. Fire hydrants will be included within the future detailed design. TRASH/ RECYCLING Trash collection is expected to occur in designated trash rooms located in the underground parking garage. These are anticipated to served by trash chutes accessible to all floors of the building. No trash/refuse area will be proposed outside of the building. Page 6 of 8 INCENTIVES& PROPERTY TAXES This project is not seeking any government incentives. This project does not include any low-income units. It is currently estimated,upon completion,this project will pay between$202,500 and$256,500 in total annual property taxes. NOTE:this estimation will be updated and refined for the next submittal. PRIVATE RECREATION AREA City PRUD code requires a minimum 10%of the gross project are be utilized for private recreational uses. The total lot size,for the subject property,is 3.69 acres or 160,848 square feet. 10%=16,085 square feet of private recreation space required. The developer has yet to appoint a detailed landscaping or outdoor amenities plan for this project. However,based on the developer's previously completed projects,it was anticipated this project would meet,or likely exceed,the minimum 10%standard. On past projects,the developer has used a mix of outdoor recreation areas such as:community patios,pedestrian walkways,small playgrounds,small dog parks,landscaped areas,and green-space. LANDSCAPING City RPUD code requires the developer provide a detailed landscaping plan(s)in compliance with a provided minimum standards chart. The developer has reviewed these requirements and intends to comply. However,for this concept plan application,the developer has yet to complete a detailed landscaping plan. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain Engineering to create and submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the formal RPUD application. Below is a brief preliminary summary of what the developer anticipates. The landscaping plan will incorporate a variety of deciduous,coniferous and ornamental trees,together with quantities of shrubbery. Care will be taken to avoid planting trees over utility lines. Significant shrub and flower plantings will be organized in various accent planting beds across the subject property. All areas of the site which are landscaped and/or sodded will be irrigated with an underground automatic irrigation system. PEDESTRIAN FRIIENDLY The building footprint is an"U-shape"and is designed to minimize the length of all hallways for all residents; and to conveniently connect residents to the building's centrally located lobby,mail room,fitness room, community room,and elevators. The facility grounds benefit from the existing Kelley Parkway sidewalk system;which provides quick access to the Stoneybay residential development and beyond. TRAILS City RPUD code requires that when a development is within 1,000 feet of a public trail system,it shall provide an 8'paved trail connection. An existing public trail system terminates on the northeast corner of the subject property today(Willow Drive/Kelley Parkway). A major existing sidewalk system terminates on the southeastern corner of the subject property today(Willow Drive/Wayzata Boulevard). The developer is proposing to construct an 8'paved trail connection between the two points,on the east side of the subject property(along Willow Drive). • Page 7of8 WATER/SANITARY SEWER City water and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer services will likely be accessed from Kelley Parkway. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to provide civil engineer services and civil plan design. A survey is currently being conducted to confirm the location and size of utilities. As this project progresses,the developer will provide additional details and updates. STORM WATER&GRADING Today,the existing grade generally flows from the northeast(1022'estimated elevation)to the southwest (1010'estimated elevation). The developer anticipates the existing regional Stonebay stormwater pond located immediately west of the subject property was built with capacity to serve this project. Additionally, the developer anticipates the need to construct a pre-treatment stormwater basin,on the subject property, that will feed into the existing regional Stonbay stormwater pond. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to provide civil engineer services and civil plan design. As this project progresses,the developer will provide additional details. The developer has generally discussed the above assumptions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. WETLANDS The developer has engaged Kjolhaug Environmental Services to conduct a wetland delineation for the subject property. A very small,unintended, man-made wetland was identified on the subject property(0.141 acres). Said delineation was sent to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed for review and is anticipated to receive a Notice of Decision in February as follows:"MCWD approves the boundaries and types and incidental status for the four wetlands identified in the application. This decision is valid for five years." The Army Corps of Engineers is also reviewing said wetland delineation and will provide a determination(expected in March). Page 8 of 8 .' 4.- •- -, ,';.•-- ., ,. . ,,..,, ,*-.!--',-- .-..---,--- ‘, _ ,..,..,. . ..r„ ... - .,- . / . 1,t „ . ' . ,, -., • LL,L..L.,,, , -L.L.... _i _ 0 —1-L .....:....... L__1_ .. 1: ..0,,.... : L — _ .,,,L ,, ,.....-- .— .,_ . . .. , • . .• 1.-6 .. 114,„,,,k•i-.0:: -17-- ,. L •7-7 v' _ -,,a-- :-.4, z„._,_4.-1 L-_-__1,-,..1 = el.imart.,65247-- ....- ,., . ..o .. , , . ,. „...- „.... . ..-- / / , ..,,:: . , , .. • I , ' ! . - ''.- - •,..I .4(t-T n' 11'..1 . . ..- .. - .... 1 . ,.,.. r ,, i .•.., . . jr1 1-----4---- . ,,j. ..._,....„ I i ,- - ,.. ',...... ...-..., --, - -or,' • .., ,.. . , . . -- -,,, • ..,.-,.. . A ,... •. '-- .',... ._.•,.., ..,..S.Z41, .....At-; '''' .' . '':';3•1, -777-'741°81244.7„!`;Z11 -' . tr-i';'''......,:-,,..-'''',,, ::.•”. '.4,,,tilliir ,. , .... 1„ 1 ' ' . .•',-',",,.. : , ' i,' '.' —1 t-F,1 r` V V, . . „,......-- „ ..-.........., ... „„,.... ,.... ... ---„,-.,.. -...,,,,,,_- ,. -,„.„...,„„- -•-.,„ . ........... • '... Abp. Cr.' -Mv'' . ' -,:, •--,- ' '\ N , N /. ......-,...- ,' ' N ,'....,.--... (.... (.....4 0 .., , , -' • c' ( /..i ' t .• .;,! >1., -t, ,, \\ .._. ,4 i(171,i ... 4, . ,,,. r- a .: . ,ffm,,,li,—...1.--,. k). 1—ay.. _ ,-- ct--t. .......-...,-- - ...- - '' ' ,•,.....,... .- ,,,, • CITY OF ORONO j Street Address: Mailing Address: Telephone(952)249-4600 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66 Fax (952)249-4616 Orono,MN 55356 Crystal Bay,MN 55323 www.ci.orono.mn.us 4kESHOR February 1, 2019 Patrick Brama VIA EMAIL 3601 18th Street South,#103 PatrickB@tridentdevelopmentmn.com St. Cloud, MN 56301, MN 55311 Re: Concept application#LA19-000006 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for a concept review for property located at the NW corner of Willow and Wayzata Blvd in Orono. Our preliminary review indicates that your application is complete. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 19, 2019. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative is available to attend the meeting. You will be emailed a staff report regarding your application prior to the meeting date; alternatively, the staff report and agenda will be made available the Friday prior to the meeting on the City's website at www.ci.orono.mn.us. Search for the Planning Commission materials under Agendas and Minutes. At this stage,I have some preliminary comments that if addressed,might be helpful as your project enters public review. Elevations. The narrative describes in general detail the architecture of the building. Elevation drawings will be beneficial. Though it is expected that the building materials continue the character established by the Stonebay project across the street,strong support for the project is unlikely without some level of elevation drawings. Parking. The site plan shows 61 parking spaces, yet the text indicates 59 surface stalls. Formal plans should include dimensions to ensure all spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet with a 24 foot wide aisle. Our requirement is 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The narrative suggests between 75 and 90 units, so 150-180 spaces would be required. The plans and narrative indicate 178 spaces. Trail. The plan shows a trail connecting Kelley Parkway to a crossing at Willow, in the SE corner of the site. The developer should be advised that a trail is being proposed as part of the Wayzata Blvd "turnback" project and the Developer will be asked to pay for their corresponding segment, credited against park dedication. Landscaping. The narrative suggests landscaping is under development. Staff recommends developing a landscaping plan that places an emphasis on natural groupings,and a variety of seasonal color and texture. Building Height. In past projects, the height of the building has been a central issue. With no building elevations and preliminary grading plan, no analysis of the building height can occur, and no comments can be provided. Staff understands the developer is not requesting,or expecting, and flexibility from the height limits. Density. This project is based on the recent proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan that supports residential development at densities of 20-25 units per acre, from the current, in place guidance of Office. It is important that I note that this proposed change has not yet been approved by the Metropolitan Council. The City will be unable to favorably act on a formal development proposal until the Met Council approves the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed number of units 75-90 fall within the desired density range. Fees. I have provided an estimate of fees associated with this project, assuming 75 units and 75 SAC units. Final numbers will be determined at the time of Final Plat approval and Building Permit issuance. Park dedication is applied on a per unit cost, and the City Council establishes a minimum and maximum land value range due to the wide range of land values in Orono. The minimum land value range is$3,250.00. Park dedication for 75 dwelling units is$243,750.00. Full methodology is attached. Utility fees. Sanitary sewer and water connection charges are based on a per unit costs. Assuming 75 SAC units, where the Met Council determines the number of SAC units, the Water connection charge is $318,000 ($4,250 x 75 SAC units) and the sanitary sewer is$391,875 ($5,225 x 75 SAC units). The City charges a Storm Water Trunk fee,which is based on a density number applied to the number of acres. For attached family development with a density of 43 units per acre or more,the charge of$8,490 per acre,or$31,328 ($8,490 x 3.69). Next Steps. Following Planning Commission and City Council feedback, as well as Met Council approval of the 2020- 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the property will need to be rezoned, platted, and the Master Development Plan approved. I will be your primary contact through the review process, please direct all information or questions to me. I can be reached at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO (2447 Jeremy Barnhart,AICP Community Development Director Sec.78-626.- Development standards. Within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: (1) Minimum area;shore/and district/imitation. Each site proposed for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland,floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the council finds the existence of one of the following: a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. No property located within 250 feet of the ordinary high water level(OHWL)of a protected lake or tributary as defined in article IX of this chapter shall be rezoned to RPUD. However,for a property that is partially located less than 250 feet from the OHWL and partially located more than 250 feet from the OHWL,the portion located more than 250 feet from the OHWL may be rezoned to RPUD at the discretion of the city council when all other requirements are met. (2) Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this division. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the metropolitan council for review. (3) Sewer availability.A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with proposed density greater than one unit per two acres must be in the metropolitan urban services area (MUSA)and must be serviced by municipal sewer. (4) Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. If the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan for residential use,the appropriate density shall be determined by the city based upon the city council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this division and of the comprehensive plan. Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the comprehensive plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and guided for residential use. (5) Incentives.The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density(only for properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use)and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for at least 20 years. (6) Floor area ratio. Floor area ratios(FARs)shall be limited per the following table: Comprehensive Plan Designation Maximum Floor Area Ratio* Low or medium density residential (up to 50 and 0.5 including 6.0 units per acre) High density residential (in excess of 6.0 units per acre) 1 .0 *FAR=Total Building Floor Area/Total Lot Area Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. (7) Development standards for attached and multifamily dwelling structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or multiple-family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following standards: a. Setbacks and separation of uses.Within the RPUD district the setback for all attached and multifamily dwelling buildings and their accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building.The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35 feet, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a RPUD site.The setback for parking structures, including decks and ramps, shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater,when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet,when adjacent to nonresidential properties. Parking structure setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site.Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single-family lots outside the RPUD site,greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening.The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features, such as roadways and wetlands,which provide separation of uses. Property rezoned to RPUD shall be considered a residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent high density residential,commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD. b. Height limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the comprehensive plan, a building height limit of 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the comprehensive plan for commercial use, height may exceed 30 feet but shall not exceed three stories(not including underground parking level)and shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple-family building will be allowed. c. Outside storage limitations. Building materials, recreational vehicles, boats, RVs,snowmobiles, and other items of personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for attached or multifamily uses. (8) Development standards for single-family detached dwellings in the RPUD district. Each RPUD site developed for single-family detached dwellings at medium density(i.e.,densities ranging from one unit per acre to six units per acre)shall be subject to the following standards: a. Permitted locations: in areas of the city where smaller single-family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density detached single-family dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the overall guided density. b. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 square feet. c. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet. d. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet. e. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must be provided on local streets and a 50-foot setback on collector or arterial streets,as defined in the comprehensive plan. f. Minimum side yard setback:ten feet along interior lot lines; 15 feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD site. Side yards abutting streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted in subsection (8)e of this section.Structures in side yards abutting another residential zoning district shall meet the side yard setback requirement of the adjacent zoning district. g. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of the lot,whichever is less. h. Building height: maximum of 30 feet. i. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width.All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. j. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the state building code. k. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for principal structures, except as follows: 1. All accessory structures located more than ten feet from a principal structure may be located a minimum of ten feet from a rear or side lot line when that line does not abut a street right-of-way. 2. No accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal structure setback. I. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height. m. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each single-family dwelling.A suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and indicated as such on a site plan or certified site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing garage. (9) More than one building al/owed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site. (10) Single housing type permitted.Any RPUD development which involves a single housing type shall be permitted, provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this division and the comprehensive plan. (11) Private recreational area. Each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents.Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools,trails, nature areas, picnic areas,tot lots and saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition to the standard park dedication requirements. (12) Ownership.All property to be included within a RPUD development shall be under unified ownership or control, or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. (13) Signage.Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants. (14) Landscaping,screening and buffering. a. Landscape plan requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city,drawn to the scale of not less than one inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: 1. Boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; 2. Locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads,trails and other improvements; 3. Proposed grading plan with two-foot contour intervals; 4. Location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; 5. A planting schedule containing symbols,quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; 6. Planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; 7. Locations and details of other landscape features, including berms,fences and planter boxes; S. Details of restoration of disturbed areas, including areas to be sodded and seeded; 9. Location and details of irrigation systems;and 10. Details and cross sections of all required screening. b. Minimum landscaping requirements. 1. All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives,trail. landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species, including overstory tree! flowers and groundcover materials.The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bush sculpture,foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Minimum Tree and Shrub Requirements Vegetation Type Size Quantity Overstory 2.5-inch bb One tree per 1 ,000 gross square feet of deciduous trees (Caliper) building footprint area or one tree per 40 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. Coniferous trees 6-foot height bb Minimum of 30 percent of required overstory trees must be coniferous Understory shrubs 3-gal. potted or 18- One shrub per 300 gross square feet of inch building footprint area or one shrub per 30 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. Ornamental 1 .5-inch bb Not required; but two ornamental deciduous trees (Caliper) deciduous trees may be substituted for one required overstory deciduous tree (maximum substitution equals 25 percent of required overstory deciduous trees) Credits for existing trees: The city council shall have sole discretion whether credit shall be granted for existing healthy trees In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development,the application of the standards in subsection(14)b of this section may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this division. 2. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. 3. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 21/2 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 11/2 inches. 4. All site areas not covered by buildings,sidewalks, parking lots, driveways,trails, patios, or similar hardcover shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city.This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. 5. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one-and two- family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure.A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas, except areas to be preserved in a natural state. 6. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species.The city shall maintain a list of prohibited species,which shall not be used for landscaping. c. Interior parking lot landscaping. 1. All parking lots containing over 100 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the city.All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the 100-stall standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. 2. Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the planning commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the planning commission. d. Maintenance of landscaping.The owner,tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan,and which have died, shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However,the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. e. Retaining walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height,and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than four tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. f. Landscaping performance security required.When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this division, a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 11/2 times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements.The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements.The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping.The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. If construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals,the city may,at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety.The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping, if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions,which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions.When an extension is granted,the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. g. Screening and buffering. 1. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this section: i. Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than four units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any R district. ii. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. iii. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. iv. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. v. Access roads serving multifamily buildings shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. 2. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences,walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials.All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1.The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. 3. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. 4. Screening or buffering required by subsection (14)of this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of subsection (14)of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage,trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required under subsection (14)of this section shall be measured at the time of installation. (15) Architectural standards. a. It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the city and shall show the following for all structures other than single-family detached dwellings: 1. Elevations of all sides of the building. 2. Type and color of exterior building materials. 3. A typical floor plan. 4. Dimensions of all structures. 5. The location of trash and recycling containers and of heating,ventilation and air conditioning equipment. b. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings.This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings.The city may,at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. c. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. d. All rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. e. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures(the term "substantially renovated" shall mean when the renovations exceed 30 percent of the prerenovation value of the structure). (16) Flexibility.The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them.The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements, if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD,the surrounding area or the city as a whole. (17) Traffic studies.The city may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the city to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated,the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts.The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems.The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. (18) Building permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development. (19) General regulations applicability.The requirements contained in this division pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as deemed appropriate by the city. (20) Lighting standards.All RPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting in this chapter. (21) Trails.When any portion of the project is within 1,000 feet of a public trail system, pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer's expense. Where public rights-of-way are available,at the city's discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of- way.Trails shall be of bituminous construction,or such other material as may be approved by the city and shall be not less than eight feet in width. (Ord. No.202 2nd series, § 1(5), 2-26-2001; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, §2, 9-24-2012; Ord. No. 189 3rd series, §6,4-10-2017) Date Application Received: January 17,2019 � Date Application Considered as Complete:January 17,2019 �- . V r 60-Day Review Period Expires: N/AS 0 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members �� �, Dustin Rief, City Administrator t�kxsH0 From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: February 19, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000002, Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400 Deering Island, Concept Plan,Amend MUSA boundary Application Summary: The applicant is requesting Planning Commission and City Council feedback on a potential applicant to expand the MUSA boundary to allow for sanitary sewer connection on Deering Island. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests feedback on the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan and the MUSA boundary. Background Deering Island is a 2.79 acre island within Lake Minnetonka, and is located on the west side of the city limits of Orono. The nearest land mass is in the City of Mound, and the owner of Deering Island owns the adjacent parcel in Mound. Deering Island currently consists of a cabin type building with an accessory structure. Much of the edges of the island are treed,though, based on aerial photography,there are open spaces in the interior of the island. The property owner desires to extend sanitary sewer services from Mound to Deering Island. The City of Mound has provided a preliminary response related to the request, attached as Exhibit D. Mound would serve the island, and bill the property owner directly. The City of Orono would not extend pipe or sanitary sewer service of any kind to the island. Applicable Standards. The timeline to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has expired,the City must wait until the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been accepted by the Met Council and put into effect by the City Council before an amendment can be formally considered. The proposed amendment is to the comprehensive plan. The City Council has a large amount of discretion when considering a change to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Council are asked for initial feedback before undertaking the time and expense in planning and engineering the connection. 2040 Comprehensive Plan The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes 6 priorities as guides for considering modification to the MUSA: (These priorities are identical in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan). FILE#LA19-000002 February 19,2019 Page 2 of 3 Table 4B-12: MUSA Expansion Priorities Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes Properties that abut City-protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Priority 2 Shoreland Overlay District Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available Priority 3 to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said Priority 5 system. Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by priorities 1,2, 3, 4,or 5. The Comprehensive Plan provides additional guidance. If at least one of the following Conditions are met: Conditions* Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only when one of the following conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system,does not have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines,and is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral project. 3. When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City's sewered density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. *These Priorities and Conditions are subject to change pending Met Council review and approval. Predicted Density,Based on Netenst` Ta 'le 3B-4,2040 CMP 4400 Net Predicted Deering Residential Lowest #of Calculated (2.79 acres, Acres Guided units Density 1 unit) (NRA) Density (C x D) No Change 214.2 891 4.16 With 217 0.5 892 4.11 Amendment Serving the property will decrease the City's sewered density, but not below the 3.0 units per acre required by the Met Council. FILE#LA19-000002 February 19,2019 Page 3 of 3 Septic System Status Additional information as the status of the system and alternative sites is necessary prior to formal application. Analysis Based on the information provided, it does appear that the island fits Priority 1; and Condition 2 can be satisfied,though additional information on alternative sites will be needed prior to consideration of a formal amendment. Condition 3 cannot be fully met;not parcel greater than 1/3 of an acre could meet this standard. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the request is supported by the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map Exhibit C. Narrative Exhibit D. Mound Letter Exhibit E. Orono Comment Letter Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/17/2019 Address: 4400 DEERING ISLAND MOUND, MN 55364 Parcel Number: 1811723310001 Land Use Number: LA19-000002 Application Submitted Agent on behalf of property owner By: Owner: Name: KRUCKEBERG REAL ESTATE Address: HOLDINGS LLC 500 MINIMIZER WAY BLOOMING PRAIRIE, MN 55917 Applicant: Name: Scott Gates Address: 545 2nd Street #298, EXCELSIOR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 scottagates@msn.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Dan Gallus D.gallus@mchsi.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: MUSA Extension to run Sewer from Mound, MN to Deering Island Land Use Application Amendmend Application Type: Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application r-- Applicant Signature: Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 1/18/2019 r ray ,2 i / :1 Itr • a r 4 o e • `0@4nr g nU #. i 4 s il .. - ., , N, aillt n k,. i fr 'tlAT I'. +" . ••#•••f•#••i•■•3 x i••4•••i3:•. Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: I ( i i l i i i t This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with norepresentation as to completeness or accuracy;(i)Is furnshedwfthnowarranty of any knd; and (ii) is notsuitable forNgal,engineering or sur%eting Pur poses.Hennepin County shal not bailable for anydamage,injury '.. or loss resulting from tNs data. For route Information,contact Hennepin CountyGlS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/grs.info@hennepin.us MUSA EXTENSION - DEERING ISLAND 4400 Deering Island Orono, MN 55364 Hennepin County utirna as ` a PROPERTY DATA: • 3.02 +1- acres Island on Lake Minnetonka • Includes an appx. 1,100 sq ft 2BR one level home • Electric is run from mainland • Water(well) and sewer (septic system) • Zoning is "Seasonal Recreation" thru City of Orono MUSA EXTENSION PROPOSAL—DEERING ISLAND The 4400 Deering Island property is now under common ownership with the property directly across the channel to the West at the end of Shorewood Lane in Mound, MN. The island has a private well and septic system at present. The septic system is older and was planned to be upgraded by the new owner at some point. The Mound property is currently undergoing reconstruction, and during meetings with the City of Mound a suggestion was made by Mound staff that city services could possibly be run to the island during construction of the Shorewood Lane property. Mound staff, including Planning and Public Works have indicated a willingness to provide City utility services to Deering Island, provided the City of Orono agreed and approved. It was identified that a requirement of approval would include extending MUSA boundaries to include Deering Island. An informal conversation with the Met Council indicated such an extension would be possible. In speaking with City of Orono staff, it appears an extension of City services to the island would be consistent with Orono's policy of providing lakeshore properties with municipal sewer (and water). The owners representatives have investigated feasibility of this project and found it possible, and potentially favorable. The island is appx. 475 feet from shoreline to shoreline from the owners Mound property. Extending services would involve directional boring, under the lake bottom, an estimated appx. 650 feet in total. It appears costs will be higher than replacing existing septic (and possibly well), but considering the other benefits and long term value the higher cost may be justified. The first step in this process would be Orono approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend MUSA boundaries to include Deering Island. Once approved by Orono application would be made to Met Council. Our understanding in speaking with Met Council and others is this is a relatively simple process, often a simple administrative action, however, due to their ongoing 2040 Comp Plan amendment process, it may take significant additional time than normal. Boring contractors have indicated a preference in doing this work during winter conditions. The new construction on the Shorewood property is expected to be complete and new landscaping installed by fall 2019. If this boring project cannot be undertaken until winter 2019, it will require disruption of that new landscaping, and as such completing the approval process as quickly as possible is a priority. Once approved by the City of Orono and Met Council, the following actions would also be completed; a joint agreement between Orono and Mound to provide Mound municipal services, a permit from the DNR, a SAC(/WAC) fee determination would be made, and construction permits would be obtained. The owners respectfully ask the City of Orono to consider this request for MUSA extension at it's earliest convenience, and, if approved, submission of a Comp. Plan Amendment to extend MUSA boundaries to include the Deering Island property be submitted for approval to the Met Council. Scott Gates Owners Representative 612-670-7268 scottagates@msn.com P .4'44'' 1 ''''':*- .4 . 3 , ... , ,, v _ Y� ((r:4'1°11"i) I~ 2415 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD MOUND,MN 55364-1668•PH:952-472-0600• FAX:952-472-0620•WWW.CITYOFMOUND. COM February 5, 2019 By US Mail and Email Jeremy Barnhart,AICP City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356-4510 RE: Inquiry Regarding Sewer Extension from City of Mound to Property at 4400 Doering Island in the City of Orono Dear Mr. Barnhart: Thank you for your email inquiry dated February 1,2019 about the proposed extension of sewer from the City of Mound to the property located at 4400 Doering Island in the City of Orono. Staff respectfully offers the following information: 1. The City of Mound would require some form of formal release from the City of Orono,in the form of a memorandum or letter to the owner, allowing the owner to seek connection to Mound-owned utility systems in lieu of separate private systems as there are only impractical or no options to connect to Orono systems.The City of Mound should be included as a recipient on this letter. 2. If released by the City of Orono, the City of Mound would allow for connection of this property to its water and sewer systems,subject to the collection of SAC, Sewer Trunk Area Charges,and Water Trunk Area Charges(number of units TBD). This would initiate quarterly utility billing against the property that would be billed directly to the property by the City of Mound. 3. The City of Mound would consider the connection infrastructure to be fully private services beyond the existing limits of Mound public infrastructure and the responsibility of the owner to maintain over time. 4. The City of Mound would anticipate the owner gaining any and/or all easement(s), as may be necessary,for the lateral corridors. The owner shall also be responsible for obtaining any/all other-agency permits for the waterbody crossing and related construction activity and providing copies of all required permits to the City of Mound prior to the commencement of any involved or related work. Mr.Jeremy Barnhart Page 2 February 5,2019 5. Mound's extension of sewer outside of the City of Mound's corporate boundaries for the subject property in Orono will require formal approval by the Mound City Council. Please feel free to contact me at 952-472-0609 or by email at Erichoversten@cityofmound.com. Best regards, . tic Hoversten City Manager/Director of Public Works Cc: Sarah Smith,Community Development Director ojo CITY OF ORONo A ,. Street Address: Mailing Address: Telephone(952)249-4600 1. L� 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66 Fax (952)249-4616 !q Orono,MN 55356 Crystal Bay,MN 55323 www.ci.orono.mn.us KESHOCA February 1, 2019 Scott Gates VIA EMAIL 545 2' Street,#298 scottagates@msn.com Excelsior,MN 55331 Re: Concept application#LA19-000006 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen(15)business days as to the status of your application for a concept review for property located at 4400 Deering Island. Our preliminary review indicates that your application received on January 17,2019 is complete. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 19, 2019. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative is available to attend the meeting. You will be emailed a staff report regarding your application prior to the meeting date;alternatively,the staff report and agenda will be made available the Friday prior to the meeting on the City's website at www.ci.orono.mn.us. Search for the Planning Commission materials under Agendas and Minutes. At this stage, I have some preliminary comments that if addressed, might be helpful as your project enters public review. 1. A letter or similar written correspondence from the City of Mound indicating support for the connection would be beneficial. 2. The Met Council imposed deadline has passed for the City Council to consider an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. A formal amendment may not be approved until the Met Council approves the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. Assuming approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Plan discusses the potential for MUSA expansion based on the following criteria,found in Chapter 4B*. Table 4B-12: MUSA Expansion Priorities Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes Properties that abut City-protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Priority 2 Shoreland Overlay District Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems abd do not have an alternative site available Priority 3 to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said Priority 5 system. Priority 6 I New or existing development not covered by priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. And the following conditions: Conditions* Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only when one of the following conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system,does not have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines, and is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral project. 3. When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City's sewered density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. *These Priorities and Conditions are subject to change pending Met Council review and approval. Among these and additional factors,the Council will consider your request. 4. You should expect to pay all costs to extend service the property and applicable connection fees. 5. The property owner should not expect support for a rezoning, or for subdivision for lots that do not meet the minimum lot area(5 acres)and width(200 feet)requirements of the zoning ordinance. Next Steps. Following Planning Commission and City Council feedback, as well as Met Council approval of the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan, a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will need to be reviewed and approved. I will be your primary contact through the review process, please direct all information or questions to me. I can be reached at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@aci.orono.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO CL7 Jeremy Barnhart,AICP Community Development Director