Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-10-2005 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 10,2005,7:00 F.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. COUNCIL MEETM6 ROLLCALL _ .OCT 102006 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ^^CITY OF ORONO CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of September 26,200S PRESENTATION 3. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (Dakota Rail Corridor) PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Paul Pesek, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Travis Winkey, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS • (Limit 5 Miiutcs Per Persoa) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #03*3080 Interspace West, 2060 Wayzala Boulevard West - PUD/D jvelopment Plan Approval Documents and Resolution 5. #05*3115 WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 6. #05*3121 Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit 7. #05*3136 Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive * Variance 8. #05*3149 Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue North - Conditional Use Permit * 9. #05*3151 GaiyandSandraBaron, 3619 North Shore Drive* Variances-Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT to. Request for Final Payment * Webber Hills Extension Sanitary Sewer Project 11. Brown Road North/County Road 6 Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment * Resolution 12. 755 Dickey Lake Drive Smitaiy Sewer Extension Assessment * Resolution 13. Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Extension Assessment * Resolution 14. Fox Ridge Project Sanitary Sewer Connection (25 Brown Road South) Assessment * Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1 1 i • AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 10,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 15. LICENSES Temporaiy On Sale Liquor License * 16. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2005 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. • 3:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Lili McMillan) Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. • 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. • 3:00 p.m. Daylight Saving Time ends 11/02 11/04 11/05 11/07 11/11 11/14 11/15 11/15 11/24 11/25 11/28 Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. • 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. > 3:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Lili McMillan) HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day, Friday Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison -Bob Sansevere) HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. % ■ ■ H . . / ‘ T k • >, .?•• ' r -- ■* “br ___J Public Attendance MectingD atc ^C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please ntLouTTHE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (pkue print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. fr A lo.l>o\/ H'-/ kh I <r~, T t r.'t!A (XXdw' ^ttcto 3. « 1 . 8. ^Ar^c>/J Pl v-1 Pnoo“\'^^ 0. ul oj 10. / 1 y H Cr>JLf ti./^Lo)s jtl^locd ^<(5? tv/f'?. Av|£,1.6) (9-9Ai pf ij<^\i)i)i0i Acpc. loo li Q ^^ j? j!^ f\[jj^y .0 Ma/2,‘<?y'cAAiM*IX/ jV. 0 XT Public A ttendance Meeting D ate □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please ntLOUTTHE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (pteBsc prfait)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agcoda) NAME OR NUMBER I. Ezi/a/t/ 2. CVui^Vl KJ 3. C\a K s iZoo Pt;«HipsPr. 4. ..... 6. 7. S. 9. 10.. 11. 13. 14. 15. WlUimiBiHrBiitn lippBHiiyiWiBNti i; MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEE flNG Monday, Sq>teniber 26,2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. COUNCIL MEETING OCT 102005 OF ORONO I ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; C ouk U members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Lili McMillan; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were, City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Oaffron, Planners Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis; Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approvc/Amend Items S, 10,11,12,13, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. White moved, McMltUa seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGLTLAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12,200S Whim moved, McMIHaa seconded, to approve the Minutes of September 12,2005, as sabndtted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARKCOI IISSION CO)I INTS - CHARLES KROGNESS Krogness stated drat he had no new information to share as the Park Commission would be meeting the following week. Murphy encouraged the Commission to take a closer look at the Rural Oasis Study’s relevance to parks 1^ pertinent codes. He indicated a willingness to meet with the Commission over the winter months to work dan the study and have a dialogue with the Commission regarding its relevance. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - ROLAND JURGENS Jurgens stated that he had nothing to report, but would remain for questions. PUBUC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT PAGE 1 of 10 I !S I :i- :. • OV'- • MINUTES OF THE (mONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. J, #05.3080 INTERSPACE WEST, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST - rUD/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Oundlach explained that this was the final review stage of the PUD process and that the applicants are requesting B-6 PUD General Development Plan approval. Final Plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common lot, Commercial Site Plan approval in order to obtain a building permit; and Easement Vacations in conjunction with dedication of new easements. Gundlach noted that since the April meeting before the City Council, the applicante had been determining whetficr or not they would revise their grading plan to incorporate a westerly entrance in anticipation of die Highway 12 turn-back to Hennepin County. Tte applicants have since that functionally and financially the access could not be revised and would like to proceed with their original plan the Council recommended for approval. Though the qiplicants have submitted a majority of the items necessary, the following items would be required prior to filing of the plat with Hennepin County; a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Permit; Signed PUD No. 2C Agreement/Development Contract and signed mylan; Original copy of the title opinion; Fees in the amount of SI 8,079.00; and a Letter of Credit in the minunum amount of S822.848.63. which might be increased to cover the proposed StormTech system now being proposed by the applicants. At this time, Gundlach recommended the City Council table the applicant ’s final approvals in order to allow the Engineer and sUff adequate time to review the StormTech proposal and collect the appropriate documentation and fees from the applicants. PngiiM^ Kellogg indicated that his firm had just received the StormTech information on Friday and had net had sufficient time to analyze the proposal and weigh long-term maintenance issues with die product. Gina Carlson interjected that tiiis was the first she’d heard of the recommendation for tabling and objected to the recommendation stating that their engineer had designed the StormTech system to contain the water runoff on site. She indicated that both Mn/DOT and MCWD had voiced their support pending final investigation. With regard to the increase in the letter of credit, she stated that, in her opinion, they were improving the site’s water treatment program and should be entitled to a decrease as opposed to an increase. Carlson asked to be given approvals based on contingencies. White stated that, although her request was not unreasonable, the City had concerns with regard to long-term maintenance. Kellogg noted that tiie catch basins must be maintained and the fine particles cleaned from the basins on occasion. Phil Carlson suggested that the City grant approttals subject to City Engineer approval and the requited document changes. He indicated that the association would be responsible for long-term maintenance. .... 1 PAGE 2 of 10 lAitiiliMinllllSil '^j 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sqytember 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (3. MS-3080 tNTERSFACE WEST, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, Continued) While Gaflron acknowledged that several of the changes could be handled administratively, he commented that the StormTech system would be installed merely for rate control; therefore, not entitled to credits. Sansevere asked how long the City Engineer ’s firm v'ould need to complete their analysis of the StormTech system. Kellogg stated that it would not take long, likely just a few days. White encouraged staff and the engineer to move forward and complete the changes and analysis in a timely fashion so that the applicants could proceed soon. While he, too, wished to see the applicants proceed, Murphy stated that the unfinished details lead to other implications and he preferred to see staff ensure ongoing maintenance does not become an issue. In reality, Gaf&on stated that the maintenance agreements, letter of credit, changes and other details c<^d be resolved within a few weeks, though the City was not in receipt of the MCWD permits; therefore, the applicant cannot file a plat until these items are received. Mayor Peterson commented that it seems there are always a few additional loose ends that need to be tied up and she could not support the application until she was confident that staff had everything in order to move forward with a recommendation. Gina Carlson stated once again that she was agitated that she had not been informed until this evening that the application was to be tabled. She stated that, had she known, she might have been able to resolve some of the details in advance of the meeting. Gaffron stated that the staff had only learned this afternoon that the engineers were not given enough time to resolve questions. Murphy suggested that the City be supplied with the necessary information before the next City Council meeting so ftiat all of the conditions could be removed from the recommendation and they be granted approvals. Gaffton indicated that 2 weeks should be adequate time to finalize the details, as long as MnDOT and MCWD have given the city their stamp of approval. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to table #05*3080 Interspace West Inc., 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West Adoptlou: Final Plat Resolution and Pt’D/Developnient Contract to allow the inglntTn time far review and other details to be finalized. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 3 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CiTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sqitember 26,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. M. #05-3095 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING ON BEHALF OF GREGG STEINHAFEL, 2265 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5380 Wklte moved, McMlIlu soconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5380, a RcMlutlon granting a CUP to allow conttmctlon of a permanent piling dock in the bed of Lake Minnetonka to extend throngh a lake perimeter wetland for the reeidence at 2265 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayee 5, Nayi 0. *5. #05-3109 NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH ’S WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD - VARIANCE/REVISED SIGNAGE PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 5381 White nwved, McMillan eeconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5381, a Resolution <Mag previonaly approved R^ln^n #5331 with regard to signage for 3655 Togo Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #05-3129 ASCENT INVESTMENTS, INC. ON BAHALF OF DOUGLAS KLINT, 1345 REST POINT LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5382 White moved, McMiUan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5382, a Resointioa graatiag lot area and lot width variaaces for 1345 Rest Point Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE Curtis explained that a CUP to allow the addition of 5,400 cubic yards of grading was added to the applicant’s initial request for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new home on the property. The exported fill would facilitate walk-outs on the front and back of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variance and denial of the conditional use permit. Curtis stated that planning staff also reconunends approval of the lot width variance subject to the City Engineer’s approval of the proposed grading plan. She pointed out that the City had received numerous comments from neighboring property owners, many of which were present, and that issues for consideration include: is the grading plan appropriate for the neighbwhood: should the retaining wall along the driveway area of the 90X45’ paiidng apron be moved to meet a greater setback to allow for no need to im;>o>:: on the neighboring property, to allow for better screening opportunities, and to reduce the pcvtnx al impacts associated with a garage apron that could hold nearly 20 cars. Sansevere stated that he had reservations as to even allowing the lot width variance to go forward. He asked why the applicant chose to move forward to City Council having been denied by the Plaiming Conunission. Curtis stated that, at this width, the applicant will be losing his ability to adequately screen the proposed building if granted. With regard to Sansevere's inquiry, Broitzman stated that he saw no where in the City Code a reason for denial of what he proposed. He stated that he had gone to great lengths to be very PAGE 4 of 10 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. n. 1(05-3136 TROY BROnZMAN, I860 SHOREUNE DRIVE, Continued) upfront with all of the neighbors with regard to his plans and, in fact, he had been granted construction easements by his neighbors to build. Broitzman stated that the only comment he recalled receiving from any of the neighbors was to change the proposed surface of the driveway retaining wall to a stone, rather than brick, facade. With regard to screening, Broitzman stated that he intended to plant mature trees on both he and his neighbors’ properties. Sansevere stated that, according to the neighbor’s letters, they do not agree that this design will fit into the character of the neighborhood or the land itself. Broitzman stated that City Code allows him 15% structural coverage on his property, of which he has only proposed about 7.5%. McMillan stated that, though the formula works to his advantage, she felt he was overdeveloping the lot. Furthermore, similar to the County, she stated that she, too, would like to see the driveway access off Heritage Drive as opposed to County Road 15 in an effort to minimize the curb cuts on the county road and would make this part of her recommendation. Broitzman stated that he brought in the County for their opinion for a second driveway off Heritage, not a replacement for the one off County Road 15. He stated that, from what he understood of the codes, he could not be forced to change the existing driveway. Murphy stated that he had spoken to and received a letter from Mr. Nelson, a neighbor, who felt he was misled by the applicant, as were many other neighbors who felt they were told numerous different stories. Murphy stated that he could not support moving this amount of dirt to create or overhaul this piece of land to suit the applicant’s desire for walkouts. Mayor Peterson commented that she was disturbed by the way the applicant had raped the lot of trees and its history and found it difficult to support a lot width variance for something so expansive and out of character for the neighborhood. White pointed out that the purpose of the zoning code is to implement the comp plan. Aesthetics and what is appropriate to fit in with the character of an area makes up a piece of the comp plan. In addition, the comp plan is designed to protect what the city holds dear which is the character and stability of a neighborhood, as noted by the adopted Rural Oasis Study. He indicated that he would not support altering the appearance, in bulk, for something that he felt failed on every count of the Ordinance that he could identify with regard to the compatibility of the neighborhood. McMillan stated that she would only approve a lot width variance if extra side setbacks were implemented to allow for additional drainage and screening. She maintained that the applicant had adequate space to build a decent new home on this lot but not enough extra room to allow him to remove by CUP soil to create walkouts. She could not support land alteration to simply make it convenient for the applicant to implement this proposal. Broitzman stated that he purchased the lot because of its view and character of Orono. PAGE 5 of 10 F ! ■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sq)tember 26, 200S 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. ms-sm TROY BROITZMAN, I960 SHOREUNE DRIVE, Continued) Sansevere pointed out that, ironically, this character and view are the things he has proposed to change most dramatically widi this proposal. Broitzman stated that he found it frustrating that the new home, though more nanow than the cxnrent home, and despite his willingness to plant trees on his and his neighbor's properties that he could be denied. McMillan pointed out that each homeowner must be able to adequately screen their home within their own property boundaries. She could not support his screening on adjoining property owner’s hmne sites. Murphy suggested the applicant team up with a contractor or architect who knows the Orono area and design a home that fits more within the character he found so appealing. Sansevere stated that he did not recall ever hearing from so many neighbors as he had on this project. Mayor Peterson pointed out that, while the neighbors support the prospect of a new home, it is the sheer magnitude of the proposal that they find disconcerting. Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated that, as an immediate neighbor, he had received incomplete communication. While construction easements were granted because the neighbors recogiiized that something would be built on the site, the CUP calls for permanent land alteration and concrete swales which do not fit within the character of the neighborhood. Cowwd stated that he believed the proposal would have a negative impact on neighboring property values and questioned how a subst«indard sized lot with a wid^ oft 33' and 1.9 dry buildable acres could support a house almost 6.5 times larger than the current home. In his estimation, it was a large home for a small lot. Coward continued, pointing out that the structure itself would appear to be 3 stories tall or more from their perspective on their site, and that the applicant would be constructing a retaining wall 5 ’ off their property line the entire length with inadequate room for screening. With regard to the neighbors on the opposite side, Coward pointed out that even at 30’ from the property line, the home will still tower over the neighbor and diade them entirely. He noted that the screening that did exist, 40-50 ’ tall pine trees, had been removed by the applicant and no longer exist. In addition, the average lakeshore as equated, gives the Cowards a very limited lake view, other than that of cars, now that the trees have been removed. Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated that this kind of project in a neighborhood like this is completely out of character for not only the neighborhood, but also the community. Bob Stignna, 1930 ShcM-eline Drive, questioned whether what the applicant was proposing to build was a residence or an apartment building/hotel. Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, stated that he believed the City Council was asking the right questions and understood the neighbors’ concerns. He agreed that the access should be changed to Heritage Drive. Nettles pointed out that hardships as recognized by the Code must be inherent to OiSm PAGE 6 of 10 . i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CFTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 26,2005 7:00 0 clock p.m. (7. H$5-3134 TROY BROITZMAN, SHCMEUNE DRIVE, CtH^ued) the land and not be imposed because the land does not fit the design of the applicant’s proposed home. Jenny Charrier, 1910 HeriUge Drive, the opposite immediate neighbor, acknowledged that, though the applicant can develop the property, she questioned the scale to which they proposed to do so. She stated diat she would be subjected to viewing an enormous wall the entire length of her driveway and property line, views obstructed and entirely shaded, and any sense of (nivacy that once existed would be greatly compromised. Charlie Kiogness, 185 S. Brown Road, stated that this proposal was absolutely not reflective of the character of Orono that the Rural Oasis Study was implemented to preserve. He urged the City Council, in all good conscience, not to support such an atrocity. Sansevere stated that, spec home or not, the proposed home did not fit the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Peterson stated that she could not support the CUP and found no reason to support the variance request, which simply allowed the applicant to build the design of his choice. She suggested he go back to meet with staff and design a proposal that fit the property. Broitzman pointed out that his biggest concern centered on the fact that the wording of the CUP doesn’t set limits, as a moving target, he would not know what is acceptable or not While he maintained diat the size of his structure fell within the 15% allowance and that he has met height restrictions, he did not understand the letter of the law as it pertained to the CUP. Sansevere asked the applicant whether he had consulted with staff when he put together his proposal to move 5,400 cubic yards of fill or asked for input with regard to the lot width variance to see if diese were reasonable requests. Broitzman stated that he had worked with the Engineer to determine how the drainage would work out with his design. He pointed out that he was within his legal rights to take down the dees he did, as he preferred a view of the lake to trees. Mayor Peterson stated that the City Council could vote on his application as presented which might mean he could not come before Council again for 6 months, or he could table his application for redesign purposes. Broitzman requested that the City Council table his application. White indicated that he would not allow the applicant to lay a virtual parking lot next to a neighbor’s property in a residential neighborhood, as this i^an proposal clearly does not fit the character of Orono. Murphy acknowledged that the applicant wished to be given a strict interpretation of everything, as opposed to what obviously fits within the City conq> plan. He stated that, in his opinion, the PAGE 7 of 10 T 4 • i ' ! ' ‘ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 26,200S 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. M5-3J36 TROY BROITZMAN, 1360 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) applicant ’s neighbors were being quite cordial. He saw no hardship to support either the variance or CUP. McMillan pointed out that the mere proximity of his neighbors demands additional sensitivity in this case. Attorney Barrett stated that the CUP is an additional piece in the application process and encouraged the applicant to design a home that fit the land under the current conditions. Less is more in many situations. Marphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to table applicadoa #05*3136, Troy Broitzmaa, IMO Shorellae Drive, for pnrposes of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #05-3145 ICO LANDSCAPE LLC ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND VICKY NELSON, 679 MINNETONKA HIGHLANDS LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5383 White nwved, McMMIaa soeonded, adoptiag RES(H.UTION NO. 5383, a Resolution granting a conditionl nsc permit and hardcover variance ter 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 *9. #05-3150 TIM POWERS ON BEHALF OF KEVIN GRELL, 1945 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5384 White nmvcd, McMillan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5384, a Resointion graatiag a roar yard setback and hardcover variance for 1945 Fagemess Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, NaysO. *10. #05-3154 OTY OF ORONO RURAL OASIS STUDY-AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE White moved, McMiNaa seconded, to condMionaily approve 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan Anmadment #3 regardiag the Orono Rnral Oasis Stndy, snbject to review and comment by the hletropoUtaa Conncil, and direct staff to formaily snbmit the amendment to the Metropolitan ConneU. VOTE: Ayes 5, NaysO. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT McMillan commented that the schools were presenting a new referendum, noting that legislation has put the funding burden back on local propert)- owners and municipalities. Gaffion reported that the courts had resolved the disputed land disagreement between the Floyds and Brooks near West Femdale granting the Floyds the road easement; however, as a result, the Floyds believe they can continue their non-conforming fence line and obstruct the Brooks' access to their property. Gaffiron stated that it is the City's perspective that the Floyds do not have the right Ib PAGE 8 of 10 i a J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (MA YOM/Cnr COVNOL REPORT, Conthuied) to establish s gate on the City’s designated public right-of-way that denies the Brooks ’ access to dieir property. He asked for City Council input. White stated that he believed the fence should be eliminated altogether. Gaffron stated that the fence is not locked currently, though the Floyds have indicated their intention to do so. He pointed out once again that the fence is in the public right-of-way. Attorney Barrett pointed out that, if the fence is in the public right of way, there is no question that the City has the legal authority to remove the gate, as Ais neighbor has no authority to block the access of the odier. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *11. ACCEPT QUOTATIONS - 755 DICKEY LAKE DRIVE EXTENSION WhHc moved, MeMillaa secoodcd, acceptlog the qnotatioa in the amonnt $7,490.00 from Red Pederson Utilities Ine. Hopkins, Minnesota for conqrletion of the 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sewer Estensloa project wUh project flindlng from the Sewer Fnnd and approval of the appropriate year 2005 bndget adjnstment to reflect this cipendlture. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS - NORTH FARM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS White moved, McMBlaa second ed, aathorialag ndvertblng for bids for the North Farm Drainage fanprovements project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *13. REVISED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO SUBMIT INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT A.ND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DEED) AND TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BIG ISLAND VETERANS CAMP PROPERTY - RESOLUTION NO. 5385 White moved, McMillan seconded, approving revised Rcsoiation No. 5385 Authariziag the City to snbmit Informatioa to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and to enter into a grant agreement for the parchase of the Big Island Veterans Camp property, and anthoriilag the CHy Administrator sign the grant agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett had nothing to report. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. *14. UCENSES RMldcatlal Kcud Lkcue 1. KiaHaMoa 24M CaMO Pataa Road Oroao, MN SS391 Morphy awvad, Saaicvcre Mcoadcd, to approve the above license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *1S. BILLS White BMved, McMillan seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds account. VOTE: AyesS,Nays0 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson moved, Morphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of Septcahor26,2005at9:20PM. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor ' • ■ s --r.-... . L'v V r . J * t f PAGE 10 of 10 COUNCIL MEETING Oa lO'/UQS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION t-* DATE: October 10,2005 ITEM NO: Q OITYOFOnONO Deportmeot Approval: NaaM Ronald J. Moone TMk City Adminittrator Admlaistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Rq>on Item Description Presentation by the Hcibl'epin County Regional Railroad Authority Regarding the Dakota Rail Corridor The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has requested an oppoi^nity to make a presentation regarding private encroachments onto the Dakota Rail Corridor right^f- way. The HCRRA has also requested that Orono residents be invited to hear the presentation, and provide their input regarding private use of the Dakota Rail Corridor right-of-way The HCRRA is in the process of developing a policy regarding private use of the corridor right-of- way. Marcia Wilda, of the HCRRA, will make the presentation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No Action Required ■ ■ '''I V.' . • • V • j,.- ':V:■ .•l-jsis.-■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.• . ^ ’■ r . ■ , - t .■ v.; 5,.V~U : * y . ; .-yyvy/ - f ■ y *.■■■ % *' f ■< ' : *' . ■ •«. AvL; J J A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE USE OF THE DAKOTA RAIL CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Regia,:.. Railroad Authority (HCRRA) now has ownership of the Dakota Rail Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has consistently supported the preservation of the corridor as a continuous public transportation corridor, and has supported the development of a regional recreational trail along the entire length of the corridor; and WHEREAS, as the HCRRA has jurisdiction over the corridor, and their rules apply to the use of the corridor, the City will support the management of the corridor by the HCRRA to ensure the preservation of the corridor as a continuous public transportation corridor, and WHEREAS, the HCRRA is in the process of developing policies regarding the private use of the right-of-way in the corridor; and WHEREAS, on-going public use of the corridor, such as for a regional recreational trail, will discourage unauthorized etKroachments onto the corridor for private uses; and WHEREAS, it is important that any private use of any portion of the right-of-way in the corridor be managed in a way that preserves the ability to use the entire corridor as a continuous public transportation corridor in the future; and WHEREAS, any private use of the corridor should be managed through a written agreement that provides for the use on an interim basis, but enables the HCRRA to terminate the agreement when the land is needed for a public transportation use; and WHEREAS, exceptions to this can be made where there are historically-used crossings of the corridor for access to private properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby confirm its support for the preservation of the Dakota Rail Corridor as a continuous public transportation corridor, and for the development of a regional recreational trail along the entire length of the corridor. Page 1 of 2 f . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orono will work with the HCRRA in iti development of policies regarding the private use of the Corridor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on October 10,2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor .. i. Page 2 of 2 P- rii?./■•••• .‘■•'P r HcHficpin County Regional Railrood Authority Unauthorized Uses Presentotion Hiohliohti Questions / Comments > Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority was formed to preserve roil corridors for future transportation uses. > Unouthorized uses have incrcosed in recent years and the policy must be updoted. > Unouthorized uses : use of corridor without « permission and without a written agreement. i i > Trails on corridors ore built and operated by • a pork agency. > Presentation will provide information and seek input on occeptable interim uses. > Rail Authority's policy states clearly thot unauthorized uses are not allowed. Privote uses must be terminoted or formolized with anogreement. > Unouthorized uses are increasing. > Property bounckry signs ore being instolled on all corridors. > Policy must be consistent. I t: I * J > Unauthorized uses create liability, safety, oesthetic end consistency concerns. > Policy must clarify which uses should be formalized by o written agreement and which uses should be terminated. W« imilt estobiish o desired condition for these c orriders ............... n*i i ■ ierneiiiiBii ■ 1 Hennepin County Regional Roilrood Authority Unauthorized Uses Presentotion #• ft §•istH Questions / Comments > Is mowing and use of the corridor the some with or without a fence? > Authority's gool - clear guidelines to consistently remove or formalize unouthorized uses. > No removal of trees is 0 given! >• Is pavement ond porking OK for existing uses only or new ones os well? ^ > Should landscaping permits include plonting trees, flowe rs, os well as mowing? > Con neighbors use public land to increase their property area for porking, storage, mowing or the installation of fencing? All sHuotlons must be foctored into the updoted policy Next Steps > Complete inf ormotionol community meetings. > Allow cities to submit policy recommendations. > Conduct public heonng with Roilrood Authority Boord of Commissioners to seek input. > Approvol of updated policy. 3115 >v. r 3151 3121 f \ w* 3149 \j 3080 T 3136 > O t < c? \ r' AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 10,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be roaune items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consoit Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. COUNCIL MEETING OCT lOy'Kuo CITY OF ORONO ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of September 26,2005 PRESENTATION 3. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (Dakota Rail Comdor) PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Paul Pesek, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • Travis Winkey, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #05-3080 Interspace West, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD/TDevelopment Plan Approval Documents and Resolution 5. #05-3115 WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 6. #05-3121 Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit 7. #05-3136 Troy Broitzroan, 1860 Shoreline Drive - Variance 8. #05-3149 Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue North - Conditional Use Permit * 9. #05-3151 Gary and Sandra Baron, 3619 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 10. Request for Final Pa>ment - Webber Hills Extension Sanitary Sewer Project II. Brown Road North/County Road 6 Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment - Resolution 12 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension Assessment • Resolution 13. Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Extension Assessment - Resolution 14. 25 Brown Road South Sanitary Sewer Connection Assessment - Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 7? Dale AppIkaHoH Received: 4-4-05 Date AppIleatioB CoiuMered as Complete: 4-7-05 60-Day Review Period Espircs: 6-6-05 (approval granted 4-25-05) COUNCIL MEETING OCT lOi^uoo CIIYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 7,200S Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3080, Interspace-West, Inc., 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West ________________Adoption: Final Plat Resolution & PUD No. 2C/Development Contract Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 6, Highway Commercial District PUD, Planned Unit Development 2.637 acres (114,868 s.f.) 191 feet List of Exhibits A - General Development Plan & Final Plat Approval Resolution B - PUD No. 2C Agreement & Development Contract C - Email Comments from City Engineer & MnDOT RE: Pond D ~ Council Memo & Exhibits of 9-23 05 (minus first two exhibits) Af^icaHoH Summary: The applicant is requesting the following in order to construct 10 units of office condos on 10 lots and one common lot to be known as Amber Woods Office Centre: 1. B - 6 PUD General Development Plan approval, 2. Final Plat ^iproval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common lot, 3. Commercial Site Plan approval in order to obtain a building permit, and lastly 4. Easement Vacations in coniunction with dediciitinn of ru>u/ The applicants have proposed development of 10 units of office condos on approximately 2.6 acres lifted at 2^ Wayzata Boulevard West. The proposed condos will be 2-s'iory walkouts containing approximately 34,186 s.f of gross square footage. Each duplex style building will contain a walk-out level, a main floor level and a second story mezzanine. This is the final review stage of the PUD process and includes a final plat, a commercial site plan review and easement vacations. This application was tabled at the meeting of September 26, 2005 to allow the City Engineer and appropriate city staff to review the revised StormTech stormwater plan. After a comprehensive review of the StomiTech plan, staff and the City Engineer determined that due to the continued maintenance required and the existence of an alternate, more efficient plan (existing MnDOT stormwater pond at NW comer of Brown Rd and Highway 12) it was not in the best interest of the City to allow this method. ----- t 1 Staff has since instructed the City Engineer and his consultants to perform the necessary calculations to determine whether the existing pond is adequate. The necessary modeling has been completed by our City Engineer, and MnDOT h^ given preliminary approval for the applicants to use the existing pond (see Exhibit C). The only additional step, not yet depicted on any engineering plans, is the applicants will be ^uired to deepen the pond excavating to create additional capacity, which it should be noted will be much more cost efficient than the StormTech system previously proposed. Further, the letter of credit amount and the City Engineer cost estimate may increase to reflect this additional worit, however that can be determined once MnDOT has completed their final review. This will not impact the attached documents. Staff RecommcBdation Approval per the attached Resolution and PUD Agreement No. 2C/Development Contract with the understanding that the plat will not be released for filing nor will any permits be issued until the following items have been submitted: • Signed PUD No. 2C Agreement/Devel(^>ment Contract A signed mylars • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit • MnDOT stormwater permit and access permit • Fees in the amount of $18,079.00 • Letter of Credit in the amount of $822,848.63 (or revised as necessary) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution and PUD Agreement No. 2C/Development Contract for Interspace- West, Inc. for development of property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West. 'A- V • mm I it i t i I ( ^■v V. M-' ■' A RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C FOR INTERSPACE-WEST, INC. AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE AND VACATING EXISTING DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS FILE MS-3080 1. WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of tlie State of Minnesota: and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter “City Council”) has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by Interspace-West, Inc., a domestic corporation (hereinafter the “Applicant ”) for suMivision and development by the Planned Unit Development process of property located at 2060 West Wayzata Boulevard and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block I, Orono Ambar, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property ”); and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5296 granting General Concept Plan qiproval, and on April 25,2005 the City Council recommended approval of the General Development Plan for Planned Unit Development No. 2C, which approval include the following elements: 1.Subdivision platting of Lot I, Block 1, Orono Ambar to create ten (10) lots and one (1) common lot to be known as AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE; 2. Commercial site plan aj^roval and conditions for proposed development of office condominiums. 3. Vacation of existing easements. WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to execute Planned Unit Development No. 2C Agreement providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition of site plan approval for the construction of office condominiums on the Property, and which agreement A documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property and replaces previously approved PUD Agreement No 2A; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to execute a 24’ wide ingress and egress easement through the Property to allow for connection of a future frontage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods at the northwestern comer of the site; and WHEREAS, the Applicant was given the opportunity to re-grade the Property as part of the General Development Plan to accommodate a Kill service access to the southwest at the time the City received information about the ability for such an access as part of the Highway 12 Turn-Back Conunittee, however the Applicant choose not to pursue this option, which may limit future access opportunities for this site; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City including: 1.Completion of all platting requirements of Concept Plan Approval Resolution No. 5296. 2.Dedication on the plat of a Drainage and Utility Easement over entire Lot 11 (otherwise known as the common lot). 3.Sulmiittal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit af^roving the grading and stormwater management facilities plan for development of the Property as proposed per the “Removals & Erosion Control Plan’*, sheet Cl-2, the “Overall Griuling & Drainage Plan", sheet C3-1, the individual building grading and drainage plans per sheets C3-2 through C3-6, the “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan", sheet C3-7, and per the “Proposed Drainage Map", sheet C3-8. 4.Payment to the City of the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee for the development of the Property in the amount of $17,549.24 based on a Trunk Fee of $6,655 per acre and gross acreage of Property at 114,868 s.f. or 2.637 acres including portions subject to trail and sidewalk easements. 5.Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat documents, agreements, easements and covenants in the amount of $280.00 plus incurred review and filing costs. 6.Payment of the final plat review fee in the amount of $250.00 plus incurred legal and engineering char;^. 7.Provision to the City of a title opinion for the Property and certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have reviewed the plans for this PUD and subdivision application and hereby specify approval of each attached plan and identify them as part of the official record for Planned Unit Development No, 2C: 1.Final Plat 2. Existing Conditions sheet C1 • 1 3. Removals & Erosion Control Plan sheet C1 -2 Existing Drainage Map sheet Cl-3 S. Site Plan sheet C2-1 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Overall Grading A Drainage Plan sheet C3-I Grading & Drainage Plan Bldg. ^1 Lots 1-2 sheet C3-2 Grading & Drainage Plan Bldg. #2 Lots 3-4 sheet C3-3 Grading & Drainage Plan Bldg. 1113 Lots 5-6 sheet C3-4 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #4 Lots 7-8 sheet C3-S Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. HfS Lots 9-10 sheet C3-6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet C3-7 13. Proposed Drainage Mq) sheet C3-8 14. Utility Plan sheet C4-1 IS. Detail sheet C8-1 16. Detail sheet C8-2 h____A. lerty and certified copies of all ived the plans for this PUD and :hed plan and identify them as II 17. Landscape Plan sheet LI -1 18. Lighting Plan sheet L2-1 19. Lower Level Floor Plan sheet A-1 20. Main Level Floor Plan sheet A-2 21. Upper Level Floor Plan sheet A-3 22. Front Elevation sheet A-4 23. Walk'Out Elevation sheet A-S 24. Side Elevation sheet A-6 25. Side Elevation sheet A-7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 5296, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby iq)prove the plat of AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE, Hennepin County, Minnesota and grants General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 2C, subject to the following conditions: 1. General Development Plan Approval including Preliminary and Final Plat approval and Commercial Site Plan approval is granted subject on conditions established within Resolution No. 5296 and subject to the conditions established within the Developer ’s Agreement No. 2C and other pertinent documents. 2. Final building design plans for the buildings shall be subject to City Council review and q)provai prior to issuance of permits for said buildings should there be discrepancies between those attached to this Resolution and those submitted for building permit. Building permits and land alteration permits will not be issued any sooner than 24 hours following filing of the plat with Hennepin County. 3. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before (March 26,2006) together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the agreements, easements, and covenants pertinent thereto. • FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that the easements dedicated over the Property in accordance with development of Lot 2, Block I, Orono Ambar, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be vacated upon filing of this Resolution and Developer ’s Agreement No. 2C with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 26'" day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, MayorLinda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this___day of_______^ 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of 2005 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. Notary Public I ly i|iyj||^rniw I im<,rii»Ti >n i nr t *■ « t raz ^\F-W ■7, r ■-’ • ['■ ‘ •1m: jma W0008 omoB cemER R.T. D0& Nou. •fatfwicoiwrvopi sn.a:* S57KSET]r5=snr ,« ■ I a ,'■■:•;■ I-' /••••• Y- r 1 !mIoS%S1SmSh^ 9m9mt immmLtnci. ____,■___pWlMiMftM JVI ■;" -•...^ ■ /;... V::f;- .’JSSS^ ioiiinM.1 h r«mM * r- ' ’ •s ■: ;..> p f:lwu f:V-‘ Associates • w t iaallwa*af fc 1 sm MM ••rT“'\“VWv\ / U~T“"‘-“'^7-t44LL».yy ,. ^ ^ \‘-\ \ I'v^ / \ \ I ,,.-V 11 > I / "““•*■ y*-- j-.y r' ft *a maim » M tuit w •1^- jk - A Stale One Cali > * ■ . •.' :• .: > - : ■ • > : • ^ .■ ^•:-.: \ -r ;: . ^ ' ■■ ■ "■ - f ^':. ,> ^ ..'v : ;• ■■" jjI- ...-...- .. ,^ ! \ \ \ rC ,\\Iki.!.\\'. Ill 4 mrnn M M ••( V m •uu m rmr sss.'\ruws^« SiSm ^rnSS^S^mmJrn^Sm MwS ^*** • to. 0m to I « <•• • »«• «M« • • ta» • • ito «BW « «M OneCUl Associatis AMiavvooosomaoNTn a»ll«i mm. tm turn ^ >- x'- t T'V ^ omoifiiM (Hill CI-2 •■• V '% t '*~'^'V ‘“>. '----------^\ \c-uj:=\ \i\ \ ,v ---------------------- '») \ \ \ \l -------r 'l > ^ ^ i •# • / • • • ' ' ^ • i I '/ ■>' ^ - — ' 'In^i r X-' /I s V ' \ nv'^--s - • - - \ X. *V ‘.W \ \ \ ''• "n \ ^ W )T----V v""* iV-j *N. / I’N. \i,. - •'V'.. ■' I ■•-. K-^y-v '''P^ y. '^. V.-' I X;-l'> )J / ^ / ^//i ^ ^ ^ % tkn *"iy5 ‘3F T ////'I'V/ ;' ', —^—'Hnvui\ //5^4v {/'ial ■\ *•.! L V'/Ai w V- )k 's. \ Ate S \ JSJ?S= V*5 Ji M Stale One Call ASSOCIATfS AMtCSmOOOSomaomfi •diLw O0IMCI»M«MCIi^ 04III Cl-3 -C.- jl..V v.'\ ■ ■••“>.''•■ • - A- ■:}.j^*sd nmn Sg^rareutuananaseaean ^^sggJSjRsatesav tCMCUAl l&asss —«^«C 1 MJ% 1 %mt€ |ms» ua«c 1 tan t.®®®sSs One Call W**'> Assocum AMtCI WOODS offnaHTBi mf\m 0«M| C2-1 m-c^-> v;. - , ■ -y*i o .- - % -- ' ■ .' .■’^- TTj. Av ’'S V ^-'f m I JBEktfULJHi^ ■e *iiTr ? *•«« • •«M • • •M • Kau » mr »aru*t;7« •t « « — «. •••••• «•• •■• V»MM* mmSimSmTi0mmt > m Ml •!«» mm00mm Coplwsis:aState One Call izxLUtxssr AMICI WOODS ocnaoNTii •VlSitM 3i^ OVfMUOUOMC* OIAMAOI^ o«n8 C3-1 m 1 rl'I ;> I ______;* V CopRSscace One Call AMta\^VOOOSomoNin IVI mIM OMOVCi cmMOKANmoc.ntmu (Mill C3-3 . •'. V ‘ r '■ i'S r .V- .v n v V v;; - v>;'V^'- ? " ■ -^vmm:mw: \-mrn ' yr-y. ,. •. ■•• ..- w- yym my^y:rs-m •.:t; He <1 « •• ^ilN- Sate One Call Associatos AMtei MOODS orraaMTo 90lSmm iimmm OUOMC4 (MM HAN HIK 051OTS4IO (Mill C3-6 ^ ■ ,. s'- ;*■ '. ‘,< •■••'• '•. '■ li"* »•• r «ocK coNSTnucrm cnthaiicc onAa. -n-«i2r2;.*S±- ■• • »^ •• «* rM> r *M« • *«»»M «M* I «». •• a-Jiirr.sr-—— SrS:T-3~^S«.-«.'J5SS2 ^Jr5^•i•a.T5T■■I r*—»* M«ii«t «■*•• M »4»,« M*«P M* ««w * **• —*»■■■ *«•••>• !■•««£U*v;.5*3Lru2n •• ••* l^£ f^gsaigffi tfrmumr m/tb c»Tt vilvc SsOLf ia?3E»r 35 €U Kl ■* P-1IjjjjjJ -^hy^ 55S3S&* ail I* I V- I* -I iojitfai.jaLMU.aadJDuu e BITUMINOUS PAVING StCTION ‘ VSfSPfM • ww— 1B7CKZ. SC?%Sn£.&» WSL. RAssociatcs ! AMMII WOODSonaoNTu «di L«i ttJfpg 04111 C8-1 ^ f\ ' fL r . • ; . ,.• 4 Ti^^^5*4S 1%^n »f I ■li# M«M«amvaw. lumur* cso —sap"' Haocffttir f ilF • -.k ,*•;' - .:i ■■ •■'>! liiv X-^ _^w|| \ 0"I'HiaesB.'sv \w i' — ^iflfiKisr I ;UCCHII ■ft 1 /•.tV.'. » • Z*' "mm mmmm •••• m ^asfRWft. 3-WW&™. aSSSUf&SSttSRBS I ( ) . » K > AMICK WOODS OffiaCINTDI fomm Wtm^mum 1^ ■=i-*r (XTMMn (Mill C8-2 1 - f r M. utnscnr ggmATSSSASSSU sassagjggaa “~I [T] gsfflwnmi iiBn 1 /—ms TK./ y--------mtmMm SS^^ESaa- M=- 5^«gs3S5sa- sggsugssaggtaa^ soo«sac S\®\ »\»\»\ B\ tt®SJ /3 I ‘ ;.' *•' . • » , • I •-V - t : •: I iWi--'/ SOOASaO: jii%8W5Si aflSEI n« oi> (y (MONO Ml LMcaoM MQUMMIMT On A KBONTAa (V T»« •Tf ooptfraucnoNCOfT. thskmi uas A total 9 1 % or M J MKU3M 0«MM LANOIDM mocm lANOSCAfC CALCULATIONS: Wm IAN DSCAfC PLAN: ~ SSSSSSr^j: iivt: Sassssss s 1 * i ^ J .. 1.... SE SBSS asss tllllllHN -■■■tMifc, l«.'flMtB UMOfCVlIXT/yiS:LANOSCAKNOnS:l GlNiMLNOTlS: I ( H < - ■ AMKKWOCXXomaasnst Om\ •otmrn rnrnmmm LAMXCAN AAN 0«ni LI-1 bi CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINESOTA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE LOTS 1-11, BLOCK 1, AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE DEVELOPER: SUGARWOODS OFHCE CENTER, LLC. OWNER: SUGARWOODS OFFICE CENTER, LLC. THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C AGREEMENT AND PUD/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (collectively the “Agreement'’) is made and entered into this____day of___________, 2005 by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter the “City”) and Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC., a limited liability company (hereinafter the “Developer” and the “Owner”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning application (PUD) including subdivision to create ten (10) lots and one (1) conunon lot on one block to be known as AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE, commercial site plan review, and easement vacations for the purpose of developing approximately 34,186 s.f. of office condominiums; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2005 the City Council granted Concept Plan approval for development of the proposed office condominiums per Resolution No. 52%, on the conditions that the Developer fulfill the obligations of the approved Concept Plan Resolution and enter into this Agreement to provide for conformance with the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinances and to provide for the installation and maintenance of improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the actual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1.Property Description. This Agreement shall apply only to the following described property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lots 1-11, Block 1, AMBER W< (hereinafter the “Property”) I IS OFFICE CENTRE 2.Zoning. The Property is zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning for the office component. Page I of9 Developer Initial. City Clerk Initial b 3. 5. Permitted Uses. Within Lots I-11 approximately 34,186 s.f. of office condominiums consisting of 5 duplex style walk-out buildings are permitted with surface parking at the main level as depicted in the site plan and preliminary building plans and elevations. The permitted use of the office condominium buildings is general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. Retail uses accessory to the office use may be allowed with the limitation that within any building, retail uses shall not exceed 5% of the gross floor area of that building. Other uses shall not be allowed except by amendment of this PUD Agreement. No accessory structures are permitted within Lots 1-10. Within Lot 11 the only accessory structures allowed shall include: a) Trash enclosures, constructed of materials comparable to and compatible with those of the building to be constructed within Lots 1- 10; and b) Monument identification signs per the proved plans. No other accessory structures are permitted except by amendment of this Agreement. Site Access. Primary access for internal circulation for the Property from Highway 12 shall be via a right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12 shared with the Orono Senior Housing development. Planned Unit Development No. 2 (PUD No. 2), to the direct east. Surface parking and drive aisles will be provided along the southern and western ends of the Property at the main floor level of the buildings. A secondary access to Highway 12 is provided via access easements to be granted through the surface parking lot within the Orono Senior Housing site to the east (Lot 2, Block 1, Orono Ambar), which were required with approval of PUD No. 2, allowing for a connection to Brown Road South and ultimately a ihture stoplight at Brown Road South and existing Highway 12. Such easements will be granted by the City of Orono Housing A Redevelopment Authority, which owns said Lot 2, Orono Ambar. Thirdly, the Property is designed to allow for a future vehicular connection at the northwestern comer of the Property for a future fixintage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods. The Developer shall grant ingress and egress easements as part of the final plat to allow for a vehicular connection should the frontage road, via Outlot D, ever be developed. A drainage and utility easement will be dedicated over entire Lot 11 as part of the final plat. DevelopmcBt Plans. The Property shall be developed in accordance with final plans (the “Plans ’^ which shall first bis certified by the City Planning Director as being in conformity with the approved plans described below and with the provisions of this Agreement. The Plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The Plans are: A. Final Plat B. Existing Conditions sheet CI -1 Pate2of9 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial. rYSHrtWIPfim j % A c. D. »> G. H. I. J. K. S. Removals & Erosion Control Plan sheet Cl-2 Existing Drainage Map sheet Cl-3 E. Site Plan sheet C2-1 F. Overall Grading & Drainage Plan sheet C3-1 Grading & Drainage Plan Bldg. U\ Lots 1-2 sheet C3-2 Grading & Drainage Plan Bldg. #2 Lots 3-4 sheet C3-3 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #3 Lots 5-6 sheet C3-4 Grading ft Drainage Plan Bldg. #4 Lots 7-8 sheet C3-5 Grading ft Drainage Plan Bldg. US Lots 9-10 sheet C3-6 L. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet C3-7 M. Proposed Drainage Map sheet C3-8 N. Utility Plan sheet C4-1 O. Detail sheet C8-1 Detail sheet C8-2 Q. Landscape Plan sheet Ll-1 Lighting Plan sheet L2-1 Lower Level Floor Plan sheet A-1 T. Main Level Floor Plan sheet A-2 U. Upper Level Floor Plan sheet A-3 V. Front Elevation sheet A-4 W. Walk-Out Elevation sheet A-S X. Side Elevation sheet A-6 s P»it3«r9 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial M\rrr--ri ait ■nil ■ r ii ,L Y. Side Elevation sheet A-7 Z. Monument Signage The Plans are subject to any additional requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and subject to any additional requirements and conditions specifled by the City Engineer upon review of the Plans. Construction of the buildings shall be in conformance with the building codes and regulations adopted by the City. Any substantial changes to the gross square footage, footprint/wall/roof dimensions or defined building height shall require a prior amendment to this Agreement. 6.Improvcnciits: In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City, the following described public or private improvements (hereinafter collectively called the “Improvements") shidi be constructed, installed arid maintained by the Developer according to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement: Site grading, roadways and driveways, curb and gutter, paildng lots, sidewalks, retaining walls and all necessary erosion control measures per the Overall Grading and Drainage Plan and the individual building grading and drainage plans (hereinafter called "site grading improvements"}; B.Construction of sanitary sewer and water connections, and construction of storm sewer lines and feciiities as required (hereinafter called “stormwater improvements") per the Utility Plan referenced herein. C.Underground natural gas, electric, cable and telephone service to be arranged by the Developer with the utility companies involved (hereinafter called the "other utility improvements"); D. Landscaping and site revegetation improvements per the approved Landsc^ Plan reftaenced herein (hereinafter called “landscaping improvements*’). E. Traffic control signage subject to ^proval by the City Engineer and Public Services Director. F. Any additional improvements listed within the Site Improvements Cost Estimate attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Estimate"). 7. Construction of Iraprovemcnts it Date - Construction of Improvements shall begin no later than Pafc4«rf Devel<^)er Initial City Clerk Initial' ■ ;n~Tiriririii II ■ ’ f ■4; ••V i'.rib 8. C. D. E. F. G. H. B. Completion Date - All Improvements shall be completed no later than (2 years from commencement date). The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. Contractors - The Developer shall select, retain and supervise the contractor(s) responsible for construction of the Improvements. The City reserves the right to require satisflutory proof of successful experience and adequate financial status of each such contractor. Where required by City ordinance, the contractor shall first obtain a license from the City. Pre-Construction Conference - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer and the developer’s contractor shall meet with the responsible City officials to review construction plans and schedules. Permits - Prior to the start of any construction, the developer’s contractor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits for the Improvements from the City anr^or government agencies having jurisdiction. Site grading shall not commence until a land alteration permit has been issued. Developer is advised that an erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well as the required NPDES construction site permit, before commencing any grading activity on the site. Construction - The construction, installation and materials shall be in accordance with the Plans approved by the City. - The City, through its staff and/or consultants, shall inspect the installation of the Improvements to ensure compliance with the Plans. The cost of such inspections will be paid by the Developer anticipated to be about $5,000.00 to $10,000.00, but if there are major problems It could be as high as $20,000.00 per City Engineer consultant. Insurance - The Developer will cause each person who constructs and installs any portion of the Improvements to maintain complete insurance coverage including Workmen ’s Compensation, Liability and Property Damage (with coverages consistent with industry standards). Performance Security. For the purposes of assuring to the City that the Improvements will be completed according to the terms of this Agreement, and that the Developer will pay or will cause to have pmd all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished, the Developer or its general contractor will deposit with the City prior to issuance of site ^ing and building p^its an irrevocabk letter of credit (LOC) from a local (Twin Cities area) financial institution in a form satisfactory to the City, providing PigeSora Developer Initial City Clerk Initial' I 9. that the City is able to draw upon such letter of credit in its sole discretion to complete the Improvements if the Developer fails to satisfiictorily complete the work prior to the completion date specified in Section seven (7) above. Further, if the required improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the LOC, the City may also draw on the LOC. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. The amount of the LOC shall be 150% of the estimated improvement costs. The estimated improvement cost is $548,565.75; therefore, the LOC amount shall be $822,848.63. As substantial elements of the Improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer, the City will authorize reduction of the LOC in an amount equal to 150% of the cost estimate for that phase of the improvements deemed complete, but in no case shall the LOC be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until all Improvements are complete and accepted by the City. The LOC shall expire no sooner than one year after the completion date specified in Section seven (7) above, to allow for at least one freeze-thaw cycle for parking lot settlement. Security to ensure survival of landscaping vegetation shall be retained for eighteen (18) months after planting. and Expenses. The Developer agrees to pay all City fees required per the current City Fee Schedule and ftuther agrees to completely reimburse the City for all the variable additional expenses it incurs in regard to the review and approval of the Improvements including, but not limited to, direct City payroll and overhead, costs, and fees paid to consultants and other professionals, which are not covered by City application fees. These fees and expenses are estimated at $2,000.00 - $3,500.00. Notice. Required notices to the Developer and the Owner shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, the Owner, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer and the Owner by registered mail at the ^oPowing addresses: Notice to Developer Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Philip Carlson P.O.Box 184 Wayzata, MN 55391 Notice to C Sugarwoods Oifice Center, LLC Philip Carlson P.O. Box 184 Wayzata, MN 55391 Noti<^ to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Adnunistrator, or .nailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administretor at the following address: Orono City Offices, 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323, Telephone 952-249-4600. 1 1 . Additional Conditions A. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads on the Property shall be desi] subject to approval of the City Engineer and Orono Fire Marshal. Developer Initial Pafcioff City Clerk Initial, t V 12. r .V 'j B. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Orono Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes upon review of the Plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing. C. The walk-out elevations of the buildings shall be as set out in Document C3-1 of the construction documents dated April 4,2005. D. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer until the end of the period of Developer control of the association at which time they will be maintained by the Amber Wo^s Office Centre Association. E. All sanitary sewer and water connection lines within the Property shall be owned and maintained and maintained by the Developer until the end of the period of Developer control of the association at which time tiiey will be maintained by the Amber Wo^ Office Centre Association. F. No site work or construction shall commence until the Developer has paid the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee as established in Concept Plan Resolution 5296. The MCES Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) are the responsibility of the Developer and shall be paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance for transfer to MCES. O. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as Uie Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, MPCA, and MnDOT. H. The Developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction, llie Developer will comply with the City Engineer’s direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. I. The De^'eloper shall provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval for all material imported or exported from the Property. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Orono, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain a land alteration permit, and potentially a conditional use permit from the City. J. The Developer shall obtain a temporary construction easement or other use agreement from the owner of the property directly west at 2120 Wayzata Boulevard for construction of the necessary retaining walls. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Agreement, approved by the City Council on September 26,2005, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Patc7or9 Developer Initial. City Clerk Initial. .tSS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Developer, and the Owner have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO By: (Mayor) By: (City Clerk) DEVELOPER - Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. By: Its: OWNER - Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. • V- ' f-.- By: Its: Reviewed for Administration: Date:By: (Planning Director) By: This instrument was drafted by: CityofOrono 2/50 KeUey Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS3S6 (City Administrator) pageSory Developer Initial City Clerk Initid B.. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrament was acknowledged before me on (his__day of 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENi>lEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of________, 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Cleric of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of 2005, by Philip Carlson, Chief Manager, Sugarwouds Office Center, LLC., a Limited Liability Corporation, on behalf of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ( * This instrument wa3 acknowledged before me this__day of ^ 2005, by Philip Carlson, Chief Manager, Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC., a Limited Liability Corporation, on behalf of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Notarv Public . I... . Pa|c9or9 Develcper Initial City Clerk Initial ■ .V a:' U Mik« Oaffron From: S«nt: To: Sul^oct: Hoff, Lance R. phoffObonestroo.coiTi] Thursday. October 06,2005 5:07 PM Mike Gaf^ FW: Brown Road Pond -Amber Woods • Orono Mike, I'm forwarding the email from MNDOT giving pre-approval for the use of the Brown Road pond by the Amber Woods development. We've directed Loucks to replace the StormTech system with RCP and submit revised plans and calcs to us for review (sometime tomorrow). We're also requiring that they provide additional excavation in the MNDOT pond to meet NURP standards to which they have preliminarily agreed. I will keep you Informed as things progress tomorrow. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions! Lance Hoff, P.E. Bonestroo. Rosene, Anderllk, & Associates (651) 604-4755 - - -Original Message- - - From: Bryce Fossand [mailto:bryce.fossand6dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:58 PM To: Hoff, Lance R. Cc: Martin Korthank Subject: Brown Road Pond -Amber Woods - Orono Lance, I've reviewed your calculations and HydroCAD model for the Brown Road pond. Everything looks good. Based on this irformaticn, we will approve the permit after we receive the updated Amber Woods design information and drainage plans from Loucks Associates. This likely would not change our approval for the drainage portion of the permit. Your analysis included this as a developed area in your model and the pond handles this to our satisfaction. However, we do need the Loucks information for our records. This as well as the plans for water quality related dredgeing of the pond will have to be routed through permits for approval. At this point, you can consider this a pre-approval for the drainage permit. If you have any questions please call. Thanks. Bryce Bryce Fossand Mn/OOT Water Resources Engineering 1500 Nest County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Office: 651-634-2408 Bryce.FossandSdot.state.mn.us : % dl-- • V Date AppHcatkm Received: 4*4-05 Date Application Coaiidcrcd as Complete: 4-7-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6-6-05 (approval granted 4-25-05) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 23,2005 Item No. Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach)^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3080, Interspace-West, Inc., 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West Adoption: Final Plat Resolution & PUD/Development Contract Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 6, Highway Commercial District PUD, Planned Unit Development 2.637 acres (114,868 s.f.) 191 feet List of Exhibits A — General Development Plan & Final Plat Approval Resolution B - PUD No. 2C Agreement & Development Contract C - City Letter of 5-24-05 D - Copy of Title Opinion E - Revised Association Documents F — Ingress & Egress Easement to Outlot D, Sugarwoods G - Easement for Construction & Maintenance of Retaining Walls H — Finalized Building Floor Plans & Elevations I - Site Improvements Cost Estimate (LOC amount) J — Email Comments from MnDOT & MCWD RE: Stormwater System AppiicatioH Summary: The applicant is requesting the following in order to construct 10 units of office condos on 10 lots and one common lot to be known as Amber Woods Office Centre: 1. B - 6 PUD General Development Plan approval, 2. Final Plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common lot, 3. Commercial Site Plan approval in order to obtain a building permit, and lastly 4. Easement Vacations in conjunction with dedication of new easements. The applicants have proposed development of 10 units of office condos on approximately 2.6 acres located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West. The proposed condos will be 2-story walkouts containing approximately 34,186 s.f. of gross square footage. Each duplex style building will contain a walk-out level, a main floor level and a second story mezzanine. This is the final review stage of the PUD process and includes a final plat, a commercial site plan review and easement vacations. Since Council approval at the April 25,2005 meeting the applicants had been determining whether or not they would revise their grading plan to incorporate a westerly entrance in anticipation of the Highway 12 tum-back to Hennepin County. The applicants have since decided that functionally and financiilly the access could not be revised and would like to proceed with their original plan approved at the April 25"* Council meeting. At the April 25, 2005 meeting the Council recommended approval of the project and directed staff to draft a Resolution and PUD No. 2C agreement The applicants have also been working to satisfy MnDOT and MCWD stormwater management requirements. The ^licants have submitted the majority of the items listed in the City letter, attached as Exhibit C to this memo, and the following items will be required prior to filing of the plat with Hennepin County: 1) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit 2) Signed PUD No. 2C Agreement/Development Contract and signed mylars 3) Original copy of title opinion 4) Fees in the amount of $18,079.00 a. Final plat fee > $280.00 b. Legal review & filing fee - $250.00 c. Stormwater A Drainage Trunk fee - $17,549.00 d. Additional engineering A legal fees billed at actual cost as they are incurred. 5) Letter of Credit in the amount of $822,848.63. The applicants should also be aware that prior to any land alteration/building permit issuances an additional engineer review of plans would be requir^ to ensure remaining engineering comments have been incorporated into the revised plans. Staff Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution documenting the approval of the General Development Plan and Final Plat and approve the PUD No. 2C Agreement, vdiich includes the Development Contract for installation of public improvements. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED Approve the documents attached as Exhibits A and B for 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. u o o\^*0 1.4 ^jj CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices strati Mdrtu: k/50 Kelley Parlmey Orono, MN 55356 Malting Mdftts: P.O. Box 66 Ciyslal Bay, MN 55323 0066 May 24,200S Philip & Gina Carlson Interspace-West, Inc. P.O. Box 184 Wayzata, MN SS391 HAND DELIVERED RE: General Development Plan - Outstanding Submittal Requirements Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carlson: The City Council approved a General Concept Plan Resolution at their regularly scheduled meeting of March 28,200S. A draft copy of that resolution was mailed to you as part of that Council packet That resolution laid out the conditions under which your General Development Plan application would be approved. Your General Development Plan application was then submitted and approved at the April 25, 2005 City Council meeting, liuit approval was contingent on an additional staff recommendation, noted within the Council packet mailed to you prior to the meeting. Based on the conditions within the Concept Plan aoproval Resolution and the staff recommendation of your General Development Plan approval, the following items must be submitted prior to Council final approval of a Planned Unit Development and Developer ’s Agreement, and Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat and vacating the existing utility easement: A. Appearing fVilhin the Concept Plan Approval Resolution 1. Document showing d^ication of ingress and egress easements to allow for connection of a future frontage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods. (ff3, pg. 5) 2. Submittal of a signage plan in accordance with the 190 s.f. allowance provided under Section 78-1468 and also the Zoning Code Amendment approved on May 8, 2004 regarding monument signs. (#10, pg. 6) 3. Submittal of evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the stormwater management plan. (#14, pg. 7) 4. Association Documents incorporating language regarding a review committee to review/approve uses as they are introduced into the development. (#16, pg. 7) B. Staff Recommendation of the General Development Plan Approval (only items not mentioned above) 1. Incorporation into the Landscape Plan of the City’s landscape consultant comments (last five sentences of #2 of the letter attached and dated April 18, 2005) and IHcphonc (9S2) 249-46M • Fax (952) 249-4614 mI mmnm 4 JIbfliL I incorporation into the engineering drawings the minor engineering matters discussed within foe same letter. 2. A revised set of building elevations illustrating like building materials and colors on all fa9ades. C. Final Submittals 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (t) copy reduced to a 1” « 200’ scale. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing approved on March 28, 2005. B. Dedication of “drainage and utility easements ” over Lot 11 (the common lot). C. Naming of the plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed PUD/Developers Agreement (draft will be forwarded to you within the next few days) and a Letter of Credit in the amount of $822,848.63. 3. Plat approval fees to be paid: Total due: $18,079.00 A. Final plat fee = $280.00, B. Legal review & filing fees for subdivision and associated documents: $250.00, C. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $17,549.00, and D. Additional engineering and legal fees will be billed at actual cost as they are incurred. The documents necessary for final approval, PUD & Developer ’s Agreement and Resolution, will not be approved by the City Council until the items listed above have been submitted and accepted by City staff. The fees will be required prior to filing of the plat and before any building permits or site work permits will be issued. I’ve attached all necessary documents regarding the issues noted above for your review. Please contact me or Planning Director Mike Gafiron if you have further questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Janice Gundlach City Planner cc. Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Dan Larson, Loucks Associates p Direct Dial: 349-5654 September 13,2005 City of Orono C/o Mr. Thomas Barrett, City Attorney Henshaw and Culbertson LLP 222 South Ninth, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN SS402 PREMISES Lot 1, Block 1, ORONO AMBAR, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Dear City of Orono: We have examined the title to the above described premises as of August 16,2005 at 7:00 a.m., based on the Heimepin County Recorder’s Records only. From such examination, we conclude that said premises were owned in fee simple by Linrob Associates, LLC, a Minnesota limit^ liability company. Such ownership is subject to the following: 1. Rights, if any, of the parties in possession other than said owners. 2. Mechanic's lien rights, if any, for recent improvements upon said premises or property connected therewith. 3. Special assessments, if any, which may be levied upon said premises. A special 1 iessmoit search must be provided before closing. 4. Public zoning, building or environmental taws, or building ordinances and regulations. ■' m <4^ ■ % / *.' V S. Facts wdiich would be shown by a survey of said premises. 6. Taxes due and payable in the year 2005 are half paid and half unpaid. 2004 and prior years are paid in full. Taxes due and payable in the year 2005 are $18,559.02 for parcel number 34-118-23-21-0035. Utility and drainage easemoits as shown on the recorded plats of Otono Ambar and Sugar Woods. Terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement dated December 3, 2001 and recorded December 4,2001 as County Recorder Doc. No. 3466800 (no forfeiture |»ovisions). Combination Mortgage and Fixture Financing Statement from Linrob Associates, LLC, to First National Bank of Elk River dated October 14,2003 and recorded December 22,2003 as County Recorder Doc. No. 3897565 and amended by modification agreements recorded as County Recorder Doc. Nos. 4008908, 4059495 and 4108080 to secure the original principal amount of $527,788.00. Note: Oral Name searches were acquired against the fee owner and predecessors in title fi?om Northern Title Insurance Co. and show clear. Very truly yours. Marinus W. Van Putten, Jr. MVP c/c Janis , i < t ■ J If ----------------------------------------------11___A - 'hi- r- 1#'. -**‘-'.. ■*> '■■' . ’* V' % ' ^i .fi ■ ■ ...' ■ H.” COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY No. 1504 Planned Community AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE DECLARATION THIS DECLARATION is made as of this day of September, 2005, by Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, (herein "Declarant") pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections SlSB.l-lOl through SlSB.4-1 18 (the "Act"), as amended. RECITALS Declarant is the owner of certain real estate located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 11, Block i. Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota, all of which real estate constitutes and is herein to referred to as the “Real Estate”. Declarant intends to develop the Real Estate as separate building parcels suitable for office and other uses permitted by City Code in a campus setting with certain shared common amenities and with uniform standards of appearance and maintenance. [)eclarant has caused Amber Woods Office Centre Association (the “Association”) to be formed as a Minnesota nonprofit corporation to serve as the statutory associatic n of Unit owners for Amber Woods Office Centre. Declarant wishes to establish the Real Estate as a planned Community under the Act. TJiwifiiwam ■ iBf'fthi bMIII lii ■J NOW THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Real Estate is and shall be divided, held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed subject to the Act and to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth in this Declaration, which shall run with the Real Estate and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Real Estate, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of each Unit owne and the heirs, successors and assigns of each Unit owner. r•s Note to Readers Many provisions of the Act which govern this common interest Community ("CIC"), and of the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 3I7A under which the Association is formed, are not repeated in this Declaration. This Declaration should be read in conjunction with both statutes. 1.00 DEFINITIONS 1.01 Words defined in the Act shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Act. The following are supplemental definitions. A. "Appropriate Use Committee" or "Aiv J" shall mean and refer to that permanent committee of the Association created for the purpose of establishing and enforcing standards limiting the uses of the Real Estate to those that are compatible with the history and character of the Real Estate and its surrounding neighborhood. B. "Association” shall mean Amber Woods Office Centre Association, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. C. “Atrium” shall refer to tiie Limited Common Element wedge-plan structure, one of which is located between two Office Structures. D. "Board of Directors" or "Board" shall mean the board of directors of the Association. E. “City” shall mean the City of Orono, Minnesota. F. “Common Area” shall mean Lot 11, Block I, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota. O. “Common Elements” are defined in Section 8.01 below H. "Common Expenses" shall mean expenditures made or liabilities incurred by or on behalf of the Association, including those made or incurred with respect to easement rights over adjoining property which benefit the owners, together with any allocations to reserves. I."Common Improvenricnts" shall mean those roads, curbs, parking areas, utilities, lighting, directional signage, and walkways constructed or maintained upon the Common Area for the common benefit or owners and occupants of Units, and the invitees of such owners and occupants. J.“Exterior Landscaping” shall mean all exterior grass, shrubs, trees, flowers and other plantings maintained within the Real Estcte. K. “Limited Common Elements” are defined in Section 8.02 below. L. “Office Structure” shall mean the building erected within a Unit. M. “Unit” shall mean any of Lots 1 to 10, inclusive. Block I, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin Count;’, Minnesota. 2.00 IDENTITY OF REAL EST.\TE AND CIC 2.01 This Declaration establishes Common Interest Community No. 1504, Hennepin County, Miimesota, under the name Amber Woods Office Centre. It is a planned community (and not a condominium or cooperative), and is not subject to a master association. The Real Estate included within this CIC is legtdiy described on the first page hereof. 3.00 CIC PLAT 3 01 The plat of Amber Woods Office Centre, recorded with the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 508, constitutes the CIC Plat for this CIC. 4.00 OWNERS ASSOCIATION 4.01 Amber Woods Office Centre Association has been incorporated as a Minnesota nonprofit corpoiotion under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A to act as the association of owners of Units required by section 5I5B.3-101 of the Act 5.00 UNITS AND UNIT IDENTIFIERS 5.0 1 This CIC consists of ten (10) Units, namely. Lots I to 10, inclusive. Block I, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin Co^mty, Minnesota and one Common Area lot Lot II, Block 1. The Unit identifier of each Unit shall be the lot and block numbers and the subdivision name of the CIC Plat. fI i J i i I 1 Is 6.00 BOUNDARIES 6.01 The Unit boundaries shall be the boundary lines of the platted lots as designated on the CIC Plat. The Units have no upper or lower boundaries. 7.00 USE OF UNITS 7.01 All Units are restricted to non-residential use. 8.00 COMMON ELEMENTS AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS 8.01 Common Elements. The Common Elements include the Common Area and those parts of the Real Estate designated as Common Elements in the Act, the Association's and the owners' easement rights set forth below, and the Common Improvements. The Common Elements shall be subject to appurtenant easements for services, public and private utilities, access, use and enjoyment in favor of each Unit and its owners and occupants; subject to (i) the rights of owners and occupants in Limited Common Elements appurtenant to their Units and (ii) the right of the Association to establish reasonable Rules and Regulations governing the use of the Real Estate. The nuintenance, repair, replacement, control, management and operation of the Common Elements shall be the exclusive responsibility of the Association. Common Expenses for the maintenance, repair, replacement, management and operation of the Common Elements shall be assessed and collected from the owners in accordance with this Declaration. 8.02 Limited Common Elements. The Limited Common Elements are those parts of the Common Elements reserved for the exclusive use of the owners and occupants of the Units to which they are allocated, and the rights to the use and enjoyment thereof are automatically conveyed with the conveyance of such Units. The Limited Common Elements allocated to the Units include each Atrium adjacent and allocated to two Units, and the water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone, data and other utility pipes, wires, conduits and fixtures located in the Common Area but serving fewer than all of the Units. 9.00 ALLOCATION OF VOTING POWER AND COMMON EXPENSES 9.01 Common Expenses . Each of the Units is hereby allocated an equal share of the Common Expenses of the Association. However, certain expenses may be assessed on a difTerent basis, or against one Unit or fewer than all Units, under the following circumstances: Any common expense associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement of a Limited Common Element undertaken by the Association shall be assessed exclusively against the Unit or Units to which that Limited Common Element is assi^ed, and if it is assigned to more than one Unit, on the basis of (i) equality, (ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or replaced, or (iii) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit. B. Any common expense or portion thereof benefiting fewer than all of the Units may be assessed exclusively against the Unit or Units benefited, and if more than one Unit is benefited, on the basis of (i) equality, (ii) square 'dotage of the area being maintained, repaired or replaced, or (iii) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit. C. The costs of insurance may ‘rt “-rressed in proportion to value, risk or coverage, and the costs of utilities may be assessed in proportion to usage. D. Reasonable attorneys fees and other costs incurred by the Association in connection with (i) the collection of assessments and (ii) the enforcement of the Declaration, Bylaws, the Act, or the Rules and Regulations, against an owner or occupant or their guests, may be assessed against the owner's Unit. E. Fees, charges, late charges, fines and interest may be assessed as provided in Section 51 SB.3-116(a) of the Act. P. Assessments levied under Section S1 SB.3-116 of MCIOA to pay a judgment against the Association may be levied only against the Units existing at the time the judgment was entered, in proportion to their common expense liabilities. 0. If any damage to the Common Elements or another Unit is caused by the act or omission of any owner or occupant, or their invitees, the Association may assess the costs of repairing the damage exclusively against the owner's Unit to the extent not covered by insurance. H. If any installment of an assessment becomes more than 30 days past due, then the Association may, upon 10 days written notice of the owner, declare the entire amount of the assessment immediately due and payable in full. 1. Expenses relating to the maintenance, repair, replacement or operation of all or any part or component of a common element or limited common element may be assessed against Units on the basis of use, which may either be measured or reasonably estimated. J. Ifc- mmon expense liabilities are reallocated for any purp>c-o authorized by the Act, Common Expense assessments and any installment thereof not yet due shall be recalculated in accordance >\*ith the reallocated common expense liabilities. K. Assessments described in Subsections 9.01.A-I shall not be considered special assessments as described in Section 10.03. # 9.02 Voting. Each of the Units is allocated one vote in the Association. 9.03 Reasonable Estimates. Whenever an expense that is allocable to Units to which a Limited Common Element is assigned under Section 9.01 .A, to certain benefited Units under Section 9.0 l.B, or to certain Units on the basis of use of utilities under Section 9.01 .C, is not separately metered or caiuiot otherwise be precisely measured, the Association may make a reasonable estimate thereof, and based on such estimate, may adopt for convenience a simple flat fee per each such Unit 9.04 equality. Formula. The allocation of interests specified in Section 9.01 above is based on 10.00 ASSESSMENTS 10.0 1 General Provisions. Section S1 SB.3-11 S of the Act specifies how assessments are assessed and collected. Section SlSB.3-116 specifies how the lien for assessments is created and enforced, and to which interests it is either superior or subordinate. 10.02 Annual Assessments. Annual Assessments shall be established and levied by the Board. Each annual assessment si.'*U cover all of the anticipated Common Expenses of the Association for that year. Annual assessments may provide, among other things, for contributions to a separate reserve fund sufficient to cover the periodic cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the Common Improvements and those parts of the Units for which the Association is responsible, in accordance with the Association’s reserve plan. The plan may assume that a portion of the future costs will be funded by fViture special assessments. ‘0.03 Special Assessments. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment payable over one or several assessment years for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any unforeseen or unbudgeted common expense, including without limitation the unexpected construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement and including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of not less than a majority of the Units. 10.04 Maintenance Assessments. In addition to annual and special assessments, the Association, by the vote of a majority of the Units, may levy in any assessment year a maintenance assessment for the purpose of defraying in whole or in part the cost of curing a violation of a covenant or failure to perform a condition contained in this Declaration after notice as provided in Sections 13.01 and 22.07 below. The assessment shall be a personal obligation of the owner and a lien against the Unit with the same priority and enforceability as any lien for annual or special assessments. I O.OS Commencement of Initial Anniml Asses-^menta The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all Units not later than one month after the first conveyance of a Unit to **■ IMUt an owner other than Declarant. The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the calendar year. 10.06 Commencement of Annual Assessments. By November 30 of each year the Board shall fix the amount of annual assessments against each Unit for the following fiscal year and shall send written notice thereof to each owner. The due date for payment of annual assessments shall be as set by the Board. At the time Uie Board fixes the amount of annual assessments it shall adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and cause a copy of such budget in reasonable detail to be furnished to each owner. 10.07 Lien Priority: Foreclosure . A lien under this Section is prior to all other liens and encumbrances on a Unit except (i) liens and encumbrances recorded before the Declaration, (ii) any first mortgage on the Unit, and (iii) liens for real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges against the Unit Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a first mortgage on a Unit is foreclosed, the first mortgage was recorded on or after June 1,1994, and no owner redeems during the owner's period of redemption provided by Chapters 580, 581, and 582, then the holder of the sheriffs certificate of sale from the foreclosure of the first mortgage shall take title to the Unit subject to unpaid assessments for Common Expenses levied pursuant to Section 515B.3-115(a), (e)(I) to (3), (f), and (i) of the Act which became due, without acceleration, during the six months immediately preceding the first day following the end of the owner ’s period of redemption. 10.08 Voluntary Conveyances: Statement of Assessments. In a voluntary conveyance of a Unit the buyer shall not be personally liable for any unpaid assessments and other charges made by the Association against the seller or the seller's Unit prior to the time of conveyance to the buyer, unless expressly assumed by the buyer. However, the lien of such assessments shall remain against the Unit until satisfied. Any seller or buyer shall be entitled to a statement, in recordable form, from the Association setting forth the amount of the unpaid assessments against the Unit, including all assessments payable in the Association's current fiscal year, which statement shall be binding on the Association, seller and buyer. 10.09 Alternative Assessment Program. The Declarant hereby establishes an alternative assessment program of the type described in Section 515B.3> 115(a)(1) of the Act. Specifically, if a common expense assessment has been levied, any Unit owned by Declarant for initial sale shall be assessed at the rate of 25% of the assessment levied on other Units of the same type until a certificate of occupancy has been issued with respect to such Unit by the municipality in which the Unit is located. Thereafter, such Unit will be assessed at the full rate. This reduced assessment shall apply to each Unit owned by Declarant at the time that the Unit is created, and shall continue as to each such Unit until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy as previously described. In any event, this alternate assessment program shall end on the fifth anniversary of the recording of this Declaration. There are no assurances that this alternative assessment program will have no effect on the level of servir'^s for items set forth in the Association's budget. 11.00 EASEMENTS 11.01 Easement for Maintenance. Repair. Replacement and Reconstruction. Each Unit shall be subject to the rights of the Association to a non-exclusive easement on and over the Units to the extent necessary to fulfill the Association's obligations under this Declaration or the Act, including without limitation, to maintain the Common Elements, the Exterior Landscaping, the Common Improvements, the Atriums and the Office Structures. 11.02 Declarant's Easements. Declarant shall be the beneficiary of the easements for construction and sales activity described below. 11.03 Right of Enjoyment over the Common Area. Every owner and lawful occupant of a Unit, and the invitees of any such, shall have the non-exclusive right to use and enjoy the Common Area for ingress and egress, parking, utility access, and enjoyment of open spaces, subject to reasonable rules and regulations adopted from time to time by the Board. Nothing herein shall be construed as a grant of easement rights to the puMic. 11.04 Recorded Easements. The Real Estate shall be subject to such other easements as may be recorded against it or shown on the CIC Plat. 11.05 Permanent Easements. All easements described in this Declaration are permanent easements, ruruiing with the land, and are appurtenant. They shall at all times inure to the benefit of and be binding on the owner and the mortgagee, from time to time, of any Unit, and their respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns. Subject to the restrictions set forth herein, an owner may delegate the right of enjoyment of an easement to tenants. 11.06 Continuation and Scop»- of Easements. Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, in no event shall an owner or occupant be denied reasonable access to its Unit or the right to utility services thereto. The easements set forth in this Article 11.00 shall supplement and not limit any easements described elsewhere in this Declaration or otherwise recorded, and shall include reasonable access to the Common Elements through the Units as reasonably necessary for purposes of maintenance, repair, replacement and reconstruction. 12.00 ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY 12.01 Common Elements: Exterior Landscaping: Snow Plowing. In order to preserve the uniform and high standard of function and appearance of the Real Estate, the Association shall have the exclusive responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the Common Elements (including the Common Improvements), the exterior surfaces of the Atriums and Oflice Structures, and the Exterior Landscaping, which responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the resiufacing and striping of paved areas; maintenance, repair, painting and rq>lacement of lighting fixtures, directional signage; planting, removing, mowing, trimming, replanting, raking and fertilizing of grass, shrubs, trees and other plantings; the maintenance and repair of exterior surfaces of all buildings on the Real Estate, including, without limitation, the painting and staining of same as often as necessary, the 8 r- replacement of trim and caulking, the maintenance and repair of roofs, gutters, downspouts and overhangs, the maintenance and repair of exterior windows and doors, and the painting and decorating of the exterior surface of exterior doors and exterior vtrindow sashes. The Association shall not be responsible for washing windows. In addition, the Association shall be responsible for snowplowing all driveways, parking areas and paved walkways throughout the Real Estate. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair is caused through the willful or negligent act or omission of an owner or the owner's tenants or invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be added to and become a part of the assessment to which such Unit is subject. 12.02 Services. The Association may obtain and pay for the services of any persons or entities, to manage its affairs, or any part thereof, to the extent it deems advisable, as well as such other personnel as the Association shall determine to be necessary or desirable for the proper operation of the Real Estate, whether such personnel are furnished or employed directly by the Association or by any person or entity with whom or which it contracts. The Association may obtain and pay for legal and accounting services necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Real Estate or the enforcement of this Declaration. The Association may arrange wi^ others to furnish trash collection and other common services to each Unit. 12.03 Personal Property and Real Estate for Common Use. The Association may acquire and hold for the use and benefit of all of the owners tangible and intangible personal property and real estate and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise. Such beneficial interest shall not be transferable except with the transfer of title to a Unit, provided that an owner may delegate its right of enjoyment of such property to tenants of its Unit. A transfer of title to a Unit shall transfer to the transferee ownership of the transferor's beneficial interest in such property in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended, without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other owners. The transfer of title to a Unit under foreclosure shall entitle the purchaser to the beneficial interest in such property associated with the foreclosed Unit. 12.04 Utilities. The Association shall maintain, replace and repair only those sewer and water lines and other utilities which (i) serve only the Common Area or (ii) are not maintained by the City or a utility company. 13.00 OWNERS'MAINTENANCE 13.01 Upkeep and Maintenance. Except only as such work is provided by the Association, all maintenance, repair and replacement of all Office Structures, Atriums and other fixtures located with a Unit shall be the sole obligation and expense of the owner thereof (or in the case of a shared Atrium, the adjoining owners), who shall maintain the same in a reasonably clean, neat, attractive and safe exterior condition and in accordance with the architectural standards established by this Declaration, failing which the Association, on thirty (30) days' prior written notice, may (but is not required to) enter the Unit and perform some or all of the neglected work at the expense of such owner. I 14.00 INSURANCE 14.01 Association's Policies. The Association shall maintain casualty insurance coverage and general liability coverage on the Common Elements and Common Improvements. The Association may also carry any other insurance it reasonably considers appropriate. All such insurance premiums shall be a common expense. The Association may enter into binding agreements with one or more holders, insurers or guarantors of mortgages obligating the Association to keep specified coverages in effect for specified periods and to notify a holder, insurer or guarantor of any changes to coverage. The Association shall adjust losses under any such policies and shall use casualty insurance proceeds to rebuild Common Improvements to original standards or to a f\mctional equivalent, unless otherwise directed by vote of a majority of the Units. 14.02 Owners' Individual Policies. Each owner should carry insurance for its own benefit insuring its property, provided that all such policies shall contain waivers of subrogation and further provided that the liability of the carriers issuing insurance obtained by the Association shall not be affected or diminished by reason of any such additional insurance carried by any owner, that is, owner's policies shall be "without contribution" against Association policies. 15.00 ARCHITECTURAL RESTRIC HONS 15.01 Review of Building Plans. No improvement shall be erected, placed, or altered on any Unit until the building or other improvement plans, specifications (including front elevation and/or architects rendering) and a plot plan showing the locations of such improvements on the particular Unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee as to conformity and harmony of external design with existing structures in the development, and as to location of the improvements on the Unit, giving due regard to the anticipated use thereof as same may affect adjoining structures, uses and operations, and as to location of the improvements with respect to topography, grade, and finished ground elevation. The Architectural Control Committee and Declarant shall not be liable to anyone in damages so submitting plans for approval, or to any owner by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence, or nonfeasance of itself, its agents, or employee, arising out of or in such plans. Likewise, anyone so submitting plans to the Architectural Control Committee for approval, by submitting of such plans, and any party becoming an owner, agrees that it will not bring any action or suit to recover for any such damages against the Architectural Control Committee or Declarant. In the event the Architectural Control Committee fails to approve or disapprove such plans and specifications in writing within thirty days after they have been submitted to *he Architectural Control Committee, the plans and specifications will be deemed accepted by the Architectural Control Committee. If an improvement is begun in violation of the terms and conditions hereof, or without written approval as required, and no suit to enjoin the erection, establishment, or alteration of such improvement has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, this covenant shall be deemed to be fulfilled and in compliance. The Board, on request, will issue a certificate as to the state of compliance or noncompliance of a particular Unit, and any such certificate will be binding as to third parties. Any deviation from said plans and specifications as approved which in the judgment of the said ii Committee is a substantial change or a detriment to the appearance of the structure or of the surrounding area shall be corrected to conform to the plans and specifications as submitted. 15.02 Standards for Certain Exterior Improvements . The Architectural Control Committee shall maintain and enforce specifications for the design, materials, colors, appearance and quality of all exterior dire<:tional signage, lighting fixtures, retaining walls, edging materials used around plantings, paving materials, outdoor seating and tables, awnings, umbrellas and all other exterior fixtures and furniture furnished by an owner or tenant ar>d used on the exterior of a Unit, matching those which the Association acquires and maintains as Conunon Improvements. The Architectural Control Committee may revise and add to these standards from time to time, but may not require replacement solely to achieve a different appearance, except with the consent of the vote of seven of the ten Units. 15.03 Standards for Plantings. The Architectural Control Committee shall maintain and enforce specifications for the species, color, placement and size of all plantings within the Real Estate. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it may disapprove disharmonious flower beds and other plantings. 15.04 Declarant's Rights. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit £)eclarant from making changes to the plans, specifications, and appearance of buildings constructed form time to time on vacant Units, but all buildings shall be consistent in terms of quality and harmonious in general appearance with previously constructed buildings. During the period of Declarant control, the decisions of the Architectural Control Committee must have the written approval of the Declarant. 15.0S Composition of Committee . The Architectural Control Committee shall be the Board of Directors of the Association, or a committee of three or more persons so designated by the Board. 15.06 Signs. All advertising signs and devices shall have prior written approval of the Architectural Control Committee and shall conform to the following: a.The total advertising square footage shall not exceed the area permitted by the ordinances of the City. b. c. No single surface of a sign shall exceed 600 square feet. Signs shall only identify the owners or tenants of a building and may not advertise products or services not related to the building. d. No signs shall be painted directly on a building. e. f. No signs shall contain a rotating light beam or a flashing light system. No signs shall be located on the roof of a building. J 16.00 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS 16.01 Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities. No damage to, or waste of, the exterior of the Real Estate and buildings shall be committed by any owner or any invitee of any owner, and each owner shall indemnify and hold the Association and the other owners harmless against ail loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused to the Association or other owners by such owner or the owner's invitees. No noxious, destructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on any Units or any part thereof, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an unreasonable nuisance to any other owner or to any other person at any time lawfully on the Real Estate. No hazardous substances shall be generated, stored or used on the Real Estate other than reasonable quantities of usual cleaning and oflice supplies. 16.02 Animals. Any cat or dog brought upon the Real Estate must be kept under the direct control of the pet owner or another person able to control the pet. The person in charge of the pet must clean up after it. The Board may adopt more specific rules and penalties not inconsistent with the foregoing. 16.03 Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed, or maintained upon the property, except accessory to and during construction of permanent buildings. 16.04 General Storage. Storage of all materials, products, either in process of construction or in completed form, equipment, HVAC equipment, or other necessary tools or articles outside of any building shall be in an area designated for such purpose and enclosed by a fence or other appropriate enclosure which shall screen snch storage from public view. Plans for such storage arrangements must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee in writing. The storage or collection of rubbish of any character whatsoever, any material that emits foul or obnoxious odors, and the harboring of the source of any noise or activity which disturbs the peace, comfort or serenity of lawful occupants is prohibited. Usual trash and garbage shall be regularly collected and may be kept outside only if in sanitary containers which are so screened. 16.0S Parking. No truck or automobile parking shall be permitted on driveway easements. No boats, snowmobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, buses, camper tops, "all-terrain vehicles", tractor/trailers, trucks in excess of9,000 pounds gross weight, or unlicen^ or inoperable vehicles shall at any time be stored on the Real Estate outside of a building without the express written approval of the Board, which may be withheld without stated reason. 16.06 Additional Units. A Unit owned by the Declarant may be subdivided or converted into two or more Units, Limited Conunon Elements, Common Elements, or a combination of Units, Limited Common Elements or Common Elements under the authority of Section S15B.2-112 of the Act In such case, the common expense liability and Common Element interest formerly allocated to the Unit so subdivided or converted will be reallocated to the resulting new Units in proportion to relative land area, and the voting power of the entire Association shall be reallocated bcsed on the ^ I relative rentable floor area of each building. An Owner of a Unit may also submit the Unit as a condominium under the Act, dividing the Unit into units and common elements. 16.07 No Time Shares. Time shares, as defined in Uie Act, are not permitted in this CIC. 16.08 Rules and Regulations. The Board shall have the exclusive authority to adopt from time to time such other rules and regulations governing the administration of the affairs of the Association, the use, maintenance and enjoyment of the Real Estate, and the conduct of persons using the Real Estate, as the Board in its reasonable discretion deems desirable or necessary to implement the intent of this Declaration. New or amended rules and regulations shall be effective only after reasonable notice thereof has been given to the owners. 17.00 FIRST MORTGAGEES 17.01 Agreements with Mortgage Holders. The Board may enter into binding agreements with holders and guarantors of mortgages secured by interests in a Unit, obligating the Association to give specified notice or other rights to such holders and guarantors. 18.00 SPECIAL DECLARANT RIGHTS 18.01 Special Declarant Rights. Declarant hereby reserves the following rights (referred to in MCIOA as Special Declarant Rights) for its benefit: the right to create Units by this Declaration; the right to construct and complete improvements; the right to maintain sales office, management office, signs advertising the CIC, and models, provided that no more than one combined sales and management office will be maintained at any one time; the right to use easements through the Common Elements for the purpose of making improvements within the CIC; and the right to ^>point or remove any officer or director of the Association during the period of declarant control, which shall expire on the earliest of the following events: 1. surrender of the right of control by the Declarant; 2.60 days after the conveyance of 7S% of the Units to Owners other than Declarant; and n.'’ 3.three years from the first conveyance of a Unit to an Owner other than Declarant. 19.00 AMENDMENTS 19.01 Declaranfs Joinder. In addition to the other requirements for amendment of this Declaration and the Bylaws contained herein, so long as Declarant owns a Unit, the written joinder and consent of the Declarant shall be .cquired for any amendment of either the Declaration or Bylaws. This right may be waived in whole or part at any time by recording a written waiver executed and acknowledged by Declarant. 20.00 COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIES 20.01 Compliance . Each ownei and occupant and any other person owning or acquiring any interest in the Real Estate, shall be governed by and comply with the provisions of the Act, this Declaration and Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, the decisions of the Association, and such amendments thereto as may be made from time to time. A failure to comply shall entitle the Association to the relief set forth in this Section, in addition to the rights and remedies authorized elsewhere by the Declaration, Bylaws or the Act. 20.02 Entitlement to Relief. The Association may commence legal action to recover sums due, for damages, for injunctive relief or to foreclose a lien owned by it, or any combination thereof, or an action for any other relief authorized by the Declaration or Bylaws or available at law or in equity. Legal relief may be sought by the Association against any owner, or by an owner against the As.socintion or another owner, to enforce compliance with the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Rcgulutiuns, the Act or the decisions of the Association. However, no owner may withhold any assessments payable to the Association, or take (or omit) other action in violation of the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations or the Act, as a measure to enforce such owner's position, or for any other reason. 20.03 Right to Cure. In the event that any owner violates any covenant or fails to perform any condition contain,xl in this Declaration, the Association may nerform the act, remove the defect or correct the violation upon thirty (30) days written notice to the owner. If the Association so acts on behalf of an owner, the Association may levy an assessment against the owner's Unit for the cost of the performance or correction as a Maintenance Assessment as provided in Section 10.04. 20.04 Sanctions and Remedies. In addition to any other remedies or sanctions, expressed or implied, administrative o“ legal, the Association shall have the right, but not the obligation, to implement any one or more of the following actions against owners and occupants and/or their guests, who violate the provisions cf the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations or the Act: A.Commence legal action for damages or equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. ■l' ^m. B.Impose late charges of up to 15% of each late payment of an assessment or installment thereof. C.In the event of default of more than 30 days in the payment of any assessment or installment thereof, all remaining installments of assessments assessed against the Unit owned by the defaulting owner may be accelerated and shall then be payable in full if all delinquent assessments, together with all costs of collection and late charges, are not paid in full prior to the effective date of the acceleration. Reasonable advance written notice of the effective date of the acceleration shall be given to the defaulting owner. D.Impose reasonable fines, penalties or charges for each violation of the Act, the Declaration or Bylaws, or the Rules and Regulations of the Association. E.Restore any portions of the Common Elements or Limited Common Elements damaged or altered, or allowed to be damaged or altered, by any owner or occupant or their invitees in violation of the Declaration or Bylaws, and to assess the cost of such restoration against the responsible owners and their Units. F. Foreclose any lien arising under the provisions of the Declaration or Bylaws or under law, in the manner provided for the foreclosure of mortgages by action or under a power of sale ia Minnesota. 20.05 Lien for Charges. Penalties. Etc. Any assessments, charges, fines, penalties, or interest imposed under this Article shall be a lien against the Unit of the owner against whom the same are imposed and the personal obligation of such owner in the same manner anc with the same priority and effect as assessments under Article 10.00. Tlie lien shall attach as of the date of imposition of the remedy. All remedies shall be cumulative, and the exercise of, or failure to exercise, any remedy shall not 'uc deemed a waiver of the right to pursue any others. 20.06 Costs of Proceedings and Attorneys Fees. With respect to any collection measures, or any measures or action, legal, administrative, or otherwise, which the Association takes to enforce the provisions of the Act, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules and Regulations, whether or not finally determined by a court or arbitrator, the Association may assess the violator and it.*: Unit with any expenses incurred in connection with si .. enforcement, including without limitation fines or charges previously imposed by the Association, reasonable attorneys, fees, and interest (at the h ghest rate allowed by law) on the delinquent amounts owed to the Association. 20.07 Liability for Owners' and Occupants' Acts. An owner shall be liable for the expense of any maintenance, repair or replacement of the Property rendered necessary by such owner ’s acts or omissions, or by that of tenants or invitees in the owner's Unit, to the extent that such expense is not covered by the proceeds of insurance car < d by the Association jt such owner or tenant Howe /er. j any insurance deductible amount and/or increase in insurance rates, resulting from the owner's acts or omissions may be assessed against the owner responsible for the condition and against its Unit. 20.08 Enforcement bv Owners. The provisions of this Section shall not limit or impair the independent rights of other owners to enforce the provisions of the Declaration, Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, and the Act as provided therein. 21.00 APPROPRIATE USE STANDARDS 21 .01 Establishment of AUC: Standards. An Appropriate Use Committee (the “AUC") is hereby established as a permanent committee of the Board, to oversee, review and regulate all proposed new uses of Units. The AUC shall review each new or proposed use of a Unit and disallow any that are not compatible with the history and character of the Real Estate, the other Units and the surrounding neighborhood. In reviewing a proposed new use, the AUC may consider, among other factors: (a) objective impacts such as density and timing of trafific, likely emissions of sound or odor, and vehicle weights; (b) increased insurance risks and premiums; (c) probable electronic interference; (d) uses likely to attract demonstrations or protests; (e) uses that regularly solicit the public to tent sales, flea markets or the like; and (f) uses that are offensive to community standards. The AUC may adopt standards for the Real Estate that help to elucidate those principles. Such standards may be more stringent than standards prescribed in applicable building, zoning, or other governmental laws, codes, or regulations. 21.02 Appropriate Use Conunittee: Composition. The AUC shall initially consist of a minimum of three (3) natural persons, who need not be Owners. Until the expiration of the period of Declarant control, the committee members shall be appointed by Declarant and shall hold office ut the pleasure of Declarant. Thereafter, Declarant shall have the right to appoint the majority of the members of the AUC so long as Declarant has the unexpired right to subject Additional Property to the Declaration or owns a Unit, and those member of the Board who are not appointed by Declarant shall have the right to appoint the remainder of the members of the AUC. Upon the expiration of the period of Declarant control, the Board shall (i) determine how many persons shall serve on the AUC (which shall be no fewer than three (3) nor more than seven (7) natural persons), (ii) appoint the members of the AUC (subject to Declarant's right to appoint the majority of members specified in the preceding sentence), (iii) set reasonable terms of office for the members of the AUC, and (iv) determine which member of the AUC shall serve as its chair. Following the expiration of Declarant's right to appoint the majority of the members of the AUC, a majority shall be Owners. A majority of the AUC shall constitute a quorum to transact business at any meeting, and the action of a majority of those present shall constitute the action of the AUC. 21.03 Application and Approval Required. No new Owner or tenant of a Unit shall take possession, nor shall an Owner or tenant in possession materially change the use of the Unit, until a description of such use, in such reasonable detail and with such explanatory and supporting material as the AUC shall reasonable request, shall have been submitted in writing to and approved in writing by the AUC. The AUC may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs associated with its review. A copy of each such applications shall be simultaneously sent to the planning and zoning administrator of the City. If the information submitted to the AUC is, in 16 J *5^ * the AUCs sole opinion, incomplete or insufficient in any manner, the AUC may require the submission of additional information. 21.04 Notice of Decision. The AUC shall approve or disapprove the application and notify the applicant in writing within forty-flve (45) days following the receipt of the application and all related information. The notice shall set forth the approval or denial of the application, or any qualifications or conditions of approval. If the AUC disapproves the application, it shall state the grounds upon which the disapproval is based. Any applicant may appeal the decision of the AUC to the ^ard within thirty (30) days of the AUCs decision. The Board shall make its detennination and notify the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The determination of the Board shall be final and binding upon the applicant; provided, that no use shall be allowed to remain which violates any of the covenants, conditions or restrictions contained in this Declaration, or which violates any governmental law, zoning or building ordinance, or regulation. 21.05 Certificate of Compliance. The AUC will on request issue a certificate that a particular use has been approved. 21.06 Inspection and Remedies. The AUC, and any agent or member of the AUC, has the right of entry and inspection upon any Unit for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the applicable use standards. If any person fails to comply with the requirements of the Declaration or the standards promulgated by the AUC, the violator shall pay all costs in connection with the resolution or correction of the violation, including without limitation any fees of attorneys or other professionals, incurred by the Association. 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.01 Association Acts through Board. The power and authority of the Association as provided in the iqiplicable Statutes, the Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations shall be vested in a Board of Directors elected by the owners in accordance with the Bylaws of the Association. The Association shall act through the Board of Directors and the officers elected by the Board; accordingly, all references in the Declaration and Bylaws to action by the Association shall mean the Board of Directors acting for the Association, unless action by the vote of the owners, members or mortgagees is expressly required by the Declaration, Bylaws, or the Act. 22 02 Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any owner or the Association under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been received sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such member appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing or to the address of the Association, except that a notice changing the address of a member shall be effective on receipt by the Association. In the case of multiple owners of a Unit, notice to any one cf such owners shall ^ deemed notice to all. 22.03 Captions. The headings in this Declaration are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. ' i a 22.04 Construction . In the e\ ent of an apparent conflict between this Declaration and the Bylaws, the provisions of this Declaiation shall govern. The use of pronouns such as “it”, “its”, "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable the plural male and female forms. 22.05 Not Subject to Ordinance. This CIC is not a conversion of existing buildings to a CIC within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 51 SB. 1 -106(c), and is therefore not subject to any ordinance of the type authorized or permitted by said statute. 22.06 Declarant's Rights and Obligations. The Declarant shall enjoy the same rights and shall be deemed to have assumed the same duties with respect to its unsold Units in the CIC as any other owner, except as modifled or extended by the alternate assessment program and the special declarant rights described in this Declaration. 22.07 Right to Cure. In the event that any owner violates any covenant or fails to perform any condition contained in this declaration, the Association may perform the act, remove the defect or correct the violation upon thirty (30) days written notice to the owner. If the Association so acts on behalf of an owner, the Association may levy an assessment against the owner's Unit for the cost of the performance or correction as a Maintenance Assessment as provided in Section 10.04. 22.08 Public Agency Easements. The City is hereby declared to have the right and easement to enter the Conmion Elements for public safety purposes. 22.09 Clean and Neat Appearance of Grounds . The City is not responsible for any mowing, landscape maintenance or cleaning of the Common Elements, llie Association is obligated by this Declaration to maintain the same at all times in a clean and neat condition at its expense. 22.10 City May Assess for Curative Woric If the Association fails to perform any of the maintenance referred to in Section 22.09 above, or to keep the access and utilities reasonably open and functioning, the City may enter the Real Estate and perform curative work (but is under absolutely no obligation to do so), in which case the City may assess the Units within this CIC for the cost thereof. 22.11 Unresolved Disputes. In the event ofan unresolved dispute between the Unit owners, or a split decision by the Association or Directors, and such dispute shall not be resolved within thirty (30) days, then the matter shall be submitted to binding and fln<«l arbitration under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 572, by application to Heimepin County District Court, which shall appoint a neutral arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procures of the American Arbitration Association. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year recited on the first page hereof. SUGARWOODS OFFICE CENTER, LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. By: Philip L. Carlson, Chief Manager COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this___day of 2005 by Philip L. Carlson, the Chief Manager of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: N. Walter Graff Best A Flanagan LLP 22S South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota S54024690 (612)339-7121 Notary Public >•' OI727taSOOOI/IMIMJ K- mm ♦ < EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement is made effective as of______,, 2005, by and between the Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (Grantor), and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Grantee). RECITALS A. Grantor is the fee owner of real property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Grantor’s Property"). B. Grantee desires to obtain a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes for a future frontage road (the "Road Easement") over the part of the Grantor’s Property legally d^ribed in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Road Easement Area"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment by Grantee to Grantor of $1.00, and for other valuable consideration including the agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: L Grant of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes over the Road Easement Area. 2. Use of Road Easement, llie Grantee may use the Road Easement for future frontage road purposes in connection with access to and from Grantor’s Property. 3. Construction of Road and Utility Easement. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall construct the road according to the plans and specifications submitted to Grantor, receipt and ai^woval of which is hoeby acknowledged. 4. Grantee ’s Obligations of Maintenance and Repair . Grantee agrees, at its sole expense, to keep, maintain and repair the road easement area in a clean and safe condition, free of all debris, parking and improvements; S. Use Indemnity. Grantee will defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, expenses (including reasonable attorneys* fees and expert and other fees and expenses), fines, judgments, liens, penalties, obligations, and suits arising out of, relating to or resulting from Grantee ’s and Grantee ’s employees, agents, rq)resentatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns use of the rcMd easonent, excqit for the negligence or misconduct of Grantor, its employees, board members, agents, representatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns. 6. Construction Indemnity. Grantee will defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, expenses (including reasonable attorneys ’ fees and expert and other fees ukI expenses), fines, judgments, liens, penalties, obligations, and suits arising from the construction of the road and utility easement by Grantee, its employees, agents, representatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns. 7. Access bv Grantor . Grantor, and its officers, agents, employees, contractors, licensees and invitees, may use the driveway utility easement Area at any time aixl for any purpose, so long as such use does not interfere with the use of the road easement by Grantee and its agents, employees, contractors, licensees, and invitees. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. This Agreement and the attached exhibits embody the entire agreement between the parties. This Agreement cannot be amended, altered or modified and no provisions can be waived, excq)t by a written instrument executed by the parties. The headings and captions of the paragrqihs and sul^Muragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or a limitation on the scope of any paragraph or subparagraph. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable under any applicable law or rule, such provision will be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability without invalidating the remainder of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document mm I m i t I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto caused this Agreement to be executed effective the day and year written below. GRANTEE: CITY OF ORONO GRANTOR: Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______, 2005, by____________________and____ and day of LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. , respectively, of the Sugarwoods Ofitce Center, r'-Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ) )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______^ 2005, by___ and day of , the Mayor and die City Manager, respectively, of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation Notary Public . A' mV/. ------ n EXHIBIT A Grantor’s Property 1.^ : viriil . ; : • ■• ■: ••. ..V ■.■,.•’••* v^.;; , ••. ; o:" : i-i^mim t * rl,- mm V- firu‘£!:m Ml wmm-' mm ^■'' i" wm m- m mm& f'-Tw - ■ 'W:: -.' EXHIBIT B Rotd Eascnent Area W ■•:' ■ v';:;/:r ^ • • • ►. ,• ;-t- , ’! ; .•';■■> :v.; :■ ■■ J ->^r. \>‘ vv.s’•Vi V’r W: ^'>fe'5*r^ J‘. ' 1^. wmm. mm: im -.;■-3^ KsSia :f; fv^fssap; : •.•Tf- :v ■ eia-Ss® mm 7(m' *A ' . V.' . -^'v h ■ 4' ■_ s. H'-. ^L'lVr . • r^;*- t'= .■ I-'" »' -I \ mrZali m-mM : .^/^. V, >^‘v: -••:v.^iv .^.';mmMirnmpi'"' fm- ■I " W»BW!W!''^»fif . llJi '1' 'fS l‘ .iM i . A*». t« ^ 41 -!•»trvay;:ata '■p Um.Hockl, AwimimntforingrwidtBrmpMrpoiMot^trindacrottmupeftof UM 11. «odi 1. AMBGR WOODS OfTICC COHISE, aecoitlinfl to lti» fvcordtd pM ttmoT. County MhraMla, iMing ■ 2S00 foot wide Mhp ol land, the oomw Hno of wMcli li dMcrPod M foio«M: Cowwwwcluy « Sw woftimn comor of m M Lot 11; ifiMico f. on «i oMumoi taring of Soutti ai dogPMO If mlmSM • Eta tang ta fiorih ta of m U Lot 110 cM mo of 42J0 of Etao Itaco Soutti 02 tam 1* minuta 00 If 1J0 Ita Swwo Soirih 07 dtaw 41 of mjoita itoilo of 22J0 «Ml and • conM ata of 00 degw 00 admilM 00 It laimta 00 aownSi Wta a dtanci of 177.10 fta tarn Norih 00 a dtanoa of 40.00 ta; Siaaoa North 00 do grata 04 mIrHOta 01 aacota Eaat a dtanca of OOJO foot; Owioa Ooirih 07 dagraaa 27 ninuiaa 47 aaoota Eaal lo Iho OOP Ona of aaM Lot 11. and aaid comar ta thaia tataliag. Tha aMaSoaa of aaM aStp oio to bt pratagad or ahorlanad ao aa to bagm oa Oia fioftoariy Baa of aaid Lot 11 and to and on Oia aaalariy llna of aaM Loll. •ar 4% • a 4# ••o.p OFFICE CGim i§ cunwnify noi 9 fwcenhd pS9i . Amm 1l4i9HqH AMBU WOODS WOODS OFFICE CENTRE TsEk— ------^—tar toOPOSOaicafssAMOfcxiBEASMMTQNOIT 04MS 1 OF1 nuc 29 Ub U4t*dbp OjC ilia p. f GRANT OF A PERMANENT RETAINING WALL EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned. Hilloway Shopping Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, vendees and William W. Wear and Mable J. Wear, husband and wife, fee owners rOiantoi^, whether one or more), as contract vendee and owners, respectively, of the property tegally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the *Tfopei^), for and in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged do hereby convey unto the Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Oranlec**, whether one or more)., a non-exclusive permanent easement for construction and maintenance of a retaining wall, over that portion of tte Property described on attached Exhibit D (the "Easement Area"). Grantee shall be responsible for and shall pay for construction of the retaining wall located on the Easement Area. Grantor and Grants shall share die cost of maintaining and repairing the retaining wall equally unless maintenance is required because of the negligence of one of the parties. In such event, the negligent party shall be r«q>onsible for the cost of repair.. Tiie parties agree that the Easement Area shall always be maintained in good condition and repair consistent with applicable governmental standards and other commercially reasonable standards and at all times comply with qiplicable regulations, ordinances and codes. The Parties will take such actions as are reasonably necessary to ensure diat the structure or integrity of the retaining wall located within the Easement Area will be maintained. If Grantor or Grantee, their heirs, devisees, successors or assigns, Dul to maintain or repair the retaining wall within the Easement Area, or fails to pay its shwe of the cost of maintenance and or repair, any non-defaulting owner may give the definilting owner or owners a seven-day written notice of such Allures. If the definilting party fiuls to cure the deAult during thv. notice period, the non-defiuilling party shall have the right to enter the Easement Area and perform the maintenance or repair. The definilting party shall reimburse the non-defaulting party for the reasonable cost of said maintenance or repair within seven days of receipt of an invoice. Failure to make such payment shall give the nonnlefaulting owner the rigM to enforce such payment at law. Grantee agrees that it shall, at its sole expense, repair any damage done to the Property as a result of the Grantee's use of the Easement Area and hold Grantor harmless from any and all claims arising from Grantee's use of the Easement Area. IN TESTlK^^^^yEREOF the Grantors and Grantee have executed this agreement this SUGARWOODS OFFICE CENTER, LLC HILLOWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LLC (3i i amdtt t ■■ Rue 39 05 04:36p djo p. W By:. its:Its: William W. Wear Mable J. Wear y- u}jlaj %j STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF }ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of ____ ____________________the__________________of Sugarwoods Office Center, j 2005 by LLC. a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Grantee. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF NNESOTA ^ Bir^oing^stniment was acknowled^ before me this^ day of ^^«tr7~T7005 by 9if.LT- i^. A the____•_____________of Hilloway Shopping Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Grantor. wMMMMwwMaaaaaaa tafyj™Bu^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was William W. Wear and Mable J. Wearjn L I *. 1^1 iiinMUMMawvr '“ “*** .................... wiedged before me this-day ofi^y^i, r rTTOlB by ~ ^ and wife. Grantor. Notary /h.t^ muSi t ExhibUA .11*. ,11: The West 200 feet of that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 11 8, Range 23 described as commencing at the Northwest comer of said East Half of the NcHTthwest Quoter; thence due South (assumed bearing along the West line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes East, 545.78 feet to the actual point of beginning; tfienoe North 87 d^;rees 41 minutes West, 200 fiM; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 feet; thence Nordi 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 12: thence South 69 d^rees 41 minutes East along said Northerly right of line 45.94 feet; dieoce Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northoly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left havingaradiusof 1S87.28 feet to an intersecti<m with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West from die actual point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East 232.24 feet to actual point of beginning. The boundary lines thereof are marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17100; Parcel 2: That part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 described as commencing at die Northwest comer of said East Halfofthe Northwest (Quarter, thence due Soinh (assunoed bearing) along the West line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distaneeof 1311.29feet;dienceSoudi87degree841 minutes East, 545.78 feet to the actual point of beginning; dienceNordi 87 d^rees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence North 2 degrees 19minutes East, 188.93 feet; dwnce North 87 degrees, 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 d^rees 19 mlmites West, 334.96 feet to the Noitfaerfyri^ofwagr line ofStateHi^way No. 12; dwnce South 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northerly ri^ofway line 45.94 feet; dwnce Easteriy 364.3 feet along said Northerly ri^ of way lirw bei^ a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1 S87.28 feet to an intersection with a lirw bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West fiom the actual pobat (rf’beginning; thence Nordi 2 d^rees 19 minutes East, 232.24 feet to actual point of beginning, exoq;iC the West 200 feet thereof. The boundary lines thereof are marked by Judicial Landmarks set ptwsuant to Torrens Case No. 17100; .... ^; A > 1. •| hi^infllTi-------^— --------^ I L*-. Exhibit B Eascacnt Area Legal Description fenr a Construction and Maintenance Easement of a Retaining Wall over that part of Property Registered by Certificate of Utle Number 530734 (Augint26.200S) An <a»em«itfbr coBnniction and miinteiMiicepunwaeiofsigtiiliiiit wall over, uixler, and across the east 10.00 feet of the louth 9S.93 feet of the north 198.93 feet of the following described property; The West 200 feet of that part of the East Half ofthe Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 deacribed as commencing at the Northwest comer ofsaid East Halfofthe Northwest Quarter; thence due South (assumed bearing) along the West line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes East, S4S.78 feet to dw actual point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 feet; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feel; thence South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of Slate Highway No 12; thence South 69 degiees4l minutes East alongsaid Northerly right ofway line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364J feet along said Northerly right of w^ line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West from the actual point of beginning; thence Noidi 2 degrees 19 minutes East 232.24 feet to actual point of beginning. The bound^ lines thenofare marked by Judicial Landmatto set piuauant to Torrens Case No. 17100 Legal Description for a Constiuction and Maintenance Easement of a Retaining Wall over that part of Property Registered by Certificate of Title Number S3073S An eoaemera for construction and mabiteiuuice purposes ofaii4aining wall over, under, and across the north 10.00 feet of the following described properly: That port the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34. Township 118, Range 23 described as coranisnelug at the Northwest comer ofsaid East Halfofthe Northwest Quarter; thence due South (assumed hearing) aloag dm West line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 degrees4l mhuiles East, 545.78 feet to the actual point ofbeginning; thence North 87 degrees 41 minuies West, 200 feet; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutos East, 188.93 feet; dienoe North 87 degrees 41 minuies West,200 feet; thence South 2 degrees 19 minuies West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of w^ lineofStateHighw^No 12; thence South 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northerly right ofway Ifaw 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northerly right ofway line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an hneriection with a line bearing South 2 d^reea 19 minutes West from the actual point ofbeginning; thence North 2 dagraea 19 minulH East232JZ4 feet to actual point of beginning, except the west 200 feet thereof. The boundary Unetthereofaiu marked by Judicial Landmruks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17100; An eaeementfttr construction and maimenanceofa retaining wall over, under, and acTOM the oirt 10.00 feet ofthe north 110.00 feet ofthe ftrllowingdeecrfeed property: That part of the East Half ofthe Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 118. Range 23 described as nommsarlng at the Northwest comer ofsaid East Halfofthe Northwest Quarter, thence due South (assraned hearing) along the Weetlhto of said East Half ofthe Northwest Quarteradistonceof 131129 feet; thence Sooth 87 I J I i <kp««41 miniiinEMt,545.7tliMttolheactiMlpointofbe|iiinii^thenoeNoi1h87<l^rBes4l minutes Wot, 300 fbet; thenoe North 2 defiMi 19 nioules Bum, 181.93 liMl; thence Nortii 17 depvcs 4 1 minules West, 200 feet; thence South 2 defies 19 mimites Weet, 334.96 fbet to the Northerly right of wqr Hne of State Highwey No 12; thenoeSouth69degreeB4i minutes Bait shmgieid Northerly right of wsy line 43.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 (het along said Northerly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left heving a radhis of 1587.28 feet to an faMerteetion with a line bearing South 2 degieee 19 mbMiles West (torn the actual point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 19 mimiles East232J24 feet to actual point of beginning, except the west 200 feet thereof. The boundeor lines theraofaremaricod by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17100; Vy ■ ' 'O.V 1^" W.r:-'v;V IV, ir Iff:'.Hv L‘ I'? . FLWftPLAW ,%< ' vr\ r^ il*Psi U^ i v/N A-1 h” Art B mmy .:. J ^?..vm i^> r sm: ’ V^-,;, :.5>' V',r ■■' •• .:. ■^■":''■■r■••L,■•i^■:^■>•>. V'^'r ?v **• >v^.vV;k. .^. >■ < •A .■:-:ijWIMII^.II.II . II , - "y. r'.' ;<DiiSr5? FLQQRPLAN 9i1$ l'|i 2 Si li. § oi < i A-3 Vg—y«V ;v*^' -X .-t W' m-mm^ ./-: =. = - f. T '• & m L^fc#W -J - ____ K 'Tf- PF:^-mh ■imm■r—•.^r: ^p Fgj p iy a. i vA o §CS A-4 I ‘ ■*-• •:•. f'i ^ •'..•■■ I'.fc.-: V-.' ■-. ^<s: a =3sb assa =SB= ' ^Ov y^y /l--= -- 1 1 J ___ vVxu nFVAnnu S cs^4P II? m1 ?i «^ •-T b 11- § si Ii 2 ^5 § A-5 ► 7 TV J ‘"I ■t d W ■ ■?'::.'4:® ;-■ / . . }: . .. •'• •'. ' •■' ■;■' ■:, ■ ■■ >• ■' :' -• /iV.f •i'l't.4' :/• :^rV ■ 'f-- • r- v-AV -sipi fMim ■-ji '•: • :. ■< ',y-- -t-« t <L- , a’ '-r I Vt V ■9l ^.^TION (1) \^ ; \S\ s *s VT\ ^ Ssi11^s a Si 5 1U. si vA o rs A-6 '4...;'V... r 1? 9- ___» V ife !> 1, ■ •r.'.-T, • \ la < !T\ S ^5 O J A-7 .. 'i. I/U Bonestroo SM Rosene vS Anderlik& |\|| Associates Engine«r:i 4 Architects 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 Office; 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II wwwiKvtestroo.com April 22,2005 Mr. Michael P. Oafi&on Senior Planning Coordinator CityofOrono Post OfRce Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 A Re: Amber Woods Office Center File No. 139-05-000 Plat No. 05-3080 Dear Mike, We have prepared a cost estimate for the proposed site improvements at the Amber Woods Office Center. The total estimated cost for the site improvements is S548,565.75 as shown on the attached spread sheet. The qq;>licant should provide a financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit for 150% of diia amount or $822,848.63 prior to beginning work on the site. The financial guarantee can be reviewed and reduced periodically as work is completed and accepted but shall at no time be less than $25,000 until all weak is completed and accepted. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Youn very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg AttaclMllHI cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono St Paul St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago, It I Mill I r 4/180005 Ambor Woods Office Center Plat 05-3080 Cost Estimate for Financial Guarantee Units SAinit Esiimatad Consinjciion Cost Water Msin Improvomonts Unite $AJnit Estimated Constiuction Cost Unite $/UnK ff* PVC. Sarvioe Pips 1.5 inch copper service 1.5 inch oorp 1.8 inch cwb stop Eatimated Conatruction Cost . : V. . ■ ..' .• ■ . .V j'V-'. r " ''■s V •f' I-'-il# ♦ Total MoMbation LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Traffic Control LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Comsct to Existing 8* SanHaiy Sewer EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 8* PVC SanHaiy Sewer LF 355 $25.00 $8,675.00 Outside Drop EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 8*X6*Wye EA 5 $100.00 $500 00 4* Oiannoter Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 5 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 4* Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole Overdepth LF 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 Improved Pipe Foundation LF 400 $1.00 $400.00 $31,775.00 Total Connect to ExMing Water Main EA 2 $2,500.00 r Water Main LF 725 $15.00 $10,875.00 8*WalerMain LF 15 $ 13.00 $195.00 r Fittings EA 12 $ 250.00 $3,000.00 Hydrant EA 3 $1,800.00 $5,400.00 rOvandBox EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 6* Gv and Box EA 3 $650.00 $1,950.00 $28,020.00 Total LF 355 $12.00 $4,260.00 LF 305 $16.00 $4,880.00 EA 5 $150.00 $750.00 EA 5 $175.00 $675.00 $10,765.00 1^ Stonn 8«wtr UnKi l/UnH Total for Financial Ouarantaa % 111*111 iMfiitiili I i’lllMy • ■ ■ ’M Total Connect to Existing Structure EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $1,500.00 IS” Storm Sewer LF 1,183 $ 24.00 $28,392.00 CatchBasin EA 14 $ 1,300.00 $18,200.00 Estimated Constructior. Cost $48,092.00 FarWna Lot / Grading / Landscaping Units Qty lAJnit Total Grading LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Retaining Wail SF 6,100 $ 20.00 $122,000.00 Fence LF 810 $ 20.00 $16,200.00 Suiigrade Praperation SY 4,100 $ 1.00 $4,100.00 Aggrogala Base. Class 5100% Crushed-8” (CV)CY 2,100 $ 22.00 $46,200.00 Concrete Curb and Gutter B618 LF 1,750 $ 10.00 $17,500.00 Bituminous Base Course • 2”TN 490 $ 45.00 $22,050.00 Bituminous Wear Course, -11/2”TN 370 $ 47.00 $17,390.00 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat GAL 200 $ 2.00 $400.00 Concrete Sidewalk SF 7,715 $ 3.25 $25,073.75 Striping LS 1 $ 3.500.00 $3,500.00 Singage LS 1 $ 500.00 $500.00 Landscaping LS 1 $ 45,000.00 $45,000.00 Tamp Erosion Control LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 Eatimatod Construction Cost $429,913.75 Summary or Improwsments Sanitary Sewer $31,775.00 Water Main $28,020.00 Services $10,765.00 Storm Sewer $48,092.00 Parfcino Lot / Gradkig / Landscaping $429,913.75 Tnial PaUmnla fVfenttfnirtinn fVMsI S548 565 751 WIMI bVUIIWlV WVI1VMUmUWI 1 wVOt 60% %/WWe f W $274,282.80 $822.B48.63 ■hliinaii ^1 ■iiilnii J O' Janie* Oundlach From: Sonl: To: Sufejocl: FYI... MikeGaffron Wednesday, September 21,20051:31 PM Janice Oundlach FW: Amber Woods Preliminary Acceptance Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director City of Orono P«0« Box 65 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (phone)952-249-4600 (fax) 952-249-4616 -——Original Message—— From: gina (mailto:lnterspace6qwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:54 PM To: Milce Gaffron Cc: Philip Carlson; Dan Larson Subject: FW: Amber Woods Preliminary Acceptance - - -Original Message—— From: Martin Korthank [mailto:marty.korthank6dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:32 AM To: interspace6qwest.net Subject: Amber Woods Preliminary Acceptance Nn/DOT Water Resources Engineering has visited the site in Long Lake, Amber Woods, and after preliminary discussions with Loucks and Associates, has confidence the permit will be approved. Mn/OOT feels the general parameters of the drainage design are reasonable and will work with the designers to approve the drainage permit and move the project forward. If you have further questions please feel free to contact me. Martin Korthank Project Manager - ESS Mn/OOT Water Resources Engineering 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 (651) 634-2077 FAX (651) 634-2411 .-’A fcrd V',. .1 mnoer wooos umce center • mc wu project 1 /4 Page 1 ot 2 Janic* Oundlach From: Mike Gaffron Sent: Thursday, September 22,2005 5:20 PM To: Janice Gundlach Subject: FW: Amber Woods Office Center - MCWD project #05174 FYI Michael P. GaffhNi Planning Director City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (phone)9S2-249-4600 (But) 952-24946 1 6 —Original Message — From: Renae Ciarit [mailto:rdarfc9minnehahacreek.org] Sent: Thursday, September 22,2005 4:10 PM To: 'Dan R. Larson* Cc: Mike Gaffron Suldeck: RE: Amber Woods Office Center - MCWD project #05174 Dan, We hav0 reviewed the information submitted for the Amber woods Office Center project at 2060 Wayzata Blvd. and have the following comments: Rule B: Erosion Control • Provide blorolls in swale on East property line • Provide bioroils between building sites • Provide temporary stabilization using erosion control blanket for entire rear yard drainage system • Provide inlet protection on plan and a detail for ail CB’s for pre and post paving and rear yard inlets • Submit copy of SWPPP • Provide an overall temporary and permanent stabilization plan Rule N: Stormwater Management • Reduce existing conditions for the site to meadow in good condition (CN > 58) • Document that existing pipe off site is adequately sized to accept disc, large from the site • To fiilfiil the BMP requirements of Rule N the District will consider infiltration from the gravel subbase for the Stormtech as a BMP and recommend parking lot sweeping twice per year Overall the District has no objections to the use of the Stormtech system; however the application for this project is incomplete at this time. 9/23/2005 Mtnoer wooas untce center - mc;wij project »U5i /4 Page 2 ot 2 Renae Clark, MCWD -Original Message- Fram: Dan R. Larson [mailtDrdlarsonOloucksmciagan.com] Sant: Tuesday, September 20,2005 4:26 PM To: rdai1(Ominnehahacreek.org Cc imerspace^qwestnet Subjoct: Amber Woods Office Center - MCWD project #05174 Renae, I hope you received the stormwater management plan this rrwming. Piease note during your review of the stom design that we wiii be instailing the StormTech chamber system in five different iocations to restrict runoff. You can firWi the iocations on the utitity sheet located at the end of the report. i have a request The city pianner wiii not recommend final approval of this project until the watershed at least approves the design concept and the StormTech product Is it possible to get a written preliminary approval of this design either on paper or a reply to this email. Maybe you can state that the project storm design has preliminary approval and appears to meet runoff rate requirements and that minor adjustments to the design may be needed. Let me know if that is possible and whether or not a reply to this request can be sent by this Friday noon. Thank you. Dan Laison, P.E. ■ i i Civil Rngjneer Louckf Atsodttei 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Kfinneapolis, MN 55369 EMtect Phone: (763) 496-6732 Company Phone: (763) 424-5505 Hue (763) 424-5822 e-mail: cMafBon@loucktinclagan.com aO3/200S Application Dale: 4/20/05 Incomplete Letter Scat: 4/29/05 AppliMtion conaidered complete: d/2/05 Initial M-day Deadline: 1/1/05 Eitended on 7-21-05 to: 9/30/05 Eitended on 9/26/05 to: 11/29/05 MEETING OCT 10’/005 cmroFORONo REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 7,2005 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Midiael P. Oaffion Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3115 WJM Properties LLC (Monies Automotive Group) - 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to Industrial Site Plan • Parking Lot Revisions - New Accessory Building Zoning District: I - Industrial District Application Summary: Request for CUP tq)proval for parking lot expansion (southward fiom existing parking lot) and a new accessory garage building at the south end of the existing main building. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B • Revised Site/Orading/Drainage Plan C • Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/26/05 D - Letter of Extension 9/26/05 E • Memo and Exhibits of 9/14/05 Planning Commission Recommendation Please review the memo and exhibits of September 14 for information regarding this request In November 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5084 granting CUP and Site Plan Approval fix a 20' x 75' addition along the south side of the existing detached 25' x 75' garage structure located near the south end of the priiKipal building on the property. This building addition has never been constructed. Instead, applicant came back in 2005 with a further request for a CUP amendment and revisions to the prior Mustrial Site Plan approval, for a 200' x 200' expanded parking area south of the existing main lot, and construction of a 50' x 100’ addition to the existing accessory garage building south of the principal structure. At the June 2005 Planning Conunission meeting this new request was approved b-0. However, before this was brought to Council for action, an>licant then decided to re- -I r i MMllS October 7,2005 POfCl orient the accessory building addition north-south rather than east-west, and separate it by 10’ from the existing garage building. This revision was reviewed at the July PC meeting and approved 7-0 subject to matching the siding materials and color with that of the existing smaller garage, and subject to submittal of a final gradi.ig and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer. In September, applicant then again amended the application to revise the building materials from steel construction to a pre-cast concrete construction, with tip-up precast panels with aggregate face. This was reviewed by PC on September 19, and was approved 7-0 subject to: 1. Applicant to color-nuitch as closely as possible the new concrete aggregate-face building fitoxle with the recently resided accessory building color; and 2. Final grading and draiiuige plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. City EBglaeer Comments The City Engineer was provided with plans on 10/6/05 and has not submitted comments as of this writing. We hope to have comments and a grading &drainage plan approval prior to Monday’s meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends qiproval per the Planning commission recommendation, subject to any comments forthcoming from ^ City Engineer. A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation is attached for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. P'mi S r V. t * ek- I ra |-| I Mtrn m A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 78^23 AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL PER SECTION 78^1 FILE NO. 05-3115 WHEREAS, WJM Propeities, LLC, (hereinafter **the Owner**) is owner of the propeity located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and le^y described as follows: Exhibit “A** attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-823 to permit the expansion of a paved parking area to support the body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations previously approved for the site via Resolution No. 4845; and WHEREAS, the owner has iq)plied for an amendment to the Industrial Site Plan Approval granted via Resolution No. 4845 per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-821 to allow construction of a 50* x 100* accessoiy garage structure to be located south of the existing principal structure on the site; and WHEREAS, after due published notice aiul mailed notice in accordance with hfinnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning aixl Plaiming Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19,2005, at wdiich time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. MiMl 9ta: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This triplication was reviewed as Zoning File i^05-3115. The property is located in the (I) Industrial District. Page 1 of 6 -------- 3. The proposed parking area expansion is nominally 200’ x 200’ in area, with additional paving to serve the proposed garage in an area approximately 75’ x 90’ in area, constituting in total approximately 46,750 f f. of added paved hardsurface in addition to the 5,000 s.f proposed building. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 19, 2005 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings: a) The proposed parking addition allows for an expansion of the outdoor storage for which a CUP was previously granted via Resolution No. 4845 in August 2002. This new lot takes the place of the 200’ x 200’ paiking lot originally approved at the southwest comer of the main building but which was never constructed. b) The proposed parking/outdoor storage expansion is located at the south end of the existing parking lot and is remotely located from Highway 12 and from adjacent developed properties, such that additional screening of the storage is not warranted. c) The proposed building expansion is an allowed accessory use in the 1 (Industrial) District per Section 78-823. The proposed building meets the minimum 5,000 s.f. area requirement of Section 78-825(b). Building height with the flat roof proposed will be qrproximately 20’, meeting the 40’ 1 District height limit. The building will be setback more than 250’ from all lot lines and {qrproximately 95’ from the main building, meeting all required pertinent setbacks. The addition of this building will bring this 23-acre site to approximately 27% structural coverage, far below the 45% limit for the I District. The building addition is not visible from Hipbway 12 and should not require screening due to its relatively central location within the site. d) The building will be constructed of aggregrte-faced precast concrete panels, \^ch due to the inconsistency of building frK»de materials and colors on the site should be colored to closely match the color of the recently re-sided accessory garage building adjacent to the new garage building. e) Lighting for the parking area is proposed to be a continuation of the approved lighting plan. This is acceptable and is expected to have no impacts on adjoining residential properties Mdiich are all more 600’ distant from the parking area. Page 2 of 6 5. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan which directs ail runoiT from the site to the “Kenobi Pond” stormwater management pondin.: area to the immediate southeast of the property, which is being developed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 12 project. The City Engineer has granted preliminary approval for this grading and drainage plan, and final approval should be subject to meeting all conditions of approval to be established by the City Engineer. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for the proposed parking lot/outside storage expansion and granting site plan approval for the proposed garage building will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a ftre 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 2^ning Code and Compreli^ive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the commuiuty. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-823 to permit the expansion of a paved parking area to support the body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations previously qjproved for the site via Resolution No. 484S; and hereby approves an amer<dment to the Industrial Site Plan Approval granted via Resolution No. 484S per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-821 to allow construction of a SO* x 100 ’ accessory garage structure to be located south of the existing principa! structure on the site; subject to the following conditions; 1. All work shall be in conformity with tne approved site plan and building plans attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any revisions to building or site plans may require additional review by the City Council. 2. Applicant shall color-match as closely as possible the new concrete aggregate-face building facade with the recently re-sided accessory building color. Page 3 of 6 f ,9: taHb 4. 5. The q)plicant shall obtain a building peimit for the accessory structure and a land alteration permit for the parking expansion prior to commencing construction of said improvements. Final grading and drainage plans shall be approval by City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or land alteration permits. The conditions of Resolution No. 4845 and subsequent relevant Resolutions shall remain in effect except as modified by this Resolution. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals will expire on that date (October 10.2006). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any aidhority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned owno- 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 City Council of the City of Otono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the lOtfi day of October, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S.Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 rti Pil i \ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The forcing instniment was acknowledged before me on this lOth day of October, 2005 by Baibara A. Peterson, Mtq^r of die CiQr of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation arid said instnunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_______ i 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota day of municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 P: .:•■ 'V :::>■•-■<- ; :,: •, 7--;V ■.■■■<■ ,i ;,. ; ■r^:‘■‘■t. -A Ai STATE OF MINNESOTA CX)UNTY OF HENNEPIN Hiis inslnmient was acknowledged before me on this day of ,2005 by Maurice J. Wagener, Chief Manager of WJM Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability coipoiation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public V .tv.ji'' . •fern Page 6 of6 I 41 41 / / \d CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kttky Parkway P.O. Box 66 Ciyatal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 2495r.Ti I ZONING FILE: /^05-31IS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 26,2005 TO: WJM Properties, Inc. 1 2520 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES: Peter Johnson 15250 Wayzata Blvd. Suite #103 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amendment to Industrial Site Plan & CUP: - Parking Lot Revisions - Accessory Building Addition (REVISED MATERIALS) DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of proposed parking lot revisions and freestanding accessory building (per Revised Materials Proposal), subject to: 1. Applicant to color-match as closely as possible the new concrete aggregate-face building facade with the recently resid^ accessory building color. 2. Fiiud grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Aj^licanf s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Scheduling is dependent on submittal of grading and drainage plan and approval by City Engineer. Deadline for placement on the October 10 Council agenda is Monday, October 3,2005. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Oaffion at 612-249-4600. 60>Day Review Period Extended 60 Days. Per the letter received from Peter Johnson on 9-264)5, the qiplication review period has been extended an additional 60 days to November 29,2005. r r • ♦1 f P£T£R W. JOHNSON ATTORNEY AT LAW MOOMMIMn ■OOLSITAItt MOUNB^tUnraMOTA 9tH4 “~'?KJlJS»S!Siasr£K _ ’B5K5SS*®”’rcntKRurKTUiwja MMICTBIAL: (98|)479-19D7 CBLLOLAIIi (CIQ74I-1MI7 miMr 26^2005 P. Os^fron Oirvolor Of punning CltyorOrono P.0.B qk66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 56323 SENT BY FAX 952-249-4616 Ra. Application for Amandad CUP - 2605 Wiayzata Blvd.; Application #05-31 is Oew ’MIHo. of tha Appiw^ that the dme limit itnpoaad ter action on tha pMmaappRoatkmbaastBrKfad for an additional period of 60 days. pBIwW. John son ' PWJKf 4wlia<Mpf iMi i<Mwili - I mi %■ J if I : !? Application Date: 4/20/0S Incomplete Letter Sent: 4/29/05 Application considered complete: tS/2/05 Initial 60-day Deadline: 8/1/05 Extended on 7-21-05 to: 9/30/05 TO:Chair Rahii and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Mike Oafiron, Planning Director DATE:September 14,2005 SUBJECT: #05-3115 WJM Properties LLC (Morries Automotive Group) - 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to Industrial Site Plan - Parking Lot Revisions; Accessory Building Addition - REVISED PLAN: Precast Concrete Building Application Summary: At tne June PC meeting, WJM Properties' request was approved 6-0 for a CUP Amendment and revisions to their Industrial Site Plan approval, for an expanded paridng area south of the existing main lot, and construction of an addition to the existing accessory building south of the principal structure (see attached Notice of Planning Commission Action). Applicant then decided to re-orient the building addition north-south rather than east-west, which was reviewed at the July PC meeting and approved 7-0 subject to: 1. Siding materials of accessory building addition and existing accessory building shall be be of matching materials and colors; and 2. Final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. The applicant is now looking for approval to revise the building materials from steel construction to a pre-cast concrete construction, with tip-up precast panels with aggregate face. List of Exhibits: A - Revised Building Plans & Aggregate Texture/Color Depictions B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7-21-05 C - City Engineer Comments on Drainage Plan 8-19-05 D - Memo and Exhibits of July 14,2005 Revised Plan The revised plan is attached as Exhibit A. The 50’ x 100’ north-south oriented garage will liave a 10’ separation from the existing accessory building, rather than being attached. Building height will be 20’ all around, now with a flat roof rather than the low pitched roof previously reviewed, which was 16’ on the sides and 20’ high at the peak. From staffs perspective, these changes create no additional visual impacts from off-site. Colored versions of the facade aggregate will be provided at the meeting. i E jijm 4 rr• I r' 11 .1 MS-31 IS WJM Properties SepteMber 14, IMS P0|e2 ■ A Items for Considoration 1. Will the S,000 s.f. new building and the 1,875 s.f. existing detached garage still be required to have nuitching facade materials/colors? The intent of that condition was to .gain consistency of appearance; the proposed concrete panel construction introduces yet a third fiicade style, different than that of the primary building on the site and different than that of the existing garage... 2.While a new site plan has not been submitted, staffs understanding is that save for a 10 ’ westerly ofbet tc separate the new building from the existing garage, the pavement plan remains generally the same as the plan reviewed in July... 3. Are there any other specific concerns with the proposed garage and parking lot addition? Staff Recommondatioii Aj^licant has yet to provide a revised grading/drainage plan for City Engineer review and aj^roval, which is required before the parking lot and builidng plan will be forwarded to Council qiproval. Subject to PC’s determination whether or how the facade materials of the existing garage should be revised to match the proposed new garage, staff recommends approval per the following conditions: 1.Facades of the new SO’xlOO* accessory building and existing accessory building shall be of matching materials (or textures?) and colors. 2.Fiiud grading *:nd draiiuige plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. fl o'^ A'j IrOv'.' K*tM W5-311SWJM!ropertlM Septenbcr 14,200S P»|02 Items for Consideration 1. Will the 5,000 s.f. new building and the 1,875 s.f. existing detached garage still be required to have matching facade materials/colors? The intent of that condition was to .gain consistency of appearance; the proposed concrete panel construction introduces yet a third facade style, different than that of the primary building on the site and different than that of the existing garage... 2. While a new site plan has not been submitted, stafTs understanding is that save for a 10* westerly offeet to separate the new building from the existing garage, the pavement plan remains generally the same as the plan reviewed in July... 3. Ate there any other specific concerns with the proposed garage and parking lot addition? Staff Recommendation Applicant has yet to provide a revised grading/drainage plan for City Engineer review and approval, which is required before the parking lot and builidng plan will be forwarded to Council for ajqnoval. Subject to PC’s determination wiiether or how the fecade materials of the existing garage should be revised to match the proposed new garage, staff recommends approval per the following conditions: 1.Facades of the new SO’xl 00* accessory building and existing accessory building shall be of matching materials (or textures?) and colors. 2. Final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. V AGGREGATES J Our selection of aggregate finishes features the unique colors and textures available in the regions we serve. These regional variations are labeled by territory, as well as by number. Please note that actual, finished aggre gates may vary somewhat from the depictions shown here. Minnesota O Indiana Qohio Q Pennsylvania ’m ■■km waM.^ ■ a.. ^- ^5 m >rV’-, m .•■v , ■■ m..W--» v ! •uV; MM ?s.m . iifVW r ^- V. 1^% . i I CITY OF ORONO 2750 Krlley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3115 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 21.2005 TO: WJM Properties, Inc. 12520 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES: Peter Johnson 15250 Wayzata Blvd. Suite #103 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amendment to Industrial Cite Plan & CUP: - Parking Lot Revisions - Accessory Building Addition (REVISED ORIENTATION) DATE OF MEETING: July 18,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of proposed parking lot revisions and accessory building addition (per Revised Orientation), subject to: 1. Siding materials of accessory building addition and existing accessory building shall be of matching materials and colors (assumption is that either old building will be resided to match new addition, or new addition will be built to match old accessory building). 2. Final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Scheduling Is dependent on submittal of grading and drainage plan and approval by City Engineer. Deadline for placement on the August 8 Council meeting is Monday, August 1,2005. If you desire certified (v^pies of the ofHciai Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and l^)p^oval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffion at 612-249-4600. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 da)rs from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant Your application was received on April 20, 2005 but remianed incomplete until June 2,2005, and the initial 60-day review period would end on August 1,2005. However, because your application was required to be reviewed a second time by the Planning Commission due to your plan revisions, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 30,2005. r L m- r k ^ •'iv'" Bonestroo Smvv Anderlik& |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects August I9.200S 2335 \W!$t Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 omce: 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 65I-636-I3II wwwJKNiesiroo.com 1 Mr. Michael Oaftron Planning Director City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota SS323 ^ ^ m ^11V OFO^O/Vo Re; WJM Properties Addition PileNo.OOOI39-OSOO(M) Plat No. OS-31 IS Dear Mike, We have reviewed the revised plans dated 8-12-OS for the parking lot and building addition at die Morries Automotive Group property. The site is located at 260S West Wayzata Boulevard. We have Uie following comments with regards to ei^ne^ng matters: • The proposed revisions to tlie parking lot will direct more storm water easterly than sliown on the previously approved plan. The proposed street along the west side of the building drains to catch basins in tlie curb line and in the center of the proposed roadway. The catch basin in die center of the roadway should be relocated to the curb line. Final plans should include drainage and storm sewer calculations to reflect the proposed parking lot and street designs. • Final plans should include a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. Proposed contours should be provided for all improvements including those south and west of the existing building. • Tlie street detail provided will not work with the proposed improvements shown west of the existing builduig. The detail shows a crowned street section that will direct water from half of the roadway towards the building. The street section along the west side of the building should not be crowned and show a cross slope of at least 2K away from the building. • Final plans should include some type of best management practice to treat the stonn water leaving the site prior to discharge into the existing ditch. These best monagement practices should be sized according to the drainogo area to be treated. Calculations should be provided to verify the design. • More detail should be provided for the existing draintilc/storm sewer system. Information luch as inverts and the jrpose of the catch basins shown on the slope bL..veen the 1016 and 1014 contours west of tlie building ahouid be provided. • The plana should clarify whether the existing shed shown in the northeast comer of the parking lot expansion area will remain or will be removed. • The plans should clarify how the drainage along the south lot line works. The contours on the plans submitted stop short of the south lot line and should be extended to at least SO-feet soullt of tlie south lot line. • Once the final plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to detemiine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (6SI) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENB, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. C: Greg Oappa, City of Orono St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago, IL ArflmuMlvw Actlofi/Bqiiai Opporturlly Employer and Employoo Ownad mI -'-M n Application Dale: 4/20'OS Incomplete Letter Sent: 4/29/05 Application considered complete: 6/2/05 dOnlay Deadline: 8/1/05 TO;Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^ July 14,2005 SUBJECT: #05-3115 WJM Properties LLC (Morries Automotive Group) - 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to Industrial Site Plan - Parking Lot Revisions; Accessory Building Addition - REVISED PLAN Application Summaiy: At the June PC meeting, WJM Properties ’ request was approved 6-0 for a CUP Amendment and revisions to their Industrial Site Plan approval, for an expanded parking area south of the existing main lot, and construction of an addition to tlie existing accessory building south of the principal structure (see attached Notice of Planning Commission Action). Applicant has since decided to re-oriem die building addition north- south rather than east-west. Staff concluded that bringing this back to Planning Commission for further review was more appropriate than sending it on to Council without PC input.____ List of Exhibits: A - Revised Plan B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7-1-05 C - Memo and Exhibits of June 16,2005 Revised Pian The revised plan is attached as Exhibit A. The 50* x 100’ garage addition is now oriented north- south, extending westward from the west end of the existing building. The parking lot apron serving the garage has been revised slightly to accomodate the new orientation. The area of impervious surface is actually about 925 s.f. less than that initially proposed. Visually, the building will be no more visible from Highway 12 or from adjacent properties than the prior orientation. Items for Considcratioii 1. The 5,000 s.f. addition and the 1,875 s.f existing detached garage will be required to have matching facade materials/colors to appear as a single building rather than an old wing and a new wing. 2. Are there any other specific concerns with the proposed garage and parking lot addition? Staff Rccommendatioii Staff recommends appr jval per the conditions attached to the June 20 recommendation. NOTE: The revised site plan received 7-14-05 shows 2 proposed 60’ Hag poles. These require a separate CUP application, hnve not beea pnbiisbed for, nnd cannot be approved as part of the current application. H I \ ^ > . :i\:■. 'V . • • ;> .1 ‘ •• . ••• : r .■ ■*,. •: m = NV^ . ;;. \ V< •■ r \ •:/ , . . J> TT T * m I i 111 n I ■ 1111111111 • ........... * imMiiihiiiiiiiiiiiiMi]iiiii, I'i act »rr«ct «»• » IS CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkivay P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE; #05-3115 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; July 1, 2005 TO: WJM Properties, Inc.COPIES: Peter Johnson 12520 Wayzata Blvd.15250 Wayzata Blvd. Suite #103 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Wayzata. MN 55391 TYPE OF APPUCATION:Amendment to Industrial Site Plan & CUP: - Parking Lot Revisions - Accessory Building Addition DATE OF MEETING; June 20, 2005 PlanDlng Commlssloii recommended as follows; Approval of proposed parking lot revisions and accessory building addition, subject to: 1.Siding materials of accessory building addition and existing accessory building shall be of matching materials and colors (assumption is that either old building will be resided to match new addition, or new addition will be built to match old accessory building). 2.Final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review ...id approval by City Engineer prior to Council action. VOTE: 6 FOE 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Scheduling is dependent on submittal of grading and drainage plan and approval by City Engineer. Deadline for placement on the July 11 Council meeting is Tuesday, July 5. Deadline for the July 25 Council meeting is Monday, July 18. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, th^ are available from tlie City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffton at 612-249-4600. Application Date: 4/20/0S Incomplete Letter Sent: 4/29/OS Application contidcrcd complete: 6/2/05 60^ay Deadline: 8/1/OS TO:Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Mike Gaffion, Planning Director June 16,2005 SUBJECT: #05-3115 WJM Properties LLC (Morries Automotive Group) - 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to Industrial Site Plan - Parking Lot Revisions; Accessory Building Addition - Public Hearing Application Summary: WJM Properties requests a CUP Amendment and approval of revisions to their hidustrial Site Plan approval, for the following; 1. Construction of an expanded parking area south of the existing main lot. 2. Construction of an addition to an existing accessory building south of the principal structure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to Planning Commission ’s determination as to whether the proposed 5,000 s.f. addition should be finished to match the principal building, and subject to approval of final grading and drainage plans by the City Engineer prior to final Council action._____________________________________ List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Letters of Request 1 - Paikiiig Lot Rearrangement 2 - Building Addition C - Survey/Site Plan D - Building Plans E - Resolution No. 5084 and Approved Site Plan F - City Engineer Comments G - Plat Map H • Property Owners List Background In August 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4845 granting Industrial Site Plan Approval and a CUP per Zoning Code Section 10.50 Subd. 3(A) to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution fiu:ility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot In June 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4993 granting a CUP per Section 10.50 Subd. permit the construction of a private motor fuel station to support the body shop, auto pr^ and wholesaling aspects of the use, and granted amendments of the prior approval to allow refinishiiig of the west facade of the existing building, and to allow construction of a 40-foot bituminous driveway fix>m the east parking lot to the east property line. ;t-. * I ■ i MS-31 IS WJM Propcriici LLC June 16,200S i»e|c22 In October 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5059 granting a CUP amendment to allow the temporaiy use of fencing in place of final berming and landscaping along the north edge of the parking lot, pending resolve of issues with MCWD regarding wetlands and site grading. In November 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5084 granting CUP and Site Plan Approval for a 20* x 75* addition along the south side of the existing detached 25* x 75* garage structure located near the south end of the principal building on the property. This building addition has never been constructed. In November 2004 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5250 granting approval for revisions to die ^iproved lighting plan for the large easterly parking lot. The lighting has been completed. Current Request As noted in the applicants* letters of request, the current proposal is two-fold; 1. Tlie 20* X 75* detached garage addition was never constiaicted, and applicant has determined that WJM*s current needs are for a slightly larger (50* x 100*) addition located at the west end of the existing garage. This will be served by a driveway extending from the proposed new parking lot to be located at the south end of the large main lot. 2. The proposed new 200* x 200* parking lot will be a southward extension of the existing main parking lot lying east of the main building. This new lot takes the place of the 200* x 200’ parking lot originally approved at the southwest comer of the building but never constmeted. The area at the southwest comer might be used for a main building expansion in the future, but that is not proposed at this time and is not part of this review. The proposed building expansion is an allowed accessory use in the I (Industrial) District per Section 78-823. Section 78-825(b) requires that individual buildings in the I District hie no less than 5,000 s.f. in area. The proposed building including the existing footprint plus additions will be 6,875 s.f. Building height will be approximately 20* at the peak, meeting the 40* I District height limit. The building will be setback more than 300* from all lot lines and approximately 130* from the main building, meeting all required pertinent setbacks. The building addition will bring tliis 23-acre site to approximately 27% structural coverage, far below the 45% limit for the I District. The building addition is not visible from Highway 12 and should not require screening due to its relatively central location within the site. The exterior flnish of the building addition is proposed to be pre-finished metal comparable to the existing accessory garage finish. Section 78-825(f)(2) requires that “All subsequent additic.is and outbuildings constmeted after the erection of an original building shall be constmeted of materials comparable to those used in the original constmetion and shall be designed in a manner confomiing with the original architectural design and general appearance.** The principal building on the property is of concrete/stucco/EFIS material rather tlian pre-finished metal. Planning Commission should determine whether the proposed 5.000 s.f. addition (and perhaps the 1.875 s.f existing building) should be finished to match tlie principal building. -'i fM-31IS WJMProiKrtlctLLC Page 33 Lighting fbr the parking area is proposed to be a continuation of the ^proved lighting plan. This is acceptable and is expected to have no impacts on adjoining residential properties which are all mote than 600' distant fiom the parking area. Mo additional signage is proposed with this building addition. Engineering Concerns. The project has be«i reviewed by the City Engineer and his comments are attached as Exhibit F. His comments relate generally to drainage and stormwater runoff concerns associated with the parking lot expansion. While the site is not in the Shoreland District and not subject to hardcover regulations, applicant will be required to provide drainage calculations and additional grading and stormwater managemoit detail to satisfy tlie City’s drainage concerns as idoitified by the City Engineer. Planning Commission approval should be subiect to approval of final plans bv the City Engineer prior to final Council action. Issues for Consideration 1. Should the 5,000 s.f. addition to the 1,875 s.f. existing detachv. garage be required to conform to the exterior finish of the principal building? Are there any other specific concerns with the proposed garage and parking lot addition? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to Planning Commission's determination as to whether the proposed 5,000 s.f. addition should be finished to match the principal b uilding, and subject to approval of final gradmg and drainage plans by the City Engineer prior to final Council action. >■4 ' -■ %> ■ - ^ ■■■ V - ^ -i ■ > =' * S--:-v ^ t \ I 'k L / I Application# Date Received ’^flofOK Amount Paid CiTY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLiCATION PROPERTY LOCATiON , ^ , Site Address 2.fee>S Uj ib I LoavI- - itko Type of Application to be Filed !Xvvt4uAL^^<)L<L Peg. - CaJP Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) •2*1 - ITt -exatS _____ APPLICANT . Name uo3 M vA<r^»e/%^Aju L-LC Phone fhome) 1 Phone(work) ~ Addres s i-z-S^o Cb U/A City h 0wv^4ow^c<a Zip S<;\or OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Address Phone (work) _City _____Zip. Date Property Acquired IJ[d«r(do not) also own the adj^nt parcels of land. 4.. 2.CXS-2.(month/year) FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bidg X_$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$600.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacatiori With Subdivision ______$600.00 RezonIng (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule' 4<L jn liw J I I V v ... •' I P,.r U' L .1 DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12S20 WAYZATA BOLIL^/^^ MUNNETO MINNESOTA 55305 Regarding Property at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West, Orono Amendment The existing approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the property includes a proposed new bituminous parking area situated immediately adjacent to the existing building and soutt»wpst thereof. Since the original Site Plan was approved, extensive architectural review of the existing building has been completed and the information derived to date indicates that the best and most likely expansion area for the existing building is located on the southwest corner. While the Applicant has no immediate intention to constn'cr an addition to the building. Applicant has concluded that construction of the bituminous parking lot in the area originally proposed no longer makes good bu'ilness sense. Applicant therefore proposes to construct addition bituminous parking immediately south of the e)usting eastern lot. Said extension of the existing bituminous would be constructed in 'ieu of tlie previously approved bituminous parking area on the southwest comer of the building. The driveway planned for the west side of the building would be constructed as originally planned to connect to parking on the south and east of the building. Lighting for the proposed additional bituminous parking area would be laid out according to the same spacing, pole height and fixture design approved for the existing eastern parking lot. The proposed new bituminous parking area wHI be designed to sheet drain to the west over the existing grass area into the eastern drainage ditch. Applicant is actively working with the adjoining property owner (Golf Dome) and MnDot to resolve remaining drainage issues along the east side of the premises. Applicant expects that proposed modifications to the eastern drainage ditch will be agreed upon by the fall of 2005 and Applicant anticipates presenting a revised drainage plan for the site at that time.' C:\Oocunwnl* and SnlUngaVUI UtaraUSocumanteWly Documants2\Aapw)ActivaUllorria's OronoU)E.SCRiPTION OF APPUCATION FOR AMENDMENT.doc v! f ft * r.T i-..i 1 ’ ? . Ie * A > * i U I: II: n DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW - BUILDING PERMIT ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WJM PROPERTIES. L.L.a 12520 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 Regarding Property; 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West, Orono DESCRIPTION WJM Properties, L.L.C. (Applicant) requests a Commercial Site Plan Review in conjunction with a requested Building Permit to expand the existing garage structure situated immediately south of the main facility with bituminous paved access from the south (Building and proposed paved access are identified on the proposed Site Plan submitted herewith). The existing building has a prefabricated painted sheet steel exterior and is used as a garage and loading dock facility accessory to the uses permitted in the main facility. Applicant proposes to construct an addition to the garage measuring 60 ft. x 100 ft. (5000 sq. ft.) and to redirect the existing truck garage doors to the south (they presently face north). The addition will allow the Applicant to store larger trucks in the garage. Said trucks are used for auto transport and wrecker service in conjunction with Applicant’s permitted uses. Exterior finishes on the proposed expansion will consist of pre-finished metal comparable to the materials used in the original construction and consistent with the original architectural design and general appearance of the structure. The exterior will be painted beige or tan, and the roof will be off white. Th© proposed expansion is located approximately 350 ft. distant from the closest lot boundary (easterly lot line) and is completely screened from Wayzata Boulevard. Elevation differences serve to screen the proposed building from Old Crystal Bay Road and the new Highway 12 conridor. This proposal adds additional hardcover of approximately 16,500 square feet since the proposed building would be accessed over existing bituminous paving (building is 5000 square feet, bituminous Is 11,500 square feet). This application, if granted, would be in replacement of th© proposed building expansion that was approved by th© City of Orono by Resolution # 5004, file #03-296! and dated November 24, 2003. cr^ ^ovjfu . JLtlfC. I ^ •I 1 Mike Gaffron From: Peter Johnson [pelerj@wayzataiew.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 06,2005 5:32 PM To: Mike Gaffron Subject: FW: Morrie's Automotive - 2605 Wayzata Bivd. Mike. Attachfnents were omitted on prior email. Sorry • I From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peterj@wayzataiaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:25 PM To: "aty of Orono (rngaffion@ci.orono.mn.us}' Cc: 'markg@gronbergassoc.com' Subject: Morrie's Automotive - 2605 Wayzata Bivd. Dear Mike, Morrie's Automotive has received confirmation from MnDot that MnDot will mitigate for Wetland #3 on the south of the property and will allow Ditch #5 to drain into the north end of Kenobi Pond. Kenobi Pond is scheduled for construction commencing late summer. A copy of the letter from MnDot Is attaci' :d. The other three wetlands on site were detemilned to be exempt Confirmation was sent last summer). My client has concluded that the park'ng lot originally approved for the southwest corner of the existing facility is in cortflict with long term expansion plans for the fecillty. I will be requesting an amendment of the existing site plan to construct an additionai parking lot (identical in size) south of the existing main parking tot on the east side of the property In lieu of the previously approved lot. A revised site plan is attached. Also, Mark Oronberg wHI be catling the City Engineer to discuss the City's likely requirements for drainage improvements along the eastern boundary. Once those discussions have occurred, he will prepare a revised drainage plan. I'm shooting for a complete eppllcation by 4/20 with an appearance before your Planning Commission on May16. I would like to schedule a pre-application meeting with planning staff. It may make sense to include Tom Kellogg or Greg Gap; >a for thoir thoughts on the drainage Issues. Call me with a suggested time & date. Thanks. Peter W. Johnson loss Beat Haysata Boulevard, Suite 300 Naysata, Minnesota SS391 pj ohnsonawaysatalaw.com Phones 9sa-47S-i907 Paxs 9S2-47S-0311 cell: 613-741-1907 NOTICB: The foregoing message (including all attachments) is covered by the Blectronlc Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable attorney/x:lient and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments. If you are not the i.>tended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments. 4/11/2005 i-ir si*' Minnesota Oapartmant of Tranaportatlon H Matropoiltan DIatrIct Waters Edge 1600 West County Road 8-2 Rosevilie MN 55113-3174 Mait:h 1,2005 Mr. Peter Johnson Allorney at Law 1055 East Wiiyzata Boulevard, Suite 300 Wny/ala, Minnesota 55391 RE: Morric’s Automotive Group Property MCWD Permit 02-353 SP 2713-75 Welland Impacts Ditch Redesign to Kenobi Pond Dear Mr. Johnson: ornce Tel: 651-634-2077 Fux; 651-634-2411 P?» S.:# I’m sending this as a follow up to your teller dated August 6.2004 regarding the wetland inipacts to parcel 48. owned by Morric's Automotive. Tlic wetland in question is located in the southeastern corner of parcel 48, west of the proposed Kenobi Pond. MnDOT has performed a wetland delineation of parcel 48 and has confirmed the existence of Type 1 wetland. TIte entire wetland, which was excluded in the initial wetland delineation for the project, will be drained due to the construction of ditch #6. Mn/DOT will mitigate the wetland ’s 0.17 acres of impact. Also, Mn/£)OT Metro Water Resources Engineering does not have a problem with your client’s request to route the proposed discharge to the northwest corner of Kenobi Pond instead of the southwest comer, provided discharge rales do not increase. As mentioned in our previous letter, dated January 14.2004 and directed to Mark Groneberg of Groneberg and Associates. Kenobi Pond must be completed before discharge from your site begins. Ames Construction hns indicated they plan to use the Kenobi Pond area for staging. They may perform limited excavation early summer, and pcrfomi the large majority of the excavation mid to late summer of 2005. Any changes made to your proposed design must be sent to Keith Van Wagner of Mn/DOT permits. Permitting will route it to our department, and other appropriate functional groups, for approval. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Sincerely.sincyciy, ^ Martin Korthank Project Manager Mn/DOT, Metro Water Resources Engineering fflititin.kofthank^<lot.state.mn.u.s An aqua! opporiunlly itapioyer nm n/m twm • *^^SL’SS,'»t/ai «vii f.MMT ^JSSISUW m/m l; - {*]SltV prr Ar< u 9STMG . POLE / NEW LT. POLE NEW OX PROPOSCO Ntw BtriHiNOUS PARKMC AREA 200'X 300 - 40,000 SF REV 4/14/05 I«3 n8^^ Proposed T^a ivbi.5,»4V \ f :. 0 > aiRELOCATE PR NEW MTUMMOUS PAMONC AREA SOOK 200'- 40,000 SF REV 4/14/05 i NEW STUliNOUS ORIVCWAY (34 FEET WOE) V-/ "»fob't ^ ' ■'V;a ».F It"- I 40440Ci3 E CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL $0^4NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN FILE NO. 03-2963 i£:b O Oa CJ WHEREAS, WJM Properties, LLC. (hereinafter the applicant) is owner of the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter "tlie City") and le^ly described as follows: Pari: V? That part of the South half of Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 118, Range 23, which lies East of the East line of the plat of Orono Industrial Park, and its extensions and West of the West line of the plat of Long Lake West Industrial Park and its extensions, Hennepin County, Minnesota o Par 2: Lots 1 through 12, inclusive. Block 1, Orono Industrial Park, and all of Lincoln Drive, vacated, as shown on the plat of said Orono Industrial Park (hereinafter the “property ”)’, and WHEREAS, the qiplicant has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-821 to allow a 20’ x 75 ’ addition to an existing detached garage structure on the property; and WHEREAS, after due published n'*Sce and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Platming Codes, the Orono Planning Page 1 of 5 i CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■ Commission held a public hearing on November 17,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; 2. 3. 4. FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2963. The property is located in the (I) Industrial District. The proposed addition is an allowed use in the I district per Zoning Code Section 78-824. The Orono Plaiming Commission reviewed this application cn November 17, 2003 and recommended approval by a voce of 6 to 0. The Plarming Commission made the following findings of fact: The Planning Commission finds the 20* x 75’ addition meets all setbacks per Section 78-825 (e). The addition also conforms to the Lot Coverage requirements of SecUon 78-825 (c). The proposed addition wili result in a loss of approximately 5 parking stalls, however the property will still conform to the parking requirements of Section 78- 1516(20). The City Council finds that approval of the cominercial site plan for the proposed garage addition wili 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. D. The City Council has considered this application including the findings ?nd Page 2 of 5 i-| .‘T ) ,'<51 '?' ■’>•GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. f R4l__. recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants 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 approves the commercial site plan to allow a 20’ x 75 ’ addition to an existing detached garage structure on the property, subject to the following conditions: The addition is constructed consistent with the plan submitted and annotated on Exhibit A. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the commercial site plan ^proval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The u^etsigned owner 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. held Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting ■Clerk ♦*' Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) <w •' m- I i ■•piB'1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITYofORONO THE CITYRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ ,-lfeThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 2^ ^ of . 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of tlie City. Notary Public ALISSA A VKNTERNHEIMER notmypubuc-mmnesota My CotnfflbiionEx,'^ kn. 3t, aOM STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN •9^ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ^ day of I . 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. /;■ a t. (Lv. ( Notary Public TRANSFER ENTERED C-: J rr;rv«Cv« s 4^*^ . Page 4 of S > TONRNpr.O' ’KBfiyl GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. &0 & ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day nf ... ^ 2003 by ______. T ____________ZI^ZZI_ZZ^ of WJM Prooerties. LLC. a Minn^ota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. ^JM Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability ' ' ''a IPETER W. JOHNSON NOTMimaUC • MMNESOTA MvCominlnionEnknJa ’i..* I sg««arOTga63ag3 a<OTegtr: * r 1 i »• . V Page 5 of5 o > EXHIBI . A < M >- I ° 4iiiiMiiiiiiiHlllliuiliiiiUll||||||ii|||||||||iriii(||||j||||||i||j_>Lo| 1 r^vUH m X o Af pwne p . ATOITtOfJ (Ur »7S') __ B«l tPiMA NOK aewjBL—'--— T\ «n >uw M.r*ir rm ^ QE3- UH I !• f.*s Illl I' esf 4 i il<lel 111 lipNii> ei I •Aft t/U/B r ^ m Bonestroo Rbsene Anderlik& |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SII3 orrice: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II www.bonestroo.com P June 10,2005 Mr. Michael Qaffron Planning Director City of Orono Poit Oflice Box 66 Cryalal Bay, Minnesota 55323 JOH i » Re: WJM Properties Addition Pile No. 000139-05000-0 PlatNo. 05-3115 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the drawings for the revised parking lot and building addition at the Morries Automotive Group property. The site is located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard. We have the following comments with regards to en^neering nwtters: • The pro po sed revisions to the paiking lot will direct more storm water easterly than shown on the previously approved plan. Final plans should include revised storm water calculations to reflect the new design. • Final plans should include a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. • The narrative submitted with the drawing suggests sheet flow off the parking lot towards the existing ditch east of the lot The parking lot design should include proposed grades to ensure (iraitmge will reach the ditch. We recommend that parking lot grades be a minimum of 1.5% and a maximum of 4%. • Final plans should include some type of best management practice to treat the storm water leaving the site prior to discharge into the existing ditch. • The previously approved plans showed curb and gutt' along the entire length oftheoccen driveway along the •MSt side of the site. The revised plans show the curb only along the northerly 250-feet of the driveway. Tlie final plans should clarify and provide detail os to how the storm water will be dealt with along the driveway. • The driveway along the west side of the building was originally approved at 24-feet wide. The revised plans show die driveway at 30-fiset wide. It appears the revisions may increase the overall site hard cover from what was originally approved. The city may want to request hard cover calculations from die applicant to verify tlie proposed hard cover if this is an issue. • Final plain should include construction details such as pavement sections, curb and gutter details, etc. • Once the final plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact mo at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours veiy truly, BONBSTROO, ROSENS, ANDERUK A ASSOCIATES, INC Tom Kellogg C Gr^Gappo. City of Orono St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl ■ Chicago, IL M AfflpfiMilliNr OfifMciwnlly fmplojNir mnI Empfoyv* Owtk«d 1 J ft) '^OHAVEh (WOOOHAVEN"Vfi) /3311823110003 y^ahlstrom Development LLC /v745 Polaris Lane * '••pie Grove, MN 55311 38 3311823130011 VCIC^)italInc. P.O. Box 375 Long Lake, MN553S6 72 3311823140011 Btco Properties Lie. 600 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. #654 Wayzata, MN 55391 72 3311823140019 City of Long Lake 450 Virginia Avenue Long Lake. MN 55356 38 3311823420008 Speak The Work Church 515 Jersey Ave. S Golden Valley, MN 55426 •' • • mmm mm m 38 3311823120008 Professional Prop. Of Orono LLP 835 Partenwood Long Lake, MN 55356 38 3311823130015 WJM Properties LLC 12550 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55305 72 3311823140015 Rothgreaves Holdings LLC 3085 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 72 3311823140020 Lartch Development Co. Michael Mugaas 1450WiUowDr.N Medina, MN 55356 38 3311823420013 MNDOT Director of R/W Operations St. Paul, MN 55155 38 3311823130002 Ace Properties LLC 5465 State Hwy 169 N Plymouth, MN 55442 72 3111823140005 Church of St. George 133 Brown Rd. N Long Lake, MN 55356 72 3311823140018 Metrotech Products LLC c/o Tek Products Inc. P.O. Box 547 Long Lake, MN 55356 38 3311823310010 B N & Santa Fee RR Co. Property Tax Dept. P.O. Box 961089 Fort Worth, TX 76161 ■f •091S r ’rwfnvi k M Date AppIkalioR Received: S-IS45 bate Applkatloii CoMidered ai Complete: 5-18^ laitial 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 7-17-05 60-Day Review Period Eileaded on 7-5-05 to: 9-15-05 2** 60-day Review Period Eiteadcd by the applicants on 8-16-05 to: 11-14-05 COUNCIL MEETING OCT lO ^iiOS OTYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 6,2005 Item No.: Department Approvi^ ^ Adminiatrator Approval: Name: Michael P. «af^n / Jani^e^ndlach Title: Planning Director / City Planner Agenda Section: Item Dmeription: U05~31 2 1 , Cindy Sudheimer and James Anderst Narrows Saloon^ 3382 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of Existing Class II Restaurant Use Zoning District: B -1, Retail Sales Business District (20,000 s.f. minimum) Lot Area: 0.31 acres (13,656 s.f.) Lot Width: 112 feet (100 ’ required) ListofExhibita A - Proposed Expansion Plan (Revision Dated 9-7-05 as Reviewed by PC on 9-19-05) B - Planning Commission Action Notice 9-27-05 C • Planning Commission Minutes 9-19-05 (Draft) D - New Information & Public Comments Received On/After 9-19-05 E - Liquor License Information from City Clerk F • Memo and Exhibits of 9-16-05 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to expand the existing Class II restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions and to permit outdoor seating at the rear of the building: I. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow a 50 ’ x 44 ’ interior expansion of the bar/restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions. 2. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the building, adjacent to the City owned parking lot but within the applicant’s property, measuring 837 s.f. in area or approximately 32 additional seats. y 'V WS-3121 Narrowi Saloon Eifianiion October 6,200S Pa|e2 PUmning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission initially reviewed this application and held a public hearing on June 20, 2005 at which time the application was tabled and applicant advised to revise plans. Planning Conunission reviewed a revised plan and held a second hearing on July 18,2005 at which time the application was again tabled with the applicant given additional direction to provide further revisions and provide a study of the parking situation. Planning Commission reviewed a second revised plan, reviewed the applicant ’s parking study, and held a third hearing on the application on September 19, 2005 at which time Plaiming Commission on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval of a CUP for expansion of the Saloon per the second revised site plan dated Septemter 7,2005, subject to the following: 1.Outside seating area at rear of building limited to 837 s.f. and no more than 32 seats. 2.Hours of operation for outside seating: No seating or alcohol to be allowed in outside area after 10:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday evenings, 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings (open to smoking only t^er those hours). 3.There shall be no amplification or speakers outside the building nor in the outdoor seating area, to limit any outdoor noise impacts. 4.The easterly access door to the outside seating area from the restaurant, shall not be bifold but shall be a self*closing door to eliminate direct noise/music impacts to the outside area. 5.CUP approval should be subject to a specific written condition that the use be review^ after one year of operation. New InformatkNi Received At or After 9>19-05 Hearing - Public Comment Letters: • 9*15-05 letter from Patsy Kiesow, Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce - 9-17-05 letter from Alisa Butler, The Sign Age, Inc. • 9-23-05 letter from David & Christine Hardten, 2515 Kelly Avenue -10-5-05 letter from Charles Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue -10-5-05 letter from Thomas Goodman on behalf of Neighbors for a Better Navarre -10-6-05 letter fiom Marcia Freese, 2914 Casco Point Road • 10-6-05 letter from Sue Schmidt, 2585 Kelley Avenue #050121 Narrows Saloon Expansion October 6,2005 Patc3 Summary of Facts & Issues for Consideration 1. Zoning . The property is zoned B-1 Retail Sales Business District. The proposed expansion of the existing Class II Restaurant use requires an amendment of the existing CUP. 2. Consistency with 2000-2020 Orono Comprehensive Plan . While the existing restaurant use would iq)pear to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to provide for commercial businesses that serve area residents, the issue has been raised during the public hearings whether the use after the proposed expansion will be consistent with the City's policies and goals. CMP Part 3B, Urban Land Use Policies, contains the following pertinent policy statements which Council should consider: **2. Limited commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature (i.e. "big box" retail) which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential development, will be discouraged.” "6. Commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property. The location, scale and types of conunercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon or adversely impact the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be requiird between different land uses.” Additionally, the Land Use Plan section regarding Urban Commercial Land Use makes the following statement regarding Navarre: “The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufHcient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important development parameter for the Navarre commercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities.” it MS-3121 Narrows Saloon Expansion October 6,200S Page 4 The possible regional draw of the entertainment aspects of the expanded use should be considered in determining whether the proposed use has the potential to become incompatible with the City’s goals for Navarre or with the surrounding residential development. Council should consider whether the expansion may push the size or magnitude of the use beyond the scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Consistency with Zoning Code Standards. a) Lot Standards. 1) Lot Area. The lot area at 13,656 s.f. is short of the required 20,000 s.f. for a building lot in the B-1 District. Because the building is existing, a lot area variance is not required. Lot Width. The existing lot width of 112* is conforming with the B-1 100 ’ minimum. Setbacks. The existing building does not meet the B-1 setback standards for fix>nt or side setbacks. These setbacks are not proposed to change, and do not require a variance. The proposed rear vestibule addition meets the required IS’ side and 35’ rear setbacks, hence no variance is required. The proposed outside seating area at the rear of the building will be enclosed by fencing, is not considered part of the building for setback purposes, and no variance is required. Required Yards. The existing building does not meet the B-1 ‘front yard’ requirement of 20 ’, but no change is proposed other than to potentially fill in the existing entryway indents to be flush with the remainder of the front facade. This does not require a variance. The existing building and proposed rear vestibule addition meet the 30’ rear yard requirement, and the proposed 5’-6 ’ fence and plantings do not constitute an encroachment on the rear yard, hence no variance is required. Hardcover . The site is in the 500-100 ’ hardcover zone and contains virtually 100% hardcover. The proposed bermed planting area abutting the outdoor seating has the potential to reduce hardcover by approximately 150 s.f. or down to 98.^. No new hardcover is being added, but the vestibule converts 88 s.f. of pavement to structure. Lot Coveraite bv Structures. Existing lot coverage by structures is approximately 5,266 s.f. (38.6%) where only 15% is allowed for any lot less than 2 acres in area. The 88 s.f. rear vestibule increases structural coverage to 5,354 s.f. (39.2%) This is a minor increase that technically requires a variance. The only apparent hardship or justification for the increase, is that creating an internal vestibule to contain sound and for energy efficiency, takes space out of the existing floor plan. MS-3121 Narrows Salooii Expaaiioa October 6,2005 Pa|c5 Interior Use Expansion. The proposal expands the current restaurant/bar area into the westerly two additional spaces within the building. This interior expansion measures approximately 40* x 50* or 2,000 s.f. of floor area. This expansion consists of a 20* X 50* expansion of the existing restaurant/bar area with a wall separating an additional 20* x 50* private party room addition. The proposed private party room include a new bar area. Conditional use permit approval is required for all new restaurant space. The total interior space devoted to the restaurant use (public floor area) will increase from 2,174 s.f. to 3,698 s.f.. The applicant*s architect has summarized the Building Code parameters for the expansion on the right hand side of Sheet A1. Based on that analysis, the building will have an occupant load of 265 persons and can be designed to meet Building Code and Fire Code standards. Outdoor Seating The applicants have eliminated outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive from the proposal, and have reduced the proposed outdoor seating area in the rear from 1,292 s.f. (60 seats) to 837 s.f. (32 seats). The plan shows four 4-seat tables, one round 6 person table and two 5-person high top tables. A waitress station and water fountain are proposed. The proposed method of enclosure of the outdoor patio area is a wood fence approximately 5-6 feet in height, to the immediate outside of a landscape berm feature with arborvitae on top for screening. The outdoor seating or ‘patio* area will be accessible only from inside the restaurant, via 2 doorways, at the SE and SW comers of the patio. A third entrance at the west comer of the building is a service door for access to the basement storage area. A proposed gate leading to the luurow open “walkway** between the building and the hardware store is proposed, although use of this walkway for other than an emergency exit is questionable. The need for an additional emergency exit not going into the building, will be assessed by the Fire Marshal, but could easily be accomplished through the easterly fenceline. The zoning ordinaiKe does not contain specific standards for outdoor restaurant seating. Plaiuiing Commission concluded that the proposed outdoor seating area (which is seasonal by nature) should be limited as follows: • Limited to 837 s.f. and no more than 32 seats, as proposed No seating or alcohol to be allowed in outside area after 10:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday evenings, 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings (open to smoking only after those hours). MMI2I Narrows Saloon Eipansion October 6,2005 Pafc6 There shall be no amplification or speakers outside the building nor in the outdoor seating area, to limit any outdoor noise impacts. The easterly access door to the outside seating area from the restaurant, shall not be bifold but shall be a self-closing door to eliminate direct noise/music impacts during access to the outside area. CUP approval should be subject to a specific written condition that the outdoor seating use be reviewed aAer one year of operation. Parking Orono ordinances require that parking be provided at a rate of 1 stall per 80 s.f. of public floor area for a restaurant, cafe, bar, tavern, etc. Following is a summary of the off-street parking required for the proposed expansion based on City code standards: PARKING Public Area I stall/80s.f. Existing S.F. 2,174 s.f. 27 stalls Proposed Interior S.F. 2,000 s.f. 25 stalls Proposed Outdoor S.F. 837 s.f lO.S stalls TOTAL 5,011 s.f 62.5 Total Stalb Because the Narrows property is relatively small, only a small number of parking stalls currently are available on site, and this will be reduced to no more than 3-4 stalls when the outdoor seating area is developed. The majority of the current and future parking need for the Narrows must be met offsite, primarily in the municipal parking lot behind the property. The Navarre municipal parking lot was acquired and improved in 1964-65. The businesses that back up to the parking lot were originally assessed for the improvements to it based on their amount of frontage on a traveled street. The Narrows site was assessed for 104.5 ’ of frontage (reflecting the 112’ lot width minus the 7.5* public easement along the east boundary) or 8% of the total frontage assessed. At the time of assessment, no commitments were made (that staff can find) that would apportion specific numbers of parking stalls to specific properties. We do know that in 1983 the Council adopted Resolution No. 1594 that resulted from settlement of a claim by the fon.ier owners of 2385 Shady wood Road and granted variances that would allow an office building requiring credit of 26 parking stalls in the municipal lot. These variances were granted with a waiver of the 1-year expiration, so the potential may still exist for that property to lay claim to as many as 26 stalls. ■ i MOS-3121 Nsrrowt Saloon EipaaaioB October (, 2005 Pace? As a result of concerns about whether the municipal lot has capacity to serve the increased Narrows parking demand. Planning Commission directed the applicant to complete a parking analysis. Staff posed a variety of questions to be addressed, listed in Exhibit F of the Sept. 16 PC memo. Parking Study. The applicant retained Benshoof & Associates, Inc., transportation engineers and planners, to conduct a parking study, which is attached as Exhibit D of the Sept. 16 PC memo. The parking study aided in addressing two key parking questions: Is the existing number of parking spaces in the public parking lot sufficient to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed saloon expansion? - Will sufficient spaces remain available in the public parking lot to serve users of other properties that rely upon this parking lot? The study reviewed the existing available parking and notes that 129 spaces are available in the municipal lot with 30 additional spaces available on private properties which abut the lot. More importantly, the study reviewed existing peak parking demand as well as future parking demand during the same peak times. The peak times reviewed were the Friday noon period, Saturday noon period, and Satu^y evening. The existing peak demands at these noted time periods are 65 vehicles during the Friday noon period, 59 vehicles during the Saturday noon period, and 67 vehicles during the Saturday evening period. The future demand , taking into consideration the Caribou Coffee use and the proposed Narrows expansion as well as the other existing uses, was projected at >15 parking stalls during the Friday noon period, 93 stalls during the Saturday noon period, and 122 stalls during the Saturday evening period. (See pages 5-8 of the piling study). The conclusions of the study are found on page 9, indicating adequate parking will be available with the following additional conclusions; • There are 30 parking stalls available on private property that were not included in the study but remain available for users of the businesses, now and in the future, and • The peak parking demand for the Narrows will be Saturday evenings, ^Kdien a very low parking demand is experienced for the other businesses. X.'? MS-3121 Narrowi Saloon Expansion October 6,2005 Pages The City ’s traffic consultant, Sheldon Johnson of Bonestroo & Associates, reviewed this parking study and provided a number of findings and conclusions, (Exhibit E of Sept. 16 PC memo). His primary conclusions were: the study did not address the parking required by City code for the various users of the municipal lot based on the square footages of particular uses. Rather, the study focused on actual counts of parking lot usage at certain peak times. the study did not address the potential parking demand the other businesses might generate should they re-develop, and how that correlates to the parking demand of the proposed expanded Narrows operation. Some of the more significant concerns about the Navarre municipal parking lot situation generated by staff, PC and the public during the Narrows expansion review process include: how or whether use of the municipal lot should be apportioned to the various users, and how to establish a fair approtionment; there is no apportionment currently. whether the fact that the striping is substandard (16* deep stalls instead of 20* per City code) is a factor in the functionality of the lot; how many stalls would be lost by restriping it to meet code; why the City has striped it in a substandard manner (A: to maximize the number of stalls available given the dimensional parameters of the lot); whether the demands of an expanded Narrows operation will ciuse parking issues for the existing businesses and entities using the lot; and whether approval of an expanded Narrows operation will ultimately (and/or unfairly) limit the fiitiuv expansion or redevelopment of businesses that rely on the lot, or have negative impacts on the level of non-business uses of the lot (park & ride, Navarre Park patrons, etc.) Update of 2000 Municipal Lot Parking Needs Analysis . Staff has completed an analysis of the amount of parking that would be required by City code for the existing business users. This analysis is based solely on the footprint square footages of the 6 existing buildings directly abutting the Navar.e municipal lot, and their existing businesses, and does not account for other uses not related directly to those businesses, such as the the Park & Ride, or Navarre City Park users. It also does not account for the potential 26 stall commitment to the 2385 Shadywood property from 1983. The following lable illustrates how much parking would be required by per Zoning Code Section 78-1516: Required Off Street Parking of the Zoning Ordinance: #05^121 Narrows Saloon Expansion October 6,2005 Page 9 (The buildings as numbered go wesi to east and south to north with the most BUILDING EXISTING OR CURRENTLY PROPOSED USE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE REQ’D PARKING REQ’D n OF STALLS 1 Retail/Restaurant 5088/1000 1/150 & 1/80 34 & 12.5 2 Retail (Hardware)9300 1/150 62 3 Restaurant 5267 1/80 66 4 Motor Fuel 2240 3 + 2 per service stall 7 5 Retail 990 1/150 7 6 Restaurant/Office 1442/415 1/80 & 1/200 18&2 TOTAL 208.5 stalls As noted earlier, the municipal lot contains 129 stalls with 30 additional stalls on private property. It should be noted, however that Section 78-1516 bases the amount of required parking for retail sales and service establishments on net floor area and not gross square footages (which is the square footage noted above). If each retail establishment's net floor area alone were measured, the amount of parking would be reduced, probably by approximately 20% based on other published formulas for flguring retail parking. This is because areas of private accessory offices, bathrooms, storage rooms, mechanical areas, etc. are not figured into square footage for required parking. 20% of 208.5 stalls is 41.7 stalls, reducing the total to iqjproximately 167 stalb, as compared to 159 stalls available per the Benshoof count It should be noted that the existing buildings adjacent to the municipal parking lot appear to be occupied to the maximum extent possible (without constructing additions). This is important because as retail sales and service establishments come and go within the existing buildings, total amount of parking they demand will remain stagnant. The only future use changes within the existing buildings that would increase the required amount of parking, would be conversion of space from retail/offlce to a restaurant and/or bar use, which has a higher parking requirement per the 2U>ning Ordinance. Such a conversion requires approval of a conditional use permit and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, triggering a parking review prior to each such conversion. MS-3121 Narrows Saloon Eipaasion October 6,2005 Page 10 Lighting, Signage, Etc. Signage . The applicants have not proposed any additional signage. A photograph of the existing signage appears in the packet. With the proposed expansion into the remainder of the building, the applicant would now be permitted 112 s.f. of total signage with a single sign not to exceed SO s.f. Lighting . The plans do not indicate any new lighting is proposed. The lighting in the City-owned parking lot will remain unchanged. Any new lighting proposed for the outdoor seating areas will have to be shielded to limit impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Trash Handling/Loading. The plans show dumpsters on the north side of the building, enclosed by a screening fence. Zoning Code Section 78-1578 requires that “all waste material, debris, refuse, garbage ...be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container for such purposes.” The applicant has stated that the trash enclosure could be turned parallel to the building for easier access for removal. A gate would be placed on the front so as to screen the trash receptacles as viewed from the north, west, and east. 4. Potential Operational Impacts. Via the public review process, a number of operational concerns have been raised. Most of these are presented in the various letters, petitions, etc. that appear in the Council packet. The major issues seem to include the following: • liquor accessibility to outdoor patrons - control of patron overflow to paiking lot or surrounding neighboriiood - noise impacts to neighborhoods to the north and south, from: - open doors - exterior speaker systems - late-night motorcycle traffic - overnite parking - litter in the municipal lot Certain of these issues have been addressed by building design and site planning. For instance, the outdoor seating area is designed to be accessed only through the building; the primary access doorways will be vestibuled, and emergency exits will have to be fitted with alarms and panic hardware to eliminate their being propped opened indiscriminately; the Planning Commission has recommended that the HVAC systems be reviewed and upgraded to avoid the need for ventilation via doorways; the Planning Commission has recommended that outdoor speakers systems not be allowed. Some of the issues that cannot be addressed by building design could potentially be addressed through conditions attached to the CUP or the liquor license, but ultimately rely on the ability of the Narrows management. Others, such as noise from traffic outside the site, perhaps are not so easy to control. M5-3I2I Narrows Saloon Expansion October 6,2005 Pagell Compliance with 2000 CUP (Resolution No. 4530V The Narrows currently operates under a CUP issued in October 2000 for a Class II Restaurant serving intoxicating liquor and with live entertainment The current CUP contains six specific conditions of approval: 1.The applicant shall install a two door system at the rear entrance to meet all Stale 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. AH doors shall remain closed at all times, except when entering or exiting the building. Live entertainment will end at 12:30 a.ra. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each aight 3.The front door shall not be used as an entrance during the period of time the building is used for live cutertainment. A one year time period is required for the appHcaat 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 leveb generated by the live entertainment use. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No s^ns can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the CHy of Orono. 5. (. Noise shall be held to a level at to not be In violation of the Noise Ordinance. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. The above conditions with regard to changes to the physical elements of the building have been complied with. The property has continued to have a valid liquor license. The operational aspects (conditions 2, 3 arid 5) have generally been complied with, although various area residents have made it clear during the review process that noise and late- night traffic associated with the Narrows operation are not to their liking. The City has received complaints that the doors have been open for extended periods on occasion, creating a noise impact for the surrounding neighborhood. Council should consider what impacts expansion of the Narrows operation will have on the surrounding neighborhoods, and whether the use can be expmided in a manner that meets the City ’s goals for Navarre. Liquor Liceue The applicant will be required to apply for revisions to the current liquor license in conjunction with any approved expansion(s). The City Clerk has provided information regarding annual liquor license renewals (Exhibit E). #0S^I21 NMrrowi Saloon Expanfion October 6,2005 Page 12 MoratorHiiii Impact Sln<» the July 15, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Third Series, establishing a moratorium with respect to development in the Navarre area. The Council indicated at the time the moratorium was adopted that the Narrows application was not intended to be subject to the moratorium; however, the language of the moratorium ordinance erroneously does not specifically exclude the Narrows, or any other properties for which a zoning application was made prior to the moratorium cflfective date. The moratorium ordinance is attached as Exhibit I of the Sept. 16 PC memo. ITie City Attorney has recommended that if Council is still of the same mind and so chooses, the moratorium language error can be corrected by simply amending the language to exclude any properties in the defined moratorium area which had zoning applications pending at the time the moratorium was adopted. Staff Recommendation Staff would offer the following as general and specific guidelines for issues to be considered by the Council with regards to this CUP application; 1.Is the proposed location of the use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the B-1 District and the Comprehensive Plan? 2.Will the location of the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity? 3.Is the proposed use compatible with the surrounding business di.strict and residential neighborhoods? If not, what aspects of the use make it incompatible? What methods are available to mitigate those aspects? 4.Is tlw proposed use supported by adequate infrastructure, primarily access and parking availability? How will o^er users of the municipal lot be affected by the expansion? How might the expansion affect future development or reinvestment in Navarre? Council should provide direction to staff and applicant as to how this application should proceed. nqMhed 2,174 li. Rfsl»iiraiil (dm R) t IK) ii^t(Mce..^.^^.27 1,610 li. ItUil • ISO S.(A|nct.....................11 Told___ ^ . . ___IR U»I»nnoi«l Rntwnnl (dm B) puMtc floor 3,60i i f. BallO (h ••• 6.1 7 t.f. 5kmfp __........4,rilW t.f. M»|n|riini J,69i fi. RnUunml (dm 91 BO ii/ipx«..^....46 6J7*.r. rJib 9 80 ii.A(Moe ____________11 Cbmmtfdil Kilditn (no itquimncnO_______....X) 1_________-i_l- ^rWBr| piDfnN Total -----------^______________________57 b iMinlc^ bl__________________..»..90 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelky Parkway P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 2 ZONING FILE: #05-3121 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: Seotember 27,2005 TO;Cindy Sudheimer & James Anderst 20 Clay Cliffc Drive Tonka Bay, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP Amendment - Expansion of Narrows Saloon DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 PlannlBg Commission took the following action: Motion: Recommend approval of a CUP for expansion of the Saloon per revised site plan dated September 7,2005, subject to the following: 1. 2. Outside seating area at rear of building limited to 837 s.f. and no more than 32 Hours of operation for outside seating: No seating or alcohol to be allowed in outside area after 10:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday evenings, 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings (open to smoking only after those hours). 3.There shall be no amplification or speakers outside the building nor in die outdoor area, to limit any outdoor noise impacts. Tte easterly access door to the outside seating area from the restaurant, shall not be bifold but shall be a self-closing door to eliminate direct noise/music impacts to the outside area. 5.CUP approval should be subject to a specific written condition that the use be reviewed after one year of operation. VOTE: 7 FOR AGAINST ^iplicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City CoukU, Monday, October 10,2005. Meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff is willing to meet with you to discuss your next steps. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. <5^ I : ■ ■» M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. 3. MI5-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:13 P3f. - 7:35 p.m. James Anderst and Cindy Sudheimer, Applicants, were present. Gaffron noted two letters fiom the public have been received in support of this application Gafiron reviewed the application, noting that this matter has appeared before the Planning Commission twice before, with the applicants requesting an amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow a 50’ by 44’ interior expansion of the Har/restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions as well as an amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the building adjacent to the City-owned parking lot but within the af^licant’s property, measuring 837 square feet in area or approximately 32 additional seats. Gafiron noted this is a reduction of 28 seats. The applicants are also proposing some landscaping in this area and a wood fence q>proximateIy five to six feet in height. The patio area would only be accessible from inside the restaurant. The kitchen and vestibule additions have been incorporated into the existing building, eliminating the need for front and side yard setback variances, and the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive has been eliminated. The set of doors along Shorelitw Drive adjacent to the stage and dance floor area are proposed as emergency exit only doors, which should be fitted with alarm system and panic hardware to avoid having them propped open. The applicant is also proposing to turn the trash enclosure located on the north end of the building parallel to the building for easier access. A gate would be placed on the front so as to screen the trash receptacles. Gaffron stated the revised plans reduce the off-street parking by 13.Spaces, based on the reduction of the outdoor seating in the rear and elimination of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive. The applicant retained Benshoof A Associates, Inc., to conduct a parking study in response to the recommendation of the Plaiming Commission at the July meeting. PAGE 4 i; j I Et !fl f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. The packing study addressed the following two key parking questions: 1. Is the existing number of parking spaces in the public parking lot sufficient to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed saloon expansion. 2. Will sufficient spaces remain available in the public parking lot to serve users of other properties that rely upon this parking lot The study reviewed the existing available parking and noted that 129 spaces are available in the municipal lot with 30 additional spaces available on private prcq)erty. The study also reviewed existing peak parking demand as well as future parking demand during the same peak times. The peak times reviewed were the Friday noon period, Saturday noon period, and Saturday evening. The existing peak demands at these noted time periods are 6S vehicles during the Friday noon period, 59 vehicles during the Saturday noon period, and 67 vehicles during the Saturday evening period. The future denumd of this area was also taken into consideration and was projected at 1 IS parking stalls during the Friday noon period, 93 stalls during the Saturday noon period, and 122 stalls during the Saturday evening period. The parking study found that adequate parking would be available with the following additional conclusions: 1. There are 30 parking stalls available on private property that were not included in the study but remain available for users of the businesses, now and in the future; and 2. The peak parking demand for the Narrows will be Saturday evenings, when a very low parking demand is experienced for the other businesses. Gaffron indicated the City’s traffic consultant has reviewed this parking study and has provided a number of findings and conclusions. Of most importance, the study did not address the parking required by code. which is based on the square footages of particular uses. Rather, the study focused on peak times. Also lacking was the potential parking demand the other businesses might generate should they re-develop and how that correlates to the parking demand needed by the Narrows. Gaffionrer I'M nded the Plaiming Commission should review both the study conducted by PAGES >m I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mooday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Benshoof & Associates as well as the flndings and conunents made by Shelly Johnson, the City ’s trafTic consultant and determine whether adequate parking is available. Oaffron stated the applicants have addressed a number of concerns of the Planning Commission raised at the July meeting and have submitted revised plans reflecting those changes and have also submitted a parking study. Gaflhron noted the City Council has adopted an ordinance establishing a moratorium with respect to development in the Navarre area since the July Plaiming Comnussion meeting. Gaffron pointed out the Narrows application is not subject to the moratorium since the moratorium was adopted after the Narrows application was received by the City. Staff finds that the applicants have substantially addressed the recommendations and requests of the Plaiming Commission, including reduction of the outdoor seating in the rear, elimination of the exterior kitchen and vestibule additions, elimination of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive, and provision of the results of a parking study conducted by the applicant’s consultants. The Planning Commission should consider whether the issues identified at the July meeting have been adequately addressed and whether any issues need further consideration. Specifically, it is recommended that the Planning Commission review the following: 1. Has the parking study provided sufficient information to conclude whether adequate parking will be available fiir the proposed use or for future uses of the municipal paridng lot? Should this business be limited in its erqumsion if its expansion might affect fiihire expansions of other businesses or business qMoes? 2. Has the outdoor seating conqionent of the a|q)lication been sufficient reduced to a level that is reasonable and that minimizes the negative impacts of the greater expansion of this area? 3. ifas the outdoor seating been adequately screened? Ate the methods of screening aesthetically acceptable and in keeping with the neighborhood? PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mooday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.ro. 4. With regards to the placement of limitations on the applicant's use, does the Planning Commission wish to suggest any parameters for hours of outdoor operation or propose any guidelines for its limited trial basis? S. The Otono Police Department has been requested to have a representative at the Sq)tember 19 meeting if possible. Are there any specific issues that the Police Department should address? 6. Have the noise issues been adequately addressed? If the Planning Commission concludes that no further plan revisions are necessary and that any remaining issues should be addressed by the City Council, then it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation on this application to the Council. Anderst noted a noise study was also completed. Oaffix>n stated the noise study is included in the Planning Conunission packets, with the consultant also being available at tonight’s meeting to answer questions. Sylvia Frank, Architect, indicated the plan is to eliminate the center vestibule completely and to make an emergency exit near die stage. Leslie inquired whether the layout of the doors has been finalized on any of the plans submitted to the City. Frank stated the code does not require those doors to be there and they could be closed off and made into windows. Rahn opened the public hearing. Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, stated the noise study specifically addresses the ';outh side of the building anr* that she resides on the north side of the building. Hudlow stated in her opinion a noise study should have been completed as well on the north side, noting her residence overlooks the parking lot. »- •- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,200S 6:00 o’clock p.m. Thomas Lowe, 3295 Carman Road, displayed a transparency depicting the stage and how noise could emanate through the building and exit through the doorway. Lowe expressed a concern that the doors would be left open. Lowe stated the patio slopes down for drainage and that the adjoining neighborhood is located up a hill. Lowe stated in his opinion the fence is too short to block the noise that would be generated from the patio. Lowe stated due to the differences in elevation, the second floor level of a residence in the area would have a straight view of the bar over the fence. Lowe noted if the fence is higher than six feet, the patio would be considered structural coverage and would bring the structural coverage to over 45 percent on the lot, which would require a variance. Lowe stated in his view restrictions on the hours of operations should be placed on this establishment. Lowe expressed a concern that when smokers access the patio through the folding doors, noise could leave the building. Lowe stated in relation to the parking problem, there is a good chance tliat more parking should be devoted to the park-n-ride in the future due to the rising cost of gas and the increased demand. Lowe noted Oafiron’s memo contains six items that the applicant was requested to address, witli two items not being addressed. Oaffron noted the City’s parking consultant did raise those issues. Lowe stated he finds it curious that the City of Otono has allowed the substandard parking stalls in the municipal parking lot and that the lot should be brought up to code as part of this application. Lowe pointed out the number of paridng stalls would be decreased if the stalls were in compliance with the code. Richard Meyers, 2195 Bayview Place, stated he does concur that parking is a problem in that lot and pointed out that as part of the building moratorium a parking study will be conqileted. Meyers stated the City should consider the possibility of expanding other parking areas, including the park-n-ride, rather PAGES r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. than focus solely on the municipal lot. Meyers stated the City could do something proactive as it relates to the parking in this area and explore other parking options. Marsha Freese, 2914 Casco Point Road, stated the applicants* proposal appears to have shiAed the noise to the north side. Freese stated she would like the Planning Commission to ask why Navarre and the community needs this expansion. Freese stated simply because this application is outside the moratorium does not mean that the question of whether this expansion is needed should not be asked. Sam Marfleld, 2455 North Shore Drive, Orono, stated he has shopped in the Navarre area for 37 years and that it is infrequent that a business owner wants to expand and stick nmney into this area. Marfleld encouraged the Planning Commission to make it easy for business owners in Navarre to expand and to invest money into the community. Chuck Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, stated the noise study did prove conclusively that the noise was okay for one hour but that the residents have concerns with the noise level should an outdoor seating area be added. Nadler noted the support petition submitted by the applicants contain no addresses and that the Planning Commission should give more weight to the concerns expressed by the neighbors who live in close proximity to the Narrows Saloon. Nadler indicated it is his understanding the moratorium allows for an appeal to the moratorium if someone wants to develop in this area. Nadler stated the expanded parking needed for this establishment would take up all the parking available for future development and that the City needs to address the parking needs for this area at this time in conjunction with this application. Nadler noted there were a number of concerns raised in the July 18 Planner ’s memorandum and that Items 1,2,5, and 6 have not yet been addressed by the applicants. Nadler stated the Planning Conunission should require the applicant to address all the issues that were raised at the last Planning ission meeting before to receiving approval. PAGE 9 1 V'- MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. >K* Candace Nadler, 2505 Kelly Avenue, indicated they have resided in this neighboihood 22 years. Nadler distributed pictures of motorcycles parked on the sidewalk and in close proximity to the Narrows Saloon. Nadler indicated approximately 100 people were crowded into a small area for a special event held at the bar. Nadler stated she does not want to have to listen to people partying outside the bar, especially if an outdoor seating area is added. Nadler stated in her (pinion the need for an expanded park-n-ride for Navarre is real given the amount of traffic currently in this area. Nadler encouraged the Plaiming Commission to listen to the concerns of the residents who live in close proximity to this establishment. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing. Rahn noted a letter was received September 15,2005, from Patsy Kiesow, Executive Director of the Lake Miimetonka Chamber of Commerce, and a letter dated September 17,2005, from Alisa Butler, President and Owner of The Sign Age, Inc., indicating they are in support of this application. Rahn stated in his view the applicants have addressed the majority of the concerns raised, but noted that there are a few outstanding issues that still need to be addressed. Leslie inquired of Sergeant Erickson what concerns should be addressed with any outdoor seating area that may be approved in the community. Sergeant Erickson stated the main concerns would include the noise and the ability of people to take alcohol out of the area. Leslie staled he is sensitive to the residents’ sense of wanting to retain the character of Navarre and bow they would like to continue to enjoy Navarre as it currently exists. Leslie noted the applicants have Ulcen great stqie to address the concerns raised at the previous Planning Commission meetings and that he would lookftvorably upon the application. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Bremer indicated she also is in agreement with the comments of Leslie, but that she does have some questions for the parking consultant. Bremer stated the Planning Commission is only able to deal with the application that is before them tonight and not the overall possible future development of this area. Bremer commented historically the area of Navarre has not seen a lot of redevelopment and that in her opim'on this expansion is right for Navarre. Bremer stated in her opinion once an application is pending, a law cannot be imposed on that application and would be subject to the laws that exist at the time the application is submitted. Bremer stated the moratorium is important in her mind but that it does not apply in this situation. Bremer stated she would be in agreement with increasing the heigh! of the back wall to eight feet if that would help address the noise concerns. Bremer stated the parking problem cannot be ignored but in her view it is not enough to stop this application fiom going forward to the Council. Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, stated the basic question of parking adequacy is very valid and that there are three ways to approach that question. Benshoof stated one approach is to ask whether this proposal makes sense, and the second approach is to ask whether the parking study addresses the current and future parking needs of the area. The third approach would be to rely more specifically on a code review. Benshoof indicated he would be able to speak to that question, but he would prefer to speak to the intuitive approach to the parking. Benshoof stated according to City Code, this expansion would require 63 spots. Benshoof stated the peatest demand for parking from this establishment is in the evening hours and that the study demonstrated at peak demand times that the Narrow’s Saloon would require less than half of the parking that is available in the area. Benshoof stated in his view this expansion does make sense in terms of the paridng. Benshoof reviewed the peak demand times for parking for the Narrow’s Saloon and pointed out that their study does account for an increase in the park-n-ride of six parking stalls as well as an increased PAGE 11 demand for the Narrow's Saloon. Benshoof stated the demand is below the 129 stalls that arc available in the City-owned lot. Benshoof stated it is their conclusion that there is adequate parking to handle the expansion and to accommodate the future needs of parking in this area. Bremer inquinsd whether the size of the current parking stalls would have any impact on their study. Benshoof noted that was an item that was included in Staffs initial report but was not addressed in this study since it tends to be a city-issue, and if the city has concerns about the layout of the parking lot, the city should investigate that issue. Benshoof stated it was their approach to count the number of available stalls and that he did not notice anything so contrary to standards that would render the parking lot nonfunctional. Winkey questioned whether the adequacy of the lot should be addressed based on what the code requires. Benshoof stated It is t]q)ical to base a study like this on the number of lots that are configured. Winkey stated a new parking lot would be required to conform with the City ’s requirements and that perhaps this lot should be required to meet those same standards as part of the parking study. Benshoof stated he based his study on the number of existing parking stalls and that he did not see anything that would make the lot nonfunctional or hazardous. Rahn stated if the City decides to restripe the parking lot in the future, there would be fewer parking stalls available, Benshoof stated if the la3rout of the lot is studied, the parking spaces may increase or decrease and would require a separate study. Leslie inquired whether there has been a higher rate of incidents in this lot compared to other lots related to its nonconforming striping. Sergeant Erickson stated he is not swsie of any problems having occurred in the lot ^ Pi page 12 Ti ‘ • r y late J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, September 19.2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Leslie stated the capacity study related to the municipal lot assumes that all customers of the existing businesses would be parking in the parking lot. Leslie inquired whether the on street parking was taken into consideration or whether it would be in excess of the amount of parking calculated in the study. Benshoof stated they did not account for the street parking in their stuJ>. Fritzler stated initially this project raised some major concerns, which have since been eliminated from the plan. Fritzler commented this is a unique situation in that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit, which brings with it an understanding that if the applicant is not able to meet those conditions, that the use or a portion of the use could be terminated. Fritzler stated if noise and traffic does become a documented problem and is proven to be true, it could affect the applicant’s conditional use permit. Fritzler stated the police department does have more latitude with the ticketing and tagging of cars parked in this lot since it is city-owned. Fritzler noted he has observed a number of trucks with trailers and other vehicles parked in a way that they occupy a number of stalls and that it would behoove the applicant to caution his customers to park in only one spot Fritzler stated he is unsure whether the restriping of the lot would change the overall concern with the parking in this area. Kempf stated his concern from the beginning has been the noise generated from this establishment and its inqiact on the neighborhood. Kempf stated he would be in favor of a higher wall if it would decrease the noise experienced by the local residents. Kempf stated he does frel this business i? an asset to the community. Kempf pointed out the motorcycles belong to the customers of this establishment and that the Planning Commission is not able to regulate that iasue. Kenqif stated he would like to see the outside seating area closed at 10:30 p.m. at the very latot so the neighbors are able to open their windows at night and are able to sleqi without hearing a lot of noise. Kempf suggested a trial period of one year be tried for the outdoor seating area. Kempf stated PAGE 13 Y s' '•s- . , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. he would also like to see a further reduction in the number of outdoor seating, and suggested the number be reduced to 28. Winkey stated he does su[^rt the application and that the applicants have done a good job at addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Winkey stated he is not totally clear on the parking issue but that it does appear there is adequate parking to accommodate this expansion. Winkey stated in his view a 10:00 p.m. restriction is reasonable and that he would be in support of a higher wall if it helps to reduce the noise, which would be justification for a variance. Winkey indicated he does not feel that a one-year trial period would solve anything in that in one year a discussion similar to tonight’s discussion would be taking place. Winkey stated he would be supportive of the application if some restrictions are placed on the outdoor seating area and a higher wall is constructed. Fritzler inquired udiether qieakers or anq>lifiers would be located in the outdoor area. Sudheimer indicated there would not be music playing outside. Sudheimer stated the smokers are currently walking around in the paridng lot and that they are proposing to locate them behind this wall. Leslie stated the point with the folding doors is a genuine concern and suggested that a requirement of the conditional use permit be drat the doors are closed during the times there is live music. Leslie inquired whedier alcohol would be served outside in the outdoor seating area. Anderst stated customers would be served drinks in that area but that the outside bar has been eliminated. Leslie indicated be also recalls a 10:00 closing time for the outdoor seating area. Sudheimer stated it was their understanding of previous discussions that the patio would be closed when the kitchen closes. Sudheimer stated the kitchen closes at 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 on the weekends. Jurgens stated he would be in fiivor of those hours. Winkey stated he wmild prefer to stick to 10:00, even on the wedeenrte. PAGE 14 L.Mdcaamiyai il MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Sergeant Erickson stated one of the problems experienced in the parking lot is that the city ordinance does not permit parking from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. Erickson indicated this docs tend to be a problem because patrons of the Narrows do leave their vehicles in the parking lot at times. Erickson stated they have received a number of calls from residents asking that those parking ordinances not be enforced, but that since it is a city-owned lot, the police department would be enforcing those ordinances. Sergeant Erickson indicated be does have a concern with glass being served in the outdoor seating area and that he would recommend all drinks be served in plastic containers. Sudheimer stated she is planning on having a sign made asking motorcyclists not to park on the sidewalk and that she would also be willing to erect signs in the parking lot regarding the overnight parking. Rahn inquired whether the conditional use permit is reviewed by the city annually or whenever there is a complaint. Gaffion stated a conditional use permit allows the city to place relevant conditions on the property that the applicant needs to comply with, but that generally there is not an annual review of the property unless it is required in the conditional use permit. Gafhon stated the neighbors have the ability to request that the conditional use permit be reviewed. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission would like this reviewed on a regular basis, then that should be included as a condition. Jurgens suggested the folding door adjacent to the pool table or bar be turned into a vestibule, which would still allow them to maintain the open feel of the bar, but would allow for the double doors to be closed. Bremer inquired whether a subcloser could be utilized. Jurgens stated a subcloser caiuiot be put on a folding door. Jurgens stated if food is not allowed to be served after 10:00 p.m. in the outdoor seating area, but people are allowed to go out there to drink and smoke, some type of airlock or vestibule should be constructed to contain the noise. Sudheimer stated to the left of the back vestibule there could be a wood fence door constructed. PAGE 15 J i m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING €X>MMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. , V,.. Kempf inquired whether that door would be used to go into the outside area from the vestibule area. Jurgens stated from the standpoint of containment, a vestibule makes the most sense, and recommended the qiplicants look at that option. Anderst commented with the ten-foot high fence and the vestibule, tlie area should almost have a roof on it. Anderst stated in his opinion the noise study should alleviate the concerns of the Planning Commission. Jurgens stateu they do need to listen of the concerns of the residents and encouraged the applicants to be sensitive to the local residents. Anderst stated they have listened to the concerns of the residents but that there does not seem to be an ending to the discussion. Rahn inquired whether patrons would be allowed to take drinks out on the patio after 10:00 and suggested that no drinks be allowed after a certain hour as one of the conditions. Sudbeimer stated they do curmtly enforce no cups be taken outside. Oaflron noted a gate is proposed for the outdoor seating area and inquired what the purpose of the gate is for. Anderst stated it is his understanding an emergency exit must be provided. Oaflron stated the building inspector would need to look at emergency access to this area. Anderst stated he has looked at other seating areas and that they are not required to lock the gate. Anderst stated there has to be an unlocked gate or some type of exit for the outdoor patio area. Frank stated due to the number of occupants, another exit would be required. Rahn stated he sees a number of building code issues with this application that will need to be addressed by the applicants. Frank stated they would meet the code rt^rding egr^ and ingress. PAGE 16 iI i. '-'.C > MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Sudheimer stated she did have every business owner review their plans and they have indicated they are in favor of the expansion. Sudheimer stated there was one business owner who indicated he is in favor of the expansion but did not want to sign the petition. Sudheimer stated Alisa Butler, owner of The Sign Age, Inc., has indicated she does not have a problem with the noise. Rahn stated it is the intent of the Planning Conunission to reduce the noise as much as possible. Meyers suggested the City look at erecting a higher fence on the city lot rather than placing the burden on the business owner. Kempf stated the Planning Conmiission has to focus on the noise generated from this establishment at tonight ’s meeting. Bremer moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Application #0S>3121, The Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional nse permit, subject to the following conditions: One, that the outside seating area not exceed 837 square feet, with a maximum of 32 Mats; two, that the hours of operation for the outdoor seating be limited to 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, which arc the current hours of operation that the kitchen is open; three, following that time people would only he allowed in that area to smoke and no alcohol is to be allowed in the patio area after those hours; four, no speakers or amplifiers are allowed oa the patio area; live, a self-closing door out to the patio area will be installed to minimize the noUe; and six, the conditional um permit is subject to a one-year review. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken at 7:35 p.m. - 7:43 p.m.) 4. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC, 190 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:43 P.M. - 8:32 PM. Slave Bohl, Applicant, and Dave Oronberg, Surveyor, were present PAGE 17 \ D Lake Minnetonka Chamber of CocaliZiai SOOOSfaoreiineDtKc • BOtItoillS • fbmnnMimcnIiHOflB • TolqfilioiMi8EB^71*0768 • Fk wwwJ*keiT>|Tinf!tnnicRchiunbcrcom ICE tt«962-471-0577 Sqiteniber 15.2005 MrMIktQalBvo ClQforOnao 2750KfriliyPMfcWiy GiyMdBiy^MN 55323 5 ^ lam wiUiigai hriiatf of Tht Nanow*s Sakiba jp.Navm. :TheMairbw’g Saloon has been an rce mcmbhr slaoe2Q02. - iiielr involvemem in Chamber and CciainwinHy-aeeeta has cooiribiited-vaatly to-inip(by^>thabt^iaaat eiwwtw in the • I They hm Ammooily eoBRrflratad ttana and. may. to tm benefit’^ ov ana. .Cindy and Jim Aadsm am tarn iadMdiiala .iihe luve a irart seMeof pcida in du^ eottinunt^ and an uodmiMdingofthevalaa.of volontaariag fail teck in j^ppoit'oiir communi^. It is a privitofi 10 woik wMi suMi solid ehamber members. *' Sinccietjr,• • •• * PitfyKiii6w • • • •% • • Patay Bxeciiitve Dliactor .. - » • • . . • • I • •• ^ * • « • • • r • « •• • • # *• • • • a / .^ 0 • »•• I • • « • • . • • »i • • • *» 0 » 4 • •• • • • # • % . "Hbrfenelbertfcer” 8ar«dimMlnttolen1mBnwdi,MlBaiiMaa%MiiMt«d, N«v*irrai/Omnn,6». RonlfhRinuii, Spring Park TOTRL P.Rl September I7.200S To: Attn; CityofOrono City Council c/oMikeOnflhm f¥om: Alin C. Butler. Precidem A Owner The Sign Age. Inc. Subject: The Narrows Saloon Dear City of Onmo Council Mambcn, Due to out of town buaineu travela I am unable to attend this Mondi^r's City Council meeting. However, I IM strongly that it is important to show ay support and approval for the proposed expansion and addition ofan outdoor patio at Tte Narrows Saloon. As a business owner in die commuaity (for the last 1 1 years), a resident in the area (Sunset Drive...just down the road from Lord Fletcher's) an occupant of the aryoining property (238S Shadywood Road), as well as s firequant patron of The Narrows Saloon I went to see this request approved. I am aware that “oartafai peopla" (I don't need to name names or point fingers) in the area are noc Buppofiets of The Narrows Saloon. Whyisihis? What is dmir point? What is their purpose? Don'tthey want to see local businesses succeed? And don't they want to see improvements made in our community? They complain about noise; well, tbqr can't use that excuse. It is simply not true. ! work late at night to meet design deadlines, ofian wall after Tast caD” at The Narrows. I e ven keep my window in my ofike open so 1 can enjoy a little fresh ak. 1 have never been distracted by cxccsshm noise from motorcycles, loud musie or people because of The Nanonrs Saloon and its customers. As I stated during one of the first plannins eommisslon meetings; the noise is by fhr londer during rush hour traffic in the morning and evening with all the cars exiting and entering our community. It is actually ao lood I have to shut my ssindow to tain ealla. Not to mantioa the general hum of traflie from boats, eats, motorcycles, etc. that you haar at 2:00 in tht aftamoon on any given Soturdey or Sunday In our “little" lake community that draws paopla from avaiyerhare . Which loads ms to my next polm. Why complain dbout ooiso whan you elect to live near a busy inlsrtactton? Did thaaa people honestly think that the area would never grow? Give me a break. If you live near an airport you're going to hoar the abplanos. Ifyou live near dwiotanoction of two boty county roads (the only two leading directly to our take coramunity) which is also a butinees district with retailers, you'rs going to hear cers and motorcycles, evso people talking on sMewslka. What ar« they going to do when the condo projec to down the road are completed and tbarv is even mors traffic? Jim sod Cindy have been wonderful supporters of our conununity. The efforts they made when I was a co- cheir for Navarre Dog days were beyond what most people would even consider. Wby didn't miy of these people that are complainiQg and aow showing such a hu^ interest in our community volunteer to help us out or be on a committe e? It sura Is aoty to stsp-tqi to tbe plate when something isn't the wsy you want it, but God forbid any oflham would be a voice ofsupport while good things are happening. Havetfaey donated thousands ofdollars to the park system? Did they raise S4.000 and donate h to Navam Dog Day* so we can use it to beautify our community? No! But Jbn and Cindy did atul now they would tike to ask to bt allowed to maka a ftwimprovtnimtstothairbusinesa. Who are these people frying to stop them? . Vt'-i'. *i Th«iiiiptovtinMil»a»Tb>Nimm»woyldb8WoodcrfliltPwhappwt. Families would be able to flomd eat dieiebecaiMe there would be aooM^aeet log. Ri^t now, with their cumreot seatiug cepecity you w«ik ia and diere aran’t aiqr taMea. Theklbod is great, but there Just isn’t enough room. An outdoor pado would enhance and beautify the bock of their building. It would also allow fiir a proper space for outdoor nnoken and alieviaie the Ibw people you see Handing out front naoking. I would think this would help eMmlnntn die Ihtfe bit of noise thw might be heard between the can drh^by* Bvaiyonehae a fight ID be heard, but is it right Ibr reactive opinions to be auch a weighing fbroe? Ifyou were to aak the eaihv comnaohy, raaldaoiial and oomoerclal, you would find an enormous amount of aupportltrTheNanows. Kwouldbeimltartunnla if their propoaed expansloo and addition were not allowed flwlv because a fhw people dneided that h wasn ’t wtim they wwiied...and I undarUne they. luige the oouaeil to support people and bushwases that make a diflerence. People and businesses that are proactive and not people that are Just reactive. SinccfB^s AiiaaC. Butler Ce:Cindy Sudheimer ft Jhn Andarst, Owest* The Nawows Saloon ■ r .. • iff* , i ■ ' '• , . -• r ■ -4 -I .y f ' T j IL- W 4 k ¥ iMiM ‘A Bass BHAOVWOaO MOAO WAVZATA, MN BBBB1 W' W m .^•71. I » n n ; A i ; i <1 < ‘ j FAX C%Ooundi(o/bMN»Qrth»n)AknMA?wagn^, ln& 98244»4ei6 AffW BtalMiar Sinoaraiy, Th»a|gnAM,fe)& BOMlBnAUOiitt r ■ k k lA. September 23,2005 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council '-Orono Planning Staff City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 -tP S’ ? ^005 Cl rv 0.=^ •jRoi'jo Dear Mayor and Council Members: 1 am writing this letter as a resident of Navarrc/Orono for the last 9 years, with great concern about the development Navarre area. I am interested in the appropriate development and planning for this region. The proposed expansion of the Narrows Saloon with outdoor seating is obviously a critical issue in this development, and I believe that you should vote against this current proposal. While there is already much information for you to review, I ask that you also consider the following points in advance of your meeting on October lO"’, 2005 v/hen you will vote on the current proposal. 1.Is this an appropriate use of the B-1 zoned space at county road 15 and 19? The B>1 zoning (which I believe is appropriate for this area) is designed for businesses and services that serve the local community, and are necessary for the residents of that community. In the current size of the space of 2174 square feet, the occupancy rating is 145 people, this is appropriate for filling this description. With the expansion to 5011 square feet (an increase in space of 130%), with occupancy of 265 people, it is clearly not designed Just for the 7547 residents of Orono, or the 614 residents of Minnetonka Beach, or the 1717 residents of Spring Park, our closest neighbors. At one of the meetings, the owners stated that their main intention with the expansion is to change this into more of a family restaurant. For this amount of space, there would definitely be some attempt at a regional draw from areas outside of Navarre/Orono. This regional draw is especially evident given the fact that the owner’s intent is to remove the wall between the old and new space to enlarge the central room, making more room for the “National Acts” that they advertise on their website. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that “limited commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono’s commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono’s urban and rural DRMCMHI-23-(IS-|»g*l 2. 3. residents." Additionally, “Commercial development of a regional nature which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential development, will be discouraged. In addition, commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely ailect neighboring residential property." Other communities have also had issues with large regional draws to a “local" bar with music that cause strains on the local resources of police and traffic. Additionally, when patrons under the legal drinking age are allowed in the bar at the same time, it causes additional problems. See the attached article that addresses a similar situation in St. Paul, where a large bar with music is having problems with the merging of community and saloon. Is there adequate parking for the expanded use, as well as any other viable redevelopment and growth of the other businesses in this area, as well as parking for **park and ride" commuting other areas of the twin cities? Even the parking study performed by the applicants (which has some flaws that 1 won't detail here) suggests that the parking would be nearly maximized for the businesses on the north of County road 15 adjacent to the saloon at peak times. At a recent special event, parking was near maximum with only a handful of spots open, and patrons for the event were parking on the south side of county road 15 in the Rick’s parking lot and running across the road, as well a.* driving and parking their motorcycles on the sidewalk and illegally on the street. (See attached pictures of August 2"^ 2005) Growth of this region with businesses that support the scale and spirit of the B-1 zoning are important. No business owner would take the risk of developing in this area with only a handful of parking spots to allow their patrons to visit their business. Is there adequate traffic flow to support this use at the intersection of county road 15 and 19. This intersection is already quite dangerous and congested. While the saloon will have peak times most likely of lunch and dinner and weekends, which are not times that most people are commuting to work, they are still times when the wait times at these intersections are at quite a strain. The DaHCMHI-2J4S-w2 s I I r,: r. 5. entrances to the parking lot can occur next to the Dvinci's pizza location (certainly tough to turn left from the west), next to the gas station (again a tough left turn from the west -1 have on more than one occasion almost been hit by someone turning left from the west violating the turn lanes in this area - and this area is tough to navigate between the buildings), and then on the smaller side streets to the north (which is immediately adjacent to a park with a slide and playground equipment for small children). 4. Is outdoor seating appropriate for this area? Noise at the intersection is already an issue - admittedly mainly currently from cars and street traffic. Yet occasionally, the noise from the saloon, when the doors are open when there is live music, is enough to hear at the bottom of my driveway. Certainly double entry doors, and converting the single entry doors to a fire escape only, and better attention from the owners to the heating and ventilation to keep them from propping the doors open may solve these problems with the current facility. Expansion to outdoor seating will create new problems. People drinking and smoking within less than 50 yards of the park, loud conversations at night, along with the increased patrons and cars from a 130% increase in usable space in this saloon, will increase the noise even further. Further reduction In the size of the outdoor areas may reduce this noise somewhat, but with the proximity to the neighborhoods, I believe outdoor use should be denied. Seating on the south side of the building bad originally been proposed, but is not in the current proposal, and should continue to be denied, as it poses the same problems, with the addition of safety concerns with highway IS. Additionally, seating on the south side of the building impairs pedestrian traffic on the north side of the road. Would the approval of this application be consistent with past actions of the city council? Most of the residents of Orono/Navarre have at one time had dealings with the city council concerning our own property, and have adapted to the fact that with few exceptions, the laws and zoning regulations of the city have been upheld. As Jim Murphy has commented in past city council meetings, Orono is becoming more urban as time goes on, which requires tighter regulations. Allowing significant variances in building use, parking variances, and adding outdoor seating are exceptions that we should not tolerate. OSH CMHl-»4S-page) To approve an application with such significant variances and conflicts with use of the property would be inconsistent with the past actions of the council and city. The laws and regulations are in place to direct the action of the city council, and therefore if there is significant sentiment against the proposal, then strict q>plication of the zoning and ordinances should be maintained. This proposal has many variance requests and therefore should not be approx ed. We moved to Navarre, because we wanted the benefit of living in a small town close to a major metropolitan area. I am hopeful that by carefully planning and building this .community, we can still let everyone near us perceive that they arc living in a small town, with all of the small town advantages. Thank you for considering the denial of this application. Sincerely, David R. Hardtenavi Christine M. H.^rdten 25IS Kelly Avenue ' '4 ^ •i rr-V...''i - 4ii' [} ■ V'..'' V 0«HCMHi-23«^-pift4 i wins lose 'Detroit 7-2 NBA, players fUl a tall order ' by reaching a labor pact ‘Herbie: Fully h Loaded ’ *irit • VMunv Uw. 65* WUfMOl.Bl* Wednesday IUM22.Z00Sm.y StarlHbune Metro Edition NE;W«f>APCR OF JHC TWIN CITICS •iiV •% etiirtilbiiMo cun; friy^ have hail thi^r day In St. Paul. • *• •:2Lr5!SJiiSiSi5" •la.eMni'a*wvhBiMiai* dadiairbwl*Mile eke !■« pmm,- M a«d«* bar *. MmpiMli IM iMa *t di*.* MIC aM-tf IWM Wai ilic iL NmI Cky QaMce k •». lag •• MIH b 4Maiik* tf NM kiMMa X. In «amM» laapub CanoMil|>. aaAUi cuaauias '31«enaiaa«Maaaiai vasasaak ^ Oa* aanan alia ««rt la al anpi f Mv aaair 4>r a pann. ■ avk t27. Ti« rtb «ai Ml a h ,aiaa(a«iaiiMai naacanaa « aNd) ftafeMr mas toUpamka CfllPV a. M hiMsCaaba Cea>' aPtaa • 'L\ Star Tfliunr U.N.’s stn^gles detailet over ofMor-fbod violatioi UMTCOIM7IOIS~11ir UJ« faoaky CoaaefI kaP dtaaflaP fcaaMPtf ^ haw UvaaapaPiaakaiiaM • iMlaaaaak ifliet I til m. Badcen qf restrictions say ESSSstS events €iftenget out qfhand ^■«» ^ ____ tiMuZvMpSLHMdS ^aaft.fkil raMCMrfMB Iba aikat,Jke Wanmatf iMgnycadllarfaaapMMI l^lfwaaiapnitlaiikw M^idi*aBGaMAaaaaa.bas a«k‘«MlnBai(iaaa|MM. KMbanaBwIm.* NaMd *»% atljr • n«w f«ap af Uda laMMdiaiiMM'aaailHaM M dw ilMM * WiMMdailMdPa Mmabidtanadbrli'.raZU * an kaaaanaP art- M(% W SMkMnlai M Gaacaa aap dbr las UX aaaoiaaa^ but «ai aa dMdad ibM anar Xala- HaaiaaaiiandyuaAartnl. tcK^m la dacumcau ivlaMrffUidqrbrat naaalpaMi OnpiKibt rs^csipaMcyaadarUXi oa al aalea Mi IW. ipia naa af liMaali and audn rtw aS-far*laad anfm tMiahaiplfWtiacapr tbc mpan af daa atrhar Uwb^dnjpfaj^aak Im ■mafdni labir Tbemaa bduaairti. di attgatdnOXMlniaaa Ukbad ISaqaaa. aXd TUr Ibai leddawi liapnad nppad ai ad I kaad alMl raiaaiai lagbidvbn iWkaiyaMldii pnpaaiaadadlaa«.«iad» ’ik and UJ. md br *—adHiniii. idamnaddnaa tbaarp U^^maanaand Imm wan afieti *arsMr atcaaralMaabilcaldiaiam- ha ai |dar aad dn dModqr la anaaaacdaaaaaolM* Mk.‘^knaanbaaMiania. XMadab lyidBadjr draw a ra !abaaSi^""^"Si*5 oM^aiMcBBad. S^iLi'aniniitfa^^ M?an. ____ ban n ba afin aap lha naaHR' aaaababan adarbn wdi ipn dliwyas. mm iaisrtbi|cani& Atapabbrhaartasian 3tr—- IMkabal aad paiag pnpli dadladaaaX'aaMWnyLZa aaan a adMi I ii I anwr tiBdvaab SlTiJSSL*^^’*" It ■aadl It. ana ai dttaWa ald« ad dw dm *fbaaiadlbandw tliaaadaadiaanabbi adaaat aa caMl ba_______ dnadd *k dni a rtal dwy n- adpaannialtf’ IRS PROBLEMS? d v»i d77.4a9t.ati K —^rnmmmttmm WwAKi AIR CONDITIONING SAL huiatmfBrymtAirCmiMMtfrmmf 4 etj (1 V a n 1 *750 mtsL'snzjrsi^ (SIANOAnm ______r-aMgAnwob-* aiab24.aas • MacaaMtnaw. ~ — Mi i; rK i I •■. «s-/ i : • c •/ mm■ -. “.Vs'-K *' ti' ••" te-“ V* '» > rt r.*- *Tf_ -* *^ • ' • ..•,•■ '■ _\ W^-‘- ^v>lS| , 4-- tJL >-'■ ** I ■ ^ ^... . if I ; f V ’-^';:y' ?; r " 'W?* ’ * *i*t'* V-' •. ' *‘ v‘v^'t-v •!t... .• M3 4{J a« f.i~T'W f'-' ■, m-:fe.' P4.V.V ■■ ■•.*^: * hk\ ^^ ; " * -'*• k ; --. F ? .■wwrv; s^.VV. -:■:: SnsSSancv “■•■jrnii-' ’ 4 ■ ■•« ........rv 4:*. .. ••pfiliivg. a'c:-'■ Sr. :K<^ -—-r 4 'V ; • /H- . .*i,iV.* ' ■ ’ '• • *•’■•*’ v^ * ■ ■ ■■ October 5,2005 Orono City Council/Orono Planning Staff City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Application # 05-3121 Narrows Saloon Expansion/Conditional Use Permit Amendment Dear Council Members and Staff; I am writing this letter on behalf of Neighbors For a Better Navarre, an organization of concerned residents that reside North, South and West of Applicant within a close proximity of Applicant. I am also writing this letter as a resident of Navarre/Orono at 2509 Kelly Avenue for over 20 years, long before current applicant obtained its original CUP that it wishes currently to signiflcantly expand. We believe the current proposal for expansion of the Narrow should be denied for the following reasons: 1) The expansion of the conditional nse will place it in the category of a use as a **developnient of a regional nature** which places it in conflict with CMP Part 3B. It will also make it an inappropriate use within the B-1 Zone which is a aone designed for hnsincsses that serve the local community and are necessary for the residents of the community. The expansion of the facility from 2174 square feet to 5211 square feet is an increase of 240%. Applicant already advertises that it provides “national draw attractions” on its web site. There is no question that despite the applicants statements to the city that it desires the expansion to change the facility into more of a family restaurant, the new plan speaks louder than applicant’s words as the central room will be enlargtxl and it appears that the stage/dance floor becomes greater, making room for more national acts, perhaps more frequently, than the economics currently allow the applicant to present, with the current limited, neighborhood size and seating capacity that its present CUP pemiits. The city should not allow the current comprehensive plan and zoning code to be violated by permitting this use to be expanded to a regional draw against both the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan and the zoning code. 2) The expansion of (he conditional use will adversely affect neighboring residential property. This is prohibited by Section 6 of the CMP which state **tbat the locatioa, scale and types of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to ...adversely impact the primarily residential land use In Orono.** A history of ncighbortiood compl&ints to the Applicant and police, testimony at Planning Commission by neighbors kept awake nights by the music and other noise created by i^licant’s customers, and Chief Good ’s memo to Planning Commission dated June 20,2005, clearly establish that even the current sized operation creates significant noise, inappropriate and illegal use of the municipal parking lot (patrons cars left overnight), motor bikes parking illegally on public sidewalks, and other various violatio ns of city laws. Applicant has said that the new facility will be designed so that these violations will no longer occur. He wever, the track record of applicant is poor in Uiis regard. The city has no obligation to put its residents at risk that applicant will do a better job policing itself and its c'«»omers in a facility over double its current size, especially with the City ’s Police C Tiefs written concerns. There is ample evidence in the record that any expansion of this use would not meet the standard required in Section 78- 916 (2) regarding findings the city must affirmatively make to grant a CUP. 3) Granting an expansion of the CUP with additional conditions is not a realistic solution. It is poor planning by the city to resolve this matter by granting this expansion of the CUP with numerous “conditions ”, such as “the patio should be closed by 10 PM for dining, but remains open for people to go out with out their drinks Oust for a smoke).” Or “only plastic glasses should be allowed on the patio” or “no alcohol shall be consumed on the patio”. This merely set up conditions that cannot be effectively enforced and the resulting increased nuisance problems will create further tensions between residents and applicant. It is also not realistic to believe that musical noise can be contained within a building that has an outdoor patio as customers will be going outside to the patio to smoke regardless of whether the band is playing. The plan has more openings to the outdoors than the present exit to the north. This iqsproach is also not an acceptable solution as the city has not followed up on CUP compliance procedures in the past. When this conditional use was originally granted, the city was to review applicant’s compliance one year after its granting; but the city never conducted that review. Tlie residents have no faith that this time it will he different, especially after ^licant will have invested significant additional dollars in its bar. The most likely result of granting the expansion will be greater enforcement and legal problems for the city. 4) It is highly likely that approving the expanded use will preclude any future viable redeveiopmeat, entry of new neighborhood businesses or expansion of the **park and ride** as all excess capacity in the municipal lot will be consumed by this expansion of the Narrows Saloon. i Lf.W.J Even applicant ’s traffic consultant conceded that the expansion of the bar would consume 50% of the available parking on a Friday noon of Applicants choosing, bringing parking usage to 115 of 122 spaces. Mike Gaffron in his memo to the Planning Commission set forth a number of concerns that applicant should address in its traffic and parking study. Applicant did NOT address many of the items requested but most importantly ignored: 1) What parking the CODE would require based upon the all existing uses, potential parking needs based upon prior commitments made by the city to various business owners (including 26 stall reserved for future expansion of 2385 Shadywood) 2) What are the potential parking needs based upon potential uses. 3) What are the parking lot need for park and ride, Navarre Park 4) Analysis of parking provided by private businesses abutting the public parking lot (Applicant ’s consultant claims 30 spaces, but as these areas arc unstriped, it is open to question) 5) Estimates of number of parking stalls if the city lot were rcstriped based upon the City standard of 9’X 20’ and conforming with all setbacks and other standards in City Code 6) Analysis of the existing layout and configuration of the public parking lot in terms of vehicle access to surrounding roads, traffic impacts on local streets, interior site circulation, size and orientation of spaces and drive aisles, ADA requirements, snow removal and storage, pedestrian safety and security, access for service vehicles. NONE of these questions have been answered. Before the city can reasonably proceed to approve the expansion, these important questions must be answered. The municipal lot is a community asset. We believe the study will show that there will be significant parking problems created and future advantageous development will be foreclosed. Your own parking consultant. Shelly Johnson, has raised a number of questions regarding Benshoofs report in her memo to Mike Gafiron dated Sept. 14,2005. We implore the city to hire its own consultant to get a full, independent, unbiased view of what the true impr."t of this expansion will be on parking and traffic. So, for all of the above reasons, we urge the City council to deny the applicant ’s request for expansion of his CUP or at least get independent answers to the questions surrounding the municipal parking lot before acting on the application. in the alternative, the city should not rush to approve applicant ’s request. Rather, the city should be governed by the moratorium just passed. This moratorium was passed to guide future development in Navarre and to study major issues affecting the future of Navarre, just like this one which also involves a community asset, the Municipal Parking Lot. It should tqiply the Moratorium Ordinance according to its terms, which requires ail applications to be stayed while the moratorium is in effect. Charles E. Nadler ^ Neighbors For A Better Navarre H LAW orricKS I StEGCL, BRILL, OREUPNCR, DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A. IMOWAIHINOTON SOUARC joaiAH K« mmLL, jw. JAMCa R. RRCURNCR •CRALP a. Durrv %»ooo R. roarta, ja. TMO»«Aa H. aoOOMAH JOHN a. WATaoa WM. cNRiaroRMia acawcu. ANTHONY j. oLaaaaL RNaRRI L. ROMtr JORDAN N. Lawia* IRIAN a. MiaORRO BTBVaN J. WKfNTRAIlT N. aaaooirr bihpoon JANBR A. TAROON too WARHINOTON AVCNUK 80UTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTASB401 TtLCRHONK ittBI 997-0100 rAcaiMiLK {RID aaa^aai NICH aKL j. viola jcaaic H. HAYca HAmn THiaaorr aaCANMA L. TOUNO *ifl«a .NUT antCKT I^TH rtOON FHILAOCLAHIA. PA laiOl laiaiaiAoaia FAX faiai aiAajtj October 5,200S 23834-TO O'tyCouDcil CityofOrono P.O. Box 66 Cryital B»y. MN 5S323 Re: AppUcatfoa No. 08^121 AppUcottoa for Conditional Uie Pomit By the Narrowi Saloon Dear Council Membera: We represent Nei^on for a Better Natvano, a non-profit coiporation whose meroben reside or own property in the vicinity of the property which ta the subject of the above aoolication. Baaed upon our review of fiie application and the City’s ordinances^ we have advised our client that the application must bo denied as a matter of law. Our opinion is based upon the City’s Interim Ordinance unanimously adopted on July 25,2005 (Interim Ordinance No. 26, 3*^ Series). That ordinance establishes a “moratorium area” widiin which the subject property is located. According to Section 4 of that Ordinance: No preliminary subdivision approval Zoning (CUPA^ariance) N^proval Rezoning or PUD approval, shall be given by foe Council Ibr any property within the Moratorium Area. Therefixe, the moratorium qwdfically ^ipiies to foe application under foe consideration. Of eonrae, the City is required to follow its own ordinances.' * WrmtM Nurtmy Sttim, GfytfRoiwIOtt 295 N.WJd 604 (Mina. l9M):StatacfMumaotaByMbmeqK>lb FmkUntrSv. OD*^AdSiiiqpoftf;46SN.WNS66(Miin. App. 1991). ^age2 . • • 1 •. •4,2005 Id my diflcusiions wiOi City officials about this, Oiere is appaieatly a belief Out it was the letqitieftthfHty***p*^"gTwtMim OHmanM WbeOierornot Oie City has Oie legal discretion to do so, die City did not exempt pending qiplications fiom dds Interim Qcdinaiioe. One of the nridn of moratoria emtctcd pursuant to Miim. Stat }4d2^SS, aubd. 4, as this one was, is to freeze development, sometimes first learned about from a pending ^Kcation. Therefore, if it was the intention of the Interim Ordinance to exempt certain properties, that intention would certainly and clearly have to appear in the ordinance, itself It is absent here. Further, although Section 6 of the ordmance allows fiv variances, it is out understanding that no variances have been sou^ finm *he Board of Adjustment under die City Code by this apidicant Moreover, it is doubtful that this applicant could satisfy die necessary criteria for die grant of such a variance in any event, even if one were sought. This Interim Ordinance provides; Hid Council, dieiefine, finds that it is necessary to stmty die impact of dmelopment under current ordinanees to determine edirtherdleyfillfill the underiying purposes of die City’s land use and Doning provisioos. UntU diat atuity is eompleted, it would be arbitraiy to allow case>by>case development in the Moratorium Area u psoposed by the current qplicadon. Such case^y-case development would badly confound any attempt to stutty existing ooodidons in the Moratotittm Area a^ ovecduow die essential purpose of die rooiatorium. Very truly yours, THG/yd 0,4 TbomuROo 1 - - -V, 1 % To: Qrono City Council October 6,2005 Please consider this another letter opposing the Narrows Expansion (i^05-3121) and in support of letters also submitted by David Haidten and Chuck Nadler, also on behalf of Nei^bors for a Bettor Navarre. Geaerai Phil—o«hv Cnldfaig —r OnnoiitktB to the Exaansioe ^Examine the City Philosi^hy listed on its website. Specifically, Joes the Nam>ws Kxpunsion **prc.scr\c our distinct urhun iind riinil use patterns and lileslylcs. and more Importantly, does it prescrw our UK*al character and identity'-.’? as stated in the City Philosopliy? Wc believe that it docs not. The Narrows has misrepresented their plan by saying that the point of this expansion is primarily to increase restaurant service (July Planning Minutoa). The pnqtceed layout seems to accomodate primarily an increase in music patrons/bar traffic. It ia interesting to note that the site also schedules perfor mances (some of them natiotial acta) nightly (except Sundays) and the noise/parking study was only con ducted on a single Friday/Saturday. Finally please note diat diat Narrows is •liMdv itveitiaina its outdoor seating area, prior to approval, on its website. ^Understanding that Navane is a small community with some families who have been here for gencratiaos, and others who are attracted to the lake as relative newcomers is important to make sure that the expansion of businesses here fits within the B-1 zoning. As 3TOU are aware, this B>1 axming cidia for buainesaes which serve the local community. Sulxnitted at the Sqpt 19*' meetii^ was apetition on behalf of th*. .nepansion with approximately 50 signatures. Thlsi petition has no uddrc.s.so.s. phono numbers, etc. It i.s uncleur tiuu these signatures arc from h»cul residents dirccilx' ulVceteJ by the iruHlc und noise of die .suluon.. * As you ate also aware, die City Council enacted a Moratorium eflective July 30, 2005 for 12 month s on commercial devdopment in Navarre so that a oomprehenaive evaluarion and plan can be developed. According to the “Star Tribime** aitiole on 10/2A)5, udiich evaluates a similar moratorium in St Paul, part of the reason neighborhood associations support this type of moratorium is so ihni ** wc can't jiLst sweep this conversiuion under the ruy". 'I'lie "I’onvei'SiUion ” refers In the pluns for a comprehensiw uppnuich to commciriul development which lakes into acettunt the opinion of local residents. Although the letter ofihc moniiorium may not be tipplicnole to the Numrws Hspaitsion Application, the SPIRIT of the moratorium can and .should be. Residents have signed a petition and have made their voices heard at the meetiiigs, yet it seems to have fidlen largely upon deaf ears at the Planning level. Thai^you. MaraaFree.*^ 2914 Casco Pt Rd Orono 55391 8*4 4881 XL¥ 8SB eua •>80<V0 SO 90 ao rage t oi i Janie* Oundlach From: JnstonKaQaol.com Sant: Thu'sday. October 06,2005 2:29 PM To: Janice Gundlach Subject: Narrows Saloon To all Orono City Council Members: . I am writing to you as both a long-time concerned Orono resident and as a very partisan backer of the proposed Narrows Saloon expansion. . My family bought and settled into our "Heaven on Earth" home on Kelly Avenue in 1948 (I was 7 years old). Both my parents, John and Aieda Burch, along with most ofh their friends and neighbors, were very actively involved in the workings of Orono Township. I grew up watching "grass roots" involvement work and grow and find it is still very much alive and well in the City of Orono. . Orono has a reputation of toughness and diligence to detail in ail areas of building , changing and remodeling....especially when our beautiful Lake Minnetonka shores are involved. I have always admired and vocally supported such actions and trust this same trait will follow through on you upcoming decisions. . I have watchen this particular property rogrees from a grocery store to Keavey Dngs to Charlotte's of Navarre women's apparel to.........Jimmy's Lounge. . When the present owner converted to the Narrows I was skepticalabout Its future...both asthetically and economically. We, my husband Jim and I, have been very pleasantly surprised at how great this transition has proven to be. The food is WONDERFUL, and the staff both friendly and professional! The Narrows hassuccessfolly settled into its own comfortable niche in our own laid-back community, serving as a friendly gathering place for locals of all ages, incomes and walks of life. . As a Northwest Tonka Lion I am also aware and thankful for the opportunity the Narrows provides us, through our selling of pull tabs, to give back to our local community. When the expansion is concluded we hope to hold our bi-monthly Lions dinner meetings there. Again, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the proposed expansion of the Narrows Saloon. It will provide many advantages to the vast majority of Orono (and other) residents....both near and fer. . This business is one of the best things to happen to Navarre in the nearly 60 years I have lived in this areal! . Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sue Schmidt 2585 Kelly Avenue (952)471-8273 m 10M/200S TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Lin Vee, City Cleric DATE:October 6,2005 SUBJECT: Liquor license renewal applications and fee payments - Narrows Saloon Review of Process for Liquor License Renewals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ^e City s iraewal liquor license applications are typically sent in mid-October to all hcense holders, along with forms that are received fiom the Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division that are also required to be completed by the applicant and approved by the City, ^ ^ the application is revived by the City Clerk, the information is forwarded to the Police Dqrartment for their review, background investigation and recommendation. Upon receipt of the Police Dqiartment ’s recommendation, the liquor license • Council approval. Typically, approval of the application IS scheduled at the 2"^ meeting in November. Once the Council approves the renewal application, it is sent to the State for their approval. The State requests 30 days for their approval process. ^er the State ^proves the application. It is returned to the City Cleric. ^e City CleA will issue a City license once all fees are paid and the State approval has^n receiv^. All liquor liceuses in the City of Orono expire ou Decenibcr 31 each year, so it is important that the liquor license renewal process be completed prior to the end of the year. Review of Renewal Applications and Pee Payments for the Narrows Saloon Attached is^a ^le summarizing the history of liquor license renewal applications and fee payments for James Anderst of the Narrows Saloon since the transfer was approved in 1999. TXl LiqHor Liceiie Renewal Appllcationf A Fee Payments James Anderst • The Narrows Saloon License Year Application Snbmitted 1** Payment Received License Approved 2”" Payment Received Notes Hi 9/22/99 $4200- 11/12/99 11/22/99 Renewal application was same as license transfer application. 2001 12/19/00 $2100- 12/22/01 1/8/01 $2100- 1/16/01 Application sent 10/11/00; left message 11/21/00 reminding Mr. Anderst of required renewal application; 2"** application sent 12/8/00. 2002 11/15/01 $2100 11/15/01 12/10/01 $2100- 1/10/02 Letters sent 12/26/01 & 1/8/02 to notify Mr. Anderst of Council’s approval & request final payment before the City would issue the 2002 license. 2003 11/26/02 $2600- 11/26/02 12/9/02 $2600- 2/7/03 There was a delay in issuing the license because Mr. Anderst had requested reconsideration of a liquor violation penalty fee aiul one of the conditions of the license was to make payment of both a delinquent utility charge and the peiudty fee. 2004 11/13/03 & 11/20/03 $2600 - 11/13/03 12/8/03 $2600- 1/5/04 Letter sent 12/23/03 requesting final payment 2005 12/3/04 $2600- 12/3/04 12/13/04 r" $2600- 12/30/04 2“^ letter and applicaiion sent 11/23/04 requesting submittal of application by 12/3/04 , V ' It . "• vi*-- ' .• •• •■ V.- • ■: • = % ♦ 0$iW• ' -.V. ... •. •• 1 ► • .' • Date Application Received: 5*184)5 Date Applkatioa Considered as Complete: 5*18*05 Initial 60*Day Review Period Expires: 7*17*05 60 -Day Review Period Extended on 7*5*05 to: 9*15*05 2”^ 60*day Review Period Extended by the applicants on 8-14-05 to: 11*14*05 «05-3l2l ^ . September 19,200S I .ts 5.,^ I" c. To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^^* Janice Gundlach, City Planner Date: September 16,200S Subject: 05*3121, Cindy Sudheimer and James Anderst on behalf of the Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit Revised Proposal - Continue Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width; B - 1, Retail Sales Business District (20,000 s.f. minimum) 0.31 acres (13,656 s.f.) 112 feet (100 ’ required) Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Plan Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action dated 7*21*05 Exhibit C - 60*Day Extension Letter dated 8* 17*05 Exhibit D - Applicant’s Parking Study Conducted by Benshoof & Associates, Inc, Exhibit E - City ’s Consultant Comments RE: the Parking Study Exhibit F - St^ Memo dated 7*18*05 RE: Parking Study Requirements Exhibit G - Acoustics Information Submitted by the Applicant Exhibit H - 8*29*05 Neighborhood Letter/Petition Exhibit I - Navarre Moratorium Ordinance Adopted 7*25*05 Exhibit J - PC Minutes of 7*18*05 Meeting Exhibit K - PC Memo & Exhibits of 7*14*05 Revised AppticQtion Summary: Applicant requests tlie following in order to expand the existing Class II restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions and to permit outdoor seating at the rear of the building: 1. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow a 50 ’ x 44 ’ interior expansion of the bar/restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions. 2. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the building, adjacent to the City owned parking lot but within the applicant’s property, measuring 837 s.f. in area or approximately 32 additional seats. (the kitchen and vestibule additions have been incorporated into the existing building, eliminating the need for front and side yard setback variances and the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive has been eliminated)______N I «N)5-312I September 19« 2005 Page 2 of 5 Stqff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should continue to discuss the issues raised at the June & July PC meetings, noted within this report and in the attached minutes, review the revised pan, review the parking study and comments from the City ’s consultant regarding the parking study, and make a recommendation to the City Council. PROPOSED REVISIONS Rear Patio The applicants have revised their plan from 1,292 s.f. or 60 seats to 832 s.f. or 32 seats. This accounts for a reduction of 460 s.f. or 28 seats from the prior pioposal. The plan is illustrating four-four seat tables, one round 6 person table and two-five person higli top tables, fhe waitress station remains and a water fountain has been added. The method of enclosure of the outdoor patio area has also been revised from a wall w/wrought iron fence on top to a wood fence approximately 5-6 feet in height. The permanent planter box features, encroaching into the required rear yard, have been eliminated and the applicants have proposed a landscape berm feature with arborvitae on top for screening. Lastly, the area remains only accessible firom inside the restaurant. Front Patio The applicant has eliminated the request for outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive. Interior Expansion The only change proposed on the interior expansion is orientation of tables. No new seating is proposed nor has the public floor area been expanded. Both the kitchen expansion and entrance vestibule ^ong Shoreline Drive remain proposed on the interior of the building. The set of doors along Shoreline Drive adjacent to tlie stage and dance floor area are proposed as emergency exit only doors, which should be fitted with alarm system and panic hardware to avoid having them propped open indiscriminately. Of minor imporcance, the applicant has stated tliat the trash enclosure located on the north end of the building, perpendicular to the building, could be turned parallel for easier access for removal. A gate would be placed on the front so as to screen the trash receptacles as viewed from the north, west, and east. Olf-Street Parking The revised plans reduce the required parking by 13.5 spaces, based on the reduction of the outdoor seating in the tear and elimination of the outdoor seating aiong Shoreline Drive. Below is a summary of required off-street parking based on the revised plans: PARKING Existing S.F.Proposed Interior S.F. Proposed Outdoor S.F.TOTAL Square Footage 2,174 s.f.2,000 s.f.*Rear =837 s.f.5,011 * 1 stall/80 s.f.27 stalls 25 stalls Rear -10.5 stalls 62.5 Total Stalls 1^05.3121 September 19,2005 Page 3 of 5 Parking Study The applicant retained Benshoof & Associates, Inc. to conduct a parking study, in response to the recommendation of the Planning Commission at the July meetiig. Benshoof & Associates are transportation engineers and planners and provided a nine page study, attached to this report as Exhibit D. The parking study aided in addressing the following two key parking questions: 1) Is tlie existing number of pa.king spaces in the public parking lot sufficient to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed saloon expansion? 2) Will sufficient spaces remain available in the public parking lot to serve users of other properties that rely upon this parking lot? Hie study reviewed the existing available parking and notes that 129 spaces are available in the municipal lot with 30 additional spaces available on private property. More importantly, the study reviewed existing peak parking demand as well as fUture parking demand during the same peak times. The peak times reviewed were tlie Friday noon period, Saturday noon period, and Saturday evening. In summary, the existing peak demands at these noted time periods are 6S vehicles during the Friday noon period, 59 vehicles during the Saturday noon period, and 67 vehicles during the Saturday evening period. The future demand, taking into consideration the Caribou Coffee use and the proposed Narrows expansion as well as the other existing uses, was projected at 11 5 parking stalls during the Friday noon period, 93 stalls during the Saturday noon period, and 122 stalls during the Saturday evening period. This information is explained on pages 5-8 of the parking study attached as Exhibit D. The conclusions of the .study are found on page 9; indicating adequate parking will be available witli the following additional conclusions: • There are 30 parking stalls available on private property that were not included in the study but remain available for users of the businesses, now and in the future, and • The peak paricing demand for the Narrows will be Saturday evenings, when a very lo' parking demand is experienced for the other businesw.<s. The City’s traffic consultant reviewed this parking study and provided a number of findings and conclusions, which are attached to this report as Exhibit E. Of most importance, the study did not address the technical required parking (or parking required by Section 78-1516 of the Zoning Ordinance), which is based on the square footages of particular uses. Rather, the study focused on peak times. Also lacking was the potential parking demand the other businesses might generate should they re-develop, and how that correlates to the parking demand needed by the Narrows. The Planning Commission should review both the study conducted by Benshoof & Associates as well as the findings and comments made by Shelly Johnson, the City's traffic consultant (Exhibits D & E), and determine whether adequa.e parking is provided. 1^050121 September 19,2005 Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission's July Recommendation During the public hearing held at the July meeting the following issues were discussed: • A parking study should be conducted that addresses the issues noted in a memo prepared by Mike Gaffron dated July 18,2005 (attached hereto as Exhibit F). • Reduction of seating in the rear outdoor patio area, • Safety issues relative to the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive, • Balancing of community and business interests, • Possibility of Navarre moratorium, • Noise containment of outdoor seating areas, • Further information of specific police enforcement problems, • Restricting the hours of outdoor seating, and • Allowing the outdoor seating under a trial basis. Additional Public Comments The only additional comment received from the public was a petition asking the City to approve the Narrows request, attached as Exhibit H. Navarre Moratorium Since the July 15, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing, the Council adopted an ordinance establishing a moratorium with respect to development in the Navarre area. The Narrows request is not subject to the moratorium as it was adopted after the Narrows made application to the City for their expansion conditional use permit. TTiC moratorium ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1. Staff Recommendation Staff finds that the applicants have sub^ntially addressed the recommendations and requests of the Planning Commission for revisions or furtlier information, including reduction of the outdoor seating in the rear; elimination of the exterior kitchen and ve.stibule additions; elimination of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive; and provision of the results of a parking study conducted by the applicant’s consultants. Planning Commission should consider whether the issues identified at the July meeting have been adequately addressed by the City and/or by the applicant, and whether any issues need further consideration before forwarding this to Council. Specifically, Planning Commission should review the following: Has the parking study provided sufficient information to conclude whether adequate parking will be available for the proposed use? or for future uses of the municipal parking lot? Should this business be limited in its expansion, if its expansion might affect future expansions of other businesses or business spaces? 2)Has the outdoor seating component of the application been sufficiently reduced to a level that is reasonable and that minimizes the negative impacts of the greater expansion Planning Commission had concerns with? Has the outdoor seating been adequately screened? Arc the methods of screening aesthetically acceptable and in keeping witl. the neighboihood? I ms-3121 September 19,2005 Page S of 5 4) With regards to the placement of limitations on the applicant's use, does Plying Commission wish to suggest any parameters for hours of outdoor operation or propose any guidelines for its limited trial basis? The Orono Police Department has been requested to have a representative at the September 19 meeting if possible; are there any specific issues you want the OPD to address? Have noise issues been adequately addressed? Planning Commission should identify any remaining issues and determine how they should be addressed. If Planning Commission concludes that no further plan revisions are necessary and that any remaining issues should be addressed by the City Council, then it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation on this application, to the Council. X t 1. m. Iw V.. ‘ noon ■Qcqc• I r 1 1iCxitflillMriobi___nvom— -g J ii' CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: /^05-3121 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 21, '>005 TO;Cindy Sudheimer & James Anderst 20 Clay Cliffe Drive Tonka Bay, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP Amendment including Variances DATE OF MEETING: July 18,2005 Planning Commission took the following action: Motion: Table, to allow applicant to re-design per the suggested revisions by staff and Planning Commission, and to allow applicant to hire a consultant and provide a study and analysis of the Navarre parking situatioa VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission ’s general direction to ^plicant included the following: 1. Eliminate the ffont outdoor seating. 2. Cut the proposed rear outdoor seating in half. 3. Planning Commission will recommend that if outdoor seating is supported by Council, it should start out at a reduced level and undergo a trial period. 4. Hours and nature of outdoor service and use restrictions need further discussion. 5. Applicant’s parking consultant should follow the study guidelines of the staff memo distributed at the meeting (copy attached). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Scheduling it dependent on submittal of revised plans and the parking study. Deadline for pbcement on the August 15 Planning Commission meeting is Friday, August 5,2005. 40-dsy Review Period EiteniioB. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days fiom the dale of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received and deemed complete on May 18, 2005, and the bOnlay review period would end on July 17, 2005. Htnvever, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission on June 20 and July 18, 2005, the earliest potential date of final Council action fiills after the initial 60-day period. Therefore, the 60-day review period was extended on July 5,2005 an additional 60 days to September 15.2005 If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff is willing to meet with you to discuss your next steps. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. V c M)S-3121 Review Period Extension Authorization and Request AUh I 7 2005 CITY OF ORONO With regards to Zoning Application #05-3121, Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive, we hereby authorize and request a 60-day extension of the statutory application review period (which began on May 18, 2005 and was subsequently extended by City notification to us an additional 60 days to September 15, 2005) to November 14, 2005. The reason for the extension is to allow for additional time to provide materials requested by the City in support of our application. 2^ Date Sign, date and return by September 1,2005 to: MikeGaffroii Planning Director City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 mmm LTi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS. MN 55343 / (95a) 238-1667 / FAX (952j 238-1671 September 9,2005 Refer to File: 05-78 MEMORANDUM TO: JimAnderst Cindy Sudheimer FROM: JimBenshoof RE: Parking Study for Proposed Expansion of Narrows Saloon PURPOSE This memorandum is to document the results of the parking study we have completed regarding expansion of youi Narrows Saloon at 3380 Shoreline Drive in the City of Orono. As we understand, your proposal would add about 2,000 sr). ft. of indoor space for Narrows Saloon customers and also would add about 32 seats for outdoor dining. A^ide from a couple of parking spaces on your property, all the parking demand for your business is accommodated in an adjacent public parking lot Two key parking questions to address regarding your proposed expansion for the Narrows Saloon are: • Is the existing number of parking spaces in the public parking lot sufTicient to accommodate the increased demand associated with tte proposed saloon expansion? • Will sufficient spaces remain available in the public parking lot to serve users of other properties that rely upon this parking lot? We have performed a comprehensive parking study to effectively answer the preceding questions. In this context, we have obtained extensive information on existing conditions, have examined all factors that influence future parking demand, and have correlated the existing parking supply with the expected total future parking demand. EXISTING CONDITIONS The first step is to understand the context of the Narrows Saloon relative to the adjacent public parking lot. Figure 1 is a recent aerial photograph, which shows the location of the existing Narrows Saloon, in relationship to adjacent properties and the public parking lot. An important item to note from the figure is that the public p^ng lot does not include ar area immediately behind the Narrovrs Saloon building or areas to the north and west of the westerly-most retail building. I y **:. * U'.V ■■’ -■* ’'.V ■* - **//•% ’ -V: ■ ' V^-- ■ ■vJf^Vv.-'V .'■■■ v'":: V V.> ... ■■ '•. --.' - ■ . ■ . rr‘ Ji,* '■ -, »K - "‘V*' ••"**' y-•= y ’ r 0k V i • ... --. ^ ■ V!"^ •’s ~w t < Ll .1^ ift ; . V. ‘ .ar^ -ITt^T... J » .- ; u- V- /V. , • . . r.v , “• sJ '.^^v:-v.H •. *, Ai Hll# i|>,; I.;* ' % . \i > M- s '»•. • * • « ««( i ^ SNOfCUNEDR. fl t NOTE: PARKING SPACES ARE PUBLIC, EXCEPT FOR PRIVATE AREAS SHOWN u; *^1 ’V IE KALE PARKING REVIEW FOR PROPOSED EXPANSION OF NARROWS SALOON BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES. INC. RQURE 1 APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC PARKING 5 nr 1^ Mr. Jim Anderst -3-September 9,2005 Figure 2 shows the number of parking spaces in Ihe public parking lot, organi^zed by parking sub-area. The total number of striped spaces in the public lot is 129 spaces. In addition to these public spaces, it is important to note the availability of spaces on private properties for the businesses immediately south of the parking lot. Proceeding from west to east, the inventory of private spaces is as follows: ■J r • *'•:. a) Six spaces are available on the west side of the westerly-most building (adjacent to the D’Vinci’s Restaur „nt). Though no spaces are marked, the size of this parking area will accommodate six parked vehicles using normal parking dimensions. b) 21 spaces are available on the north side of the westerly-most building. Again, these spaces are unmarked, but could be accommodated within the area available. c) About three spaces are available behind the Narrows Saloon. The aerial photo shows six parked vehicles in this area, but the western three vehicles are in the space that is proposed to be developed for outdoor seating. \ ^ - :"' v The next step was to determine the existing peak parking demand at typically busy periods. Considering the peaking characteristics of the Narrows Saloon and other businesses that rely upon the public parking lot, we determined that the following three time periods are most critical in terms of the overall adequacy of spaces in the public parking lot: • Ftidoy noon period. This time period encompasses the busiest weekday lunch business for the Narrows Saloon and also is a period of significant activity for multiple other businesses served by the public parking lot. • Saturday noon period Similar to the Friday noon condition, this period also encompasses significant activity for the saloon and other affected businesses. • Saturday evening. This period encompasses the busiest time of week for the Narrows Saloon. A detailed parking occupancy survey was conducted for each of the three above referenced liprie pfrio^iy, The survey consisted of recording the number of vehicles parked in each sub area by 15 • 20 minute interval during the following time periods: • Friday, August 26,2005, from 11 :00 am. to 2:00 p.m. • Saturday, August 27,2005, from 1:10 to 2:00 p.m. • Saturday, August 27,2005, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. iSiihaNistffkiiBk I t \ I ^ i ■—— v’<^- •"-’•A •'^^v,* iAv ‘Vjr** ’ V f'’^*;. >/V^"r '•iA'-’* * V 4.- K ■■••.♦ • *-.• •• ♦ - N total public PARKINQ supply • 129 SPACES t — /•Vi ’M rCSCMJE PARKING REVIEW FOR PROPOSED EXPANSION OF NARROWS SALOON RGURE 2 BENSHOOF A ASSOCIATES. INC. NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BY SUB-AREA 1 Mr. Jim Anderet -5-September 9,2005 The existing parking occupancy results are shown in Figure 3. For each of the three time periods, the number of vehicles parked in public spaces by sub-area is recorded at the time of highest overall occupancy in the public lot. Several noteworthy items shown in this figure are: a) The number of vehicles parked in sub-area A north of the Narrows Saloon exceeds the number of public spaces available during the Friday noon and Saturday evening periods. The additional vehicles were parked immediately behind the saloon and east of the striped north-south circulation aisle. b) The number of vehicles parked in sub-areas B, C. and D always were far below the available supply, with the only exception being that about 75 percent of the spaces in sub-area B were occupied during the peak Saturday evening time. c) The peak parking demand during all three time periods is well below the available spaces. During the Friday noon period, the peak parking occupancy was 65 vehicles, which constitutes 50 percent of the 129 spaces available. During the Saturday early afternoon period, the peak parking occupancy was 59 vehicles, which constitutes 46 percent of the 129 spaces available. During the Saturday evening period, the peak parking occupancy was 67 vehicles, which occurred at 10:45 p.m. This demand constitutes 52 percent of the 129 available spaces. FUTURE POTENTIAL INCREASES IN PARKING DEMAND In addition to the proposed expansion for the Narrows Saloon, we have learned about two other factors that may cause increased demand for parking in the public lot: a) new development consisting of a Caribou Coffee Shop and office space and b) potential increase in transit park/ride customers. The potential increased parking demand associated with these two items is discussed next, followed by projections of increased parking demand for the Narrows Saloon. PARKING DEMAND INCREASE DUE TO CARIBOU COFFEE SHOP DEVELOPMENT The development consisting of the Caribou Coffee Shop and office space is being constructed on the east side of the parking lot. According to floor plans provided by City staff, the coffee shop will occupy about 1,900 square feet, and the office space will occupy about 1,000 square feet. Based on surveys at other coffee shops, we have estimated that the pe^ parking demand rate for this use will be about 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the estimated parking peak demand for this use is 21 spaces. For the Friday and Saturday noon peak times for this pariting analysis, we have estimated the parking demand for the coffee shop will be about 50 percent of its peak or 11 spaces. For the late Saturday evening peak period for this analysis, we have estimated the parking demand for the coffee shop will be three vehicles. The peak parking demand for the office space is expected to be three vehicles per 1,000 square feet. Since the space will consist of 1,000 square feet, the peak denumd will be three parked vehicles. We expect that peak demand of three vehicles will occur during the Friday noon peak period. During the two Saturday peak periods, we would expect the office space will generate a demand for one parking space during the early afternoon period and will not generate any parking demand during the late Saturday evening period. f . C;.V^ - fv.,-^;i,x *=* ' > *.• ' »ie' y.irt'i '• \ • ♦ • ..»V -.' ' fV t NO. OF VEHICLES PARKED ON FRIDAY NOON PEAK NO. OF VEHICLES PARKED ON SATURDAY EARLY P.M. PEAK NO. OF VEHICLES PARKED ON SATURDAY EVENING PEAK XX/XX/XX ®TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC PARKINQ SPACES M SUB-AREA *•*,*"' * . *. FIGURESPARKING REVIEW FOR PROPOSED EXPANSION OF vSScSsPABKEONARROWS SALOON SURVEY PERIOD \T RFNSHOOF A A8SOCUTES. INC. Mr. Jim Andcrst -7-Scptembcr 9,2005 POTENTIAL PARKING DEMAND INCREASE FOR TRANSIT PARK/RIDE Wc understand the City has an agreement with the Metropolitan Council, whereby up to 25 spaces in the western portion of the public parking lot may be used in a park/ride manner by transit customers. Recent surveys performed by MeU'o Transit have indicated that about 19 transit customers arc paiicing in the lot on a typical weekday basis. Thus, for this parking analysis purpose, we have accounted for an increase of six parked vehicles for transit park/ridc customers during the Friday noon peak. No increase in transit parking demand would occur during the Saturday early afternoon peak or in the late Saturday evening peak. PARKING DEMAND INCREASE FOR EXPANSION OF NARROWS SALOON To project the increased parking demand associated with the proposed expansion of the Narrows Saloon, two approaches are available: a) Calculate the existing and future parking requirements through the procedures defined in the City Code. b) Estimate the future parking demand by multiplying the existing demand by the size increase represented by the saloon expansion plans. The project architect, Sylvia Frank, has calculated the existing and future City Code parking requirements, and the results are as follows: • Existing parking spaces required = 38 • Parking spaces required followin'; completion of proposed expansion = 57 Thus, the Narrows Saloon would need just 19 additional parking spaces to satisfy City Code parking requirements. Though our parking survey did not distinguish users of the Narrows Saloon from users of other businesses in the area, our sub-area parking analysis provides a strong basis to establish conservatively high estimates regarding existing parking demand for the Narrows Saloon as follows: • For the Friday noon peak period, we have estimated the parking demand for the Narrows Saloon consists of all vehicles parked in sub-area A plus Vi the vehicles parked in sub-area B. On this basis, the estimated existing parking demand for the Narrows Saloon is 34 vehicles. • For the Saturday early afternoon peak period, we would estimate parking demand for the Narrows Saloon in the same manner as for the Friday noon period, namely all occupied spaces in sub-area A plus Vt the occupied spaces in sub-area B. The resultant estimated existing parking demand for the Narrows Saloon during this period is 25 vehicles. • For the late Saturday evening peak period, we would apply the conservative assumption that all vehicles parked in sub-areas A and B represented users of the Narrows Saloon. Thus, the total estimated existing parking demand for the Narrows Saloon during this period is 60 vehicles. Mr. Jim Anderst -8-Septcmber 9,2005 i-:. As mentioned at the beginning of this memorandum, the proposed expansion would add about 2,000 square feet of building area to the existing saloon, which consists of about 3,250 square feet. Thus, on this basis, the potential multiplication factor to increase the existing parking demand is 1.62 (5,250/3,250). In addition to this indoor expansion space, the proposed expansion also would include establishing an outdoor area of about 840 square feet for about 32 outdoor restaurant seats. This outside space would be used for just a few months of the year. Nonetheless, if one were to account for peak use, it may be appropriate to add the 840 square feet of outdoor dining to the 2,000 square feet of indoor expansion to determine a total expansion of 2,840 square feet. On that basis, the potential multiplication factor to increase the existing parking demand for the saloon is 1.87 (6,090/3,250). Even though the outdoor seating only will be used for a few months of the year, the previously described 1.87 multiplication factor has been applied to establish a conservatively high estimate of the total parking demand for the Narrows Saloon upon completion of its proposed expansion. For each of the three analysis time periods, this total post-expansion demand and the increase it represents over the existing demand is presented next. • Friday noon peak. The total post-expansion parking demand for the saloon will be 64 (1.87 X 34). This total demand represents an increase of 30 parked vehicles (64 - 34). • Saturday early afiemoon peak. The total post-expansion parking demand for the saloon will be 47 (1.87 x 25). This total demand represents an increase of 22 parked vehicles (47 - 25). • Saturday late evening peak. The total post-expansion parking demand for the saloon will be 112 (1.87 x 60). This total demand represents an increase of 52 parked vehicles (112 - 60). PARKING StIPPLY/DEMAND RESULTS AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Considering the existing parking demand characteristics and the factors previously discussed that will increase the number of parking spaces needed, the resultant total future parking denumd for each of the three analysis periods is presented in the following table. COMPONENT OF FUTURE PARKINO DEMAND PARKING DEMAND DURING FRIDAY NOON PEAK PARKING DEMAND DURING SATURDAY EARLY P.M. PEAK PARKING DEMAND DURING LATE SATURDAY EVENING PEAK Existint ptikint demand 6S 59 67 Increase due to Caribou Coffee Shop 11 11 3 Increase due to office space in Caribou development 3 1 0 Increase due to transit park/ride 6 0 0 Increase due to expau-uon of Nanows Saloon 30 22 52 Tolal future parkiai demand IIS 93 122 -Tf—I rjTxi-* ^:^5Tit.t.ii.,^T*,,-v; - Mr. Jim Andersl -9-Septcmber 9,2005 As noted in the preceding table, the total parking demand following completion of the Narrows Saloon expansion will be less than the existing public parking supply of 129 spaces during all three peak times. In relating the projected future parking demand to the existing public supply of 129 spaces, two possible questions are: Aren’t the projected parking demands for the Friday noon and late Saturday evening peaks quite close to the 129 space supply? Does the limited number of additional available spaces at these times constrain potential future land use changes for other properties relying upon the public parking lot? The answer to the first question is yes, the total future parking demand will be quite close to the available spaces during the Friday noon and late Saturday evening peak periods. This situation is satisfactory for two reasons: 1) the demand is within the total available supply and 2) highly conservative assumptions have been applied to estimate the increased parking demand for the Narrows Sakx>n. The answer to the second question is no, the Narrows Saloon expansion will not limit change in use opportunities for other buildings served by the public parking lot Two reasons for this conclusion are: a) The public parking supply of 129 spaces does not account for a total of about 30 spaces available on private properties - about three spaces behind the Narrows Saloon, about 21 spaces on the north side of the westerly-most building, and about six spaces on the west side of the westerly-most building. Though a few of the spaces north and west of the westerly-most building presently are used, numerous spaces in these areas are available to accommodate potential increased parking derrumd fmr diis building. b) The peak paricing denumd for the Narrows Saloon occurs late on Saturday evenings, when very low parking demand is experienced for practically all types of businesses that may have potential to occupy space in other buildings served by the public parking lot. Time periods when other businesses have higher levels of parking ^mand are periods of lower parking demand for the Narrows Saloon. ' .'■! .-I . .■ ■ ■ . ■• •• • • . r.- • •• •' • - I' ■■ ■ ilTiaiTlll [Trinniiiriir iTn~ifnii'fcnii[i"‘iir>aM»i i nil u Memo ^ Bonestroo Bosenc 5A AnderfUc& |\J^ Associates Cnfwiraf » 4 Af ctutrm To:Mike Gaffron Planning Director From: Shelly Johnson Date: September 14,2005 Subject: Parking Study - Narrows Saloon Project OOOiaO-OSOOO-O (General) Remarke: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the parking study for the proposed Narrows Saloon expansion. Tl.e following provides my findings and conclusions. 1.The parking supply counts were conducted on a Friday noon. Saturday early afternoon and Saturday evening. These arc appropriate time periods for such inventory, but I do not know if August is an average month with regard to patronage of this saloon. The data collected, upon which Uie analysis is based, could be lower than other time periods during the year. I mention this because the future demand could be overstated or understated. The study does not address alt the issues that the City requested. I don’t know why. Of particular importance is the parking required per City ordinance for each user in the area that uses the public parking lot. That number should be calculated. 3.The study bases the future demand on the increased size of the saloon - this could be understated as same rate is used for the expansion that the data of the parking survey discovered. By this I mean, often times a facility that experiences a certain parking rate per square foot will, after an expansion, experience a higher parking rate per square foot merely due to the facility being more attractive and could attract more patrons than was being experienced by the existing facility parking rate per unit of measurement. 4.The parking demand for a Caribou is stated at 1 1 spaces during the peak. I have no parking data regarding such facility, but I did go and look at a Starbucks near my office on Tuesday noon. There were 1 8 parked cars and the lot was full. There were 4 cars at the drive-thru that affected circulation. 1 noted people parking in an adjacent store lot and walking to the Starbucks. 1 only mention this as it is possible that the 11 space demand for the Caribou may be understated. 5.The study indicates a future demand that would basically "fiir the 129 space lot. This value, os provided in the study, would appear to limit any expansion of other building users that rely on the 129 square lots. That is an issue that the City needs to consider. 6.The parking lot design does have "tighter" parking bay widths than normally experienced. 1 expect this does hamper parking and circulation operations to some degree. This could even be a bit more troublesome during the winter when it is possible that parking lot striping is covered by snow/ice. BouMlroOi HotBMf AndofUk er.d ABMOcieiOM, Inc.www.bone9troo.com oaMi □ twneeawm.mvm oi 111?* MM fm w mim eearn.mmm 9m OliCMOnn; S771l>«aMS 81 CM. MN Ml Pbmm mnt km fm Qi90wa,\mm Mw 8i7 S484?/4 fm. Hliem 1 Metno BoncstrcM Roscne An<ter1ik4 Associates CngMMfi 4 AfClMCvcit Mr. Mike Gqffron Parking Study - Narrows Saloon Page Two September N, 2005 7.The request to allow seating on the sidewalk adjacent to Shoreline Drive may not be the "safest" of uses. Shoreline Drive is a heavily traveled roadway and is close to the building. The seating would narrow the sidewalk width and there is the easement situation that the County holds. I don't tliink this is a safe situation. 8. 9. You mentioned that there could be some other "promise" made with regard to potential users of the public parking lot. That needs to be analyxed as a part of your deliberations. The Transit Park and Ride have 25 allocated spaces. An increase in that usage would also create more parking issues. 10.The study report conclusions are that there is sufficient parking for the expansion. The numbers in the report seems to indicate that, but there are serious questions and issues with regard to the numbers and future expansion that, in my opinion, merit careful consideration. If the outdoor seating was removed, the decisions would be much easier. If you have any questions regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me. —V •. r-;t ' - .-5 r- ■ . • - ‘J • V «. i •ofiMiroOb and AB90clMi99, Inc.ymfw.tonutrooxom o IWfN Ql llff-l OHOki 9L9mkmm%$mmrnm-mtmfrnmmvm t.mmm aMt44M7 ftOMNNSilM ta»M42»M||3 fm m-m4ai mm Ml S4M774 fm MI MMff j MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Ralin and Planning Commission GregGappa, Public Services Director Mike Gaffron, Planning Director July 18,2005 Navarre Parking Lot Study - Potential Issues to be Addressed Following is a list of issues that should be addressed in the parking study that will be required of the applicants for the Narrows Saloon expansion. The list is intended to provide a set of minimum expectations for the results to be gained from that study. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Analysis of parking needs of all commercial businesses that abut the public parking lot: - parking needs based square footages of all existing uses, including occupied and potentially occupiable interior spaces • potential parking needs based on potential uses - relate to permitted and conditional uses allowed in B-1 District - review of “prior commitments” made by the City to various business owners Analysis of parking needs for non*commercial uses of the parking lot including: - Park & Ride - Navarre Park - Other unidentified uses not directly serving surrounding businesses Relationship of peak parking need times/hours for various businesses and other uses served by the lot. Analysis of paricing provided and/or potentially developable within the various private business properties abutting the public parking lot. Estimate of parking stalls available in public lot under current configuration, and estimate of maximum number of parking stalls tliat might be potentially available under various reconfigurations based on: a) existing 9’xl6 ’ stalls with 20-22 ’ drive aisles; and b) a revised configuration based on City standard of 9’x 20 ’ stalls per zoning code 78-149 1(g) and conforming with all setback and other standards contained in 78-1491 thru 78-1515. Ir,rI Navane Parking Lot Study Issues July 18,2005 Page 2 6.Analysis of the existing layout and configuration of the public parking lot, in terms of (in no specific order of importance): - vehicle accessibility to surrounding roads - traffic impacts on local city streets - layout convenience related to the various users - interior site circulation - size and orientation of spaces and drive aisles - ADA accessibility requirements - stormwater management - snow removal and storage; ease of maintenance • pedestrian safety & security - access for service vehicles (trash hauling, business deliveries) mM V ' i •. . ■ • . •- I r ’f r 4 t; LJUm. H. O. Kroll Q flssociotes, Inc. CnglnMis ConsuUng In Acoustics SeniDostMMflood • Minrartonba AAwitSOto 55345 Phono 9S8-934-9494 • PAX 958*934-1300 Orono Lkiuors (no. dbs Narrows Saloon S Sept. 200S posoxse Navarro, MN 5S392 Fax 768^26-3168 Qraatinfla: Wa did, in Itaaping with your havirtg aakad that wa do to. makt a noise level monitoring tost in tha straat named Kelly Av aitd in front of the driveway of Nr. 2S07 pointed out to us by Cindy aa tha place from whanea complainta had coma, between the hours of 2230 and 2346 (10:80 pm and 11:46 pm) of 27 August, 2006 and now toll you of tha raaults of the not ena^rouMorrg teat. Looation 2807 Kelly Av Noise tavala (dBA) U) 49.8 Lto 88.6 The State Noise Reguiadona eall for tha noiaa tavala to be maaaurad in a atatiaticai way so Lw maana that tha noiaa laval. as measured at tha test points was 49.8 dIA 60% of tha time. That maaru to say that 80% of the time, it was louder than 49.5 and 50% of the time, it was quieter than 49.8 dBA. Lie means that tan percent of the time, it was louder th^in 88.8 arrd ninety percent of tha tinta. It was quieter than 53.S dBA. I have not scan tha Noiaa Regulations that may apply to your exset iecatlon but the values sot forth above, if taken to fellow tha Mirmeepeiia and Minnesota Stats Ragulstiona would fbR witMn such ragulationa. For axampla: *: • Oevtime iOTOOr- 22pOI‘ * • Niohttime (2200-0700) Lm '-Lis' ' U Lie Rooidontis) Areas 60 -* 65' ' ' > 80 66 Commaroial Areas 68 70 68 70 Than, tee, there are diffaront kinds of deeibeh (dB) and the A or dBA kind la the one moat often used In tha U.8. for atab'ng ce'mMoA'no^a lavala. As a comment: At that thna of night, wo could hear atroat traffle aa tha loudaat sources of noiaa but a nearby cem^reiei buiidbrg did, with its air conditioner or soma similar machine noiaa level at a ataady rata, was tha steady background rwiaa. The weather conditiona were good, mild summer temparstura with light and variable winds. Wa uaad precision tost apporatue, ali earofuiy ealferotad with a rafaranca aeuree tre ceabla in socuracy to tha NIST (National Inatituta of Bcianca and Tachnetogy. Flaosa cell if quaatiena arise. Very truly yours. WmK/lw Wm. H. 0. Kroll, P.E. Q -<■ ■»! ‘«n| D on C Hoglund 4i71 MASnoulUMO Tonka iAi:MN5SS3l*»«4l PNONI/F ax <I2474-S4I3 auoiAII<ll-740mi AvtNUtOILPA«Qmtl7 CONDO Ma ONOUA #501 ACATUtOOGDO. MiXICOMCfO fUOwyfAX 91 1.977441.1703 CttiULAt 90.74474(71 masT If, 300S cm OF mn nmin coimissmf.O. sox 66 CtfSTAl S6S, MS. SS3>J STTS: MIKL 6SFFWS StM Sit: ^nA.mmsMLoot}Posu cxfsssios nss OiSUSlF OF TS£ CO SXIOOS Sts IT------nniscrtis i nst si. sntofi osnoss seme__Mi St CH S m^im^ts.^^ SUCFITIS6 su m smostt.se 52? w “y¥a 7H SOa" Q¥(^f 17 WOdLB it i ?W2'SS’ W OF KOtU OS MOTOtCSCtUCOMmstthl^ OtTtiltSSSTO FOt TK SCSI Itn stiwW. »C£0MM6tt -tmots ssiootatstsioi hss-sl me.gists' y fe y^'-' S^c,*jL£i " A. 'a. /Lt-^w f d^o*< pw /c %& JJ^ ^^pM-. _ \mJU i<^f rV»*v. ORDINANCE NO. 26 ,3RD SERIES INTERIM ORDINANCE FURSVANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 4S3.3SS, SUBDIVISION 4, TO ESTABUSH A MORATORIUM FROHIBITING THE GRANTING OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, ZONING (CUPA^ARIANCE) APPROVAL, REZONING, OR PUD APPROVAL %VIT11IN THE MORATORIUM AREA AS DEFINED HEREIN. THE crrv OF ORONO ORDAINS: The Mitnici|»al Coda of the City of Ocono it amended by adding Ordinance No. 26. 3rd Series. SECTION 1. Pnlicv. The City Coundl Ends that the City is presently laced with the potmtial of applications for subdivision, icsoning. sootng (CUPAfarimee). or FUD approvals ibr property within the Moratorium Area as defined iaSeccioo2. It ippm to the CotJDdl Ibti the consequRictt of allowing such applications to be approved may be undesirabk became the current ordinances may not be consistant with tht Qt/s Booing and devtIopciMot foab. Tht Council, therefore, finds that it is necesiry 10 stady the impact of developmcni undsr ament ordinances to determine whether they folJUl the underlying purpoaea of the Cit/a land use and Boning proviriona. The Council Anther finda that if, u a result of this atudy, the land use controls and soning proviiiona contained in the Dty code need to be revised, such revision is a process that caimoi be accomplished until a study has been complatad and a hearing held. During thii p^od, it ta desirable that the Council estabUah guidelines for the benefit of those who wish to develop property in order to bring about savings of public nd private expenditures and to provide the public guides to fliture City action. Since of gn amendment to the code would undoubtedly modiiy exiacing rcfulatioos concealing pconitted land use and soning performance standarda, the panting of preliminary approval of subdivision applicstiona. soning (CUPA^ariance) apphcaiioos, rcBOoing Bpplkationa, or PUD for property within the MorHorium Area would be contrary to the purpoee of the soning cnebltng act, Minneaota Slaluies Section 462JSI, el aeq. The Council forther finds that it would be unwise, improper and urnuit to all^ individoal development to occur during thia atudy. SECTION 2. Mniaiorium Aioa. As uaod in this Ordinance, Moratorium Area shill bo defined as all real propaity soned or used for cominercsal use ad/aoint to County Roods 1S and 19 within the Navatro commercial area in the City of Orono SECTIONS. SmdL *fbe City Coundl roquiret iu staff to iiutiate a study regarding the impact of developmaol within the Moratorium Area uoder current ordinances to deimitne whether they Ailfill the underlying puipoim of the Qiyb land uio %% and soning provisions, and reganlmg the implications of the potential need for wnendments to the City code lo implement the results of that study. SECTION 4. Restrictions on the Grantine of Preliminary Subdi Zonma fCUPAfaiianocl Approval. Reyoning- 9f PUP approvals No preliminary subdivision approval. Zoning (CUPA^anance) approval. Rezoning, or PUD approval, shall be given by the Council for any property within the Moratorium Area. SECTION 5. Duration. This Ordinance shall expire within twelve (12) months of the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council, without Council action, or it may be repeal^ earlier if the Council determines that the requisite studies have bem completed and adopted and that appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the zoning code, have been finalized. The duration of this Ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent Ordinance for a total time period not to e.xceed the statutory limits in Minn. Stat. 462.355, subdivision 4. SECTION 6. Viriancci. The Council may grant a variance to this Ordinance if the Council finds afier careful review of all the facts that a proposal is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Community Management Plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City, that it does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens and that it otherwise meett the requifemenla of the Orono City Code and state law. SECTION 7. ScparabilitY. Every section, proviiioii. or part of this Odinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or pari; and if any section, proviaion, or part thereof or action taken hereunda shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or pan. SECTION 8. Publication, This Ordinance iball be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall be effective immediately. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono OB fids 25th day of July, 2005, by a vote of 5 aves and O nays. ATTEST: Linda S Vee, City Omk Baibara A. Petersoa, Mayor Pubtiahed the week of juiv 30 2005 in die Laker/Pioncer newapapefi. ^ * MIMinnSOFTflB ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MCTmO Mondiy, Jaly II, 200S 6:00 o'clock p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o'clock pjn. J| OLD BUSINESS i. MS-Sni NARROWS SALOON. 33f2 SRORILINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT, 6:29 p.m. - 7:34 |i.m. Ondy SudheiiDcr and Jainca Andetil, Appticonis, woe picieat OaffhM) noted Ihia applicabon appeored before the Planning Comniiiaion at thetr June moating, at which lime the applicaii jn waa tabled in order to allow the appliconta time to reviao their plana. The appUcania have aubmiticd reviaed pkmi and have eliminated the propoaad kjiohen addition in the northeaat oonwr of the building and are now propoitng a kitehen addition inaide die building. In addition, the double-door anlraiica extending into the sidewalk area hu been eliminated and the applicants are now propoiing an that will not encroach liifthar than the main wall. OafOon indiealad die outdoor aaoting in the ftont has been ex panded by two additional seats and would still encroach on die Qty'saMawalkaaaeraeaL The applicanls are propoeing a slightly smaller outdoor aeaiing area at the rear of the budding, with the bar station shown in the previous plana bemg eliminaiad. In addition, ttm appliemla are proposing a acreanad trash eneloaure at die north end of the buildotg. OaOran indicaltd it is unelaw ftom the reviaed plana whether the planire boxea remein It the north end of the ooldoor aeatifig in the rear. Oaflhm atatadtheaeplenler boxes cauaed (he need for a rear yard variaiica and are not perminad aneroachmanta. Removal of bituminoua so that the plaid material can be placed into die ground would eliminate the need forarearyard variance. Gaffton slated the revised plena show a minor increase in lot coverage, with the current lot coverage betngit38 perocnL Oeffron stated the propoeed fence in the rear is depicted it S.5ta, which would not be considered stnicliiral coverage. Oafl^ noted Iha bacc would be considered teractural eovnnge if it •chiaves a hei^ of atx fbet OafBon slated die outdoor aaaiing area in dte rear of die bnildmg has been rednead from 1.666 square leal to t,m square fast, with dwaaatingbatngdacroBaad from 14 aaali to 60 aaate. The bar station in the previons plaoa has also been eliminated. This area ramaina acomwbla only from within (he reteawrsot OafBon indicatod the applteanti have diminaled the kitehen addition, which required a side yard setback varianoe and further oloaad in an already realrieliva drive aiala. The reviaed plara show an area within the building as an option for a kitehen expansion. This area is approximately 132 square feet, reducing the public floor area within the building iy 132 square Ibat The appHcante have also eliminated Uia exterior veslibuta and have ineoqwreted an interior vestibule, half within the propoaad main reateurentfliar area and die odiar half widun the banquet area at the westefii and of the building. Bliminolionorihe veaiibule atiminated the need for a ftont yard Mlfaeckvwtenca. Howovar, the revised plana note an option to straighten out the ftont aninf wall in dteloeationofthaprtvioualy requested exterior vodbulc. Ifthe appHcante pureuaalreigtite aiwg put thte wall, a fiootyaidialbackvirianoa would be required; although the encroachmani would be no more than wMt exists today. Elimination of the kitehen end intibuia addituma and mcorporetion of them inio the building aubaequant reduead iha number of teats proposed wilhm the interior height Baaed on (he ptiWie apMt roduation of 132 aquare fret, the required ofT^tal ptfVing is reduead ky taro qwMytf PAGES (•05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Cootiaaed) Oifftoo indicated the dticumion at the previous Pteiming Commttiion meeting dcmonatiated e need to conduct ■ perking study for the City lot end fhcbutincaes using it GalBon recommended that a parkmg study be completed by a consuUam hired by the applicant, with an analysis orptiking needs of all commercial busmemes that abut the public parking lot GafTron slated the applicant would need to review (he parking needs baaed on the square roolages of til existing uaes, including occupied and potentially occupied interior tpecet, the potential parking needs baaed on potential uses relating to pemutted and conditional uses allowed in the B-1 Diitnct, and a review of prior commitments concerning parking made by the City to various business ownere. In addition, an analysts of parking needs for non-commercial uses of the parking lot, including the Park 8l Ride, Navarre Paric, and oO kt unidenlifted uiea not directly aervmg the surrounding businesses. The parking study dtould also look at the relationship of peak parking need times and hours for various busmeaaes and otfier uaes served by the lot end an enalytis of perking provided tnd/or potentially developable within the various private busmeu properties abutting the public parking lot should be completed. An estimeie of pirlung stalb available in the public lot under current configuration and an estimate of the maumum number of parking stalls that ought be poteotially available under wioas reconfigurations need to be completed. Oaf&on recommended the trsdic study alto address the following. • vehicle acccsaibility to surrounding roads • traffic impacli on local city sireeti • layout convenience related to the various uteri - interior aite diculation • atae and oricotetioo of spaces and drive aialas • ADA arcataibility lequhcfnenls - staniiwBter sHnagement • mow removal aod teorage; ease of mainlBiHice • pedestrian safety simI security for Krvioc vdticka. i.e., tmh haufiog, burineai detimka Oaffron noted additional public comments have been received from concern residents following die June Planning Commitiion meeting OafTron recommended (he applicant further reduce die outdoor seating areas and possibly the mtericir expansion in order to reduce the smount of required parking Slaff II recommending the applictUon be tabled until a parking study is completed by the applicant Sudheimer indicated Ihe number of tables in the front could be decreased by four, which would reduce it from 33 Isbka to 28 tables. Rahn inquired whether the applicant hat pursued a parking study. PACE 6 MINUTES or TR£ OAONO FLANNING COMMISSION MltTlNG Moaday.Jttly 1S.2MS 6:00 o'docli |i.n. (MS4121 Nat r«wi Siloaa, CtallaMtf) Mhtim» SuNInfbniw! Oitm Uitl tMy «mM Umg IM rcvi«d ptona b«dr bdbfv IlM nmint OamnMfln prior lo proaaading with tha parldng itudy. KjIm iaqiiirad wMiar there wara any public oonwen ta conotming thia applicatioru Mania rmo^ 2914 Oaaco Foint Road, indieolad 4ia doca raaida in diii araa and raiaed a oonoom ngaidiiig the aafely ofpoople in On ana. iha noiaa gonaraled from the bar and trafTic, and the houn of adian aleotiol wtMld be aerved. Prccae tiaicd in her opinion the me morandum (him Police Chief Good ahould be givon more eonaidofation aa part of (hia appliealion Freoao oonmanlod it it importanl dial expanaion of Oiia buatneaa fin in with what the f«t of the oommoiiity wairta and noljuat Oie palrona of ihe buiiiien. Loia Hufflow, 3431 Lyrie Auaruia, alaled in har opinion the type of fence being propoaed for die rear aeadag ana doaaaotaiie gMaial>i deal wiOi her concoma regarding the noiae. IIimHow atMad aha would Uka to an fewar acaOng afeaa in the back pobo area, which could parhapa ba incieaaad over time. San Marfiald, 3453 North Shore Drive, indicated ha it a lortg-iinia reaideiil of hfevarra and ancouragad iha Ptamiing Commiaaion not to ndta an oppoituniiy to faiveal in Ow conenareial dialikl of Navarre. Marfidd aolcd Oda butinaai hia exfelad in Oiia area fer a adbNaadal nunibar of yaaif md Aould not be rcdiHfid to road aO On toning raqubaniMU Ibat now txifl ainet it axiaiad prior to ihoaa requiramenta being in affect Autoin Evana. 2497 Kolty Avenue, ftoiM ha ittidai in iha hooat Oiat to loeatod the doiCit ID Oiia buaineaa, and pointod out that iMa aria to mad aaieiailfeirvioehiiiinaia and not commarciat Ovana in thia area diould ba buabiaaaaf primaHly that providi icryicci lo fhe aurroundiito Evana nolad a conditional uae permit could ba grantod but that the fenowing feidinfi muto ba made: One, that it to not detrimentel to the pebNe Iwallh, toftty, or welfere of the aurrounding retodenta. Evai alaled tha report feom tha polioo chief ahowa thto tha buaineaa to dohirocntol to ihe reaidento aroiaid it Two, a ianot otoiarially ipjuriouo to proportica or improvcwaiito in tha vicinity. Evana iodieaiad he it uneble to open his windows during the cummertime due to the none from motoreyclos and other voMcks the! ptoroniac (hit busmen. Evans atotod the Planoing Gofnmiotion should cxemine (he overall bitotit ofOiia ^toriet, notiito diet Iho preposad bowling alley for ihto area htol been denied Evans ttolcd in hia view whot is beat fer Navwic ia a compnheiittve plan end (hot approval oflhisappikalion may impede feturedevdopmeot in Navi re. Evane puintod out the ieeunreiating to the need fee a coBHpie heniive plan and inadequate perking were previouity diacuand in 2003. rAoi? MlNUTRSOPTflE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MCITING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (•05-3121 Narrewf Saloon, Coa(Iaoed) Evana Mated this expansion is not necessary as an tmenily lo Ihc community and that it is pooible a targe number of potions to this busincu do not reside in Navarre. Evans stated (here it an organization called Neighbors for a Better Navaire that would like to ace a moratorium for this area and a comprehensive plan created that would allow for development that it more amenable to Navarre. Evans requestad lha Planning Commiation deny this application. Rcbeeca Lowe, 3295 Ctrman Road, staled currenUy the area is not pedestrian friendly and expressed concern that the expsnston of the busincia is not kid friendly. Lowe encouraged the City to make this area more pedestrian friendly. Valerie Coykendall, 2344 Olive Avenue, echoed the concerns ra»cd regarding the noise snd safety of children in the area. Brad 2507 Kelly Aveiue. tadiceted he sent a letter to the City end Ifwnlnl Mi1ce Oiffron for responding to (he issues he raised in hit letter. Hoyt expreaed a conoem that this project may ncpiivtly htipaei the other deveJopinent in die area. Hoyt staled the aeating m the front may not be possible given Oie doee proximity of (be street Mid (hat it may be difficult, if not impossible, to grow trees along the front of the building. Qiartee Nedkr, 2509 Kelly Avenue, indicated he has already aubmstted severil letters regarding this project, but noted he ie here to present a petition to the PUrnnmg Committion opposing this expansion pmject of the applicants. NMIcr tndicatod lha peUtion ilatoa that no outdoor seating should be approved by the city The June 20. 2005 memo from PoUee Chief Good is ample evidence that the owner has been unable to contain either (he none ineide die reatiufant or the notaes mode by the moiorcyclea of the customeis aa well as hie inability to keep motoccyclet from parking on the tidewatk. The me mo goes on to raiie additional public aaftty tiMiea with regards lo the outdoor seating. Any outdoor seating would require meny conditions, ^ as ifand when liquor would be permitted outoide, what hourt the patio would be doted, and othcri. just to name a few. Nadicr staled the owner hai a poor track record regarding his ibility to abide by the laws and matnet iona and that enfbamnent probteme will tncrcaia. Nkdler staled it is poor public policy lo sllow any outdoor aaaling under any circumaiancea. PACK! Sylvia Bertognoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, staled she is in support of what Evans is attempting to secomplish. BertagnoH raised conoems rcgaidmg the safety of children and other citizens in the vicmily of the Narrows Saloon, eepectally wiih the propoaed outdoor seating in the front Phyllii O'Malley, 2740 Kelly Avenue, indiealed she hu resided in this sree for e number of years and relocatod here from New York. O'Malley ataled the owners ofthisbustncaa do Mve a right to expand but that there needa to be aome type of eap on the expansion. O'MiU^ staled the eovirooiiient of this area wee more conducive to raictng children than what cutreaUy exists wid will ba further imputed nc^uvely Ity thii expansiort ; 1 MimmsorTnt ORONO rLANNING COMMISSION MKTIMG MMMlay.Jiilylt.2MS <:M a ’daak |».m. Ju (105-3121 Nimivt SalMii, Contl«yMl) Nidlar iM(d my prapetad tapanaion ihMild bt qtmvad only tRer a puUnt ttidy hM been completed, on KeDy Amua, Lyrie Avanua. UvintMon, Carman Sireel, Shadywood Wood Road, and Ciieo POinIRoad. Tha public comment mHoa oriha appIteaUon haarini wu cloacd at 7:02 p.m. Laalic commantad it it important to nco|niae that invcatmant in a community cornea in a number of diflbicAl Itatma and that any invaatmant that maboa Navam Amclionai and vibrant and eoonomicalty a ound it in tha tntaraala of tha taaldante. LaalieataiedlheioaliatonndtwaytobalMieethatypeor invutMtnl and lo And a may fcr tha community to be developed in a may that aatvaa the rcaidenta at laria Laalie alalad ha la uaawa •htthar a meaalorium la nceeataty but dtet davalopmant oft eonanaheaeivn plan fin thla amt would ba a prudantatep. Italia iodicaltd ha undantanda the eonetma of the retidanta aMthrtthoaaeoneamadonaadlobea ddleaaad. Uahe pointed out the applicwia have done a aound Job of reviaint diair appUeation to addiaaa aonw of tha eoneama miaad at the prior Plwininn Osnuniaaion maetint but that in hia view tha applieanta need to ga (btihar to addttaa Ihoae coneaina. Italia ateted In Wa apinion toe ouadoor ttaiing in tha Hunt aheuld be altnilntied and dwt the ttaUiip in the back aheuM ha roduead by half aa a way to tea how well that can be marwaad wid eonnolled. Ueiie ateted a teUar.aohddanee would be baneSelal to the raaidaola to habi reduce the no« but wwnd laaiaaaa tha hwdaovar on tha lot Italia aoaeunad a paikiai aludy doaa need to ba conAicted pnor to approval of any expaiMion. kempf ateted ha concura tagardint tha neecaaily fite a aomprehenteve plan tor tha Nbvam ataa but that a moraiariumianatapproprteteaiihiapoinlintliite. KampfaiatedinhiavicwlheapplicaniaNadeinaa •aad Jab at maUng dwir buainaaa aomadiini that ia banefleial to Sw area but dM torihar atepa need to be tahantaaddnaalhenoiaaiaauaa. Kampf ateted ha would like to aaa tha euldooracatint reduced with rMlrtolid Kom Kempf Mtetltd ht hia lilHe olywUon lo Ihc eiptnoitn wilKin iIh envelope of ihe eji^aiini Mruoiinobiil that it eoiydmwi to whether the paHongetudy will illuatiate the availability ofaddttinn.l|wAte,u. eeoonMwdiie the eeponeion. Winhay Indicated ha doaahavaaemacencaroaiagaiding the mlbtyefihe people in the area and the abilily to poliea and protect thiaarnn. Winhay ateted in hia opinion the outdoor aaariiw area neada to be loduoid end tee on a iriel boiie. JuriMf ted he v^ould Kin lo iit ■ fiport ten Miee OUef Good on delet and Minte of initetepwbteteitidtelyfiltlcdloditHifrewtSiloone iurteneUte lie would like to « PAGKf hONirresOPTME ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING Monday, July 12,2005 6:00 o*clock p.m. Js (1^5*3121 Nernmi Saloon, Conttnned) ^lice ^iefQood preeenl al the next hearing to entwer tome questioni reprdini the eafety concenti DOins railed. Jurgcni indiciled he it in irwirwil wilh the recommenditiom of SUfTand that a perking etudy ii paramount for thif area prior to my opprovil. ^Sreement with the commenU made by Committton Lcilie. Rihn indicated he hit chinged hii mind concerning the eealing in the front of the building and Uut it ihould probobly be eliminoled due to the close proximity of Uie itreet. ^ itaM he would like the appliceni to proceed forward wilh i trefflc end ptrkini ahidy, which would '® ‘***“"'*'’* •“*' "*“•> eapenaion ii reeluiic for ihii eitebluhmenL Rehn Mated mhtaop.^diacuieionenlhedeiiindcliilioflheexpetieiooetthiiite|eiepreinilure Rahn concurred that ■ smeller outdoor eating ires should be considered and given a trial period. Brwnwsii^ the would Uke to see the outdoor sealing area loduccd from what ii eurrcmly being prapte Btemtrtialed in her views number of the laauea railed can bt dealt wilh by the appheania but te the outdoor aciting really needs to be reduced. Bremer stated she la not oppoaed to a solid fence for the outdoor palio area to help reduce the noiae for the neighboii. Rahn mguiied whcUwr there ere other iceuee ihel need to be diceuceed by the Plewme Cooumeooo el ihutune. ^ifte aialcd there are approximately 12 iteow ibal hevc been raised as issues, with s Itrfa number of mam ites having been dtacutaed to nma degree at tonight 's meetmg and the previous meetmo. Gal^ recommended the total area fbr tha outdoor patio be firmly defined and rtfher tom having toe applicant poasibty expand that area in the future. Jurgens agreed that a solid well would be more beneficial for toe nciglibora. Uilie MM he would prefer too fence follow the footprint of the smaller peuo area and pomibly a^ianded in toe future. Leslie mdica tad he also is m favor of a aolid fence. fttestoisdhealao would like to ace the area kept amaltei in the boning *nd possibly expanded in toe Sutetm^ autrd dwy are attempting to expand their business to acoommodete Ihe reataurant porfio!i of te^incaate tea IwgB number of ilieirpacroni are local rtetnli Sodhetmer indicalid ttw ^^ulcssie designed to Kelp reduce the none Sudhmrner noM live musk does not play during toe FACE 10 .-I V :. ,•. 1 p; MiNirrcs or THE OIIOmrLAimm^COMMISSXONMlITING i:M §*dMl( p.ni* Ju (MS4I21 Wtfftwt SilttB, Ctid—td) Sudfwiw polled Qi<ehtbticowdowliUuwihtiHtr«w<nieirfdwmCtiifOt<tr»tamg to i Inflfe ia 0M am tipHlioMtly nidri tfM «l»l Ifciir MpMition pif^ would. Sudhthnv iiolad Ihty have pawed til of Ihtir oonyiinpe checki in the pMC and that they have reeeivtd lt««f Awi dM poliM ohitr ttnoUni iham for Mi| I |ood joli. SuAMimir indicated ihty ha¥i cuptrienetd m kmmm in teod lifca ind t dwiam in liquor hIct ihicc thi amotaRg ordinaiiee went inio tflkt and ll»( dMy «• ■MempCtng 10 expand Iha^ buiinui 10 nme that tnaiaaaa. Sudlwiinar nocad Caribou Coflga toeawd aoroaa Iha rtraat haa an outdoor acatmg area that ii no( LMliaalaiadhiwouldHlBatolibtelhaappMcatfMloallowapartdagaliidytobaiindntiken. Uatie iw had in Uia Mwi iipr^ the howl of oparalioti and Ilia ote Lulla iwrad la tahia AppHcntlM iH4I21,Narr«wi SMoan, 3112 SharaHM Drift, to allow itM appHcaidiltaM to halt a traffla/parhlng aindy caadMtad at racaniMMidad hy glair. Aadarat deled in hia opinion the Ptaming Commiaaioa haa chngMi their tfiinkiog from (he laat meeting and art now lagMiriag them to eonply wMi addllionat Mnna that have not been prtvioyaly diacuaaed. Lailit iMid in Ite opinion the ooiwnenla era ooaaiolant fttm taat oMOlh and that dit reahfieliani on Hit howi of apeniion wore diaouoBod hut month. Marait Ftaan inguM whigier a Irmme ahidy ia the mma aa a partdng mtdy. Rahn amiMl llw Mdog COnmiiaiian woiild tOie io aet a parhing My. Kanipf aaetMlad tha ahaia nwtian. Ralm tlitid tha parking Hudy ihauld fellow what Slair haa tacowawndad. AndM inguifad what adier iaauta woald naad la he ifthipaHdngMy that the eapanaiOBiaviabia. Andemlfaquaatadthayhapfoaidad wifeatiatofhamathatnaadiobeiiltlrfid. Rahn Haled fee Miaanfe* feady would naad to be raiiawad hy fee Oly *• aoneiilianle. VOTE: AyaiT.Mayie. amniar mggaeleit fee epphoanta fellow fee Hat of ilemt outlined on pagi feur of gtalTa report f AGE II T-: m t «9-3f1i Jtif a3«s Pm Applfirtta S*1MS Dm CuPiirii m CiapPHi S-IMf laMiliMliqrPavlNrPirWttplm: 7.|7^ M-4>iyll*m«NrmC>lMMM7.#4S»: %15-m To: frmi Choir Rihn and Planning CommMon Membot Ron Moone, City Adminiitrator ^ Miko Otfhon. Planning Director Janict Oiindlaeh, City Pluintryi Dotr Snhicct: July 14.300S 05*3121« Cindy Sudheimer and Jamca Andersl on behalf of the Narrows Saloon, 3312 Shoreline Drive. Conditional Use Permit Amendment Revised Proposal - Continue Public Hearing Zan ing Distfkt: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 1. Retail Sales BusHiesa District (20,000 s.f. minimum) 0.31 acres (13.6S6s.f.) 112 liKt(100* required) UstofKshlMli Exhibit A - Revised Plana Exhibit D - Notice of Planning Commitiioo Action dated 7-5-05 Exhibit C - Letter from Bradley Hoyt 7 21-OS Exhibit D > Staff Response Letter dated 7-6-05 Exhibit E - Letter from Sera MarMd dated 7-22-OS Exhibit F-Letter fVom Chuck Nadkr received 7-14-OS Exhibit Q - Letter fVom Thomas Lowe dated 7-13-05 Exhibit H - Police Chief Comments dated 6-20-0S (Distributed at 6-20-0S meeting) Exhibit I - Memo and Exhibits of June 15.2005 Exhibit J - OraO Planning Coramiaaion Minutes of 6-20-05 Meeting EeWsed AppIkMhm Smummrf: Applicant requests the following in order to expend the existing Class 11 bai/rtsiaunnt into the spaces currently occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fiiliions, to pennit an interior kitchen expansion, a^ to pennii outdoor teraing at the front and rear of the building: 1. 3. Araandment of tht existing conditional uie pennit to allow a 50* x 44* interior expansion of the borfitsiaurant into the spaces curremty occupied by the dry elenner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions. Aracndrotm of tht cxiating cooditiocial me pennh to allow outdoor aaating at the hunt of the building atoag ShorcUne Drive adding 32 addhional mta. which woiiid raquirt that the existing sidewalk easement in favor of the City be encroached upon by approximaiely 4.5 feet. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor acming at the rear of tht building, adjacent to the City owned parking lot but within the applicam*8 propeny, measuring 1,292 s.f. in arm or approximately 60 addiiioiuil ietris.2aas r*c»2«r4 (the kitchen and vestibule additions ha\^ been incorporated into the existing building, eliminating the need for front and side yard setback variances)____ Ihc Planning Commission should continue to discuss the issum railed at the June PC meeting, noted within this report and in the attached minutes; formally require that the applicant hire a consuluuil to examine the parking issues; and give clear direction to the applicant regarding what conditions would be established for the outdoor seating if permitted. Staff recommends that this application be tabled until the applicant has hired a consultant and a parking aiudy has been completed.___________________________ PROPOSED REVISIONS Rear Patio The applicanl has reduced the area containing the outdoor seating in the rear of the building from 1,666 af. to t ,292 s.f. or from 84 seats to 60 seats. The **bar station" in the previous plans has also been eliminated. This area was reduced in site by moving the eastern \vaU/Tenoe to the west by approximately 12 feet. The area remains accessible only from within the lestauranL A waitress station has been included into this area just to the caA of the entry. Lastly, the tree proposed within the screening to the north has been eliminated in an effort to not encroach on the existing overbmd utility casement The other planiings remain. Fraat Pathi The fencing formalizing the from patio area has been eliminated; however 2 additiona] teals are included in the revised plans going from 30 seats to 32 seau. The ubles are now shown aa round umbrella tables adjacent to the building, whereas the previous plans had shown tables adjacent to a propel fence. This revision actually increases the square footage along Shoreline Drive devoted to outduor sealing, in addition to adding 2 seats. The encroachment on the City's sidewalk easemcfU appears lelaiively unchanged. This increase in area requires one additional parking stall, as noted further in this report. The decorative trees within the right-of-way remain a part of the proposal and would required Hennepin County approval. Inferior Eipaaaloa Tlie applicaats have eliminated the kitchen addition, which required a side yard setback variance and ftmher cloaed-tn an already restrictive drive aisle. The revised plans show an area within the building as an option fee a kitchen expansion. This area is approxtmaiely 152 s f reducing the public floor area within the building by 152 s.f. The applkanls have also eliminaied the exterior vestibule and have incorporated an interior vcatibulc. half within the proposed main teitauram/bar wea and the ocher half within the banquet area at the western end of the building. Elimination of the vestibule eliminaied the need for a from yard setback variance, however the revised plans note an option to straighten out the fiM entry wail in the location of the previously requeued exterior vesiibuk. Should the applicants pursue straightening out this wall, a front yard setback variance would be required, ahhough the encroachment would be no more than what c\i'»H today. Elimination of kitchen and vestibule additions and incorporaiion of them 8 MMtll i«»r iXMts Pa«»3«r4 into the huildUig lubiequtfiUy vidiiccd dit mimber of leau proposed within the interior by I. Bated on the puMic apace itducUon of 152 s.f. the lequired off-street parking is reduced by 2 spaces 0 52 i.r. / to s.£ - 1.9 or 2 stall). Traill Cedaaert Tha applicants continue to show a trash enclosuic at the north end of the building. The previous report rocntiooi the screening of this stnicnire, which the applicant has anemptad to do in the revised plans. Staff would recommend the trash enclosure be feneed on the west half in addition to what is shown on the plan and a gate can be added Ibr access. This not only hilly scrseiis the stnictiire but contains any trash outside the receptacle. flaattr Basts The praviout peiipective illusirations showed the plant material proposed at the north end of the outdoor tailing In the rear to be contained within planter boxes. These planter boxes caused the need for a rear yard variance and they arc not permitted encroachments. It is unclear, as revised perspective drawings were not submitted, whether an altcfnate method fbr the propoaed plant matarials is proposed. Removal of bituminous so that the plant material can be placed into ihs grormd would eliminale the need fbr a rear yard Off-SCract Favldng The mlttinsa horn the June PC meeting make clear that a parking study Biould be conducted for the City lot and the husinemes uaing it Prior to any recommendations to the City Coundt on exterior or interior expansions, a parking study must be compiciad by a consultant hired by tha appliemt Bel^ is a summary of required off-street parking baaed on the revised plans: PARKING PrifMMMd luttrlur S.P. Prop tied Outdoor S.P.TOTAL Squon Fooiagt 2,174 s.f.ZOOOS.P Front -650 s.f. Rear-1,292 s.f.6372* 1 nail/80 s.f.27 slalU 25 suits Front - 8 sulls Rear -16 suits 76 Total Suits The revised plans only reduce the required parking by 4 spaces, based on the reduction of the outdoor sealing in tha rear and kitchen addition incorporated into the interior 3f the building. Although much of the discussion to dale has cemered on the outdoor sroiing. if should be noted the interior expansion alone is nearly doubling the requifcd parking. Planning Cammlaalaa’s Jnna Racommcndatlan At the iunc 20,2005 meeting the Ptaiming Commiiaion fabled the application to allow the applicam to reviae their plans and attempt to address I) a number of concerns raised within the staff rcpocl aitachad to this memo at Exhibit G: 2) coaceros raised at the public hearing; and 3) eoneetna voiced by Planning Commitsionefi. After a review of the June PC minutea. the fbtlowing concerns were raised: • Parking availabilily within the municipal lot. for the Narrows and also the other businesses and fuuiie buaineaatt •OS.3I2I Jaly I3.2S05 fagt4«r4 Requirement of a parking study baaed on a revised, reduced level of use expansion Examining wheth» the parking lot can be reconfigured Reduction of both areas of outdoor seating Noise generiled from the outdoor searing as well is from within the building Incorporation of the vestibule and kitchen into tlie interior space Consider closing the outdoor seating at an earlier time Imposing differenl hours for the outdoor seating on the weekends vs. %veekdays Outdoor seating allowed on a trial basis Safety concerns of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive Reducing the outdoor seating in front to informal. t\vo*person ubles against the building to minimize encroochment on the sidewalk easement Restriction of alcohol within the outdoor seating in front Belter self-policing of noise problems Public Comments Exhibits C, E - O are additional comments received from concerned residents following the June Planning Commission public hearing. Staff would like to note that the letter received from Chuck Nadler, Exhibit F, incorrectly quotes information contained in a response letter to Brad Hoyt regarding the municipal parking lot. Please note this and refer to item 3 of the lener attached as Exhibit D for clarificalion. Staff Rccammendatlon Overall, based on the discussion that occurred at the June PC meeting, staff feels that the applicam needs to further reduce the outdoor seating areas, and possibly the public floor area of the Ulterior expansion in an effort to reduce the number of required off-street parking stalls. The Planning Commission should review the concerns listed above as well as the additional public comments received. Staff would recommend that the application be Ud>Ied until the applicant is able lo hire a parking consultant and a parking study is completed. -tr-f* >« ■» . .. <M«« €3 S3 C3 S3p7 {]:.•=:•" . . . Mr «• 0^*#^ f - . I ^# •«! •• • 1 t9«^M . .-m t;;»*.......r.— M.itW ErlPl'S fcj! warn — • r I , r‘****'T.T:l ..........7 -- a* ^ *";•.:i ,, 1 ; I—Wt. i-------T.Tyte , 1 t S3- ij^- Oi'S3p*-SHjP^ 1 L''"** • Jl yC ____ __ , * U # §• •».-»^i»».. ■““ . mimmmmi:.r' •r 1^^ .iiri__is=2«:.‘ 2^. if: ,ij ^ I i • I. “—..............*»»«*«.»«.<•» • ■• ♦--««••»»------- ^**A^.!**r •-*** ^r.:.r:--:. ^7 t> av :._:z IIIHMN- l*M"it V ^ #»•« !• ^^^044 >o«« :«t« S ikA **•* r EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT CITYOFOROMO ITMKMnFarkwqr Cry«talBay,MN SS313 (M1)}49-4M0 ZONING FILE: M)S-312l NOTICE OF FLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: luty 5,2003 TO: Cindy SudMnwr* Juliet Andent COFIES: 20 CUyaifTc Drive Took* Bey. MN 33331 TYFEOPAPFLICATION: CUP AnwidmcmincludintViri DATEOFMEETINC: Jum20,2003 FI—Ml Cewwliilie leek ike laNewkig scEoa: MeHen: Table, lo allow ippitcul 10 ra^eaivi per Ihe tunttied nviaiona by tulTand Plonning Commiarion. yOTB; 6 POM 0 AGAINST AppHcanfa neat tehedulad mealing it confinncd tK Srkedolkig la deptodtoi oo toboriwal oI rtvtaed ptam. DMdUac lar plactwal M Em Joly IS FI—log CoMMlitleo Mcelkig it Meoday, Jnfy II. SS-day Revi^ PcrM EaitMlaa Stale law pnvidat that Ciiiea riiall make decitiont on aooing teqaeata wiUun 40 daya ftoin tha dale of tppUcaiion. and that thlt review period may be exicrakd by aolifleaiion to the tppticanL Your application wia received and deemed complete on May IS. 2003. and the 40^y review period would end on July 17. 2003. However, becavae your application wat tabled by the Plenning Commitaion and will be again reviewed by the Planning CommWon no loonar than July IS. 2003. tha eariiett potential date of final Council action rallt after the 6B4ay period endt. Thereftire. the 60.day review period it hereby extended an additional 60 dayt to September 1 3.2003 m nlifiM Pis ■avkinn.- 1. Flmning Commitaion expr^ no tuppoiilbrc^roachinentorihepiopotedfteni entry expanaion onto the ftont aidewalk. Reviaed plant thould incorporate a two-door entry lytlem within the exitling wallt of tha building. Planning Commitaion generally MbiIm Bf fiMMliif CtmailiilMi Attfta exprcucd lupport for Ihe ttaff recommendation that the proposed use should be required lo inraiporate a two-door system for all entrance and exit poinu, along with operational requirements dial such doors remain closed during tunes of musical or other noise producing entertainment, to minimize or eliminate noise impacu to Ihe surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission also suggested that Ihe HVAC system for the building be designed to eliminate the need to open doors for ventilation. 2. Planning Commiuion generally supported the staff recommendation that the proposed kitchen expansion at the NE comer of the building should be redesigned to be ofTset westward along the north side of the building, so that the visual and Ainctional separation between the Narrows building and the adjoining service station doei not decrease. It was not clear whether Planning Commission was ready to conclude that a side setback variance for an addition located less ihsn the required 15* fix>m the side lot line would be supported by ■ hardship. To avoid the need for a side setback variance, the kitchen extension should either be incorporated into the existing building envelope or Ihe addition be rs-dettgned to meet the required tide setback. 3. It was not clear whether the Planning Commission would support a variance to allow expansion of lot coverage by structures from approximately 36% to approximately 38% (where 15% is allowed) to accommodate the building expansions. Planning Commission did express some support for reducing the expansion by relocating the proposed kitchen exptnsion to the interior of the building. 4. Applicant is advised lo investigate whether the easements over the iw yard area would preclude the planting of trees or installation of planter boxes 5. There was not clear support for the amount of outdoor seating proposed at the front or rear of the building. Planning Commiaaion expresKd some support for a trial period for some reduced level of outdoor seating from that shown on the plan. Planning Commission expressed a general desire lo place some limits on the hours of liquor and food service for the outdoor leatmg. and some members indicated iliey would not support liquor service at all for the from outdoor seating. 6. Planning Commission expretsod tignificant concern about the parking needs for the expanded use. and suggested that a detailed parking study for the City lot be done, but only after a revised, reduced buitding^use expansion plan has been submitted. Staff is willing to meet with you to discuss your options as to how to proceed. If you desire certified copies of the ofTicial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike GafTron at 612-249-4600. sf PtaimlBg Cvmintostoii Actiaii Jaly 5. lOaS Psic2»r2 L EXHIBITCi June21.200S CilyOfOrono 2750KcUeyP«kway Orof»o.MN Attn: MikeGtIfron RE: Nurowt Saloon Dtir Mr. Gaffron: li if my undantanding that the Plani*:ng Commitiion approved tha application OS-3121 fubmittad by the Nairowt Saloon o jvnera. Due to the tuff report not being available until the maating 1 wae unable to receive anawan to a number of qucttiom that •re critical to my underttanding of tha project 1 truit chat tha anewen will be provided by your dapaitinant, to tha axient you have tha inibrnuMion, in a timely manner thus aHowing the City Council to receive legicimau and accnralediacouraa regarding the ■ppHcation. My quaaiiona ace aa follows: 1) How was tha municipal lot obtained, by purchaie or dedication? From whom and when? If purchaaad how much was paid? Who mainuins it (plowing, twaeping, striping, repairs, etc.)? Do tha businesses that benehi pay for the expanse? Wte insures it and has liability on the property? 2) With regard to the many variancea sought please describe in detail the City's Afutinp of hardship for each in accordance with applicable law. 3) With regard u p«king plaaae indicate whether the City will be properly, in accordance with City Code, developing a parking lot stripirtg layout with legal dimensioae in order to dctamine dm true number of spaces provided in the municipal lot 4) Pteaaa ad vise as to the Lot Coverage if the approved patios are included m the *^^>mpi*tstiffft 5) The siu plan shows trees in the sidewalk. PleaM advise if it is the City*s intent to allow theae obstructions in the already too narrow sidewalk and who will be reeponstble for their mainlenaiice. 6) Please provide a copy of the City Noise Ordinance and the approprialc enforcement ofyicial. 7) Please provide a listing of all police calls regarding the Navane Saloon since opening with regard to excessive noise. Also, any police records detailing enforcement of traffic laws for illegal motorcycla mufflcri in the vicinity. Provide Ihe name of the appropnete enforcanent official for As rtfMdt the CUP No. 4S3C mohoiiting the Saloon ihcro svere six conditiona. One waa that the City would teview lAer one year the use of the building in reheion to live entertainment and nmse levels generated Please provide a copy of that report. Item #2 states that the Saloon shall EXHIBIT C close at 1 ;00 a m. The state law now allows bars to remain open until 2:00 a.m. Has the Saloon been allowed to suy open until 2 00 a.m. in open violation of the CUP? Pleas«: provide the City’s methodology and protocol for measuring a **noise violation" and the ofTicial reiponsible for same Indicate whether the City will requite a tiaffic and parking study from the applicant prior to final approval. Indicate whether the City has any cogent plan for redevelopment of Navarre Does the City luve TIF or other economic assistance available to developers to aid in ndevelopmaii? With regard to increased enforcement burden on our police department hu the Chief been consulted in terms of predicting the additional costs policing the expanded facility will involve? What are they? Advise whether the City has conducted any traffic itudiea for the Navane district with regard to crouwalks. mm lanes, points-of-access. etc Have any other agencies? Where can these be viewed? IndicMe if there is precedent elsewhere in the City for coUcciivc excuses from codes, laws and orditumcea being sought by the applicant and whae. It was reported that the Saloon has a great and positive economic impact on the Navane area and ihat people spend their money m Navarre, thus benefiting the noghborhood Please advise if the City has any facmal information in this regard The applicant stated that the expansion is for family dinner sealing at low- top tables and not for expansion of the bar They then admitted that they will be serving alcohol in all areas - including outside, la thia allowed by City or State law? Has the City requested - or been furnished - a breakdown of Saloon sales as to food and liquor percentages as is customary when considering liquor applicatioDS? Neighbor cities such as Excelsior have had a gioat deal of experieiKe with this type of use adjacent to residences The former Mai-Tti and Maynard’s in particular. Ihese ban were required to shut down outside music (speakers included) at 10 00 p4u. Why is the staff not recommending similar restricijona? At a retident with small children I am personally appalled at the total disregard by the Planning Commission for our concerns Clewly Ihe desire to have a place to consume alcohol, smoke and then depart in a motorized vehicle to pet our children atrisk is a major goal for the City OfOrono, as evidenced by those in sUciidatKe I was particularly thankful for being allowed to suy over four hours to listen lo testimony fiom Watertown lesidenu who own no property m Orono as to why I should move soaewhere else if 1 don't like the noise. I have, m fact. Uved on Kelly Avenue for over a decade end LONG before the Saloon was approved. As a reel cstau developer with knowledge ofzoning laws I am intrigued by the City's complete disregatd for vanance justificaucn, particulaily EXHIBIT C3 givm my pmonal experience on the subject and the City's previously Hated xero-tolaraoce policy. This procodM will surely set the tooe for Aitttft applicants aa it appears that a hardship is NOT required but, rather, a donation to the Park Board will suffice. One of the clear and negativauiipocls of this pending approval is that it will preclude fiuther redevelopment of the north side of Navam rather serve u an impetus. This is a simple bet given that it akme wilt generate partong demand requiring most of the municipal lot It will preclude the procurement of any additional retailers. Already it has cost two valuhbla local aarvice providers (dry cleaner and nail shop). The plans as submitted do not comply with the existing CUP. The applicant, contrary to the staff report, has complied with only ONE of the SDC conditions set fbith in the CUP (maintaining a liquor license). The City haa apparently done nothing to enforce the existing conditions or the existingCUP would have been revoked. We, as good neighbors, have been tolerant and, reco^uxing that many people wish to ftcquem hers, have only rarely cocnptaiiied of the noise and diauption cuiied by the Saloon. We exp erience to guich noise ihM wv are not able to open our windows in the evening. The Ability to open our windows was a major reason for living here. Apparently the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We will all be much more vigilant in reporting violatiotta to the police department in the Aiture. Contrary to the applicants ttaieroents that the grocery store air oooditionar makes more noiae than his bar be advised that none of us have ever heard such a noiia as thay have employed a state-of- ibe-art unit that haa low noise levels. We DO. however, experience trash baular and delivery noise at 6:(X) a.m. daily that needs to be addreaied. The laws of Ihe Stete of Minnesoca prohibit the isawance of a liquor license in a midOTtial aontng district They do to for good reason. Alcohol and retedencas do not mix. The foct that this sliver of land is zoned Business does not mitigate the foct that it ie completely surrounded by residential uses. The foot that a bar previously existed on a portion of the site is completely ixreltvam to any past, cuncm or future applications as they all must be coneidcred on their own merits. This brazen attempt to expand a business to over three times its perminiblc size under the City Code, simply bectuM it can make more money if it does so. is transparent and repmhensible. The Saloon already malm a large portion of its profit by virtue of Its competitive advantige over other resiaurantfoars (such as Lord Fletchers) that were required to purchsM and maintain their own parking lots. Additionally, the bar's square footage already exceeds City Coda. To exacerbate the Saloon's non<onfofmsnce in the absence of any hardship is not only iirtsponsible - it is unlawfol. exhibit c I, and ray neighbors, trust that the City and its elected represenUtives will respect their obligation to the residents of Navane to enforce the law and regulate business within the prescribed limiu set forth in the City Code. To do otherwise will surely result in unwanted and unanticipated conaequences. Please include this letter in the Council Members package and make *t a part of the legal record. Thank you for your consideration Bradley A. Hoyt 2507 Kelly Avenue Cc: Planning ConimIssloB & Council ** L ——- exhibit D II *’w ClTYarOBONO MwUc tpit OffkM immrnh^ Om M SSlSi ro. !■ (I Cfyiw a^. m SS323«HI July6,200S Bradley A. Hoyt 3507 Kdly Avenue Orono,MN 55331 Re: Nairowi Saloon Dear Mr. Hoyt: We are in receipt of your letter dated June 31,3005 regarding application #05-3131. the pfopoaed expansion of the Nanows Saloon. Your letter has bera forwarded to the City Council and will be provided to the Plamiing Commisston in their next packet regarding this application. Please note that the Planning Committion tabled the application on June 30. The attached Notice of Planning Commission Action provides additional detail regarding the tabling. To address the many specific questions raised in your tetter, 1 would oflcr the following: The municipal parking lol and the accesses to it are the result of acquisition in the mid-l9fi0's of ftt title to (or in some cases easements over) a variety of parcels. Staff has not researched how much was paid for the lot Construction of die actual parking lot wu aasested to abuiling OMmtn shoitly after ita acquisilion. The City maintains the lot. Public Services Director Greg Otppt may be able to provide you with additional infocmalion regarding the k>L To our knowledge, no apponionment of stalls to the various businesses hu ever been done except at noted on Page 8 of the June 15. 3005 suff memo (36 stalls attnbiited to 2385 ShadywoodRoad). To dale, the Planning Commission has not made a recommendation regarding the variances sought by the Narrows. However, the Planning Commission's comments on June 30 lead staff to believe that most of the variancei sought wilt not be supported by the Planning Commtsaion. due to lack of luudship or for other reasons. At this time the City has no piins lo re-stnpe the Navarre parking lot to have it Hrktly meet the letter of the code The parking lot ^pareitily has been striped in TteipbwB iW3i 2ae.4eeo • Fu (ssi) w%»w.ci.orenp.fna4ii nmeWy R«yt July S. 2005 rtgt 2 EXHIBIT D «) a ma«iner that provides the most parking stalls possible given the space available. We would expect that any parking study required by the City would address the fiinclionality of the lot layout. Patios by definition are calculated u structural lot tovemge if the fencing around them exceeds six feet in height, per Zoning Code Section 78-1403. The applicant's submitted plans indicate walls/fences totaling no more than 5.5* in height However, if the walls/fences were lo exceed 6' in height, the additional area enclosed by such walls for the rear patios would be approximately 1600 i f., increasing the lot coverage by strucnire to approximately 50*4 The City hu not made a deteimination regarding the placement of trees within the sidewalk. Orono't noise ordinances are primarily contained within Sections 5S-116 through 58-123 (attached) and are enforced by the Police Depaitment The zoning code provisions for noise arc contained within Section 78-1568 fattached) which are admimstered by the Plaiming and Zoning Department.. I would refer you lo the Orono Police Department (952-249-4700) directly for information on police calls regarding the Nanows Planning and Zoning Department files do not contain a specific report in response to Condition #3 of Resolution No. 4530 establishing a one-year review of “the use of the building in relaCioa lo the bve entertainment and noise levels generated by the Kve enteftainmciit use“. However, the Orono Police Depaitment hu addresaed this issne in Chief Stephany Good’s memo dated June 20. 2005 (attached). I would refer you again to the Police Departmem in regards to the hours of operation of the Narrows The City hu not revised its ordinances lo allow bars to remain open afier 1:00 a.ro. The Planning Commiuion has mdicated ihcy will likely recommend lo Council that a parking study be required, and that such smdy be based on a educed Narrows expansion propoul which hu not been received u of this writing. The City hu no specific redevelopment plan for Navarre at this umc The City Council hu recaitly asked the City’s planning consultants, DSU, Inc., to prepare a propoul for pioviduig planning auittance for the Navarre oommerciat area, with a general goal of susuming and preserving existing uses, and developing a planning framework or vision to guide any redevelopment of individual sues The City Council doo not support providing TIP for redevelopment of Navarre. The Police Chief hu been provided a copy of your letter and is aware of Che proposed Narrows expansion, but to my knovN ledge hu not been asked to addreu the potential costs of additional police service in relation to the Narrows expansion Suff will request such infomution u part of the continuing review of (his application I r* 4 V- > I L ■ - r, ^ ' ff !•^mrn9 r^r^TTjT- '>, mm- Srt«qrBtyi Jihrl.llM Hfil 12) lwouldftfcryoulDPi^lieS«vkitDifcclorOrtiOapptiart|viiiiopMieflriin iBd vthkulir tecM icudiit Ibr HtvtRt. 13) Tilt City pwcMiw doBH of viriiaM appHadom lanuilly. lUlitiv^y ftw are in iilalioii to cononvciil devtiopmwit or ote. We have not rewatched qwcifk yiooedM for the raqoeeied variMOoa. U) 15) We have oot raaaaithad the ecowmilc impacla of the Narrowa on the Navacia I rafor you to the attaehad cop> of Chapter 34 of the Orono Munidpal Cdde rapnling Alcoholic Bivainaa Gty and Stale tafalaiioiia will be itviewad to dataniiiiia whathar ihM ara apaeilk proviaiofia regaiding outdoor liqiior aenrice. IT) Thia ia a fooetlon of tha liqaor Ncanatnt proecaa which haa Ml baen caummccd with iifarda lo the ctinanc ptopoaal The appHcanO bava not apadflcilly laqueaiad oulaida music apadkan. Section Sl*130 of theNoiaa Ordinnea addraaaaa the uaa of ouiaida aouad ayatema. The additional commcnta in your letter are duly notod. Pleaae note that foither review of the Naifowa applieatioii by the Ftamiing ONmniaeion ia dapan^t on the applicani providiaf laviaad plana in a timely mannar. Tba Planniag ConimiaBton aaeata the third Monday of each month. Flaaaa be aware that the City doaa not provide ootaint mailed iadtviduil pubik mtica for tabled applications; you may contact the City OfTiccs at 952- 2494600 peoerally lata in the waah prior to the meeting to laam whtfhar a specific applicabon hu been placed on an apcommi agenda. Plarmini Director Sincaie'y. V>' // 4,viC . ✓ MielMtlP.O(rt(wt City Council Plarmini Commiaaion Ron Mooraa. City AdndaiaMor Ortg Oappa, Public Servicaa Director Staphany Qood« PoHca Otitf r- ■im I EXHIBIT E Joac22,200S City Council Pfenning Cammiisian City of Orono 27MKclly Parkway Crystal Bay, Mn,SS323 C/TV of ^^ONo Re: Narrow! Cipansion Ladies and Gentiemen: I attended the Planning Commiaslan meeting on Monday June 20*^, 200S when the Narrows expansion was discussed. The Narrows wishes to Improve Its faciUty by remodeling and expanding Its bnilding. It also wnots ta InstaM open air senting in the front and the rear. Tht fraac seatleg wanid give Navarra a **Sldewalk cafe*. I think this wanid be a nice addtiten tn onr main alract. Many nC nnr ntlglibnring cities have sidewalk cafes. Wayxata kas tkem. The lipttwn area eCMlnaeapnlls has them. This seems to be an ordinary and enstomary use of public sidewalks. I kavt ibapped ia Navarra far 37 years and would wdeama this Improvement The Planning Cammiisian dM not seem Inclined to grant the Norrows permission for .he sidewalk caff. It to my epinlon tkat this denial would be mistake. Some of the neighbors on Kelly Avenue spoke agninsi tke sidewalk cnfl while others on Kelly supported It I uadtrstand there urould be no additlonni noiso as ibere will bt no speakers ent there. There were a targe numbers of non-KeHy Avenue people who spoke in fhvar of the expansion. It was Intercstkii in set haw amoy people at the meeting thanghi the Narrows was an asset la tha laaMy. The planaiag Cammtosian alse seemed ta be indiacd ta restrict other items in the expansion plan. Theta restrictions could dilute the Improvements to the point where they arc of little value. The City can permit ar refbse this expansion. The Narrows* building and the rest of Navarre's main street were bulll when there were lest restrictive rules. Today the txpeasloo docs not meet the City's rules. However, this mny be a rare opportunity for us ta have a busiacas put moaey lata addiag character to aur main street at no coat to the cnmmnnlty. I bcllavc that the city should welcamt this expnminn and grant iht ntetmary approvals. ..II. •••I f Sam Marfitid 2495 North Shore Drive Wayxata, |Ornno| MN, 55391 - - 1---------------------------------- EXHIBIT F| RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2005 CITYOFORONO iMiits lUlaiing to Narrow Propoacd Expansion Ilia city council iKould takt tha lead in spaarfieadiog an effort to ooioe op with an ovcralt small area development plan for downtown Navarra that will meet tha needs of the neighborhood rtaidanit, allow tha devalopmaal of succaisful neighborhood servica boaincaaes, and aolvca the traffic, parking noiia and growing public nuisance problems. Until a moratorium is establiihad and a small area plan created, the city and residents will be forcad to deal with these iaauaa piecemeal. Ilka wa are dealing with this proposed Narrow expansion and tha Kcavany Restaurant /Bar proposal last year. The Narru%vs proposed expansion is out of character with the cities comprehensive pian. CMP Part 3D requires that tha busineaaae are ihera primarily to serve the LOCAL residents not create regional businasaas. Evan applkinia proposal, revised for the July 18 Planning Commission Meeting, expands the facility from 2174 square feet to 5207 square feet, an increase of 3033 square fwt (induding the rear deck and ouukior aeaiing on Shoreline Drive). This is an increase of almost 2.5 limes its current size. A facility that size, rtplcla with an additional 84 outside aaaia b in violatioo of this section of the comprehensive plan. It has cioaaad over the line of being a neighborhood esiabliahmem to a tagiooal draw. Allowiag the Nanowt to expand aa curraolly proposed will set the tone of the Navarre otighborhood commercial center for years to coma. The use will dominate the Northwest Quadrant of the County Road 15/Counly Road 19 iniaraaction and by utilizing over 50% of lha Municipal parking lot may foradOK the development of more appropriate and varied oeighborh^ commercial mat. The comprehensive plan also requires that commerdal davetopmem wilt not be permitted to adversely affect the neighboring raaidenllal property. A review of the attached memo by tlw Chief of Police and the eight incident reports just within the last year that relate to noise, theft, diaorderly conduct etc caused by the poor attitude and management practices of appUcanl allow for no other conclusion than sf^icani has not only not been a good ■eighbor to the rastdeoti In most dose proximity to bli esiabliahroem but hold them in aoma diauln. standing them up at a meeting applicant agreed to attend and expressly called 10 have applicani preacoi ill plana to diam for comment Appliaini*s revised proposal in response to piaoning commisaiona* oommeim rellccia his arrogance as well. There are aarkna policy qucaliont that surround the Municipal perking lot that supplies the vast nudoriiy of spaces to the Saloon. Fim, why dots the dty staff teke the position that that ‘*iha kM need not be striped to meet the provtsioos of the code but rather to prm’ide the most parking stalls possible given the spece available'' (contained in Michael Caffron'i July 6 letter reply to Bradley Hoyt's June 21 Ictier) Why wouldn't that same rtaaoning ap^y >n any parking lot in the city? la the city above complying with its own laws? Would that poeition survive legal challengB? Seoofid, it it good public policy to use over 50% of the Municipal lot for this one use? (AppilCMl's revised piopoul olmoai doubles the amouiii of parking required from 38 to 65 stalls) exhibit Applicant's current plan requires a front yard setback variance and requires encroachments on a public sidewalk easement to have 24 outdoor seats on County Road 15, a sidewalk that is too narrow for installation of these scats and has been illegally used by applicant's customen* for a place to park their motorcycles. Applicants plan may violate the structural building coverage ordinance - if the proposed wall around the outdoor deck applicani plans to build is 6 incites higher than the current proposed 5 feel 5 inches, the building coverage ratio would go to 4(1% or greater» perhaps double ot any other commercial building in Otuno and far beyond the 15% allowed by statute. Apftlicani's plan may create fuiUter trafTic problems and the municipal lot may not be able to handle the additional parking demand. The city sltould hire and have applicani pay for an independent traffi^ parking consultant to determine whether there will bo enough parking spaces by code to accommodate the expanded Narrow and the other users of the Municipal tot. Sincerely, Chuck Nadler 2509 Kelly Avenue Excelsior. MN 55331 Ph. 952-471.0275 r' H ■m ;^-'v Exnrerrci RECEIVEO •'«•• I 4 2005 CITY OF ORONO July 13,2005 Oiy of Orooo 2750 ICellcy Parkway OfOfio, MN 55356 Aun: Mikt Oaffm Re: PropoMd Nanows Saloon axpantkM. Dear Mr. GafTron, Due (o many concerns I am a^tvocaiing no outdoor dining be allowed at the remodeled Narrows Saloon. But U appears that ttie planning commissioners are contemplating some sort of outdoor dining on the north side of the building. If such dining is allowed 1 feel the noise problem needs to be addressed thoroughly. Here are aonie points of coocem: 1. The height of the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area at 5*- 6** is not tall enough to stop noise from traveling into the neighborhood to the north. Due to the slope of the parking lot and the higher elevation of the neighborhood the wall needs to be much higher. 2. If the wall is made higher than 6* then the outdoor dining area would be counted as structural coverage of the lot, bringing the tout coverage to at least 45% when 15% is allowed, requiring the granting of a variance. 3. The folding doori facing the dining area will lit a significant amount of noise out into the dining area and aubaequently the neighborhood to the north. You can draw a line straight from the live music stage to the nearest folding door with no wall in between to stop nolle. Pool tables situated in front of this door will also cootribula to the overall noise level. For the rveaoot italed above It appears that the revised plan is very poorly conceived in terms cf noise aboiement At the last plaoning oommissiou meeting, noise abatemeni was the corominionert* biggni concern and it was suggested tiw. the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area needed to be subsiamial enough to block noise from carrying into the Burroufiding ntighborhood. Yet by increaaing the height the applicant will need a variance, tl seems the commttaionera* requaet is at odds with the Otono loning codes. Increasing the height of the outdoor wail would do a lot to reduce noise carry over but at the same lime ibis would require a variance, and I fail to see how the applicants can claim a hardship. So if the applicant it allowed lo have outdoor dining I would suggest that *he only rational solution it to curttil all ouiaidc activity at an early hour such as 9:30 out of respect for the neighbors. 1 would also suggest that the planning commission lay out precisely how any CUP would be enforced and monitored. The last CUP was not •nforced, the owner was out of oompliacicc, and instead of being punished they are in all likelihood being rewarded with a gram of an expanded CUP. exhibit G I also would appreciate hearing from the planning commission as to their response to Chief Good's concerns. It would seem that the Cliirf cf Police’s concerns, above all others, would be given a healthy dose of respect yet they were not even discussed at the last meeting. Why? I would like to iicar the cotnmissinners rea.soning in this respect at tlic planning airmnitsion meeting on July IK'\ 2tX)5 In closing 1 would like to ad that it is curious that all the commissioners reported that they have a favorable view of the Nairows Saloon heuiuse they had. had a good meal there, as if that is relevant to the discussion of the applicants request for a large expansion. That may be fine and good but that should not enter into the equation for determining if this expansion should be .nllowrJ t .vould suggest that iliey try getting a good nights sleep in one of the houses on Lyric Avenue or Kelly Avenue on a Saturday night, rather than eating a meal at the Narrows Saloon. This experience would be far more relevant to the issues ni hand. Please include this letter in it«c Panning Commissioners package .ind make it a part of the legal record. Sincerely, Thomas Lowe 3295 Carman Rd Excelsior. MN 55.^31 Cc: Planning Commission A Council Members I I w . ■ •. *... ■ 'V . y ;V=.'.^-"'-i ■ '. V." . :;' •' ••„ ;•' ■ :-.V:dS ‘O^ KrJy H. ' <:.4 .:" >f . I . V-; /*'y- :M <nit.*t4«M atm wn /iuc*-**4**'^ »Kcr*^o 1'*ii' ::• •> «. ■ 1 ^_____QaeoA i: : ^'5 JOiUl%na.*/,Aaa6A£A^^ e^0bv99 Km/Ha i*. 4 U«..<r;:HLli' nwnw^»-„.,••'. ■ ,^;j. • '■’ •’ '-i -.*y.'V ______o/L;h^2Atm.Jfiet^ M .1 :.tS «• .M«4 • ^ «• ■■ ■♦» nil • % ••• •«.••« _____ __ ______ •M mnttm ••-•t-nnr [F . —*f exhibit H Orono Police Department Vlemo CUM Good Plwviing Commission JM 20.2005 Piopolid Expire or i« MiriOM Saloon IliePoUcaDipiftmtm has ftvks«odtlit proposed expanskm of tte Narrows Sak^ Thera ri m Kv«n] eoacem VM wish 10 hifhliilK. •* pat of the Cky'i levkw of die i|ip)ieaiioii far a i Froiii a piAlk laftty perspective, moro paopte and more akahol i«!y ilsroys in^ need for polktrtaourocf. Whh s larter crowd, vro a« cooceroed about tddWootl calh for service If §ardingDoiat,DWI, accidents, etc. in working wHh the cunett proprietor of the Nanowt. and we have hid iQRieconoefnsregHdif«bU timely and thouiMftdtcapoosa to our requests, his We have had toma expetk impoiiMt to public nfoty that the owners of estsblishnenu that serve alcohol maintain an excdliia relatioiiship with local law cnfoteamenL liaior has been laitbla lo contain either the noi se inside the restiunen or the noise*Ihe •aw WWW— ——w- ^ —----------------------------------------- made 1^ foe loud, non-stock rnumcis on the moioroydes driven by cuitomm of the restainait The proprietor ha alro been tin^e to keep moioccycltt fom puking on the sidewalk. Residents in foe siaa ait concerned about noise. Utter, parking and safety. CaUs for Krvice and calls lepnling quaUty of life iifua are already beiiig handled by (ha Police Depretment, and we would expect this to increae with a larger operation. We ala want to addras the proposed outdoor seating from the public safety prospective. We woufo want to know bow pa^ in foe outdoor seeing area, either idiaccm to County Road 15, or adjacent to foa patkkig lot, would be proiecicd tan potenhil accidents. The area \vouU KCd to be nH>niiortd for ttfefv a weU a Utter. OROMO ary coos tars, tuefa cfaargt betog fer purpoa a of admin- iriiig and anferang the city intpKtiQo program proridad for in this artida. A aaparata charga in ba dua for aaeh aaparata ISTS loeatad oa lb proparty. :b) Tha tarvica charga «hall ba dua 45 dayi •r tha bilUng dau Sixtmut noise maani tha prtMOoa of any noiia or combinatioa of aoiata to auch quantity, at such Ittfola, or such ciatura and duration or undar auch eoaditions aa could potantially ba injunoua to human haalih. aafaty or wtlfara or to animal life, or could interfara unrtaaonably with tha aqjoyioant of Ufa or proparty. (c) It ihaU ba tha duty of tha city adminiatra- * to aodaavor to collect all daUnquant accounta. (d> Each ytar tha dty adminiitrator thaU pro- ra to aaiafioiant roll providing for tha aaaaaa- ml of tha dalinquaot acaounta against tha rr activa propartiM ai providad in Minn. Sut 129.061, tubd. 3. and tboU cartiiy tha roU to tha uoty auditor, wlw ahoU thoroupon antar auch Muot with tha tax lavy on auch propa ity col* Xibto with tha taxaa tor tba naxt yoar oda 1964, f 12.30(8KC); Ord. No 100 2nd la- m, I 4. 2-10*1992; Ord. No 199. 2nd larict. 1(12.30(8KO)). 54-20001 Exhaust systsm mtana a combination of com- pooants which providaa an ancloaad flow of ax- haust fia from angina parts lo tha aCmoaphart. Holiday naana any day flxad by tha Unitad Statca or by atata law for auapanaton of butinoaa in wbola or in part. iiPCA mtana tha ^linnaaota Pollution Control Agancy. AfunuipalUy maons tha oty ica. 65-77-58-115. Roa trvad. Noise means any aound not occurring in tba natural an«*iroamcnC, including but not limitad to aeunda coianatinf from airways, roadways, wa- tarways and induatriol. commardol nod ratidan- tialaourcaa. \ARTICLE m. NOISE* Noiat control officer moans any of tha city empleyaaa authoriaad to iaiua ciutioas as Usted in taction 2*2. tc. 68-116. DaflaitioM. Tha foUowing worda. terass and phraaaa. whan ltd in this trtkla. shall hava tha maaainga Khbad to tham in thia wctimi. tnapt whara tba mlaxt claorly iodientaa a diflbrant luaaning. feida or phriM uaad in this articla and dtfioad I tha nilaa of tba Minnaaota PoUulion Control fancy NoUa Saction. chapCar 7030. ihall hava Me manninga given in thnaa nika. Perean mtana any individual, Arm. partner- ship, corpnratioo. trustaa. taaociahon, the state and its agendai and aubdiviiion. or any body of persons whathar incorporated or not. With rt- spect to nett prohibited or required in thia articla, the term shall include employtaa and boansaaa. Cbfoul and bypau main a machaniam which ariai tha ashaiiat aysttm gaa flow ao at to iacharga tba exhaott gaa and acoustic anargy to fse ntBMaphara without poaaing through iho an* irt laagth of tha lyitafo, includinf aU exhaust yatam aound aUenuotion eompooontt. Weiihttd and A'Utighted moan a apaafle weigh ing of tba aound praaaurt laval for the purpose of dtttrniinmg tha human response to aound. Tha ipaciAc wtighing characton sties and tolerances are those given tn American National Standards Instituta 1 4-1983. section 9.1. (OnL No. 153 2nd senes. | 8i9 ^U1)). 2-10*1997) Crew rvleranca—Oeftaiuant rra«raUjr I M dBiA) maona a unit of aeond Itvtl rrpraaaad m adbala (dBi and Aweighiad Soe. 5S-117. Baforeement and panaltiea. (al Notice *CreaB retbraece—Z«mnf et mm I Tf-194A •UMt law raWiVBca Aw Sarny raltttit w mm* MImi iiat. II11407. Mbd 2. 4IS m. >«A4 l4 <l) When the noiae control officer, after ap> propnate tasting has been done, deters mines thst s noise exceeds the maximum sound Itrtl permittad under this article. CD56 16 L BXHI8ITI Dm* A^pHcaclM S-IMS Out AffioiiM CiMlitrii at Cawpirtr S-IM iMky Etviaw riM Bfptrw 7-17-M iH-Jlll J«MtS.ll01 Nfti«n4 P^n: Chtir Rihn and Planning Commiailon Mambfit Ron Moofie. City Adminiitralor Mike Oaffron, Planning Oireclor IW Janice Oundlach, Ciiy Plannerjjbi • Dale:Junel5.200S Sebject:05-3121, Cindy Sudhdmer and James Anderti on behalf of the Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoieline Drive, Conditional Uae Permit Amendment - Public Hearing Zeaieg INst?kt: B - I. Rcuil Salea Busincaa District (20,000 s f. minimum) Let Area: 0.31 aciea (13,656 s.r.) Let WMlb: 112 feel (100’ reouircd) Ap^Mernimm Smmmtiry: Applicant requests the following in order to «tp«id the etistiog Class II bar/restaurant into the apacea oment ty occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Arm Hair Fashiont, to permit a Ulchen additkm, and to permU outdoor seating at the front md of the building: I.Amendment of the existing eonditional use permit to allow a 50* x 44* interior expansion of the barAestaurant into the spaces cuirantly occupied by the dsy cleaner and Jul Aim Hair Fashiona. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor •eating at the ftont of the buUdiag along Sbordine Drive measuring approximately 532 af. in area or apprtnimaiely 30 additfcmal aeau, which would require thal the existing sidewalk easement in favor of the City be encroached upen by ^tproximalely 4.5 feet. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the building, adjtccnl to the City owned parking lot but within the applicant*s property, meeauring 1.666 af. in area or approximaltly 84 additional scats. Interior side yard building setback variance (east side) to permit a 13* x 16* kitchan addition approximauiy 8.2* Bom Ibe side tot line when 15* is normally required and 8.2* currently exisia Front ymd building aetbnek variance to permit a frimt yard setback uf 9* wbai 35’ is normelly required and 16* cufrently exisu to allow censtiuction of a vestibule (the vestibule addition would encrDech 4.5* onto the sidewalk eaeement and have a 0* setback Bom the highway easement). Front and rmr yard variances would be required as a Bont yard of 20’ is normally rsquhod and an unobHiucsed rear yard of 30* is normsJly lequtied where propoeed vcttibult and planter boxes would encioech on these yard tequiremenia. •eS.3121 ivMlS.2St5 eitr2«ri4 SimffllecmmmtmdMioH: SEH PAGES 12-14 Perflaent Zoning Ordinance Sections Conditional uses. Within the B*1 retail sates business district, no structure or land ahall be used for one of Uk following uses without a conditional use permit: (4) Re^urent (class II), i.e., a fast food, convenience, drivc-in. or liquor store restaurant, which IS a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food to be consumed at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or a drive-in where most cuftomeii consume llicir food in an automobile regardlese of liow it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertaininent. Sec. 78-646. Area, lieighi, lot width, setback requirements and design requimnetus. (c) From )vrds. The minimum Bunt yerd shall be 20 feet (d) l^r ywth. 'fhe minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 15 feet, and a side adjacent to a street shall be ten feet (e) SHhaek rtguiremmits. No building shall be ncaier than 35 feet to any front lot line. 35 fort from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side loc line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feel from such lot line. Lkl tf Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - A^licant’s Nsrralive Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Illustration of Proposed lmpro\*cmcnts Exhibit E - Site Plan Exhibit P - Basement Floor Plan Exhibil 0 - Perspective Illustration of Proposed Outdoor Sealing - Front Exhibit H - Perspective illustration of Proposed Outdoor Seating - Rear Exhibit I - Reaolution 84530 Approving a CUP in Oct. 2000 Exhibit J - Site Plan of City-Owned Parking Lot Exhibil K - Document 868 11756 - City Sidewalk Easement Exhibit L- Public Comment Letters Received as of 6-16-OS Exhibit M - Photos of Existing Signage Exhibit N - Properly Owners Ust (350’) Exhibit 0 - Plat Map iorkground Tbea^iicanu have met with sufT several limes to discuss expansion of their existing busuicas to include more space within the existing building, and to include outdoor seating at the front and rear of the existing building The applicant's were advised that any resUuranl/bur expansion would require an amendment to the conditional use permit approved in 2000. • i'll iiilSiriiiihlOitiri'iitiiiiii i ti MMIII NgtSalU bi ttnntofihe ptopoMd etptnsiofi oflliii bvsintti. there are a number of baeic quenions 1) Do tkt propo§^ pkytkmtfmcUUim mett applicoblt taming codt ttamhnbT Thif will be diiTiMaed In thia memo. 2) Do tho propomd pkytkal fiteitUm amef oppttcobie tmiMing eodo MiatuhnUT Buildiiit Code iaeuee will fancrally be oddreaMd by the Inepactiora Dcparlinent prior to ifauance of building permits. 3) Dooi Iko tm ^ ofipiicabto zoning and mnuicipai coda ikmdcirdi? This will be discus^ in this memo. 4) Baamaa Ika propoaod um is a Comditlpnal Uia in tha B-i DUfrict, whal cottdiHont or rmrkHons $hoM ha ptmead on lhauaa to antura that it is eompatibh with smronnding land itsas? This erill be addressed in this memo and by the Planning Commiaaion sad Council through the public hearing process. L LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHUT Lei Artn/WldCh B>1 Let Am Ul Width Raquirad 20,000 s.r. (0.46 acres)100* Actusl 13,636 s.r. (0.3lacfci)112 ’ Keieired ■olldtet Setbacks ■ -1 Required txisitog Prapsicd Frool 35* 16.3*-lot line 6 3* - highway easement 2* - sidewalk easemcni 9.3* - lot line 0* - highway A sidewalk easements Rear 35*39*6* - rear outdoor acaltng 51 * - kilchen addHion LeASide fwmt)15’34*0* - outdoor scaliag ftimiRrcar RigNSMa ioami 15*1.2*8.2*-kitchen addillof! ■ P. - ■ V ■■ 'V'i M T' ■ss-ini jmc is. less Peei4»lU Reoeired Unobtlmcffd Yards B-1 Required Esifthig Prepoaed Front 20*0* - skkwalk No change Rear 30* 0* - parking lot (parking is allowed within 3* of the rrar lot line) No change abutting residential districts. Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 13.656 s r (0.31 acres)Allowed: 2,048 t f. (ISH) Prapoted: AppraxinuielyS.2IOsr(38%) commercial site plan applkationf have indicated this requirement it hardly ever achlevtble for B zoned properties. Planning Commission and Council may want to diacusa exempting these properties from the 1 5% or allowing for something greater in a Allure wock*sctsu)n. For other commercial sites in Orono that have been subject to the 1 5H limitation, comage of up to 20% or slightly greater has typicaUy been approved; for the majority of these, the parking is provided on site, whereat for the Narrows, a majority of the parking requirement has been handled ofT site. in the municipal perking lot Hardcover CafculatloM Hardcover Zone Total Area io Zone Allowed Hardcover Existlog Hardcover Proposed Hardcover SOO-1000 13,656 s.t 4.780 t.t 05%) 13,656 s.r. (100%) 13.656 s.r. (100%) II. ANALYSIS OP SITE PLAN VARIANCES REQUIRED Side Yard BuUdiog Setback Voriaocc The applicant is proposing to construct a 13* x 16* kitchen addition to the northeast comer of the building. The eastern side lot line requires a 15* setback where the cutting building and the proposed addition arc only 8.2* from the lot tme. The kitchen addittoo would be wlely located on the applicanrs property where it would not encroach on any of the many easemenu currently restricting the property in tome way The site plan itlumtes that a door will connect the c.xisting kitchen to the addition and a door from the addition to the outside. A vanoiKC is requited as proposed as a 15* setback is normally required. V-4 -li • ■ WUI I ■> •W-llll iwtll,JNS riaisdM A kiichn addition at iMt location would laduoa iha exittint 2S.S' wall-to-wall Mptntion baiwoM the eoiaar tanrico Nation and tho Narrewa building to Juit under 21', adtfing to a more eongaated aitnitioa both viauatly and ftom a ttaflic ataodpoint The acceaa drivaw^ laaanient conMor into the City parking lot N thia location ia 15' wida (7.5' eithar aida of the aaN lot line), within 0.7' of the oxialing Nanowa building and within 4' of the aarviea Nation. Oivan UiM the acoaaa driveway haa a bend in it juN north of Ihe Nanowa building. Aitthar raatrictiona by a Mleban aapanaion in thia araa would be inappropriate. An optioa to eoncMer would bo to oRbN the kitchen addition N leaN S' weNward along the north aide of tha building, ae ihN tha viauat and Ametional conNtictiooa are minimiiad. and tha aaparation between tha Nanowa and the aetvice atNion doea not dacraaae. Stair finda thN a aide aetbaek variance to allow the Ulehan addition aa piopoaed would ggtbaappioptiNa. A aide lalback variance of about 2'for the nonhaaalctly comer of an olIbN ractangular Ulehan addition would mainuin the exining level of aaparation between the Narrowa and the aarviea NNkm. rroat Yard lalMtog Setback VarloMe A Floobllaar Yard Variaacta Tha appKcani ia propoNng a vaatibnia antmnea approxImNaly 7' x 15.5' N the Sent of the building along Shoreline Diivn. The piopoaed veNibule would allow Sir a double door ayainn N tha ftont antianea in an aflbrt lo contain interior noiaa Tha veatibule addition Niowa 6 dooir, a douMa aN of oNianee and exit and two aingle deoia opening to each aide of the piopoaed outdoor aaating. Tha B - I xaning atMidarda requite a ftoni yard of 20' depth and a building aetbaek of 55' Sem the ftont let line. The exiNing building ia only I6J'ftoni dw ftont lot Kno, and thamlbra ahnady anctoaehac on both the Sent yard and buildbig aetbaek minintHma. Tha piopoaed vaatibula would piouude at additional 7' abcctward., icqUitag variance approval. Additionally, Ihe vcNibule would fc. . pii !->. r-y-inr Maimim WMiin the required 50' tear yard, pemNneot obiceta propoaed inchida the walla (5'6~ hi# with pitlan extending pariiapa to 6’fT) and brick or Mock plantar boxea, all m depicted in the paiapaeUve viewa. ExUbita O and H. FIcMa review tha fellewing exoNpia ftom Soctien 71-1405 and eooaider wbather theae Oxtutca fit within the definition of *Nwn anctoachtnania*'. Sac.ia-I4aif«i TIm Mteiriflg Mi Ml ke V) l!—H M rt^li Mial fcalisrcs, mcIMmI MtaM itrMi, ttvii, iMIirt Mi UM Mw. pmwM fittf Ml M« M I 1/1M. «ir<«lrMl iMdOai M MaiMptoft i%M for •M^fonNjr iwtHfo|i; for «MilMlli« parfoiit unm. iMitag artat ar jrM for Mfcfy Mi MMrttjr purpiMia pMHiti ilw Met MUfta alNgPl la Ml vMMt foam ilia paMfo rtglil-al-wajr ar aiJacMf raafoialfolanpiffy. Mqr ia focalai la wIlMa llva foat alilM f^aai lai Haa. •MJI21 iaaalS.2MS PaceiafU (1) Tarracaa,flipa,aaraYtrfd|Mrrliat,ftaapf ariiaHUrttractarasalicliiaaalcttaad aiava lit MflM af lit graaad flaar Iml af lit priaripal Milag mad extead la a dfotaacvaf aal foai Itaa twa foal foam aay lat Hat. (4) la iMt ar rear jrardi oaly, bajrt aal la ctretd a daplli of twa foat Mr la eaataia aa araa af oiara lima It igaarr frci, Ora tacaptt oai la aictad a wtdih af ilircc fed, aad apaa aff*alrael parUa|. (5) fa rtar yards aaly, bakaafos, brtmwayi, dtiacbad aaldMr picnic liicllerb and racraalfoaal Mpilpaiaat esctpl at allMraiia ragalatcdt M accaaaary fCmcturc ba daaar Ibaa fova foal foam a rear lat lint. (O la tida yards aaly. aa accaaaary tlmdarc shall ba cfostr Ibaa Ian foal foram aay sMa bMllaa. (7) fbocat traded hi aH laaing ditirkts ara raasidcrad as a naacocraachnidit wbta ibey caaform la ibe falfowiat suadarda: a. AkalaArsAarvlam 1. rtnctsaiidwBnswliblaaraqBiradrraalyardarfidatlrcclyard sball aal cnaad a baigbl of 4} taebts abaat arfgjfoal gnMia. 2. Pcfica aad walls wiibia a rtgalrad rear arsMt yard than aal tscaad a bdgbt of sic fcal above arigteal grads Frocn fUfTs poipeciive, the fences and walls proposed are clearly a non-encroachment The proposed planter boxes are less clear, at first btuah, they might fall into the category of an *oroamentil feature*, but they extend more than M/2 feet from the building, m they are not covered under 140S(l). Assuming they cannot be considered as one of the allowed non-encroachments, a rear yard vviance is required. III. USS EXPANSIONS CondMeiial Use Permit - lattrior Cspansloe The BpplicanU have propoa^ lo expend the current rMtaiirant/ber area into the wcAerly two additional apacct within the building. Thia interior expansion mcanires approximately 40* x 50* or 2,000 t.f. of floor area. This proposed expansion would consift of a 20* x SO* expansion of the existing rcsUurant/bar area with a wall separating an additional 20* x 50* pnvale party room addition. The proposed private party room would include a new bar area. Conditional use permit approval is required fi>r all new restaurant Mce. The toUl interior space devoted lo the restauram use (public floor area) will tncreaM ftom 2,174 a f to 3,851 i f. Proposed patio arem encompass 1,936 s f. of exterior space on the property Storage within the building will be about 4,700 s.f. fhe ^applicant's architect has summarized the Building Code parameters for the expansion on the right hand side of Sheet Al. Based on that analyits, the building will have an occupaiH load of 275 penons and can be designed lo meet Building Code and Fire Code standards. ...iJ ■ff ' fIt-JIll HpYarU Cmi MmmI Um PtnaH - (Hilio^r Sfvltog Ihm applionts bm tlto pcppotad outdoor MotiQg vnt in the from tlong Shoreline Mve end in the rear adjacent lo lha City-ownad paricing lot. While Che City Code doM't dpaeiflcally addrow outdoor aeatuig at a cooditioiia] uae, tl ia an expansion orihe cxiiliat icataurani aa it will ofhr an additional S4 aeats in the rear and 30 scats in the front. Staff haa se;>aritad this expansion from the interior expansion, ai the sundirdi by which this alnald be reviewed difibr - the outdoor seating is not entirety permanent in natiae and poiceiialty has difibraiit impacts than an intaiior expansion. Issues aiaoeialad wHh the outdoor seating in front of the building that should be cotiaidered by Ptansing Commiasioa include: • impacta on pedestrian uae of the sidewalk - whether Uquoraervice will be allowed • exterior ti^ng to seppoft the outdoor seeling • whether exterior apeakan wilt be used, or whather there will be a tendency to ptevide outdoor eeating with accew to entcftainment (i. e. leevHig the doors open to dineis can beer the musk) • any fencing or odMr barrier between uMes and sidewalk - does front SHliog provide a more attractive location for overflow petroni to congregate, and whet impecta doee this hove on the aurrounding area Tha outdoor aeoting located at lha front of the buildiiig will cncrooch upon lha City's sidewalk aaaanwnt by appioxtmataly 4.5*. aa would lha propoaad 7* x I3.S* venibult. Ptimiifii Cdmniiasioo ahoiild diactMB wbni effect the outdoor seating would have on the eeeemewU and whather the edhrity that comae with this outdoor seating area would be conaidwed ‘pennanant* (aaa lha an^^mm dmeriptiooe below), and whether it obstructs aeeesi fer the public uae of the sidew ilk. Imuee fer diacuesion tegardkig dw outdoor scoring at the rear of the building include: • li^ttoraeoeasibility to outdoor patrone • control of patron overflow to packing lot • lighting end noiaeimpicia to neiifebofhood to the north • whether exterior speakers will be uaad, or whether there will be atandency to providt outdoor aaaringiwuofis with aeceaa to entertainment (i. e. leaving the doors open 10 outdoor petiofia can hear the music) Qff-Strttt Paririn^l- tl L-ll A primary concero fer both the hUerior and exterior uae expeneions end the potential activity meorined with them haa to do with parkiiig.Baaad on lha total amount of fisiaurant/ber square feotiis. existing and propt^ the following atnounl of off-ilM parking would be requited in aocordance with Section 78>IS16: •es-jiii iMtl«.2SS9 f^SWU PARKING Exisffng S,F.Proposed laUrior S.F. Proposed Ootdoor S.F.TOTAL Sgitan Footage 2,174 i.t 2,000 s.r*From-532 t.f- Rear-1,666 s.£«6,372* i stall/80 s.f.27sUllt 25tUlls Front • 7 stalls Rear-21 stalls MTouISlalh * TImm rcncet ttifTs aealytli of llit interior and exterior spaces and dirfer sligbtly from Umm preaMlod by tba applicant*! arcbllart In tome intunces Ihe City has regulated required parking based on 8S% of the gross square fooUge of Uio building rather than 100% of public floor area. This is because it is more accurate at a staff level lo calculate groos building squire footage rather than calculaling only area considered public floor area. This method as shown below, would yield similar retulta. 7.472.S I f. X 85% • 6,521.625 / 80 - 81J stalU It can theieforB be concluded that approximately 80 parking stailt would be needed to serve the existing rcatiurantfoar and proposed expansions bated on the City Code requirement of one tull per 80 square feet Off-Street Paridne Avnilnljj|j[Y The bustnesMS existing on the north side of Shoreline Drive, west of Shadywood Road have historically shared the CityK>wned parking lot located to the rear of all the busneaaes. This it out of necassity u limited on-street parking exists along Shoreline Drive. The Navarre munictpal parking lot was acquired and inqnoved in 1964-65. The bttsiiiaaea that back up to Ihe perking lot were originally assessed for the Unprovementa to it baaed on Iheir aroounl of ftoiHage on a traveled street The Narrows site was istfwcd for 104.5* of fronUge (reflecting the 112* lot width minus the 7.S* public eaacmant along the east boundary) or 8% (1/12) of the total frontage assessed. At the time of assetsinem, no commitments were made (that we can find) that would apportion qiicciflc numbers of perking lulls to specific properties. We do know that in 1983 the Council adopted Resolution No. 1594 that resulted from leltlcroem of a claim by the former owners of 2385 Shadywood Road and granted variancea that would allow an offlee builduig requiring credit of 26 parking suits in the municipal lot These vanances were granted wi*'. a waiver of the 1-year expiration, ao the potential still exisu for that property lo lay claim to as many as 26 stills. The existing City-owned parking lot contains approximately 122 marked stalls aa counted by lUff at the site on June 15,2005. The conditional use permit review conducted for the Narrows CUP in 2000 indicated that 154 parking stalla are needed to serve all butin^m having rights to Ihe City-nwned lot That analysis was baaed on rough estimates of square IboUges (based on footprint sue) of the businemee that existed at that time. I l^Kv' :. .f:V ,; -(.■■■'•.. ■ , ; ■' ’*’ .'/*■ :■ •'....■. •■, >• ■ 4-''-^V ;rf' -X- •H-3I1I J«Mll.MtS PipfarN Wtobout dcnitod floor ptent of alt txiadiig bioifma, Oly ^can nu catculaia with any accuracy how much poridng if ladinkally raquirad by City Coda for all thb butiiiaaaia having righHiothebt Six additional parking apacai localad within tha Narrowi pioparty am currantly mipad and iouaa.Thaaa are not incittdad India 122 notadabova within iha municipal Id Other bufinmi proportiat abutting tha municipal lot alao hava varying numbart of available alalia within thairpropaityboundaiiao that ware not inchidad in tha 122. It ihottld alao ba notad that tha partcing atalla conitniclad and atripad are 9* X 16* with 22* driva aialaa whare norniatly 9* x 20* apacaa with 24* wida driva aialaa would ba required. Ahbottgh of no fbult of tha appUeanta. thia coniribulaa to the ovarill Amctionaliiy and manauvarability of tha parking Id Tha Planning Commiaaion ahouM diacuaa tha parking naada required by tha ^plicanl in dalarmining whathar any axpanaion. inlarlor or axtarior, ahould ba parmittad. Tha Planning CoomUaaion may alao want to look more cloaaly at tha houri of oparadoo Ibr tha varioua buainaaoaa uaing tha lot, aa tha 2000 reviaw condudad that tha prime houra ton the applicant would ba tha laaat prime houra for the majority of the other boatncaaca in thia area. No acoial irafllc/|paiking coiM or atudiaa bavo bean dona to determine whathar thia haa provan to ba Om caaa. Packing required Ibr prepoaaduaa: InteriorUae Front SidawalkUaa Ram*Patio'Uai 52 atalla 7atalla 2! Walla SOftdIa Parking avatlabla on-aito Ibr propoiod uar Paik»i abMtbll on^ to ba tnoda ap in municipal hd: dium 74ala^t Municipal lot walla availdbla for other uaara danng peak rimaa: Pecccowta of BMmictpal lot raquirad by Nwfowi: 122-74 - 4$ italli 74/122- 61H IV. tASEBCBfrrSAPPICTlNGFIIOPtllTY afiKtiiig how tha applicant can uaa thdr preparty. An I (Doc. #352091 1) exiati to provide accaaa from Shoreline Driva to the City-ownad parkhig Id Thia cxiata along the iMiim 7.5* of the property, and while not ancroachad upon by any of the propoaad irnptomntm, iu fbndionality maybe impacted by the kitchen addition as propoiad. its-jm iMt li,}tCS Pm*ia*ri4 A highway caaament approximately 10* wide (Doc. #5711813) exittt along the front lot line. Thia eaiemeni ia in favor of Hennepin Coumy and will not be encroached upon by any of the prepoacd improvements. An additional caatment for sidewalk purposes approximately 4.5* wide (Ooc. #6811756) exiata along the north side of the highway easement, and is in favor of the City. The language of the easement stales that it cannot be encroached upon by **...permanent encloturea, fences or walla, or other obstniction by Owner which would tnlerfoa with, or wliich would otherwise obstnici acceu to the Public Improvement in any manner by Owner or the ^blic.. .**. Tlie edge of this caaement it about 2* from the front wall of the building, and ia eiKroachcd upon by the existing roof overhang. An uodcfgrouad utility casemcat (Doc. #3449563) exttit in tha northeaatem comer of the file. The proposed improvements should have no effect on this easement. And lastly, an electric distHbatioii easement (Doc. #6792651) covers the nonheriy 12*- 50* of the properly. This eaaemmu spccifrcally aialct that **.. no structure or obstruction will be erected or pcnnilled or any trees planted on or within said easement...which will interibre with or endanger said electrical facilitiea.** The applicant has proposed landscaping with trees adjacent to outdoor seating area at tlie rear of the site This may hava an impact and the applicant ahould be inatnictad to receive permission from the eaBcmaia holdar (NSP/Xcal Energy) to install trees within diis area. Vt OTHER TOPICS FOR REVIEW Situage The applicants hava not proposed any additional signage. A photograph of tha existing signaia ia attached to this report as Exhibit L With the proposed expmaion into the remainder of the building, the applicant would now be permitiad 112 s.f. of total si^gc with a tingle sign not to exceed 50 t.f. Tha ippHcanta are showing dumpilm located on the west side of the proposed kitchen ■ddilion. A fence ia shown on the plana to screen the northwest comer of the dumpstcre Section 78-1578 requires that **all wane material, debris, refuse, garbage ...be kept in ani caelaaad building or properly ooniained in a closed container for sudi purpoact.** Ugbliug The applicam has not indicated on the plans that any new lighting is proposed. Tha lighting in tha City-owned parking lot will remain unchanged, however the applicant should ba questioned whether any new lighting will ba proposed for the outdoor sreiing areas. I IIII fr%k^ir ■ an I« TBt ■ 11 k. iM A H Oh* I Ka.il s »h>d '.j tuuiCb r j AiAS —? . i I . .. t..--. ;.• ■, - -:V: .;; a . ■••••••’"•••; ■ ■• ^^■.^/!'r •;.; .■ •>■•■• •• . V- •• ^ ■ f' .■■.•^•■■••v':>;.'.= ■ : N' ■ 'i IH-Slll iMM IS, Mts ri«tii«n4 U^n«r Laws Tht applicant will be nquiiad bo appear before die City Council in conjunction with any approved axpaneioii(a) to that the lk|uor tiecnac can be updated. Campliaaca with 2MM CUP (RcMtatbea No. 4530) The Narrowt currantly operatea under a CUP iisued in October 2000 for a Clan II Hntauram aarvinf Hi^lcaling Hqaor and with live entertainment The cunent CUP containi aix ipeciOc conditiofia of approval: 1.Tin applaaal slwa taataW a Cw« Omt lywmn tl Iht rear aatraaca la awal al Stale •aMlaf ana fira Ca4a naadarda. Tha paraaaa af Hla daan waaM ha la allaw caataaMn la aalar aad aiil Uw MMIaa wUiwal aMantaf aalaa la laava U m hatMiag. Tlwy foaaM bt neced n aoa dear waaM data baiwv U m aaaaod daar la aptfiad. Al daara iM nmmim daaad at tM itawa, vtcapl a4aa aataHne ar aiM^ H m 1. Uva iatartalaaMal ar« tad al lliSe %m, mtk alglil tad tht t:fe ajw aach Bight. Tha lhaat daar AaS aat ha aaad aa aa aatraaca dariag tha paHad af tbaw cha haddiat li aaad liar in aatartahMaaat A aaa yaar Haw pariad ia ragatead iar lha ippicaat ta awailar dw aaa af HW haiiiag tad lha haul calraace. Aflw ana year tha CMy af Onm wW ravtaa lha aaa af lha haildjag ia ralaHaa la lha in aatartalaawat tad aalaa tanhi gaaaralad hy thaiva aatartahifiwai aaa. I. Tha praparty la aMt^act la Hw aiga ardlaaBca far taaiparary aad ptrawaaal algaa. fla algaa laai ha *acalad aa ar aaWlda Hw haiilag wMwal racalTlag a paradt naai Hw City af Oraaa. Naha ihai ha haU la a lanl aa •• aat ha la vlalaiiMi af Hw Kate Ordhwaaa. hava a vaid Kgaar iwaii iHih tha CMy af Oraaa. Tha above condilioiii with lagard to chanpn to lha phyiical elements of the building bevt been complied wiHt Tha property has oontimied to have s valid liquor license. The operational aipacls (eonditioiii 2. 3 and 5) have fsnerslly been complied with« tlihough the City Is awna of onfoing concami expressed by vgfioui grei residents about the noise md laie-nighi tfaflle aseociaied with the Narrows operation. The City has received compliinls that the doors have been open for extended periods on oocsston, cresting a noise impact for the niryoundinf neighborhood. ros>3i2t i8MlS.2MS rattlZafU Vn. GCNPRA L ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Suit would ofler the following u general and specific guidelines for issues to be considered by the Planning Commission with regirds to this application: 1. It the proposed location of the use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code sued the purposes of the B-1 district and the Comprehensive Plan? 2. Will the location of the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained be detrimenul to the public health, ufety %ve1fire, or be materially injurious to properties or irnpiovemems in the vicinity? 3. Is the proposed use compatible with the surrounding business district and rcaidentisl neigjhborhoods? If not, what aspects of the use make tl incompatible? What methods are available to mitigate Ihcwe aspects? 4. Is the proposed use supported by adequate infrastructure, primarily access and parking availability? Should studies be done to determine whether parking demands on the lot by til users are actually compatible baaed on varying peak time usage needs for Che various businesses? Do tlw proposed additions and uses have any potential negative impacts on functionality of the parking lot, the sidewall^ or access to neighboring properties? If so. what changes might bo made to minimize those impacts? VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the existing resuurant use would appear to be consistent with the intent of the Cbmprehensive Plan to provide for commercial buttnesacs that serve area raidents, it is not clear that the use sAer the ^ropoaed expansion will be consteem with the City's policies and goals. CMP Part 3B, Urban Land Use Policies, contains the following pertinent policy statements: *^2. Limited commercial areas will be provided for acighborhood service bosiocsscs. The primary function of Orono*t commercial aress will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businenes which ire directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary fewer and adequate transponation •re available. Commcfcial devciopmeni of a regional nature (i.e. *big box* retail) which would increase irafTic. particularly on collector streets serving low density residential developm^ will be discouraged ** r m MMIlt 1«mIS,2MS npi)«ri4 H. Ctwurdil aa4 MulHal dtvtitfwt wW not bt pcrniittod tm adYtmiy aOteC Miflib«rtog mldMttol prtf irty. Tht tocation. tcale and types of comimrcisl and irakiMrial devetopment will be eoouolled to at not to icfDach spon or adversely impact the pruriry residential land itass in Orono. WlMiever poanble. natuial land fennt or buffers will be required bstwoan difibreoi land uses.** Additionally, the Land Use Plan section reprdinf Urban Commercial Land Use makes the Ibllowint statement refarding Navarre: The ma|or commercial center uf Orono erill continue to be the croanoads center of Navane. This am will provide aufTkient opportunity for neighborhood retail and aarviea businaase a, plus adequate profea^.ial offices, to serve the needs of moat Orono rodents. Acce isory functiont such as offices and owneiHiccupied living units or limited multi*family & ret opmeots will be coostdered appropriate in or near the Navane commer cial eras. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedeatrian-fKcndly eavironmanl ia tha moat important dev el opment paranxser for the Navarre oommcfctal aiea. The City will encotaage redev el opment of individual commer cial ailai in Navane to allow fbr an espande d range of neigh horhood acrvicaa and local email bustfieaa opportunitiea.*' The peaaibla regional draw of the entertainmant aapects of the e xpanded uae ahould be conaidered in determining whether the propoaed uae hea the potential to bec ome incorapatible with the Ctty*i goala Ibr Navarre or with the aunounding rcaldcfitiil devtlopmcot The expmton may push the tin or magnitude of the uae beyond the acale that it compatible with the aonoun^g neighborhood. If the acale of propoaed uae ia detiimined to be appropriate for the area, slafT would make ths fbllm ng rscommtndations with regards to tht site plan and the site operation: 1. The propoaed use ahould be required to incorporate a two-door system for §0 cntrencs and exit points, skmg with opcrationel re quiraraen u that auch doors remain cloeed during thnea of musical or other noise producing entertainment, to mifurnize or eUmiMie noiae impact! to tha suirounding neighborhood. 2. Tha pfopoaad vaatibula that would cxiand into the City*i sidawalk esaamawt Aould be dented, and a similar vaatibula ahould be developed within the walte of the extadng building. 3. The propoead kitchen expansion at tha NE comer of the buildiiig ahould be redesign^ to be oAei el least S* waatward along the north side of the building, so that Che visusl end ftinctionsi seporition between die Nanows buikting and the adtjoining icrvicc elation does not decrease. 4. The propoe ad decorative walla surrounding the rear patio arts should be acceptable ndgect to confirmation by the applicant that ih^ will not violate any exMting tes amania. Tha propoae d plantar boxes require i vwiance as they are * m>3i2i jMcis.2ses rit»i4«n4 considered an eacroachment of the required 30* rear yard. Other than the watts and planter boxes, the propoaed small vestibule and the relocated kitchen •ddiiiois, no other permanent structures should be allowed to the rear of the building. Planning Commission should consider whether the propose d taodioping plan at the rear of the building is acceptable as a barrier or buffer to the parking lot and/or the residential neighborhood to the Donhwest, if such barrier or buffer is needed. 5. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed exv<*rior seating both to the front and rear of the building is appropriate for ifte ?-l District, and under what standards or limiuttons such use sliould be allowed. Potential limitations or conditions could address appropriate numbers and location of seating in relation to lot lines, easements, bu.*ding walls, etc.; hours of allowed outdoor sealing use; lighting of outdoor seating; fencing fbr outdoor sealing; the use of umbrellas or other amenities; whether and where such outside seating may be appropriate fbr liquor service, and how such service is controlled (this may be a more appropriate Auictkm for the liquor license approval process); and any other aspects of outckx>r seating that should be reviewed. 6. PUnniiig Commission dunild consider whether expansion of lot ooveragp by stnictuies from approximately 36S to approximately 38S (where 15% is allowed) is justified by the commercial use an^or by the off-site parking. 7. Planning Commisskm ahould consider whether parking fbr the propose d use is adequate, and if not, what plan revisions/reductions or use limitations might be needed to make parking work. Planning Commission may wish to consider requesting that applicant hire a consultant to provide a detailed parking study to shw whether parking is an issue. 8. Planning Commission should review whether the proposed signage, lighting and trash handlin^screening focilitiet are adequate. 9. Planning Conunistion should contider whether the current limits on hours of operation are appropriate under the e.\panded use. 10. Planning Commireion should review the written and oral public corrmwnts to determine if there are other issues not identified that need to be addressed. ■w-i.VSi';. ig/7 ‘TWBBP; . V j •“ cmr OF ORONO - general land use APPUCATtON Application# Data Ractivad Amount Paid PROPEWVLOGA^OH^^^ ^ SttaAddmamat\3\\o t><L- Type of J^ppficatioirib be FHed Property ldrfWftl«#ttoh Number (P.I.D.l / 7 - / / 7 -J? ^.0. >oor APPLICANX. Nun* S^iPitAmGA—■ f Phon« (hO(1M)iJ!iJti‘fla_ AddWM 'la £jL^>iPf& , Phon«(work) J -sKanna^i* J»- CHvTavfc4-A»< Zip SS^jj OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Phone (iKxne) Addfeaa Data Property Acquired adjaoami Phone (work) ,City______ I (do) (do not) also own the adja6en\ parcalt of land. FEES . CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS * (roonth/yaar) $600 00 Rasidenttal Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest HousefOuest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credil/Bldg ^ $600.00 CommerdaVIndustriel Use ____$600.00 Lend Alteration Permit _____Grading and fiilino • designated wetland or floodplain _____Grading and fling - 501 cu. yd. or more C^lng. seawall, retainino walls within 75* of lakashora PRO/PIO - sea Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftar-the^act Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER'LPLICATIONS $600 00 Commercial Site Plan Review (•^consultants) $600.00 Vacation $600.00 Easement Vacation $100 00 Easement Vecetion With Subdivision $60000 Rezonlng (PUD-refer to foe schedule) $600.00 Oimprehens ive Plan Amerntment $100 00 Appeals Other-see Fee SPhadule \ «?//U REQUIRED SUBMITTALS A Completed Application Form.1. 2. 3. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South e®' Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5010). 5. 6. Cartincate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. )( Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 7. Ai|N Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ** VACAVD^» ‘* A List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persdr«<i4th.an interest in This would include name(s) of applicant(S)*1f not currentthe property y owner(s). ' A Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish rrotified of this application YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir X17** OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawmgs ol all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application Is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certincatior. by Clerical Department that Land Use AppTication is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________Date_________ APPUCANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) end/or unusual expenses ipcurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied^ j(M^rrect to the best of hisrt>ef j AppRcanfs signature OWNER S SIGNATURE \j The owr>er hereby adtnoiMedges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and CourKil/rtembers^ouurposes of investigation arxj verificaton of this rsquMt. / Owner's signature Appkcam muti haveaOs PtinninQ Convnisaion ^ Oaf V5~-- //g • ils into Sw Ccy omces 25 days ticfort tht Planning Comruts^n Mgadog •ft had on Bie tfwd Monday o( tecfi month Appicants must tit pmst rt at al sohtdwtd rtvitw mattings of tot Ptonmng Commisston and Counoi if an appicant is unatiia to alltnd ■ schtduitd matting, pitasa makt amngemants to hawt an autoonztd agtnt alltnd in your plact ■nd advisa tot ewtdmg 4 Zoning Oftict of this changt pnor to tot mttting. r >/i 7/65 E ,c^ ‘i ^ yZ<#2W^ i:f<^ ,„v ^ ^ ‘'■' / ^ Jjtd*^. llM- hrtvU MtJ- piU V I/^ <Ui-£' /U^*t^'~Y '^''•^ . /• ...a -u y 0-P.4>»v\//'W 6^ jioi ^^.”t \» -. Y> IL w JL. ’r;#i 1 m *‘. ‘ . -:; V t ■' • ■ -v: ■; . ■*’1 • ■: •' V ;'-V' .,'1 <■,.. ,.' V . L- A V!f‘''^^v.' ^ C£RTfTCATE OF SURVEY FOR NARROWS. LLC N LOT S, BLOCK 3, T0WN9TE OF LANGOON PARK HENTCPM COUNTY. kMCSOTA , COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 SHORELINE DRIVE JL &^3te » «MtM • mjmt ml liirM iM?^SlC X!|TSa tS s^^i?J3SSiu^=fSir C-I J 1 - AJrs- anoMakna and ^ ^ ABSOOIATCa, INO. A _ «eWAM.Tl»— <M«MUf X^ AMO ■>?« PUMMaCM ipAUiA-i *---AAilu IttMIC "PK» NAL SET M eUCKTOP SeATl«)4 rrqPWPOSC© ^l>prTleNS r-iWSTiK| L I cvne>»- N 89®ir 3^ W 112.01 ■••SOUTH LNE LOT 5. BLOCK TOWNSITE OF LANGOON PARK o K FRDR6S) VtST\?>MCE apditioM CM 03 CM \cfloss arr m CONCRETE WALK ^ pn A n \in 1 ^•••. SOUTH S£ V I.; I A 5£C. ■ .1 ■ iM_P iJJ i_ii _ 11 -^:V; ' y-i'.'v.-..i.', ■■■ ?r'*<4: «>»CMtaM*40H .«• *A r «> 4^ ^ <r ..iVM------- MMi«>^4*1 K»«»l i^» « W>M _- __ lAIC »l W«*t. - „ - -------------4trt»l »«M«a »4» K • M IM if teaf « l!« ilA*M ____________It !5;{iV/-'i:Wi!iHI iiliK -q-jl 2=—- BLn0 s ta Counfy Road 15 Shoreline Odve in U ••«««. «*4ti • Mil <«r . |«( IC1J4&. in m«4«»* fair • M.. !•« .. •!*• ttm9m0 J-Site PLin A I ksi Flcmr Plan Iff The N»iioiwt Ow«4MN (Wt w aQ«« caaa PCOfriicL. CirS. ^LA*^ loife. wr • r r ,• I,--,- Cr/ fv> V:: c/ •W’.: -i'. ■»<■ urn m'Lms. i I?-;.: ' •••■4^':r:":i^pi|l >;'* ** ..V * ,>iS ».•*■%/*•'-***' **• .r^ ^ .H/. V.M-, .•’• 1':.'-^A. -^^v.!^t^ • i^^-^w#t---v:;'r-»S «-' • -■ .' -•••«•»■*••-• r '••• < .' « . ..- ■ *• • • .t. M* . V-:■ V '::. :'V, i ’- .,• . :-*. .* ■.-. - >- - V":___-, «. .. . i'u-’U'cc'rr'/iT J!m: w^ ’ ■;.?.'-S'! WiU-. ^;'/■■■'-': |||^%^i£^l;■HH: mm . ’ ••1. _■• iii» ;Sf. oT o 343W76 CITYorORONO REflOLUTKW OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4nao A RISOLVnON GRANTING A CONDITIONAL use FERMIT nR MVNiaPAL ZONING CODE SECTION lOAO, SUBDIVISION 4 (D) HLEMCM P3NNY05, cr. WmREAS, Jamci Aoderti, U owner of the Nanowi Selooa, (hereinaAtr *the epplicenT) and Donaki McCarvilk is owner of the propeny (hereiiiafter ^ owner**) located at 3380 ShmUM Drlw within the City of Onmo (herciMdItr "City") and Itfally described as follows: Attacbed **Exhibit A**, (hetetoafler "property*); and WHCRBAS, the appikant has applied to the Oty for a condiUonal use permit to permit tise propeny to be used u a Class II Restaurant per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.40. Siibdivisioci 4 (0); and WHEREAS, HieCityofOronoliadistucdabuildinspcimhtoexpaiidtheuaeiato the former Minnetonka Photo space in the acyoiniog building; and WHEREAS, The Orono City Council approved, on July 24.2000 the applicant to luoceed with the bui*»ding expansion nbjtct to the appikant requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the UK of the building, iiirluding live emcrtainmanl. Minnesota: 1. WOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Omno. MMhtisprSefVtaiic. FINDINGS te«491 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2604. The pfopeit)* is located in the B-l. Limited Business Zoning District where a Ckifs II Restaurant is permioed by conditional um. A Class II Restaurant is defined as Fast Food, Convenknee. DriNX-in. and Liquor Stote Restaurants. A ftsiauram where a majority of customers order and are Krved their food at a counter in pKkages " A V h OV CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *; O , 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 entcrtairunenL** Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (D). The applicant had appeared before the City CouiKil on July 24. 2000 to request approv^ to proceed with the interior remodeling arul restroom addition, which had been started. The restrooms are being expanded for handicapped accessibility. The conditioiuil uk 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. The City of Orono had luued a building permit to allow additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon which includes expanding the bar into the fonner Miiuietooka Photo space, now vacated. The property is located in the B-1 Retail Saks Business District in which a Class 11 Restaurant is defined as a restaurant which serxes intoMcating liquor or has live entertainment. Expansiofi of the building requires the owner to obuiin a conditional um permit since Class II Restaurants are allowed by CLIP. City files indicate no CUP has ex er been issued for a restaurant on this property. *nie use has required a CUP in the B-1 zone since tt least 1967. Expansion of the facility into the fonner Minnetonka Photo spKc and a 4' addition to t!ie bathrooms now requires a corulitional um 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. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held public hearings on August 21 .2000 and September 1 S, 2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1 . It was the minorit)* opinion of the Planning Commission that requiring the **Iivc eniertammefU** to end at 12:00 a.m. max* be puuing undue restiiciions on the business. Page I of 7 Page 2 of 7 . ^ #. r )*k- .»’•,# >•' .Hr'-•»» • WJ-,W ' r »’•.■> • ••■v.l ' , *■ .. . : «. 3A3AS70 -X- CITYofORONO RUOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 488^0__ A MtSOLVnON CHANTING A CONDITIONAL USB TERMIT TBR MUNiar AL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.40, SUBDIVISION 4 (D) nLBffM04 oamvaa § WHBMCAS, Jhdm AadciM, U ow*r of ihe Nino»» Sdoon, (h«tiii»fl«T *ihe 8wilc«ni*) aad Oooftld McCarviUt U oi^/ntr of tin pfopcny (hcretnoftcr owner") located at 2 yno Shorrline Drivt widun die City ofOcocio (heraiiieaer -City-) and legally deacribed as fbitowi: Attached **Exhibit A^ (hettiiiaftrr -property*); and WHEREAS, the applicant hai applied to the City for a conditional use permit to permit tl* property to be used u a Claia 11 Rta»>nirant per Municipal Zoning Coda Section 10.40. SiihdivitKMi 4(D): and WHEREAS, Tha City of Orono had issued a building permit to expand the uk into the former Minnetonka Photo space in the acyoining building; and WHEREAS, The Orono City Council approved, on July 24.2000 the applicant to IKOcmi with the building expansion subjKt to applicnnl requesting a Conditional Use Permit Tor the use of the buildir^, including live cotcflainmant. MlfUiiiOin: I. NO%V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, MMnJsgtfServtafnc. FINDINGS [000(491 Hib ^jplicadoo wu itvtewtd u Zonini File *2604. The prapeny it loeNed in ih* B-i. Limited Butinm Zoning Dittrici «f>e« a Cla« It Retttunnt it petmined by condiiiootl use. A Out II ReilMnnl is defined ss • f M Food. Convenience, Drive-in, sod Liquor Stow Resuninnu. A lestsuitttt wdie« • mijoriiy of cuilomets order end we served their food st • counter in Packages P,ge I 017 CITY«r ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -7 0 - prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most ctistomcrs consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or mstauranis which serve intoxicating liquor or have live cnlcrtainroenL** Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (D). 3.The applicant hod 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 expandixl for handicapped accessibility. The conditional use permit woulJ permit ii\*e enlertiininent and expa.nsion of the floor area. The Council did vote to allow the remodeling to continue even though a conditional use permit ;t*ould have been required before the building expansion began. 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 vKated. The property is located in the B-1 Retail Saks Business DistricC 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 Class II Restaurants are allowed b>’ CUP. 5.City files indicate no CUP has ev er 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 facUity into the former Minnetonka Photo space and a 4* addition to Uie bathrooms now requires a conditional use permit. Also, the B*1 district requires a commercial site pUn 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 21.2(XX) and September 18.2000 and recommoided approve! by a vote of 6 to 1. It was the minont> opinion of the Planning Commission that requiring the •‘live enleiiaiamenr to end at 12 00 a m. may be putting undue restrictions on the business. Page 2 of? iaiiiiiw T- ■-#4^ b. V %<l CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OS THE CITY COUNCIL NO. '»;». - • ■ 7. At dit August 21. 2000 public hctring U was noted during live enlertiinincni pcffbnnaDCcs doors on the Narrows Saloon had been left open creating noise froai die building that could be heard in residential areas in the neighborhood. 8. The additional seating may cause added demand for parking around the tile. The busiest hours for The Narrows would be evenings on weekends when there would be litde 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 foouge ofloi. per Section t0.6t of the zoning code. This building is limited to 60 s.f. of signage. 10. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use pennit to allow a Class n restaurant with live emeitainroent will not be deinmenial to the health, safety or general welfeie of the public, will not idvtfsely affect UghL air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propcrtica. nor will its use depreciate surrounding pfopeity values and that the proposed level ofuseofthe property will be in keeping with the imem and olgectives of the Zoning Code and Compiehcnsive Plan . the City. 11. The City Council has considered this applicatioo iiKluding the findings and racommendaikMis of the PlaMiing Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applkant and the affect of the proposed use on the healil^ lafety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the abo\‘c fuidings, the Orono City Council hereby grams a conditionil tiK pemiti 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 sundards. The purpose of the doom utMik! be to allow customers to enter and exit the building without allowing noist to leave the buitding. They should be spaced so one door utnild close before the second door is opened. PNielof? 4^^°\ 1 IKK’ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITv COUNCIL NO. ___ All doom 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 from entrance. Afrcr 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 pomit from the City of Orono. 5. Noiae 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). X. 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 tenninate any authority granted herem. 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 cf himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording ot this r «oiution m the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 7 • ■; - s«i«i ■X & 'h.s. o' GlTYafORONO SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. /I S *> w Adopted by dv Oraoo City (^liacil os liiU 9lh dty Of October, 2000. ATje?fp/?;x V'VC.VA'-'.sVvrt I ^ ?/ // / ^ i i^rop^y Owner / OiMl Jibbour, Applicam STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Tbs ftKCfoifV imcnuBsai wts tcknowledged before me on thti 9th diy of October, 3000, by Oidmel labbour and Linda S. Vec. Maydr & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Miniitsoa municipal corporation and said instnimenc was executed on behalf of the City. W A. ^ r~^‘9Cil. . Notary Public W\ CITY of ORONO 15*8H0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ •'? {* JTATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this J[^diy of 20tV before me a Notary Public wUhIn and county, personalty appeared nmia i>> nittL ^ /Itenowi LK^wnto^ine to be the ptrsonfs) described in and who executed the foregoing imimment. and Kknowledged that hefihey) executed the tame aa his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF hflNNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On ihi5__^"^iy of__________________.. - 20*-/ before me a Notary Public within fb^said county. personally appeared ..L.r*-.l5own to me to he (he person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hefthey) executed the s?me u his (their) free act and deed. ,vV. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 - - V A ■tiJili -i. . :• i ,' iU. ■‘'NiiJiRa?j t?3c^6ffl&MMSSncSm 4»S? , j»:v^OTir ■ * 1^ aA fi t1 ► ' -** § • ^ ^ ^ IT - ^ ^ 3-A = »'3r.,;; ‘ CJ >1 *-:^.'^ liaiiiiikifir Miffi irVi nii -#ii^n^tfffc-ii 1'^ 1PK r-j vi;t< ^c — *— . i«i -«kj f . r'^i *. rVr gSO ft’ ill®i^iWi| » •X v^ i s 1 # 1 1 t .•• * ^ I 1^ •• • ■r »/ -0ftUXV’>VV '.>1 CR. RP ISx’960.r . X 961 ?Ml-?m: —•] 1—5 / LO^ • Vi^v-' Vi- •: Pv. :/.i s f%• '* /■ • 7. : ‘'*r'-' ,^';-' < 4.. ,-4 , 7''. ■'f' ♦«-rf2fc,:’.-^" Asn ' I r OwMT iMTiby gmti to tiM QQf ftr ftt bcflifil of Oit pubiB^ t pefiBMtfli, noMcteivt otMOim ovv, tom lad upon tte pofti^ tyiag mtfi of o Bm dmiB from • poiflt OB tho Wool But of Mid propwty, diMwi 42.S4 tai BDrttaty of d» South bM of tbt SouitieiM 1/4 of Stccioo 17, TowMhip 117, Riitfi 23, to 4 potat OB Iht Em Hdo of Mid property dtetani 42.82 im BortlM^ of liM South 1 m of md Southern 1/4 tm tovtiMrIy of fe lioe drewn penOil widiwd 47 SnI BOftfaK^ of laid South Ubb • IB «•••, (the *rMWt Aiee*) far thepurpoaei eieiMratibi^^ nmaini^A^ repiirim ii^ uM oft piiUte ddeimk em aO •ppurtaniaeof thbeto (heieiiHfter ratered t. TheEMetiMAricMlaolbe«iaoecfiBdupoobyfiU,excmtloQ, pevini or coBorote, eraedoB of boidhpBi or ] ohatimaoom to the PabfioInproMBMatfaiaiqrinKiatrhyOwiMr or the public. Such ohettuctkiai bal ^ecifiody iflchidi «qp md aB ohetnictioes over, OB or uodar piMo meenrik uddcb are proMMred punuam to the terms of the Qty Ordfaiaiioei of the Oiy of OroBO. h* OiVMte dm lawftd fight ladaodiorhr, without fmrietlo% to eooeey the mfUinti ii himfn iranfnl itt itn FanmTnr rinri li nnt iiitrjnrT tn my nttirr imnntit odm than the istflmt.of Owm, ai^ that be BiMtm Am U embraced whoi^ wilhui to the OwM bujdaa aad benefit the Property. prueidod harm mn iniie isooeseort end amiBBs of (be ooutaiaad heroin dali be demnad to run wiH; y IhariHfibHLtf&MHlh IntfaeeeeBtttmuaeoftfaaBaeaBient Aretiiai agytjMdjaormtawed by the Qty, the Qty AiBhr^tfaari^ hot riot the doty, to enter brthar upon the BaaaaMBt Area and nanoveaB or aaypoctloo of the Puhto improvement whkhhM been ptacad upoQ, oear or under the Baaetam Axee. 2 •1 • 4« ihr**e S WHEREOF, ttda AlTeesim has been ereouted u diy and yeer firb toaBoftheteri»^coB£tioQaberenedfixdL. *1.' OWNER • GLASS 0 PARTNERS &jQtL4/\ By, •wtv • STATE OP INESOTA J )COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ThefereeoioBiwtniinanlwaaechBOwieftoadbefereiBethti^^ daeof Oc^n\ie^ 1997,byOdbridIahbouraDdDorofiiyM.Ha8iii,tbaMqfQrandQt} CMc,reapectroelyofthe Qty of Orooo, a Miniaaota municipal corporafiOQ, who eitecuted thb Agreeinem and adoBOwtodgad tbaa dwy esecuted the aacae on behalf of the City of Orooo. CX SOtXfLftn. '■ ■ ^ NolwyPiibW*' STATE OF MIWaESOTA ) COUNTY OFF ia:iCi:»ViC The tbregohif inatiuoieat was admofwIedBed belbre oelbre ow das 2^ day of £?,4^w■ 1007 hw ___________________.the. iSsiiipeitBBif of OhM n Penneri^ I Caeral partnsriliip uadcr the lews of hfinneeote, 00 behelf of the pmeral pertBerahtp. - i j leeiDijSrhr (bwhwrftCslbenMe )200npar Mtas Tmw rilSoMh Moth 8MB MiiUMpolhiNH 3N02 (612yS3)-3«34 COUNTr /•/. ...___ iMMm I'lB* r • - ThoinuLowe 3295 Carmin Rotd ExcdsiorMN 55331-9501 952-471-0499 / fic 952-471-0322 tonyglowcprofi lc.com l‘\ June 16.2005 Ai t icskSeiil living on Ciinnin Rood olTof Kelly Avenue, I hove ferious concerns •born the outdoor expMsion pTOfMoed by the Narrows Sek)Oft At U Mndt now there alteedy are noise issues sflbcting th^ residenU on the northwest end of Kelly Avenue. We have also witnessed drunk St disorderly conduct on Kelly Avenue late in the evening or early morning hours. If the Nanowi were to diaconiinue offering live musk late into the night or ending live music by 9000 m 10:00. this would go a long ways towards alleviating some of my concerns. But offering liquor for aale at an outdoor bar, bordering a parking lot also aeems to be ill advised, leading to a nighUy block party in the munkipal parking lot This expansion of die Narrows can only lead to increased noise levels, and other undesarabte behmrior which most likely will spill over into ftmtiy neighborhoods dhectly to the south and north of the Narrows Saloon. Is this plannsd expatekm creating the right diiectioo fo tone for future devefopment in Navarre? Other commer cial arsm around the lake seem to be up sealing A IcavingNavana in the dust Navarre in its current state U easily the most btighled commercial district in the Lake Minnetonka area. By expmiding a biker bar to nearly double its ctrrem siae will Navarre attract foturc commcictal establishments that are conducive to a I .ily oriented commercial area similar to Wayaaui or Excelsioi, ^ will Navarre be tokiug a path in a decidedly different direction? Is this what the Orono Planning Commission (Mies? Does the Orono Plaoaiag Commission have a vision for the foture of Navarra? Lift of a How will Afder be meintatned with an outdoor bar dtiectly a^acem to a mur.lciptl parking lot? Will acetirity be provided? Will the Narrows Insure foit drinkmg does not spill over into the parking lot? • How does the Orono police department plan on dealing with another popular drinking cstdblishmem expanding in close proximity to Lord Fletchers? Have th^ been Gonsullcd? Wilt theta be a cron flow of intoxicated drivers? Will they need extra man power on iummer weekend nights? Can the city of Orono affbrd extra man-power? • How will the increased noist level be mooitoitd? Will the Nivrows have any noise or time of day Umilalions placed on its outdoor activity? • Privaie parties have to ahut down outdoor Uve mirtic 10:00 PM. should the Kanows be subjected to iha same restrictions? • Who owns the pro perty on which the ouldoor dining will be sitting on? Ifthis Is public property should the pybik not have a direct say u to its ungc? m • Is thm enough room for seated dining, om/pedestrians on the sidewalk facing Shoreline Drive? The ■pplicam*s plans show only 7 feet from the end of the new dining area ar»d the curb. Taking into account that parallel parking abuts that c^irb and an open car door takes 3 feel, that leaves a sidewalk of only 4 feet, and only 2.5 feet where the propoaed vestihulc doors encroach into the 7 feet! • From my understanding, the increased site of the facility will require 72 parking spots in the municipal parking lot, of whkh 90 are available. During lunch hours will other coiiunmial businesses have parking available for their customers? How will the municipal parking lot usage be increased by the new coffee shop with its attached deck currently under construction? Neighbors for a Better Navarre first requested in April. 2004 that a moratorium on development be put in place to allow the City of Orono time to create a plan for down town Navarre Um makes sertsc for the city, the current and future businesses and the residents, when the ill fated Restaurant/bor proposal by Mike Keaveny and Paul Ode was being considered. Now, Neighbors for a Better Navarre, renews that request. These growing number of residenu feel that the city has been derelict in developing a comprehensive plan for this port of Orono. While physically for from Orono City Offices, we are still a part of the city. |»y tax dollan to the city, and deserve the attemion of the Planning Commission. Council and stalT in developing a plan that we all can live with and be proud of. Myself and other concerned neighbors will be attending tlie planning commission meeting on June 20^ and we are sincerely hoping that our concerns will be addressed. If no extremely compelling reasons are offered as to why the proposed expansion of the Narrows Saloon will he good for the future of Navanc I am suggesting that no exterior seating be peimitted if the Narrows Saloon continues to offer live music past 10:00 PM, and at the very least a moratorium on issuing any further permits, umil a critical examination as to the short and long term ramificatiorts of the proposa l as it relates to the commercial area and its netghbon can be completed. Sincerely, / L' Thomas Unve /UM16.2005 JUN Jg Orono Planning Commin ion Ofono City Council Orono Plying Staff C/TVo, 20(S RE: Application g 05-31-21 UUerior Expansion of Conditional Use and Extenor Creation of New outdoor FnMit patio and rear deck for Drinking and Eating • Narrows Saloon Dear Commisaion, Council and Staff; I am writing this letter on behalf of Nelghbon For a Better Navarre, a growing organization of concerned residentt. the majority of whose members currently reside on or around Kelly Avenue. We have received and reviewed Applicant's plans for this proposed expansion at a meeting called especially for that puqiose Tuesday night, June 14. Applicant was invited to present their case and agreed to do so but decided not to attend without notifying us. Here is a list of our concents: 1. We strongly urge the Cily Of Orono to place a moratorium on development in Downtown Navarre and develop a vision and plan for this small area that we can all live with and be proud of. We first requested this in April. 2004 when tlic ill conceived Realaurant/Bar wet proposed by Mike Keaveny and Paul Ode. It is even more relevant today. Granting ihia masatve interior and exterior expansion of the Saloon, with outdoor party decks and an outdoor bar will set the reuil tone for Downtown Navarre for decades to come. We believe granting this request will lead to even more bars desiring to locale at this intersection and drive out more des'^le devekipmenl. The fact that the Keaveny property it npe for dev «dopment and the addition of Lund’s ownership of Rick's Market reinforce the common tense of the cily creating a plan. There ire already serious irafRc and noise polluiion issues in downtown Nsvsrre. This is the lime for the Cily of Orono to be proactive and show leadership, not just to react to every request that comes along, which will only lead to the ftmher deterioration of Navarre. While physically far from Orono Cily ORicea, we are still a part of the city, pay lax fiollari to the city and deserve the attention of the Planning Commission. Council and suff in dev^ing a sensible plait 2. In the event you decide not to place a moratorium, we believe that current problems with the applicsnt's operation must be addresacd in conjunction with Banting cny approval. There U loud noise that eminales from the property late into the night when the doors are opened and the homes near the Saloon literally vibrate when a liot bamT U playing. Chopper noise late at night and public drunkenness that spews down Kelly Avenue is slso a problem. 3. Here are our concern t with the specifics of the plan itself: «EC6/VfEn ''''■“'ORONO The front patio should not be approved First, there is no room for it unless the parking along Shoreline Drive is eliminated which would hurt other rcUilcrs Currently, the plan shows only 7 feet from the end of the patio to the curb However, an open car door lakes three feet and the new vestibule, with the door swung open takes another two feet. Therefore, at that narrowest point, there is only a two fool walkway. How is there any room for decorative trees even in the wider parts of the sidewalk? Why would the city want to grant such a plan that so greatly impinges on the pedretrian nght of way? In addition, while the applicant claims that the vestibule will eliminate noise from the cstablislimenl, the reality is lliat there arc two new doors that have no vestibule and the applicant lias a practice of leaving existing door open on many nights. Further, the vestibule interior and extenor doors will cunsianlly be open simultaniously with patrons and food/beverage server traffic which will allow noise to escape. If you do approve this part of llK plan, wc believe you need to require the patio be closed by 10 PM every night, that no outdoor speakers be allowed and that if residents complain of excessive noise that it be closed permanently. The rear deck, bolding 88 new seats, and an outdoor bar should not be approved until it is confimicd by llic cily I. that there is adequate parking in the muniapal lot to accommodate ih*s greatly cxpaixled use and the new coffee shop 2. that it is good public policy to dedicate 80% of the municipal parking to this one use and literally foreclose any ftiture major users on that side of Ihe street in Navarre 3. that the police are consulted and confirm that they have the ability and the manpower to handle another popular drinking establishment like Lord Fletchers, and if not, can Oreno ifford additional police officcis'^ 4 that the applicant come up with a noise abatement plan. 5. that there be no outdoor speakers. 6. that there be no outdoor bar 7 that the deck be closed by 10 PM nightly The Neighbors For a Better Navarre believe that strict, enforceable rulca be made a part of «id conditions of granting any outuoor activity to the applicant. This applicant docs not have a good track record of controlling noise and drunkenness Applicant claims it is trying to make the facility i family friendly restaurant and there will be no d slurbing noise or negative impact outside his facility. If this is the case, it should welcome a set of condiuons that ensures that Uiat will be the case. In closing, wc prefer that a moratorium be enacted and a plan created. In the event that is not going to happen, we believe the proposed expansion should be reduced significantly in scope, especially die outdoor componenL and strict conditions be ittached to any expansion Very Truly Yours. Charles E Nadler Neighbors For a Better Navarre *‘i. ** ■ ■'*’ •, ■.. ^ .>C-?y; , ij..V ;'V•* • — *>: . * • .': V • - ^ f •. . *>■•: ^ •; ••• . • .< •. ■ • V. . / . . ■••».. . . - ■• ■• 4*4c -«■•'••' ■■.•:'•■;'•;•■/ .%T-V>v»<v.5v:. ";..>v y if.:,.;. V . ••. .•„ • ’ ' * • •• ^ J. ^ •- ' > '* i* • •• ■ .y . . . • • • tte • *,* f * ' I ..*■• 1V ■/' ' ■' i \M \M ' I [ . ?•y ‘7 • • . t ^ . •- j- *«.. >• .* t ..**/ Z- •i .4'•J t m. ------fc HA«*-F.Y ; "KfX ?v*. la tmn»mn ftOfADOl MX tVMTAVC WNIXMAMf LCMIMMVOIXIW AXfAVOl UNiMAilC»IUOIjO«ir MtPyAHOII MMLYWCAV WAY2ATAMH fOVI M mi72MMit idPAOuii Mil LvaicAVf wmMMie ttoiwOTw wif tiTtD lAm AXTAViK cirvoroiONo Alli^AOON POMXM CHYSrALtAVMIf 5SJU X triiTiMiaiiJ wxAaai X AtXMcss uNAunKfio mtKtHHMm MfNNmNfWOrtOLAHO AXfAvoi ciTrarawHO tAMC/Aom roaoxM CUVtTALiAYMN 1112) X lllinMXiit iiarAoiM Mian«MxuMeoi IMKCltNAMe OtMI-TOMrA«miltlll> AXlAVil OtlMTOMrAtTMtlXIIX IAM1TATOH CA)COU«TMACrA«LANC IIC7 IIAmTVie M.VO 1115 CHASKAMN mil X I7II71MXIM MX UVMCfTONAVe inniiiiirAiiii erwAMOUNJtNXAnouN •AW^AWI BirimrouwAtouN lAMXAOM IXlUVMOXIONAVI WAVXATAMN I5MI X l7t|72M4aOD7 IKWAIIBt 2X4 BMAO¥««OOOKO IWNBAIIAMf PAULACXeCOMiAliy AXfAVCa lAUiACMICOMPAMV 4jmBMKrn cilJOlwirrArr xiiuxeAve WNmiMAtLAXIMK Xtlf IJNOATIrllWI X 171173X4011 ttPAm X AlMM«IUNAiilGIIG> iPMMNAMf MWMVMfOifirtfOLAMO lXf»A%l» CflYOrCXONO AliffAOM fOtOXX mVITALbAYMM M13J X I7II73M4M77 lOP AOCm XX HAVAIUUfLA WMOINAMI PAUI. ACME COMPANY iXfAYCX PAUL ACME COMPANY CtOJONNIPPAPP XII LAKE AVC WlinC BEAK LAKE LIN ISIX X I7II7XMXII tOPAlNX X AODUCUUNAmNIO WNBINAME TOWNOPOBONO AXPAYEE CfTYOPOiONO AMIPAINM PO0OXM CKYXTALIIAVMN IXX X miXMiiix •OP AfMX )X2 INOEEIJNI CM WNEKNAME NAINOWSLU' axpayek nakkowslu : AME/AOCM POMOXM NAVAKEEMN XM9 X XII7XINBH ■OPAOIM XX INCMEUNIflM WNCiNAME MOT COMPANY AXPAVai lUPini VAIXSTIMU INC AMETAOIM COBPOiATETAXOiPr POBQXMa MPLSMN X44t X I7II7X4M0X PtOPAOOK M21LYKICAVE OWNER NAME cmrorcxoNO TAXPAVMI CITYOrCXONO NAMC/AOCM 3X1 KELLEY PKWY LONGUKEMN SXM X l7tinMXt7t PROPACMM 34MLYBCAVE OiTNCNNAME HENNEPIN PtMfU7EO LAND TAXPAYfK CITYOPOROMO hame /ador poeoxm CRYSTAL BAY MN 5X3J X 17117X4X011 PROPAOOB 54RI LYRICAVC OWNER NAME HXXEI1N PORPEITEO LAND TAXPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAMf^AOOR POROXM CRYSTAL RAY MN SXX X 1711X1410013 PROPAOOR X AOORCSSUNASSnNEO OWNER NAME TOWNOf ORONO TAXPAYOI CirV OP ORONO NAME/AOOR POBOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SIX) X *7lim43RH4 PROPAUOR X AOORBSSUNASSRSNCO OWNfeRNAME NOlNEPlNPORPirTtDl.ANO THAYER CfTYOPORONO NAME/AOOR, POBOXil CRYSTAL BAY MN 5X31 Jl I7II72J4NBI5 PROPAOOR X ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME HENNEPX PORFETTCO LAND TAXPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAME/AOOR POOOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN 5X31 X iTtiTlMXBW PROPAOOR J4M mORELlNCOR OWNER NAME IMLfitJONNRON TAXPAYER CTIONNIONABAJOIINWN NAMWAOOR IXIPHRXIPSOR ORONOMN 5XM X 1711X1410143 PROPAOOR M4t SMORELBfEOR OWNER NAMC RICHARO W BLOOMQUST TAXPAYER RCHAROWBLOOMQWST NAME/AOOR 25RIINGHLANO RO MINNETRSTA MN 5X5* X I7II72544M5 PROPAOOR Jl AOORESSIlNAflICNCO OWNER NAME TOWNOPORONO TAXPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAMS/AOOR PORaXM CRYSTAL BAY MN XXJ X I7II7X440IM PROPAOOR 2X0 IHAOYWOOORO OWNER NAME PAUL AGRE COMPANY TAXPAYER PAUL ACRE COMPANY NAMB/AMM OOJOMNBPPATP Mil LAKEAVE WHO! BEAR LAKE MN 55111 X I7II72M4MI PBOPAOOR X AOORRttUNASflONEO OWNBRNAME HENNBPRIPORFirTBlLAND TAXPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAMO'AOOR POBOXM CRYITALBAYMN 5X31 X 17ll72X40IBt PROPAOOR XX SHAOYWOOORO OWNER NAMC LAKE COUNTRY COPm BC TAXPAYER UKE COUNTRY COPPEEBC HAMt*APOR CKlOmanNEVALERRJS 31X SHAOYWOOORO WAVZATAMN SSMI ;. :r i- ■/* * k*.• I 1 I IIENKEPIN COUNTY PROPCRTYINPQIIMATION SYSTEM PROPEICTY OWNERS LIST PAGE;! X 1711725440171 PROPAOOR XX SHAOYWOOORO OWNBRNAME IRREIUCION TAXPAYER JOHN CR BARBARA EERCSON NAME/AOOR laX SHAOYWOOORO X t7tl721440X PROPAOOR XM SHAOYWOOORO OWNBRNAME JOHNCRBARBARAECRCSOH TAXPAYER JOHN R BARBARA ERKION NAMWAOOR 1130 SHAOYWOOORO WAVZATAMN S5XI WAYZATAMN XXI X I7II7X4407I PROPAOOR X AOCXenUNASSRJNED OWNER NAME PAUL ACRE COMPANY TAXPAYER NAMB/AOOR PAUL AORB COMPANY CKl JOHN BPfATP XII LAKE AYE WHITE BEAK LARIMH XIM X l7ll7X44i07« PROPAOOR X4I SHAOYWOOORO OWNBRNAME LOUSE A CANCnHOPf TAXPAYER LOUSEACSAHCBLHOPr KAMWAOOR X4I SHAOYWOOORO WAYZATAMN 55X1 PROPAOOR X I7II7X4IIM5 XX SH0RELR4EDR OWNCRHAME VOYACEURIERVfClCENTERS BC TAJa»AY0l HAMWAOOR YOYAOPUR SERVCE CENTERS BC POBOXM NAVARRE MN SXf3 X I7II7X44MX PROPAOOR X ADORSnUNASSOXO OWNBRNAME aTYOPORONO TAKPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAME/AOOR POBOXX CRYSTALBAYMN XIX PRQPAaOR X 1711X54X101 XX SNORELMBOR OWNERNAMB LEROYOAVIDKOEHHEN TAXPAYER LEROY KOEMNIH NAME/AOOR JMBIHORBUNE OR POBOXI NAVARRIMN 55X3 X I7II7X4XIB3 PROPAOOR XI5 IMAOYWOOORO OWMXHAME SlIBCNMRTTSJfCHMIDTTRST T/UffAYO STEPHEN RSUZAHNBSCIO440T NAMOAOOIt IXaiOGMLAHOBLVO MOUND MN 55X4 X XI17X1X04 PROPAOOR 34X SNORBLBXOR OR/NCBNAME RMReAVtNVPAMR.VLTDPINRP TAXPA^'ER NAMWAOOR RCNAROMREAViSNV •EVUVINQ TRUST U4aSHWYN05 YOlXOAMEKCAaiN XXI It xiimixax rROPAjDR M AOtmeaiMiAtsamo OWNERHAME KELLY COVEIBMTWNRSASMOHONO TAXPAYER KnLVCOVEMMOWNlXASWOilONO NAMB/AOOB Hf7KfU.YAVE IXCaSIORMN SSJll a * X4 / Hrnru'pin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Parcel Information Parc«l ID 1711723440100 Houm Numb«r 3302 8tr»#t Hmme SHORELINE DR JNi It not B legally nconM map. II rapraaanta a compilation of Intotmation mid data from City, County, and Stata road authorities and other aources. 0 f ».• i4^'J«-J.' -J '-------V-" r -1 exhibit J MimrTKsorTMB ORONO PLAffNlNG COMMISSION MKRTING Mom49ft J«M 2t, IMS S:M •*cWd( lum. 13.^^ilS-3Uf BAY NCWKIRK, I4S9 MIOREUNC DRIVB. CONDITION^OSI PCRMrT. S:4JrA£^7FJH. Jim SmiHi. Confl^Lf prtteni on behtlf of Rty NcnAii Curiii «alcd the ippIK^^re rcquetlifif a conditional uta pannit j^lOtr to rapair a waahoiil aiaa on Hia lakayanUlopacauaidby Ufi^Bp^<’rtt^<Badlfaa. TM apgBEms am propoaing a aeHca of nitdananean waits to ntmediaia a]llk|air tha wMlioulma.nlMitiog a natun! looking slope wiltiOMi fttainiog walla. Siatr cacomwiada appraval of ll» coodUioiii^Hpannk auiiiiact to llw cUy engineer'a recommendalionn. Cuftif aolad llic city eaginaar hta not it|jpKd thalMlfeocnl niviacd plan. Smith iiatcd ha laccivcd a call froo|4rpropafty ownarflAL!i>^ indicaied that ha had alomil leavea and other debria in that aiaa for ya^KvIiich waa rtawaad along «M|e tma, and ill tha piopetty o«vficf*s opinion the ramoval of caoiad the washoiil rsiher than ttirlAgvat of Iha dead traa. Thera ware no pubIMKmnenia latMdlng this applic*iion. Bremer maraiflRmpf aacoadad, la rtemwamad approval of AppMrattea Jim SatHh of CoactplJ^lKaplag oa heliall oC Ray and Nylene Newkirk, 14fl ShareMai DrU^naNag of a aat permit la arda** to ripair a waak aat area on Iha taka yard alapa aahi^Bp fit Ittcndaflaai of lit CMy Caglater. VOTE* Ayta€,NaytS lA MS-3121 NARROWS SALOON, JAMtS ANDtRST AND CINDY SUDNCIMLK, 3312 .SHORKUNR DRIVE, CONDITION At. USE PCRMITACOMMEKClAt SITE ri,<\N REVIE3V. 1:47 PAI.-lt!M PAL iamea Andertl and Cindy Sgdheimcf. Applicania, ivere prvaem. Gaflron Waled the applicants am napieaiing an immdment to their conditional use permit in nntei to expand the ciiwmg Claai It bai/rcataurant into the ipxea currently occupied by the di><ck;^«i;t Ci^d iut PAGE 29 7,\' r*- • %i MINUTES OP HIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 20, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. S'. Ann Itait Fuluoat, M pcraul • Idtciwa iddilioa and to petmu oiNdoac taiing ai the from and rear of Uie buiUmg. Tha piapaty ia zoned B-l. Rebil Sales Buaineas Dinrict, with a CU$$ II realaurani being ^ % allowed as a coadiiional uae. The applicaiNs received tbeir condtltonal uae permit in 2000. OafTron aaied m lenrn of the propoaed expansion of Ihii binineta. the following questioni^lCuId be addftts d* 1. 2. Do the propoaed physical facilities meet applicable zoning code standards? Do the proposed physical facilittct meet applicable building code standards? GafTioii noted building code itsues would scnerally be addieaaed by the Invpo-tjona Department pnor to issuance of building pennita. Ooci the UK of (he property meet appliuUe ming and munieipel code ttandanb'>J. 4. BecawK Ibe propoaed we is a condilMMi Main the D-IDittnci what condiiiona or lotnctioni Ihould be placed on dw UK to anauie tbM it ia Gornpaiible with funoundiiig land wea. 0 The applcanu arc requesting the fotfowing: 1. Amendment of the ej^*ng coaditioiial use permit to allow a 50* by 44* iiucrioi eK|iaitston of tlw V bar/rettiurani into ilw spaces currently occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions. 2. Amcndm^ of the ciusting conditioiial use |.cnnii to allow outdoor leaimg at the front of the huildiflf aloogShoreliac Drive mcaaunng approximately 532 square feet in area or approximately 30 *^®?f*^** ^ exiting sidewalk caacment in tavw ©ftfic Cily be cnejt^.hcd upon by approximaicly 4.5 feet 3. Amondmanr of the exitting conduionat use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the building adjacent to the City-owned parking lot but wnhin the appli .-ant’s property, measuring 1 .666 iquaic lect in area or approximately 84 additional aeaii 4 imenof side yard building setback vanante (e.iii aide) to pe niii a 13 ’ b> 'c Liicbcn addition appfoximalcty 8 2 fed fnun the side !c>! line when IS* ia nortmlly ic fUircd and 8 2* currently exists ar* PACE .R> i^iliiiiiiMiiiiilniria i 1 ■? .r" vr MINUTES OF TUB OEONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MtnSay, Sum IM, 2tOS 4:M o’clock |MII«%s- 5. Front yard building tdbock virianco to pormii • (hwii yard •etbock of f * when 35* it nofimlly coquMaad l6*cuainUy oxiEiioollewcoiiilnictionorovaiibule. Tho Wjtibiile addition would cncfoack 45* omo tha ajdawalk riaamawt and havo a 0* wtback from the .lighway caacment). 6. Front and rear yard vartaacf<« would ba required at a front ^*r J of 20* it normally required and an unobatnictcd rear prd of 30* ta normally required where propoaed weatibule and pltnler boaet would encroock on theae yard raquiretnciUi Oaffton ataled the apptlttiitt arc pfopoting to ednetnict a 13* by 16* kitcHen addUion to the northcaat comar of the buUdUif. THecaaiaraaidalollineraquIriaa IS-lboiaelback wh^ciheeuUmgbuiUinf and the ptopoaad addition am only U IkI Horn tha lot line. Tha kilciicn addition would ba tolely located on the applicant*! property where it wouki not encroach on any of tlie many eatements currently reatricling the property in aome way. The property t laittt of acrea or 13,656 aquare feet where a minimum lot aioB orapproximololy 20JOOO aquore fhai if niquiivd. Oallioooolodthtiia an tailing lot of record and lot area ti not an itaue. OafYWm lUlod hardcover on the ^ile it virtually 100 percen t anil would normally be allowed 35 pcfcant GoRVon Bated die appliconit am not propoaiog any change to the hardcover eacopt for poaiibly ineorporating aoma amall giaon araaa in tha Afom. The applicanu arc propoaing incrcoaing the itnictural coverage on thii lot ftom 35 percent to 38 percent. OafTron gated a kitchen addition at this location would reduea the eaiatiiig 25.5 loot walMo-wall •cpamioabelmienihoeocntracrvicomatiooaodtlieNarrowtbuilduigtojuituiider2l Ibet, adding to a more congotcU iiluaticn both vitually and fhiro a IrafTic imndpoifit The aceem driveway eammeot conidor iato the City paikiog lot at this locatkm it IS feet wide, wtthin 0.7* of tha extating Narrmvt building and within four feet of the mivicc station. Given that the acccu driveway hat a bend in it just north of the Narmwt huiMiog. further reatrietioM by a kitchen txpo naioo in this aio would be itupproprielc. One option to consider would bo lo offset the kitchen addition at least five fed wegward ■long iNe^^eth tide of the buildtog to llml dm vituil and funciimal comiricllone are miniinizcd and Ihu titmi bet jlrecn the Nnrrowt and the mrvice eieiion duet not decrenm. I’AGkSI ,v 'r---. X.. . .:v MINIH ESOK THF. ORONO PLANNING COhfMlSSION MEETING Monday, June 20.2005 6:00 o'clock r m. # Suff findt that a tide miback variance to allow the kitchen addition is proposed would not be ’ appigprialtt. A tide leibick variincc of about two feet die northeatteriy comer of an offset rectangular kitchen addition would maintaio the existing level of separation between the Harrows and the service station. In addition, the applicatU ts proposing a vestibule entrance approximately 7* by 13.5* at the front of the building along Shoreline Drive. The proposed vestibule would allow for a doub’e door system at tlie ftool entrance in an effort to contain interior noise. TTc vestibule addition shows six dooa; a double set of enlxmace andlpj^ two single doors opening to each side of the proposed outdoor seating. The i^l inning vandards require a front yard of 20 feet depth and a building serback of^5/cei from the from Im line The exisimg building is located 16 5 feel from the iront lot line, and therefore already encroachri oiv both the * ml yaid and building setback mmimuim. The proposed vestihufe ivould f loinide an n.'dUioinJ St. .en feet atrcct'Ward. requiring variance approval. AddinoosUy, the vetiihbie would be a permanent ohtiniction encroaching five foci into die Gty*s lidfwalk easement. Gaflnm stated the off-iueet parking requncnieni is appioximaidy 80 stalls, which is based on lU of (he outside anting and inside snting. The businesses existing on the nortli side of Shoreline Drive west of Shadywood Road. Iisve historicaity shared the City*owned parking lot located to the rear of all the hufinesam. This le out ofnecessityaaliiiiilcdofi-tKertparkinfexiirsnIoiifShorctuw Drive CcfT;c<i iadicaia^ lo *964, the Navarre municipal paiking lot was acquirad and improv ed - The busineasrs ihst back up to (he parking lot were origMially asaeaaed for the imptovemcn a to it tmed on dw.r r iouat M fo>fU4ge on a traveled street. The Nanows sue was assessed for i04 5 feet ot frontage o* e*ght percent ,«/ Ike total fnaitage assessed At the time of asaeismenl. no coramiiments were made (hat woiikt api'n.tion apccific aumbats of parking atails to specific propemet GafTiun slated wuhout detailed floor pUns ol al! o in ing buamams, City staff cannot cakulau w.*i, any accufscy how nwch pariiqg U lecluiicalfy required by Cny Code fur ail the busintsics ha\ aig rights *o the lot. fac;* 31 MDOrmOTTIIt ORONO FLANMNO COMMISSION MtSTINC MMd«r,JaM2S.MW QamoniioiedihcnMVKvmlcaMtntittiafbctiftgliowttMappHGanUcaiiuKlhiipropcny. Aa mpvu •iid«ym twr?Kme»ailapwvidtiecwifrwBSIiottlfawDrii>tlodicaty-o%»iiedp<riaiiglot Tlik cxiHt aloni iIm CMitni 7 J btt orikt prapoty. and wh«b net cncroKhcd upon ^ any of ihe propoMd impfoy cmeati. iu ftwctionaitty may be imptctey hy U» kiichan addition at pmpoaad. In addition, t highway tmtrmM appreaimaltty lan $m widt taiiiaaloQi die ftonl lot line. Thit eaiement it in fhvor of HeniiipinCoinilyeodwillnolboeiicrancliidu|MMibyaayorihcpcopoaedimpcovti»nti. An addilioiial eaaemenl fbr lidcwalk purpoees eppcoximaldy 4 J ftel wide exiiU alofig ilic noitli aide of the higliway eaeameolandieinlmrortheCky. Tlw edftofililaeaacnxniia about «wo fed rainiilie front %raJI of the boilding and iecncfoocbtd upon by ibeexiwiiif roof ovcrhafif. An undarpound utility and dectnc diainbution eaiemeni alto e\i«. Oafftonindicaied the applkama am natpiopaaipg any additional ti^agi.. WHb tlw proponed etponahm into the fonwinde/of the building, tba applicant would now be peiimdcd 112 atpaua feel of total ti^iaps with a tingle aign not toeaoeed SO agunce Ibd. Galfton naiad the applkam baa not indicalad on the plana that any new lighting it prepoaed. Tbeli^ting in ibe City-owned paHong loi will fcinaia unchangad; bowc«tr. iha appliaonl dwuld ba aaked u> addreaa whether any new lighting will be pmpoeed fbr the outdoor aeariog aftoa. OaflVon Mated Uie 2000 conditional \m permit ret|ulrcd the feH(#ning: I. TlieappliaioltiatliiiataIlalwo-doorayaicma*llierearcnirBneetoinHiallStaie'luildiiigand rue Code ilendMd^ The pnipootoriliadaon would be to allow cuatomeri to enter and exit ihe building wnhowaHowiiignotae to leave the building. They ahouhl be apaeed to one door would ckwe belbfc the aecood door ia opcnod. All doora ahall lumain cloaed at all timet. t\urpl when cnteruig uf cx^^^lhe building. 1 live enicitainmeiU will end at 11:30 a.m. each night and ihc niloon dull cKue at I 00 .t.ra euch iiighL rAGKSJ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMhUSSlON MEETING Monday, June 20.2005 6:00 o'clock p.ni. 3. The from door ilull not be uaed aa an entrance during (he period of time the building it uted for live emetlainmenL A one-year lime period ii required for the applicant to monitor the uae of the building and the front entrance Alter one year the City of Omno will review the uae of the buildiog in rdation to the live eeteitainaienl and ooiae leveti generated by die live cntertainnicnl u:^ 4. The prapeity it lubjacl to the lign ordinance for temporary and permanent sign*. No iigni can be localed on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City ofOrono. 5. Noise dull be hdd to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 6. The tale of intoxicating liqoor requires the busincas to bavu a valid liquor Ikense with the Ciy of Orono. Oamon noted the above conditions with regird to changes to the physics] elemeiits of the building have been complied wkh. The property has conUmied to hive a valid liquor lioeost. The operation: I aap^it (cmidilioiis 3,3, and 5; have generally been complied with, although the City ts aware of ongoing concerns expeetaed by various area rcsidenu about the noiae and lale-oight trafTic anocuied wtrti the Narrot%a operation. Tha City has received complaints that the doors have been open for extended perioda on occawona, creating a noiw trapad fbr the funoundmg neighborhood. GafTirn roied a letter has been reoived from Orofio*i police chicrexprcMing their concerns rcgsrding ibe expansion and the r act it would have on noise, accidents, litter, parking and safety. QalTron lequawcd the Planning Commissioa consider the following with regards to this applicatioK 1. Is the propoaed location of the use wacoMd with the objectives oTlhemuag code and the purpoees of Ihc D-1 diRrid and Uw Comprehensive Plan? 2 Wilt the tocation of the piopoaad uee and the proposed condmons undei which it will be opcr.iied Of tiM'iiuiiied be detnmenijl to the public health, safety welfare, or be maienally injurious to propcities or iinpimxments in the vicinity? PACE 34 i mr‘T’ viim MINUTES OF Tits ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MESTING MMday, J«m 111, IMS <:M o'dock pjm. 4 1. ltthspr«ponduMe<MvMM««rilh''-etuiToundingbittiMudi«riclMdraiidmlial aeighboftiood^ iraM.wtiMu|)ocisorili«gMimk*iiinc<mi|iMibl(7 WhM mdlwiii m iviihble lo mitigsie rtiOM aipcds? 4. If liw propoted u« luppoftfil by adetiuafe inRtitructifre, primarily acccn and parking availability? SliouM Hiidita b« dona In detcrmint whalhcr parking demanda on iho lot by all inert am actually compatible baaed on varying paak lima uaage naeda for lha various businesses? Do ilie propoaed additions and uaea hast any potential nagp!i% impacts on ftinctionality of the parking lot« Ihe sidewalks, oracctsaionaighboriogpr lertics? If ao. vdwt changes migbt be made to minimitt ihoae impacts? GanVon Mated the City's Comprehansiva Plan man that *nimitcd commcfclal areas will be provided fbr neighbnrhood aarviea buoinaaaa. The primary hinction of Orono's commercial aicas will be lo provide thott aslail. coiwBereial and eenriee buainettis wkicb are directly aeconry to eerve Orono'a urban and rural msidmis. Cocuncrcinl developintnl aritl be limiled to aroM whera futt urban servicea. including ■amkipalaaiiitanranwar and ndnqualtlrmnaportation are available. Conumrcial development ofa tegional natino which would increatt irafnc, particuUriy on collector streeia aerving low denoity residential development, will be discouraged." In addition, commercial and indiMlrial developmtol WIU not be petviilied to advtvody afTa jt neighboring residenlial property. GafTron indieeled the City'i Land Uae Man mgsrding urban commeicbl land uac makea the following statefne.tl regarding Navarre. *Tlie rngior commercial center ofOrano will cnntimic to be Ihe croaaroadt center of Neverre. TMa area wilt provide tumdffit opportunity for neighborhood retail and aervicc tusincSKs. plus adctpMie prolestional onkca, lo aerve the acedi of moat Orono lesidems Accessory rimetioee such as ofTicea and owner-occupied living nnilf or limiled mulii-raiaity developmenls will be consMeredapproprtaieinornearlheNavarTccommcfcUlaica. The scale end type of mail uars in n IMhainan-ftiefidl/ cnvnonmeiM is the mual impncianl dcvdopmmi poramdcr for the Navane commercal area The Cey will encoungo rvikveiapmeni of indtvidiial commercial sites in Navifft lo allow for an tspandad langa of orighlmrhood arrvkcs and local smnll buiificm opportimilkt." PAGE 35 m MINUTES OF THE ORCXNO ri-ANNING COMMLSSION MEETING Monday, June iO, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. S>. GafTron indicated StafT feels the possible regional disw of the entertaimneni nf ^vptn^^ should be considered in deieimining whether the propoaed use has the potential to become incompatible with Ihe City i goals for Havane or with the tunoundmg residential development. Tlie expansion may push the sttt or iragmtiide of tlie use beyond the scale Hut is compstible wuh the surrounding neighborhood. • Staff recommends Ihe following; 1. The proposed use should be required to Incorporale a livo^Soor syiiein for ail entrance and exit poims, along with operational requitemenu that such doors remain closed during t.mes of musical or other noise producing anieilauimenl, lo minimize or eliminate nctse impacts !o the surrounding aetghbofhood. 2. The proposed vestibule that would extend inio the City's sidewalk cMemnu slioutd be dented, and n stmilar vestibule should be developed within the walls of the existii^ building. 3. The propottd kitchen expulsion at the oorthesst comer oftbe buUding should be ledesigncd to be ofTset at least five feet wetfward along the north side of the building ao that the visual and Ainctional sepaiale between tlie Narrows building and the sd/oinmg service stai*oo «Uws not decrease. 4 The propoaed decorative walls surrounding the tear paiio area should be acceptable subject to confimwtioo by the applicant that they will not violate any cxi«»- • easemema The proposed planter boxes require a variance as they are considered an encroachment of the required 30 foot tear yard. Other than the walb and pbofer boxes, the proposed small vestibule and Ihc relecaaed kitchen addiuon, no other pennansxi ftfucluies should be allowed to the rear of the building. The Pbim ng Commission should cofiSHki whether the ptopoatd landscaping plan at the rear of the building it aocaptahlt as a bnrricf or bufler to the pnikuig loi and/or the lesidcniial neighborhood to the northwest, if such barrier or bufler is needed. 5. Plarming Commissidn should coiiiidci whethc' i»‘e proposed exterior sear mg toih to ilie from and mt of the budding is appropriate for the Diurict c mI under what tiandards or limitations such um PACE 36 MlNtiTBSOVTHl 0R0N01tjefNWG€X>MMl8S10H»iirrt.G MM4ty, Hm 21^ 2MS •*doch p.ai. ihouki b« iliowcd Roitnlid liimiatiom or ciMKtitiiim could addiM ■ppropriait miotei aiid loctikm of ' in MlidiOA 10 lot linti. ioMonii, teHdiH de.; bourt 0#altowcd outdoor teatiof um ; U^tli^ of outdoor Milt; ftneiiii fbr outdoor itoiifig; Iho uit of unlmUat or odicr ameiutki; wiNllior Md wliiff lucli ouliidi imy bi tppiopriaie fbr t^uor Mfvfeo, ind how Mich Mivioo If controlled (tlut laiy bt • iMio approprliit ftuMtioii far Iho liquor lictMC ippcovol piocai); aod My oUior atpectt of outdoor iiitiiig tbai iliQuId bo rmcwod. 6 THoPlaofliocCouiiiiifoioofbouldcootidifwheihtrexponflon of lot covert^ by iinjcnifeirhHn oppcoxinoidy3dp0fcofilloippfoxtiiitfty 31 poiconi (wbwo l5ptfCtoli«ollo«ifd)iijuiiiAodbyiho coouBMciil uw aod^by die olToito porlaot 7. The Ptooning Coiiuniwioii fhould cooiidw wholber porbiog for the prapoml uio io odequolo, and iroot, wbii^lM levioioiio/iuductiQiii or uie Undtiiiom be needed to meht the perking work. The lOgBeftuig tbet tbe epplicini hire e reetlliiil to provide a ddiikd perkiiit ttM^ 10 ihow wbeihcr perking If ea iwoo. 1 TtePleMUfvOoinniieiooiiwyldftviewwhetelhlpfqfOeediijnii^tij^iigia^Mh hendlteg^fMOOniog fccQitiee ect edegeole. 9. plenning Conunioeion fhould coeetder whether die cimtniliiiiili on hourt of operation ere iftbero10. PteoeiBiDwilBdfilonfheotdieidow the wtiiieweod Orel pubhc era other ioBoee not ideoiiM thfi need to bi eddnfiid. lUhn inquired whetfiof the appikauti would like to erahe eny rnraraenti eiUne lime or proceed wkbiho AAdem iidkaild ho would like to praoood with Iho public heenog. fUho opened tho public heoringewt icqutwed thei indhddoerf commonubo held to c min iiwungf rive hmd Hoyt. 2573 kelly Avenue, iteted the lot doee not comply wah tbe Cdy'i raibick roqui.*efnenii PACK 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEKTINC Monday, June 20, 200$ 6:00 o'clock p.m. end the heidcovcr. wMh the outdoor eealiog added in Uw hardcovor celculation, incrcBfa Ihe ctnicUiciP'^ coverage to 53 pcfcem. Moyt mitd the norm ii probably 0 percent for iiioft citiea lor retail devetopiiwnL Oaffron dated bccauce the lence is leraihaaftu feet, the outdoor seating arcae would not be counted as atnictural coverage Hoyt commanled that ii merely a technicality and should be contidcied ilructutal coverage. Hoyt indiewed he was in utiendaece at a itiecfing presided over by Mayor iabbour where ii waa dated that there would be a policy orao toleraaoe oo vaiieiioef. Hoyt nolad Ihel a number of vanances requeating imallcr hardcover incroMet were denied by that council and that they pale in comparison to Uiis application. Hoyi exiircesed concerns ragarding the limited parking in this aim llo)*! pointed out the lot is currenlty 32 stalls short and that chtsexpeoaioeww i hirthcr reduce the aaoual of perking available on the sit& Hoyt suiled this cipenaion would severely restrict the ability of another redauram to come into this iiee Hoyt staled with regard lo the cxisUng condilioiiel use p«niit. hem No. 6 U in compliance, but at ocher timea during the year the other condkioM era not in conxsliancc Ilo>i indicated the doors arc open penodicsily a^d that there u an issue with the none coming from Ihe bar and from people revving their moiorcy'clcs. Iloyi dated they have been unable to open iheir windows since they have constructed fheii raaideoccL Hoyt stated in his opinkm diii amcndiiic<J is dirccUy contfary to itie City's Comprehensive Plan and that Ihe Cdy needs to uke an ousralt view of the Havarte area Shcnc DkviM, 3695 Lyrtc Avenue, staled the icsufts lo die rear of (he bmldtog end noled that a bat hat e.xisied in this area fbr a contiderahte number of years Bk-nns siased le her opinion the operation and enponsioo of (he bar would be a finenciatty boost fui the Navarre area and would not nogativc!/ impact Ihe uank m the area. Bkyins waled Nie would prete to kmk at an ousdeordmuig area rather than the dumpsters pack 3S ----------------------«--■M 4.-^wnnr>^ -* m;*:m-t fe. MTNinrtsorTfiB OnOHO rLANNING COMMISSION MBBTINC MMday.iiitM 3S.2f05 i:0t o’clock McH(Pcier«on.234l Siiodywood lUod. Utod he Km ncvr collod to cowploin tboik the bof bui nond Uiai iKt ooiii hos iocwwl o¥tr lln yton lifici Amkrn hot lakofi ovor the opMion of the bor. Fettnon •tiiod Im iKt tuamitr mofUht the note It ifiloteablc. NH«non ttaied he would prefer to look at Ibc dunyilHi father IImmi having a tofsi fiuihber of people pMtyifig ctee lo Ida hock yoed. Rahn ingutied whether the incroeae in note ii coming from the live mutic. Peierion indicotcd il it largely during the tummen and it coowa from the biketi. Chtis lehnaon, 1200 RhitlipeDriv,indicitai he owne and epemea the hardware goto that it located nc^f door to die Nanowe Saloon and tlM In general he it in favor of buaineM and improvcmenis lo buaUita. lohfiaon indicated ha hat a major concern concemiiig the perking in ihe aroo and that Ihc parking behind hit dote ftarti to fill up around S OO, which graolly inpocta lha abtlUy of hia cuatenen lo pork in cloao ptoaimity to hii aiort. lohnaon aialad ha it unauni whoi impact iheeapnntion would hove on the pnrking during the day and at nighl. iohnoon inguirod whither there would ba a buffer between hit budding and Iho outdoor acating area. Chuck Nadler, 2S09 Kelly Avenue, alaied he lepreaenii approiimoiely 16 femitte who live around Kalty Avanua. Nadlar indicalcd approauiwlaty ona year ago Ihay formed NctghborB for a Dcncr Navarro and that they feel a momiorium it naotiaary in order te Navarre lo addreta future development in tint area. Nadler doled if Ihia profect it approved, it would grtdiy redrKt the fticuie development of other buainamci in thia aieo. Nadler ateHl the eunoot piopamt ia ovenixed given the parking and lot mdri^iont and Ihai tlicri ia no haidihip that am he feund hthcrem with tho land io gram Iht varinneet. Nadler naiad a vcdibulc aieo could be candfuciad widiin the etiahng dr«ciuru. Nadler daiud in hit view the modoor tenting « penmnent and ihould be lontulercd m auch by the Pfenning Commiauon Nadler dated itw kiMien could aim be etpanded wUhia the utidtng budding. Nidlct invalid he cunrurt with the concerna nuacd by Ife; fvtidcni% and giffeoaciraing the parking. •dermanding ihii piopomi more Ihon triplet the tiac of the buihhng and doea not I II PACi; 29 MINUTES OPTffS OnONO rf JUWtNG commission meeting Monday, June 20, ZOOS 6:00 o'clock p.m.^44 IO with the Ciiy*a Comprchemivc Plan Nadler dated Ihc ovmor should be made to deal more elTectively with Ihe oomplaiiHi *-nd istuct that cunnenify exid pitoc to expanding Nadler concurred with the issuet raited by the police chief, and tuggatted the Planning Commimion deny the tpplicaiion and direct the applkaiit to ruvim hit applicatioo to avr^id the oced to requed any variances and be more m compliance with Cuy Codat. Sam Marficld, 2435 North Shore Drive, staled he likes to frequent the Narrows Saloon and is in fa\^r of the sidewalk cafe biiog proponed. Aliaba Butter, indicated the is the owner of the lignaga busineti located near the Nanorvt Salooii aod list Ihe Nanowi Saloon has raised an awareneti of the other bustnestea in the aiaa and should bt considered an aiMt to the community. Butler dated Jim and Gndy have taiard thousands of dollars for the comnuuiity that they ihould be applauded for. Butler staled she works sometimes until 2 00 or 3 00 in the morning and that the note at that time of day from the Narrowi Saloon does not equal that created by rush hour tnflic Bullar dated in her view the expansion would not impact dia parking in the area, noting that Ihe busy time for the bar statte at around 7.00, B:00 p m. fiuilct suggoted creding some signs tedneting parkirtg in certain apota for the hardware dore Butler stated in her view ihe patio would enhance the building and the area. Duller stated currcmiy the budding is an eymom. Lots Mudlow, 3431 Lyric Avenue, dated she does not appreciaic Ihe note generated from Ibt Narrows Saloon and that lha hu a concern ths expansion will result in parkuig along Lyric Avenue, which is already quite narrow. Hudtow indicated she does ohjcci to the outdoor sealing area due to the notac that could be generated. Iludlow reiacd a concern regarding ibe safely of children ui and near the Navarm Park With the incraasc in lafTic PAGE 40 i i m MINirrUOPTHE OBOriO fLANNlNO CCMMISSIOM MtCTlNG J«m 7% IMS i:M •*ciKk pjm. 4^ Rkk Rics, 2700 Kdly Ammc, mmtd In 4id rtOMily Nitfid • iNi|Mw>i<»oM mMting Mid ihM Ihtre «vas a lot of cM§§tr«ltd Ric« tiatcd H« routinely doa ■ neiglilKKtiood clcnnup end ho hat not lud 10 pick up ^dlrnnf^ U m N wtowi Saloon. Rko ladkaNd ka alao didl^inr^omt partdfig sUMfy at varioui times orUie day ami tlNl t« has not nolkidaiiypraklcfniwilliporkioi. Rice aMd Ika IraCnc m U h area %vouM dtmra out the muiic from the bar. Rkeiadkaicd Ike Nanows Saloon caanol be aaeignedibe Marne for Ike noise coming from moiofcyclee and tkat a utry small number of motofcyclee actually ate alopping at ike Nanowt Saleoa. Rice alaied a moreleria m is a NaUtactiC and it imeadail leNoptkeeepaweionafikchafbaNa ufant. Rice commented ike Cowpickenaim Plan could be improuMl aomewkai Ibr ihit anea. Rke noted a luiikberofnon-Kavanefcsidents do spend Iheir money in Neeane and ikai this axpaasion uNutd nnancialiy kelp ike Hawfin ana and kelp lay ike fbuadalion for inpfoela g tke Navtrrc area. David llardnn, 2S15 Kelly Avenue, indicalcd ha would like lo commend ikt ownera of Ike Narrowi Saloon for aitempling to improve Ike ane kui iluil he haa a concern lagarding iko ponailal increon in inllk caund ky tMe eiipaaiioa, wkkk n not In iha be« iaaMeiN ofNavam. Hanktn skied ke would like to ace ike ana impnavaU but that be it nol in aupport of wkai ia currently being piupuMDd and U mI indoor vaaiftulea could be added 10 kelp wiiktkaaoiasaiinaiiQn. Ifenken nuced tke dmira ate kS opan occaawaaUy daring ika aununer and tkat ibaia ia very liimicd room for outdoor icaiing in liom of ikt butiduig. Sue Sckwdik, 25SS KtMy Anana s, sinNd krr ftmiMy kea laaid fd at ikm lacminn liaoc IMS and ska has teen many i’lMngCf to Ikis aien over ika years. SchmidI stated in her mind one uf On beN Uiinga to coma luihe Navarra araakaelNaa the H«fuwt8akwn and that abets in hvoc of ibe eepanai on. Gori llankcn, Watertown, aiaied Ike amount of traffic on Highway 15 and 19 « not dac lo ika Narrows Saloon bat ii Ju« general traflk m Sn area. Nnnken aialod m ber view a kn of the noiac b actually bcin^ gcncrNed by LonI nckbei s and not the Naimnn SaliMM I bi dicn ttaf cd the rulei and rvguUHjin of a city neail 10 be adaptod at an Mioi ebangea and from PAGkdl " MINUTES OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MF.ETINC Monday, Jane 20,2005 6:00 o'clock pjn. Chrifline VateninT indicaced the ii in iha pcoccu of icnovaiing ike Maicd Dittrich house and that in ho ' opinion the Nanowt Stioon has been a great addition to iht City ofNavarre. Valerius stated Navarre is III need of other businestes and that the is in support of the e^unsion because it will help keep >*»-*«*r*f in Na\ ane. Valenus staled she lias conducted her own parking ttudy and that a lot of people who uillize the Pack-N* Ride in the neighborhood lend to park in Uie main customer area railier than poiiing in the west comer. Steve Paieale, 26S4 Lydbid Avenue, staled he moved to the area appm\imalely two years ago and that: the Narrows Saloon is a nice asset to the area. Parcnic indicated the expansion would help incrcaat tke tcoiiomy of llie area and would help lay the foundaiion for improvement to this area. Ptrenie staled their residence is located higher than most of the othcf buildings in the stea and thtf ^ noise gcnerNcd from the ber is not an imuc Pareote staled Ike noise general^ (torn the Itaflk in the arcs b more of a nuisanee than ihc noNe from the bat. Shawn Reesa, County Road 19, stated he has resided ui this area since he was a young child and that there have always been motorcycles in the area. Reese staled ha is ui favor of the expansion and that the busineas has done a lot for the area. Roeae stated Jim and Ciody should be coimnendad for all they have done fui the community. Richaid Meyers, 7195 Bayvkw n«cr, indicaied he <h>cs not hear noise Crmn tlic Nitrows but father noise from the traffic IB the net. Meyers auied the Narrows Saloon w a ma>or improvcinent to Navjtre and poiaiad out that Juu .kodersl has generously donated money over the years to the City's parks Meycts staled the Narrows Saloon is a netg}«korkood bar and has Iwlpcd lo revitalize the communHy and that Ihc owners should be given ciedii for the good that they have done. Thomas Lowe. 3295 Carman Road, noted Chooo's police chief had ourimed a number of coocciin U n I the police depBfliiieiil has with ths Nanows Salooii Lowe aiNed a msjoruy of the neighbors resided in the mti Pitot to the Namiwv Saloon being there and tlui the exf^snsion of the bat wnuid have a negative PACE 42 *'-. ■ /iW-'\£':i'i-ij}i%. T;:'L^vy;^ MINUTCSOVTIlt ORONO fLAHtmC COMMISaON MKlTlffG MMi4ay,J«M2t,2tH i:M •*dtck pjH« hapMoaUwwiihkofhoad. Lo»<»mto«dieoiietmiij»rdiii*ilieclo»»|iro»iiniiyoriheN«*irt«l*!uk ^ mJ cfeiUm piaqrwg in ikt Ml*. Tiiw«Wtlww.Mo«<iii!*rfU»lW«Stlooiil*.*tiifcodtt*l|mM«*fe^ WihmriwScated •W «lo*i hw AiM lo At t»r hr hwdi «iul thuihey viiii Uio |wfc «id Im iw tuptriowed »ny praMtaiwidieiniiitsAtMfML Wrtmtf wiledltobiwtiBetljotofNwirwhMioitoilwiAwnt biaiMtt Md Am tho Ntirawt Saltan hit pmbiMy ton iht mtlii dM bMtiiwM It Mp levilalfaK Ais ana. Dn Itanln, MMcd to ton naitod it Ala ant linn IMS and to tol n« ton Ai NMnm, Saloon tot tolpad w nvdalin At Mnanily. Hra iton MiHd wlilatpltiatAatoflnihel|iedioaapandnMjMt Navana bM Aa lato ant In lenoal and itol to la too panant in aanwt of ito ptajaet Mika Cantninp, 10 Wttdpactor Mr K«M. Tanka Bay. inicand to toa noAad law anfbnaMani and ctmaAma Ac UiaptMMyttii and Am to likta to villi itoNamwi Saloon. Cwnmln|aRalcdlto Maaitwa Satoon it ona of Aa bw pltcai to can vM and Atl caniltoiaMi. JMt Carntron iMid ilK Nvmwt IM helpad to bfkig comiHMily lOltHiir ami iMf helped tile acoimay oT Hit Na vane aan. Marti Schmidt. J499 Lyrtc Avcmii, alaied in hia opiidon ihmv ia aome axagpintf ioa eoaccmiai the wnuiNii of num fidm im Nanowa Saloon and iha lack of parkin| in the amn. Schmldl noted dm highway b alKm^ buoy and Ihal Um eapanaion will not aignifiomUy raiat lha amminl of Schmidt atolcd hi lUlly lupiiorta iha capanaimi. Ito pilUic kntino ptAon of ito nMciit« «at dotad M 10:13 p.m. Siiiltoinmnninl*il«Millinw.»»n^-..j.., -||ltlliaM pillluii . flU bwiUiiig. SuAwinwrManrf Any would like to »c«onimodato Ito aatitoalhM Ilka to Itojuanl Ito Nanowa Sahton at wall at enan a tontuvi ana, wbieb necaattoiaa At naad to aapand At kiieton. Am Wm «Mcd itoy an wilKap to aavita Aa« plan aonwwtol. ^**^^*****^****^*^*M^*^*^^**OamawaMldtoconaainadand atokaicd unawtol. Sudhalnnr itatad Itoy WAdd Uto to w«k wiA Ito Cay M tniva m a plan itoi woiks for avttytody. rAce 43 ...........------------- minutes OF THE ORONO FLANNINC COMMISSION MCCTINC Monday, June 20,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Rahn inquired wtoitor alcohol would be larved in ito ouidoor naiinT^-------------------------------- Sudtoinar Haled Itoy eumnlly tovo 17 tablet and thai they would like to »y pvfl d Ae aie*. Sadtoimn indicaled they would like to aerve alcobol ia ihal am. AndeiM HMad then would noi be mutic in ibe outdoor ealinp area. Kampfataied to U in asmmeol wilh a oiaiorily oflto eoaunama tvpretsed tonight and Aat Ae Ni«ow$ Saloon it ao atwt to Ae Navatre ana. Ken,r indicaled to would liU to aee an interior «tpatnion oflto betliiy. K*«tofnM«lk*doetntidamitoaiaaandliatnolnoliceda|f*MdealofooitolioaiAe NurowaSaloon K^pfrommenlodItoneighbonineJoaepmainiilylollieNanowaSaloondotoveio to taken into eoitoderalioo and Am to ha, a concern W.A Ito oMAdeaeating ana KernpfMMedto would like to aee boA vcHibulea and the kitchen eonalnicied wiAin the exiulng Interior tpaca Sudhtincr insuiied whether iba ouidoor ataiiog ana would be accoplabic if ii it reduced in tile tad •ctecaing is provided Keotof iadkand to All hat a conem WiA At noiaa dial could he penenied liont Ae outdoor loMin, *"*■ HMed by eliminaling Ae oMdaor aaMuig area a nianb t i of the iaauat dealing wiA itw ptrtdng arc cfiminaled. Ltito aWad to undettlanda Ae trarnc noiae iaauea and poinicd OM Ihal Inflic and molurcytle noiae ia a pnblamuiaauniberoranaa. Unto Halad in ha opiaiMi Aa twHibolaa ahould to inwitor at wtU at ito kiichaneapaaaioB. Laalie Hated to haa a coaceniwiA ito ouidoor nMing during Aaai^.mehoiBabM nM ntranarily duttng ito Aylune Lealia laquiied if Ae law auMing ana eoold cloto earlier Am Ito m oflto bcilily eod whMhcr ito ouidoat tewing could to lunaod le the IVoM laAcr than the nar. Sudtoiiuer Hated Ito patio a a new concept for the ana and Ihar tlicy an willing to cootttfet dillmn options. Aiidm* limed cufreiiriy iher. tro tpimuimiidy 20 pmipk ouisHk o« the o«b the senoom of oobe gtornmod hy «m» people silling »! ih« omdiOf mmmg area is mkiiiiiil cowmmed to thcnoirngeiwiaied from the irafTic. Andcnt mated pMpIt like to be om^ Aadani lUiad this is a fACE 44 m MimnrtsopTMc ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MKtTING MiaMy, J—t li, litS i.M •'ctock btuinoi diilnct tiid ihii ho did not illow iIm boian to bo built ooxt to ihii omi. Andcnt ilAlfd he coimol cofdfol the iiolM|oncmod 1^ Itie moloreydeioml other imrik in Uieamu Hoyt wcewmendcd AndM pyrchoM iddfliQml tend if ho wtmt to txpond. Andentiodiadod ho would bo wniiMloicvias hit piaMlooxpofid the kitchen inside oe %vdl ao the vtetibuie. Bremer slated in her view the outdoor seating in the front might be more dangsrous ttwn the rtfir given ilic tmfnc in the area and the VimM amouni of space. Btomcr indicated she it not suppoilivo of the vestibule as cunoNlypiopoied. Brfmtf aialed iM would liia to sot the outdoor seating ca^ one area, screened, limited houra, and done on a ifiai hasif Btomer stated she docs have a concern regarding the parting in this area and that the signs designating polking fbr the hardwart store may not work. Rahnsioaed ho is opposed to the voalibute and that it should bt constructed on die rnkfioc. Kahn staled he wouM be auppoftWa of a trial basis fbr a rodinwd outdoor seating aiaa and rocaomisiidsd the Narrows Saloon doa lot of self-policing of the area to avoid problsmi Rahn staled ha also has an inua with the parking in the area and how that may impact Ibiuro busincsKa that may want to corns mio the irra. Rahn indicated he likes the idea of a haaqiict room. Jurgens suaad in his view ihanuntboroaciHua is lhspaikii« in dw area and the number two imuc it the nnise. lurginsindiaiiail he is supponivs of the outdoor sealing ana but hat soma itssfvaiiDnsahQui Mating in (he ffOnt Jurgens recommended a parking study bo conducted for this amt. Jurpnw toaonunonded the rear oulilaar sealing aioa be enclosed so it can only be acceased from ibe iiwide of Narrows Sakion. Jurgeas Stated he it in agius ms m that ihnv nccdi to be sams typo of caialyil lo help iciuMnaie the Navarro ares and that Sfilling growth is not Iht saiwer. Barg iadiciiscd die has rosided ia this area lac the psat H years and has periodically ra*i|utoioa the A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING hfoaday, Juae 20, 200S 6:00 o'clock p.m. A one person who approached the Planning Committion to help r^ovenalc this area. D«g indicated the is • strong supporter of reviulizing Nsvane and that llie Nirrowt Saloon is a beoefii to the coinmuniry. Barg staled the would like to see Ibe vestibule constnicted on the interior and rcstriaiont on the outdoor seating srea. R^ concurred that there needs to be some rettnetions placed on the outdoor seating f ita. Rahn inquired what function the rear folding donn would serve Sudlieimer stated that is to access the outdoor seating area. Ralui tIaiM he would like m tec doubh doors to hdp reduce the noise. Itagens tf sted a vestibule lo the patio area is necessary in his optmort Ander« stated they do attempt to keep the door closed, especially when there are live baodf In the bar. ftidlieimer pointed out with the expansion that door would becooM an ereer^acy door only and the vestibule would help capture the noise Ifom the nen- cmrance. Jurgens inquirtd whathcr the heating and ventilation for this building should be reviewed Anderst stated a lot of it had lo do with the cigarette smoke and is not as big of an ■—im now. Rahn stored as U relates to the pbns of operation, snme thought should be given to the midiKH seating area tod cacoobmnded that some restrictioo on the hows be placed on the outdoor s fif«*g aie^ Sudheimer suggested rcsincting the hours on the outdoor palto Ic 10 00 or 1 1:00 sriih no eating or drinking in that area after lODO but allow people to go out there to smoke. Rahn sttied he would not be lotaUy oppomd to two scat tables along the front of the building but that he would not be m Ctvor ofan cncroochment Bremer pointed out there could potentially be alcoiiol in that area Sudheimer stated they arc willing to rcstrid alcohol m that aica. Bfemer itaied in her view she erouM ptefitr an expansKm that it done m siages Lcaite ixiicaird he is kaniag in that same direction W.iM*iU/ > j'' •• V ^. ■ = ;J;.--M-.--■ Vi’fifti V M.'.^._ ,y-V--’^;.- ■••■;• 'l.v S HVt '. . >*. J S'j'-'^cVW • A.. ••■ mmimofim OROMO PLANNING COMMISSION MKCTING M«ndiqr,l«M20,2itS 4:St o'clock ^M.% Sodhcimtr Moicd they wouU need lo revtti iMir ptam to ccftect tfm kilcMo expantion in a dirTcrent------ kKMloiiafid iMfVofii¥eNilMl«Qnlliiiiilarior. coiicaiiod Ihcft fhouM M • ptikiog thjdy doiM for Ike aioo. Bfciocr lo^rad MwtlKr the City has racatvod any cornplainis fefsidtnf the nairow width of the paikii« sialte in ihc paiting lot OolTron iiaici he it not awaio of any. Jun|«i tatittlitd wh«lW rti« p*rtdi»t lol eo«ld ta c««ii«*wd aad ir*« |w.p»rty own^ lot coots ha asieaacd. Oaflloo NalaS Sm paffcioi lot fwaSi ID he lahefi into account Mid the oplioos oooMfod. Andsnt indkahid ifiha cxnaing khclmi is dimiiMicd. the amounl ofscoiiiig in the bm/NiftuaM Miild hapsAiecd. which would sflect Uia amount orpoHdnf ntadsd. Andsifl iat|uired wheihsf the liaos in lha Aont am an issue. OcrgslsladslialsnoioppoiidlQtlialfiaa. Sudhdimr staled they have 14000 in an accoMM that was fBiasd Aom Dog Days (hat was io^ ID ho dsaipmlad for ucas in Navano. Oalthm Mlad them am a numher of tsMOs •urroundtng the planting of in Niuarit lhat need 10 be wofksdout Andsmtlaitdih^fMivada^f focISOQOlopbfilonaiiea. Amltm stated he would lilce to inalall a sprinkler syilcm and elcetfkal oullut by lha Haas. Lsslie Mied there are some lasiies that need lo be conaideced with plmiling of Wees along the fiitci sod concurred ihol Su(T will liave to maaanh lha iiaue fodhtr. lUhn ingulfed whether lha houfs of lilt oiidoof ardlng area would change on the weekends. Siitfoeimir alaiad Uictr kitchen hours dochanga on lha woafcaml PAGk47 ■■-■.mm MINUTES OPlIfE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 20,200S d:0t o'clock p.m. Kempf noted the residema in this area do reside them icvcn dayi a week and that he doca hav a epn^ forlheneiihboawithancuidoorKaiingama Kempf stated in his opinion lO OOtsaieasoaablehour for the weekaods and rrecknightt. Nldter inquired whether there wouM be Amher oppottunity far lha public lo carmnem on the teviad plant. Onffron itatad noimally a second nolico is not given on an application, and recomcneaded that Ihc retidenu call city hall to ice whether this mauer it on the July agenda. Ribn mara<l,BreaMr KCMdtd, to tobic ApplinHon iOWUl, andy Sudbfiimr aad »___ Audtm M behalf of ibe Narrows SsIoob, 33*1 Shorriiae Drive, to allow Iba appUcaali llaia to rtvbalbeirplans. VOTS: Ayfs«,NaysO. ^ are requeiting tho following variances In cooalsuct anadditton to their hardcom ivhcre 0 percent it normally •«5-31 23 MiaiACL AND KUmN HART, 1005 UNDEN LANE, VARtANCC^FQ? PAlXurSOrjH. MtchMlHM Cbftit iiaSBd the at eaitting home; 1. A hardcover variancaforlh«i>-7S* tone for 1( allowed and 17 parcenl cuncntly e.\iitt; 2. A hardcover variance for ihe 75^* 43 5 percent hardcover when 25 peiccnl nermiNy allowed and 54 6 prrrni^Ccinlj cxiaii; .3. A hardcover varian^^ the 250*-250* zone lo allow normally allowad percent currmdy exiait. 4. I ill II dm average Ukethon: setback vanatKct for portiont of the aeedIMMory addition; 5. mk teibKk variance for a second tioiy addition 9 4 feet from the tide kul\^hCK a lO-fooC .kii required hardcom where 30 percent PAGE 48 .. L Dale Application Received: 06-22-05 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 07-01-05 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 09-01-05 60-Day Estensioo: ll-OI-OS OOUNaLMSrMG OCT 102005 CnYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dale; October S, 2005 Item No. *7 Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Ijl// Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #05*3136 - Troy Broitzman - 1860 Shoreline Drive - Variance & CUP Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2*acrcs/200* 1.9 acre (83,222 s.f.) 133’ List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Revised Building Plans & Elevations Exhibit B • Council Action Notice dated 09-27*05 Exhibit C * Draft Council Minutes of 09-26-05 Application Summary: This variance and conditional use permit application was tabled at your September 26 meeting. At that meeting the applicant was directed to revise the plans for the proposed home so that it would better fit into the character of the immediate neighborhood and into the character of the city as a whole. The applicant has proposed revised, slightly smaller home floor plans and elevation drawings for a home with a 5,146 s.f. footprint and a total square footage of 12,014 s.f. of livable space plus a 1,683.9 s.f. attached garage. With this revision, the q>plicant has indicated that by reducing the size of the footprint, and removing the two-sided walk-out the proposed site grading will be reduced. The applicant would like the Council to review these revisions and determine whether or not he has met die goals provided at the September 26"* meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation On September 19, Planning Conunission voted 3-4 on a motion to recommend approval of the lot width variance and the conditional use permit - this motion failed. A second motion to approve the lot width variance and to deny the conditional use permit was made, the vote result was 4 -3. lliis motion passed. ' 1 ■ \ !{ *■ <♦'0 Planaiag StofT Rcconncndation The applicant has revised the floor plans and elevation views of the proposed home. With this the ^)plicant has indicated that the proposed site grading will be reduced from the previous plan. If the Council is satisfled with the revised plans the applicant should be directed to provide a revised survey reflecting the plans along with a revised grading and drainage plan. This plan should be reviewed by the City engineer prior to flnal variance and conditional use permit approvals. As the Planning Commission recommended denial of the previous plan, staff would recommend the Council refer these revisions back to the Planning Commission for their review. Additionally, staff would reconunend that in order to allow ample time for Tom Kellogg to review the revisions the application should be referred to the Novemb^ 21** Planning Commission meeting. If the Council is comfortable with the revisions of the house plans and wishes to grant approvals without referring back to the Planning Commission, staff would recommend Tom Kellogg be given time to review the revisions in the survey, grading and drainage plans prior to the granting of final approvals. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED J|V Approve or deny the applicant’s revised application. Direct staff as to whether or not this application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their November 2l" meeting, or direct staff to draft a resolution for ^iproval at the October 24'*' Council meeting - pending City engineer review and approval. Additionally, should the Council refer this application back to the Planning Commission at their November meeting the applicant should submit a 60^y extension request in writing by October 20*. a &' j ^ ] i m \ .j !.................................................... t f—£1 LJ- I~1 » A V -V - -V 3| i ;x t{xp T r ! j:] I {x xpp: L T_r:, rrr T^“zrrr rr^ri . 4i::jrWxjiE''’xlS j:rc “(Sii'Hx*'::i:x:L:b; rn T iS: :ss^a ^ ■ T4;;x Vx, (: xX:i:rc:d:c:ci:.j:b: 07^ ,*X“ c4:lx42id E>&;r:.t:^ .............«._x W&4Wiwjdx4:-xdCi: :i;i d:d xxrrxxr x. ■ |. X|,f.|l L||-Lr 1 r~r X-pX X J_. airixi X x7yx'x[:ch:[xb:!-^i i~ t/d^xf I" ■I'^f^di'b’^i 'b~^*px4^d~i i''^p^'r'b“‘'‘r4' x^c T X j-v-xS-4^ t'44*^"i S-’^-i H-i ^.X.-L, ^^-L. 'x;jb7riiii[;W Ex3!SS^rri l-LTxTXxhrhd x4i7h7jrj7ij :* id.! x;x.,xP4t [i:p± fii^^X-4 ^K-'x' - X I X L I. |-.l I J-I I J.l I 1 .1 ^ . :b-4''-dT^r '-d( x4 ;x^x^^c^j:^x^;r^L^x444c x^^ I XX I J f XX I 1 I' l i b' I ^r r XXX X T xb—r I 'x 1 I I b'^ rb ' r' i' r^ 1 ::x:t7b:bxcb-XcxbxLbxJx I :xb::::(xx ,ib r*j r*pf^j-x I pi j.| I L- , b ' 'r'rb'-ITpl-pJ-pl rVxW ' ■' ':i -V'.ixrx I 'WTjSX.|i ^xrxxixirx L bi Jiid.iJii Sb4‘' xidx- ^{dt'-i^nbr** 1 ‘ rbx! i:}-L -1 rirp rid idx! i ^ :i.: xrirbi:. x!:i7b biTTx 4i ‘r lI J L r » I LX r r X irTbrbi :L::Ct x:I. . ________.... . I I I I lb:;b. b~*~i:b^i:^~Fdrar I .-ftw»a *aar:ai^VBry• -m-aLL .jswafaaat bFbFb Fb '. :i?F7 b' f f,' I b 1^ i3^,-i:,x,:;tpx:r:ip -j; :i[. x:{a: 1 p :ix:t7x: :l x~r_xiTjri.Jxrx 444^'fxxxicp :r[rr:x^ .i-:j:p7X f-iTbid L 44^^xbtp .14 7J 44b *,• «t ti.»«»» t-n t'l rr« *jV»'iT-» *■! r t-t.r.» rti ♦ t» >. bfe.’ Mill bS}b^S X' ■xt xpi 14pp idx p trjTp 1^. »-J JX XT L jX! 1 Jxp-p t P p|rj Lp' I J P 'llr’x 44-'r44^j^t * * *'^ x lxbi xidi li:I i * ^ xj;i iLpp l| 1} r.p p r J:i [1 * I I !j rbr;j rp4 Pm-‘4 p4t^ <r r bi br:x :! bi .xb r: ' MrftfTrrr: i;p-fii “■|!,p|4 u T r _!tpbid r p T I ■‘-'j X J Ij44^>'p>’ -I , X I J.pll I7p 1 bl « H MiStriil!1 i- \ XpErt i|r 1 4r|! 4|i rp , I.Ip 1 ^4'11 rI p4,p. r^i rI Trr.i: '! IJ i:bi fxrbj I ^ lx T 1 XI L ! I J • ' Ip 7,1 I J * 1, j._pi I T J X Ir 1 I :x ^ i-p I i. pi X r :i jI J I. t rill jjnrjLiJjnmmuin 1^* f ' J ' I —r-^a-tJl 1 ‘ I .iTLT47fj 4 mjir y jiiLLUiLimifl i,; y! I J 11 i -p! i:p .1 pfip J,. ‘ f ' I L I II • ‘“ T ' f ’ S» - 1- I j|iP I I I I I44j'; i'i4' I i t * . J pL 1 I 1 I »|lp p.1 i I IX 1I p .-« I ? I I : I I-j I t: rP: p Pd'Tpbfd i 4 ''i-^, . -,. ,. id r. I r.TT. X*T ..,-^ , .-1. p. p.J ----n I ' •xxidxx-i. I ,x. lir-*^ I I ,v 4 I • » miiijtiniiii . ,tl,p Jl :7^ 1^ T I r II » r I bid i . I bt 1 ri ip p I1 X^-Lp X ‘ ILpj I p I ' f ^r' 5uil/!ijl!i 'rp ppp 4r i, r i I >14 i p: p{ f J:r i I i f I 1 ’ I ‘ r "L* I ^ I r *-f * I * r I I r'*‘i T r I I IX 11 r J 'L J , 1 .1,-1 1 4. ip,v I, r 1 I L pd i I: ip Ix ' ' p P P-'i 'r p t ipr , J I rp I r.p !'*• J * -P 14 X • I ^ -.J—I pi , .1. r ! • r J II '-r I III I ■ I I i I I I r I r 11 If 4 4 ; Ip: itJ 1 ; 1 P 4' F1 4 4i HPxTxl»W xl4br' J * ^ P , .I p-j xF -' 1^ I ' I ‘ p* f * 7 ^ { , rp ' 1 XXL J 1 bibip ip , r,:4 i , I I , J i rp bt.j bi, i I IJ i , I , ! ,-J I ‘ » * , I , .i. , I ..1. pi._ r pi pJ jX. I I • I * X r I ^ f * I ' r X ’ I 4 - l:* ’ J ' I I ’"I 1 1 I I ' i X * r * I 1*1 1 * i ■ r I * Ibi I p f p , jpd r; Lpp bi:; i r i : i p r > j bi b r i bi 1 bxl iLp I I ipp i;:r 1 ; ! ; i, i 4 ’ i, r 4 id.T4 •: rl j! i — -i-'^x-Libk! f ;,id I! 1 .bi! ibi:! i I»! id id I i.!.i! I' • r* 1 ’? II Ip f ! I r 1 I r*^r r f I X I Xi_r ', I pi I ! I I f X J X I I' r ^ Ir 1 11 I I I i 1,111 I I I ‘ ‘ I L I tI L, I 1 J ! bf, I; I f *x *'i ' I ‘ 4’P 4 ! pi I ptLpp I i.j J.. * X I L II I Uj I r I I ■> 1 * * rpj. IVI: I ip 4! I I ^11n : r. I } Migheet Existing point 954,0* Rear Elevation 6cale 3/1^" = Troy R Drolizman R653id<2nce IS60 5hc?rsline Dr lUayzata, MN 55391-9111 r952; 4S6-1404 ' 1 ,1 ,:r; 1 pi; I: I ;j : i p: i rp 1 L. V..,. 'iv^ i» - fK» IK' 4-5Tid ii'V:v--y'V'>..'' in ■■ “W.' '* ‘v '^itfiv. ^ ►».■A*-wf V/ iV..'*'': ’C^ -?i r.:$-S-^1 ^3 'ffs* 'xii L%' *' i>^iH ij Ml '■‘i m il f, * i •';>-• m^m m. ^/< : , f ■' ^ S'' 'iv;? -^'i’fc^f, ;i-' iEt:,’'iis ■.sByr' Ck^; f'A*-^ > j'i M S^ X /T>k' XJ ^ ■' ''' ^ ->**” mmmm . . -r V ‘-v:. #: MD:%i><<-- ■■. ; =v > V..... ‘f:.\ % V <;>-:^ - •; •^^=: ■•. ;■• • ■'•• •• ..<•.• •: X. i '}^^^i^tf*-"‘. ^ ■ ■■ ':•■ '■* y:'^. < ;■■ jl- - A '-<='^- . - - : -:. 5 ■ :•; c- ■ .••• M . H < . I , » ^ I 4 t • I, r. »I *■' v.i -» i «• > I 1 i : ! } -A U :• i* ,-.\Mmwd ' Si-.- j’a'ism - :v • ■ V. ^ ipLr r kT • 1 ‘ ‘ V T-V/ i mmmmMsimM ■ V • .. '. >.**^:' ■ « ' ,■'1'^ F • J! . r.v t" j 'l ^.'2^ sa 1^ Kir M&m.Mi "I * '£^ ’ ■ ■ - f« •|?v'Sr rn-‘*. ) ■■ U- > *‘ '4^4 mym . :■ ■■ r. ; - / ., m Wmmmmm • 'V^ I *»:-.mm.m « ¥i • ■'* W-l •k, t.' ' * r., ■ J . . ■ ■: '■ .,'• ■;e4. m i|s> r '.;^ E--'Ei4F :. ,.^«*^^-:^:V■■^ V. F4 :e .- \ • o • ••*!..•.••!•;•: VE:-EK.7-yiyv;: : .; ■••:••••-:■ s'.^ =,•.' S'- v:, ’••. '■'/-X'•■ ■■■ '.: E.;.'\ •■ ■■' ■:' ,:'. ■ . ■'■'■■ '■■' ': ^e ;* A.-.-.X V--E* ■•■... •■<„, ■ : .; ...•: j; •:..:^F ■•••vi-V-/; E :i,-....:v, . .-./A;-/A'• t^!.--k:.' -'k -rkx PP->v;:5 ’p - V :"■■ ■ : •-■■ -.E= E.^v . ■ E'Ei briJI -EEi/EEV-ii^Ev^ " *. • • -. _ .‘^■ 4' V •'• E'T PPll P’ »»'te-'Wf -■<■ ■ E .< • L -.'• -i«* r-:l>*> If ;^. E--^ <> ^ 4 ’-■'• ■ 'ikn MP- •.., . -.v. ' ,...- ' . • ., . - I 'i.'isV.;^' , ‘V :i- v\s*.« f t -iy»pSv;. : ■ ■■ ?• : Ih'- W%t*ii r ‘*'-i •■•'••: v>l|:«a il* i» "i- : i W^- ^' Ip f • p: teT'S t.: \ hr i^-p-4 :;.» ft .m wm:;*V#fB';l.mmm &w ’m - ‘ '4ai '-E4^k®EA,:: E E/i '^V-.V=.^P: :\-'k ■■■■*".> . ;:■■■; ;.>^pvk ' > E^- EE'4-if'l';' ;e : - -eVE:,;;, - . .'^fE-^V4^:E ‘E7 Ce..:^^«7'';v ■' :•>■ ■. »■ ' ■• e :^e !■•■. ^E •• ■ ■// ^ E > , EJ Ei- . ; ; i 1ilsUMr < '4*- '< 1HjWBJ?*-p‘- nM|i^ i^*-^' kr ~. iliPS'- Epf|fv|I HM&I .'Er ’ ; * ^V-1 . •■ ? ;4 ww m «« M.¥m I^F-rCi&r'>mm .ti.o-jC ifi'ri ’MM V : -.A r.-; :4E ’:^:¥kv ‘:' ' '*"'.11 ki ^%y ’, y mmm WE A- •■A*. ,E ' * •i;- t>- E«\^ - r < W 4 « & • >Mmk ^mrn ‘ ‘‘^Bl''•^F.:'5;,* & \ . •- ■ ■t * :^l.y • It ^ *v t J » hr Yi- f''■ i-^: .E ^ ; r. T “ •> iV' |y^'- v':^i • ■% '■ ^’ JiaB^ ■ '|L. t: ■' •» 'I >«M,.v . ■ 'J£: ^ I < .. ■'« v*’-I ^4 M ■% ■ i Y ‘ ■/t ■:••' M 7 '1. Vi',M ** i. Vj! ^ dM'4y.-. •“ -.V J' V t ^vvV. H •4 •JV, ^4 ■»« /•-, 1 M'lfj <ww Tom .1* •x;7v - . i*\ lA^.vii'. ^V ». '.-t :am > . ‘ * mk' UM ' 'L *TS ' I V. •» 4V y.iJ^ 4 •! •» ,/Li. m it -> ■ A. ^ 'V ■9, > ■' ‘T.;‘Ttfo \* ^ ^ t ftr .'2 . V , V»^ ^ ",17 i '■>>,V«’^'V» , , V«. . • , ‘■•••••'•^rl i *' » ’• / . • '^^*vr^: ‘-.^5 V 1 ^ ‘-*9^ -.'.V.n- i; ' \M.j^ Iv . ■>*;> .ui.' f' :^‘5 i; ►. ^vf< ‘is.T-d W-f: I.idii . t - ;jrv« ,\ • -P.r ■':" *Ol ‘ ', t* t-• •-» . » t » M • .-/• •' VC 'i^ • --'M^ -m^ ^'- >' •'• f-^ »'' «. i • t * • • .. - ^ ’■■ . ..<: I^.>» >y . ' v/ r /r : ' - • :/.v. ■ / V *- ’M- • • • • • ' ■ ' •■ • -••'L. ' •>- ' -r V- ' / ^4 ■ •• ■• ^ • • f* N rfiip ■"■t:.:.-'3fesii / . *• • ^ •/ V ’■tf,. ' h-ift . •» . -f • V ‘» 4 ^; r- >‘f- '^:jrW-£!ih, '':^m - fi ;Av, >o. , • T .‘ ‘ '■ 7, ' V *a^*'^v ; - :«*1 * V ?;■•'■•.> . ■ "Vi-!;. ‘.'*^'■ I* ^ rf:V.. ..* • ’ * ' • *7.’,'•'C'^'.c •i . .-*. ••(. • • » *.. \ tj. r- . » • . •^ ♦. ' t •t*. '.t 4.1 ' k . < . 1 Ax- w: 'mm " -. .M rr V' ^5i - i'* -^ i 'A * Vh. <• * .- ♦ • ^ /. ^ 0%' K V- •,V-;. -•.'' . 4 **.' , • ^ ' *• • -*' -> • . • V * « -^>rV }*- ^ * #A.;<?P H'wmm ' - •' . T . r'^-xi V..-. •%• f a'.'^lifijfc \'- ,‘^ '^'ii • ' ?r ‘ r 25x Im • » jvi* mm •k -■ 'V-, »“ V *...,-•>. -.s* •«*<. i**X ^ ’Vvi»' 7^ • - 9* '■^ '^' ^ 5» r»... ^ ^-^L-i «a.^J ■. r'M w'-; 'i ■ > -4 I ■ /%1 <4 ^ -» v>» . %A « ^ ^ «-* • / mm PW.; ■ .^-t-'r’', t ’ * . '' .. / ' .'• ■■il>i? \ I m' ^ ym.ii y»r ^ • fc,#: .' .t^4i' L.Ar4l^rsfe. i^Bi^': t- itf • V' N\ * vT • i j :^-m ><A#. ' > j tm%nmft ^r i a' % .•%T*.-*^ —- \ r "■ '% >■?:'■■ V A >sf.li •‘^ - /' fo- -' >. :• z S P#'fi U ' J I . -H 13'.'V ■ * .'ii !•-. W w **. vs w A-•: C'^'S.ia ' ••=v; ^ ;«• 't\A: Dc» ■'^- ■ *' . >.f'* >S 1* - :#:S:;, 5j; ^ '-'fv . ^ ' V,*« ' ' u. ^. c . AT mm. a::’* -'., t%!I i>5v-' {• •* if-. V«r»» •- -» f ' - ^ • . *♦ ' , ' t’ • ^V' V .;f >.<’»•' w*‘‘ V.'*i:<,^T^.:': '•• .Ur^V,- •: •- .^Jr •. t' -.4. - ' ' ' ■ • . • - .• • •> • .f ' . •.'..k/A^v ■■ ..• .A. ■■ .♦■.:• » > ^ • ► A J\. -• ' V A A - . ^ • A MifKi ‘ * *•• . - 0- V ■ . f . •'.*?■• ;ju - ■ -. j • -r fe iV' t' ' y‘ ... .»i»* ' V ------ i. fA *.*-I •A k •'• m f^A- /. *; m. - ■ - AC. CITY OP ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Ciyital Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE 05-3136 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 27,2005 TO: Troy Broltzman 1860 Shoreltae Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance & CUP DATE OF MEETING: September 26,2005 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motioi: Table for redesign. Applicants* next available City Council meeting dates: Upcomine Council meeting dates: Monday, October 10 Monday, October 24 The revised building plans, survey, elevations and any other pertinent information is required to be submitted at least one week prior to scheduled Council meeting date for Staff review and preparation. Potential Council action for the revised plans: 1. Refer tqqilication back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; 2. Acceptance and a/qnoval ofthe revised plans pending an acceptable grading and drainage jdan. This would require a subsequent meeting for Council approval of a final resolution, enough time must be scheduledfor City Engineer approval of revised plans; 3. Tabling of the application for further redesign; or 4. Denial of the cq>plication. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions please call Melanie Curtis, City Planner, at 952.249.4627. 4 i ht MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. MS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE Curtis explained that a CUP to allow the addition of 5,400 cubic yards of grading was added to the applicant’s initial request for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new home on the property. The exported fill would facilitate walk-outs on the front and back of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variance and denial of the conditional use permit. Curtis stated that planning staff also recommends approval of the lot width variance subject to the City Engineer’s approval of the proposed grading plan. She pointed out that the City had received numerous comments from neighboring property owners, many of which were present, and that issues for consideration include: is the grading plan appropriate for the neighborhood; should the retaining wall along the driveway area of the 90X45’ parking apron be moved to meet a greater setback to allow for no need to impose on the neighboring property, to allow for better screening opportunities, and to reduce the potential impacts associated with a garage apron that could hold nearly 20 cars. . .. • • • Sansevere stated that he had reservations as to even allowing the lot width variance to go forward. He asked why the applicant chose to move forward to City Council having been denied by the Planning Commission. Curtis staled that, at this width, the applicant will be losing his ability to adequately screen the proposed building if granted. With regard to Sansevere ’s inquiry, Broitzman staled that he saw no where in the City Code a reason for denial of what he proposed. He stated that he had gone to great lengths to be very upfront with all of the neighbors with regard to his plans and, in fact, he had been granted construction easements by his neighbors to build. Broitzman stated that the only comment he recalled receiving from any of the neighbors was to change the proposed surface of the driveway retaining wall to a stone, rather than brick, facade. With regard to screening, Broitanan staled that he intended to plant mature trees on both he and his neighbors’ properties. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. Sansevere stated that, according to the neighbor ’s letters, they do not agree that this design will fit into the character of the neighborhood or the land itself. Broitzman stated that City Code allows him \5% structural coverage on his property, of which he has only proposed about 7.5% McMillan stated that, though the formula works to his advantage, she felt he was overdeveloping the lot. Furthermore, similar to the County, she stated that she, too, would like to see the driveway access ofTHeritage Drive as opposed to County Road IS in an effort to minimize the curb cuts on the county road and would make this part of her recommendation. Broitzman stated that he brought in the County for their opinion for a second driveway off Heritage, not a replacement for the one off County Road IS. He stated that, from what he understood of the codes, he could not be forced to change the existing driveway. Murphy stated that he had spoken to and received a letter from Mr. Nelson, a neighbor, who felt he was misled by the applicant, as were many other neighbors who felt they were told numerous different stories. Murphy stated that he could not support moving this amount of dirt to create or overhaul this piece of land to suit the applicant’s desire for walkouts. Mayor Peterson commented that she was disturbed by the way the applicant had raped the lot of trees and its history and found it difllcuit to support a lot width variance for something so expansive and out of character for the neighborhood. White pointed out that the purpose of the zoning code is to implement the comp plan. Aesthetics and what is appropriate to fit in with the character of an area makes up a piece of the comp plan. In addition, the comp plan is designed to protect what the city holds dear which is the character and stability of a neighborhood, as noted by the adopted Rural Oasis Study. He indicated that he would not support altering the appearance, in bulk, for something that he felt failed on every count of the Ordinance that he could identity with regard to the compatibility of the neighborhood. h- -»r- > . t MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. McMillan stated that she would only approve a lot width variance if extra side setbacks were implemented to allow for additional drainage and screening. She maintained that the applicant had adequate space to bui'd a decent new home on this lot but not enough extra room to allow him to remove by CUP soil to create walkouts. She could not support land alteration to simply make it convenient for the applicant to implement this proposal. BroHzman stated that he purchased the lot because of its view and character of Orono. Sansevere pointed out that, ironically, this character and view are the things he has proposed to change most dramatically with this proposal.1 .r Broitzman stated that he found it frustrating that the new home, though more narrow than the current home, and despite his willingness to plant trees on his and his neighbor’s properties that he could be denied. , * ? ■ I McMillan pointed out that each homeowner must be able to adequately screen their home witliin their own property boundaries. She could not support his screening on adjoining property owner’s home sites. v*‘ ‘ * . I : ‘j ■ Murphy suggested the applicint tddh up with a contractor or architect who knows the Orono ama and design a home that fits more within the character he found so appealing. Sansevere slated that he did not recall ever hearing from so many neighbors as he had on this project f tf.;. • : . -va Mayor Peterson pointed out that while the neighbors support the prospect of a new home, it is the sheer magnitude of the proposal that they Find disconcerting. Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated that ss an immediate neighbor, he had received incomplete communication. While construction easements were granted because the neighbors recognized that something would be buih on the site, the C’JP calls for permanent land alteration and concrete swales which do not fit within the character of the neighborhood. Coward stated that MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. he believed the proposal would have a negative impact on neighboring property values and questioned how a substandard sized lot with a width of 133’ and 1.9 dry biiildable acres could support a house almost 6.S times larger than the current home. In his estimation, it was a large home for a small lot. Coward continued, pointing out that the structure itself would appear to be 3 stories tall or more from tlieir perspective on their site, and that the applicant would be constructing a retaining wall S’ off their property line the entire length with inadequate room for screening. With regard to the neighbors on the opposite side. Coward pointed out that even at 30’ from the property line, the home will still tower over the neighbor and shade them entirely. Me noted that the screening that did exist, 40-S0 ’ tali pine trees, had been removed by the applicant and no longer exist. In addition, the average lakeshore as equated, gives the Cowards a very limited lake view, other than that of cars, now that the trees have been removed. Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated that this kind of project in a neighborhood like this is completely out of character or not only the neighborhood, but also the community. Bob Stignna, 1930 Shoreline DrivO, questioned whether what the applicant was proposing to build was a residence or an apartment building/hotel. Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, stated that he believed the City Council was asking the right questions and understood the neighbors’ concerns. He agreed that the access should be changed to Heritage Drive. Nettles pointed out that hardships as recognized by the Code must be inherent to the land and not be imposed because the land does not fit the design of the applicant’s proposed home. Jenny Charrier, 1910 Heritage Drive, the opposite immediate neighbor, acknowledged tliat, though the applicant can develop the property, she questioned the scale to which they proposed to do so. She stated that she would be subjected to viewing an enormous wall the entire length of her driveway and property line, views obstructed and entirely shaded, and any sense privacy that once existed would be greatly compromised. Charlie Krogness, I8S S. Brown Road, stated that this proposal was absolutely not reflective of the character of Orono tfiat the Rural Oasis Study was implemented to preserve. He urged the V i i- i f - '1 "1; L >■ .' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. City Council, in all good conscience, not to support such an atrocity. Sansevere stated that, spec home or not, the proposed home did not fit the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Peterson stated that she could not support the CUP and found no reason to support the variance request, which simply allowed the applicant to build the design of his choice. She suggested he go back to meet with staff and design a proposal that fit the property. Broitzman pointed out that his biggest concern centered on the fact that the wording of the CUP doesn’t set limits, as a moving target, he would not know what is acceptable or not. While he maintained that the size of his structure fell within the 15% allowance and that he has met height restrictions, he did not understand the letter of the law as it pertained to the CUP. Sansevere asked the applicant whether he had consulted with staff when he put together his proposal to move 5,400 cubic yards of fill or asked for input with regard to the lot width variance to see if these were reasonable requests. Broitzman stated that he had worked with the Engineer to determine how the drainage would work out with his design. He pointed out that he was within his legal rights to take down the trees he did, as he preferred a view Of the lake to trees. Mayor Peterson stated dwt the City Council could vote on his application as presented which might mean he could not come before Council again for 6 months, or he could table his application for redesign purposes. Broitzman requested that the City Council table his application. White indicated that he would not allow the applicant to lay a virtual parking lot next to a neighbor’s properly in a residential neighborhood, as this urban proposal clearly does not fit the character of Orono. ■ -.iTiM laenitW g-o.»w>V|.fikuriri^^,J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. Murphy acknowledged that the applicant wished to be given a strict interpretation of everything, as opposed to what obviously fits within the City comp plan. He stated that, in his opinion, the applicant’s neighbors were being quite cordial. He saw no hardship to support either the variance or CUP. McMillan pointed out that the mere proximity of his neighbon demands additional sensitivity in this case. Attorney Barrett stated that the CUP is an additional piece in the application process and encouraged the applicant to design s home that fit the land under the current conditions. Less is more in many situations. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to table applicatfoa MS-3136, Troy Broitzman, 1160 SheraMne Drive, for pnrpoaes of redesign. VOTE? Ayes 5, Nays 0. ’ . ’ • ' 14 . I • *. .<* -I * .f -i*:. *.'H A i MU •ve:, ‘,v:'. ■ V/ •* •it'^ a;-.',' ^ . , : •'li ■ I r. I- xr • • f • ' -4 . V , V ♦ W, ■■■■■ :" . K.'- XXXf... ;t vV r' te;:■h: :■ \u■K-kM m % ft F5 5'* I Ji III 11J t liiTi Miit '♦>n - cvv '^^1. '.- 11 .. , • •‘•- ’--f . ' 5 -V..- r^:tr r\ ^'' . •, v'4 : . ■ ■ . |fc=Mk '*iii -?sil'^ te-f -11 >:■ ■'?>■-??. •? ■•• •• >r :■• •-V V.-.^ ■ • N “ ':•" -I'- m -;:. iur'-.-v.'.: y- wm 'V < « •i - .it- ? • • "’I- '■■. #*. * / y'• '^. ^.•■i .i; iliiiiii " W«1 ;; .i^ :*- -,<^^:*|P: it!,'-\' t^j-•vwu'-m:: >;:"V ' * v.;}..-^,i 1a;1 mt,^:mmm:Sm •^.^•^?^-v.-. - -Vr--^^i^ > ',>;;.V^--;/-,-"V:y''y. V: =; ■'/: • . -V-KC.''^ .. : . v<" *.* •.• . ..' s K\ .• :' .: •• . ?:. j . •• f , •• ./..*••.;••• Wmm fe|»5Sp®si ■■■mMis-m6-Ai.:‘:a V /•; > V^^• i^tei® r-m P" • ■ = i^f' ^ ' • vfe-;;-£' -S^vj14*-fe' fv^- ? W' ,j.i4v:#'. imm P‘ M my Ri-'V*rjuiTi m.mm. :.^ t P»p^p: fe:Uf i f s 'r * , ** ■* Mf-4 .mrnh f :r- - wm 4vJ’ . AP .*P‘ h vP*4-‘‘ M.U\' 4 . t •* • ■;>.!• 't’* VSft: ' i [i4-. ■•, Vi*'' fe'iiS k ■' *t/- V ;*:4..? imimm^' W14 mm lifter*:^<tmm ■f •: -^5 S« ■; I $4. mei ;',?i ...tep iilg:'• h»:§i '- U'liaa i •' M • •4.'■ iv^-"''<% . i*' * 5fJ Tifi ■w^rkfc'" ""mi? zsxiM •te .• -i ^ Jii. • I r^ia- !■ tij!.’ - ?t.^ .*•• te?'■ i -<f^' . -? « ' tT , • I . '1#-x.'< •«;. Vv-'i? 4'4" .'»> T>r v>r ’’<e ,■ »♦’ ’1. *'ii 'r J •-f- \^M. * K i3L ^ ‘■m >\ n •' n. .i* : -' \ :5f -7%. •! ■ J.i..-■.-.y-v " ' jfc#- diiM'', ‘ *’• *\vL. T‘w >/rr. V r 9( I mim W'' >; :• S'. ‘X'' S 'A iifi hp Sl^ i- VTs', V’i ’ ^I NM V*hV* H ;m.i S’ I Ti » ^^^JpRpSb t V \ ,/ ‘W >!'• I i \ bJ>. '-S/M V - .«v »5v .1830 ,'f^ f rjj TP 1 C X 4 w ^ A .A '^s > _--■ --ifT v'*':a ^V'.VP V jK* '&V--. w •i>r>/ #^- *• r» •*., .43, t'® . ,^:'V-r -- : ' * • ^ - ■ ^ ^ ' * v^'^ S*'->. f. ,A .VI ' 5-'^?^-*’S Wj6 V » “* V K*v-V.'* ii:f- V V.^ Vi* M: fr'>* •1l rv ^. • 4 » - V.^ r. 'iX ?itei wiT“ ^ ^ *■ v . >-^4^ ' ' ‘".‘^ H, '**' -ft ,<?•’.:•'* AJ'.. T » V r • »S ». <*. ■ -tn' v“*.^ • '• ^; ^v’ ^ ^ r ,f '■^*y»j; v»-» . '■-». **m ^ »S ’ .• ^ ^ 2 •» . ^ i 4 A* ' ' ' C.>sv;r>- • • •{-. ’*. . >•• ' . /*>■;> 1. * /. ' *•* "* N - J ‘■ '/•, ^ K.4f/ •- f.« J . • , -s ■/• < ' s^s-"JiC r ^ •'‘■**'* - ' O/^ >: 'VffliV : ^-. k ' ^ 33 f ' <25X Im W-;^mA. ,T; . it /> rif; > ■"Ap. •<. ■iii- ..-.^V W -St' • '^jS. Wl^ ' . ‘T k 7 : >* ■■ .i .<■ ■ ■ 'W-ft. ^ if ^SPr ■■*l'^?i^'' ::^>'i^43 ^T^' V '*• »VA * v. i’ M ‘^ • I ™ . ' "^ - * * ^‘jfc^^■^k..lf V'v.f • • • ;/. -V • 'f(^ ,y :^'r. ^ ■ ^" j^fv' •^ % y ,v - . ^ . .^ "-v- a#<%- :V.. ‘‘' Zj^*-' J^'V- r>-F j*-v V' ";>>{? ■ ir* ' v";.' -f K'-> Vie, ' i.i. ' »s r-w’ W^- f- 'V .* ^^ 1 j ^ •' :• V ' i t•vc'*^'* .V .. JH^ _ • ^ ✓ . jp .1 ‘V ,■ IL' ■ ■ ■ ■ *r-V •;' f-Jr. i - Sm. .<*-/• ^ V ’IT .1 "»• . 'i#.^ ^jivEL^SfiiiH^^I -ii#i }ll ' “ Utt^ r *13^^ -P^. ': •v^f'-' ■'" fef; <W^ • ' £.T^.- «V> - * *i^ * •. • ' '>.'. - ^.■.r4^iL.,,i^>;»- .......... ■> *4^ 5^V*“ ...‘X s ■ ,.'i&‘>;.3®f ?| ■V.,- u’s&^Aiiil', lam -liP / . * . ' { i Pfr. •<-v. •> ii s.I • ^ r ■'' V 4 }' i W«.. c w ■'Jt * ■m rI mB - * ^> V; V.;r - *?.'.■ .r- -H. N > V- ^ W A *■'■Tier Im > ;*MW »A^ « * »-f • -41 ^ *, t l4 4 S '■• # r ^ 'V# • ' % October 9,2005 To: Orono City Council From: Greg Coward 1950 Heritage Drive 1860 Shoreline Drive Dear Council Members: Exactly 22 hours after your last meeting and discussion of the proposed development of 1860 Shoreline Drive, Troy Broitzman called and invited me to see his new plans. I have seen them. My comments are these: Overview 1. The basic problem has not changed: this is a development by a novice builder who proposes constructing one of the larger homes in the City, on Minnetonka lake shore property, on a lot which is undersized and narrow, with no architectural input 2. There is reason to be concerned that construction will be poorly executed (see below). 3. Building materials, rather than architectural distinction, appear to be driving both the scale and look of this development. a. The plan calls for a construction technique using concrete for the floors, walls and roof. Whatever the merits of this technique, and there are some, it is difiicult to disguise the institutional and conunercial look that results from its use. As an example of the cascading effect you ge! when materials drive design, the garage’s proportions arc dictated by the floor spacing of the living area, then you get 10 ft. garage doors, and so on. b. The plan also calls for a mortar-less brick exterior, where the bricks interlock and hang off each other on the exterior wall. 1 have never seen this, but I fear that the effect will be peculiar and not resemble the quality brick facade expected of a fine home. I he Latest Plan The revised size is somewhere between 12.000 and 15,000 1 would guess that that makes it among the largest 5% oC all homes in Orono. regardless of the lot size or neighborhood. In our particular neighborhood this is probably 2 or more times the size of the next largest home and 3-4 times the average of all the homes. (Here I include both the finished basement, which has windows facing the lake and is I believe 10 ft. in height, helping to drive the overall height of the building. p and the garage, which while smaller then the original design is still a large 1,750 with 10 ft doors. Both of these spaces are just as relevant to me and the neighborhood as any other part of the project). ✓ Everything about this plan is large scale. With two ftoors (1 believe) at 10 feet and one at 12 feel, the overall height (peak) is about 35 or 36 feet from the rear grade, probably 42 or so feet from the front grade. I know that the City measures height differently, but folks, height is height and that is what we will be looking at. Other / Execution: This could well be a problem given the lack of experience of this builder. At our last meeting, Mr. Broitzman told me that he likes to use dimensional shingles. When 1 asked what he meant, he showed me pictures of the roof of the home he built in Austin. As I stared at the roof in disbelief, he explained that what 1 saw occurred because a “friend of mine built the roof’ • somehow the vertical lines merged, creating a perfect wave cHcct from the peak to the soffit. / Setback: The revised plan places the front of the new construction behind an imaginary line from the Nelsons to the Charrier ’s rather than from the Cowards to the Charriers. The Cowards and the Charriers agree that we prefer a variance to the average setback guideline, although perhaps 15 feet back from this line. I have not spoken with the Nelsons on this matter. ^ Driveway: The new plan replaces the existing driveway with a new one off Heritage Drive. This is fine in principle; however, as drawn the driveway bisects the back yard to run along a line 20 feet from our mutual boundary. For the Cowards this may reduce design opportunities for effective & attractive screening. For Broitzman, this seems to greatly reduce possibilities for landscaping, gardens and general enhancement of the back yard. His back yard is his business, but surely attention to the character of the land and the input of a professional landscape designer would benefit everyone. ^ Screening: Mr. Broitzman and I have discussed screening. However, such d'seussions have no practical value unless the City incorporates an acceptable plan for both adjoining properties and monitors compliance. 1 trust that you will continue to be sensitive to the potentially contentious nature of this matter. At this stage I believe everyone, including Troy Broitzman hin.self, is better served if the focus is on the City of Orono’s point-of-view rather than specific cita.ions of neighborhood objections. And after all. the City’s view, considering all factors, that will control. Sincerely, Greg Coward Memorandum October 10,2005 Mayor Members of the Council City Administrator Janice Gundlach, City Planner Item Ml - Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue N The applicant has requested that his {q>plication for a conditional use permit be tabled until die November 14, 2005 City Council meeting so that he may further discuss outstanding issues with Planning Department staff and the City Engineer. i I ! I ,• ' '<:■■■■■■ ^-f , ■ ■ ;.v,' 1>;' rt| - V i V . ■ A ■ y ■ - * ■ ■ ■' V, .• At-*'-' ' « I ' - 'W Sa ''*'-' ■ «>♦ fAgwBgjqy^ mkiM !• <■ > ^ 1'4 i:*5 i lI, Date Application Received: 8-18-OS Date Appileatioa Considered as Complete: 9-4-05 60-Day Review Perkd Eipircs: 11-5-05 COUNCIL MEETING OCT 10 'H I .,' CITYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 7,2005 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3149, John Thiesse on behalf of Trinity Lu!:ieran Church 2060 Sixth Avenue N - Conditional Use Permit Zoning Dtetrict: l-otArea: Lot Width: RR- IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 4.86 acres (211,687 s.f.) 556 feet (200’ required) List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action dated 9-21-05 B - City Engineer Recommendations C - Draft Planning Commission Minutes D - PC Memo and Exhibits dated 9-16-05 Application Summary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow construction of additions to the existing church operating under the controls of several conditional use permits, also including re-paving, re-orientation, and enlargement of the existing parking lot. Planning Commissio,. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended 6-1 to approve the proposed conditional use permit as submitted subject to clarification of the NURP pond requirement by the City Engineer. The dissenting Commissioner felt there was too much parking proposed and the site would have a “big box ” feel. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. However, the applicant has stated that the church is concerned with the City Engineer recommendation regarding the proposed pond to meet NURP standards (wet pond) rather than solely rate control (dry pond). Tiie church’s concerns are that of liability* issues due to the day care that exists throughout the weekdays and also the safety of the residents of the group home on the parcel to the direct west. The applicant has staled that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has only required rate control and would like to Council to consider whether the recommendation of the City Engineer regarding the NURP standard be reconsidered. COUNOL ACTION REQUESTED Clarify for the applicant whether the pond must meet NURP standards and direct staff to draft a resolution for adoption at the next City Council meeting reflecting that decision. i I! . '■i ■;i l k * CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO: John Thiesse 3845 Bayside Road Orono, MN SS3S6 ZONING FILE: 05-3149 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 21,2005 COPIES:Trinity Lutheran Church Nancy Fraser, Council Pres. 2060 Sixth Avenue N Long Lake. MN 55356 JX.*® ?X APPUCATION; DATE OF MEETING: __________ September 19,2005 PlaBiiag Commissioa reeommcnded as follows: To ^iprove the requested conditional use permit, including the front yard parking setback variance for additional paricing in the SW comer of the site, subject to City Engineer q>proval and clarification of pond requirements prior to review by the City Council. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, October 10,2005; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If jfou desire cotified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. ■ • .•» - i* ^ V'> •• 1^;. .9 - ■’> ** ■ r '• ■ " I ■'•k- I ' "-h inAl 4^'I II . i kilio A ____j i I l/II Bonestroo RDsene vS Anderlik& Associates Engineers « ArcMtects Sqiletnber 16,2003 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 wwwJionestroo.coni Ml. Janice Gundlach Planner CilyofOrono Port OfTioe Box 66 Ciyitai Bay. MN SS323 C/^^0 0/^<% % Trinity Lutheran Church File No. O00l39-050C(M) Plat No. 03-3149 Dear Janice: impfovements include parking lot improvements, a building addition, and storm sewer improvements. We have the followtng comments with regards to engineering matters: • The parking stalls shown are shorter than what the city generally requires. The typical minimum stalHen^ is 19-fcet with a minimum drive aisle width of 23-fecL We recommend the striping plan be revised to reOcct these • The site WM provided with a pressure sewer service stub a few years ago. To date the church has not connected to Otis system. It appears the intent is to connect to this system as part of this improvement project. The P'*"* should show the stub location and verify that it is their intent to connect to this system. The applicant should coordinate this connection with the city public works department and review with the city any connections charges due. ... • Please see the attached comments from Lance Hoff regarding storm sewer improyements and drainage issues. • We have estimated the costs for site improvements to be S228.386.00. The applicant should provide the city with a letter of credit for 130% of this amount or S342.879.00 prior to any work on site. Ifyou have any questions please call me at (631) 604-4863. Youri very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg ^ Attachments Cc; GrvgOappa,CityofOrono Mm.. ;.V: /•- St. Paul. St Ctoud. Rochester. MN • Milwaukee. Wt * Chicago, it AltkawIlM Of^tuoMy tiaplar*' Sn»lay«t 0«M« 1 if Memo Bonestroo Rosene Anderlic4 Asfoctaces CiiflMCrt 4 A k Mmcu Projfeet Nann: Trinity Lutheran Church To: Tom Kellogg Rom: Lance Hoff Ro: Drainage Review Client: CItyofOrono File No: 139-05-000 Dale: 9-14-05 Engineer. BKBM Engineers. MPLS Submittai: Drainage Calculations, Rational Storm Sewer Design Calculations. Plans Plan Sheets: Grading and Drainage. Storm Sewer, Details Date of Plans: 9-6-05 Date Received: 9-12-05 1; Summary of Recommendations Based on our review of the Trinity Lutheran Church site, we offer the following comments. Grading and drainage are generally good. Rato control requirement has been met for the site. The storm sewer has been adequately designed. The only comments are In regards to water quality treatment, which has not been addressed by the plans. Comments follow below: 1. The pond should be modified to include water quality treatment for the entire site. Treatment should satisfy NURP requirements (wet volume equal to the runoff generated during a 2.5" rainfall event). Our calculations show that 0.315 ac-ft of wet storage must be provided. 2. A10’ wide aquatic bench with slopes no steeper than 10:1 must be provided immediately below theNWL 3. The pond outlet structure must be modified to provide skimming. 4. The pond inlet and outlet should be separated as much as feasible to prevent short circurting. 5. The pond EOF should be shown as armored to prevent erosion. Riprap or properly installed permanent erosion control mat would be acceptable. 1 M • ■ ■■ ' V; • t ' ‘a BoMttne, MMWMb AndwMwitf A mocMm. he.www.bonrnstroo.com I -rtw-j-y rw#V’’ppT- -w 1 9/1V200S Trinity LuttMran Church Cost Estimats for Financial Guarantaa 8lonn8«w«r Unite lAJnH MobSatlon 12” Stonn Sewer 15* Storm Sewer Catch Baain / Manhole IS” Flarad End Stmeture Rip Rao____________ Eatimated Construction Cost PatMnwLot/Oradtoa/LandacapIna Units lAJnH Remove Bituminous Pavement Remove Concrete Sidewah Remove Existbig Tree Gradno Subgrade Preparation Aggregate Base, aass 5100% Crushed- 8* (CV) Concrete Curb and Gutter B612 Bituminous Base Course-11/2” Bituminous Wear Course.-11/2” BituminotM Materiai For Tack Coat Concrale Sidewalk Strioina SinoaQO Oaadkig Seed with Wood Fiber Bianket Total for Financial Guarantaa • i, .it Total EA 1 $ LF 315 $21.00 $6,615.00 LF 252 $24.00 $6,048.00 EA 5 $1,300.00 $6,500.00 EA 3 $800.00 $2,400.00 CY 20 $75.00 $1,500.00 $28,063.00 Total SY 8720 $2.00 $17,440.00 SY 410 $3.00 $1,230.00 EA 11 %200.00 $2,200.00 LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 SY 9,630 $1.00 $9,630.00 TN 4,900 $11.00 $53,900.00 LF 130 $10.00 $1,300.00 TN 930 $45.00 $41,850.00 TN 930 $47.00 $43,710.00 GAL 470 $2.00 $940.00 SF 670 $3.25 $2,177.50 LF 5,106 $0.25 $1,276.50 SF 12 $27.00 $324.00 AC 0.50 $2,500.00 $1,250.00 SY 5,940 $1.75 $10,395.00 LS 1 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 Temp Erotlon Control_____________ Estimated Construction Cost » $200,523.00 Storm Sewer ParkkioLot/GredinQ/Landscaptna $28,063.00 $200,523.00 Total EsUmata Construction Cost $228,566.00 50% ______________________$114,293.00 $342,878.00 /V'' ■ ME«fUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. 8. 805-3149 TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, 2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:35 P.M. -10:00 P.M. John Thiesse, Trinity Lutheran Church, was present Gundtach stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of additions to the existing church operating under the controls of several conditional use permits, which also includes re-paving, reorientation, and enlargement of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvements consist of a great room, conference rooms, bathroom, nurseiy, and administrative offices additions and repaving, expanding, and reorienting of the existing parking lot. Also, as part of the improvements proposed under this application, the church will be hooking into city sanitary sewer and will be abandoning the existing mound septic system in the southwest comer of the property. Gundlach indicated all side and rear yard setbacks have been met, but a front yard parking setback variance would be required in order to construct the expanded parking located in the southwest cortier of the site as the front yard setback proposed is 14 feet where SO feet is required Staff finds that due to the extensive right-of-way width along the north side of Sixth Avenue North and the topography of the lot relative to gaining more level stalls, there may be a hardship to warrant approval of a variance for construction of this parking area. The total amount of parking stalls provided on tlie proposal is 221 stalls, which is adequate to support the preschool program and church activities on Sunday. Gundlach noted the City Engineer did raise some issues with the size of the proposed stalls. Gundlach indicated the exterior building nuiterials as proposed consist of a light brown brick to match the existing exterior building materials on the church. The applicant is not proposing any new lighting within the parking lot. The current parking lot does not contain any pole lighting nor would the building code require any. The applicant has indicated that only security lighting is proposed, which would be located at the entrance locations, and some minimal lighting necessary to safely illuminate the sidewalks. \y PAGE 35 !l MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday« September 19,2005 6:00 o*clock p.m. Gundlach indicated there are three entrance points shown on the proposed plan, with the main entrance facing Sixth Avenue North and two sec ondary entrances off the parking lot, which face east. Staff does not anticipate that any new building mounted lighting would be near enougli to the adjacent residential property to cause any negative impacts. Should the applicant decide to add parking lot lighting in the future, an additional conditional use permit must be reviewed and approved. The applicant is not proposing any new signage as part of this proposal. The applicant has also indicated they are in compliance with the 30-foot height limitation, with a proposed height of 27 to 28 feet. Gundlach stated the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan illustrating how the expanded parking and rate control pond will impact the existing topography. The City Engineer ’s preliminary comments are included in the Planning Cr.nmission packets. Gundlach noted the City Engineer is recommending that the pond be modified to include water quality treatment for the entire site and should satisfy NURP requirements. The nearest adjacent propetty* to this site is to !he west at a distance of approximately 250 feet. Tliis site is a group home and would not be negatively impacted by the proposed expansion as most of the improvements are on the ea«t side of the property. Staff also does not foresee any negative impacts to the properties to the east or south. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and further subject to the following conditions; 1. The Planning Commission should determine if a viable hardship existe to allow the expanded parking in the southwest comer of the site as a front yard parking setback variaitce would be required. 2. Prior to City Council review of the application, revised plans must be submitted incorporating the preliminary recommendations of the City Engineer. The applicant will also be required to comply with any other forthcoming comments from the City Engineer. Thieaie had nothing to add to StafTs report S PAGE 36 —, 6 i t i I r_ Il 'O' I ^ '** MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Rahn asked for public comment. Gladys McClennan, Woodsland Group Home, stated she has questions regarding the pond, noting that she does house six developmentally disabled adults and that she has a concern regarding the safety of those people. McClennan stated there currently is a dilapidated fence between the two properties and that she was wondering whether that fence would need to be replaced. Paul Phillips, President of Woodslaiid Group Home, indicated he is a neighbor of the church on the west side and that he has concerns regarding the lighting and ponding. Phillips inquired where the cuirent driveway is located and whether it would remain the same. Gundlach stated die driveway would remain the same. Phillips indicated he drives that route every day and that he periodically turns into the church parking lot for safety reasons if a large truck is tailgating him. Phillips inquired whether that would be an option in the future. Phillips stated he also has a concern with the lighting and that he would prefer it remain as it currently is. Phillips noted there are bedrooms located adjacent to the parking lot. Rahn inquired whether the city has any specifics regarding the ponding to be constructed on the site. Gundlach stated the applicant was not aware that the City Engineer has recommended that the pond meet NURP standards. Thiesse indicated he was told initially that it would be rate controlled and that the pond would be diy at times. Thiesse stated the pond was never meant to be a quality treatment pond and that he was only informed today that a NURP pond is required. Thiesse stated a NURP pond requires tour-feet of water standing at all times, which he is opposed to due to the liability issues it creates. Thiesse indicated he would like to discuss that issue with the City Engineer. Rahn stated the application could be moved forward with liiu stipulation that that issue be resolved with the City Engineer. Rahn commented that perhaps the fence should be repaired. PAGE 37 ■v' • - ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Thiesse stated the four-feet of standing water is a concern for him as it relates to safety and liability. noting that a preschool is also located on the property as well as the adjacent group home. There were no additional public comments. Juigens expressed a concern regarding the size of the parking lot and the size of the building, which will tend to change the character of the neighborhood. Jurgens noted there are no islands and trees being proposed for the parking lot. Jurgens questioned the need for the parking lot on the southwest side, which increases the encroachment Kempf indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Jurgens and that he prefers the trees and open space rather than such t large parking lot, which gives the appearance of trying to cram as many parking stalls in this area as posiible. Winkey inquired whetner the 221 stalls are required. Oundlrui stated 108 parking sta'S are required. Gundlach stated they would need to examine the parking situi.tion when the preschool and sanctuary are in use at the same time. Wink^ stated it appears that there is more than enough paHcing, and suggested that the current islands remain. Wink^ inquired why the church feels they need 221 parking stalls. Thiesse stated the requirement is a minimum and that the iU8 parking stalls is not sufficient, especially when there are special events held at the church. Thiesse stated they currently have 183 stalls and that is not sufficient at times. Winkey stated the bigger demand for the parking appears to only occur on a few occasions throughout the year. Fritzler indicated he does not have a problem with the application. Bremer stated she also does not have a problem with the application but that she does have a concern regarding the pood. Bremer stated at the very least some type of safety fencing should be installed. ?■ MINUTES OF THF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated Orono does have other NURP ponds and thnt they are not fenced, even when they are located near elementaiy schools and preschools. T'.*esse stated he would prefer a dry pond and that he would like to discuss this further with the City Engineer. Thies.se also stated the City’s parking requirements add nine more feet to tlie parking lot Thiesse stated he could look at some slanted parking, but that the City Engineer has recommended expanding the parking lot by nine feet. Gafiron stated the City's code does not specifically say a 24-foot driving lane, but that is typically required by the City to accommodate some of the larger vehicles. Rahn stated he does not have any issues with the application. Bremer moved, Fritticr seconded, to recommend approval of Application 1105-3149, Trinity Lntberan Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue, granting of a conditional use permit to allc w construction of additions to the church and also to allow repaving, reorientation and enlargement of the existing parking lot, subject to City Engineer approval of the parking lot prior to the City Council meeting, and fhrthcr subject to City Engineer approval of the pond and verification of whether a NURP pond is still required. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Jurgens opposed. 9. . «05-31S9 TIM POWERS ON BEHALF OF KEVIN GRELL, 1945 FA^RN^^ POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 10:01 P.M. ~ 10:09 P.M. Tim Powers, Appiidmt,^^^ present. Gundlac^ itated the applicanf’is r^uesting the foUpwing variances t:. order to replace a deck on the west • *•side of the home with a smaller deck: 1. A rear yard setback variance to permit a rear yard setback of 13.6 feet where 30 feet is normally r^utred and 13.6 feet currently exists. \ 2. A Jiafdcover variance to permit 26.3 percent hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone where inmiiiMiii PAGEM s' «05-3I49 September 19, ZOOS Page I of7 Date Applicatioii Received: S-18-05 Date Applicatioa Coniidered as Complete: 9-6-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-5-05 To;Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Janice Gundlach, City Planner ^ September 16,2005 Subject:05-3149, John lliiesse on behalf of Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue N, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Zoning Diatrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR- IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre min.) 4.86 acres (211,687 s.f.) 556 feet (200* requited) m i fj.: . u; . .' •- • • b. .idw Application Summary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow construction of additions to the existing church operating under the controls of several conditional use permits, also including re-paving, re-orientation, and enlargement of the existing parking lot. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. Should the recommendations of the City Engineer not be received prior to Monday’s meeting, or if the recommendation require revisions which may change the layout of the site, the qzplication should be tabled to the October meeting. The Planning Commission should consider the requested front yard parking setback variance with staff offering the following with respect to hardship: Staff finds that due to the extensive right-of-way width along the north side of Sixth Avenue N and the topography of the lot relative to gaining more level stalls, there may be a hardship to warrant approval of a variance for construction of this parking. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-418. Conditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (3) Churches, including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, and convents or homes for persons related U) a religious function on the same site, provided no building other than a residence shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district Sec. 78-1511. Setbacks for parking. Required off-steet parking in all districts shall meet the following setback requirements: (1) R districts. ... Open parking spaces on lots miLst have a location otlm than a required yard, except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten fret of a rear lot line. ■ — I •-'•I I I ' #05-3149 September 19,2005 Page 2 of 7 Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Demolition Plan Exhibit E - Site Plan including Oiading, Diainage, & Erosion Contiul Plan Exhibit F - Utility Plan Exhibit O - Geometric Sit Layout Exhibit H - Existing and Proposed Site Drainage Exhibit I - Details Plan Exhibit J - Preliminary City Engineer Comments Exhibit K - Perspective Illustration of Proposed Addition (as viewed from the southeast) Exhibit L - Floor Plan (areas of additions are shown as shaded) Exhibit M - Resolution #2423 Approved in 1988 Exhibit N - Resolution #2814 Approved in 1990 Exhibit O - Resolution #2990 Approved in 1991 Exhibit P - Aerial Photograph of Site Exhibit Q - Aerial Photograph Illustrating Relation to Adjacent Uses Exhibit R - Photographs of Site Exhibit S - Property Owners List Exhibit T - Plat Map Backgrouad The applicant and/or a representative of the church, has met with staff several times over the last year or so to determine the necessary steps that need to be taken in order to construct a large addition to the church. The proposed improvements consist of a great room, conference rooms, bathroom, nursery, and administrative oHlces additions and re paving, expanding, and re-orienting of the existing parking lot. Also, as part of the improvements proposed under this application, the church will be hooking into City sanitary sewer and will be abandoning the existing mound septic system in the southwest comer of the property. This is important as new parking area is proposed in this location. Any improvement proposed by a conditional use within a residentially zoned property requires review and approval of a new conditional use permit. Staff was unable to find the original conditional use permit for the church, although there may not be one, however three other resolutions have been approved for this property for various improvements. Those resolutions are attached as Exhibits L, M, and N. These wilt remain in force in addition to any resolution adopted as part of this proposal. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Lot Area/Width RR-IB Lot Area LotWMth Required 43,560 s.f. (2.0 acres)200 ’ ^05-3149 Sc|itembcr 19,200S Page 3 of7 Actual 211,687 s.f. (4.86 acres)556 ’ Building Setback! RR-IB Front Rear Left Side (west) Right Side (east) Required 50 ’ 50 ’ 50 ’ 50 ’ Existing 76’ 164 ’ 88 ’ garage 146 ’ main building 245 ’ Proposed 81 ’ covered entrance addition 148 ’ great room addition 106 ’ storage addition 58 ’ great room addition 173 ’ storage addition 202’ great room addition 236’ great room addition 232’ nursery/admin addition The proposed setbacks are in conformance with Section 78-418 (3) with all additions at a setback greater than 50 feet. RR-IB Required Existiug Proposed Front 50’14’ 14’ front parking 14’ expanded parking area in SW comer Rear 10’17’28 ’ Left Side (west)10’170’ front parking 245’ rear parking 16 ’ Right Side (east)10’12’10’ All side and rear yard parking setbacks conform to Section 78-1511 (1). A fhmt yard parking setback variance would be required in order to construct the expanded parking located in the southwest comer of the site as the front yard setback proposed is 14 ’ where 50 ’ is required. Staff finds that due to the extensive right-of-way width along the north side of Sixth Avenue N and the topography of the lot relative to gaining more level stalls, there nmy be a hardship to warrant approval of a variance for construction of this parking. 1 r #05-3149 September 19,2005 Page 4 or? The undeveloped right-of-way on the north side of Sixth Avenue N ranges from approximately 35’ on the far west to as wide as 80’ heading east. As this is a variance for new construction the Planning Commission may want to discuss approval of the paricing variance as the total number of stalls per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would not require construction of these additional 12 stalls. Number of Required Parking Stalls Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1516 requires that churches provide a minimum ol one stall for each four seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. The sanctuary provides 430 seats, with the proposed additions not increasing this number. I'herefore, the required parking would be as follows: 430 seats / 4 seats = 107.5 required parking stalls The church also provides a pre-school program during the weekdays as outlined in Resolution #2814, attached as Exhibit M. Section 78-1516 (10) provides a parking standard for day nurseries of four stalls plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square foot of floor space in the principal structure. The conditional use permit approving the pre-school noted a total square footage of 1,057 s.f. for the use therefore; the amount of parking required for the pre-school use would be as follows: 4 stalls + (57 s.f. / 500 s.f. = 1 stall) = 5 stalls The total amount of paricing stalls provided on the proposal is 221 stalls, adequate to support the two uses also recognizing that the uses probably do not occur during the same hours, further evidence that adequate parking has bwn provided. Stnictaral Coverage Per Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1403, this property is not subject to the lot coverage by structures ordinance as the property ’s area exceeds 1.99 acres. Hardcover Cakulatioas This property is outside of the Shoreland Overiay District boundaries and therefore not subject to hardcover restrictions. Exterior BaUdiag Materials The exterior building materials proposed consist of a light brown brick to match the existing exterior building materials. The Zoning Ordinance does not establish specific standards for exterior building materials, however only that all aspects of conditional uses be compatible with residential districts. Staff finds that the exterior building materials proposed are acceptable. Lightiag While the applicant has stated the church is still somewhat in preliminary planning stages with regard to details such as lighting, no new lighting within the parking lot is proposed unless it is required by building code or the Police Dqiartment. The current parking lot i M>5-3I49 September 19,2005 rage 5 of 7 does not contain any pole lighting nor would the building code require any. Should the iq>plicant wish to construct parking lot lighting in the future, an additional conditional use permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. With regard to building mounted lifting, the applicant has stated only security lighting is proposed, which would be located at entrance locations and the minimal necessary to safely illuminate the sidewalks. There are three entrance points shown on the proposed plan with the main entrance facing Sixth Avenue N and two secondary entrances off the parking lot, which face east. Staff does not anticipate that any building mounted lighting would be near enough to the adjacent residential property to cause any negative impacts. Signage The site contains a monument sign located along Sixth Avenue N and also a symbolic sign on the front facade of the building. No new signage has been proposed as part of this proposal and should any signage be proposed in the future, an additional conditional use permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Building Height The proposed additions are subject to a 30' height restriction measured from existing grade. The applicant has provided a scaled section drawing indicating compliance with the 30 ’ height limitation with a proposed height of 27*-28 ’. The height impact of the proposed addition is illustrated on the perspective image supplied by the applicant and attached to this report as Exhibit J. Gradiug A Drainage The proposal includes expansion of the parking lot to the northeast and also to the south west. Also included is construction of a rate control pond in the northwest comer of the site. The applicant has provided a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control plan, attached as Exhibit E illustrating how the expanded parking and rate control pond will impact the existing topography. As of the date of this report the City Engineer had only reviewed the plans briefly and provided general comments, which were supplied to the applicant in a “Request For Finther Information ” letter sent August 30,2005. Should the City Engineer comments be completed prior to the date of the Planning Commission meeting, those comments will be provided to the applicant and Planning Commission to aid in review of the conditional use permit. If the City Engineer comments are not received prior to the hearing, staff would recommend that the application is tabled until the City Engineer has fully reviewed the plans. Access Locations The site currently has two access points to the site from Sixth Avenue N (or Co. Rd. 6), one approximately 90* east of the westerly site boundary and one at the far east side of the site. These access points will not be altered in any way as part of this project. ■•fiaOin (W5-3I49 September 19,2005 Pace 6 of 7 ImiMcts to Adjacent Property Owners The nearest property owner is to the west at a distance of approximately 250*. This site is a group home (also operating under a conditional use permit) and would not be negatively impacted by the proposed expansion as most of the improvements are on the east side of the property. The property owner to the east is a residential home, currently 360* from the church. The extent of the parking lot currently reaches to a distance of approximately 100* to the house, with the closest location being where the Wolsfeld Woods public entrance is located. The proposed addition would bring the church a distance of approximately 320’ from the house to the east. The proposal will not add any negative impacts as no parking lot lighting is imposed and any building mounted lighting will be directed downwards and is probably too great a distance away for that lig? t to even reach the property line. Lastly, there are three residential homes to the south, on the south side of Sixth Avenue N. These homes range in distance from 390* to 490* from the front fa9ade of the existing church. Staff docs not foresee any negative impacts resulting to these properties with the proposal. CUP Standards In accordance with Section 78-916 (a) (1-3), the Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted the City makes the following findings: (I) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chqiter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the conqpreheiuive municipal plan; The proposed expansions to the conditional use are in accordance with the Municipal Code as churches are listed as a conditional use in the “R“ districts. The proposed expansions are to a use considered historical on the property and, in general, within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The property has been used as a church since prior to 1970. (3) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. The single piece of the proposal not complying with cqtplicable codes is the —•-J «r-' ■ ,-'i M5-3149 September 19,2005 ^ifeTof? proposed parking expansion in the southwest corner of the site, requiring a front yard parking variance. Stqff has provided comments regarding the existence of a hardship and the Planning Commission .should determine whether this expanded parking area should be allowed. All other requirements with respect to setbacks, building height, side and rear parking setbacks, etc. are proposed in a corf arming manner. ' A. lisna for ConiidcnitkMi 1. Is the expanded parking in the southwest comer of the site acceptable at a 14 ’ setback from the front property line? 2. Is there potential for adjacent property owners to be negatively impacted by the proposed e>qxmsions, whether it be building or parking expansions? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecomnaBdatlon Staff rec<mimends approval of the conditional use permit under the following stipulations: 1. The Planning Commission should determine if a viable hardship exists to allow the expanded parking in the southwest comer of the site as a front yard paridng setback variance would be required. 2. Prior to City Council review of the application, revised plans must be submitted incorporating the recommendations of the City Engineer letter, attached to this report as Exhibit J. The applicant will also be required to comply with any other forthcoming conunents from the City Engineer. 'i Application# 05-3/^j Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ . Site Address ___________ Type of Application to be Filed /'>kAAAy^7JtVll4^. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 27^ //S - 23 ~JfA OCX>2,_____ APPLICANT . __ Name ^ Phonefwork) 7<^>3 Addres Phone (home) ^IS2'22S'Phonefwork) 7^ %364SS4y^/^^ City Zip__^^SS3^ zmPhone (home)_2S2 Address Date Property Acquired ___________ I (do)gdo not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Phone (work) City 9S2'*/7^ 7 Zip. (month/year) FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____Grading and filling - 601 cu. yd. or more _____Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (■♦• consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation _____$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule .«r 314 o 1 A I 2. 3. ^ ZO&O REQUIRED SUBMITTALS “I. __Completed Application Form. y Describe request in detail. ----- jr Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennej^n County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6 Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.' wir66i| IVIli II ItJapuiiDi iv/i 1^ t L ^ ^ y Certificate of Survey (signed by . a licensed sun/eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. V Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. y_Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes In elevation (grades). y List .of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ^ the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not.current owner(s). ^ Construction plan, if applicable (see s\aff for requirements).^ ^ ^ ^______ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other person^ you wish notified of this application. I • YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete If the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:._________________________Date APPLICANTS SIGNATURE k,. The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and Mrrect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature OWNER'S SIGNATUl^ Date OWNER'S SIUWAIUKC ^ 4u ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. iN suwnittalsinto the City offices 2 _______ _________________Date AoDlicant must have aiTsiJBmittalsinto the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are heW on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be P^®sent at aH scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unaoie lo attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building a Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. — — // ^ 1 I 1 ! ill m ;a ) ’^le- City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form Is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parltway Ororto, MN 55356 MaWng Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only: City Planner i /AA// CE Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 Meeting Oale/Time; PC Date: ^pf. Tm What ia tha purpose of a pre-appUcahon meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: .j ^ y Site Address: A/arerf^ Property Identification Number (PIN): 27-- //g « 3/- 0002 Zoning District: _____Size of Property:______________________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Res. Access. Use Xlnstitutional □ Comm / Indust Use □ PRD / PIO □ Other: □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bldg □ Land Alteration □ Comm Site Plan Review OTHER INFORMATION: '*Please note: Your application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staf' Applicant Signature: r Date: r Q t O 1 4i b Jic • ■ '• - ...,^ .. 4^!*K,^SSlie .rO^*••%#» ' • • . It Ll , w*ii^ CCRTinCATE or SURVEY FOR TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH JU. IN THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 27-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 6 (6TH AVENUE NORTH) ^ ’I ' ' ?■w, • —11^ m m • tf trnmm Tt. m I • • 0 ORONaCRa AND AeROCjATKINC. “n* w m- i3 • '• -1 ■ ■■■ '■ .:...:-'.u-i •■ .■ •• ■ • ■. :•; ■. ■•; / V ^ H HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 6 (6TH AVENUE NORTH) Hh » « 0 M EZ3 »ftif2?Rii9na> « MM M «nb •«■■■■««■ •« « ' ■■■■• aMM ■ • ■ MM «M M ■■« VI tm mmi fl«H< k««a «m«4 • ,r:fe- iil I APPROXIMATE DISTUIIICD AREA IS 3.66 ACRCS HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 6 (6TH AVENUE NORTH) m 9 m 7 J ^i'l r Vi^ * V 5639MiR£«i!IM7. ,-+^1 »v. k; 1 V','|M' IBKI^SnKSiCIZIl'Z.'r •'■, x)i,'/w, •A X'y.-^S^S I* *i RnstnciMnmwIwiKmi" nUilllMMIIki j SBi%lllr _J % ■ WN COUNTY STATt AID HKHMAY NO. 6 (•m AVIMUC NOHIM) -1 g IS ( ‘T'*r I V-- -X , TSsS ■Swft t ••«0 1.1^•IS*aji •*ijiii4*••» if*—s—___}___•4i1-i« ______^■„.—sa__ — \-~y 'v'v ‘ 1«B{1V~“-" H llMa*anis I Memo Womstroo Iwflwif 1 4 ArtfUMcn Project Nrnn%: Trinity Lutheran Church C//enf; CityofOrono To: Tom KeMogg FitoNo: 139-05-000 From: Lance Hoff Doto: 9-14-05 Ro: Drainage Review Engineer BKBM Engineers. MPLS Submittal: Drainage Calculations. Rational Storm Sewer Design Calculations, Plans Plan Sheets: Grading and Drainage. Storm Sewer. Detaiis Date of Plans: 9-6-05 Date Received: 9-12-05 Summary of Reci MMli ill'f Based on our review of the Trinity Lutheran Church site, we offer the following comments. Grading and drainage are generally good. Rate control requirement has been met for the site. The storm sewer has been adequately designed. The only comments are in regards to water quaiity treatment, which has not been addressed by the plans. Comments follow below; 1 . The pond should be modified to include water quality treatment for the entire site. Treatment should satisfy NURP requirements (wet volume equal to the runoff generated during a 2.5* rainfall event). Our calculations show that 0.315 ac-ft of wot storage must be provided. 2. A10 ’ wide aquatic bench with slopes no steeper than 10:1 must be provided immediately below theNWL. 3. The pond outlet structure must be modified to provide skimming. 4. The pond inlet and outlet should be separated as much as feasible to prevent short circuiting. 5. The pond EOF should be shown as armored to prevent erosion. Riprap or properly installed permanent erosion control mat would be acceptable. wiWBr ftOfi#ifiroci-COiH OlLtaf< nSn ittt 01 09LOm ' ■•' ■ .■ .■’■• *?-; ■•• ' ■' > « I, . i -T • ‘ *»• Jl:3is rvV.5..i •J 1 ^^sfayi MHnn!r<n:fi:i; uj. __ ■» ■ ,V-' ms •j. •.r^ t 7^ HFVT/* •* ■f.- ■ ‘ : :i f ln^ ' *■ -' ■! WM. A li .■^ ' - IK»»: ■ '^'j ,..rf'!; - ©lifeyt;' '. - ..s^i ' wiT^* '' ■',’. ■;;i P i!5?§ r-------^/^■•'• • • •! MKHAMCM.YOUTH _ ______/uL A i f <i mm «■—f . OH . . . . • *' ^«* ^’.*Y '' ^ j- ; ■ ^"^ • .* .■/: .if ^.. . \' • X , < ‘ tWNmr umcNAN CNuncH •UMCRIML l03 AHCHiriCTS Also ♦ TOUNCquifT lac EUMINARY- august 15.2005 i IE |[S^raB8Bft8a»a~|P5;^ f'-- . X‘!:‘rP ■n ■' .'■•-'t-J^'- v" ”-;-iS * ■ ’ ;i*r- ■^1' "T g 1~5 ARCNITICTS AI60 ♦ YOUHGQUIST Inc.1 = PRELIMINARY - AUGUST 15.2005 '^ssumBfssKst M -» . • # A 5438258 ».. . tS l\- 'f t, I vrj'- 1 rORON(^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2423 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.26, SUBDIVISION 3(A) AND VARIANCES PER SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5(A) AND A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE 11254 HHBREAS, Craig Moleski, an authorized representative of Trinity Lutheran Church (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2060 6th Avenue North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached to this resolution (hereinafter "property"); and MRBREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit to officially approve the existing church use totaling 15,751 s.f. of structure and the proposed additions to said structure totaling 11,434 s.f. per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3(A) and per section 10.61, Subdivision S(A) grants a side setbacic variance of .5* or .05% for an expansion of the parking lot on the east side of the property and a front setback variance of 37* or 74% for the expansion of the parking lot within the required front yard setback area, and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 grants a Conditional Use Permit for the use of 300 cubic yards of fill to be used in final grading of the site and approves the commercial site plan submitted by Station 19 Architects, Inc. dated February 16, 1988 for the addition and remodeling of the existing church structure and site improvements. Minnesota t NON, TRBRBPORB, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11254 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres in a. ea for all uses. 3. The property is approximately 4.4 acres in area. Page 1 of 6 1 • . • Jik rsr' • s • :/ !• 5I I.- V'- .• '\ :.C * / .'i. r;- ‘ ! \^■ ‘ • I •It. • j . i tlTY . dpONO ■ V ■ ■iV > V « 1• **-- > City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2A2^ 4. The Orono proposed setback A. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. B The standards for parking are for and may not be appropriate for quasi-commercj. r"h'S"r."n"f=oV findings. A.A church has existed on the property since the early 1950*s. B. The existing church required setbacks and all existing improvements satisty a setbacks. A„d recon-endB Offrov.l of coB«orci»l site r>.n in,frovedcr.ts .»s.d on tho following findings. A. The ftofosed exterior boildln, botori.l is consistent with existing building materials. hazatds to safety. frra?raiy |[gnificant chants in the existing drainage pattern. 5 The Orono City Council reviewed approval cC a Conditional Use fill to iV%:6 i“\\rfrnri %ra"dfn; O^ the site, based on the following findings. A. The till has been tinned tech thnr it will deter severe erosion. „ Th. .rvfllcnnt win need nd.iirlonnl till to coorloto the finnl nreding nnd Inodsenre finns tor the site. Pnqc 2 of City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2423 C. The current placement of the fill v/i 11 problems for the adjacent properties. not create any 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this pro perty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property this zoning district; that granting the variances would not - _ _ _ » AAA. a ^ * - - A. .A AA AA A Iadversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; cind v/ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to the allow the expansion of the existing church and the placement of 300 cubic fill on the property would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor v/ill it 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 5(A) for the expansion of the existing parking area and per Section 10.28, Subdivision 3(A) approves a Conditional Use Permit for the existing church use and the proposed expansion of the church structure and grants a Conditional Use Permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 that would allow the borrowing of approximately 300 cubic yards of fill to be used in the final grading of the site and approves the commercial site plans per drawing by Station 19 Architects, Inc. dated February 26, 1988 entitled Addition To and Remodeling of Trinity Lutheran Church, Long Lake, Minnesota consisting of a site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, floor plans for the lower level and the first floor and elevations. Those comprehensive approvals are subject to the following conditions. 1. The landscaping/grading plan shall be amended to include screening along the east lot line required as a condition of the setback variance approval. Such screening to be reviewed by the Building & Zoning staff at the time of the building permit application review. 2. Site plan shall bo am«'nclcd to include t)ic follov/ing improvements. Pago 3 of 6 ii * , n • i ■ I.. '■.<■- 1 City of ORONO ■V -.CITY-* OF I ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Is. r- / A. Kost access to be roaliqncd in order to line uf v;i tli Koil.h Drown Honrl intersection to ini: rove traffic flow. B. Curbing to be installed alor.*:i the east side of the f.arking area. C Sinn crescntly located in right-of-v/ay of County Road G to b4 removed if Hennepin County Departmei.; not submit a letter approviny the location of the present sign. D. Designate all approvofl parking pInccs/sta 1 1 b handicapped s^^alls are to ho designated - omit space.*; that block loading are • on north side of church huiIdinq. 3. Applicant shall provide odaquate soil erosion control throughout the entire building and grading/rcstoration of site. 4.Per State Building Code 1300.6905, a fire suppression system must w w ^ ^ be provided throughout the entire ‘" ’■cl. structure. 5. Per Section 12.30, Subdivision 4(E) of the Orono Municipal Code, ?hrircUi'.e/‘«AVc‘' drainfield with the major expansion of the church structure. 6. Applicant must provide fire lane posting and additional signage deemed necessary by the fire inspector. 7 Authorities granted by this resolution rii.**. with the i"'* wUh“SoTtFlicM. but are Fct«is,ivc only ard n.u,t ,.e .rrlicatio^n Cor a building permit within one year of the date, ot S^Sacil .Ffroval, or the s|eL.l condition, o« tnl, teeolut.on «ill expire on that date (May 9# J989). a Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and Jion. o.tnY, resolution shall corrtitute a violation of the tontn, code, shall automatically terminate any authority grantee shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9 The underFiqned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees 10 tJe t«»r'f this resold and on behalf of tho church, their Pago 4 of 6 •. i A wa m- A.- Wk L ♦ OaterlDilofi of proporty: That part of tha N«E. \/k of the S.W. 1/^ of Section 27> Tovinshlp 118, Range 23i Hennepin County» Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the N.E. corner of the S.W. 1/^ of said Section 27; thence W« on the N. line of said S.W. l/li distance of S50.00 feet; thence S. and parallel with the E. line of said S.W. I/I| distance of kSk*\ feet More or less to the center line of County Road 16; thence northwesterly along said center line of said highway to a point on the E. line of said S.W. \/U distant 389*7 feet S. of the N.E. corner of said S.W. 1/4; thence N. on the E line of said S.W. 1/4 to the point of beginning, according to the United State Government survey thereof. Subject, to rights of way acciuircid for County Road 6. Areat I99|763 square feet 4,59 acres (excluding road) mmmfmmm -mm .-••• .’Vm 'i;'- ‘‘r' . Ar . , V -y*'\ **V-‘v ■' %'' * • Vi-:.*;* ' # *= V -r:y;v.;. vr % • V J V •*' ' V • ».' »• -'** . ‘V,» ■ HV » • • V, ‘ ‘r. . -V • r-» .*■«>. .1 V. -V:vW' 1.^ ;v,-. • •'»> '*v ■ '*w •'s • • V n* ■ < . •’ :u .•'*> .V'-2 yr - 'r: t-» ^ i ... '" *.' • -‘.•Sf* » LV'; • V - r. -.^ ^^.v; <• V-,'•<• « '•*•■• ^ ■ *'“* t 'T..» ■ t* • . L \A ^i! y^'.v. <Jk '•* S'lt • ’ * i* '. • V. />: CITY City of ORONO OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2423 _ _ _ successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recordi^j of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of f:' -■»•! I. r-# • •'w* , • ri‘ tf;.- • ^U- *■• ' .• Av.; • r. ' .... ,i\ ^; ' • :'•• • %« mm*^ NO UNCIL B recordiTij of this lis 9th day of 'V,' . i •' V . V i-". »* v*. f.‘• • mi 1 SI I ‘•V-‘• lii r;f •*.r I • » ^ 1 •mmmt , ^ a *♦" .-«#■»>«» I ■ awata.a .l' . li iW ■»■ i> i ■ i ■<»’Vt!* ^ CITY I I OF I I ORONO I City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2423 8TATB OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this_ _ ... ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 198£ before me a Notary Public within and for said county,personally appeared s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) dSscribed Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) ex'-cuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. /? / • ^ / /' t /., /.V / f ^ * ! /. it f rl NOTARY PUBLIC y’r/yty/'t MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(st described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 VI ’ ■ .. • 'A r<* *. J’jr I® 'U%> i • ■ *. t ' • V t fk r 4^ _ __ _ .•• _ •• * •• • •. ’4 -t? 'ir f/rr*> 5693338 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2814 W' t* NO. A RBSOLOTIOH GRANTING A COHDTIOHAL 06B PBRMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28r SUBDIVISIONS 3 (A) PILE #1524 ,V A. *C' '■tr.W S'-‘- WHEREAS, Wesley Ann Hallquist, director of Trinity Preschool, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2060 Sixth Avenue North located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Please refer to Exhibit A (attached), (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit for a half day Preschool program per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A) Minnesota t MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile 11524. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB rural residential zoning district requiring 2 acres of dry continguous land. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 1990, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following findings: a) There is adequate parJcing, schoolroom and play areas found at the Trinity Church facility. b) The Preschool program shall consist of 30 preschoolers and 5 staff members (director, teacher, assistant teacher and two aides). c) The Preschool will operate Monday through Friday mornings for 9*00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. offering two programs of schedules (2~day and 3-day). d) The Preschool will be located in approximately 1057 B.f. of classroom area. m • Page 1 of 4 • * 4» 4 /•< City of QRCWNO ;>te'f35 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL JbR0NC?l NO.^444 The Department of Human Services for the State of Minnesota shall not require an outdoor play area for programs operating for less than 3 hours a day. Trinity Preschool is offering a 2-1/2 hour program. f) The Department of Human Services has granted preliminary approval of Trinity Preschool’s license to operate. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission# reports by staff# and oral and written comments of the applicant# and the effect of the proposed use on the health# safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a preschool program sponsored by Trinity Preschool at Trinity Lutheran Church will not be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of ling Cthe Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. C0HCL08I0M8# OBDBR AMD 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 10.28# Subdivision 3 (A) to permit Trinity Preschool to open a preschool program at the property located at 2060 6th Avenue North# subject to the following conditions: 1. This conditional use permit is approved for a preschool use either for a half day or full day (A.M. and P.M. 2-1/2 hour programs). Any expansion into day care or a latch key type program connected with the local school district would be subject to approval of a new conditional use permit. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a 2-adult/15- student ratio while outdoor play activities are conducted within unfenced play area. This condition is subject to review upon the placement of fencing around the outdoor play area to the rear/north of the Church structure. 3. 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. Page 2 of 4 I J ^3» f ^ i ;"ClT.v: i-'OF ‘ •■' pRONO '.f .1? City of OROI^i|.§|^:&Ct . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2814 W undersigned representative of Trinity Church and the director of Trinity Preschool have read, understood and hereby agree to the terns of this resolution and on behalf of Trinity Church and Trinity Preschool* their successors and assigns* hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Orono City Council on this 11th day of June* 1990, A'^4^ 2itv Clerk i» r. Janes R ( .Jw^r _____________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ RepresWlWiff^e <JrTrinity ~ Direc^r of Trini^ Preschool Church STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of June* 1990* by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 4 City Clerk of the City of Orono* a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. hJUULa^ Notary Public My Commision Expires Page 3 of 4 v-A City of ORONO :<r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2814_________ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) 88. COONTY OP HENNEPIN ) t / Vv t J.. •*• i L***- d ‘. JL' A-'«r .i I On thl8wu uiix® day of ________________f 199^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared /?g.u. ^,'cM(U.ci L. EAu'cJt^s^i ^^/P . ^ CJxj^cJ^known to me to be the person(s} descrlbcfid in^nd who Executedn....... ww __ _ person(8) describcfd in^^nd who execuceo the foregoing Instrument^ and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. V TNEMSA L NAAS NOTAur pueuc • mmnesota HENNEPIN COUNTY IWmmmMm NOTARY PUBLIC i^v '"Hfiiiyii'MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )S8. COONTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1990r before me a Notary Pu^l^ic within and for said County, personally appeared lUffs^lejut iTL^n )4tTLJloijc<i5-h. k ^ and Viho execut nown to me Yo be'fhe perfrbn(s}' described un and wno executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^kiuuui^ NOTARY PUSLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 9^ ON^ Page 4 of 4 r* - ” EtoAii£BilkKa^ r Li' ^ m' A ■ •i . / r . i City of ORONO ; CITV or •; ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2814 _ / f >'v .■; V ? ^ir}' O'• r -i ; H ^ . .1 • STATi: OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) 88. thl8 , ,.JThe foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on iltn j... June on »- -day of 19 90 , by James R. Grabek t Dorothy M. Hallinr Mayor & city Clerk of the City of OronOf a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. > Resolution #2814 EXHIBIT A DeterIptton of property; That part of the N.E. I/I| of the S.W. IA of Section 27, Tov/nthlp ||8, Range 23 t Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the M.E. corner of the Section 27: thence W. on the N. line of s.iid S.W. I/I| distance of •ct I *'**”®* the E. line of said S.W. lA distance of turle/th^rl«l'' according to the United State Covernment 1QO -SCI * • ^ eights of way acquired for County Road 6, Areat199#763 squarii feet 4.59 acres (excluding road) . ‘ ‘If? fftty-■ •• .. *, . * * tijj 'mM > y > ,.L« . 1^'■mm ffsii '.W?F aJ t 4 jr * ^ I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2990 u A RBSOLOnOH 6RAHTIII6 A COMDITIOHAL USB PERMIT PBR NOHXCIPAL XOHIHG OODB 8BCT10H 10.28, 80BDIVISI0H 3 (A) PILE #1646 WHEREAS, Jerry Jon*®' “ an Trinity Lutheran Church, 2060 Sixth Avenue Northinterest in the property located at 2Ogj Sixth Aven within the City of Orono (hereinafter City ; ana y described ast Refer to exhibit A, attached (hereinafter ••property"): and HBBRBAS, the applicant has 3^® 28°x3T%r Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A). WOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: PIHDIlIGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1646. 2. Th. property i. Zoning District requiring 2 acres in are . P consists of 3*^ acres. 3 On Julv 15, 1991, the Orono Planning Coirolssion tie .ppUcU.; .. proposed end recosunended epproval based on the following findings: A) All standards of the pertinent Municipal Code Sections have been satisfied. B) The proposed structure and the “®®. ^551e structure will have no negative impact ^ surro^ding residential tone and developed properties. i The cltv Council ha"s considered this applicatio including the findings ®"‘*_/®®™®”^*^i°”®of^^.he*applica^^ Commission, reports by staff and v ^^gafety,a^the affect of the proposed use on the health, s y. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2990 5. The City Council of^”a ^detached^ aVce\^sory permit to be'^detr^nental to the health, safetystructure will not be be a,iverselv affect or general welfare of the ^hazard or other danger to light, air nor its^®® depreciate neighboring that the proposed level of surrounding P>^®P®^^y Y®\“w® 4„ keeping with the intent and ^o^ThfL^inV l^.^”a?l«ehensive Plan of the City. COHCLDSIOHS# ORDER AND CONDITIONS S«lh”r!Th *«arcVl ‘ocat.“ at 2060 Sixth Avenue North, aubject to the following conditions: 1. All construction »*hicles .hall “«““/i‘e%ri?SltlSn S“ «l.“?ng ‘ d’Jrinnrid «i?hln southwest yard of church during the construction period. 2. All lighting proposed for be used for security P“JPP®®® ^he Review of this approved as shown j:" s fro»application as shielding the light rays from aaj residential properties. 3. Authorities granted by ^®®°^“J^/^ssive'^^^^ av A”.sr~»-ur,..s 22, 1992). 4. Violation of or .Y^^ij-n^^tute^^ violationconditions of this resolution shall const!tu^^^ of the Zoning Code, shall Jf!^able as a authority granted herein, and shall be p misdemeanor. * ••• Page 2 of ? • I J ' * •A %CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -2990 5. The undersigned authorized agent of Church has read, understood hereby church its of this resolution and on behalf of tne - 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 22nd day of July;» 1991» ATT* >Tt Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor :Autio^<^d ^re>^^ Trinity Lutheran enured STATE OP MINNEMTA ) /) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged this 22nd day of July, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson * b«o\hy ^ HiHln, MayJr . City <=l«>‘,f:L°«e:u'ted on"blhalf municipal corporation and said instrument was execurea of I III I I I M< ■ /L.L STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SSe ) On this before me appeared 199 COUNTY OP HENNEPIN cPc^aoI- day of viLX./^____________ ublic within and forfjsaid county, personally I foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executeo the same as his (their) free act and deed. THISSSA L NAAS notmw neuo * iwmoota MlNWgPIM COUNTY Notary Public I ,1 r * exhibit A •• .. • • •. S*:^'Sxis,s.:2-iin;SJ G I/I of said S«ctlon IV, thence «• , ;lG%f ,ald S.W. 1/4 distance of Iso'.OO feet; thence S. and “ nne of County Road thence northwesterly iU,\ feet more or less tn the center ii ^ ^ ^f said S.W. «iano said center line of said highway thence N. on the E line:ln;«t %!? r..t S. of th. K. . «rn.r^of saM^S.W. 1/ of told S.W. 1/4 acquired for County Road 6. Area* tunroy thereof. ^ («feludlng^d) lSf,7«l aquaro feet 4.59 ecree iw ' •*># - _itr tf ■.1 fela*- ■ ■ if. ••: ••■>•• ♦we j 0- ■4' ■v-v »■ : ■} Jv/ , ‘ , r? «f> V ^ . \ • • S. - • r : IL y. • J- HW' w!U ■■...;> .«ak 1 -s 1 CiJdj AIO^^K kIij ^On^oir^ . •'i'r .«>■?•• «•* •* •‘*1’ P* •/ s 't/ ^ t A.^i.- iWl« ' J 'Hv - W€^4 # -wmmsmwnf^-,,.. ). , * *1,.* . . ;■.: t. » .’m>* ■' ''^• ft '^", W. >. ' ^ 4 .. m . C>-k t ; ‘»-»r .>‘s v5r J3-* *...•_ ,,*.iV«>i r- > '' B ** -« 'T/Wp^B I?,- i .; >^:; l» ii#i I TV 5* ’j , . Bl;- yM^^m A T “^' ’'■i ' .mm li:^ t 9** m v%>T ‘'iM^Kk.. ^ Wolsfeld Woods Access ■'rt-;,‘9>-r 'i^' i v ’i« '>2,^ f- A '5> M*. I #k: 1^ '^\' ■^ ■’ i, :'-Vv^'•• • fv»-^ • i ••\i. . V. '*iVr-r* 1 \490 ‘i :^^V.................. ...\ •r! pif \ W:m. W’ Sf V .1^ 4y » k^ r / •i" V 7. ; j V / (b ^>V * • ■•?•.•• *,V 'V. T* - :* Jfc-- A ■r^j ■ - ''J; ^ ? ^^;% ■>/■? jS: ■:■ ■#'■ ■•'■-'-V'I'-;.' ^ JaliHHBSBfflii^^ ■-•f ': v < >T{5‘ -^,:*Mi;v> i 0\ .*;> •*. / ^ > • • 7? ■* - • * ’ •■A rj - - ■'• * ►* V /■ -1 ' f. •• V • l.-i, -iHi. 1*. RM' ».K/’ .•( ■■•:; /r’ r ■•'. * >h r- •'-*‘A' R r . VV V.., •" r%**- • ’ r. . ?V> /‘. r-f ^ , . ..i£; .,’ ■• >.»v*'-. / .ifi: '■ '-■-i '', ' # ^ . «■-. .n •V"v..«• w. . • ' -• ‘V ^ • -• , /‘-V'' •• » -^7. Vfr<^' ,*-- ^7::;i> • - i ' 'i TO * . Z' ‘ . >' •-• < , , » . • *1* \* .* • > 4 'tt^. ■‘i X* »%•’•• r***r** mA OF PFfliwua a(PA«PEP 10 A^ET \ aajfeaig-si '» # \ • ^ -V %• •• •-C *. *'7 ”C' ' r - V' Hv:? A 1 ^ ' • 1*^ ^. iv. • v-/' . y ' rv:^ •A. /- ■ V- , . . . « A ^ >r7% '• . u > ^ '^V'’ *’- V/ ...i''' »W--• m** •I 4 V % 4 ^ ^ f # '* *'^ .*' / ^ f:.r .= -•* . -:. /*/• •V V , • V:\,.'-/ . V/;’ ' • • »* ' •• •' . * 5?'' • • • • • ; '♦■■-. » -4:%. ’ ,'i /». • , • j,. , , ‘^ ;■• . ; '• .'• ; »•' i . ,'-‘\i •/. .. 'i.}i‘V ••* • ! ' »,• V ' ■ i'.:' .'Wf ' a ' '... ’ . .. * • .’ .••■•' •. w - ✓ < >1 f A. V V '> • •• . ■ ■•• .A. • •.*i.‘Y-’''^* ' '*^'- r-K‘ .•v.;.v^J'•' * • 'V- . y]y: -r/. • » * ^ .T . . ^ *TW.V RUN DATE: 8/160003 •0 2711823130001 FROTAODR 80 AbCRFSSUNASSiONEO OWNER NAME DEPT OP NATURAL RESOURCES TAXPAYER DNR REAL ESTATE MOMT NAMB/ADDR ATTN DEBBIE OURT1N 300 LAFAYETTE RO STPAULMN 33133 80 2711823240010 PROPAODR 80 ADDRESS PENDING OWNERNAMB PAULRPMLUPSTRUSTEE TAXPAYER PAULRRMARYBPHR2JPS NAME/ADOR BOX 733 LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 27II8233I00I4 PR07ADDR 2143 SDCTHAVEK OWNBRNAME BWDEWnTRMHDEWITT TAXPAYER BRUCE W 4 MELANIE H DEWITT NAME/AlXm 2I43SDCTHAVBN U3NGLAKEMN 33336 38 27II8233I0026 PROPADDR 2140 SOCTHAVEN OWNBRNAME PAULRPHILUPSTRUSTEE TAXPAYER PAUL R* MARY B PHILLIPS NAMB/ADDR BOX 733 LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 2711823420004 PROPADDR 1980 SOCTHAVEN OWNBRNAME JAMESRJUDITHPIERPONT TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR JAMES PIERPONT 1910 SDCTH AYE N LONG LAKE MN 33336 HENNEPIN CXJUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SO 2711823240001 PROP AOOR SO ADDRESS UN ASSIGNED OWNBRNAME DEPT OP NATURAL RESOURCES TAXPAYER DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT NAME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 300 LAFAYETTE RD STPAULMN 53133 80 2711823240003 PROP ADDR 1250 PHILLIPS DR OWNER NAME MARY B PHILLIPS TAXPAYER MARY B PHILLIPS NAME/ADDR BOX 733 LONG LAKE MN 53336 38 2711823310002 PROPADDR 2060 SOCTHAVEN OWNER NAME TRINITY ENG EVAN LUTH CH INC TA3CPAYER TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH NAME/ADDR 20606THAVEN LONG LAKE MN S5356 38 2711823310003 PROPADDR 2135 SOCTHAVEN OWNER NAME RICHARD C VALITON ET AL TA3CPAYER RICHARD 4 SALLY VAUTON NAME/ADDR 2135 COUNTY ROAD 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 2711823310024 PROPAODR 2100 SOCTHAVEN OWNER NAME ORONO WOODLANDS 04C TAXPAYER ORONO W(X>DLANOS INC NAME/AOOR 2100 SIXTH AVEN LONOLAKEMN 53356 38 2711823310025 PROPADDR 2085 SDCTH AVEN OWNER NAME JOHJR4 0IANEJMARESH TA3CPAYER JOHN R 4 DIANE J MARESH NAME/ADDR 2085 SDCTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 38 2711823310027 PROPAODR 2150 SOCTHAVEN OWNER NAME PAUL R PHILLIPS TRUSTEE TA3CPAYER PAUL R 4 MARY B PHOJJPS NAME/AOOR BOX 755 LONOLAKEMN 55356 38 2711823420003 PROPAODR 1940 SOCTHAVEN OWNER NAME JAMES W PIERPONT TA3CPAYER JAMES W PIERPONT NAME/ADDR 1801 WEST FARM RD LONOLAKEMN 55336 38 7711823420006 PROPAODR I960 LAKE VIEW TER OWNBRNAME EVELYNS ROSS TAXPAYER EVELYN E VOLBY NAME/AOOR I960 LAKEVIEW TER LONOLAKEMN 55356 38 2711823420007 PROPADDR 1940 LAKEVIEW TER OWNBRNAME EVELYNEROSS T/JCPAYER EVELYN E VOLBY NAME/AOOR 1960 LAKEVIEW TER LONOLAKEMN 55356 L «Miiur *■ ■ v'" ■ .r:.-: S-' i' - ■■■ ••- !■ •;-'k!l •'‘S IUiNDATE:t/l6aOOS ‘.V.<'-> ■;<■■'■-.V- iv7:i li;: * • . r il■ -V ■' /*.* ;• ■ ' ■ ■• ■• - :.. :V. • « • ' . -1 ' ' V ■': ' ■.■ /■ ;. «•; .: 0-V;; ;:■■■;. , ' . .fk. 4 <)1' . " <rtv. '>':•f^-:c /{ . fllt-i ''y* V-' „. u??v -' •■ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: 2 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION CH> INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE OF ns HEI«IEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICE DEPARTM OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT •‘•fy ‘I »>* ■ ; ft mw % 27-116-23-24 I . >*'.•' . , t :.■ '*i' . .-■•W / .;■'••• . .. i**-..*' Mfc—-I I ■X mw \ PHLUeS a 11 MOOOLAMD 7EIVMCE SeOOMP ; .Vv-.-'- '^5i= ; V- * * K ' I'fe.’:'l ' •■!>■-> ■ ■ '■ '.'- i r^^-s-yuc /T- yy[f V 1' . i :: . •='X^ ’i"i-i:: ’• • ‘V . * '" • -v " 27-118-23-31 ^ £V09GR£B4koQE 27-118-23-42 «/ Memorandum Date: To: From: RE: October 10,2005 Mayor Peterson, City Councilmembers, and Ron Moorse Melanie Curtis, City Planner File 05-3151 The attached memo is a corrected version of the memo in your packet. The applicant notified staff this morning that the hardcover numbers and the structural coverage numbers he provided were incorrect. The corrected numbers are reflected in the attached revised memo and in the Resolution. Additionally, language was added to the Resolution regarding the removal of any fence which the applicants own within 75 ’ of the OHWL in conjunction with this rebuild. mmmm ■wm^ . . • j Date Applicatiofl Received: 0S>I7*05 Date AppIkaliM CoMkIered w Conplete: 09-12*05 iO-Day Review Period Eipirct: 1 1-12-05 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 4,2005 Item No. Departneat Approval: Naac: Melanie Curtis TMc: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #05-3151 - Gary & Sandra Baron - 361 9 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 'A acre/100* Lot Area: 6,561 s.f. or 0.15 acre Ut Width: 50* List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Resolution per Planning Commission recommendation Revised plans per PC recommendation PC Action Notice dated 09-21-05 PC Memo & Exhibits of 09-13-05 Application Summary: The applicants initially requested lot width, lot area, side yard setback, lake setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family home on the property. Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission the applicants have redesigned their plans to meet the side setback requirement of 10* on each side. The applicants are requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75* zone of 1,250.9 s.f. or 33.8% where 0% is normally allowed and within the 75*-250* zone of 1,934 s.f. or 67.6% where 25% is normally allowed in order to construct a 1,500 s.f. home. Planning Commission Recommendation On September 19, Planning Commission voted 7 - 0 to recommend approval of lot width, lot area, lake setback and hardcover variances within the 0-75* setback and 75* - 250* setback for construction of a new home. The Planning Commission reconunended denial of the side setback variance stipulating that the home should be redesigned to meet the 10* side setbacks. Planning Staff Recommendation Approval of the variances per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adoot or amend the attached Resolution. _____ Date Applkatloii Rcc>?ivcd: 08>I7-05 Dale Appikalion Considered at Complete: 09>l2-05 (0-Day Review Period Eipires: 11-12-05 COUNCIL MEETM6 OCT 102006 CITYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 4,2005 Item No. ^ Dcpartinciit Approval: Nana: Melanie Curtis i % Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #05-3151 - Gary & Sandra Baron - 3619 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, One Family Lakcshorc Residential, V% acrc/lOO* Lot Area: 6,561 s.f. or 0.15 acre Lot Width: 50’ List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Resolution per Planning Commission recommendation Revised plans per PC recommendation PC Action Notice dated 09-21-05 PC Memo & Exhibits of 09-13-05 Application Summary: The applicants initially requested lot width, lot area, side yard setback, lake setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family home on the property. Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission the applicants have redesigned their plans to meet the side setback requirement of 10* on each side. The applicants are requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75’ zone of 1,250.9 s.f. or 33.8% where 0% is normally allowed and within the 75’-250’ zone of 1,914 s.f. or 66.9% where 25% is normally allowed in order to construct a 1,479 s.f. home. Planning Commission Recommendation On September 19, Planning Commission voted 7 - 0 to recommend approval of lot width, lot area, lake setback and hardcover variances within the 0-75’ setback and 75’ - 250’ setback for construction of a new home. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the side setback variance stipulating that the home should be redesigned to meet the 10’ side setbacks. Planning Staff Recommendation Approval of the variances per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached Resolution. iSIm ■ I ■J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350(B), 78-1288, and 78-1279 FILE NO. 05-3151 WHEREAS, Gary E. Baron & Sandra M. Baron, husband and wife (hereinafter applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3619 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 10, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 273 except part taken for road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-3S0(B) to allow the construction of a new single family residence on a lot 6,561 s.f. (O.IS acre) in area and SO’ in width where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) and 100 ’ in width are normally required; and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipd Zoning Code Section 78-1288 A & B to allow hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone of 1,250.9 s.f. or 33.8% \ydiere 0% hardcover is normally allowed and within the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone of 1,914 s.f. or 66.9% where 25% hardcover is normally allowed in conjunction with the construction of a new single family residence; and WHEREAS, the fq)plicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow the construction of a new single family residence 46’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka udiere a 75 ’ setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 05-3151. Page 1 of 6 2. 3. : - \ -:T' •' r The property is located in the LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 'A acre and a minimum lot width of 100 ’. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on September 19, 2005 and recommended approval of variances based on the following findings: a. The applicants’ property is 6,165 s.f. (0.15 acre) in area and has 50’ of lot width. b. No additional land is available for acquisition by the qjplicants to make the property conforming in area or width. c. The property is served with municipal sewer. A single family residence has existed on the property for many years. d. 60% of the applicants’ property is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. e. Because the property is less than 10,000 s.f. in area it is allowed a 1,500 s.f. structural footprint absent other factors. Construction of an 1478 s.f. home accounts for 25.6% of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone and 33% of hardcover within the 75’-250' setback zone. f. The applicants have proposed minimal driveway, patio and walk (and have forgone a deck) in order to limit the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. g. The applicants’ proposed home will be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. h. The size of the proposed residence and magnitude of hardcover variance is consistent with other approved development in the neighborhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff. Page 2 of 6 1 comments by the applicants and the public, and the efTect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difHcuity; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal 2^ning Code Section 78-3S0(B) to allow the redevelopment of a lot 6,561 s.f. (O.IS acre) in area and SO' in width where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) and 100' in width are normally required; and Section 78-1288 A & B to allow hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone of 1,250.9 s.f. or 33.8% where 0% hardcover is normally allowed and within the 75’-250’ setback zone of 1,914 s.f. or 66.9% where 25% hardcover is normally allowed in conjunction with the construction of a new 1,479 s.f. single family residence; and Section 78-1279 to allow the construction of a new single family residence 46' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where a 75’ setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions; 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the level of 1,250.9 s.f. or 33%. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 1,914 s.f. or 66.9% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicants are advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concunent reduction in existing hardcover. Page 3 of 6 3. Af^licants shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscqw beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by the footing • > inspection of the new home. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (October 10,2006). 6. 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. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants* heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 10*** day of October, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Pige4of6 0 I •> ii r 'I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of j 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behaP. of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2005 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. %nn I I Notary Public Page5of6 1 «1 , STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of by Gary E. Baron, husband of Sandra M. Baron. ,2005 Notary Public ■ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instninwnt was acknowledged before me this __day of by Sandra M. Barou, wife of Gary E. Baron. ,2005 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 rf Hiia^ilir ir LCU ■=^ L* >>'*JP.««ha^«SS9^BC )i^.' . 5-. ■vt’t ■; |ii»lj|lj|| ■ »«.«»« 4bsJO r-Nurisnm nm‘C9txr«. ido ^ho 0Ct-«4 IU< 9>iCC.*t7nOXO ■•T mmtBt m c 4»i-«om a, cowLaoM. iNC. HM-xr<«0» r**r'M*« HARDPC ttTIACKZONt: tCIRCLSOWt) /#•?§! 9*,C r .b P.02 I . L k m CALCULATION WONKCHfIT ly^nrox/immONE A Hoint 4 1 I K B. Otfig* C tkdmmf ic n 0. BMtwih E. P«ton}tGk K « V B F. UAtfIMp* UiMtorfMi ByPlAiVe* K « M C. RtialAing aoiitr total HAROCOVf R IN IDNf TOTAL PROPiATV AACAW ZONE A ------ * * wiflaOMP WAWnCQVlR IN EQNI A H oiin U a HH II H K V II II s H UrMtBM By BIttlle « s 0. RMMni HOtiir 7MW tso*Bor ?«iZ£«8F. ISF. S.F. a ■ SF. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. ^.S m m Z/ASQ^s.f. ■“3.F. m _8.F ^8P, y/^.37 _8F. A X100 • -----Ik £ 3/.^?___ 8.F. 8.F. _8.F. S.F. 8F. JL32 S.F j^r 8.F -m22.8P _ Bar . 8.F. 8# 8.F. 5.F S.F. A AF. 8 ^JU.-----^ ®^«WON * CARLSON. INC w ,y.OMpontAio.8o. ^ "H iIn U b il MN SSAtO • /«e*• • t 1 INC. «13 ast 01SS“D-crttUD M<un:rnb hurts* ir«- reosMsssw UJ MIB« <tW CA«L«OM ft CARLSON ^-«i-eueoi«>M r«uriir»« *«>t».ih*. HARDCOVER CALCULJJION WORKSHEET ttTSACKaONEt (CIRCLE Oflf) r .c r.o P.01 .LOILAI^ tS0400'590-1000' A H omo 2:/ ungft t.CL X X 0. (Mraflt c Ofivtwoy Mii X t 0. MnnR E Pj X X M*K M F UntfiMpo UnOtPiH WPImOc - I V X a RtiaMdo WWI KOfwr total IPWOCOVER IN 10N6 TOTAL mOPIRTV AREA M IONS A ■ #»a.oigp HAROCQVRR 01 gQME A HOUM Si LMt*i X X A ooraso C. OrNoxfty M.X X 0. SHmMk X X E. P«lM)tO(X X P. LandK.pt undailaifl ByPiatUe X « X 0. RtMmnf wan H.Ottiar I total harpooven in zone P9 A TOTAL PROPERTY^^W ZONE 3Z^£) mh ^33 * I SO £ 8.F. m 0 8.F S.F. V 0 8 F. * c _5*r< 8^ 8.F. m m SF. 8^ 5/. ■ xlOO 5.F s ■ 8.F. 8.F. B S.F. S.F. ■S.F S.F S « V 3JF 0 S SJ 5.F, -»P- _S.F XlOO ■ m 8.F. A AF. B Ik . INC ■0w5»«ioa iiN ‘ ' • s - -V mm ■■.. -r '•■• •■• Vi-i? = V .• =■;•;■ - ,>•,■ .f' ,?■•. ■ OKTBC •one CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Survey for: MAB HOMES L 50^£: r m 20* • Otwitw irvn tfcmiwiiit r«wn^ O OwtM ITM liWMmBX sm Atm frsm MMr Hnc lo 73' StHbock Un« • 3700 §Q.ft Arm from 73* S&lbock Lkm to MortlifV Property Btm • 2Ji1 n-ft- retol Atm - 6J01 iq.ft MINNETONKA DESCRIPTION: Lot 10. AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 27J •xcopt p««.t tokon for road. CMUSOH * emSOM. 3C. UNO SUNMtOflS Ttto. Nb. (132) 1M«200« PtofBM OMm: To» 90 toodl NOTC CMtrf BiMttoM ore propOMd. otfitfi or* Bvifllnp. Arrow <tonet« dfractioo of O0TO9B floor r 't ~ ^ -ivr’' ■•■< ■■ - v;;--v-:.w^-.^'*‘. ■•■ '■.■■■.^•■>. "i. -v ’ .' .■ i V •(■ ’> :,!l ’ • ••••■^ . ■■■•, ■,■ '• V.- ; ••.V.:'' =■ ■'■ , : ■ ' ' mmM n". • !r . • I ' T 1 1 1 s 1 I \ |j||HK]l M II 4tCOMC# g>aiTviEA6r a.EvAriokj V©« . |l -o< ' •■■• ■■'.■> •■- ... M • I u•. ... I 3 EOLITH WBer eiEVATI^ vyi -. ) f - ^11 ill fH|,. filiii! ~ •to 2<S I ^5: i •3C 5^ *5 l«■a._- |£ s pi ) '■•- r.- --•-*' v>.’>.=!:? : .* - • 1 - "- '• ••> V ;.v;ii-.-. • ••£-• r .* ■ ...! ; :v : .•.■‘•••f \ r*'J .:■;;if \ ^.', ,, '^^ZZ^.--': ZZ■:-[!....;,:’‘V‘?«^-J^Vn'• V-•• ■■:. fZZ.ZZ:':-ZZ-Z" ■'." •■/^•" J^'*v‘' ;’ r-. 'V : n' ■zzz^-z^^r:[. 0 r □ Nom/Esr feiaWTdM >tf • l'-o« I. ■ •. . ’;•>•• •■■•. • .• ■■v.;'tvw'’*^«,..?v ■v->3'-^ (vlowneA&T ele\/ati«5M ty . I'-all ill inW|,. iSlii! • r; ,^uta£ L m 4k,m ^ ■; >:> •vr.vi:. .. ■ . \ :• ^• . ..> TBI"■■I 2XDKv37%* rwar fLccF> n»si » f-o* <4R waii ^ r‘ ' • •• •• .:-3. ' •' . .- ;.:,’_^--’ju-f.yy^ ITL aeotr IH — "i~ If sss 1mm L - mi jgJNCN^ , c O^CM W ; I I ( ..:..4 I I - r _ _ ■/TN yoMDO ^UJOK nM4 :•/•■»-rjjj ••;:;:v.---.-'‘v:.. jm '■1? • 2sis ir2<“ liisSSi 55S Jt| *i ’.£! Jl Is- w , -r.-' V J CITYOFORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway POB0X66 Cryi iai Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 05-3151 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 21,2005 TO: Gary & Sandra Baron 4745 Yorktown Ln N Plymouth, MN 55442 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 Planning Commimion recommended as follows: Approval of lot width, lot area, lake setback and 0-75* setback and 75* - 250* setback h^cover variances for construction of a new home. The Planning Conunission recommended denial of the side setback variance stipulating that the home should be redesigned to meet the 10* side setbacks. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant should submit the revised plans and survey by no laier than October 3”* for consideration at the October lO*** City Council meeting. As discussed, should the revised ^ plans result in significant changes to the grading and drainage as proposed an additional week will be required for City Engineer review. Applicant*s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City CoMBcil - October 19,2005, Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the ofiBcial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. WLimyyy'myy FILE *05-3151 13 September 2005 Page 1 of 4 Dale Applicalioa Received: 0§-17>0S Date AppUcathw ConfMered at Complete: 09-l2*0S 60*Day Review Period Eipires? I I•I2•05 To;Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner September 13,2005 OS-3151, Gary &. Sandra Baron, 3619 North Shore Drive, Lot Width, Lot Area, Side Yard & Lake Setback and Hardcover Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, Vt acre/100 ’ 6,561 s.f. or 0.15 acre 50 ’ Applkathn Summary: The iq}plicants are requesting lot width, lot area, side yard setback, lake setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family home on the property. ___________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of lot width, lot area, lake setback and hardcover variances as requested. However staff recommends denial of any side setback variance. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-IC district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Lo< Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (fed)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or construct^ within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributaiy, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. i FILE #05.3151 13 September 2005 Page 2 of 4 See. 78*1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0--1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed IS percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hakiship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. City Engineer Memo O. Property Owners List H. Plat Map % Background The applicants would like to construct a new single family residence on their properly at 3619 North Shore Drive. The lot is substandard in width and area and the application of the 75* lake setback allows for only 20’- 24’ of buildable area depth. The applicants are proposing a 1,472 s.f. home and minimal hardcover to support the home. The application includes lot area, lot width, side yard and lake yard setback as well as hardcover variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth; LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,7*0 s.f. (0.5 acre)100’ ^ Actual 6,561 s.f. (0.15 acre)50’ LR-IC Required Proposed Front/Lakeshore 75’46 ’ Rear 30’30’ West Side 10’10’ East Side 10’*.5’ Average Lakeshore The proposed new home will be located behind the average lakeshore setback. FILE# 05-31 13 September 2005 Pape 3 of 4 Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,56 1 s.f (0.15 acre)Allowed*: 1,500 s.f (22.8%) Proposed: 1,472 s.f (22.4%) *Pcr Section 78*1403, lots under 10,000 s.f. in area are permitted 1,500 s.f. of structural coverage including principal structure and garage. Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone 0-75 75-250 Total Area in Zoac 3,700 s.f. 2,861 s.f. Allowed Hardcover Os.f (0%) 715 s.f. (25%) Existing Hardcover 1,100 s.f.* (29.7%) 2,025 s.f.* (70.7%) Proposed Hardcover 1,277.7 s.f (34.5%) 1,880 s.f (65.71 %) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Width A Lot Area Variances The applicants* property is SO* wide and has 6,561 s.f. in area where 100’ in width and 21,780 s.f. in area are required within the LR-IC zoning district. Variances are required to rebuild any home on this property. Hardcover Variance Due to the limited buildable area within the 75*-250’ zone the applicants have proposed to construct their home partially within the 0-75’ zone, but meeting the average lakeshore setback. The property owner mentioned constructing a rain garden to help alleviate some of the effects of the additional hardcover on the property, however the plans for the rain garden and accompanying grading and drainage calculations were not available at the time of the drafting of this report. Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants* home is proposed to meet the 10* side yard setback on the western lot line; however the applicants have proposed an 8.5’ side yard setback on the east where a lO’setback is required. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis la coHtMeHMg appllcmthm for vorhoce, Ike PkmnlMg CnmnauloH skall consider Ike effect of tke proposed voHonce upon tke keohk, smfety mtd wetfere of tke community, existing and anticipated traffic condMoms, llgkt and oir, danger of fire, risk to rite pukHc safety, and tke effect on values of property In tke Murroundhtg area. Tke Ptannlug Commbulou skall consider recommending approval for variances from tke literal provisions ^ tke Zoning Code In Instances tvkere tkeir strict e,)forcement would cause undue kardskip because of circumstances unlgue to tke Individual property under consideration, and skall recommend approval only wken It Is demonstrated tkat suck acrions will be In keeping witk tke spirit and Intent of tke Orono Zoning Code. 1 FILE « 05-3151 13 September 2005 Page 4 of 4 Staif finds that with respect to the lot area and lot width variance requests as the area and width are significantly substandard there are hardships inherent to the land to justify granting these variances. Similarly with the lake setback and hardcover variance requests, there is not a reasonable buildable area in which to build a home with a conforming hardcover level and lake setback. With respect to the request for an 8.S’ side setback where a 10* setback is required, staff feels that although the lot is narrow, and the property is located in a neighborhood with small, narrow lots there is not a valid hardship by which to grant a side setback variance. Further, the granting of a reduced side yard setback will have a very negative affect on the light, air and open space in this neighborhood. Issues for Cousidcnition 1. Does the Planning Contmission feel that the addition of a rain garde.n in the lake yard will help to alleviate some of the surface water issues resulting in the additional hardcover? 2. Does the Planning Commission wish to review a revised plan showing the home meeting the 10’ side setbacks? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area, lot width, hardcover and lake setback variances, However, staff recommends denial of the side setback variance. " F P & ‘ ifW 1 V f • JC 1 1 n I uiiy OT urono Variance Application oT ’o' street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main: 952-24M600 fax; 052-249-4616 MeUng AMress: . P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Date Received;9-1-7- 0<" Amount Paid;/oOOoo Staff: aA/16/^ Fee: S600 Renewal: $300 After-the-fact;$1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: _______________ Property Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year):______□ Yes, l .own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □Residential Ig Other ____________ Zoning District:_________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete !:sjl nares and marital status required for each interested party) Name: ______m. ___________ Phone (home): ?U7-S5"f Phone (work): 7 s-rwi-8 Address: Email: ^ _______________Fax: 7»< rvt, ________ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names e-'d marital status required for each interested party) Name: Phone (home): Address: __ Email: Phone (work): Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ 2so,ooo Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ___________"^^e-trn. CjtCMt-Mi STYt.^C.TO<£ »^O.vO fj^u/. ■V . .. ■■ J .. -k« «-> Oo > I 'r "V h % REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by-the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. O' Completed Application Form 0 Completed Hardship Documentation Form /"' \ □ Certified Property Owners List - owners withinJSO^^f the subject property, labels and plat map. □ d d□ listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one coj5y 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request f< r denial of the request regardless of Its potential merit. ______________Date: 6/( _________ Date: Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: irdiess of Its po* OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and ^rificatigaof this request. Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: Date: Date: S/.Vos' Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning ^ >mmission and Council. If an applicant is unabic to attend a scheduled meeting, pdease make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. -ll (9 // 6 I # •% V... ♦ ♦ • *• JVM #liiAi ftnlTunfrtlfiaj JL Si; (■ life' * DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In aecdrdanM with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to fomish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The rnformation you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3^ The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to aporove, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle , _____M p A|g-TDvJ»4 Lr/ tJ' Last Address -T-fc i ^ ? My Cit> I understand my righ State Zip Phone jhta^s stated above. r // n r^- u:% •♦ I } i.• •• A-J Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. li'f Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situatbns are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Councii a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance wili affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address ail the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justifled. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. 2. 3. 4. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” ll Art -nt*u T>K rSacK ef C tngssr fme ) "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." T V-VvLifc L>>«>>Te» Aiggrf hue m t>*-C ■SonHfo' Cor AtJii TH£ Aeeea o-rtk-^ t/>« qA ^TV^ ______ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." «^nt*/cTv<4 \S SMMjJhe. thC cmii At»s vTih. iht- fAViryMM. ntA l4^^. fyT • *^>rntnr>to4 fSi»wSiows <^r>» Pon'noojeo A><0 \/ttu»vvy "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." WiTH>vr TH< X w><djiA /Jot ^ ro A-Ww . TU.£. ST>g»iervW(g IS s,iTe<»tvy flkvn0(, ndt* 0ryit% ijii, UtnJ\.0 TO ro r» T>*i LAit^ Lnfrf . ff o 1 ^ JL 5. 6. jui: 7. 8. 9. 11. Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access 'o direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when :n harmony with this Chapter." ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Qg Lort 1»J TUii jd¥t4h$ biMi. 4 Sfrtg^ciL \Ss«l£i ______________________________________ "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant." Ug uipJwtt TD Sm^gruAC TO Iftw4 TV< ________________ "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." \a)< Vttu. TO H»vi.owJ 0«< TP rM- THi______ Co4ila4irtieS o t ^JL (lP I Page 3 of 3 12.*The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Trtf to U>£ thc rr n A- AtituMntin. BtfitSixC jf .________ Hardship Statement Should you feet the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); Cvo&t. rvj r>4^ U4>mA IU>' OCSb p€tsfn/r ^ »eve fti/r tuinf rnc At&cA AtAjry cwrtti s-m^ar nUr liiuiUMttA J^htL /Ktowt lO/U A rp Li/»- us U im? A^yaee^»y<a> tw 0^ ttVi»i<r AiT > KitimSht Of- vrfAfi Pws 4iet C>«M*»t«ngo tP ftssT TD tM/eDyg- nfc -wir<nrte /ij/ v>w»Hty ir ^icTeAtiot. 0 0/ tM Pn^9Pt*x^. P •• • Vff ' t y',. i- * ..•. t* ■ -. . ■■ -■!:;•■■ Ki-■ --Mi;-.-V . \m ««c U ea/cLbied 1X g7<f1\Brir '€’ 939.4 &qsriM& 93J.8 EXISTING HOUSE » EXISTING HOUSE w#V* ® LAKE DESCRIF ‘ i ■J. I h«r*by c«rti(y that tl rtgistartd lond survoyc CARLSOf LAND SI T«l«. No 939.4 p^fO‘3^ EXISTING HOUSE \/>Sufv*y Ui» IX 94^ N*'^^HKKL - 95 of LAKE M I DESCRIPTION: Lot exc I h«f9by ctrtHy ttrat thit iurvoy wo rtgittoftd lond wrvtyor undor tho M<ng To 9» Rdiid ItavlMd 9>12H)6 CANLSON * CAKLSON LAND SURVEYORS T«fo. No. (052} 8S8> ■"'J'^rxDDOO'- < » T Z r-" C: C-' i* •* * • i •» V. Ji i V-• • •• I . i ii I I . f ■ ! .w ^2-*: 2ajarl« Mtiftr ArohlUott ifM ^Ifitiiurtil Avtfiu» St. Paul. Mifiaatoia SSI It Q«y A 8and|r Bvon Residenct M10 Nodh Sliora Oriv* Orono, MInnwotti J t ^ aA; :' . Bfi-- ; :''■v^^:";^^'v■vi./Vv:.’,., '•. . '\ L- • ■ ••■'iv .,* ••jsit-^W J’i.--- '• MOKJHWBrr ej -Ev/^ok4 vfl I laaiil^mlm □ □ m —t □nD 5 3 -J?_______ skwHe/^r ettvAiioH fb"*- i'-<3''TAU6» 21296» >? ff .0 tri N i southeast &l£VATTOH » |l> ^>M ^1' is ■7». ^ SOUTH K/C£T EtEVATOKl 'fe'» I I.^/HJ6-2C0& * .• . ■ / L..„ HARD. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) RDCOVE^^7R CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7$>2S0‘ 2S0-S00* S00.1000* EXIITIKO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A HOUM nT/. hJ, a Gange C Ortvtway D. Sidawalfc E. Patio(Oack F landacape «»■ Undtrtain ayPIttSe- 6. Retaining Wals HOlhar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PRQROBEB HARDCOVER IN ZONE A HOUM Ltngi^ B. Garagt C. Driveway /iv0t6 /l^i^ xz. E. ^MWO%Qk /t? F. Lindfcapt UntftfUiin By PlatUe G. Rtlaming Walii H. OIKtr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ /t7777 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B WMh ______ 4^ ♦ 9 .^7^.0 S/.^7 WWtti S^/.6>7 S S B e s e s a s s c s B s e» g A s.f. Zfi^L-S.p. SF S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. g//5<3 S.F. S.F SF. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. 37 S.F. A 37aC7.^ S.F. B X100 = *h S.F. /SO. O S.F. ___S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. ^U3 S.F. S.F S.F. ____S.F. S.F SF. SF. X100 B /g77.77 SF A .77^ ~8.F. B 53 % *****8ton. MN 55420 '■ 1/1 Bonestroo MS Rosene Anderiik& f\|| AssodaCes Engineers & Architects 2335 Weit Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 65I-636-4600 • Fax. 651-6361311 www.bonesiroo.com Sepiember 13,200S Mi. Melanie Curtis Planner CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS323 i 5 2005 op ^^0/Vo Re:3619 North Shoie Drive FileNo.000139-0S00(M) Plat No. OS-3151 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the building permit survey dated 9-7-OS for the proposed improvements to 3619 North Shore Drive. The site improvements include the removal of an existing home and construction of a new home. No proposed grading details were provided however it appears that the proposed top of block elevations arc compatible with the existing grades. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed construction appears to be acceptable provided that no slopes exceed 3 to 1 and the existing side yard swales are preserved in their existing locations. • Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questkma pleaae call me at (6S1) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERUK ft ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wi • Chicago. IL ... AffiTMilvft Emplojfftr antf fiiiRffty** Owm4 nrfc yu l r:' »rJME ’■s-'*?* •v:;.^*'-^-' V'^t:‘v.v.v ;fv;: :::;:Q0g|^^ KUNDATB:l/n/3a» 31 Oil1723340001 rROTAODIt 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNER NAME HENNErmCOUNTY TAXrAYER HENNEPIN COUNTY NAME/ADDR RRMTOF WAY DIVISION 1400 PRAOUB DRIVE MEDMAMN SS34C 31 Oil1723340004 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKINED OWNERNAMB HBNNBPMCOUNTY TAXPAYER HBNNEPM COUNTY NAME/ADDR RIGHT OP WAY DIVISION 1400 PRABUE DRIVE MEDMAMN 33340 31 Oil 1723340007 PROPADDR 3443 NORTHSHORBDR OWNERNAME • MOtSONRDMOLSON TAXPAYER RRADOLSON NAME/ADDR 3443 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 33391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 Oil 1723340002 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER HENNEPIN COUNTY NAME/ADDR RKIHT OF WAY DIVISION 1600 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDMAMN 33340 31 Oil 1723340003 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNERNAME HENNEPMCOUNTY TAXPAYER HENNEPIN COUNTY NAME/ADDR RKIHT OP WAY DIVISION 1400 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDMAMN 33340 38 Oil 1723340008 PROPADDR 3633 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME MICHAELDSHARRATT TAXPAYER MICHAEL D SHARRATT NAME/ADDR 3390 W0008I0E LA SHOREWOODMN 33131 31 0811723340003 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNERNAME HENNEPM COUNTY TAXPAYER HENNEPM COUNTY NAME/ADDR RIOHT OF WAY DIVISION 1600 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDMAMN 33340 38 Oil 1723340006 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNERNAME COUNTY OF HENNEPM TAXPAYER HENNEPM COUNTY NAME/ADDR RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION 1600 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDMAMN 33340 38 0811723340009 PROPADDR 3623 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME MARKEWELCH TAXPAYER MARK E WELCH NAME/ADDR 3623 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 33391 PAGE: I II 0111723340010 PROPADDR 3419 NORTHSHORBDR OWNERNAMB OEBARONRSMBARON TAXPAYER GARY ER SANDRA M BARON NAME/ADDR 4743 YORKTOWN LA N PLYMOUTH MN 33442 31 Oil 172334001 1 PROPADDR 3603 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME UURENCEAX3NESRWIFE TAXPAYER LAURENCE RARDBLL JONES NAME/ADDR 3403 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 33391 38 0811723340036 PROPADDR 3317 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME SRRJSSUNDBY TAXPAYER STEVEN RRJANNASSUNDBY NAME/ADDR 3317 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 35391 31 0411723340042 PROPADDR 3390 NORTHSHORBDR OWNERNAMB LOURMARR.YNEPBOERS TAXPAYER LOU RMARR.YNB PBOERS NAME/ADDR 3390 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATAMN 33391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IPFORMA110N AS IT APPEARS THISJJATE OF TIE lEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SEiy^ICE^PAR OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE hvt. V •": :,« v,r - > <* *ni i»‘|)in Hennepin County *Taxpayer Services Department - 9 9 ■> '/ •! LOT 25 \ I ^0 ^0 / / / 01 (10. PmvUnfommtion 10 OS117an40010 ;A : ^4% ■J.. NONTN SHORB M 7hht0tKt9l$g0ljfmerdt0im0. Hr$finmnl$BCompll0lonoilnkm tilon amt Ms Aim CMiy, COMMy. ana SMematfaufwWM entfotfMr sources I 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 10,2005 ITEM NO.: lO Department Approval: Naaie Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administmtor Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Request for Final Payment Webber Hills Extension Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Final Payment, Webber Hills Extension Sanitary Sewer Project to E. J. Mayers Inc. in the amount of $967.35 •••A... * * • • t . ■ J' ■ \:i ?■ ’ A — •V f* 1 .: ■ l/lBonestroo ^Rosene ^Andn1l(& |\|| Associates SnginffrU ArdMKU Ownmr. Citv of Orono . PO Box 66. Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Date; September 22.2005 For Period; 7/20/2005 to 9/22/2005 Request No; 2 AND FINAL Contractor EJ Mayers. 21360 Larkin Road. Corcoran. MN 55340 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT WEBBER HILLS SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION BRA FILE NO. 000139-05157-0 Original Contract Amount Changa Ordar - Addition Changa Ordar • Daduction Raviaad Cootract Amount Valua Complatad to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Lass Retainaga 0% Subtotal Lau Amount Paid Previously Liquidatad damages - AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 10.402 60 S $ 0.00 0.00 10.402.60 2 AND FINAL 10.293.50 0.00 10.2'.J50 0.00 10^293.50 9 326.15 0.00 967 35 Racommandad for Approval by; BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor. E J MAYERS f ^ 'I... . Approved by Owner. CITY OF ORONO Specified Contracl Completion Date; July 31 2005 Date; No. 1 ItOffl PARTI'BASEBN): 2 % 4 5 6 7 S 1-1«' HOPE. SDR 11 DIRECTIONAL DRILLED M/4* HDPE. SERVICE PIPE SDR 11 ^ M/r HOPE. 80R11 DIRECTIONAL DRILLED WITH HDPE CASH 1-1/4* CURB STOP AND BOX M/riSOLATION VALVE TERMINATION FLUSHINO CONNECTION CONNECT TO EX. TERMINATION FLUSHING CONNECTION SILT FENCE. MACHINE SLICED TOTAL PART 1 • BASE BID: Contract Unit Quantity Amount Unit Quantity Price to Date to Data LF 645 6.98 525 $3,664.50 LF 10 10.00 10 $100.00 LF 70 17.15 60 $1,029.00 EA 1 1000.00 2 $2,000.00 EA 1 1250.00 1 $1,250.00 EA 1 1250.00 1 $1,250.00 EA 1 1000.00 1 $1,000.00 LF 100 1.00 $0.00 $10,293.50 TOTAL PART 1 ■ BASE BIO: TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $10,293.50 $10,293.50 mr\ ■ :• i. V.- . .. • •• .It . -hiLL. ' ‘ . V: !• .. ; ■ '.. ‘ l: ■ iki -v: -??? - ■ -=' .•■ -- v: v.>; V-:;, 'Sc,; ^^ ; '■ I*'- ■ t '^*^1 .' ',/• .-^V* ' '•■'•'it;'-'■ » PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF ORONO BRA FILE NO. 000139-05157-0 CONTRACTOR E J MAYERS PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From 1^11 li .t ■ •■■■ 'i:- • vv‘-:;i\'™£w 1-. . ; I _mmsiSii li.' '■■ 'l's;V..V 'A.. ^ A3 </<• N' wm i S'-A' w ■!■ ■« ' , Completed > REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 10200$ DATE: OctobCT 10f?B6S'<*0RO ITEM NO.// Department Approval: Naac Gregory A. Gappa TMe Director of Public Services Administcator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report Item Demription: Brown Road N. /CR6 Sewer Project Assessment- Resolution This project was constructed in 2003 and provides sewer service to four properties in the vicinity of the Brown Road North/ County Road 6 intersection. The property owner for 2100 Sixth Avenue North needed sewer because of limited capabilities for the replacement of a nonconforming septic system, and this property owner was assessed for three sewer units at $8,500 each. The propeity owner at 2135 Sixth Avenue North was assessed for one sewer unit. The propeity owner for 2100 Sixth Avenue North agreed to be assessed for all of the sewer units for the residents who were not interested in being assessed for the project based on being credited when the remaining property owners requested future connection to the sewer system. In 2004, the property owner at 2145 Sixth Avenue North signed an assessment waver and was $8,500 for this project beginning in 2005, and the 2005 assessment against 2100 Sixth Avenue North was reduc^ by $8,500. The one remaining property at 2080 Sixth Avenue North, Trinity Lutheran Church, has paid the 2005 $8,730 sewer coimection charge for this project, and the assessment for 2100 Sixth Avenue North will be reduced by $8,730. The staff recommendation is for adoption of the resolution approving a reduction of $8,730 for the outstanding assessment against 2100 Sixth Avenue North. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve resolution reducing the Brown Road North/ CR6 sewer extension assessment for 2100 Sixth Avenue North. ■ t 1 * i i : 1 A RESOLUTION REVISING THE BROWN ROAD N7 COUNTY ROAD 6 SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, on November 10'*' 2003 the Orono City Council approved Resolution No. 5077 adopting the assessment roll for the Brown Road N./ County Road 6 Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements as Levy No.l5914, and this levy included a 15 year assessment at 6.25% interest in the amount of $25,500 beginning in 2004 against the property at 2100 Sixth Avenue North. PID# 27-118-23-31-0024. WHEREAS, on August O"* 2004 the Orono City Council approved Resolution No. 5216 authorizing a reduction of $8,500 in the assessment roll for the Brown Road N./ County Road 6 Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements as Levy No.l5914 against the property at 2100 Sixth Avenue North, PID# 27-118-23-31 -0024 and Hennepin County completed this adjustment resulting in a total 2005 assessment of $15,300 for this property. Minnesota; WHEREAS, after assessment of the year 2005 principal and interest the current principal amount remaining on the assessment for the property at 2100 Sixth Avenue North is $14,207.15 for the remaining 13 years of the assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Hereby approves a reduction of $8,730 for the assessment against the property at 2100 Sixth Avenue North, PID# 27-118-23-31 -0024, resulting in a principal amount of $5,477.15 for the remaining 13 years of this assessment. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 10th day of October 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor OOUNOLMEETMO OCT 10'4M.' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTYOFORONO DATE: October 10,2005 ITEM NO.: /oL^ Dcpartmcat Approval: Nomc Gregory A. Gappa THte Director of Public Services Admiabtrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Itca Description: 755 Dickey Lake Drive^luiitary Sewer Extension Assessment- Resolution Hie property owner has signed an assessment waver requesting to be assessed for this project to i f extend sewer to his property which has a failing septic system. The project is currently under construction. We are recommending approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll, in the amount of $12,000, for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve resolution adopting the 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension assessment roll. 'i-.V '¥"''v«'rS 7-i ^iiSUL ' # A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 755 DICKEY LAKE DRIVE SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WnEREAS, the property owner has petitioned for an assessment sanitary sewer project and has signed an assessment waiver, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements, and requesting to be assessed for project costs for the 755 Dickey Lake Dri\ e Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; 1. 2. 3. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 1 5 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per aimum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 ,2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of2 J r- i- S’ .V The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same maimer as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 10th day of October, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 ! -1 ^1i [. L' '?;-v-i''Vfc‘iv;--- ; ^ V!vv .. • .V: •■■•. ••■■ ' ‘.;‘f*.kJ^4 t. .1 Jo A,*- '■ V '' * •>'^’-', •V V'-^-^, ».M4mrr liMM’ k. •'. . AiMMincnt Roll for 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sewer Extension Date: 10 October 2005 MeekipeHly: ORONO Levy Nenbcr: Total Project Ataenaieot: 512,000.00 Moakipal Code: 38 Levy Description: 755 Dkkcy Lake Drive Sewer Extension Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 PID Number Total Principal Property Owner’s Name Property Street Address Property Owner’s Mailing Address 34-118-23-22-0009 $12,000.00 TGEsauAM AEsau 7S5 Dickey Lake Drive 7SS Dickey Lake Drive Long Uke MN SS3S6 Total A 512,000.00 wTi' mm Msimm !'3 ■' .! ■■•.'• i i ■■> /t • • i. • : •*' *■ ‘ V.- .A- - . »-v Ul L'ocr 10 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <«»worono DATE: October 10,2005 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report Item Description: Webber Hills Sanitaryioewer Extension Assessment- Resolution The property owners have signed assessment waivers requesting to be assessed for this project to extend sewer to their properties which have inadequate septic sites. Project construction was completed this summer. We are recommending approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll, in the amount of $20,000, for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve resolution adopting the Webber Hills Sanitary Sewer Extension assessment roll. •' ^ -■ ' • V :: a • -■ 1 ' ^ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WEBBER HILLS SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the property owners have petitioned for an assessment sanitar>' sewer project and have signed assessment waivers, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements, and requesting to be assessed for project costs for the Webber Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT kESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Mituiesota; 1. 2. 3. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such paymient is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of 2 r’ 7T 4.The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 10th day of October, 2005 . I ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor 1 ■ I I ; .. .-iwmm . . . * Page 2 of2 ^ —T- ' • • .’ ■■^••.' ’\’ ■•' r ■• - ‘‘: ‘v: ‘■'••■'■V- s MW AsMUMcnt Roll for Webber Hllb Sanitary Sewer Extension Date: It October 2005 MoaMpalUy: ORONO Maakipal Code: 38 Levy Nanber.Levy Dewriptioa: Webber Hilb Sanitary Sewer Eitension Total Project Ancnaieat: S28.0M.00 lotereit Rate: 6.2S%Nambcr of Years Payable: 15 PID Nnaiber Total Priacipal Property Owacr’s Nanw Property Street Address Property Owner’s Malliag Address 10.117.23-2I.0008 $10,000.00 Martin P A Bridget P Paradise 825 Brown Road S.825 Brown Road S. Wayzala MN 55391 10>117.23*1 24002 $10,000.00 Jefficy Sven GusteBon 920 Brown Road S.4400 Shoreline Drive Spring Park MN 55384 Total S1M00.00 F wmmM i rr i- t.r' OOUNCLMEETMO OCT 102005 CTTYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 10,2005 ITEM NO.: Dcpartmcat Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappi Title Director of Public Services AdminUtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: 25 Brown Road South Sanifery Sewer Connection Assessment- Resolution The property owner has signed an assessment waver requesting to be assessed for the 2000 Fox Ridge Sewer Project connection cost because the property has a failing septic system. We are teconunending approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll, in the amount $18,485.00 for the connection cost. COUNCIL action REQUESTED: Motion to approve resolution adopting the 25 Brown Road South SMiitary Sewer Coimection assessment roll. mmmmm A::- • T ! J. -.y i I! J A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 25 BROWN ROAD SOUTH SEWER CONNECTION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the property owner has signed an assessment waiver, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements, and requesting to be assessed for the connection cost for the 2000 Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: I.Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the a'sessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal aimual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to «he date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. The Clerk shall forthwith tra^ismit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Page 1 of 2 Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 10th day of October, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor w^mm )? . iff: ■ I ■ ^ 1 : Page 2 of 2 J Asacssmcat Roll for 25 Brown Road South Sanitary Srver Connection Date: 10 October 200S Moakipality: ORONO Levy Nombcn Moakipal Code: 38 Levy DcMriptioa: 25 Brown Road South Sauitaiy Sewer Connection ToUl Project AucssMeot: $18,485.00 latercat Rate: 0J5%Number of Years Payabk: 15 PID Nonber Total Principal Property Owner’s Nanc Property Street Addreu Property Owner’s Mailing Address 03-117-23 21-0001 SI8.485.00 Susan D Powers 25 Drown Road S 25 Brown Road S Long Lake MN 55356 Total Aocssfliciit SIMtS.00 1 * k.: \tr- ’Tj I -X ■= r omcucetm OCT 10200S REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTVOf ORONO DATE: October 6,2005 ITEM NO: / 5" Deputmcat Approval; Nam LinVee Tllte City Clefk ____ Adjpiabtrator Reviewed: Item DcMriptkHi: List of Licensm for Council Approval TEMPORARY ONE DAY ON>SALE LIQUOR LICENSE 1. Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation Hope Chest for Breast Cancer, 3850 Shoreline Drive Thursday, October 20,2005 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. . / K"- r ■ '•/y Agenda Section: Licenses V stilt of Minnuoti County of Htnnopin CItyofOrono ^Licenta No: | 2005-14 Amount: | $25.00 ea®»' ■— t-A. Liquor License > ! ’: r wm#Temporary One Day On Sale Liquor License Upon invootigalkm and satisfactory evidanca of the qualification of tha licensae, this licensa is granted and pursuant to application and paymant of fee ihrn^. and is subjact to all tha provisions and oondNions of tha laws of tha UnHad Statas, tha laws of tha State of Minnesota, the regulations and ordinances of tha City of Orono. and tha rules and regulations of the Liquor Control Commissioner, pertaining to such; and sub)act to revocation according to law for violation thereof. This license is not transfMBbla axca^ by consent of tha issuing authority. Licensee Name; Trade Name; Premiaes Name; Premlaes Address: Barbara Hensley Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation Hope Chest for Breast Cancer 3850 Shoreline Drive Commencing: Terminating: Business Description: October 20.2005 October 20.2005 Fundraiser-Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation issued by authority of the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota on; October 10.2005 Attest Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor Linda S. Vee. City Clerk At r>\1.-. "• 279OKMtoyPirtMW.I^ O.aQKM.CfyiWa0y.MN S6323 Ptmt: (992):ffmc (992) 2404616 /www.d.oronoJTwi.uB Hope Chctt for Breast Cancer 3850 Shorettae Drive October 20,2005 The following conditions have been placed on this tem^rary on sale liquor license: 1 . By acceptance of this license, the license holder is granted authority to operate under the license, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono from all claims arising from said event. The license holder, all organizations and private persons exercising authority under this license, do waive and release all claims against the City of Orono, its officers or employees for any damage to person or property arising from the exercise of privileges granted by this license and agrees to hold harmless the City of Orono, its employees and officers from any such claim. 2. The Orono Police Department and its officers are empowered to revoke this license at any time for any safety concerns or alcohol violations that are not immediately resolved by the license holder or a representative of the license holder. This revocation shall cause the immediate cancellation of the license if deemed appropriate by the police department. 3. Liquor service is to comply with all state and local statutes. (No service to minors - recommend ID under 35 policy.) Police may issue citations for violations. 4. Gambling is to comply with all state and local statutes. 5. If there is to be any parking on the south side of Shoreline, traffic control persons should be retained to assist crossing pedestrians. Any persons assisting in pedestritm crossing are to wear OSHA ^iproved safety vests. Contact Hennepin County Public Works about using the pariung lot for overflow parking. Area is to be cleaned of any event-generated debris/signs at end of event. 1 CITY OF ORONO cniAn MEETildp«g« 1 *Check Detail Register®OCT 102005 OCTOBER 200S CnYOFOAOWO CNckAmt Invok* Commttrt 10100 C mK PaMChk# 001812 ''MTOOM M)Ci^ E 101-42400^15 Olhaf Equipmtnl Rfntali $9470 9/27/05 Total ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS me. Pf::d Chkf 081822 90(V2005 $9479 UWTEb STATES POSTAL SERVICE L* • E 101-41900-322 Pottage Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1547 70 9/27/05 1547.70 Paid Chi^ 081623 10/10/2005 ACCLAIM BENEFltS E 101-41900-469 Other MitoeNaneoiit Charges E 101-41900-469 Other MUcellaneoui Charges Total ACCLAIM BENEFITS S90.63 353208 1102.69 353209 1193.32 ’ Paid Chk# 061624 10/10/2005^ AOV/UiCEO IMAOINO SOLUTIONS E 101-41900-413 Ofltea Equipment Rental ^ W7.45 44413995 Total ADVANCED IMAGINO SOLUTIONS S667.45 Paid ChkS 061625 10/10/2005 A n 6€RSON;BRUC'E ' E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses Total ANDERSON. BRUCE $18 90 9/29/05 116.90 Paid Chki' 061626 ^ IO/iO/2005 AN6ERSdN7kRIStl E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Senrices Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $210.00 10/3A)5 $145.00 10/3/05 $355 00^ Paid ChkS 061827 ^ 10/10/2005 ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0 101-21713 LTD Insurance $676.69 4019625-1 0 101-21713 LTD Insurance ____$676.69 4019825-1 Total ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $1.753.36 Paid ChkS 061626 10/10/2005 ATOM E 101-42110-437 Training S Development Total ATOM $300 00 2477969 $300 00 Paid ChkS 061629 10/10/2005 BEARCOM E 101-42260-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip Total BEARCOM $3797 60 3261632 $3,797.60“ 10/10/2005 BEAUCHENE MAILINGPaid ChkS 061630 E 101-41900-352 Pnnting S Publishing Total BEAUCHENE MAILING $370 20 616 $37020 Paid ChkS 061631 10/10/2005 BIFFS INC. 6 101-45200-415 Other Equipmeni Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 613-49630-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals ToUl BIFFS INC. $6302 $3321 $132.82 $6641 $66 41 $206 91 556878 W271052 W271053 W271054 W271055 W271056 W271057 Paid ChkS 061632 10/10/2005 BONESTROO ROSCNE S ASSOC. 0 651-16500 Ftxed Asset-Const m progress $5.469 96 121633 E 651-49910-304 Engmeermg-ConsulUng $229 00 121635 0602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $531 92 121637 Annual Lakeshore Inspection Postage - Fan 2005 Newsletter COBRA Adm 9/2005 FSA Adm 9/2005 1 Copier Lease .9/19-10/15 Chaplin Mtg Refreshments CC Minutes - 9/26 Park Minutes -10/3 LTD 10/2005 LTD 9/2005 Emot Survlyal for LE Fire pagers Mailing • Fan Newsletter Portable - Bederwood Portable • Summit Beach Portable • Hackberry Portable - GC Portable - CB Playground Portable • Navarre Nav Tower Rehab Casco Cove Stm Swr Garotn Lane San Swr Ext r tfif . .. ulCW CITY OF ORONO " *Check Detail Registei© KV07/05 10:53 AM Pag* 2 r*r OCTOBER 2005 liuaiiib Chtck Amt Invote* Comment O602>16S00 Fixod Ataol-Contl. In progmat E101-43200-304 Enginoofing-ConwMng E101-43200-304 Engteooring-ConMlUng E101-43200-304 Englnooiinc-ConauNlng E101-43170-304 Enginooftng-Conaulting E 101-43200-304 EngInootIng-ConauWng E 101-43200-304 Engitfooring-ConsuNIng E 001-49400-304 Enginooring-Conaulting E 101-43200-304 Enginoofing-Consulling E 101-43200-304 Enginaadng-Contulling E 101-43170-303 Engteaoflng-Ralainar E 101-43280-304 EnginoofIng-ConauMng E 101-43200-304 Enginooring-ConMiOng E 101-43200-304 Enginooring-ContuRing E 101-43200-304 Enginooring-ConauRIng E 10143200-304 Englnoortng-ConauRing E 101-43200-304 Enginooring-ContuRino E 10143200-304 Enginooring-ConauRIng E 10143200-304 EngRiaoflng-ConauRing E 10143280-304 Enginoorlng-ConauRing E 10143170-304 Enginooflng-ConawRing E 05149910-304 Enginoorino-ConauRing 0 651-16500 Fixod Aaaol-ConaL in pmgroaa 6601-16500 Fbeod Aaaot-Conal. in pmgroaa TottI BONE6TROO R08ENE 6 ASSOC. Paid OMI 001033 1(V1(V2005 BUOOETPRWiTINO E 61349630-201 Office auppfioa E 10142110-201 OffiooauppHoa E 60149400422 Poatago E 61349630-201 Offioaaupplioa E 10142110-321 Tolapiton* Total BUDGET PRUrrmO Paid ChkP 081034 1(V1(V2005 CARGILL SALT E 60149400-216 Chomicala and Chom Products Total CARGILL SALT Paid Chk* 081835 10/KV2005 CEMSTONE E 60249450-443 Rtpatrs/Mamt-lOl Reduction E 60249450-443 R*pairaAtaint-l6l Reduction E 60249450-443 RepairsMaint-iSI Reduction E 60249450-443 RepairtAtoint-ISI Reduction TottI CEMSTONE Peid ChkO 001036 10/10/2005 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 1 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110402 E 101-42110402 E 10142110402 E 10142110402 E 10142110402 E 10142110402 E 10142110402 E 10142110402 E 23145650402 Rtptfft/Mainl-Auto Equip Repair«/Mainl-Ayto Equip Rtpairs/Maint-Auto Equip Rtpairt/Miint-Auto Equip Repairt/Maini-Auto Equip Rtpairt/Maint-Auto Equip Repairt/Meint-Auto Equip Rtpair»/Main(-Auto Equip Rtpaire/Miinl-Auto Equip RepairWMaint-Ayto Equip $560.43 121676 Webber Hiulit San Swr Ext $134.00 121679 1625 Bhona Ft Rd ptel 04-3042 8134.00 121679 1660 Shoreline Dr plat 05-3136 $149-56 121679 4475 Forest Lake Lar>ding plat $109.67 121679 679 • 649 Brown Rd N Plan Revi $134.00 121679 1145 Sixth Ave plat 05-3066 $134.00 121679 1345 Rett Ft Land plat 05-3129 $•20.00 121679 Watermain basemap update $134.00 121679 3165 No Shore Dr plat 05-3135 $134.00 121679 4445 No Shore Dr plat 05-3127 $136.44 121679 Council Mtgs July 2005 $453.26 121679 Stonebay Lofts plat 05-3061 $107.50 121679 1354 Rast Foint Circla plat 05 $201.00 121679 2645 No Shore Dr plat 05-3132 $201.00 121679 3460 No Shore Dr plat 05-3133 $266.00 121679 170 Glandale/190 Willow plat 0 $734.02 121679 Creekside Subd plat 04-3016 $134.00 121679 Garden Ct Subd plat 04-2596 $859 60 121679 Stonebay Flat 02-2789 $67 00 121679 40 Stubbs Bay Rd Subd $50.50 121679 Revitw Wetland Ord $1,262.00 121679 North Farm Subd Storm Swr-Offa $231.00 231 Birch Lane Storm Swr $6,735.61 673581 TH12 Wtr Mein Imp $21.536 09 $25.03 5265 Gift Cert Feper $70.29 6062 Buaineas Cards $663 6106 Shipping - Water Samplea $7 07 6117 Engraving $6.37 9/22/05 Shipping - BCA ‘ ^ '$119.39 • • $2.66363 1414463 Softener Salt $2.66363 . $1.074 50 347004 l&i Cty Rd 15 $797 57 347719 l&l Cty Rd15 $910.45 354716 t610yRd15 $321.03 360269 t&l CtyRd15 S3.10355 AUTO $67 96 24762 Oil. Air Finer 6201 $37 52 27426 Oil Change 6205 $16 36 27431 Change Tire 6197 $29 06 27437 Headlight 6196 $63 39 27436 0^1. Air FiKer 6198 $663?27445 Oh Change 6199 $159 47 27457 Battery 6200 $260 35 27472 SwTtcr^ Relay 6199 $255 86 27475 Head Light 6196 $66 26 27482 Battery - 94 Ford Explorer 1 CITY OF ORONO 10/07/05 10:53 AM Pages Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2005 CtieckAmt tnveice Cemwewt E 101-42110-402 RapairaMaint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Rapairs/Maint-Aulo Equip E 101-42110^02 RapainMaM-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 RapalraMaint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repaire/MaiiH-Aulo Equip E101-42110-402 Rapaira4i4aint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs4i4aM-Auto Equip Total CHUNKS LAKE8HORE AUTO 5221 60 $21943 $33.03 $265.22 $302.10 $22.98 $664.12 27458 27489 27499 27503 27507 27516 27521 04. Trant. Wipera *196 Oil.Tranai195 Oil Change *204 Oil. Fuel Filter. Trana *200 Battery. Oil Brakea *197 Spot Light *199 ANemator *200 •( $2,815.08 Paid Chki 681537 ...10/10/2005 COROES, JEFF S TRACEY R 101-32150 Other Buaineaa Ueenae/Permit _ Total COROES, JEFFS TRACEY $t00.00 6/16/05 $100.00 Paw Crik* 661838 "'"l6/10/2065 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES E 101-42110-407 Janitorial Servicea $1,139.55 E 101-41900-407 Janitorial Servicea ToUl COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES $1,504.85 100508 100508 $2,644.40 PM Chk* 061839 ' OCk -"WIRE ONLV 0101-21719 DC/USponding Accounia Total OCA-WIRE ONLY $164^^ 9/29/05 $184794 Paid Chk* 081840 10/100005 DELTA DENTAL 0101-15090 Non-Employee Health Ina 0 101-21700 Dental Inauranca Total DELTA DENTAL $56.70 37220072 $1.523J0_ 37220072 '$1,560.50 PM Chk* OOIMI '""iO/'tO^ ''DCliMUSKI, JAY E 101-42110-331 Travel Expenaea Total OEMBOUSKI.JAY $5_00 9/28/05 $5.o6‘ PM Chki 081842 * 10/10«005 DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 801-49400-321 Telephono E 602-49450-321 Teteplwne E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-41900-321 Telephone Total DEPT OF ADM-INTERTECH GROUP $12.23 W05080574 $36.69 W05080574 $52.40 W05080574 $73.36 W05080574 $211.68 PM Chk* 081843 10/10/2005 DEPUTY REGISTRAR E 231-45650-441 Ucettaea 5 Taxes Total DEPUTY REGISTRAR $17 50 04-4657 $17'50 PaW Chk* 081844 10/10/2005 OEX MEDIO EAST LLC E 613-49830-340 General Advertising Total OEX MEDIO EAST LLC $165 62 110300096 $165 62 Paid Chk* 081845 10/10/2005 EJ MAYERS INC 0 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress 0602-20600 Coniracia Payable Tout EJ MAYERS INC $476 50 RFP2F $490 85 RFP2F *5967 35 10/10/2005 FIRST STUDENTPaid Chk* 081846 E 101-43290-800 Special Protects. Contingency Total FIRST STUDENT $7.560 00 131762 $7.56000 Paid Chki 081847 10/10/2005 GSK SERVICES HO License Refund Janitorial Servcie 10/2005 Janitorial Servcie 10/2005 FSA - 9/29/05 Dental Ins • 10/2005 Dental Ins • 10/2005 Parking-Trial $37.00 DV05060276 PVC Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service Ttiie - 83 Cadillac • Komarek Direcctory Advertising RFP«2F Webber Hills San Swr RFP#2F Webber Hills San Swr Qronoa.L Shuttle 3/2005 CITY OF ORONO 10/07/05 10.53 AM Pag# 4 *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2005 Checli Amt Invoice Comment E 602-49450-226 E 101-43000-221 E 10143000-226 E 61340630-226 E 60149400-226 E 10142260404 E 10143000-226 E 61349630-226 E 60149400-226 E 60249460-226 E 10141900-404 E 10141900404 Clolhing 6 personal equipment Equipment Parts 6 Aocessortes dething & personal equipmem Clolhing A personal equipmem Clothing A personal equipment Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Oroynds Clolhing A personal equipment Cloeiing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Repeirs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Repeirs/Maint-Bldgi/Qrounds Total 0 4K8ERVICE8 144.34 637.52 168.64 66.34 614.76 6216.91 687.66 16 34 61461 643.83 662.48 $70.39 1006565092 1006565092 1006565092 1006565092 1006565092 1006566524 1006571449 1006571449 1006571449 1006571449 1006564067 1006584066 Uniforms Shop Towels Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Mat Service • Nav Fire Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Mat Service Mat Service S693.84 Paid CMdP 061648 10/10/2005 GALL'S INC. E 10142110-226 aoSlIng A personal equipment Total GALL'S INC. $92.00 578564010102 Bike Patrol Uniform $92.00 Paid ChM 061849 10/10/2005 GAPPA. GREG E 10143000437 Training A Development E 60149400-331 Travel Expenses E 10145200-331 Travel Expenses E 10143000-331 Travel Expenses E 65149910-331 Travel Expenses Total GAPPA, GREG $44.00 $27.14 $8.91 $1256 $7.28 StW5 6/8A>5 W05 6mrt)5 6/8rt)5 Parking/Meals PW Conf Mileage-Wtr Mileage - Parks Mileage - St Mileage - Stm Wtr $99.89 Paid Cliki 061650 10/10/2005 GOOD, STEPHANY E 10142110439 Meeting Expenses E 101-42110-437 Training A Development Total GOOD. STEPHANY $60.45 $540.73 9/2rt)5 Lunches Conference Expenses $501.18 PM Chki 061651 ' 10/10/2005 HAWKINS CHMICAL E 60149400-216 Chemicals and Cham Products Total HAWKINS CHEMICAL $1,71137 750033 ”$l!m37 * Water Plant Chemicals Paid CiM 081552 “ 10/10/2005 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-PROP TAXES E 22545219441 Licenses A Taxes $664.19 171172343007 3422 Lyric 2nd 1/2 Taxes E 23445660-441 Licenses A Taxes ^ $776.05 321182312000 Personal Prop Taxes Lurton Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-PROP TAXES ‘ $1.440 24 Paid Chki 081853 10/10/2005 HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER • PW E 60249450-441 Licenses A Taxes . $278 79 ►*CRR01367 Total HENNIPINCTYTREASURER-PW ‘ $278 79^ Dakota Rail Lease Paid ChkS 061854 10/10/2005 HINSHAW A CULBERTSON G 101-20200 Accounts Payable E 10141600-307 Legal-Consulting E 10143280-307 Legal-ConsuNing E 10143280-307 Legal-Consutting E 10141600-307 Legal-Consulting E 10141600-305 Legal-Retainer E 60149400-30/ Legal-ConsuNing E 65149910-307 Legal-Consulting E 10143280-307 Lagal-ConsuHing E 10143280-307 Legal-Consulting E 10143260-307 Legat-Consuitmg $94900 ($949.00) $63447 $516.25 $212.18 $1.300 00 $221.00 $186 32 $210 00 $498 49 $550 00 10428228 10428228 10487852 10487852 10487853 10487854 10487855 10487856 10495297 10495297 10495297 Unidentified Cahrges Reverse Unidentified Cngs Applic Resolution Review Spruce Way (Rudd) Appi 2587 f^eison/Carison Vacated oak PI Council Mtgs June 2005 Water Tower Lease Birch Lane Srrm Swr Stone Bay Lofts 05-3081 AppHc Reso ution Review Spruce Way ( Rudd) Appkc 2587 V* CITY OF ORONO 10A)7/05 10 53 AM Pages Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 200S Check Amt invoice Comment E 101-41900-307 Legai-Contulting E 101-41600-307 Legai-Contuiling E 601-49400-307 Legal-Coniuning E 101-43290-600 Special PrpjecU. Contk^gency E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer E 651-49910-307 Legal-Consulllng Total HIHSHAW A CULBERTSON 6260.00 1767.00 6121.66 6141.00 61.304.80 69100 10495296 10495298 10495299 10495299 10495300 10495301 67^16.37 Paid Chk# 061M5 10/10/2005 JEFFERSON FIRE S SAFETY. INC E 101-42260-226 Clothing & personal equipmant $6,452.47 119847 E 101-42260-226 Clothing 6 personal equipmant $14,467.15 120659 E 101-42260-226 Clothing & personal equipment __$2.635 58 120927 ToUl JEFFERSON FIRE A SAFETY. INC ' $23,575 20 ^ 10/10/2005 JORSTAO A REUTHER COMPaid Chk# 061856 E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publ^hing Tot^ JORSTAO A REUTHER COM $673 75 2428 $673.75 PakSCIM 061657 Vd/10/2005 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA E 101-41600-306 Lagal-Prosacution Total KENNETH N. POTTS. PA $2.500 00 10/3A)5 $2,500.00 Pald ChM 061856 10/10/:^*0'5 LAB SAF^ SUPPLY INC E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parta A Accessohea E 101-42110-201 Office supplies Total LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC 642.23 1006878348 $11^ 1006915887 $15579 PM Chk# 081859 ' 1 oH0/2005 ^LAMR RELATIONS ASSOC E 101-42110-319 Other Proftssionai Services _ $4.972 00 9/1/2005 Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $4.97200 Paid Chk# 081860 10/10/2005 LARSON ELECTRIC SUPPLY E 101-42260-404 Repatrs/Mainl-Bldgs/Grounds ___$375 00 5940 Total LARSON ELECTRIC SUPPLY $37500 Paid Chk# 061861 10/10/2005 LINO NELSON CONSTRUCTION INC R 101-33420 Poiioe State Aid Total LINO NELSON CONSTRUCTION INC $600.00 05-3158 $600.00 Paid Chk# 061662 10/10/2005 LOGIS E 101-41900-329 Other Communications E 101-42110-310 LOGIS-Appiications £ 101-42110-329 Other Communications E 101-41900-311 Data Processing Communication E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip Total LOOIS $321 50 $1,958.00 $321.50 $31.00 $45 00 52 677 00 26259 26259 26259 26259 26311 10/10^005 MCLEOD USA - PHONE BILLSPaid Chk# 081863 E 602-49450-3211 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Ttlaphona E 101-41900-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone Total MCLEOD USA • PHONE BILLS $5441 2007835 $209 85 2007835 $489 66 2007835 $47 95 2007835 $23 32 2007835 JS13 35) 2007835 $811*84* paid Chk# 081864 10/10/2005 MEDICA Navarre Development Moratorium Diseased pine trees OCB Rd Industnai Park Wtrmain Easmen Big Island VeTs Camp Council Mtgs July 2005 Birch Lane St Swr Turn Out Gear Turn Out Gear Turn Out Gear Fall Newsletter Prosecutions - 9/2005 Coveralls for Prisoners Hand Soap. Sanitizar Cartson Matter Flag Pole Lighting • Nav Fire CUP Refund 05-3158 Internet - 8/2005 Police Records - 8/2005 Internet - 8/2005 Henn Cly Connection WSUS Sel Op Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service Phone Service CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/07/05 1053 AM Pages OCTOBER 2005 Cfiecli Aflil Ifivolc# Comment 0101-21706 HospiUt^tiorVMeOieal Int E 101-42110-135 City Benefit Comribulion O 101-15996 Non-Employee Heath Ins Total MEDICA $10,811.24 105274102552 Madica • 10/2005 $374.75 105274102552 Madica -10/2005 $1,175.12 105274102552 Madica -10/2005 $12,361.11 ^aidChki 061565' 10/10/2005 *MEOiNAVcjW OF * R 101-33490 State Grant-other Total MEDINA, CITY OF $3.879 52 9/13A)5 Medina Share-Safe & Sober $3,879.52 Paid Chk# 061866 'l0/10^(X)5 ' MCT COUMIL ENVIRONMENTA R 101-39610 MiscaUanaous Revenue ($29.00) 6/2005 G 101-20609 SAC Charges due to MWCC Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL 8ER $2.90000 8/2005 SAC Charges - 8/2005 SAC Charges • 8/2005 $2,871.00 Paid Chki 061867 10/10/2005 MIDWEST AQUA CARE E 613-49630-404 Rapairs/Matnt-6id9S/Grounds Total MIDWEST AQUA CARE $684.00 9/18A)5 2005 Pond Maintenance $684 00 PM CiM 061868 ' 10/10/^ ' MILLER,' SCOTT A MICHELLE R 101-34420 Cond Use-Variance-Oev Fees _ $600 00 05-3155 Total MILLER. SCOTT A MICHELLE Refund-05-3155 $600.00 Paid ChW 081669 KV1W2005 MH D€PT OF TRANSPORTATION E 10143280-304 En9«aerin9.Cof»«imnfl $26769 PA000112611 TH12/Wi0ow Signal Total MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION $287.69 Paid CMdl 081870 1(910/2065 MONTOOMERY ilRINKMAN E 101.42110-319 Othar Pretaaaional Sandcaa Total MONTOOMERV tRINKIiAN $99^ S78 $99500 Plans. Police Garage Paid ChiUI 081871 ' 10/10/^ MORLOCK, BOB R 101.34410 Plan Chack/Sile Exam Foot Total MORLOCK.BOB $200 00 9/21/05 Refund4.ogal ReviowSFiiing $200 00 Paid Chki 061872 ' 10/10/2005 MOUND POLICE E 101-42110.437 Training & Davalopmeni Total MOUND POLICE $395.00 Toovw iniorrogation Semmar-Toewa $395 00 Paid Chki 081873 10/10/2005 MTi DIST CO. E 613-49830-404 Repairt/Mainl-Bldgt/Grounds E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Mainl. Supphos Total MTI DIST CO. $360.66 497389 $7349 497620 $434.15 Irrigation Maintenance Tee Towels .. t Paid Chki 081874 10/1(92005 NATIONAL OIAMONO SUPPLY OF MN J E 601-49*00-221 Equipment Pads 6 Accessories E602-49450-221 Eqtnpment Pads 8 Accessories Total NATIONAL OIAMONO SUPPLY OF MN $109 70 1092 $109.69 1092 daw Blades Saw Blades $21939 Paid Chki 081875 10/10/2005 NAVARRE CITOO E 101-42260-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $51 73 8/22/05 Fuel E 101-42260-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $101 75 8/^23/05 Fuel E 101-42260-212Motor Fuels A Lubncants $38 02 9/6/05 Fuel Tout NAVARRE CITOO $191 SO Paid Chki 081876 10/10/2005 NAVARRE HARDWARE E 101-42260-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Offico supplies $16 27 156475 $1521 157136 Detergent Wasp Killer • Nav F Key Ring. Paper Towels • Naw F i .'tf i?J i CITY OF ORONO 10/07/05 10 S3 AM Page/ t- ‘ *Check Detail Register® i‘: OCTOBER 2005 ChackAmt Invoice Comment Total NAVARRE HARDWARE i0/f(V2005 NCPERS GROUP UFE MS $31.45 ChkP 081577 G 101-21710 Ltfeinturance Total NCPER8 GROUP UPE INS $304 00 57321005 PERA LHe $304.00 Chk# 681878.....10/16/2005 ' NEXtELCOiilMUW^^ E 613-49030-321 TetepKofW E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 101-41000-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-240 Small Tool* and Minor Equip Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $4864 $101.19 $33.73 $313.05 $882.47 $371.34 $1>50.42 326100427-02 Nextelt 326180427-02 Nextels 328180427-02 Nextela 326100427-02 Nextela 506573311-04 Police Phonea 506573311-04 Police Phonea ChM 001870 10/10/2005 NORLING'S E 101-45200-404 Repaira/Maint-eidga/Grounda Total NORUNG'S $832 50 20346 Navarre Park Landscaping S832.50 IChiW ooi uo 10/10/2005 NOW MICRO E 101-42110-240 SmaO Toola and Minor Equip Total NOW MICRO $1,826.49 388968 Wirelesa Acceaa Cards $1,826.49 I ChiiP 681081'' l6/*i0/2069 OMRAIGNER. SCOTT E 101-43000-437 Trainmg 8 Development g Total OGERAIONER. SCOTTR $19.50 10/3/05 Parklng/Meala - PW Conf $19.50 iChki 081882 10/10/2005 OFFICE DEPOT E101-42110-201 OPiee auppliei E101-41900-201 Ofllce auppliea Total OFFICE DEPOT $177 52 308055232-00 Office Soppliea $177 52 308055232-00 Office Suppliea $355'64 d CWi* 081883 i6/1O«065 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. £613-49900-093 Conceaaiona ForRetaie-Txbl Total OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. $1J_96 106225 $15.96 Chipa for Resale dChM 061884 10/10/2005 OROURKE, ASHLEY E 101-42110-201 Office supplies e 101-42110-322 Poalage Total OROURKE, ASHLEY $9.56 10/5X)S $23 32 10/5W5 $32 6e~ Tape. Paper Shipping Charges id Chki 061885 10/10«005 PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS. E 101-42260-401 Repairs/Maml-Olfice Eque> ___^WOO IVC00751 Total PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS. $150 00 id Chk# 081886 10/10«005 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. Support 10/2005 E 802-49450-406 Ropaira/Maini-Swr Imes/lilts E 602-49450-406 Repaira/Maint-Swr Itnes/hfls E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Mainl-Swr lines/lifts E 602-49450-406 Repaus/Maint-Swr Imes/lifls Total QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. $1.767 05 15962 $2.39625 15963 $1,210.15 15964 $1 127 73 1 5965 $6 509 18 Pump Repair - LS 11 Pump Repair • LS 18 Pump Repair - LS 8 Temp PumpsLS8 1M6 29 (lid Chk# 081887 10/10«005 QWEST £613-49030-321 Teiepnone Total QWEST $63 08 S524739904 pi-ene Service $6300 Id ChKi 081688 10/10/2005 REED VENDING Ld CITY OF ORONO KV07/05 10:53 AM Paged *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 200S E61M9900^3 ConcMtions For R«»lt-T)d)l Total REEOVENOMO CtMck^nt Invoico $74 20 5092 Corn moot Concottiont for Rmalo $74.20 IM Chk# oaisao 10/10/2009 SNYOER drug «S02« E 101-42110>201 Offioo tupplitt Total SNYDER DRUG «S025 $4506 0/22/05 Fibn. Batteries $4696 lid ciiii'oei'696 '10/16/^ strh ^r business systems ~ E 101-42110-201 Offioo aupplias $151 67 1131530 Toner Kit Total STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS $15167 I'acwti oeiwr '10/10'^ t-mobile E 101-42110-321 Talaphona Total T-MOBILE $150.12 412442756 MOC Access $159.12 jidChM'Mie92 ld/ioi'2005 TALLENANOBAERTSCHI E 101-41600-306 LogaLProsoeution Total TALLENANOBAERTSCHI $106 2^ 9646 $10627 Prosecutions 9/2005 aid ChW 061693 IO/loi/2005 fl«'COURIER SOURCE E101-41900-321 Tolophono Total THE COURIER SOURCE $M 52 091705 $34'92" DeKvory to Bonestroo aid Chkf dolH*' ' 10/10/2069 'THORPE OIST CO. £613-499004)91 Boor For Rasalo Total THORPE OIST CO. $9979 367177 Boor (or Rosale $9975 aid CitMf 061699 10/10/^" UMTEO STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 601-49400-322 Postago 360,39 10/7/05 E 691-49910-322 Postago $20087 10/7/09 E 602-49450-322 Postage <200 86 10/7/05 Tata! UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $462.06 3rd Qtr UB - Postage 3rd Qtr UB - Postage 3rd Qtr UB - Postage >aid'Ct)ki'66T696 iO/10/2009 USBANK-CMM90 E 315-47000-620 Fiscal Agent’s Fees E 312-47000420 Fiscal Agents Fees E 313-47000620 Fiscal Agent’s Fees Total USBANK-CM9690 ;*1.00000 1559396 $750 00 1599620 . 1559763 $1.9'51.25 2003 HRA Bond Fees 1996 HRA Bond Fees 1999 GO Bond Fees aid Chk# 061697 10/10/2005 VERIZON WIRELESS E 101-41900-321 Telephone Total VERIZON WIRELESS JM.26 3633750277 $M.28 Cell Phones ’aid Chk# 061696 10/10/2005 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC E 61369630-419 Other Equipment Rentals Total VERSATILE VEHICLES INC $330 65 21439 S330 65 Golf Cart Rental >aid Chk« 061699 10/10/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT-RECYCUNG E 10163270-316 Contracl Recycling Pickup Rro.394 86 1193053-1593-Recycling 6-l0^005 Total WASTE MANAGEMENT • RECYCLING $20,354 88 " >aid Chkf 061900 10/10/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT-TC WEST E 10169200-101 Full-Time Employees Regular $0 00 Sobd Waste E61369630669 OtherMiscelleneousCharges $7898 1195168-^593-SoW Waste E 10161900-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges $93 34 1199169-1993-Bond Waste-10/2005 £10161900-469 OtherMiscelaneo-jsCharges $107 70 1195170-1593 SoMWaste-10/2009 E 10162260-469 Other MisceSar.vOus Charges $76 98 1195171.1593- Sokd Waste -10/2005 CITY OF ORONO 10/07/05 10:53 AM Pag«9 *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 200S Cheek Amt kivotee Comment E 101-45200-315 Other Prefetsional Services E101-4S200-319 Other ProMuional Setvieee E 101*4S200>319 Other ProtetelORel Servleee Tout WASTE MANAOEMENT >TC tWEST S7B98 S7899 5258 45 1195172-1593- Solid Wute -10/2005 1195173-1593- Solid Waste • 10/2005 1195174-1593- Solid Waste -10/2005 577544 PM Chk« 081M1~ 10/10/2005 WAYZATA, CITY OF E 601-49400-387 Intergovernmental Services E 602-49450-387 Intergovernmental Senriees Total WAYZATA, CITY OF 56.00940 5592.97 10/7/05 10/7/05 56.602 37 l>M ChM OAUiOe 16/10/20M WE8TONKA SEWER S WATER, INC E 651-49910-406 RapalrsAHaint-Swr lines/lifis 53.990 00 6620 Total weSTONKA SEWER S WATER, INC PM ChM 691M3 ' iO/iOOdoS WILLIAMS TOWING 0101-19999 Suspense Account 53,990 00 5141.65 1/31/05 Total WILLIAMSTOWING 5141 65 PM Chwrdai904 10/10^ WITTkE, TONY E 101-42110-437 Training & OovelopmenI Total WlTTKE,TONY 522 22 9/27/US 522.22 Paid Chk#' bsidos ' ld/ld/20ds' WRIOHT HENNEPM ELECTrac E 602-494S0-3B1 Oas&EIOCIric E 101-43000-381 GasSEIocIrie E 101-43000-381 OasSEIaciric Total WRIOHT HENNEPM ELECTRIC PaM ChM 081906 10/10/2665 WSB E 101-43290400 Special Projods. Contingency Tom WSB |t.8W27 54.884 27 Paid Chk# 061907 '10/10/2005 YOUNG, JACKIE E 101-42400-319 Other Prolassior'ai Services E 101-42400-319 Other ProlMSional Services E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Senrlces Total YOUNG, JACKIE 5350 00 9/27/05 5210.00 9/27/05 5170.00 9/27/05 5170 00 9/27/C3 '590C.dO" Paid Chk# 081906 10/10/2005 2EP MANUFACTURING CO. E 601-49400-221 Equipment Paris 4 Accessories Tr tal 2EP MANUFACTURING CO. b'i 16.77 10100 Primary Cash 5177.230 70 3rd Qtr 2005 -UB 3rd Qtr 2005 - UB Storm Sewer Maint* 3799 Casco Tow • Hackbarth Forf Meals • Driving School S22 94 3113009200 $34 05 3113009200 $^16 5015762900 $77.15 Electrical Service Electneal Service Electrical Service TH 12 Turnback Plan Minutes • 9/19^5 Plan Minutes • 8/15 CC Minutes *9/12 CC Minutes • 6/8 Shop Supplies t ; CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2008 Check Amt ktvolc# Comment Fund Summary 10100 PiiinaiyCa»h 101 GENERAL FUND $126,700.71 22$ PARK FUND $664.10 221 ORUQ/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND $105.76 234 LURTON PARK $776.05 312 199$ 1IPA REFUNDING BONO FUND $750 00 3131999 IMPROVEMENT BONO $201 25 31$ 2003 PUB FAC REV BONO $1,000.00 601 WATER OPERATING FUND $20.07428 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND $13.144 79 • 613 GOLF COURSE $2,106.22 j 691 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND $11.707 45 $177,230.70 ■■■■’'•''I I ^ 'fVV* . , Ilibi. 1(V07/0«10;53AM Pag* 10 CITY OF ORONO Payments Cumnl Pwtod; SEPTEMBER 200S 09/29/05 7:05 AM Page 1 Batch Nama PY092a05B Paymantt User Dollar Amt Computer DoNar Amt $45,639.68 $45.63968 $0.00 In Balance Reiaf .. .. 0 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES_ . Caeh Payntent Old -21703 PICA Tax Withholding Involoa Cash Paynfmnt G 101-21703 PICA Tax Withholding Involoa Caah Payment G 101 -21701 Pederal Withholding Invoice Tranaaction Date 9/28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Primar/Caah 10100 PICA 8 MEDICARE W/H PICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE PEDERAL W/H Total $4.780 09 $4.780 09 $10,586.65 $20,146.83 Refer OJCMARETlREli^^m^ . Cash Paymeni G 101-21705 Other Retirement Invoice Tranaaction Date 9/28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Primary Caah OEPERRED COMP-302030 10100 Total SI. 188 62 $1.188 62 Refer . 0 LAyyENFpRCf^f^^ . Caah Payment G 101-21707 Union Duea Invoice Tranaaction Data 9/28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Primary Caah UNION DUES #40 8 9168 10100 ToUl $705.39 $705.39 STATE TAX WH Refer _________- Caah Payment G101-21702 Slate Withholding Invoice Tranaaction Date 9^8/2005 Due 7/12/2000 PrimaryCeah 10100 Total Rf6r 0. ORCHARD TRU^^ . Caah Payment G 101-21705 Oiher Retirement MN STATE RETIREMENT Invoice Tranaaction Date W28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Primary Caah 10100___________Tot^ $4 486 91 $4,486.91 $3.032 68 S3.032.68 OBRA #2343 fWer 0 MVOI^DERETIRM^.f^SgLU . Caah Payment G 101-21705 oSier Retirement Invoice Tranaaction Dale 9/28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Primary Caah 10100 Total $129 60 $129 60 USCM - ENTITY 2339 Pa^#^_ ,,,P NATIQN^MDERETJREMENTSOL^ . Caah Payr^nl G 101-21705 Other Retirement Invoice Tranaaction Date 9/26/2005 Duo 7/12/2000 Primary Cash 10100 Total $1.990 00 $1,990.00 Refer 0 PUBLIC EMPLgyEES^RET Caah Paymeni G 101-21704 PERA Invoice Caah Payment G 101-21704 PERA Invoice Tranaaction Dale 9/28/2005 Due 7/12/2000 Pnmar> Caah 10100 T7/NITED WAY PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA C'ty share Tofel Caah Paymeni G 101-21708 United Way CHARITY DONATIONS Invoice Tranaaction Date 9/28/2005_______Due 7/12/2000 Primary Caah 10100 Total S5.901.30 S7.652 74 S13.554 04 S86 00 $96 00 CITY OF ORONO Payments Cwfiw«Pwied: 8EPTEMM9I20W __0 UN STATE HeriReMENT SYSTEM . ChI« Payment 0101-2171* Pott EmpteymantHaalth poat ratlwnoant IfNOioe Traneaciion Oala «2««00» Ouai/7«004 Primary Cash 10100 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 Primary Caati $48.*39.6 » S49,*39.08 i'TST ■’T -T , . ,..l . J 00/29A)5 7:05 AM Page 2 Total 1319.61 $319^^ Pra-WMttanChacfc $0.00 Ctwcks to ba Oanaralad by tha Compute $45,639.08 ■St* Total $45,63968 ,v " :-V.V; ^ npFv*-"." ' •X •• h ^ •• 4- % > '1 • 1' ■ -'•-• • TTIv ■Jr* ■ ■k; .^.... |||■||4a■lklll ................. 1 CITY OF ORONO chack regitter ChockNumlMr EmployM Nam* 0SS406 0S5407 0S540e 05S409 055410 055411 PETERSON, BARBARA MCMILLAN. ELIZABETH T. MOORSE. RONALD J. BANSEVERE. ROBERT K. murphy. JAMES L. WHITE. JAMES M. Pay Clitcli Chock Period Amount Otto Chock Stotuo 10 $323.22 10/10/2005 OuUtonding 10 $269.36 10/10/2009 OutoMnding 10 $360.40 10/10/2009 OutolonOing 10 $269.36 10/10/2009 Outstanding 10 $269.36 10/10/2005 Outstanding 10 $269.36 $1,770.06 10/10/2005 Outstanding % m 7 iv- ■ - ; -7. • -.'■L ‘ ' ■ - ::: : . • -v^ ft -I ■■ i ■■ ' i ' ''■! ' ■■■ - ■t:- A . ''i'-.-y- 5^? •-••:,■,;;.i-,.;- ■ ../r 10A)6/0S 2:50 PM Page 1 r if ^ - ‘j ■ WUMCUeBJiw ^ 102005 ^^OFOi^ f infoiu ^tion . tlEMS 4 COUNCIL MEETING OF COUMOLMEEnNO OCT 10200S 0nvof cw®® « * UiOkk^ ■, .V September 23,2005 ■ '-•' ri V.;C : t»^ 2 1 Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Orono Planning Staff City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 ? ?005 Cl rv Of o.a'onc OOUNOLMEETMG OCT 1020f«*^ OIV OF ORONO Dear Mayor and Council Members; I am writing this letter as a resident of Navarre/Orono for the last 9 years, witb great concern about the development Navarre area, i am interested in the appropriate development and planning for this region. The proposed expansion of the Narrows Saloon with outdoor seating is obviously a critical issue in this development, and I believe that you should vote against this current proposal. While there is already much information for you to review, 1 ask that you also consider the following points in advance of your meeting on October lO"*, 2005 when you will vote on the current proposal. 1.Is this an appropriate use of the B-1 zoned space at county road 15 and 19? The B-1 zoning (which I believe b appropriate for this area) is designed for businesses and services that serve the local community, and are necessary for the residents of that community. In the current size of the space of 2174 square feet, the occupancy rating is 145 people, this is appropriate for filling this description. With the expansion to 5011 square feet (an increase in space of 130%), with occupancy of 265 people, it b clearly not designed Just for the 7547 residents of Orono, or the 614 residenb of Minnetonka Beach, or the 1717 residents of Spring Park, our closest neighbors. At one of the meetings, the owners stated that their main intention with the expansion is to change this into more of a family restaurant. For this amount of space, there would definitely be some attempt at a regional draw from areas outside of Navarre/Orono. This regional draw is especially evident given the fact that the owner’s intent is to remove the wall between the old and new space to enlarge the central room, making more room for the “National Acts” that they advertise on their website. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that “limited commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono ’s commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and serv ice businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono ’s urban and rural DRH CMH 8-2.I U5 - page I mm 2. 3. residents." Additionally, “Commercial development of a regional nature which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential development, will be discouraged. In addition, commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property." Other communities have also had issues with large regional draws to a “local" bar with music that cause strains on the local resources of police and traffic. Additionally, when patrons under the legal drinking age are allowed in the bar at the same time, it causes additional problems. See the attached article that addresses a similar situation in St. Paul, where a large bar with music is having problems with the merging of community and saloon. Is there adequate parking for the eipanded use, as well as any other viable redevelopment and growth of the other businesses in this area, as well as parking for “park and ride" commuting other areas of the twin cities? Even the parking study performed by the applicants (which has some flaws that I won't detail here) suggests that the parking would be nearly maiimiaed for the businesses on the north of County road 15 adjacent to the saloon at peak times. At a recent special event, parking was near maiimum with only a handful of spots open, and patrons for the event were parking on the south side of county road IS In the Rick's parking lot and running across the road, as well as driving and parking their motorcycles on the sidewalk and illegally on the street. (Sec attached pictures of August 2*^, 2005) Growth of this region with businesses that support the scale and spirit of the D*1 zoning are important. No business owner would take the risk of developing in this area with only a handful of parking spots to allow their patrons to visit their business. Is there adequate traffic flow to support this use at the intersection of county road 15 and 19. This intersection is already quite dangerous and congested. While the saloon will have peak times most likely of lunch and dinner and weekends, which are not times that most people are commuting to work, they are still times when the wait times at these intersections are at quite a strain. The ORHCMH»-23-05-|w«e2 . entrances to the parking lot can occur next to the Dvinci's pizza location (certainly tough to turn left from the west), next to the gas station (again a tough left turn from the west -1 have on more than one occasion almost been hit by someone turning left from the west violating the turn lanes in this area - and this area is tough to navigate between the buildings), and then on the smaller side streets to the north (which is immediately adjacent to a park with a slide and playground equipment for small children). 4. Is outdoor seating appropriate for this area? Noise , t the intersection is already an issue - admittedly mainly currently from cars and street traffic. Yet occasionally, the noise from the saloon, when the doors are open when there is live music, is enough to hear at the bottom of my driveway. Certainly double entry doors, and converting the single entry doors to a fire escape only, and better attention from the owners to the heating and ventilation to keep them from propping the doors open may solve these problems with the current facility. Expansion to outdoor seating will create new problems. People drinking and smoking within less than SO yards of the park, load conversations at night, along with the increased patrons and cars from a 130% Increase in usable space in this saloon, will increase the noise even further. Further reduction in the size of the outdoor areas may reduce this noise somewhat, but with the proximity to the neighborhoods, 1 believe outdoor use should be denied, bating on the south side of the building had originally been proposed, but is not in the current proposal, and should continue to be denied, as it poses the same problems, with the addition of safety concerns with highway 15. Additionally, seating on the south side of the building impairs pedestrian traffic on the north side of the road. 5. Would the approval of this application be consistent with past actions of the city council? Most of the residenU of Orono/Navarre have at one time had dealing with the city council concerning our own property, and have adapted to the fact that with few exceptions, the laws and zoning regulations of the city have been upheld. As Jim Murphy has commented in past city council meetings, Orono is becoming more urban as time goes on. which requires tighter regulations. Allowing signifkant variances in building use, parking variances, and adding outdoor seating are exceptions that we should not tolerate. DRH CMH8.2J-05-|Mgc3 i ‘ To approve an application with such signiflcant variances and conflicts with use of the property would be inconsistent with the past actions of the council and city. The laws and regulations are in place to direct the action of the city council, and therefore if there is significant sentiment against the proposal, then strict qiplication of the zoning and ordinances should be maintained. This proposal has many variance requests and therefore should not be aimoved. We moved to Navarre, because we wanted the benefit of living in a small town close to a major metropolitan area. I am hopefni that by carefully planning and building this community, we can still let everyone near us perceive that they are living in a SBull town, with all of the small town advantages. Thank you for considering the denial of this application. r.. Sincerely, I u H -1Dav^d R.» Christine M. Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue m I t ■*- Jr Mu,.Si a.* „ ^ - A • jd. * .*> A : r ; : ♦ ' ■. / f.-- ■ < .. :y ‘j '• u*ii z* 1 'w * I). if:. ■ ■ -■ OaMCMH i-234S-Mr4 €J winskMe • Detroit 7*2 NBA, players fill a tall order hy reaching a labor pact mi ‘Herbie; i i RiUy I' Loaded Lmt.OS* m0u96' fVednesday fuMU.2on StarlNbune Metro Edition NCWSPAPEH OF THE TWIN CITIES ItaKkip nl^its may have had their day In St. Paul tiss^ssffsr'-iarss■HilaMbai eMihwi riMdiMi aiLMva* aiiti iotMmmi r 21 «a Natal MIM iMm lei ________ l lataNb^Witaiattatitad —tactata^ SrSSSr ktSsHSSSS^i^nrTTiTTaT * 2teitaSJ5^ •fmLwmmmmmmmt ■■■■■>■■ aita.» ! MlTa^m ■ini in fvnC um Dim ^XtatataieiCaeoJSitalta!^ “nBLtajSwMMwUS^ > ^ t«- - ^taMiA Ss«1/tU*np U.N.% stnigglet detalei 0¥er oil^Drlood violatloi UWTED NAT10M1 ~ IW Mitaa UJ« ivwta tMrd tad Tta a ta« MMa • vtata- MaiM tat UlL MKaM tan •« tartata>• n MM taM iMnv «ta»* imiatata tataiaipr itaw—Mtaita««M*w«ta4. itatatanafitaMitaf ■iTigyj^s tansuwti mwmrnrn. km mmttikmi latta tataytaf r«t»o^ m mt tartaw d«i I ai ata mm km tatacii itawii Mtalta •f tai itaMiita • iRgei I Mara.iMiBcu)ken€if restrictions sc^ BCStlStiriS ea S^ltanj^tiftaR Mf%ta MIMlaanaMta ik aatf ua am4 m •tamaiiiwMewep lllr Ptap Wtawrie Hffiani easaia Mlt*Zia MtaMMUll tfM* kmm » ta «p mmmmm iata«ta.*«iiNtaU»• Ni»>idiii< atar MnateiaCItaCaaaH Sw OMta mSim^ IRS PROBLEMS? ars^M-Mi Xataatta AIR CONDITIONING SAL mmirSd^ / ^250aNWi ^SOaNCaWrifMC *A o « %/ ru-r " Gm ij- y,w 'iSm^ a- a ^^*5 ■ P’7 ‘j;r.^ f ■ '»■ * • •?’.I V^ ' * Tt*» . ^ . - •■;. ’.f V •.‘1*^J «V.. . » m m . ..^ • ..M *4■«••<< CONDENSED MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3Q0UNCIL MEITlNG HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12,2005 OCT 10/'>in The annual meeting of the Board of Edueation of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, September 12,2005. CIIY Present:Jack Veach John Malone Dick Lewis Michele Kunz Mike Bash Martha Van de Ven Karen Orcutt Neal Lawson UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Michele Kunz, the consent agenda was approved. UPON MOTION by Mike Bash, seconded by Dick Lewis, the Personnel Report was amended to approve Certified Personnel as one motion and approve Classifled Personnel as another motion; with Jack Veach abstaining from the vote to approve the Classified Personnel. approved the minutes of August 22,2005, regular meeting; Certified Personnel: approved the appointment of Bethany Marks as a first grade teacher at Schumann Elementary for the 2005-06 school year; • approved the appointment of Richard Norton as a .5 media specialist at the Schumann/Intermediate media center for the 2005-06 school year; approved the appointment of Nicholas Ellison as a .3 music teacher at Orono Intermediate School, beginning September 6, 2005, for the 2005-06 school year; approved the appointment of Scott Enze as a .4 physical education teacher at Orono Intermediate School, beginning August 29, 2005, for the 2005-06 school year; - approved the appointment of Beth Pearson as the Literacy Specialist beginning with the 2005-06 school year; • approved the appointment of Penny Pease as the Information and Technology Literacy Curriculum Coordinator begiruiing with the 2005-06 school year; - Classified Personnel: - approved the appointment of Jennifer Fossen as the health clerk for Orono Intermediate School effective August 31,2005; • approved the appointment of Lucia Harland as a short hour cook at ^humaim Elementary effective September 1,2005; approved the appointment of Theresa Moran as a short hour cook at Orono Middle School effective September !, 2005; approved the appointment of Ann Turner as the health clerk at Orono High School effective August 31,2005; approved the appointment of Jocelyn Veach as a district-wide paraprofessional effective September 6,2005; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 142880 through 143178 and office checks 7294 through 7299. Motion carried. LONG TERM PLANNING: The finalized documents for the approved Superintendent/Board Goals 05-06 were reviewed. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Dick Lewis, the Board of Education approved the edited Superintendent/Board Goals for 2005-2006. Motion carried. L. 22Q\ 5EIVPS POLICIES - (Second Reading): The Board received a recommendation to approve the addition of Procedure 2201.1 to Policy 2201 series. School Board Member Code of Ethics. A discussion ensued resulting in minor edits. il r UPON MOTION by Mike Bash, seconded by John Malone, the Board of Education approved the addition of Procedure 2201.1 to Policy 2201 series, Schoc l Board Member Code of Ethics, subject to discussed edits. ORONO HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM INTRODUCTIONS: Dr. Orcutt introduced the new administration of Orono High School. Mrs. Boyd told the Board about her background. Both Mr. Benson and Mrs. Boyd will join the Board later this fall with a full administrative report. SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION RESOLUTION: Member Jack Veach waived the reading of the resolution and moved <ts adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND CALLING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTION COPIES OF THE FULL RESOLUTION ARE ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE UPON MOTION by Mike Bash, seconded by Michele Kunz, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following members voted in favor thereof: Bash, Kunz, Lewis, Malone, Van de Ven, Veach And the following members voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION APPOINTMENT: The Board will be asked to approve the appointment of Evy 2!acher and Linda von Buskirk to assist the clerk in preparing for and running the November 8,2005 election, inclusive of saving as the absentee Board for absentee ballots. UPON MOTION by Mike Bash, seconded by Dick Lewis, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Evy Zacher and Linda von Buskirk to assist the clerk in preparing for and running the November 8,2005 election. Motion carried. REFERENDUM ELECTION: The Board received a recommendation to approve a resolution calling an election on the approval of referenda revenue and capital project levy authorizations and on the issuance of school building bonds. Member Mike Bash introduced the following resolution, waived the reading of the resolution, a.id moved its adoption. A COPY OF TTE FULL RESOLUTION IS ON FILE AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. John Malone presented a PowerPoint presentation supporting four referenda questions. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dick Lewis and, with a vote being taken thereon, the lollowing voted in favor thereof: Bash, Kunz, Lewis, Malone, Van de Ven, Veach And the following members voted against the same: None Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Mike Bash, seconded by Dick Lewis, the Board meeting was adjourned. Motion carried. Michele Kunz, Clerk Jack Veach, Chair September 21,2005 Minnesota Pollution Control MEEIW6 OCT 102005 OTYOFORONO r. N ‘i \ . ;r ^ ary ; yrc’- - ^ t i •• • < t A Mr. Michael J. Pudil President and CEO Washington Scientific Industries, Inc. 213 Chelsea Road Monticcllo, MN SS362 RE: Washington Scientific Site II, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard, Orono MPCA Project Number VPI0021 No Action Determination Dear Mr. Pudil: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff in the Voluntary Investigation ;ind Cleanup (VIC) Unit has been requested to provide a No Action Determination for releases idcntilicd at the Washington Scientific II site located at the above referenced address (the Site). The Site is approximately 25 acres in size and the property and facility was owned and operated historically by Washington Scientifle Industries (WSI), who operated a machining, assembling and manufacturing facility for precision metal components. The Site property is currently owned by WJM Properties, LLC, and is used as a car storage facility. WSI identified chlorinated solvents in the soil and ground water at the Site in 1987 during parking lot construction activities. Subsequent ground water monitoring activities identified a release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the shallow’ glacial ground water and associated soils in the southern portion of the Site. The identified release for the purposes of this letter consists of the VOCs identified in the ground water including trichloroethylene; 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,1-dichloroethylenc; cis-1,2- dichloroethylene; 1,2-dichloroethylenc; tetrachloroethviene; \ inyl chloride; bromomethanc; and methylene chloride (the IdentTied Release). A Limited No Action Determination for contaminated soils associated with this VOC release at the Site was issued by the MPCA on August 27,2002. In 1988, WSI installed a ground water pump-out system as a remedy and to provide ground w ater containment under the oversight of the MPCA Resource Consen ation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. After several years of ground water monitoring activities, in August 1998, regulatory oversight for the Site was transferred to the MPCA VIC Program. Additional soil and ground water investigations including an updated ground w ater receptor sur\ ey w as conducted by WSI. The receptor survey identified several domestic wells located w ithin the glacial deposits approximately 1000 feet south and downgradient of the Site. The MPCA VIC staff approved a remedial system shutdown and closure plan in 1999. This plan involved the installation and monitoring of sentinel w ells along the southern Site property boundary screened approximately in the same aquifer as the domestic wells south of the Site. The sentinel wells confmned the presence of a thick glacial clay dominant sequence in the subsurface separating glacial sands. Since shutdown of the remedidtion system in 1999, the ground water has been monitored in accordance with the shutdown 520 Lafayette Rd. N., Sami Paul. MN 55155-4194; (651, 296-6300 (Voice) '651 ) 282-5332 (TTY) www pea state mn us St. Paul • Brainerd • Detfoil Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Wiiimar Equal Opptxluoity Empioyar • PnmuO on rac/ciad papar contairang at least 20 perceoi loe-s Irom pape- fec,ciad o, cor su-reis T aw'JWWiI I JO ‘•f W OYJO ATTACHMENT A DISCLAIMERS Washington Scientific II Site MPCA Project Number VP1 0021 1. Reservation of Authorities The MPCA Commissioner reserves the authority to take any appropriate actions with respect to any release, threatened release, or other conditions at the Site. The MPCA Commissioner also reserves the authority to take such actions if the voluntary party does not proceed in the manner described in this letter or if actions takei. >r omitted by the voluntary party with respect to the Site contribute to any release or threatened releuie, or create an imminent and substantia] danger to public health and welfare. 2. No MPCA Assumption of Liability The MPCA, its Commissioner and staff do not assume any liability for any release, threatened release or other conditions at the Site or for any actions taken or omitted by the voluntary party with regard to the release, threatened release, or other conditions at the Site, whether the actions taken or omitted are in accordance with this letter or otherwise. 3. Letter Based on Current Information All statements, conclusions and representations in this letter are based upon information known to the MPCA Commissioner and staff at the time this letter was issued. The MPCA Commissioner and staff reserve the authority to modify or rescind any such statement, conclusion or representation and to any ^ropriate action under his authority if the MPCA Commissioner or staff acquires information after issuance of this letter that provides a basis for such modification or action. 4. DisclaimCT Regarding Use or Development of the Property The MPCA, its Commissioner and staff do not warrant that the Site is suitable or i^ropriate for any particular use. 5. Disclaimer Regarding Investigative or Response Action at the Property Notiiing in this letter is intended to authorize any response action under Minn. Sta». § USB. 17, subd. 12. Page 1 of 1