The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-17-1992 Planning PacketPlar.nir.c: Ccir-'nission Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORi'iATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) /<yA M'ci A D Jlw < P. t/^4 'ft -2.1^‘f—^iPl ?J(d H vL eUrTT^ie /~>S 7_____ / /-t-x r)V *■»»« *vv. V __t£tL___________uteisttN W 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1 jgfcSdfciiBBSL: _J f.' it PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, ADGDST 17, 1992, 7:00 P.M. 1275 BRCMN ROAD SOOTB - CODNCIL COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. #1759 P. Proft/R. Wells, 60/70 Myrtlewood Road - Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. Applicants presenting variance requests Mtore the Connission are asked to move to the podium at the front of the chambers when their ai^lication is announced by the Chairman. 2.#1737 3.#1748 4.#1750 5.#1757 0.#1756 7.#1760 PLANNING C< Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - After-the-Fact Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Robert & Rita Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive - Referred back to Planning Commission for further review Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Albert D. Hansetj 1685 Fox Street - Condit.ipnal Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing James Lawrence, 1550 Sixth Avenue North Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Eric Nielsen, 2140 Prospect Avenue Variances - Public Hearing I I SSION COl 8. Report by Planning Commission Representative to Council Meeting of August 10, 1992. 9. Status Report by Lake Use Committee Representatives. 10. Other Issues ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. Planning Commission approval of minutes of July 20, 1992 meeting. 12. Plannin^j Commission to select a representative to attend the September 14, 1992 Council Meeting. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL WORKSHOP - 8:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT /. To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse/ City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator Date:August 120 1992 Subject:#1759 P.Proft/R. Wells, 60/70 Myrtlewood Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance 1.Section 11.03, Definition 65 - Subdivisions involving an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary are exempt from the subdivision regulations as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Property is located in the RR-IB zoning district requiring 2 acres of dry buildable area. Parcel 1 (60 Myrtlewood Road) consists of a total of 4.832 acres. The property is intersected by a designated wetland but does contain 2 acres of dry contiguous land in the homestead portion of the property. Parcel 2 (70 Myrtlewood Road) consists of 1.61 acres, approximately .4 acres consists of wetlands. As a result of the proposed subdivision. Parcel 2 will consist of a total 1.362 acres, .25 acres wet. 2.Section 11.41, Subd. 3 (B) (4) - Applicants shall grant conservation and flowage easements over designated wetlands withing both Parcels 1 and 2. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants Addendum C - Plat Map • Property Owners List > Weckman Memo • S-P Testing Report Dtd 7/14/92 > Septic Map D E F G Review of Application The purpose of the subdivision is to allow the Profts to acquire a quarter acre parcel from their neighbor to secure the site line to the southwest from the Proft house. Per the factual findings noted above, the Proft parcel meets the required area standard of the RR-IB zoning district. Tract A of RLS 446, the Wells property, at a total of 1.6 acres with approximately .4 acres of wetland is substandard. dm r X V n-'t . I'- Zoning File #1759 August 12, 1992 Page 2 The .259 acre parcel consisting of half dry and wetland areas has been confirmed as area unsuitable for septic use because of its proximity to the designated wetland. Upon a site inspection of the property, Mrs. Wells advised that based on the location of the houses and the existing landscaping, the quarter acre parcel belongs more with the Proft property and is in fact maintained by the Profts. Please review Exhibits E, F and G, reports of Weckman and Schirmers and the septic map for the Wells property. The Wells property provides no additional areas suitable for septic development based on the water table and steep topography. The existing septic system appears to support the three bedroom residence at the current level of use. Issues for Consideratii Definition 65 calls for a subdivision when lot line rearrangement involves properties that do not meet the standards of the zoning code. As the subdivision does not involve the creation of a new buildable lot, the City need not address the issue of variances. Issues for the Planning Commissi 1.Should there be an objection to reducing a rural lot that is already substandard? 2.How do we deal with the issue of the Wells property where there is no ability to expand for septic needs? This subdivision will require notice to both current and future owners of the septic limitations of the parcel. Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: 1.Parcel to be acquired by Profts must be legally combined with the homestead property (this should include parcel with 6' wide corridor along west side of Tract B). 2.Applicants to execute conservation and flowage easement over designated wetland areas. 3.Notice to current and future owner of Parcel 2 that property does not contain suitable or adequate area to expand septic capabilities if required as a result of a proposed improvement involving greater water use. Isv JP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION , _ / -------i -r^ / / /-/ir-X759 D >PBRTY LOCATION 60 Myrtlewood Road (Proft) Jite Address 70 Myrtlewood Road (Wells) 36-118-23-33-0002^ 36-118-23-33-0005 {Proft) rTTv nc nr^m Property Identification Number (P.I.D*) 36-118-23-33-0004 iWel 1 s)^riiA^r 1350200000 ’Please check one - Property X abstract or X torrens? 300.00 Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Name Karen Proft & Patrick Proft Phone (home) 449 —0975^*^^^^ ^ 300.00 Address: 60 Myrtlewood Road City: Wayzata (Oronogipt 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 473-6512 Name Ray J. Wells. Jr. and Betty J. WellBhone (work)_ _ _ _ Address: 70 Myrtlewood Road (attach list if more than oneI City: Wayzata (Orono) Zip: 55391 EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels fr, ■.Deyelopment Size N/A Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites I Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: __ Minimum Lot Size: Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residenti-il Other (specify) J. 2. 3. MZHZMDM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department cf Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application* please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is cmplete. Zoning Official's Signature__________________ Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees* filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements* Covenants* etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES SJcetch Plan Review (Class I* II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $200.00 300.00 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III & all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application 150.00 Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator* City Engineer* City Attorney* Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date 7-/I Owner's Signatur eR.'Tt.A jxAiL D.tDate Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting* please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i 1 -u- Proposal for Lot Line Rearrangement The Profts presently own and occupy the house at 60 Myrtlewood Road legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The Wells presently own and occupy the house at 70 Myrtlewood Road described on Exhibit B attached hereto. The Profts wish to purchase from the Wells a small (0.259 acre) parcel and attach such parcel to the Proft land for the purpose of securing to the Profts their view to the southwesterly and over the balance of their land. The proposal is therefore for a lot line rearrangement with no new buildable parcels being created. Exhibits c and D attached hereto reflect the legal descriptions of the properties after the lot line rearrangement. There is a site evaluation report on the Wells parcel. To the best of our )cnowledge the Wells septic and drainfield system is working at the present time. The 0.259 acre parcel proposed to be sold by the Wells to the Profts and combined with the Profts* land is largely wetland and, given the need for setbacks from wetland and steep slopes, the land to be conveyed is not usable land for the Wells parcel for septic and drainfield purposes. Therefore there is no diminution in the quantity or quality of the Wells property after the lot line rearrangement with regard to septic system purposes. The augmentation of the size of the Proft parcel xS minimal (0.259 acres) and does not ch2mge the Proft parcel except to secure to it the site line to the southwesterly from the Profts* house. 1 I - .,..1 a-x^V'’ ' RUN DATE 07/M/92 BATCH 001 PROP AOOR atlER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP A60R OtCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AOOR ONNER MANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR QIMER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR I- HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY 70N SYSTEN PROPERTY ^ SO S5-lia*23 0009 OOOOS 010 LONG LAKE RD BRUCE B OAYTON OKABENA CONPANY 5190 NORI«ST CENTER NPLS NN 55902 SB S9-11B-2S S2 0005 OOOSB AODRESS UNASSIGNEO BRUCE B DAYTON OKABENA CONPANY 5190 NORNESr CENTER NPLS NN 55902 SB S9-11B-2S SS 0001 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSIGNEO N I V NAGENER ET AL HAURXCE J NAGENER B50 HAYZATA BLVO LONG LAKE NN 55S59 SB S9-11B-2S SS 0009 OOi 70 NYRTLEHOOD RD R J NELLS JR ETAL RAY J NELLS 70 NYRTLENOOO RD HAYZATA m 55S91 SB S9-11B-2S SS 0011 OOOSO NYRTLENOOO RD 0 N ROGERS A J S ROGERS D N A J S ROGERS SO NYRTLENOOO RD ORONO NN 55S91 SB S9<-11B-2S SS 0019 00025 NYRTLEHOOD RD DONALD N LUNDBERG ETAL DONALD H LUNDBERG 25 NYRTLENOOO RD HAYZATA NN 55S91 V 7- SB S5-11B-2S 99 0009 00650 HAYZATA BLVD N N A V NAGENER ETA L NAURICE J NAGENER 650 HAYZATA BLVO N HAYZATA NN 55S91 SB 59-11B-2S S2 0006 00705 OLD LONG LAKE RO A A N GOPINATH ANANO A NARIAN GOPINATH 705 OLD LONG LAKE RD HAYZATA NN 55391 SB S6-11B-2S SS 0002 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO P N PROFT SR A K J PROFT PATRICK A KAREN PROFT 736 TOYOPA DR PACIFIC PALISADES CA 902*^2 SB 36-1IB-2S SS 0005 00060 NYRTLENOOO RD P N PROFT SR A K J PROFT PATRICK A KARETi PROFT 7S8 TOYOPA DR PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 SB S6-11B-2S SS 0012 00090 NYRTLENOOO RD P B DUBOIS ADC DUBOIS PETER B DUBOIS DENISE C DUBOIS 90 NYRTLENOOO RD HAYZATA NN 55S91 SB S6-11B-2S SS 0015 00095 NYRTLENOOO RO A ANDERSON A R BULTNAN ANITA J ANDERSON 95 NYRTLEHOOD RD HAYZATA rtl 55S91 wimm.f'. J REPORT NO. PX4SM01 PAGE 1 ' i SO 3A-116-2S 32 000« 006A5 OLD LONG LAKE RD KRISTIANNA DAIN ET AL PHILIP V MCCLELLAN AAS OLD LOt«: LAKE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 3D 3A>llS-23 32 0007 00685 OLD LONG LAKE RD H F MARTIN ASP COTTRELL HARRY MARTIN/SUSAN COTTRELL 685 OLD LONG LAKE RO HAYZATA HN 55391 . S SB S6-11B-23 SSOOOS OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF NINN STATE OF NINN IDNR) I LUCE LINE TRAIL I 38 36-118-23 33 0006 00050 NYRTLEHOOD RO SAM CHAMPLIN STEVEN K CHAMPLIN 50 NYRTLEHOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 V! SB S6-11B-2S SS OOlS 00015 NYRTLENOOO RD DARREL T HIEL DARREL T NIEL 15 NYRTLE^IOOD RD HAYZATA NN 55S91 f T!i f SB S6-11B-2S SS 0016 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO DRAINAGE A CONSERVATION 5-1B-90 ST DEED il7S562 t:) * . RUN DATf 07/lA/n RAICH 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltlERS LIST PROP ADOR ONRER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADQR 30 30-118-23 33 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H T JOHNSON JR ETAL H r JOHNSON INC P 0 80K 033 NAYZATA HN 55391 f sojl: , v' ■- ' • REPORT NO. PI035001 PAGE 2 TOTAL BATCH 001 00019 . -4v , I I «W|t* X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURAH AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEf««PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KN0NLE06E AND BELIEF. A fJ ■1-n- mx. ^1^DATE AJ/ .jf- ’ J . f 1 . <. i .. Ri i m I .-- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - ^ -- - - - - - - - - -J,- - - - - - -- - - - -- - --- - ^ To:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator From:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager Date:July 29, 1992 Subject: Subdivision #1759, Karen & Patrick Proft Septic Review The purpose of this review is to determine whether the lot line rearrangement will adversely affect the siting of an alternate drainfield for future use for 70 Myrtlewood Road as the proposed change will decrease the size of this lot. Steve Schirmers* report dated July 14, 1992 indicates that no conforming alternate septic site is available for the parcel in question. Soil borings indicate that a mound system would be required but property L'ze, wetland setbacks and steep slopes limit this lot and no sivs is available which would meet state and city codes. The report also indicates that the lot line rearrangement would not adversely affect future septic siting due to the proximity of this area to the wetland. Site inspection confirmed that the land to be divided off from 70 Myrtlewood Road would not be suitable for drainfield siting. This area is mostly wetland with the remainder lying within 70' of rhe wetland and therefore would not be suitable for future drainfield siting. To summarize, 70 Myrtlewood Road is already too small to contain an alternate drainfield site. The proposed land sale does not change this situation. Obviously this property would benefit by acquiring land suited for an alternate drainfield site if such land exists along its boundaries. Isv ------- S-P TE& TING, INC,r Steven B. Schirmers — MPCA Cert. No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497-35S6 •M' ’ft' • fi.V 0 ,! I*t •*s i;;» . / w. - .A s>>. » July 14, 1992 Karen Proft #70 Nyrtlewood Rd. Orono, Henn. Co., MN This letter is in reguard with future expansion for this property for a Type 1, three bedroom home (450 gal/day) On-Site Sewage Treatment System. A A site evaluation was completed. Soil Borings indicate a seasonally high water table less than 36** below the ground surface. To adequately treat septic effluent, a Pressurized Mound System would need to be installed. The available area for an On-Site Sowage Treatment System is limited due to the size of the property, setbacks from the wetland & steep slopes. This site has no area for replacement of a treatment system which will meet State & local Codes. Mrs. Proft. would like to purchase a portion of this property in northwest corner. Due to the setbacks from the wetland area, it would not affect future development of #70 Myrtlewood for a possible sollution to the septic problem. Steven B. Schirmers SBS?ds n a irtiiitllAiffiaiidfaisiiliiil r 1. 4v u *^,1® k" ^ix?r £o) u ii *1 ^■>5^ * ^ ,r.V'" a ' x \V (t) ^• 9>0^h / \‘-- <o v >ns .ca ^av -\:>n ~> -cj,w \ij/_. 0^ >^ 4.*r. a 'I- ia-^ ^ «mdHi Mit iTii^lilfrili '^- " -- -•-■ .« Ii.ir AAI7’>‘«" V ■ L PAIcrEL l: Tmct B, RKRI!nT3tfD IANI> SliRVEY NO 446. filow of liw* Offiw of the Hpgifitmr of Titleji, IV^w*pin Cnunty, Minrofmtn. PARTKL II: All Ueit pru-t of the Mmt QiATlrr of the Sduthwesit Quarter of Secticxi 36, TkMvwhip 118 North, Itarute 23 Went, of the 5th PrinnipHl Ffrsndijwi, deficribed nii followa: BctfirviioA at a point of intrraccticwi of tlw* wrat lire of aaid Section 36 with the center line of Comtjr Rnnd No. 27, aaid point hein6 502.5 feet aouth of the Meat Chaurter esnmer of aaid Seuticai 36, thenoe aoiitheaaterlj aionc aaid oeater line at an araiie of 44 deffreea and 39 aimitea with aaid weal Section line, a diatancse of 188.17 feet; thrtne deflortinc left 8 dcicrera and 3 aiiaitea and csontinuintf ^onc aaid center line a dintaniv* of 447.87 feet to a point; thenoe aouthweaterljr alomc a line hr*Ua*en laat aaid point, and a point on the aouth line of aaid Sec:tinn 36, diatant 20.5 feet eaat of the aouthweat comer thereof a diatanne of 1607.5 feet aore or lean to the center line of Tnaih iliehway No. 12; thence mrthwenterlj alone aaid csenter line of the %awit line of aaid Section 36; thence North alof« aaid weat Section line a dietance of 1920.2 feet aore or leas to the point of befCinnlntfi EXCEPT, that part lyirai northerly of the southerly line of the Electric Shorlline Iteilmnd Ccaipinj; Also EXCEPT that part dracribod as foilcwa: Beginnir^ at the intnraection of the weat line of aaid SouthMeat Quarter and the aoutherly right of way line of the Electric Shorlline Ihiilroad Caafsiny; thenoe eaateily almg aaid right of Miy line to a point diatanne 106.00 feet *mmt (aeajiured at right aigtlim) frta the weaterly line of Begiatered Innd ftn-vey No. 446; thence aouth pamllel with the »e?aterly line of aaid Negintered Land Survey no. 446 and the aaae rartending to the weat line of aaid Southweat Quarter; thence North to the point of brginnif^; Also, IXCEIT that imrt which liea acuUiMraterly of a line nai ptnUlel »dth and diatant 100.00 feel northeaaterly of the following deacrifand line: IV?ginning at a point on the North and South (hatricr line of Section 1, Township 117, Range 23, diatant 1435.48 feet acaith of the North Qiau>ter comer thereof; thenoe nai %wmterly at an angle of 91 degrrea 40 ainutca 15 aenonda with aaid North and South Quarter line (when ananunxl fn» north in ««at) for 1266.75 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 37 degrrea 30 ainutea for 1189.83 feet; thenoe deflect to the right rl an atgcle of 38 degnvie 57 ainutea for 666.94 feet; lheta:c deflect to the left cn a 8 drgreca 00 ainutea curve (della angle 38 degre«*a 15 ainutea) for 478.13 feet; Uwrnne iw\ a tangent to aaid curve for 100 feet and there tx*raieating, Ancnrding to the U.S. Covemacnl Survey Lhcrcuf, Ui*nnepin Ccxaity, Hlnnea«»tA. That jmrt of Tmct A, RROISTFXI^ LAND SURVEY NO. 446 which lies nnrthwraterly of the following described line. Beginning at a point on the northeaaterly line of aaid Tract A, 88.30 feet southeasterly of the Boat northerly comer of aaid Tract A; thence aciutia^aterly to the aoat w»terly comer of aaid Tract A, aral aaid line there tarainating. mJS PARCEL (70 Nyrtlcwuud Ruad) Al! of Tmct A, RRS1.VnKU) LAND SURVEY NO. 446, except that fmrt which liM mirthwi*aterly of the following deacribnd line: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of aaid Tract A, 88.30 fc^t aoutheanterly of the aimt northerly comer of said Tract A; Xhnmm aoulhwnnterly to the aewt westerly comer of said Tract A, nnil anid line there teminat.log. HPKHED DRIVEWAY RASM^TT (froB Wells to l«mrt*s) lhat inri of Tra<.t A, RHClSTOtED LAND SURVEY NO. 446 deacribed aa follows: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of aaid tract A, 88.30 feel sauiheajiterly of the aost northerly comer of anid Tract A; th<*niv> southweaterlj 10.(X) feet along a line when extended passoa thru the aoat weaterly comer of anid Tmct A; auuthcnstcrly to a pnist on the northeasterly lino of said Tmct A, 120.(X) feet scxfthfMtrrly of the point of beginning; thence uorlhwnaterly aicaig the nnrtheasterly line of anid Tnwrt A, 120.(X) fret to the point of legitviir^. O Z oooc UJ m ooo (£) CD •? O' ry %n %n < f>j >- I UJcc X < 0) > o <o CL CD 3 O {/) .vl i .jj Tos Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse/ City Administrator From:Jeanne A, Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August 12, 1992 #1737 Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - After-the-Fact Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Additional Exhibits p - Planning Commission Minutes 5/18/92 Meeting Q - Staff Letter 7/24/92 R - Staff Hardcover Sketch Also included application information for May 18th Planning Commission meeting Status of Application At the May 18, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled to provide applicant additional time to submit a revised plan reflecting concerns expressed by Planning Commission members. Applicant was encouraged to meet with staff to review revisions to proposal that would reduce hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. Applicant was also asked to consider additional removals in the 75-250' setback area. Application #1737 was brought in as an after-the-fact application and involved a lakeshore deck and gazebo structure located approximately 14' from the shoreline. Structures were installed without the benefit of a building permit. Such structures would have required variance approvals based on the ordinance in place since 1974 dealing with lakeshore setbacks/hardcover and average lakeshore setback standards. Applicant contends that the structures were there prior to the 100 year storms of 1987 and were rebuilt as part of the storm damage repair. The staff memo of May 14th reviews the lengthy history of the various permits or land use applications involving the property. The storm damage repair permit specifically allowed the repair of the bank with the installation of the boulder retaining walls, reconstruction of the decks to the lakeside of the house and reconstruction of stairs. The building permit did not specify anything beyond the scope of the original permit issued in 1982, After listening to the concerns expressed by various members of the Planning Commission, the applicant was asked to submit a revised plan that addressed these concerns. The City has heard no further from Mr. Hollander since that review. A letter was sent advising applicant of the need to prepare a revised plan for your August 17th meeting. The City did not hear from Mr. Hollander by the deadline date. Staff made contact with Mr. Indritz, Mr. Hollander's attorney, who advised they would be submitting an amended plan Tuesday, August 11th. As of this Zoning Pile #1737 August 12, 1992 Page 2 writing, August 12th, the plan has not been submitted for review. It will be the resoonsibility of the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the following non-conforming structures installed without the benefit of a building permit within the 0- 75' lakeshore yard (refer to Exhibit R): Existing hardcover in 0-75' setback area = 4,285 s.f. or 28.6% 1. Screen house and deck structure » 308 s.f. or 2.5%. 2, Deck and gazebo = 111 s.f. or .74% 3. Landscape timbers adjacent to grade-level deck s.f. or .12% 18.5 4. Grade-level deck * 312 s.f. or 2.08% 5. Other non-structural improvements within 0-75' setback area a. b. Chip sidewalk « 118 s.f. or 2,8% Landscape area underlain with plastic 1.9% 81 s.f. or It was determined in the early review that the boulder retaining walls and portion of the boulder wall structure designated as waterfall structure were part of the permanent structure to stabilize bank and were not considered for removal. 6.Improvements within the 75-250' setback area (existing « 1,986 s.f. or 48.4%): a. b. 248Portion of gravelled drive within property « s.f. or 6.04% Landscape area underlain with plastic « 201, s.f. or 4.9% In your recommendation. Planning Commission must establish a date for all unapproved hardcover to be removed from the property. Structures such as screen house will require a demolition permit. , I r Ir • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 18, 1932 (#8) #1736 GREGORY C. PETERSON, 1S20 SHORELINE DRIVE - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:03 - 8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of PubIication and Certificate of Mai Iing were noted. e • Mr. & Mrs. Peterson were present. Mabusth explainer! that this Is a request for a lot width variance. She stated that it is the Intention of the applicants to build a new residence on the lot. The building envelope is within the widest area of the lot. Septic testing has been provided and access shall be directly off the County road. She stated there is no change from the original application. Johnson asked if the applicants were aware of the restrictions placed on the lot and the fact that no additional variances will be granted for the property. Mabusth noted that this proposal has not been impacted by the new shoreland regulations. She reviewed for the applicants the hardcover restrictions. Cohen suggested the appiicants work closely with City staff tc make sure the building conforms to all pertinent standards. Mr. Peterson stated they would be unable to build this year and that Is why they are requesting the renewal variance. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1736 for Gregory C. Peterson at 1920 Shoreline Drive, for a renewal variance to construct a new residence, subject to the same conditions of approval with the previous application. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#9) #1737 RICHARD HOLLANDER, 680 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 - 8:57 P.M. The Affidavit of PubI Ication and Certificate of Mai I Ing were noted. Richard Hollander and Dick Indritz, applicant’s attorney, were present. I ■ i p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 18, 1992 ZONING FILE #1737 - CONT. Mabusth explained the updated survey showing the existing improvements on the property. She compared the survey to the one done in 1974. The garage addition done In 1974 was in the 75’ setback area and the open deck was considered a non-encroachment. Since that time, there was a permit Issued In 1982 which allowed the deck to be enclosed and second story additions and additional decks. The additional decks were destroyed in the 1987 "super storm”. The applicant applied for storm damage repairs under the emergency ordinance. The decks were reconstructed. Sometime In 1990-91, the Inspectors noted the gazebo and lakeside deck. Hollander noted that it was built In 1974 and Is in need of some repalr. Indritz noted that this is an after-the-fact request to maintain the gazebo and lakeside deck structure. He noted that It is Hoi lander’s content ion that these structures have been in existence prior to Orono’s adoption of Its current ordinances and therefore are grandfathered in. He reviewed photos of damage done to these structures in 1987. He stated they have witnesses that can testify to their knowledge of the construction of these Improvements. He explained there was renovation dona after the storm damage, but was merely reconstruction of a portion of the existing gazebo. The deck wasn’t damaged severely and did not require much reconstruction. He explained that Mabusth has pointed out that the permit issued in 1974 for the addition of the garage, there was an ordinance that prevented the construction of principal residences within 75’ of the lakeshore and that is what the variance was for. A portion of the addition was within that zone. Indritz assumed that because there wasn’t an ordinance governing decks within that zone, the deck was not included on the site plan. Additional construction was done to the principal structure, all of which was done in conformity to the ordinances in effect at the time. There is no documentation on file to show when the gazebo and lakeside deck structui“e was constructed, but his cl lent contends they were constructed In 1974. The permit issued in 1982 was to reconstruct the principal residence destroyed by fire and to enclose the deck area and add additional decking. Mabusth noted that the 1982 permit allowed the deck to be enclosed. She explained that currently residents are not allowed to increase the Intensity of a non-conform!ng structure, but back in 1982 whey were allowed to do so. Johnson asked what required a permit in 1974 ». • , p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 18, 1992 ZONING FILE #1737 - CONT. Mabusth stated the gazebo and deck structure would not have been subject to the average lakeshore setback at that time, but they were subject to the 75* setback and hardcover standards and a building permit would have been required. Indritz asked why that was not noted on the inspection records at that time. He introduced John Cardwell who is aware that the structures have been there for at least 25 years; Walt KIndsudder worked on the 1982 renovation project; and Warren Matheson worked with Hollander In building the deck in 1974. Rowlette remembered an addition to her house In 1974 and the restrictions in place at that time. She stated she found it hard to believe that the structures were approved to be built at that time. She said that she was on the property in the early 1970s and recalls the house with two decks and the screen porch. She said she did not remember the gazebo and lakeside deck being there. Cohen asked what the applicant Is requesting as additional square footage. Mabusth stated It consists of the gazebo and deck area. Indritz stated that there was a trade off for the garage, which was removed, and Hollander was allowed to construct a deck. He noted that because of the narrowness of the lot, virtually any construction is going to bo in violation of the 75 zone. Cohen asked if Mr. Hollander had any other documentation for the construction of the gazebo In 1974. Hoi lander noted he nas not found any documentation as such to date. Cohen noted that to realize any capital gains on the property, ho would have to have records showing improvements to the project. Hoi lander stated that he has had two major catastrophes In the home In which many documents were lost. He said he can recollect building the structures In 1974. Cohen asked If there was any hardcover that could be removed In the 0-75’ zone. K A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 18, 1992 ZONING FILE #1737 - CONT. Hollander stated that there is a portion of plastic liner adjacent to the house that could be removed. Because of the narrow lot, the Improvements near the ground need to be retained to prevent further erosion. In the 75-250’ zone, there is a gravel area that could be removed because the garage no longer exists and there Is some additional plastic that could be removed all which amounts to 530 s.f. based on the surveyor’s calculation. Cohen asked If the City has any records of the gazebo. Hollander noted that the debris shown on the pictures taken after the 1987 storm was from the gazebo. The lands Iide covered over the existing deck structure and knocked down the gazebo. Cohen asked if Hollander had any picture from 1974 to 1987 showing the gazebo. Hollander explained that the fire destroyed any pictures that he may have had. Cardwell remembered that in 1982 he was on the property and recalled the gazebo, which appeared to have been there for quite some time. Peterson noted that the existing detached screen porch is in need of repair and asked if It would be possible to remove It ail together. Rowlette stated that the Improvements on the lot have Intensified. Indritz stated that his client feels the improvements are grandfathered in, and noted that Hollander is willing to remove the 530 square feet of additional hardcover. Rowlette explained that any run-off from the property ends up In the lake, which is damaging the lake environment. Johnson said he respected Hollander’s position, but felt they should be consistent with other applications. He felt that a stair and landing portion would be a minimum of what is needed to gain access to the lake. He felt that If permit approval was sought In 1974, the applicant probably would not have received the approval needed. Cohen clarified that a portion of the deck and the gazebo should be removed. I . I : V! L 1 i P .™„.',-sr'“ ...... a retaining «»''• be the only improvement adding the boat house may only to the lake.to the lake. ,i.,e.«rin to the lake Was made m genoi«.. ■— - „«rrh Peterson ashed about .. . . .ova. of the nor^.ecPeterson asked aooux indritt stated « r,^^^h^^^ter^bach^from^^^^^^^^ I*?:'?rrahe. H* the gazebo and deck existing screened poren structure.structure. ^nd screened area would be about 2.5X :t?htrth%*'o-7\'’- s^trach area. “rnlon'Teit there IS an intensify stated that 95* of the nou an appropriate tradestructures within the lake was not an apor p Structure further away off. - - C’lette fe't/J’%^,rr?he\ppM°=ant* th^t Ue*^P%Tica'tI'on"be fa^eTf^oTfurther consideration.t.-bled for further cons,V..... indritz advised that they concurred with appI I cat I on.ringed by Cohen, seconded ||,«Sor?rVrm'Or?ve|^^o''"a^'low i^pifcln; t^'m%"*^o^ rri'/w-^^h-e Vsstts. .yes S. nays 0. rtilrrPORT by plan «no coh «ssioh PEPPBSBNTATIVE There was no report. ... —- There was no report.mere was no ' ^^^^^.^TEE REPRESENTATIVE (S12) REPORT BY THE FACILl There was no report. (#13) OTHER ISSUES 1 o o o a t »t H t; CITYofORONO MuaklHOaai tatOOktBoxM Cryiul Bav. MhmBow 5S3Z3-0066 July 24, 1992 Richard Hollander 680 Norrh Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: Application #1737 - After-the-Pact Variance Application Dear Mr. Hollander: The Citv has failed to receive a revised plan reflecting hardcover removtls within both the 0-75' and 75-250* setback JTannln, Commission as staff will be required « Place the original proposal before the Conunxssxon for fxnal actxon. SliiaSlilSBli the Planning Commission agenda. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv cc: Mr. Richard Indritz, Reed & Pond Ltd, 5424 Shoreline Dr., Mound, MN 55364 TCLEPHONE - 473-7357 ♦ f AX - 4734»10 ,.r. wm # m Kipimmml ill f A* /> ^ 1 te‘:>;’!i*ff/'.'j J*' r/t*..•'• • ‘fK\y li^ .•;i'* • *^ >\ :/*»j f • • • • ■■ • jV*''’“-/.. «y i." •L’f Ml r. il!ii >5 CD :s CD X ■3 9. To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Fron: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:May 14, 1992 Subject: #1737 Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A). Lakeshore setback variance required for proposed decking and gazebo structure. Required = 75' Proposed = 14' Variance =61' or 81% 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. Average lakeshore setback variance required for installation of lakeshore deck and gazebo. Entire structure located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Refer to Exhibit O. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. Hardcover variances within 0- 75' setback area and 75-250' setback area. a) 0-75' setback area = 15,000 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 3,550 s.f. or 23.7% Proposed = 4,285 s.f. or 28.6% Additional hardcover = 735 s.f. or 4.9% [area of wood decking and gazebo] b) 75-250' setback area = 4,100 s.f. Allowed = 1,025 s.f. or 25% Existing = 1,986 s.f. or 48.4% List of E;7Mblts A B C D E P(l) F(2) P(3) P(4) G - JIppllcation - rlat Map - Property Owners List - 0-75' Hardcover Inventory - 75-250' Hardcover Inventory - Planning Commission Minutes 5/20/74 - Council Minutes 5/28/74 - Zoning Administrator's Memo 5/20/74 - Site Plan - 1982 Building Permit H(l-3) - Lakeside Elevations for 1982 Building Permit H(4) - West Elevation 1982 Building Permit - Building Inspector's Certification - Building Permit Application 7/87 Storm Damage Repairs - Building Permit for Storm Damage Repairs H(5) I J Zoning Memo #1737 May 14, 1992 Page 2 K(l-3) L(l-2) M K 0 1987 Approved Repairs 1987 Unimproved Structural Repairs Not Covered or Shown in 1982 Building Permit Inspection Notice 6/4/91 Staff Letter 6/21/91 Survey Description of Request In the back-to-back one hundred year storms of July, 1987, this property sustained major storm damage. The lakeside bank was undermined with the heavy rains and the rear decks on the property were washed down the hill. Applicant applied under the emergency storm damage ordinance, review Exhibits I, J and K(l-3). The approved repairs consisted of the rebuilding of the lakeshore bank with a boulder wall at the base and all structural repairs were to be done in accordance with the original permit issued in 1982, Permit #4747, Exhibit G. Unfortunately, the storm damage damage repairs did not follow the guidelines set forth in the directions in the building permit. The original deck shown on Exhibit K-3 became an enclosed structure with the hot tub. Applicant claims that an original lakeside deck and gazebo were destroyed with the erosion and landslide from the storms. The City has no record of ever issuing permits for lakeside deck or gazebo in lakeshore yard. The total structure consists of 735 s.f. or 4.9% hardcover added to a yard that has excessive hardcover. Review Exhibits F(l-4). In the 1974 variance review, the garage addition was approved with an add on deck to '-.he lakeside. Based on the minutes, it appears a lakeside deck did not have to meet the 75' lakeshore setback. Note the existing screen house that is located in the lakeshore yard was not shown on the survey of 1974 as was the detached garage that was to be removed as a condition of that variance approval. Review Exhibits G through H. In 1982 the original decking on the lakeside of the house was enclosed. In 1982 intensification of structures located within substandard setbacks or where excessive hardcover existed did not require variance approvals. The issue for this review is the after-the-fact variances for the decking and gazebo structure within the lakeshore yard installed sometime in 1987 with other storm damage repairs. Zoning Memo #1737 May 14, 1992 Page 3 Issues for Consideration 1.Are there existing hardcover improvements that can be removed in exchange for the 735 s.f. of decking and gazebo hardcover, Screenhouse and attached deck within lakeshore yard ** 308 s.f. or 2% located within the 0-75' setback area. 248 s.f. of gravel drive or 6% located within the 75- 250* setback area. Landscape areas underlaying with plastic 81 s.f. or .5% within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area and 258 s.f. or 6% within the 75-250' setback area. Options of Action Approval as proposed or Approval as amended requiring areas of existing hardcover improvements removed and establish a reasonable deadline date for the removal of the hardcover or Denial requiring the immediate removal of the wood decking and gazebo within the 0-75' setback area and once again establish the required removal date. ch / * ^ / CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION f ”1 Initial Application Fee $175.00 Ti ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 3 O '7? y ei PROPERTY IHFORMATION i, . Site Address 680 North Arm Drive, Orono Property Identif • Number (P. I. D.) 06-117-23-43-0002 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 1972______________(month/year) LU'i OF CW FIniiiCE OFFICE 1350200000 I (do)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential Zoning District: ni rnj VVH /j. TiI u -•-c: /VVV LR-1B other (speciiEikJ7/^7’“'?»‘^^^A ^24041'J LuOi kOI 111: ___________ APPLICANT Phone (home) 472-4353 Name Richard Hollander Phone (wor)c ) 827-4247 Address: 680 North ■' <>•’ ■'?City: Mnunri Zip: 55364 ONMESl (if different than applicant)Phone (home ) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear X Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual propert conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirementsi I Describe request in detail: Approval of variance application for grand- fathered deck. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ «*r-4 * MM MTC 0i/l7/9t •ATCH 001 MOP AOC« OHCR HMC THAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OIMiR NRNi TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR f ft I — • , ■« 1 . sa 04>117-ES S2 OOOE 00A05 NORTH ARM OR UKEVIEN OOLF OF NTKA INC LAKEVZEN OOLF OF NTKA INC •ra RED OAK LANE HOUND m 55S44 M 0«>U7-2S AS 0005 00700 NORTH ARN OR OREOORY H HARTY GREGORY H HARTY 700 NORTH ARH OR HOUND »M 55544 HCtMEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIMERS LIST REPORT NO. PI45S40I PAGE 1 30 04-117-25 45 0001 00450 NORTH AIM OR J BRAUCHLE A E SCHOONOVER JEFFREY R BRAUCHLE AND ELISA H SCHOONOVER 450 NORTH ARH OR HOUND m 55544 50 04-117-25 45 0002 00400 NORTH ARH OR RICHARD 0 HOLLANDER RICHARD 0 HOLLANDER 2904 HUmOLOT AVE S MPLS m 55400 50 04-117-25 45 0004 00720 NORTH ARM DR J S LEECH AVE LAIS-LEECH J S LEECH AVE LAIS-LEECH 720 NORTH ARH DR HOUND IM 55544 TOTAL BATCH 001 OOOOS #17 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMCPIN COIMTV DEPARTHEIfT OF PROPERIY TAXATION* TQ^THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE' ^ • J # ) “J ., I; HARDCOVPR .CALCULATION WORKSHEET SET3ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) CO^ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House _!^ 41 Total Hardcover in Zone ^2 S.F. V-/T- 9 ■> V75-^ 39|-50C^^^-lfflr^ LENGTH• •width 9 • X 9 9 9 9 9 •S.F, . t • • • X • • S.F.m ’ tS. 3 X • •• S.F. • X * - 99 - • * • S.F. E. • Garage x • • mm ^ V 1 i • S.F. C. * mm 9 m •• m • • • , - . Driveway x 9 ••• • • 403 V 9 V S.F. X ■77X «• • • S.F. D. rcxff^A9tArf ft • r/fif Sidewalk . x /zo 7,^3 S.F. r/*^fOyjn,K ji. y 3.7 /f¥ M(TAf/yjf^C Ct-^'AiL 'i.0.5 s S4 •S.F. rT4t*S S/44J 3. €se • • S.F. E.^ATIO/« . • • • Deck . . • X • • • 9 • m % 99 • S.F.• • ^ F. Landscape x • ••• <T/ • S.F. areas underlain 3Y X • •• S.F. plastic SHEETING X • ss • S.F. u ^acl *•*) /2o V 3 r 3€0 • U/ATf£f^ACL • • •- X s Soo S.F. G. Other ' x •at S.F.• Total P roperty Area in Zone - __. s.f. |J^ /s, ooa X 100 - ^ ^4^ S5 B • • • 0 »••• • • V .. .♦••• • • I ) w • j A4 ilr HARDCOVER .CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-5o9‘>’ 5Q(PTB00'^'^-3 ** y / i! ySET3ACX ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0“75' Existing Hardcover in Zone ^ / • • A.■ H ouse ‘X • 360 S.F. LENGTH•• • width • • X — • • • • •S.F. . * • . • X • • S.F. • • • •• X • •• S.F. • X • «•. . . S.F. 3.Garage . • X • • • S.F. C.D rivev /ay n-RAi/€L. • X •• • S.F. SlAfK TOP X •« • S.F. • D. • Sidewalk 'X r • •/g’9 S.F. • //*<>»X S3 S.F. ;r£fi • X / € • S.F. E.^AT10/ D eck • • • X • • •»• • S.F.• • • f.U ndscape •. X •• • S.F. AREAS - . UNDERLAIN BY ,1 \X1 1/2S •±a / S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • # S.F. TmefAS"^ Cd'X o. $33 S.F. G. Other X •9 S.F.• Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone /9r^ ji. /9S’^ / ao S.F. S.F.B B 4/^0 X 100 4^. 9-o/Vo ••• ••••m • • V .*••• • 1 i- ‘ r yi a Mlnutds of tho r«ouldr Planning Ccr».»lii«lon i.xjoMn'i, .'.onJJV* ••jy 5 ;C»‘l V*f ' V K^f)0 •! trot It %^ld to o hjrd'^hlp to hin 1o h:vu tu coi.iply with tha 5 acra lalnlnun lot alzu^ arvJ^ thuroforo, j varl-nacu \fOulJ tu appropriate. A contour nup was to ba provhi.nJ botwru ti.o i.oxt Plsnnlnj Caanli.lon Muutlno to allow a bofv.jf <.Iulur;iln.»rlo(» to whara tho buit locution mlynt t>a for tiio lor lit.u. Kuilbarg novad, Curtis saconduJ, that o Public i.ourlnj U» scNod- uiad tor Juna 17, 1974, Ayas (8) Maya (0). i4r. Itollohdar, at ttui prasant tima, has a garaQo n»at Is locatod right on tha road right-of-way. Mr, Hollander has submitted plans to mlocata a naa garaga 22* from tha North Arm Orivo right-of-way Tha plan Indicatas an Irraguiar shapad structura which would In- frlnga on tha 75* satback raquiramant from tha lake. If that portion of tha garaga Is a dack, than no variance Is nacassary, but If It Is part of tna geraga, a variance would have to be granted from that portion of tha ordinance. VanNest moved, Kull- barg seconded, that a variance be approved as It would be an Im provement In tha axisting conditions with the stipulation that no portion of tha structura ba located closer than 75* to the laka and that tha oxisting garaga ba removed within 30 days after the completion of tha nau geraga. Ayas (U) iiays (0). Richard Hollander ✓ VarIanca Tha Zoning Administrator Informed tha Planning Commission thal tha Gagne project was placed on tha agenda as an Informational Item and that no action should ba taken until the comprehensive plan, or more specifically, tha Plan Study Area for the prope»*ty Involved, Is completed. Chairmen Venifast Informed the petition er that the extension of the Hockbarry sewer line had been do- latad from the present sawar project, and, therefore, the only possibility for thalr proposal Is to run their sewage through the existing sawar line through Long Laka. The Zoning Adminis trator was Instructed to find out It capacity was available In iha sewer line, and If so, how many uolls could ba handled on tho existing line. Hr. Nielson and Mr. Gagna suggested to the Plan ning Caaalssion that they consider allowing approval of this project In stages so that they could get started as soon os pos sible. Present plans coll for storting tha residential portion of the project first which would Include Apartments ana townhouses across from the school complex. Wl 11 lam CagtiU Shopping Center Curtis nx>vad, Guthrie seconded, thet this application be tabled until the Plonning Conelssion can determine if soMr Is evollable and until the comprehensive plan Is completed. Ayes (6) Nays (0). I Mr. Streley was Informed thet Orono Is In the'process of re-wrIting Its D-2 potion of the ordinence relating to lakashore-commerclal activities. In addition, the L.H.C.v. has placed a moratorium on the Issuance of multiple dock llcen»>v. 'd, therefore, the City cannot process tha application at f^.» r v». Stan Strolay Marina LIconsa App! Ca^ch movad, Cuthrla aaoondad, to table the Sfraley application for a Itarina LIcansa. (Ayas (8) Nays (0). »• ** . . . V* ‘ . 0 * ar» k:' ** Jl; “»■ • • ^V •' - - ‘rfX - ' >• UINDTBS OF A REGULAR IIBETING HELD MAY 28, 1974 PAUTU0 SMV«d, 8«arl«fl socondad, to grant a varinac* to Richard Uollandor, 680 North Arm OJfAva, for the construction of a garage 22* from the road right-of-way, since it is an iaprovemeat over the existing eltuatlon, but a variance from the 75* lake setback ordinance can only be given preliminary approval aubiect to the ilinnehaha Creek Watershed District giving ^5* •PPtoval. This variance was deemed reasonable since it is a narrow lot and the variance is only a need for a deck supported by oolea. As •w as the Watershed District approves it, then a written copy of that approval must be submitted to Dexter liars ton, and if it meets Hr. Uarston's approval, then the staff is authorised to grant a variance. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). The variance for John Zimmer 6 Melvin Dale on County Road #6 and Watertown Road is tobled until June 11, 1974. The variance for Albert Burkhalter and Gerben Korthius, 1066 Loraa Linda, is also tabled until June 11, 1974. Butler mov-,- Paurus seconded, to grant the varianoa and subdivision for Harold A^rson, 4665 Bayside Road, and that a 5% park fii-4 is to be charged to the two- pa^^al. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Settles moved, Paurus seconded, to grant the subdivision to Hugh Harrison and that a 50' access to the lake be provided and that a Wk zoc be charged for this subdivision. Motion, Ay«s (3) - Nays (0). Paurus mov.4d, Butler seconded, to deny the •treet vacation of Dale Matson, 2200 Bayview Council did feel that perhaps TOnsi^rataon should be given In tho future for the variances needed for construction of a garage, .iotion. Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Butler seconded, to approve the permit of Edward Zubov, °*^^ve, under the conditions as Page 2 VARIANCE 680 North Arm Drive 4168S - 1020 Lot 1 THISmmm VARIANCE Watertown Road 6 86 VARIANCE 1066 Loma Linda VARIANCE t SUBDIVISION 4665 Bayside Road 42460 - 1412 SUBDIVISION 41620 - 3000 STREET VACATION Wallace Avenue CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT 1940 Shoreline Drive 41880 - 5000 .. ••• I f • • I fi* »vv:*rr*' 1 ■*.r- \ ’ h ’A ¥*• • ' r.. '-*1 X r *. I’ ♦V4 r» . y, yj> * •.rVT *r*J ■f^- THIS ITEM HAS BEEH MICROFILMED TO : FAO-1: DATE; Pldnoinj C‘inm I U.J I on Uoxtor Mjr*jton, Z^^nlnj AOminlitrjtor Mdy 20. H74 SUUJECT: Vdrimco PETITIOf4Eil: Hichird liol Idndur LOCATION: 600 lUjrln Arm Orivu STAFF REI’ORT; Mr. liol lundor has roqaootud a v.irlunco for tho con'itructloo of a now Qarugo locatud 22* from tho County road rI'jht-of-way at ono corner of ttm structuro. Tho ordinance requires a 35* set-back from tho road right-of-way. Tho potitlonor plans on ro/novinj jn uxisting gara-jo which Is currently lo cated right on the property line and replacing it with tho now garage. STAFF nECO!ti*EMDATlO*l: A variance fco granted because of the following factors: I. The peTitioner plans on removing tho existing garage and constructing the now garage further away from the road right-of-way. ^ •The lot Is narrow and Mr. liollandor cannot ;.iova the structure further from the road without infringing on the 73* lake setDccK requirement. This reconnendation applies to the portion of the structure which Is 20'x2S*. The petitioner has not defined what the additional area will be used for. and since it infringes on rhe 73* sut-bacK requirumunt, this will have to be defined before a variance could ho granted to that portion of tho structuro. Approval for th s variance should be condlticxiod on Mr. liol lander removln>j the uxisting jarejo. 4 ■v» a «. •«* I wV* # • •. •. W ,.S • r iiittJ MICROFILMED (r^^rM a<m) '■ Jt. \ W :ip^ c^yeht f ^ l^ivfirtd (t£^t:/ I ■ » 1 .-<■ > t r ✓ •« p* I _ iVss - 1"*^' HdPU^-rHgSg, ______ V. < •» 4. r* ■ k r I / ? »*k t- fr* m; !L* «« (a. fk* V- a. >* ««•s «* •• ' V -•' ■■4. • ■• • ^4* .4 •». *:*• «• V- ►: f V 5 1 1 f V .V4 tl*•«' v.v •^' 4k «. 0 :y '^t t • <■- 40- ' ><• » r?; r** -. . % . • *•»■?“•• -SF .^•••’ ** *^W*» ^4»- V t • *,--. . • ' • T ,<•* ... . • ••A* ^ >4v«*. %.» * *> .C ■'5fe^iJ pUtr:*'> r«f« • • ‘ j * Jp- *. ’ . •4 f:iTYofOROXO Building Pennit PERMIT N? 47471 DATE ISSUED -'•JO APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY '’.O. BOX 66. CRYSTAL BAY. MN 55323 473 735 SITE ADDRESS _ZONING DISTRICT LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT rrMnuT EXPIRES________ IN: PROP. ID. ^3 ^ BLOCK .SUBDIVISION ^ IRE ZONE I VAR. DATE (AddrtttI CONO. USE DATE Ia RCHITECT/ENGINEER - Mint Certify Multi-Femily, CommtfCiA A IndoitfW Comtruetion Plant lERT.NO. (Firm)(AddrenI (Pfiont) lot area WIDTH DEPTH PROPOSED SET8A'*KS front R.SIOE BUILDER t (Firm) (Addrett)(Phono) TYPE OF WORK ddition Rfinodfl Ronovott REAR LSlOE -PC BIOC M2E (y *■ EST. CONST. VACONST TYPE Bl OG SI2E LAKE WETLANDS »• w 3^ r ACCESS nr.SIOENTIAl STORIES B COt^T. VALUATION ^7^rddd oO % NEW EXISTING AGENCY-APPROV. GATE DWELL UNITS borms ^flr CITY • COUNTY GAR stalls |att 06T SEPTIC APP. DATE DOCK STATE NON RESIO PROPOSED USE PR. EASEMENT locc CLASS STORIES COUNCIL APP DATE d(. STATE FEE 0 PLAN REVIEW ^ PENALTY PARK FEE SAC CHARGE /7/.Cd TOTAL D ilEMARKS: /)e/j/ /^y/ / /s^iiur 17^ ■ ^ /tOaj || INSPECTION REQUIRED I . FOOTING bsfort POvp FRAMING POutMn INSULATION WALLBOARO Btfort TiipifHi FINALbtfopV occufMncv ORK BEVONO OR WITHOUT A RE UiRED INSPECTION WILL BE SUB- CT TO penalty . NSPfCTION HOURS 4T3.?357 : ALL B 17 A M INSP 14PM *ALL 1 • 4 PM INSP NEXT DAY WORK REQUIRING SEPARATE PERMITS plumbing MECHANICAL WfLL______ SEPTIC______ SEWER______ WATER_____ CRAOiNG A filling ELECTRICAL i»om SM(D b ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THE UNOCRSICNEO HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE NEAL IMPNOVEMENTS SNECIEIEO. ANO OECLARES UNDER penalty OF LAW ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ANO ACCEPT* ANCE OF all information . CONDITIONS ANO REQUIRE* MENTS REPRESENTED HN THIS DOCUMENT. THE UNOBR- SIGNEO FURTHER AGREES TO 00 ALL WORKS IN STRICT COM* FLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES ANO STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILOINO CODE REQUIREMENTS. SItnwui* WHITE FILE CANARY - INEPf CTOR PINK ASSESSOR CnttN MNANCf GOLD IlFCLIPr OfYOf Opvwo •^*« 4» % * • r L. . < • ■4 1 1 ** * . » » - • . . / i I • . ♦ . • ' - V ^ V.‘ il : •. ‘ i- .• % * "' :■■>: • \ \ •.; I • t iO* -v.- * t • ,V-.- ^ A ^ •• ’ * • ^ •• »* ♦ *. r vs it • *•* 0 * ’ ::?;%. • y. '*z7fc-ri,#«irff •■•’TZ. wM«f • ^r^TTZ Mill£ '• •. m d W » ^ I * • ■ -----"^1 • »• ^ . t • • • • • . ; ^ . , * . s »'•.’• >.• • .V ■ ‘'••n ' r r^r " *.*' ♦ «.•' * • ■ ? i '. '• • « •• trttg KjtrZ iM*^" . . . »:rnriB*(*iiiC J ‘1^^'.’ 31 fT S sraig 1 g ^ y. U >? ^ ^ BBHBHHMB iflfi»ti € ±^5^~ ^ . •. ?‘4‘- *, * * • • 1 f 1 H '• < HB| • • ■ ?• l *l- «'- -',• f . 1 I 1 ‘ •^ > I — .... • • ..-.am lAOBiBailBA **^*** rrt.i*t H*. »•;''_ J.ii4»i»»- . ....IId ‘ Im t*»«< w ■.?"■ E/i^t- ■s^d'toH % • *• % • • • * •< .*• VJ 'V.. jLl • V • *• ‘ ^ V 't’^v •.7» *- A i Jift •. I ^ V4 ^ « •.. •. wnA*» r * ' • ; • . • • -s • r ' ••*, , ■« . * ^ .• • • *.' ,?W' • .* .. •<*.•# /• * • • « # > •f •* • * ► *: . .• •- . • ; ‘ •♦sa 1 4■■"• 'VfV ■,'■ 1 <■*•'4 1 ^______ ^4 ^ • . # . .V* •*;%i •’;' %' -. • • %, 4 . •*> i ' /^ • •r ^ > ( . 0 ^• 0 4- RiililKICSSS__- • f.. -T j ^1• » fl * ] • • «• » ■ H *^ rm ,•t ■•_: 1 «•P 1 •a ♦ • ,• • <•«- ^ % * , • 9 •. ■ ■• * , .• 1 1 • ft 1 • '1 » «— 1 •* • • • • « 1 i1 ___1 1 1piT’-C^»3 gaiSssslasM ^ • V ». f I f -’I* •» « »t » ♦ * • ¥t >1^ ♦ : / I ♦ • • « • I. . V ^ ' « -^ ■••. •' • *' • J » • •# ♦ a ’ • * •>. • <*.*f .* • • • • ■' . V**1 fr-• '• % •k*• m,* V » ^ •#. • • • • % ♦ i * W •• ^ l' 4» • . ' v;. '■ ■•> •1 r'• ^ • ♦ ••• V • • ' f /%•♦ # V ;<. ■■ . • » ^ • • ••■ ,•%• * . f i'J • 4 • • ■* - *•.m • • • • •• • ••• • • ••# •4 1 ## • • ••4’••• •. • ‘-1 t • i #• - / « •» « 3sS • .•* i » •r>“'» ■5 1. ^ 1 • »' ? • % •. « ^•-» •- •• • ‘i^•> m » LAT«g»ll.U.^>d.TJ ■r_-j*»m»»jf iniifcrriifc^nii^‘rrf"‘i r • UVe-S/ iOf4 t 7 ■»- •«- £S^«i ry f\' ^ BR3 ■’*^SSS5S;«Sa™ — ^ ‘/......: : , ^a'3i»KI ESSSSSS^K git fe ^^iiiilHmii^ •i-' mm 1^1 .lisi IIIr^lS!isl \ m IIHIHirs’^vr-jif 1;fJ SS:n JlSk11 w • • 6^Wi^r^saeiK^:.^ V>" > N *41 I ftf4. i OiP-^INGS mm tv-trriw^yacggi ■4."T'T?^^■•'>•? ’ ‘> ••^r’ > ' . .* •, • ■ /V ' * * ' - V' ^ .. •»* . ii'? ._______• . > »___* »».. > «* • «g- • •^* .. .-•••»• • v“. X. ' ' \ ‘.-V »• K *"1^ v^-. ------------ — •liOBtioa - to b9 filiod out • 4 \ u ploM to iaelado tho follovlagi * I *t- *- '/* •» \0 • ' Vv *|0 • • O i * • ©•o* •** 7»S>5V4t^ xvr»MHUCi< -*/rw *i.. . .. ‘ ' *>• ^ — • . t iprodiOf «nd ^y*-* « j.'t •-■/T*^’*-^‘; ^ ••.)<. *♦“•. j:^ '• n ^ • • « ■^■toflilCMt vXii.: (eirelo ooo) ADDZTXOR ONn^Or eOMMCTOX . \ £ iiyi ggifeVy*' k 'r. r.r i« V* • - t'. ••,••• «•mom'l A -' • ,v<^' '• •*.' fy ■- CIWl _:. IXflJl »*•< cmi ■•' *••' •' • ir" i’ ** *iiyj — - Aceosaory'Struetvro il/Htoratieo • .f* / • . * \r.-4- 9||iaMrllMii;^iir!^r^^It uSi^O ul G *4• Ui^JU./^ Lcr -to &nuZ^ >-r;> >> I* ' * * r 0.tz£^r.--, .;'GAMI&B toollT ' 'An. * 4 offT mnerm und)t $ 3,ooo '•«». •• • !^v^-’'«'rr'J»-ti'.c-'. **:.V- »Xy!;for£a bnlldiA« pacolt and Z acknowladga that tho infonatlon >Pl*to oad oeearatai that tha work will ba In '"onfonunea with che ud-eodaa ef tha City oad with tha Stata Balldinf Codof that i Jila ia not a paralt and work la not to atart without a paraiti and tjWill ba ia aooojnSanea with tha approvad plan* liOMATUIBt_____Qi OATBt ‘*-/**^ (Plaana Ziil out tha ravaraa aid# or ttila Coral %♦' . }.*, I « ,r'»X.»' ■ • ^ T •*•%, i ST '*^ i..^?!^^r.NORTH Am-OR PERMIT "TVp P* BUI LOIM6 - p«rm<t NtMntm: «• •. .;0<>01.'^«'n.«> ------- ^*j, / 08/28/87- ••:. i ;•> -.•* .•>•’ --------------------------- * . • ► •;<* ,4Cr<;rv(jfA - * ' ‘ ■■. • . I f « ’» 4 >• •- *.• ' > -*• *'“• '■* *“ ^^ •/ * I I •'• s... .rt.>i;ry^ ^‘.;‘*• ^ '. • • • .A • •» •• •• ■ ”*-.‘V?:' *»V ■••■v-j'’Xr- : •.• ••»'■ N-t' :m^t^mm 'i- mm^0m 'Cr'.f^.mssm /J*,; JT-T.; i • V. Trt?.t« V *r /•' * '*1 K>mA "'•«w > V* n ^• ‘'jj ♦‘'i* I V % ^ * ?JB5wm • Wrr^E SK3NATURE' » .'1 * ^ ^ * r *, *• ‘ / •■4k*7y.tj'.n r 4 .•/ •• l/».‘-%>i • • -1 •• ..,*•• L-*a«ifcv^r->«LL-r :ny»-1 ‘TCV?!*^ ife' .P’i'* *. •v' HL- k I'-i c1 ‘V V.•^c% * ' 4 • iSfri |H*'- LI Siv« >SBaSEs£'i ' ’ •%__________ ^ #%:• ■ .Vk *-A v’:^i ■v:| '*^9^ fL ^ 1 iv*'? T'.* • *. •. • •« ‘Uj'vif-:,.. X‘r'.:,*«'.:. •>* ■ * 4»i « w!.-.«^.:- A-i. ^>-..:':?-~.»v.<''; (• < fv I ■ ■ « • • 4 * H..; -c.-* •1^ ?.;*•• ••• > i'>*} fjs ’ >T'. / »*• IV4 • • > .-. V** , . •, m=556 •^Vv'. I • > ^ .• f.- • >'f > .; ■ ■• • •• Vm a'-*''-^v,'i ' '■ . ' •’'* '>y-'y-V'-<.;:'v- i' ' ,? •,-i.v,’, ‘ . . .* • ■ . 'k • Vi ■• *"f I* » . * . ..•' ^ ^-*^'«»' V '« *-' : . ^ ■ -.■-i■;-.: V-s.,." • . v' •■ , rVir: £ /.•ia I,/ ')*■■ * mfw -K:------------------------- V__ ^'TaI'C urf tK /----^--llf^ l^(>. • j*. ^XI^T h-/=^ \ /■wi^ I % •V -^/ '4^ t'Uti- *• p*.;. \ IJ»V.: P=E»i|c/^ ........ -4 '■■—^ ^ 4"-'---- --■• --t 1 -ri infil I r le^*-I fiririiTifri t\m .• . . - • / i.• ••• * • • •• • . ■ •■* 4;« ••. • • *. .. •.* •••• • » fA • • • • •. v; .■ •«m <0 I •m 0 ,• 0 .0 • # ^ ^V--:*.-. r, v-;rj . ->;V. • 1 \ % • , • - •% .♦CUYOFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO_______ DATE TIME CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED 6-W>Q< <f .'OO 9:06 <--• • . • i # .* ,*•* : rf » > •* • •»'*.*• •••* t» r . • ^ .*S'***^. . • *1 •' / "'/'f*.. •* r/ - /-V. *. . ADDRESS 6^0 AJO Aft-vw> OWNER__ 5; • UolfAAjQ<>/2.CONTR. • . ••• ^ •* .*• . • » • • • • TELEPHON'NO.i ■■■ . . • • * / V ». • • "ry.•f*. •• It! Q □ FOOTING C FRAMING C INSULATION C WALL BO. C FINAL L DEMO — SITE C DEMO - final ^ C PLUMBING Rl ^ Z PLUMBING FINAL G MECHANICAL Rl □ MECHANICAL FINAL □ FIREPLACE/WOOD BURNER □ WATER HOOK UP C METER SET/TURN ON □ SEWER HOOK-UP □ SEPTIC MAINT. □ SEPTIC INSTALL □ SEPTIC PINAL C SITE WELL G WELL TEST PUMP C EXCAV/GRAOINQFILLING C LAKESHORE/WETLANOS G TREE REMOVAL ^SITE INSPECTION C PROGRESS C COMPLAINT G FOLLOW-UP i I f • . • ••* \ • 4 * . ^ • - A •••••• I 5 COMMENTS:_____________________________________________ OgCK.t«-o^ AA)/^ m ••. * a. 0: 6A'?ji.Go V t • ’w- % •.*•••» • :so • - • • • ■ ■ ■‘*v. •*’ « ..............* i , » *•• •." *i. • •* ■» . •* -- •..T-*' '* <c - 0(Tctis /w^ /r^-zaj^o tjjeAJL na2>t/fc,r Af^nEiL ^T~pCv>-^ ^ <2u*7~ u^-C^ At~ Xo^wi> p/L\o^*4-T> l*>/q_____ f i.. ... -t’ •t * • • • • r •.V V i. . -L pp/Lu>vn~s A^/UxiAl vrvi:- ••■, • • i 'u — f4*llAr^''/X^ '■hUjtiirr- A \{AAf (AAJ~Cj‘ . ! {/ba/) S aT~ r VajQU (c^ //U^A/tr hr*^' •• • V* • • • • , . • :; WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED r CORRECT WORK & PROCEED C CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING C: CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN___ INSPECTOR WILL RETURN HOURS. □ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR C INSPECTION REOUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. C PHOTO TAKEN C CITATION ISSUED n PROJECT COMPLETE C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY _ _ _ _ _TEMPORARY _ _ _ _ _PERMANENT V , « . » H* • <\v*. .* fi ^ * ..• :-V- y*—.• .. ■■ . :r -• *-.Vj C! Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. 473*7357 « Owner/Contractor <m site:_________________ -------^/ZoCjInspector cA^e, ? . * * » Whit« Copy/lnsp«ctOf*s Fil«Canary Copy/Sitt Notfct) * •• -i • 0 ^ • • .• .. •-1I. f •.. • . • # *.• ' ^ • • V*.-' r»- • ^ - --- >A.>: 4 - • •• • -• «• > • - •»* • ♦•. "■ \ • ' ^ •. , ^ •• m ^ ^ m A* •• * * • ‘ ‘V • • • . • • • •!., • , • , • . V • • • 0; ^ ^ . • - # • • ■ -^s***** V*‘ * ’ L ( / . -S''" ■''••-V REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHOREUNE DRIVE P.O. BOX9 MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364.0009 »» • I ••I % ■ J AUG 1 5 PHONE (612) 472-2222 FAX (612) 472-2254 ROOIRW.PEEO MULL POND RICHARD N. IHORITZ UNOAESENTHER DONALD F.NOACK, M. hfifmiMnn motM Sr«l9 Rar^UwwMtVwii KAY L DUNN WENDY L LEWIN Lmga! Arnwhitnf August 12, 1992 Ms. Jean Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator Orono City Hall P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Application No. 1737: 680 North Arm Road - Orono Dear N:s. Mabusth: Mr. Hollander will be out of the state during the week of the August 17 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, he is preparing exhibits of proposed hardcover removal which are not yet completed. On his behalf, I request that this matter be rescheduled for the September meeting at which time the necessary documentation would be available to you for review and decimation to the Planning Commission members. Very truly yours. REED Richard N. Indritz RNl:sp cc: Mr. Richard Hollander To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator FroB:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August Hr 1992 #1748 Bob Hovlandr 1245 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Referred back to Planning Commission for Further Review Review of Amended Proposal Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03r Subdivision 10 - Conditional use permit required for all accessory structures to be placed on through lots. Section 10.03/ Subdivision 9 (E) - Accessory structure is shown at 825 s.f. in area and requires a 15* side setback. Option A (Prefered by applicant) lot line. Required ■ 15' Proposed » 13* Variance “2' or 13.3%. - Variance to north side Option B - Variance north/south lot lines Required » 15* Proposed *» 14* Variance 1* or 6.6% Section 10.03f Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage requirements. Total lot area » 11,767 s.f. Allowed lot coverage *= 1,765 s.f. or 15% Originally Proposed at 1,827 s.f. or 15.5% Variance * 62 s.f. or .5%. Amended Proposed at 1,662 s.f. or 14.1% No lot coverage variance required. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover within 250-500* setback area. Area « 11,767 s.f. Allowed “ 3,530 s.f. or 30% Existing » 2,080 s.f. or 17.6’^ Original Proposed at 3,343 s.f. or 28.4% Amended Proposed at 3,108 s.f. or 26.4% No hardcover variances required. L. Zoning File #1748 August Ilf 1992 Page 2 Additional Exhibits I ** Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 J - Planning Commission Action Notice K - Hardship Statement L - Option A M - Option B Original Packet Submitted for July 20th Review Description of Request The original proposal was denied at the July 20th meeting because of the number and intensity of variances sought with conditional use permit application. Since the Planning Commission meeting the applicant has consulted with staff to develop an amended proposal that would minimize variances needed by applicant. At the August 10th meeting of the CounciIf the application was referred back to the Planning Commission for review of the aunended proposal. The original garage proposed at 30'x33* has been reduced to 25'x33*. Total area reduced from 990 s.f. to 825 s.f. Structure still requires a 15* side setback. Note at the 35* setback line the lot measures 53* in width. Applicant has submitted two proposals. Option Af Exhibit Lf preferred by applicantf places the structure closer to the north side lot line at 13' meeting the 15* setback at the south lot line. Option B centers the detached structure at the mid'*polnt requiring a 1* side setback on both north and south side lot lines. There is no longer a need for a lot coverage variance since the accessory structure has been reduced in size and again there is no hardcover variance sought by applicant within the 250-500' setback line. The only variance sought now by applicant is a side setback line to the north lot line. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit K which is reviewed as follows: 1. Lot width at 50* where a required side setback is 15* would limit the width of the structure to 20*. 2. 3. There are no adjacent lands available for purchase. Placing widest portion of structure in an east-west direction has minimized tree removal and the saving of mature trees within the rear yard maintaining natural visual buffer from adjacent yards. Zoning File #1748 August Ilf 1992 Page 3 4.The lower elevations to the rear or west side of the lot and the house locations along North Arm Drive minimize impact of setback on the adjacent properties. 5,Applicant has special storage needs for two large collector cars and a 21* boat that can now be stored within the 25'x33* structure. ndation If a setback variance is to be recommendedf applicant asks City to consider Option A. Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that applicant's contractor obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing detached garage. 0.' V J *4 I D. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20t 1992 ZONING FILE §1746 - CONT. Johnson noted there is always the issue of the tennis court over the lot line,'which may become an Issue in the future. (#4) §1747 JOHN O’SULLIVAN, 2420 SHAOYWOOO ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:21 ~ 7:24 P.M. The Af f i davi t of Pub I i cat ion and Cert I f i cate of Nailing were noted. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of Application §1747 for John O'Sullivan, 2420 Shadywood Road, approving a renewal variance. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#5) §1748 BOB HOVLANO, 1245 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 - 7:30 P.M. The AffIdavlt of Pub I I cat ion and Cert Ificate of Mai I Ing ware noted. Mr. Hovland was present. Mabusth explained this is a through lot. The applicant is proposing replacement of a detached structure which has seriously deteriorated. The structure to be removed is also located close to the right-of-way. The proposal is a detached garage, 30x33*, which requires a 15* setback because It is In excess of 750 s.f. The proposal creates a .5% lot coverage overage. Cohen asked if the garage needs to be that large. Hovland explained that his son is moving home and has two vehicles and a boat, which they wish to store inside. Peterson asked If they planned to use the graveled area. Hovland said it may have a limited use. Johnson said he preferred to have the required setbacks met. Mabusth reported that if the garage were reduced to 25x30* it would meet the 750 s.f. limit and the required 10* setback. Rowlette asked about comments from the neighbors. Mabusth indicated al I positive. comments they have received to data were 6 ji > ■ 4. .1*S J‘ f i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20. 1992 ZONING FILE #1748 - CONT. Cohen asked what is the hardship. Hovland stated they need that large of a garage for their vehicles and storage. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend denial of Application #1748 for Bob Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive, for a conditional use permit and variance. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#6) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE — VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:31 - 7:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iication and Cert i f i cate of Mailing were noted. Charles and Shirley Pyle and their architect, Daryl Hanson, were present for this application. Mabusth explained that the applicants propose to relocate an existing detached garage closer to the residence and instalI a patio area and a fami ly room addition. Al I structures meet the required side setback. There is 663 s.f. of roofed structure to be placed over paved walkways and patio. There is a decrease in hardcover, but an increase of 9.IX in structural hardcover. There is an excess of structural lot coverage. Johnson expressed his concern about the loss of trees and the intensification of the lot coverage. Mr. Pyle explained that they originally intended to attached the garage, but because of the layout of the house, it was not feasible. He advised that one of the trees to be removed has a disease already. Mrs. Pyle said they were not opposed to replanting trees. Cohen asked if the appi icants were wl I I ing to consider deleting the roofed area. Hanson stated the applicants are willing to decrease the roofed area by 200 s.f. He noted that part of the area is covered by a tre Mis. Mabusth reported that the City has taken the position that a trellis area is not hardcover. i N V mm .-K CITY OP ORONO F. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NN 473-7357 ZONING FILB 11748 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: July 24, 1992 TO:Mr. 4 Mrs. Robert Hovland COPIES TO: 12950 Hwy. 55 Plymouth, MM 55441 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 20, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Conission r nda the following: Planning Conuaission recommended denial for reasons noted below: A.Your proposed detached garage shown at a total 990 s.f. in area, must meet 15* setback. The Planning Commission asked for a reduction in size and you advised that because of your special storage needs that it was impossible to reduce the 30'x33* proposed structure. B.With the proposed addition of 990 s.f. of structure to the property, there is now an overage of 62 s.f. of lot coverage (allowed 1,765 s.f., proposed 1,827 s.f.). Applicants advised Planning Commission that they could not reduce the accessory structure even by 62 s.f. to meet lot coverage requirements. C.Planning Commission could not accept the hardships set forth by applicants as to special storage needs of your son who shall reside at the residence. Mrs. Hovland, per our recent phone conversation, you have asked to meet with me in the early a.m. to discuss an amended proposal. It is your intention to meet with me the week of August 3rd and to review the space needs of the structure and to determine ws;at kind of reductions can be made in order to minimize the intensity of the variances sought in the current proposal. It was also agreed tltat you would send a letter requesting the Council to refer your application back to the Planning Commission at their August 17, 1992 meeting. Your request will be presented to the Council at the August 10th Council meeting and will be placed on the consent agenda and will not require your attendance at the meeting. Please contact my office if you have further questions concerning the directives of the Planning Commission or my statements reviewing the purpose of your phone call. 4 CERTIFICATE I % SURVEY ««U1.9 5'r I iC < }k4 V «r /(J6|t'. • \ fr^ G i/-VO'M 3e-/Ui 3so'^ <>=« ncii r i '^------------- c;r • •. t , *. •' 1 • ' '• 4 AUL •***.'• %■ 'J f •* <(yO 'iSK^E:./."? '*•• Jl LEGAL DESCRIPTION ■ Lot 2, Block 4, SAGA HILL’ REVISED,' :,Hennepin County, Minnesota. : •*. AREA I t7.-%r 11,767 nq. ft.' or 0.2701 acres wr.o9 CDCC 0IT dhiv £ i-AOt I PROJECT ' ' Ato^os Nu. Irevisions “ iron found• DENOTES IRON SET aSII aS-gS 9W»ogarage floor TOP OF foundation r IIEREUY CERTIFY THAT THIS SIIIJV pv Pl-AM, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED DY MF THAI I AM A DULY REOI STEREO tANI) SURVEYOR UNDER THE LANS oF T IE state of MINNESOTA. ^ p KIM A. REAUME registered land SURVEYOR I DATE ------------------- KKii. NO. I 9522 SURVEYS INC. — 612-5,2-9559 Jf^ 413 HOPKINS CROSSROAD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA i OF SURVEY /'J6f^'. Q)\P\//)-p 'I'i li'j ^c-ihuiJt 3S’o'' > . •. • ; • V •• * . ^ • •: ; V./ ♦ •, I’I SCALE:??* I LEGAL DESCRIPVION Lob 2, DlocK 4,«SAGA HILL' REVISED, Hennepin County, Minnesota. * .* • S , • • ‘ • t • « ‘ • AREA . 1 1 , 11,767 aq. ft.' or 0.2701 acres• • '••• *• >•1. • • ° IRON FOUND • OENOTES IRON SET a all SKSsT pnoposEo elevations lowest floor ^ 9d^0 GARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION^OL I NO. |revisi 6ns immmmrn <-’K«'nFY THAT THIS SURVKY PLAN, OR RKPORT WAS PREPARLH MV Mr THAril^^AM^'I ‘‘^'Jf ’ERVlSlON ANDTiiAi { am a duly REGISTFRP m r %mi UNDER TI,E'l:iws"r‘ niE'"’ s1 A IE OF MINNESOTA. DATE 5-Cr-?l. s_ EEG. NO. 19S22 KIM A. REAUME registered land surveyor SURVEYS INC. —, 612- S<I2-9SJ9 m 413 HOPKINS cnossnoAo Minnetonka , minncsoia :i r To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Proa: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator July 9, 1992 Subject: #1748 Bob Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 - Conditional use permit required for all accessory structures to be placed on through lots. Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (A) - All structures must meet front yard setback on all through lots. Required « 35* 35' (Although shown at 30', applicant willProposed » relocate to 35' setback. Site Inspection confirms nc topographic restraints to restrict a 5' movement to the east.) Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) - Accessory structure is shown at a 990 s.f. in area. Requires a 15' side setback. Required « 15' Proposed ■ 10' Variance ■ 5' or 33.3%. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) • Lot coveifage requirements. Total lot area ■ 11,767 s.f. Allowed lot coverage * 1,765 s.f. or 15% Proposed ■ 1,827 s.f. or 15.5% Variance ■ 62 s.f. or .5%. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover within 250-500* setback area. Area * 11,767 s.f. Allowed > 3,530 s.f. or 30% Existing « 2,080 s.f. or 17.6% Proposed = 3,343 s.f. or 28.4% No hardcover variance required. Zoning File #1748 July 9, 1992 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Survey E - Elevations P - Section G - Floor Plan H - Hardcover Fact Sheets Description of Request Applicant proposes the installation of a 30'x33* detached garage to be Installed at the west/street side of the lot. The proposed garage will replace an existing garage in severe disrepair setback 6* from Elmwood right-of-way (referenced as Summit Drive per old plat). The existing structure is functionally useless as garage doors open to south side of structure. Based on the age of the existing vegetation^ it appears it has not been used as a garage for many years. The proposed garage will require a side setback variance and lot coverage variance:. The need for variances was not known at the time of preliminary discussions with applicant and therefore a variance application was not filed with the conditional use permit. Issues for Consideration A.How does the 62 s.f. of excess of structural lot coverage affect your considerations? B.What unique findings or hardships can be made to support a recommendation of approval. C.Review Exhibit D. If structure is relocated closer to area where lot meets 60* width# the garage would not meet the required 10* separation. Can structure be reduced to 750 s.f. (25'x30M? 4 • CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND DSE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1245 North Arm Drive Orono Mi Property Identification Nximber (P.I.D.) 0/11723410014 f Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) 559-5355 Name Bob HovAland Phone (work) 559-4737 Address 12400 46th Ave. No.City Plymouth Zip 55442 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Bob Hovitland Phone se mail toAddress 12950 Hiway #55 7/87 City Plymouth______ zip 55441 (month/year)Date Pro^fiCty^cquired ____________________________ I (do) (f^o noj;i) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS > X t t : ^ i * $ 50.00 For each variance requesc with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200,00 Land Alteration vi f f L’t nvcjrr f. .■••-^wVVWV ol QEH 125.00 CHECK 7L 125.00 h. t k, t lUiirUXI YDU • * TT^.1^4^890 cool kOl (06:. 06/m Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu- yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshofe PRD/PID “ see fee schedule Renewal Fee -- $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTB Et APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT DSE OP PKOPERTY Present Zoning District LRIB Present Use of Property Residpnfiai Residential _ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: Conditional Use Permit to install accessory structure 3Q'x33 on a thrminh lot”! -- •. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtai: this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 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 notified of this application. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A IIORKING COPT (ll* Z 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the aoove information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_________________ . Date APPLICANT'S 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) and/or unusual expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature / 7 Date 6/12/92 ONNEftS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reascriable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signaljre Y /'Date 6/12/92 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building .& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .t"; X. T- - < N . 1 , « •nj m k 1j• • • . 1•E m • •11 ■TEXTUREC BRO. 5JOI^ r EXPOSl IX4t 1X3 4 FRONT ELEVATION •i SCAL0 • m r- n rr 1748 23^ASPHALT OR FtBERGLASS SHINGLES 15“ FELT 4'X8'XJ^“ OXBOARD w/)i“ CLIPS OBL. ^XA’ TOP PLATES ■2"X4" STUDS e 16 ” 0. C. 2''X4" ENGINEERED ’ TRUSSES ® 24" 0. C. if u. l'•2fX6* TREATED BOTTOM PLATES w/BOLTS 6' 0. C. 4 CONG SLAB£1 2 REINFORCING RODS AROUND PEIMETER OF SLAB. •V -iwiniBBimn w •-H . 41 BOXED HARD BOARD ■y/ INTERMEDIATE TEXTURED HRD. « r#.n [• r I f I f I I (f.'T' 3. Ga RAG c ^3 c. D riveway Cc0it^yfiP4£gl)D. Sidswalk_ _ _ _ _ _X E. Patio/ Deck X F. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN IIastk ■ SHEETING t . G. Other * Total H ardcover in ![one Total Property A rea in Zone B S.F. 99(^7 S.F. • S.F. S.F. 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9fl S.F. //■ 1 =fe S.F. fX 11/7 S.F. ^ . X ICO ^.4 .0. r Tos Chairman Kelley and Planning Coiranission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator WTomt Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dates Subject: August Ilf 1992 #1750 Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Review of Aaendisd Plan Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 75-250' setback area « 8,150 s.f. Allowed * 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing " 5,870 s.f. or 72% Originally proposed at 4,425 s.f. or 54% Amended proposal » 4,253 s.f. or 52% (removal of 172 s.f. landscape area underlain with plastic northwest side of house) 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage. Total area ■ 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage > 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing “ 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Originally proposed at 2,929 s.f. or 23.9% Variance * 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.95% Amended proposal at 2,640 s.f. or 21.5%* Variance ■ 806.3 s.f. or 6.5% Originally, roof structure proposed at 663 s.f. and has been reduced to 374 s.f. (50 s.f. of trellis area has been removed from total roof structure area). Planning Commission had originally requested structure be reduced to 400 s.f. Breakdown of Structures Credited Against Lot Coverage Existing house *=• 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage » 612 s.f. or 5% Addition “ 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure * 374 s.f. or 3% Total = 21.5% List of Additional Bxhiblts G - Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 H - Planning Commission Action Notice I - Daryl E. Hansen Transmittal Letter J - Revised Plan K - Applicant's Addendum/Planting Schedule (Original packet for Planning Commission Meeting 7/20/92 has also been included) Zoning File #1750 August 11, 1992 Page 2 Discussion At the July meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled providing applicant with additional time to submit a revised plan reflecting the following directives of the Planning Commission: 1. Reduce roof structure to a minimum 400 s.f. Applicant has reduced roof structure to 374 s.f. The trellis area has been excluded. 2. Remove additional hardcover used in landscaping Applicant has reduced 172 s.f. of landscape hardcover along the northwest side of existing structure within 75-250' setback area. Refer to amended hardcover facts above. 3.Replanting schedule for two large mature oak trees to be removed as a result of the proposed improvements. Refer to Exhibit J. Applicant proposes planting in northwest landscape area 1-1/2 to 2" diameter Sunburst Locust or green/white ash tree and a 5-6* Black Hills or Colorado Spruce in the southwest landscape area. Although not specifically noted in the Planning Commission recommendation, it was the unanimous concurrence of the Planning Commission that a replanting schedule be considered with this variance application. Applicant has complied with this suggestion. At the meeting, applicant advised that one of the large oak trees on the property is diseased and would require removal in the near future. Per the review memo for July 20th, the hardship statement can be found in exhibit A. A recommendation of approval should contain the following conditions: 1.Grading and drainage plans must be submitted with building permit for new improvements. 2.All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. 3.Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for remov;>l of detached garage. 4.Final planting schedule to be submitted with building permit. Planting to be confirmed at the time of the final inspection for new construction. Isv r ¥* 6^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20. 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Hanson noted the roofed area is proposed to tie the structures together in a distinctive way. He said the area proposed to be roofed currentiy is considered hardcover as there is sidewaik there. Mabusth explained that It is the structural Impact that they are dealing with. Johnson reminded them that this type of issue came up during an application on Baldur Park Road. Hanson stated the appiicants would be wlI IIng to further reduce hardcover In the 75-250' zone by removing plastic under landscaping. Mabusth said that may cause some drainage concerns. Mrs. Pyle said the Building Inspector has confirmed that it would not create a problem. Rowlette indicated she would consider approval of the application If the applicant reduced the roofed area to approximately 400 s.f. and removed additional hardcover used in landscaping. All other Members agreed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow applicants to redesign their proposal. Ayes 4. nays 0. (#7) #1752 GEORGE W. KALWEIT. 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:50 P.M. The Af f I dav It of Pub 11 cat I on and Certificate of Mai 11 ng were noted. George Kalweit was present for this application. He referred to a ••tter sent to the City explaining the situation. He said they had contracted with a builder who was unfamiliar with the City's ordinances and did not obtain a building permit. The project was stopped prior to completion, and noted his safety concerns. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Appiicatlon #1752 for George W. Kalweit. 4265 Forest Lake Drive, for a varl»ncs to ailow structural repairs within the 0-75’ setback area. Ayes 4, nays 0. 8 CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NN 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1750 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: July 23, 1992 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle COPIES TO; Daryl E. Hansen 3548 Ivy Place 3841 Thomas Ave. S. Wayzata, MM 55391 Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETINGS July 20, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning CnnsdLsslon reconnends the following: Planning Coimnission recoininended tabling application to allow applicants time to amend plans to address the following issues: A.Reduction of structural coverage. Approximate 663 s.f. of roof structure over walkways and patios to be reduced to approximately 400 s.f. Please note that trellis roof is not included as hardcover and to specify area of trellis in your new calculation. B.Reduce original hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. It was recommended that additional landscape area underlain witn plastic can be removed. C.Replanting schedule in light of the need to remove the two mature oak trees (I thought they were maples). NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions pertaining to the directives noted above. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of a revised plan. Deadline for the August 17, 1992 meeting is Wednesday, August 5th, or Wednesday, September 9th, for the September 21, 1992 meeting. , r J 23 July 1992 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 JU!. 2 4 IP-*;? ^ • ••• . -a Dear Ms. Mabusth, Enclosed is a revised plan for Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, showing a reduction in the amount of proposed roof structure covering the entry and patio area as part of their addition and garage relocation. The amount of covered area would be reduced to 406 sq.ft., less 50 sq.ft, trellis area, making a total area of 356 sq.ft. In addition, they are reducing the hardcover area by another 172 sq.ft, (north of existing house) making a reduction of 1617 sq.ft, of hardcover area. I hope this will be adequate for receiving a variance to construct their new addition. I know they are excited about proceeding with this new project. If you have any questions, please call. I am assuming we will be scheduled for the August 17th Planning Commission meeting and would appreciate being notified if for some reason we are not scheduled. Hartsen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle • # ‘A i J a 29 July. 1992 J J(iL 3 1Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono. Municipal Offices P.0. Box 66 Crystal Bay» Minnesota. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth. I am writing In response to the Orono Planning Commission's recommendation (C), with regards to the Pylon's variance application, zoning file #1750. Replanting schedule to replace the necessary removal of two mature oak trees will be dependent on the construction schedule of proposed new garage, removal of present garage, and deletion of driveway area and designated hardcover, but prior to sodding of this area. We plan to consult with a landscape representative, from a local landscape service. In order to obtain assistance and recommendations. What species of trees will create an attractive Impression and will grow favorably under the large canopies of two other mature oak trees that exist, and will not be removed, within the setback zone of 115 - 250 feet. N.W. section of site plan. Consideration of the canopies of nine other mature oak and maple trees that exist along the S.W. property line or contiguous with the nelghbor^'s property to the S.W.. within the same setback zone. Planning considerations: 1. 2. 1 1/2 > 2 Inch diameter tree. Sunburst Locust or Green/Whlte Ash In the N.W. section of site plan. 5 - 6 ft. Black Hill or Colorado Spruce In the S.W. section of site plan. Sincerely,/ // ^ ' Shirley Pyle cc. Daryl £. Hansen, architect To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth# Building & Zoning Administrator Date:July 16, 1992 Sobject: #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover A. 0-75* setback area « 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. Proposed hardcover > 948 s.f. B.75-250' setback area * 8,150 s.f. Allowed « 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing ■ 5,870 s.f. or 72% Proposed ■ 4,425 s.f. or 54% Existing variance *» 3,832.5 s.f. or 47% Proposed variance « 2,387.5 s.f. or 29.2% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area ■ 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage “ 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing ■ 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Proposed ■ 2,929 s.f. or 23.9%* Variance ■ 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.95% *Adjusted amount if it is determined that roofed patio and walkway not credited against lot coverage. Adjusted amount » 2,266 s.f. or 18.5% Variance ■ 432.3 s.f. or 3.5% List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan - Elevations Southeast and Southwest P - 1-2 Hardcover Fact Sheets Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of the existing garage within the street yard and the installation of a new detached garage closer to residence structure. The comprehensive improvement project also includes a family room addition to the southeast side of the residence located out of the 75* setback area and behind the average lakeshore setback line. The garage structure at 612 s.f. in area meets the required 10* side setback. Applicant proposes 663 s.f. of roof .kui IK I rr: Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 2 structure over a walkway and patio area to be installed between the detached garage and residence structure. The roof structure meets the required 10* setback from the side lot line. Planning Commission members are asked to consider the lot coverage ordinance specifically the section that reads as follows: "All roof structures which extend more than 6* above grade level.” In reviewing the lot coverage facts for the improvement project, the 663 s.f. of roofed area was included with structural inventory. Lot coverage is shown at 23.9% where 15% is allowed. The improvement does result in a reduction in overall hardcover of approximately 18%. Structural coverage increases from 14.8% to 23.9%. Review Exhibit E. Mote break in drainage. Runoff from the majority of the proposed new improvements shall drain to street and eventually northwest to Casco Cove along Ivy Place. Hardship Stateaent Please review Exhibit A. Issues for Consideration 1.The improvement shows a 9.1% increase in structural hardcover on the property. Can non-essential structural improvements be reduced in area? How essential is 663 s.f. of roof structure? Review Exhibit E, the southeast elevation depicts Impact of proposed structure. 2.Hardcover has been reduced almost 18% and is now proposed at 54%. Are there other non-essential areas of hardcover that can be removed? The majority of landscape areas underlain with plastic are to be removed with the proposed improvement. What of proposed improvements? Can paved or walkway areas be reduced? 3.Improvement project will result in the loss of two mature maple trees. Is it appropriate to ask for replantlngs with variance approval? Any condition of approval should contain the following conditions: 1.Grading and drainage plan must be submitted with building permit for new Improvements? 2.All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. r" Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 3 3.Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for removal of detached garage. 4.Planting schedule to be submitted with building permit as a result of the loss of two mature maple trees within street yard? ^ It .1 % ? •i ' i-t •? - ' i ^ . i • }-h 1 >c • # • > r i '1 s * I ti \ CITY OP Cr.OSO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175,00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change froii original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application #1750 f*TTv !*c U-A * ( U.twMU' fee)Z' V}* — tm II wi t luu a w V* Vte V W W of PROPERTY INPORMATION Site Address iVfiV < 7? a / «.' • gfeklO.MK) Property Identif. Numb.r (P.I*D. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dete Property Acquired _____(month/year) I (do)(3o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ____^other(specify) Zoning District: APPLICANT Phone (home) ^i(X> ' Name Phone (work)_3^j_^|5li 7> Address: P\J . City:Zip: lAWJ. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ Address t 'CJV ?LK^ City. Phone (home) ^f\ \ - Phone (wor3c) - *1 \T ^ _Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ GQO _ _ _ _ _ <5f MA£Ol^ Of Describe request in detail:m iii ■ i p: VARIANCES REQUIRED ___ Lot Area Setbaclc: Lot Coverage__ Lot Width V Hardcover ____ Front Side ___ Rear ___ Average LaJceshore _ _Other (specify) BARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property corditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_ _ _ _ u.fcnt» sac <iCTiKJ< VK>l>»j6g paXTOU P*JO AWWiE .T1PJ ftgal Ita uAlH /IMJge. gfeO0Z4\J<*A / * -*vv> <^fv ^ ^ • trfffOltlliAPffTELV KWSd^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follo»r»«" must be submitted bv the application 4eadl<"*> order for your application to be considered cgauletes 1. Completed Application Form 2. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. 7Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%"xll" for reproduction). 5. _ _^Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%’’xll"). 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Js"xll''). 7. _^As an addendum to this application,* please .attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _^Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above info:tion has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and coiytect the best of hxs/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date /ONNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)cowledges and to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this reouest. Owner's Signature Date Applicant muet have all sVfbmittals intc the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month.* Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Cosssission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. U v. ' * <1 (40) (WJ.f I ^ \ y \tIU * *\ Kits :$k *» (») • ^ ’ ■ ..**■ (26) f-r. • , F' y‘ .(«) >. 4 <v^ ’ 1 r-->^^/du /m _ • (28) < • ' » S s(«5) 1 ff ^ f 1 ' I '. % 1 • • • (5) ; » 1*‘.£c%1 • 1 1 % 1 ^ V/N f/ *A .M /w3(.<*e 50C •• ’>VXv lssC>^»>^V^7). (2-J), ^W«f, jV >»(10) (10) % •• r • '/■ V VIC 9CC « lOT i» t^ri. : ............ ; : ; •* ••.. t,.* : ry 4 / /J6« T f" 1 (21) (22)z;^ iri •F'l (>i)(.^! • 1A4 < V<^ ►»-!-■ .. f.~ RUN DATE OA/ES/92 BATCH DOS PROP ADOR OMCR NMC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR DM«R NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADOR OmER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OIBCRS LIST REPORT NO. PXAS5A01 PAGE 7 SB EO-117-E5 AE 0001 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSXONED S L KAPLAN ET AL TRUSTEES «IANES N LUPXENT 7100 NAVZATA BLVO HPLS m 55424 SB 20-117-ES BE OOIB 0S54A IVY PL A H JENETT ETAL ARTHUR H JENETT S5A0 IVY PLACE NAYZATA NN S5S91 SB E0-117-ES BE OOSB 0SSB5 IVY PL JEFPREY A DEBRA DANBERRY JEFFREY A DEBRA DANBERRY SSBS IVY PL NAYZATA Ml SSSTl 5k. sa 20-117-2S az ooxa 03550 IVY PL NN a J DAHPIER NIILXAN S DANPIER 3550 IVY PUCE NAYZATA NN 55301 30 20-I17-ZS 4Z 0017 03540 IVY PL CIS PYLE CHARLES D PYLE 3540 IVY PLACE NAYZATA MN 55301 30 Z0-117-Z3 42 0010 03534 IVY PL FRANK J OUYSSE FRANK J OUYSSE 3534 IVY PUCE NAYZATA MN 55301 30 20-117-23 42 0027 03540 IVY PL JOHN H HONOUR Vll I NIFE JOHN H HONOUR VII 3560 IVY PLACE NAYZATA MN 55301 TOTAL OATCH 003 00007 1 CERnFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTYJTAXATXON. TO^THE BEST OF NY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF lOPERT^AXATXON. T^l a X' ’-V •L: ' • u »[ - 'M. i . y CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHARLES PYLE OF LOT 174. TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA -1-750 r % \ V A V T LtSAL C£SCBI?T!JN If P^£NISCS SUBfC»CO Lot Wl, Tjilor'i juDGivMion of Spring F«rA Lots. T*i|| %urv#v m:«ngi to SR0« oounojritt Of inp iCOtf OftCriDf* pro: ino tf»t location of in ptitting nouit. g4'’«‘3». And vitibit fi«rd- COtAf thpfton. It Jotk not purDort to my strtr i«proieetni% or fncraic*’nt«ts. O Iron rgrk^r JAiringi iho«n Diiod jpon m 4ltuntd lAlun. \* ■|\N*c*n ■MN COITIN & GKONBI KC. INC I ,.*»<* i*i4i ««r«r« r^r K »wi . • •*»» J««. t *wj%* «»«»«* «nj *»ui I «i«i J«lwl« »«^r*inrUl. I »fvj . 's.r f wf*A f tN lj»»* ,4 t»w '*<>•» >4 _____ cy/^/e4fj' ^rc€ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone ; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' ExiSTiNR Hardcover IN Zone A. ■ House /O LENGTH o 9/ syi'cuooo. • y **/S 2.**Ct/oo^ B. Garage _ t • c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk i e. Patio/ )eck F.Landscape AREAS /l»srsc 'UNDERLAIN BY » _________ PLASTIC SHEETING •a***'* • G. Other X 3 4- Z /S WIDTH . <T7 C/ : y^/<r ^33 X ^ *f7 X _ yj5 /S' X^ c. X /y-s X Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 9^7S t S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. /y i 2/o we 3* ./ 2,5 = ,______37 S.F. /77 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9yr S.F. . S.F.B 99£__^B 9075 t X 100 € -/ ®\| o 21.26 % 266 tfO.^7: {a'OT COi/^rfO AS //4Ai>caUf4) . • •• » —- •— •••• r-v/• •«••• ••• i m 1 t. ■'N r- ■ ■■ 1 -i..Aj^.- • .1 . • ♦ • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHECT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (?5-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. * House ZO. 9 //. € LENGTH WIDTH X 9^. / y ly.ys^yq B. Garage zy.2 22.2 t • *r* • c. Driveway CI>x/C.zy z X /. ? rj.. S! DEWALK J.X 5“. 7 X. S X . 3. S E. Patio / /f^r/a D eck 7 X 7 f 2 __ X______ • jtfifgs0>P40tnc F. Landscape _ AREAS UNDERLAIN BY • . ___ X X PLASTIC------ SHEETING t»*00S ___ C ^ 0 .5 X O'.YZ X yj 7? O.H6 X G. O ther A^c^aq 7.s ' x f? 3 S^70 -L B -/5* /2 73 • •• • S.F. S.F, ^7 70 S.F. . S.F.yy 2S S.F. 7<p /S /’ S.F. S.F. /2 S.F. S.F. _______ S.F. ^2 5^ 37 r 7 S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone - __ Total Property Area in Zone - . __ t X 100 - s‘Z7a_ S.F. r/sa fs.F.B 7Z.0 2 % • ••• «... .MM* • • •» ■Mg'I ‘i I . • I Tos Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject August 11, 1992 #1757 Albert D. Banser, 1685 Fox Street - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing At the July 20th meeting of the Planning Commission the application was tabled as neither applicant nor an authorized representative was present to represent the application.A ------ .applicant's attorney. Jack Taylor, will attend the August 17th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Taylor has questioned staff's recommended condition of approval that would require the Installation of a new septic system within 90 days of Council's approval of the conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed Section 12.30, specifically Section 12.30, Subd. 2 (C) (iii) and (iiii) and Subd. 8 (b) (4). Based on these specific code sections, it would appear that the applicant would be allowed one year to install a new conforming septic system. As the City has not been able to confirm that the existing system is malfunctioning or leaching or otherwise polluting the lake, staff would recommend that original Condition J of the staff memo for Application #1757 be amended to read as follows: 3.Applicant must install a conforming septic system to serve the guest house within one year of Council's approval of the conditional use permit. The original packet information for this application has been enclosed for t.hls review. Isv ■ - - --- ---------------------------------------------.AT.(iiTrriia I Zoning Pile #1757 July 16, 1992 Page 2 Description of Request The subject guest house will be formally recognized as a non- conforming structure in the approval resolution of the final plat for the applicant. Based on the information submitted with the preliminary survey, the guest house appears to be completely located within the 100* setback. Any major structural repairs for any expansions located within the protected area will require variance approvals. It should be noted that the non-conforming setbacks did not result from the lot lines created with this three lot subdivision. The guest house shall continue to be used by applicant, guests or hired help. During the preliminary review of the subdivision, applicant's septic consultant provided additional information confirming that there is adequate area for alternate septic sites for both residence and guest house. It is the intention of the City to require the installation of a new septic system if guest house use is to be continued. The City has also asked for confirmation of additional areas suitable for septic expansion. Mark Gronberg has advised that the original test site can be used for the installation of the primary system and that the area can be expanded as an alternate site to serve both residence and guest house at a future date. The issue as to when the new system was to be installed was never specified during the preliminary subdivision review. The staff memo suggested a deadline of one year from the date of final plat approval. Review Exhibit E, Weckman's memo requests ninety days from the date of Council's approval of the conditional use permit to be consistent with requirements of septic code. Staff Recoi dation To approve the conditional use permit for the continued guest house use of the secondary residential vtructure on the prrr>erty located at 1685 Fox Street finding that all area requirements for the guest house use have been met. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Guest house structure is considered a non-conforming structure. Based on its substandard side setback at 10' and substandard lakeshore setback at approximate!;’; "’O', any major structural repair of this structure or ’-'ion of this structure will require variance approval ot the. City of Orono. 2.The guest house is for the exclusive use of applicant, guests or hired help and may never be used for rental purposes. V .k i- Zoning File #1757 July 16, 1992 Page 3 3.Applicant must install a conforming septic system to serve the guest house within ninety days of Council's approval of this conditional use permit. '-J -V- ^ f . < ^ ‘ r i%'I »j 4 ♦ *- ■* ' ft.' f •* i ja;-- . *it. 'fo ■»OT' -s . ’^■y f'4 yA;Uft . -v.:^ a 'iljfc •4’. V ; J V r 0- ’if ^Wri‘ t'-. ■ .■»' ■■; t «■ -it^- *. '►%i' ' ■ JMl■t'ljplPp ?.»»>; ■ #' * CIXY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 03-//7'l3 -V'*/ -OOo/ ^ 01-//7-ZI -jfK Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. * APPLICANT Name A/ Address Sri€{r_ Phone (home) Phone (work) City Ct^ArZ4TA Phone (home) Zip SS‘3*^/ k: m.. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired __ _ _ _ _ . unwntii I (do) ^o notT^also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use aZ $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg % $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration CITf OF ORONO FINANCE OFFICE 1320200000 01 CEH 150.00 CHECK TL 150.00 RtCEii'T’THm YOU jf2^b760 cool fiOl 706: Grading and filling ~ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and friling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Pee - $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Pee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 $250.00 $175.00 $ 75.00 $300.00 $300.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation with Subdivision Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals i other - see fee schedule . . PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property r Residential) Other ^specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obta this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governme Center 348*3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 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 notified of this application. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TOO ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPT (11* X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS 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 APPLICANT'S 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) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date ONNBRS SIGNATURE 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. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. *-■ 1* . ^ »» .X. % •• • MM MTE 09/ti/n BATCH 001 * >1 •. V ' * •' « t I. ,; HE^MEPIN COUMIY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM ’ PROPERTY (AMERS LIST • M.-,# • 'i ,--SO 02-117-23 32 0002 PROP AOOR ‘ 01S20 FOK ST OMCR NAME KATHARINE S TEARSC TAXPAYER KATHARlt* S TfARSE , NMIE/AOOR 1B20 FOX ST ■ NAVZATA IM 55391 * • • • ».* ‘ ;• }> A-’ « \ . PROP Al 10 02^117-23 33 0002 I 0MA5 ; FOX ST (NMER NAME 0 A L CAPP • TAXPAYER GEORGE 0 A LYNOA N CAPP NAHE/AODR MAS FOX SI * HAYZATA IM 55391 .* • : • K-tV.. 1. • {30 02-117-23 13 0005 PROP AOOR 00030 ADDRESS VNASSIGNED QMKR NAME ALBERT 0 HANSER : ALBERT 0 HANSER >. <TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 3A00.10S CENTER I , ,HPLS IM . .S5M2 I**• • PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER SS 03-117-23 41 0004 ' 01A20 FOX ST THE NAKEFIELO ORONO PTHRSHP THE HAREFIiLO ORONO PTNRSHP NfUC/ABOR C/0 ROBERT J THEILER • I • P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 20 NPU MN 55440 .\lr. I • • •: » I* :r < . so' 10-117-23 11 0001 . 'M PROP AOOR ‘' 00030 > ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO . OMCR NAME SUAO H AZHARl 8UA0 H AZIlARt 'TAXPAYER • f 0 • NAHE/ADOR. • 1745 FOX ST HAYZATA IM 55591 :•* > • * • . • V • I I . {•• 1 ’ • • • *. • • • «• r*. • • • it • I 4 • • : • I , *» 0 #* 04 * • ;•y • •_ 30 02-317-23 32 0003 01540 FOX ST J A NOLAN A J A NOLAN JOiM A NOLAN A JOAN A NOLAN 1540 FOX ST HAYZATA Ml 55391 *30 02-117-23 33 0003 ' 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ALBERT D HANSER ALBERT 0 HANSER 3600 IDS CENTER .'HPLSM4 55402 3D 02rll7-23 33 0010 01410 SHORELINE OR A HARRISON AIL HARRISON' ALFRED A INGRID L HARRISON 1410 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 30 03-117-23 44 0001 01605 FOX ST SALLY 0 HANSER SALLY D HANSER 1605 FOX ST HAYZATA MN ' 55391 SO 11-117-23 22 0009 OOOSS ADDRESS UIASSIGNED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY . BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY m ^ A.'; .y. ; Iffl— iCflfi l» . • *• * • * • . • REPORT N0. PI435401 PAGE 1* . * 30 02-117-23 33 0001 01405 FOX ST RICHARD H PERKINS RICHARD N PERKINS 1405 FOX ST HAYZATA Ml 55391 • fAuB . ‘.'•'i.i, ■* • ■ *• • ' ' ' ■*" * * * 1 . ^V.i* vJI f ; ; • . . »I ..I3S 02-117-23 33 0004 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ALBERT D HANSER ^‘.BERT 0 HANSER . *l 3600 IDS CEN1ER ' ' MPLS MN ■ 55402 i' • "i • I I n •■•rV-' 30 03-117-23 41 0003 » 01700 FOX ST CRAIGBAMl ASSOCIATES . .. CRAIGBAMC ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 20 • MPLS Ml 55440 =. • • .* • ' 30 03-117-23 4^ 0002 01745 FOX ST . SUAD H AZHARl SUAO II AZHARl.. 1745 FOX ST HAYZATA Ml 55391 •: t *. J t 1* ,1 V r- I i .1 • . • im • *•. \ •• '• • • :• ^ A « ' 0 0 • ' • •». *• •/ . - •* .*•• .*1? . I • * n . I 9 9 TOTAL BATCH . 001 00014 '..t. ‘ *•»' . • * • * • .• •'* . r ».. • I, f V. . • v*»* ** f . - I !• • ••. . • r-"-'i. V s' . • t • . . * I I *' • * • «*1*. . V ..• •• ’ I • , •• • . • . i • • • • t • I . • , ' . * ! • * • * - 7 . V •. ,* . • . • 6 ■ ? • • \ I .* • •• : . , % ; • .1 - / / .!./| 4 . . V • *1,* : • *1 (f * • • f V ». , • • •- • • ; -• • • . ..... •■‘..'•V • .|- ,/ • - y : ■ •. • I, •• * •%! • ..V •V ••*^*;r*» BMIMMlirrfftVt-lWrtBflllA o.0 is ••••* f f • rir > ••••V • tu m *.>rtyyt <9)^ 0 3-1 ,7- 4\ P * t •" i.- P:. Ir *■? t i , .•••*••^•s•—• .•1,% ••• ^»n»» y ■ mfk^ 0^^ \ 1 l»SI - Mi s tv' TO:Jeanne A, Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator FROHs Stephen Weckman, On-Site System Manager DATE July 15, 1992 SUBJECT: #1757 CUP - A. iiunser - Septic Review Septic testing is required for this parcel indicating alternate sites for both the guest house and the main residence. During the review of this subdivision by Jean Mabusth, it was determined that the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka encroached within 75' of the existing guest house as well as the septic system for the residence. This encroachment makes the septic system non-conforming based on the shoreland regualtions and revised spetic code requirements. Jean noted in her March 12, 1992 review for the subdivision request that additional testing must be submitted indicating a second alternate drainfield site for the guest house as well as the abandonment of the existing septic system with the Installation of the replacement system using one of the alternate site for the guest house within one year of the final subdivision. In order to be consistent with Orono Septic Code Section 12.30 however, the septic system for this guest house must be replaced within 90 days of the approval of a CUP. Mark Gronberg has been contacted regarding this issue and indicated that the two alternate drainfield sites for the guest house as well *-s the alternate site for the main residence should be feasible and will submit an addendum identifying these sites on the property survey. As per our discussion, best way to acheive adequate sites for sewage treatment ’^ould be to have one alternate site for the guest house while extending the other alternate site already designated to make it large enough for both the main residence as well as the guest house. Based on the soil testing informa\:ion already provided and previous inspections of the property in question, the drainfield sites should have no problem in treating septic effluent affectively. n1 i' m nit oiiifiiifl L To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Froa:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August 11, 1992 #1758 Jaunes F. Lawrence, 1550 Sixth Avenue North Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.28, Subd. 3 - Conditional use permit required for continuation of guest house use. List Of Bxhibita A - Application B - Property Owners List C > Plat Map D > Septic Report E - Septic Map P - Survey Description of Request During the review of applicant's two lot preliminary plat (Application #1749), the applicant was advised of the need to file a conditional use permit if the secondary structure on Lot 1 was to continue to be used for guest house purposes. The septic testing submitted for the preliminary subdivision confirms the existing septic system conforms to the new setback standards of the Shoreland Regulations for protected tributaries meeting the 75' setback. New septic testing confirms adequate and suitable area for an alternate site serving both principal structure and guest house. As was noted in the review of the preliminary subdivision application, staff advised that a building permit was issued in 1967 for the guest house. The conditional use permit was not required even though the code clearly at that time would have required a conditional use permit. There was mention of a future subdivision that would relocate the guest house structure on a separate lot. Note guest house is located 25' from principal residence. Principal residence was installed in 1960. Staff would recommend that if this property is to ever be subdivided in the future that the guest house structure could be converted into an accessory structure that could now be located 10' from a future division line (structure less than 750 s.f. in area). Total lot aiea at 4.42 acres meets the area standard required for guest house use. i - - - - - -- - - X- - - -• Zoning File 1758 August Ilf 1992 Page 2 Staff Re ndation To approve a conditional use permit for the continued guest house of a secondary structure on the property located at 1550 Sixth Avenue North finding the area and septic standards of the code have been satisfied. Approval is conditioned on the structure never being used for rental purposes but may be used for the exclusive use of guests and employees. * M > ■tx l : *> ■ ^ • f i -‘t i J . r. ^ c’n ■ ♦.I * , i . if *• 1’ iiJiifei ■rirtliilM ieSfl . ♦ r f CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USB APPLICATI PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P,1,D») co/j Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT 4 ^ y' Name v Phone (home) ^ Phone (work) Address/^^^ ONNSR (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone Address Citv Zip Date Prooertv Acouired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES ** CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -* _ _ _ $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP Qfi(^ s .... n huAHCE OFFICE$125.00 Residential accessory Use 1350200000 01 CEN 150. OC $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) CHECK 71 i5<?.C>C ----7" RcCEIPT-Wm YOU $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments U24I960 COOl $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling — 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore . ! PRD/PID see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee 0TB t APPLICATIONS $200.00 $250.00 $175 00 $ 75.00 $300.00 $300.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezonlng (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals Other - see fee schedule -_J PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST . Describe request in detail: C<p/? ^ r 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form* Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obta this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A~603 Governme: Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor)• Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendiuR to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPT (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information .has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and^^cefpLfles that the information supplied is true and correct^^e-'-fH? 1)ee^o$^J»irS7her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)cnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the^roperty by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, ajr^Vj^buncll members for purposes of investigation and verirflcatj:Ofr)o^;Hlls request Owner's signature Date Applicant must riave all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1 <;Q. RUN DATC 0«/U/92 BATCH 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OlOCRS LIST ’ REPORT NO. P143M01 PACE 1 PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER KAME/AOOR SB CA-110-2S SI 0002 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSICNED OUNCAN N DAYTON DUNCAN N DAYTON ASO INDIAN NOUND NAYZATA Ml S5S91 PROP ABDR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB tA-llO-ES SE OOOS 01S70 SIXTH AVE N JOHN E MHITHAN JOHN E NHITNAN 1S70 ATH AVE N lONB LAKE Ml SSS5A PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB EA'IIB'ES SE 0007 tlSSO SIXTH AVE N JANES f LAHRENCE I HIFE JANES P lANRENCE 1550 ATH AVE N LONO LAKE Ml 55S5A PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB EA-11B*ES SE 0011 015S0 TAN6LEH000 RD A J CECIN A 0 C CECIN ANTONIO J A DIANE C CECIN 15S0 TAN6LENOOO ROAD OROin HN 55S5A PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER ^ NANE/AOOR SB EA-110-2S SE OOIA OlAAO TAN6LEHOOD RO J N BOLTE A J SIHONTON WLJl JERRY N BOLTE lAAO TAN6LEN000 LONO LAKE Ml 55S5A PROP ADOR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB E7*110-ES 41 0004 OOOSB AOORESS UNA^IGNEO STATE OP HIMIESOTA STATE OP HINNESOTA um SB E4-11B-ES SI 0011 01075 KNOLL MANOR RD 6 0 CLCVELAfR) A K CLEVELAND GEORGE A KATHLEEN CLEVELAND 1075 KNOLL MANOR RO LONB LAKE Ml 55S54 SO E4-11S-ES SI 0012 01100 KNOLL MANOR RO . 0 E KINGMAN A R R KINGMAN 0 E KINGMAN A R R KINGHAK 1100 KNOLL MANOR RD LONG LAKE HN 55S54 SB 24-11B-2S SE 0005 01540 SIXTH AVE N ALBERT R MIITMAN A HIFE ALBERT R NHITMAN 1540-4TH AVE NO LONG LAKE Ml 55S54 SB E4-llB>n SE 0004 01540 SIXTH AVE N ALBERT R NHITNAN A HIPC ALBERT R MIITMAN 1540-4TH AVE NO • LONG LAKE Ml 55554 • SB 24-llB>25 52 OOOB 014B0 TAIIGLEHOOO RO R 0 HAUSER A S E HAUSER ROBERT 6 A SALLY E HAUSER 1400 TAN6LEHOOO RO $ LONG LAKE Ml 55354 3B 24-llB>25 SE 0010 01520 TANGLEHOOO RO R C JR A J S THOMPSON ROBY C THOMPSON JR . 1520 TANCLEMOOO RO LONG LAKE Ml 55354 1*I SB 24-11B-25 SE 0012 01540 TANGLEMOOD RO J T ANO P B DOUGLAS JOHN T DOUGLAS 1540 TANGLEHOOO RD LONB LAKE HN 55554 SB 24-11B-25 52 OOlS 01550 SIXTH AVE N J F ANO A H LAHRENCE JAMES P LAHRENCE 1550 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE Ml 55354 1 SB 24-11B-25 52 0015 01450 TANGLEHOOO RO L E KENNEDY A J KEMIEOY LENIS E A JEAN KEMIEOY 1450 TANGLEHOOO RD LONG LAKE Ml 55354 30 24>11B-2S S2 0014 0003B ADDRESS UNASSICNED HAYNE A HILLER ET AL TANGLEHOOO IIOMEOHNERS ASSOC 1520 TANGLEHOOO RD LONG LAKE Ml 55354 BO 24-11B-23 25 COOl OOOBO AOORESS UNASStGICD DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1200 HARNER RD ST PAUL MIMI 55104 TOTAL BATCH 001 00017 f, < >'Vv: -.j. ■ '•"it Cv ^ ' -.h' TO:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site System Manager DATS:July 14, 1992 SUBJECTS Subdivision #1749, Jim Law^rence - Septic Review I have reviewed the proposed septic system testing and design for this property and would make the following comments. LOT 1 This lot has an existing residence with an on-site sewage treatment system. The system is listed as a substandard system which includes two 800 gallon concrete block septic tanks and approximately 300 s.f. of drain field trenches. The septic system was installed in 1960 and no problems have been noted to date. Soil testing has been provided indicating alternate drainfield site suitable for a four bedroom and a one bedroom guest house. Specific septic system details are included below: Depth of seasonal saturation (mottling) is 1', requiring a mound. Slope is 0% The percolation rate averages 8.1 minutes per inch at 12 inches. Topographic location and site drainage is adequate All setbacks meet city code LOT 2 Soil testing and septic design have been approved for a five bedroom home including primary and alternate drainfield sites. Both sites meet MPCA rules Chapter 7080 as well as Orono City Code Section 12.30 requirements. Specific septic system details are included below: Depth of seasonal saturation (mottling) is 1' to 2' for both primary and alternate drainfield sites. Slope at the primary and alternate drainfield sites is 3% and 3% respectively. Percolation rates average 8.5 minutes per inch at 12 inches. 5. D m mn II k / Septic Review - #1749 July 14, 1992 Page 2 of 2 b Both sites require mound drainfields. Topographic location and site drainage is adequate. All set backs meet city code. ♦♦♦Note that the alternate drainfield site lies directly between the access road and the primary drainfield site. Snow fencing must be placed around the alternate drainfield site prior to issuance of a buidling permit to assure that construction activities for both the house and the primary drainfield do not compact this site. w I 7 To:Chairman Kelley and Planning commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August 12^ 1992 #1760 Eric Nielsen, 2140 Prospect Avenue Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.28, Subd. 5 A.Area Variance. Required = Existing = 87,120 s.f. or 2 acres 16,101.6 s.f. or .37 acres B.Width Variance. Required = 200' Existing = 93' V-^riance = 107' or 53.5% C.Side Setback Variances. East side - Required = 30' Proposed *» 19' Variance =11' or 36.6% West side - Required = 30' Proposed = 17' Variance =13' or 43.3% Rear - Required « 50' Proposed * 10' Variance =40' or 80% Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) -* Lot Coverage. Total area = 16,101.6 s.f. Allowed = 2,415.24 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,133 s.f. or 13.2% No variance required. List of Bxbibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Survey E - Site Plan P -• Elevations G - Floor Plan - Lower Level H - Floor Plan - Upper Level ■A 't Zoning File #1760 August 12, 1992 Page 2 I Description of Request Applicant proposes to reconstruct a split level residence on the vacant property. The original house was razed in May of 1991 as a result of a hazardo»3s building action. The property has been assessed for sewer and a SAC payment was made in 1988. There is no record of the location of the original house on the property but it was approximately in the same alignment of the existing residences which appear to be within 10-15' of the street/front lot line. The proposed house will meet the front 50' setback but will not meet the required side or rear setbacks. Note the irregular east side lot line places deck approximately 10' from rear lot line. The principal structure at that point is located 22'. Applicant should be asked to consider relocating deck further west on property and still allow an access door from upper level kitchen. The property is not subject to the hard cover regulations of the City as property is not located within 1,000' of a protected lake. The improvement plan meets the lot coverage requirements. Staff has reviewed the files to see if expenses charged against the property for the hazardous building action have been paid. The files reveal that the amount of $2,181.39 still remains to be paid to the City. Applicant must make payment of the full amount upon application for a building permit. The lot is a through lot. All future accessory structures to be installed on the property will require a conditional use permit. Access to the property will remain via Prospect Avenue where lot is at its widest width at 93'. Hardship Stateaent Please review Exhibit A. Applicant notes that lot is less than 1/2 acre in area and subject to 2 acre development standards. The lot is typical in size of the surrounding Crystal Bay neighborhood. A residence had existed on the property before and the property is served with sewer and has been assessed a single sewer unit. Issues for Consideration 1. Can the number or intensity of setback variances sought be minimized? Legal building envelope would measure 33' in width. Lot depth does not appear to be an issue. 2. Is the proposed development plan for this property similar to the pattern of development for the Crystal Bay neighborhood? Zoning File #1760 August 12, 1992 Page 3 3.Can applicant relocate deck further west to minimize setback from irregular rear lot line? Any condition of approval must include the following: 1.Applicant is placed on notice that lot is a through lot. If accessory structures are planned in the future, they will require conditional use permits and be subject to lot coverage controls. 2.Applicant must make payment of $2,181.39 to the City as building cost upon application for building permit. J J r. EVr' ); CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION #1Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per eacn additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) -■1 CITY OF OROm FimCE OFFICE ^"90200000 Oi CSV 225.00 CHECK R 225.00 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 'PA a <> ^pjC(L-'f /dcx.. RECEIPT-THAHK YOUmono cool m m: 07/24/ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(month/year) I T^)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; _ _^residential other(specify) Zoning District;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT / Name I C t Address; (o^X- Phone (home) _ _ _ Phone (worlc; City; Zip;_2!25H OWNER (if diffej^ X Name Address; ichfield, Minnesota Phone (home) (IfisczntEcac^.P. • Personaffrut Phone (worlc) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbaclc; Lot Width Lot Coverage Front Side Hardcover _ _ Rear Average La)ceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements; C ATf- _ _ _Two -- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for yoor application to be considered ccanpletes 1. 2. Completed Application Form _^Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt C*^nter 348-3271). 3. _Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy S^i^xll" for reproductj on). 5. _ _^Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%”xll"). 6. _S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj"xll"). 7. _^As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 8. any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by orlginAJ^^^^f^ee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of and certifies that the information supplied is true and comect/ best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 7-74 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac)cowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i RUM DATE 07/ZI/9Z u DATCM 002 HEMCPIN CCXMTY PftOPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM • PROPERTY OIRIERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 3 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OraCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR (»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR 0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 10-117-23 31 0013 021A0 PROSPECT AVE RICHFLO ONK-TRUST CO TRUSTEE RICHFLO OM(-TRUST CO TRUSTEE AA2S LYNOALE AVE S RICHFIELD MN 5M2S-230Y 30 10-117-23 31 001« 021A3 CRYSTAL AVE RICHFLO Om-TRUST CO TRUSTEE RICHFLO BNK-TRUST CO TRUSTEE 6025 LYNOALE AVE S RICHFIELD Ml 55623-2309 iO 10-117-23 31 0015 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO A L HOPPE ET AL M/L EST ARLEIC HOPPE 1295 ARDOR ST CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0016 02150 PROSPECT AVE HAT NHZTE MARK A A TINA M NHITE 2150 PROSPECT AVE CRYSTAL OAY Ml 55323 30 10-117-23 51 0017 02160 PROSPECT AVE PATRICIA 0 0RUM10N0 PATRICIA 0 DRUMIONO • 2160 PROSPECT AVE CRYSTAL OAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0010 02170 PROSPECT AVE DOeOY 0 JOHNSON A NIFE BOOBY 0 .lOHNSON BOX 123 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0020 01290 ARBOR ST STEVEN R BENSON ET AL STEVEN R BENSON AND JILL T DANIELS-OEI 1290 ARBOR ST NAY2ATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 31 0029 01270 ARBOR ST HARK E LAMONTAGNE MARK E LAMONTAGNE 1270 ARBOR ST NAYZATA Ml 55591 30 10-117-23 31 0036 01205 ARBOR ST JAB MOOD JAY A BARBARA NOOO BOX 63 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 1 ♦P • •..'(. 30 10-117-23 31 0035 01295 ARBOR ST A L HOPPE ET AL N/L EST ARLENE L HOPPE 1295 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL OAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0036 02160 CRYSTAL AVE M A J OLUE MARCUS J A JUDY A BLUE BOX 62 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 50 10-117-23 31 0051 01335 ARBOR ST BARBARA J GARCIA BARBARA J GARCIA BOX 116 1135 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL BAY Ml 55323 •-.*« »•/ 30 10-117-23 31 0052 01355 ARBOR ST 0 C PETERSON A J H PETERSON GREGORY A JULIANNE PETERSON 1355 ARBOR ST NAYZATA Ml 55391 X-'* ■riiiy. TOTAL BATCH 002 00013 ■'.J f —***"-- SI I- P-* I M) i 57)'5»| *• ■>>A a €& V 5 ^— L-ACiLl__:••ME « (1 1 L 8 ir~*s' nif’i » av ------------- (54)8 * 1 (47) 111 8 v^; *(53)* 1 w (55)8 s CO q: --------------------- *(49)l4«)^ •7 5 * • 8 y... V s ! ^ S (56)- •*^ 17 S o CDccc w *(so)y Ml / HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA rn J? Crystal Avenue \ ^92.50 ¥e»^ Hat. «^A/£4, 5iV5{»., $tc-tO-U7-t^, bjjf frut Lines garoikt aith ScafH cfNE'tlint of NE'/^, SW^S. Seelo-in-Z^ ssefian svddi^tilon LintsfiomlldaUh fksfHot .Secio-in-O. iMtsptnman *b</ 0cevfiof/ofiy nceupof/on Vtsi'Hataf Nt/o,S¥m. ..iecJ0~tn'Z3>^f moaoaitnhiHoiy nnj oect^oh'ory S fje9*io’jo"w tf'v. > * seff*20 ’30‘’£ SI5-00 ^ Prospect Avenue bit»rrjsr- af WKt .** hnt ^jLHt, \ so/Ht.Sa€..;a-ifpiSi LEGAL 0I8CRIPTI0N OP PRBM1SS8 SURVBYBOt The Nerth 66 feet of the Beet 72.5 feet of the West 492.S property* to-wlti Thet part of the Portheaet Quarter of the Southweet Quart* Range 23* described ae followat Beginning at a point on « Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township of the Southwest corner of eaid Northeast Quarter; thence 18B.3 feet; thence Bast (parallel with the South line of • Southweet Quarter) 492.S feet; thence South (parallel witi Baet (parallel with eaid South line) IS.9 feet; thence Sot line) 57.3 feet; thence Bast (parallel with said South lit llel with said llaat line) 65 feet; thence Nest (parallel v to the point of beginning, except the Nest 420 feet therer ALSO That part of eaid Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Qjnrt Beginning at a point on the Newt line of said Northeast Qn distant 515.625 feet North of the Southwest corner of sal*’ L' Q r.K>rs ^A L iTH' r-ii-Lr. -s-. — i;24>' V((66«»A^ 2vi« .'Ij rritii T>Mrni-niiiiiftiiniinni m ^ -r "« \X- m. -V t^ v ■ sr\ > .'I ? . V ■••=•: .•• -U >V* . i-' SOUTH . ckCViirroAi 1 - Vv; i^wy: ■ A V ^ DCZ3 -X. r ?fc‘ I CAST CLCVArior\| 1^r KipUWI ei4o (4bM i4iiti«»iitarf6Tii»tiii4i ^AUkJ m - I. II r> • ♦ H. sr 1^ i;.:j r%« ^ - #• «•• •• iiiii r inr.flii 11 10,r.; 1 1— =rr:r«,.------r-r - tj %• — I!-iii — iii( —1 rr-:-*; NORTH EUrV^TlOW '4* i 1 .1 - L. ’"•'i ■ -■■ ^ ‘ • ■ '■' ’ ’ • ' I' ■" it: .J . J^V’, % WPST' KUtVATIOfU -- t i « hii 6 AGENDA WORK SESSION JOINT rriNG OP THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COHMISSION AUGUST 17, 1992 8:00 P.M. TOPIC: Proposed multi-use sports facility (refer to packet prepared for June 15, 1992 Planning Commission meeting) ISSUES: A. Proposed Use 1.Is the proposed use similar to other uses set forth in Section 10.28, Subd. 3 (A)? (Refer to Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (C) and Exhibit 2) 2.Other land use alternatives if use is found acceptable and/or compatible with existing RR-IB permitted and conditional uses. a. Amendment of code creating a. new conditional use b. PUD rezoning (refer to Exhibits 2 and 4). B. Comprehensive Planning Issues 1. Access/rcads. 2. Sewer and water expansion. >Location of proposed use in relation* to other planned uses for property. 4.Explore sharing of required accessory improvements, i.e. parking, access drives, lighting. 5.Plan to reflect potential impact of an expanded County Road 6 (394 corridor). 6.Impact of proposed development and existing developers agreement between City and School District (refer to June 15th Planning Commission packet. Exhibit L). 7. Other planning Issues. Tentative Schedule of Meetings 1, Meeting cf City representatives and School District. Work session for representatives of City Council, Planning Commission and Park Commission. A To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorser City Administrator Prom: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 14, 1992 Planning Work Session - Proposed Multi-Use Sports Facility (Application #1738 reviewed at the Planning Commission at their June 15th meeting as a proposed sketch plan for subdivision/conditional use permit) List of Exhibits 1 - Planning Commission Minutes 6/15/92 2 - John Shardlow Report 6/12/92 3 - Pertinent Sections of CMP 4 - Zoning Code Sections - Special Rezoning: Requirements within Highway 12 Corridor and PUD Cede 5 - Letters from Adjacent Residents 6 •- Comprehensive Development Site Plan of Property Planning Coasdsaion Packet Prepared for June 15^ 1992 Planning Commission Meeting At the June 22nd meeting of the Council, members agreed to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to consider the Orono Area Sports Facilities request to construct and operate a multi-use sports facility to serve year-round hockey, soccer or other school or community sports needs. The facility has been proposed on a 5—6 acre site owned by the Orono Schools to be divided at the northeast corner portion of the 4 5 acre undeveloped property located to the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road. The application was accepted as a sketch plan review for future subdivision and conditional use permit. Please review the enclosed packet for more detailed review comments on that review. Sometime in early 1992, City of Orono staff members and Park Commission members met with Orono School District personnel to discuss the leasing of 4-5 acres of this land for thu development of ballfields. The School District has also provided a conceptual development plan showing a future elementary school, environmental study area and soccer fields (refer to Exhibit N of June 15th Planning Commission packet information). Based on the multiple interests and uses proposed for the 45 acre site, the applicant provided a comprehensive development plan based on the conceptual input of the School District and representatives of the City's Park Commission (review Exhibit 6). t Planning Work Session - Proposed Multi-Use Sports Facility August 14, 1992 Page 2 Addendum to Discussion Outline Proposed Use An ice arena or multi-sports facility use is not specifically sited as a permitted or conditional use in either the residential or commercial zoning districts of the City. Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (C) lists the conditional uses permitted under the section, i.e. camps, clubs, golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs ... and other similar uses. Is the proposed use similar to the types listed under the conditional use permit section? John Shardlow in his report, Exhibit 2, suggests the use i'i not similar based on the intensity of the use and the type O'! conditions that would have to be developed to make the use more compatible. The uses cited under the section suggest open space, large-acred tracts of land. The proposed use has been presented in more of a commercial type of setting. He cautions once the City approves this type of request it would be difficult to deny other similar type uses, i.e. fitness/health clubs, other sports-like arenas, etc. Other land use issues such as intensity of use, magnitude of structure and commercial aspect of operation present potential negative impact on existing and proposed residential uses. Both Planner and majority of Planning Commission concurred that the facility should not be immediately adjacent to areas designated for residential development. Such a use suggests the need for large-acred areas where proper buffering to surrounding residential can be provided. Shardlow advises that in the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2, great care was given to maintain more Intense uses to the southern portions of the corridor and to maintain large rural-like size lots to the northern portion providing the buffer to the surrounding residential area. The sports facility use received positive acceptance from members of the Planning Commission but with reservation. They concurred with the Planner that this may be an opportunity to develop a community recreation complex if the school would agree. This kind of development could only be realized under a PUD rezoning whereby the development agreement would adopt special standards for development and enforceable as a zoning violation rather than as a violation of the conditions of a conditional use permit. Members may recall the review of PUD No. 1 for the Otten Brothers property. The School District would be asked to go through a similar process. idi Planning Work Session - Proposed Multi-Use Sports Facility August 14, 1992 Page 3 Planning Issues to be Addressed with the Ccmprehensive Planning of the Property — Only to be Considered if the City Finds the Sports Facility Use Compatible with the Other Planned Future Oses of the Property Access/Roads It is the desire of the City to minimize new accesses onto County Road 6 and to not encourage the creation of a loop road that would link County Road 6 to Old Crystal Bay Road. Review Exhibit 6, the applicant's development plan shows curb cuts to facility off County Road 6. This would be in complete conflict with the intent of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2. If multi uses are proposed for the school property, an interior access system must be provided off of Old Crystal Bay Road via shared roadway/drives system. The City would not encourage use of 55 m.p.h. speed limit road as the only access to the site. Sewer and Water Expansion Municipal sewer and water must be extended to the properties arjd to the proposed uses. Costs of installation will be less costly if facilities are clustered and located closer to the trunk lines within Old Crystal Bay Road. Location of Proposed Use The majority of the Planning Commission concurred that the use should be moved closer to Old Crystal Bay Road and away from the existing and future residential neighborhood to the north and east. If the sports facility is located along west lot line, this would negate the need for an internal road system. School District representatives have noted that they would rot approve an Internal road system creating potential hazards for the students of the future elementary school. Proposed City bike trails or walking paths can provide access to ballflelds to be located in the eastern portions of the property. Sharing of Accessory Improvements Comprehensive planning for this site would result in the sharing of parking, lighting, access drives and other similar needed improvements with development. The duplication and impact of these uses could be minimized by relocating to the west side of property. ‘r Planning Work Session - Proposed Multi-Use Sports Facility August 14, 1992 Page 4 Impact of 394 Corridor The final plans must address the potential impact of an expanded County Road 6, as the road has been designated as one of the alternate routesfor 394, The City must discourage single curb cuts and the development of roads that access onto County Road 6. Special setbacks from County road may be considered. Existing Agreements Between City and School District The current plan for the development of this property appears to conflict with the agreed upon conditions of a current agreement between City and School District whereby the City would agree to vacate all public easements and roads at the time the school acquires all four parcels (sometime in 1993). These possible conflicts can be minimized if permanent facilities are located adjacent to roadway and other less permanent uses served via bike or pedestrian trails. Tentative Schedule of Meetings If the use is found acceptable and can only be allowed under a PUD, the School District must first understand the need for the PUD and as o%mers of the property must file for the PUD rezonlng. The next step would be to schedule an Informal meeting with the School District to review the City's concerns and the planning issues that must be resolved. Based on earlier suggestions noted at the City Council meeting, it was also suggested that a work session be planned with Council and representatives of Planning Commission and Park Commission before the formal PUD is filed. Isv % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 15. 1992 ZONING FILE #1743 - CONT. Gronberg said that elevation is similar to the culvert. Howell added that the tennis court has been In a s..ate because of the blocked culvert. She noted that the court be resurfaced, but basically Is In good condition. Current owners and future owners have significant Interest in the tennis cour . Peterson asked If the owners have a use for the detached garage. Howell stated It is used for lawn equipment e-»d is in reasonably good shape. Mabusth stated that during a conversation with Jack JJJ]® aoDlIcant’s attorney, she explained the allowed maintenance to structures. She felt that resurfacing was normal maintenance Bellows suggested that In exchange for the drive to be ^ remain too^elose to the wetland, the non-conforming structures Should be removed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded for Application #1743 fcr Albert preliminary subdivision approvai, recommendation #1 through #7, with guest house only to remain under a detached garage and tennis court Rowlette voted nay. by Cohen, to recommend approval Hanser, 1685 Fox Street, for subject to conditions of staff the exception that #6 allow the conditional use permit, and the be removed. Ayes 4, nays 1 . (#2) #1738 ORONO AREA SPORTS FACILITY, INC. P.^.N''rEvfBS°'’po"R 'proposed SUBDIVISION PERMITPUBLIC HEARING 8:23 - 9:27 P.M. & CONDITIONAL USE Tha Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. eastern parcels and is ' , ?' lr«q'? once the purchase JUe rS??ent aoollcatlon would impact the current arrangements with ii i \ jf, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING held JUNE 15, 1992 the City. ZONING FILE tl738 - CONT. M,.usth continued. ^t ne^on, J - Vh“." Vs"t,*r schoorotstrlct for this property. Drainage easements wl I I be taken Ssrpe?™if“.pprovJf'*unde% the code which .Mows ?rcon'’sVde'r ?? th'e fie arena, as a ‘ • ’’/nd?**'"entirely can be allowed under this section of the code. Iharlkny® schoo ’V bl°i'i"d® on thefl*lwlf Vtl V “aci'ii ty llT.VoV^lsT.rr 'o7't'heTl"lteil\’a"cM i°tres!’“'’riln;i thVnK of a reason why it would be considered an inappropriate use. « w anri A«ksd If the ice arena were not realized, what Rowlette said "there Is no place else In the City that I would want to see It. It Is the most appropriate place to be. Mabusth Introduced Del Erickson, architect for the Ice Hockey Association. rhaip Kellev asked If the School Board had asked the Association IS ifsIlU thfs issle with each city within the school district. Bob Halverson, President of Orono Sports Fad 1 'V,that was a condition set forth by the School District. He statea had discussed this with each city within the <=‘- most of the comments were questions which could not that time. Goetten said that no one has approached the Orono Council. Ed Cohen left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. \ % %a I %« 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 15, 1992 ZONING FILE #1738 - CONT. Erickson explained that two years ago they started reviewing the site. He noted the facility Is not strictly for hockey and can be used for other Ice activities as well as dry floor activities. He stated the School Board noted their desire to have the Ice arena located In the northeast corner of the property. The proposed site allows the most appropriate means of access to the County road for sighting and safety purposes. He noted a concern of the School District is that there not be a roadway through any of the playfields. He added access would be a divided driveway with considerable stacking space. They are not proposing Improvements to County Road 6. 250 parking spaces have been provided with the potential of an additional 80 spaces to the west to be used jointly with balI field users. John Lein, 2700 Sixth Avenue North, asked about the height of the building, the cost and the speed limits on both County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road. Carol Carroll, 2600 Sixth Avenue North, noted that all residents with the exception of one, between Old Crystal Bay and Willow Drive along County Road 6 were present. She said she opposed the sports complex for the following reasons: the area Is zoned rural residential, for single family uses; the construction of a durable, economic shelI Is not compatible with surrounding homes; the value of adjoining properties will be diminished; the appi lean; ; a non profit organization, and Is not required to pay taxes; If the facility is built, the property owners expect a reduction in property values; the hours of operation are Incompatible with the area; and traffic moves very fast on County Road 6. Lein said he has resided in his home for 9 years and stated he is not opposed to the ice arena, but felt that the facility does not meet the zoning requirements of the area. He felt there were less obtrusive uses for the properties. He felt that the facility would destroy the nature of the living environment and did not feel It was compatible with the area. He stated berming and plantings are not a practical solution. He noted that staff stated In the memo that this site was chosen because It Is economical and suitable for the organization. He noted as they have pictured development around them, they hoped for attractive homes, not parking lots, lights, and higher speeds. Lonnie Schwarz, 1125 Willow Drive North, stated she moved from Fridley 2 years ago. She agreed with the need for such a facility but felt there was a more suitable area for It. She said she.wanted to preserve the natural environment. ihtAifisifli p I' L_.. hinutes of the ZONING FILE #1738 - CONT. „., .. . .. .r.v"- “"' '■ ”the facility, but merely to the site. Connie Lein stated she Is not ^^heV'Vurc^ theirTtU^n the vicinity of the school She n^^^ 3^^ the home because of Orono s strict zoning m nature of the Planning Commission would vote to preserve tne area. Ton, CarroM said he thought the Idea of placing the arena next to City Hall Isa great idea. Erickson noted that the “’had ^e“vTew‘ld"« li tis^ to capacity all the time. A.I c <les 1 re to locate the ?acimy !f?hls siU^hI iafd that p'arcels along Highway .2 were too expensive.WWW •- - Neil Lawson, Assistant ‘ 1 Vor ^e® pa^^ explained that ^^.® ' -^^J*xcess of 12 acres to the north. The The master plan ' ‘ gchoo I District with the proposalHockey Association approachand the School Board requested the Hockey^ass^^ decided to surrounding communities J*' _ ^ut will in no way make any arrlige;en%"s wM I detract from the primary use for the property. Bellows asked the sita of the proposed elementary school. Lawson stated approximately 700 to 800 students.uavv^wii ' Rowlette asked If there would be sufficient land at the northeas corner. to the arena. Lawson explained that they do not want children to cross a road to get to the play area. 6 i I I 'ft: i: r. '"■t 1! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 15, 1992 ZONING FILE #1738 - CONT. Linda McGInty, President of the Orono Hockey Association, asked If it would be appropriate to discuss the possibility of using a more southern parcel. She noted that area would provide Joint ps^rking with the schooI. Mabusth stated the City owns that parcel and Is the location of the only mature trees on the City property. Peterson asked why they would not wait for a decision on the Highway 12 corridor, as that may impact their decision. Rowlette agreed that it would be appropriate to locate the facility near the school, and agreed with the danger of additional traffic on County Road 6. Peterson said that County Road 6 currently is a traffic nightmare, but traffic should lessen with the completion of 394. Chair Kelley agreed that the City could use a facility such as this, but felt that access onto County Road 6 is too dangerous. He felt this Is a major project and should be treated as such. He suggested a joint meeting with the Council to further discuss the issue. Rowlette asked how this building compares in size with the Public Works building being constructed. Mabusth noted they are very similar in size. Goetten added that if Long Lake succeeds with incorporating 400 acres of Orono within Its boundaries, this parcel would be affected. Bellows asked If there were time restraints. Halverson said they have been presen*:ed with an option to purchase. McGInty noted that the Committee is doing an admirable job. She urged the Commission to consider the proposal with Intensity. Callahan said the Council would set a joint meeting date at the next Council meeting. k I DAHLGREN Sf lARDLOW AND-UBAN • • • • • CONSULTIN'C PLAXNHSS L.VNDSCAP* AJiCillTlCTS oCO rISST AVENUE NORTH SUIT! 2IG tMINNSAROLIS. MN 55-sOI 612-339-3300 MEMORANDUM DAIt: 12 June 1992 ♦ • • TO: Orono Plasnins Commission c/o JcannfrMabusth *. FROM; RE: John Sbardlow, AICP Suimnary of Comments Related to Proposed Ice Arena on ^e School District ’ Property, Lx the Sootbeast Qoadmnt of Crystal Bay Road azid Cotni^ Highway 6 I have had the oppoctnnity to briefly review Sectioa 10.20, Snbd. 3. (C) of the Orono Zoning Ordinance as it rdates to die proposed ice arena. I have also spent ariiort time reviewing the sketch plans tha** have been submitted for review and I have coo^ared diem with die land uses and alternate development plans that, were developed and presented* at extensive public meetings during the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Since I have only a riiort'time to put these comments togedi^ to make them available for yonr packet, I will confine my coraments to the following topics: general comments on the idea of an ice arena in diis general loc^on, a discussion of the companbilrty of this.proposal with the ' . Cotnprriiensive Plan, consistency widi die R-IA One Family RKidential District standards, and a cuisory criaque cf the plan for the overall school district property and the effects of this proposal on this land: GENERAL COMMENTS The idea of an ice arena In relativeiy dose proximity to Orono Hi^ School .seems Ipa agood idea. This would seem to be mnmally beneficial to die sdool and the owners of this fodlity. With the proposed elementary school and ball and soccer fields for both the City and di6 School District, there would appear to be an oppoitoniiy to create a oonunnnay recreation comply Ite proximity of all of <f*^*f* fociliiies presents the oppoctzmiiy to gaiit efCoencies and economies through shared roadways, riiared.packzrig and ofoer fodlides. CONSISTENCT WITH THE'COMPREEIENSIVE PLAN • • • There are a mnnflecof immediate concerns diat arise when this sketch proposal is compared with anv of the alternate plans that are illnstrated in the Comprehensive Plan. The most basic concern, is thi this use is considerably more-intense than the large single family.lots dial were contemplated in this area. I have not analyzed the impact on sanitary sewer demand. but. at the very least this use % ! i.iSI i* d\ wodd hsre pesk ise characterisdcs that would greatly exceed die planned uses and diis sbocld be evaluated. The other major difference is related to tcafSc generadon and planned access. The ice arena would generate many more trips, pardcolariy during events and the santra of die use is such that people would tend to arrive and leave in. concentrated periods. The other principal concern and one that I strongly believe needs to be addressed is the proposed direct access onto County Hi^way 6. None and it should be avoided if at all tepm County Hi^way D^artmeutwin require the ocnstnicdon of tom lanes to allow these two curb cuts to be constructed. While I have not done any cost comparisons, I have to briiare that the cost of bmlding* these nim lanr^ would go a long way toward bmldiDg an interior roadway, whidi wonld be fa better fh)m a cozunmni^ planning perspeddve, as well as benefir die School District’s plans for the future. of the plans oontemplated direct land access onto this roadwOT and h possible. I undecsta^ fiom a discussion with Glen Cook the^ Hei ZONING ANALYSIS Ice arenas are not lismd as etdier a pennitted or conditional use in the R'-IA DistricL Uses that are not listed as perxnhted, accessory, or conditional are generally considered to be prohibited in the district, unless a ffnrfing can be mads that use is si^ciendy similar to a use that is listed. lii other words this question calls for an interpretation by the City. Obviously the section in the code that is the closest is Section 10.20, Subd. 3 Conditional Uses. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. This secdon lists other recreadonal nses such as tennis clubs, public swimming pools to serve more than one ftmfly, camps, playgrounds, and private paries. The similarity diat exists is that both ice arenas and mai^ of die listed uses involve recreational activities. The difference lies in die Intensity of the proposed use when con^ared to a camp or a private park. Many of the listed condhiooal uses would logically occur in a park like setting, w^ a large component of open space. The development pattern shown, on die sketch plan calls for this use to be developed on a lot in a manner nmdi more like a bnsiness than a camp or park. Conditional uses are Qpically defined as nses that may not be acc^table in a zoning district hsr a number of rtasoos Orelated to intensity of the use or other dzaractedsdcs) but which may be made conqiatfble duou^ the of conditions. We can assume diat die objective would be to deteonme <'ondidons «hat would result is. to adjacent low* density residential neighborhoods, that would be comparable to diose that would occur if it was also devriqped in a low density residential pattern. Given the wtensky of this use and the bouts of opetadon ^ically associated with them, substantial bulTering would be to meet the test. The obvious qaesdon that occurs to me - is why locate it next to this future nei^iboihood instead of closer to die sriiool buddings? This would provide mudi greater physical s^aradon and go a long tvay toward addressing this compatibility quesdon. I would want to discuss thiy msttmr with the City at greater length befbre rwidering an opinion, but, I do think this use is substantially more intensive ihm the others listed in this section and the qussDon of adecuate conditions of approval sbonld be carefully considered, if the City chooses to allow this nse. You should also consider the fact by malnng this interpretarion you establish a precedent for other siinilariy atari cases. Whatever decision you make you should be pr^ared to mnlm consistently in similar sitnations in the fumre. For this reason, as well as others, I would favor processing rfiis appUcadon as a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). I believe the PUD process wonld also pcesent several beneSts to the School District as this use affects the futtzre ose of ail of their land. C0>D1EMS BELATED T01 PROPERTY MASTER PLAN FOR TBE SCHOOL DISTRICT My impressioii from my brief review of the plan for all of the School Distria Proper^ left me with the dlstmct in^iressioa Aar Aey located Ae proposed ice arenas as Ar away Aom. Ae proposed school site as possAle. The logic would ^ear to be Aat this decxsioa would preserve Ae most flexibili^ far Ae fimne. The problem wzA this ttifnlrfnj 1$ Aat any decision Aat is made rdated to part of Ais land ecfeccs Ae whole. There does not appear to have been much Aon^ given A Ae signifieant po tential for sharing between AeseAmre uses. Among Ae most obvioos would be savings in access roads and shared paridng, but, Aere are a number of other design considerations Aat have very dearly not been worked out. AlAough I do not know fyr sure, it certainly appears that Ae School District is opting Ar Tn^fmgf planning at Ac very rime that planning will yield Ae maximum benefit. SUMMARY In Ae short time Aat I have had to pr^are Ais memo Ihave tried to hit Ae highlights of Ae issues and concerns that this proposal raises. My haste has not allowed me Ae time to state Aese commemi wiA Ae diplomacy that I would have liked to presenL I have raised a number of issues thatifeei are in^oitant, but, I want A dose by restating my generally comments Aat basicafly I feel Ae idea of this use in Ais general location has merit. The plans Aat I have reviewed do not reflect anyAmg dose A Ae levd of overall master planning Aat I belidve Ae sitaatioo. demands. Please let me know how and when I can be of forAer assistance. ilMHiiiniSftiiMUn tillirtiimiVilillikirfi 1 'X 4 . SUMI-IARY OF OBJECTIVES 4.1 Background The principal goal of all development in Orono as stated in the Comprehensive Management Plan is the protection of the Community's major surface water resources, both Lake Minnetonka and Long Lake, together with other natural features. Because of this, land use controls have been designed to limit storm water run-off and non-point pollution. These controls for lakeshore properties employ the concept of limiting hardcover to minimize direct run-off into the lakes. The regulations for run-off in the watershed away from the lake include reducing density to one unit per 2 acres and in certain portions of the community to one unit per 5 acres. This thereby limits the watershed hardcover by reducing the amount of buildings and other imperious surfaces. The one unit per 2 acre ratio is utilized because it has been determined that this is the minimum lot area necessary to support on-site sewage treatment systems. More intense development would escalate the demand for density in order to defray the cost of municipal water and sewer. This comprehensive plan amendment applies the general goal of environmental protection to an area which has substantially different features than the balance of "Rural" Orono. The primary consideration for alteration in land use was to allow for compatible development that would be able to support the increased costs resulting the necessary upgrading of muncipal services such as transportation, utilities, and public service provision. ... i ,v- 4.3 Principal Goals Compatible Uses and Transitions - A significant concern is to develop land uses that provide appropriate transitions between the traffic and noise associated with Highway 12 and quality single family neighborhoods beyond. More intensive commercial uses were judged to be appropriate adjacent to the highway, but these uses should not extend so far back from the highway corridor as to adversely effect any established neighborhoods. Any development should be limited by the location of existing natural features and the capacities within the available utility systems. Land Use Mix and Balance - Given any alteration, the objectives established in this area include providing for a wide range of complimentary land uses. Every effort should be made to balance peak demands for transportation and utilities, while providing a range of community services and retail and convenience stores for local residents. Performance Standards - This goal is the development of implementation tools using the performance approach to allow for the flexibility to proi^ide preservation of natural environment features, compatibility with surrounding development and require ment that a number of selected issues be addressed before the development can take place. These standards would be used both within and outside any extended Municipal Urban Service Area 9 m development of a four lane Highway 12 through Orono during the late 1960 ’s and early 1970's, MnDot has significantly revised their priorities so that at present no significant expenditure is indicated in the corridor over the next 20 years. Because of recent work by the Highway 12 task force from Willmarr MnDot has Indicated a willingness to again discuss possible upgrading to Highway 12. The developed alternative is based on the assumption that only minimual changes will be considered for to Highway 12. Should MnDot propose significant changes within the Highway 12 corridor. there exists substantial right-of-way in the Orono portion of Highway 12. 6.2 Highway 12 - Capacity of Existing Utilities Sewer represents the major limitation in serving more intense development in this area. The current trunk line, which also serves adjacent communities allocates only 116 aociitional sewer units for the Orono area in the western section of the corridor. However, various improvements to a short segment of the line would result in an increase in capacity to 600 units. This improvement would be financed by developers of the area to be improved. The only additional alteration that v/ould then be required to the system would be the addition of another 1,000 GPM pump for which adequate...............................................w. . W. area is available in the MWCC pump station. The existing Orono allocated sewer capacity (116 units) would be allocated to the properties in the original sewer district, and the availability of capacity for development in excess at the available units will need to be demonstrated prior to a developer being granted the desire zoning. Municipal water would be provided from the Long Lake system, the capacity of which was recently increased by installing a 1 id...._______ >oe(0 0 01 O c tro S8 UJ (/)s t= 2:1O ^ >» qS UJ _J o ^ I g5 & UJo£ oo i <e® LU » !r M r k i?: 9 ZOi * Si (T OD 3 C ts 9 % w3 C9 Co *3 C <to 8 i? I ? ? I I 3a : I I ■ fS GO OI u. < (/) o eo (/)c 9 X UJ •o 9</i O ^ I 3 20. ; It I: {• 3. AREAS FOR CHANGE 3.1 Introduction - The areas in which changes are anticipated has been broken down into 5 areasr as shown on Figure 21. CMf 0« / ’ ^ e in ^ • - • ' /. !r:*. -■i:.- 'a- .. ,.25i ^>V T*;-. — -- msmsstm2uii^BK9lliUs|| ^11^ ' - - r . •«- , f !AiisqpMis ?L.- -J" rr^—^ I • IK.• •I— :.- • *. --n: •• •I *••s mmmm A . Scrct City of Orono HIQHWAY 12 CORROOR SIVDY WMttfn Portion AREAS FOR CHANGE Fig. 20 The following discussion will highlight each area's significant features» the alternatives that were considered and the recommended alternative. mm •••.* iiiiiil*#*® r »s s L*. Jr :m< m Siaafts’:^ »ih(Slf> »0')f ■T* 111 I I I I I I I I I »il‘l I I'M t r Kw^yyyy^r r^4iyists^' yjll Ml I I44;» Area 1 Fig. 21 if 3.3 Property Area No. 2 - Description - This area represents substantial existing industrial development. Abutting Highway 12, however, are some existing residential structures which may some day be redeveloped. In addition to some minor development of property in this block, the major consideration is a frontage road which would serve as an access link between Old Crystal Bay Road Willow Drive. This route, if constructed, would eliminate direct access for the industrial properties onto Highway 12.The primary frontage routing could have the access then tie into Daniels Street in Long Lake, allowing for through traffic from Old Crystal Bay Road to South Brown Road. The alternative frontage routing may tie into either Daniels Street or the existing street to the east. Other potential development would include removal cf the residential farm structures/quasi commercial use at the southeast corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 with replacement by a limited industrial activity. This area currently is served by both municipal water and sewer. - [ / / ■ [• . .1 ../".'a eURLNQTON — NORTHERN —RAIROAO ■■■ Primary Frontage Road #•••• Alternate Frontage Road iKi 3.4 Property Area No. 3 - Description - This area designated as Property Grouping No. 3| is the largest single property in the study area designated for change. Substantial portions of the 188 acre area were assessed originally for both water and sewer, however subsequent unit allocations resulted in severe limitations for development. Soils in the area for on-site sewage treatment are very limited. The only existing development is a church in the western portion of this site, abutting Old Crystal Bay Road. Significant areas are designated wetlands. Discussion of Alternatives - The above alternatives are as follows; ~ Remain as 2-acre single family rural residential. This would entail leaving the property zoned as is (rural residential with the exception of a small B-1 zone), for possible development at 2 acre standards. Because of the concerns of soils, particularily on the southern portion. plus the proximity to Highway 12, it is doubtful that actual single feunily development would occur in the southern area. 1967 UTILITY ASSESSMENT AREA ; V . .'i'.- ■" • .*• I A- .W Fig. 23 ft —.<^<1 !l I: - Development within existing capacities* In developing alternatives for this area, the Consultant presented 4 schemes for development in this area. In addition, the most affected property owners presented their own development scheme. The first 4 schemes provide for frontage road connection between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive and other circulation to the site, together with retention of appropriate wetlands. Such developments are within the realm of "existing capacities" without requiring substantial capital investment to any metropolitan systems. The first four schemes represent varying degrees of transition from commercial along Highway 12 to multi-residential up to the wetlands with low density single family between the wetlands and County Road 6. Scheme 5, as proposed by the property owners, would necessitate the construction of a new sewer line to the Long Lake plant, with resulting sewer units in the range of approximately 1,200. This may still be within existing metropolitan interceptor capacity but would put a greater burden on the system than the selected alternative. Scheme No. 1 - As the most intensive of the first four alternatives, this would provide for 24 units of residential development in the northern half of the site, 73 units of town homes, 144 units of i inulti-family/apartments and a commercial office development. totaling 215,000 square feet on 25 acres. The main feature of this would be a consolidated commercial/office site centered on a property, as opposed to Scheme No. 2 where there would be individual pads. Development on this site would be served by municipal sewer and water. In the northern part, single family be grouped to take advantage of on—site sewage treatment Alternative 1 I Area* 3 Fig. 24 possibiIxtiles given bhe limited soil conditions for such. As an alternative these could be grouped to allow for sewer should the soils be to found to be unsuitable. However, the density would remain at the 1 unit per 2 acres The above mentioned alternative provides the appropriate transition to the properties both to the east and the north developed or to be developed at the 2 acre standard. Scheme No. 2 - As indicated, this scheme should a variation in the commercial configuration and reduces the commercial/office space from 215,000 to 170,000 square feet. In addition this would eliminate the multi-residential but increases the number of. town homes from 70 to 228. Fig. 25 u> TT—ii r in M p;i Scheme No. 3 - This scheme represents further reduction of office space down to 52»000 s.f., but adds 192 units of multi-family with 110 units of town houses. Scheme No. 3 differs from Schemes 1 and 2 in the frontage road area by having principally the single facing frontage road abutting Highway 12 as a means to buffer the expanded residential property from Highway 12. It allows for safe stacking distance back from the intersections at Willow Drive# Highway 12# and Old Crystal Bay Road. Alternative 3 i Area 3 Fig. 26 1 . i I Scheme No. 4 - This provides for only 2 0,0 0 0 square feet of commercial/retail in the southwest corner of this grouping and expands the housing to 220 town homes with no multi-family. This again features a single facing frontage road, as noted in Scheme 3. vM4in Alternative 4 ^ Area 3 Fig. 27 j '-----^ i • ^♦1 Scheme No. 5 - Property Owners Proposal - This scheme proposed approximately 270,000 square feet of commercial/retail/office with approximately 340 to 350 apartment units and 120 to 240 town homes with 34 unsewered single family 2-acre residences in the north part of the parcel. rnii»mr HlCHWAY^jP..!.-----------------jL HENNEFIN CO UMAKY vs. MICMWAY* NO."n oma tuiuMNc 1 STOIttS omci BUILOINC a SIMMS i Property Owner Proposal ^ Area 3 Fig. 28 —ngBtll 11 ' I Recommended Alternative - The wetlands and natural vegetation in the area provide an excellent transition between the more intense use planned for the south and single family 2-acre to the north. Utilizing this as a break, the area to the north will remain at the 2-acre rural residential standard. For the area south of the wetlands, the planning consultant has offered four development schemes. providing multi-family units (either town house or apartments) to the immediate south of the wetlands with alternatives for varied commercial uses abutting Highway 12. The four alternatives of development are considered at an acceptable level for projected sewer needs ranging from 300 to 450 sewer units.The configuration of the frontage road would be dependent on the type of development undertaken but would provide for access points at Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive, approximately 30C back from their intersections with Highway 12. Co. Hm: ■ ■ I 11 r| .••••••••I• ••••••••I• • ••••••■• •••••••■ • ••••••••41• •••••••il,*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*JI !•••••••• •.!!•••••••• if p ii i »•••••••• *•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*♦*•*•*•••••••••••••••#• ••••••••••••••a• •••••••••••••a • ••••••••••••a I— • •• ■••••••••••I*>M*»!*M*>X*M* •••«••••••••••'• •••••'••••••a • ••••••••••••a.• ••••••a •••••aHvxtirxvxrixxrji• •• ••••*•••••• •••••••••••#•••• •••••••••aaaaa _• •••••••••••••a a]• • *••••• •••••••• • •••••••••••••aal• •••••••••••a• •••••••••••a •^■H • •••••••••■•a a ■ ~• •••••••••••••ifl• •••••••••••a a^• ••••••••aaaaa• •••••••••••a a^• •••aaaaaaaaaaiS• ••••••••••aa a 1 • ••••••••••aaai^ *•*•*•*•*• "•*.*•*•*•*•*• *.*•*•*•’ •*•*•*•*•*•*♦*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•* *•*•*•*♦ •*•*•*•*•*»*•*•*• •*♦*•*• (••••a* a a a • • • aL*.v.*.* • •ra* •*•* ■ •••••••ara a • • • • * Single family 2ac. •:::::-x:-x*x:*x x:x::>'x-:->:*::x; _'_*_*_*_* *-*-*_* * * IC^PTOR ii / •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.‘.•a a *•*•*•*•*a*a*a*******^*^***^^ I • ••••»*>«««aa*i • •••••••••••aaa^ • ■■•■■•••••••(•^ ^a* *•* x-::>- I • • • a • a « • •«•■•«••••••• •■• •••••»«•«•••••■• •••••••••••••~ • I •••*■• .«•••• »••••••••••• • l••c•$vee v\ • s' • • 1 B • • • • j . - « . • .•••••••«#■•• • * •••••••«•••'• •.«•••••• *• ■••••••••• - •• • •••••••aaa«:-:-x-x:*x*xt • •••• •••«••• ••••••••• • ••••••••< ••••• M Multi-Family Residential pg •*' ..•••'• • • • • •*a*a*4^^«*« a a • • * *. • **sceseA<*: ' ' \ mmmmm •X* I P*iMiary Frontaga Road Altarnata Frontage Road Proposed Alternative Area 3 Fig. 29 i r IV. SUMMARY OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ISSUES 1, INTRODUCTION While this alteration in development represents a significant change for the City of Orono with redesignation of the municipal urban service boundaries^ tlie extent of change is not of the magnitude of some other significant developments considered by the Metropolitan Council for comprehensive plan alteration. It does however# provide for development which is able to be accomodated within substantially existing capacities for both utilities and transportation. 2. SANITARY SEWER It is noted in the introduction on page 29 , together with a description of the existing sewer service of the area# that the principal capital expenditures to accomodate the western portion of the corridor will consist of upgrade? to the existing Medina/Orono/Long Lake interceptor line whi h is operated by a Joint Powers Agreement by the three cities. It is anticipated that this development will pay for its share of the cost of those improvements. Other capital improvements include the addition of a 1#000 GPM pump at the Long Lake pump station located in Orono# which transports sewage from the gravity line to a MWCC force main. Service to the corridor will be provided by the Medina/Orono/Long Lake interceptor line# with additional service from existing of Long Lake faciliti s. Service to this area will be obtained from Orono's current allocation together with an additional capacity obtained improvement and by negotiation with the cities of Long Lake and Medina. The other significant* mil --- interceptor is the Maple Plain/Long Lake interceptor, a force main that exists within corridor. As is noted on page 28, it is anticipated that this MWCC force main will not be utilized for service in the area, with some noted exceptions,. This is in part based on the fact that Orono was in opposition to installation of the subject force main, and the fact that the operating capacity of the line, will probably allow for only 50 units for that section between Old Crystal Bay Road and the Long Lake pump station. The anticipated net increase in units for this area will be in the range of approximately 500 (600 total units in the Medina/Orono/Long Lake line, minus 116 units currently allocated to the City of Orono). It is anticipated that the net addition of 500 units will not be of significant impact either to the interceptor system discharging to the Blue Lake Treament Plant nor to the plant itself, given that this change would be while there are upgrades anticipated at the Blue Lake plant. Ik.3. TRANSPORTATION One of the primary goals during this study was that any altered development should be of a nature that would pay for improvements to the corridor. The primary improvements would be installation of frontage roads both to the north and south of Highway 12, together with improved intersection control, at least at the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12, The intent is to keep local east/west traffic off Highway 12 as much as practical, to provide local traffic with at least one more intermediate control point for crossing Highway 12 at Willow 90I I : Drive, and to limit direct access on to Highway 12. Additionally, by providing retail services and housing in close proximity to the existing arterial, transportation demands on other transportation corridors should be diminished. It is anticipated that the general transportation needs will be within existing capacity and that this development will not exacerbate existing problems with the system. It is anticipated that this development should pay for the local cost of improvement, at least the intersection control points together with payment of a substantial amount of the frontage road improvement (less any appropriate MSA funding for such roads). imim lnt«nnodl«t0 ArtifiaJ 9tm*m MnorArtarial Existing Signal ^ ^ Proposed Signal Proposad Road (primary) City of HIGHWAV CON STUDY •74 APT 1964 Avaraga Daily Tr^ Waatam Portl>i> Proposed Transportation System Fig. 35 riiWAdi —^ § 1C.-51 E. The crocosed development is of such a unique nature as to require'consideration under conditions of the industrial unit plan; and. F. It shall be determined that the variances are required for reasonable and practicable physical development accordinq to a plan and are not required solely on the basis of financial considerations. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 (Sections 10.52 through 10.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) § 10.52 SECTION 10.52 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Subd. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12 past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City. Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-0-89 Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. ORONO CC 359 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) I § 10.52 If sanitary sewer or municipal water system improvements are proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with ^ 9 _______ ^ 2 .m •••11 V hA VM7 tllGproviding this additional capacity will be paid for by development. Source; Ordinance 78, 2nd Series Adopted; 1-22-90 Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the Storm Water Management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards. Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts Due to the unique set of constraints a .id opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section; B-6 PRD RIA RIB M6 Highway Commercial District Planned Residential Development One Family Residential District One Family Residential District Multiple Family Planned Residential District Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as a Planned Unit Development. Subd. 6. Building Design and Construction In addition ;:o other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: ORONO CC 359-1 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 v' ■ ■ ~ifi ■ I I I § 10-.52 A. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Face brick, or Natural stone, or S):ecially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in items a, b and c above, or glass. Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. B. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. C. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of all of the public improvements associated with the development and the developers' financial commitments related to these improvements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions of approval deemed necessary to insure compliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, as well as the goals and objectives of'the Highway 12 Corridor Study. ORONO CC 359-2 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-0-89 i i .JL. § 10.53 SECTION 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Subd. 1. Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow: A, Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses« housing types and densities. B. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks^ yard areas^ lot sizes» minimum house sizesr minimum requirements* and other performance standards associated with conventional zoning* planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. C. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. D. Density Transfer: The projiict density may be clustered* basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. E. District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: 1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. 2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity pf PUD projects* regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the Citv of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 adopted May 23* 1988. Subd. 2. Allowed Uses: Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6 of this Title. ORONO CC 359-3 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 § 10.53 Subd. 3. Required Standards; For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most similar to the proposed development. In the event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City Council. Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and resident of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Subd. 4. Coordination With Subdivision Regulations: Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. Subd. 5. Revisions and/or Changes r. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator. B. Changes in uses: Significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. C. All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. ORONO CC 359-4 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 I# § 10.53 D. Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the FUD Zoning District as set forth in the Developer's Agreement, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error. Subd. 6. Phasing and Guarantee of Performance. A. The Plannl. g Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with rhe approved development schedule. B. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. C. The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If tney find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces a.nd public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. D. A letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. Subd. 7. Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion. A. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. B. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below: 1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Commictee if they are consistent with the purposes and inte.nt of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%). Ordinance 67, 2nd Series ORONO CC 359-5 Adopted; 5-8-89 1 j $ 10:53 2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. 3. Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. Subd. 8. Development. Procedure for processing a Planned Unit A. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. 1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: a) Overall maximum PUD density range. b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. c) General location and extent of public and common open space. d) General location of residential and ncnresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e) Staging and time schedule of development f) Other special criteria for development 2. Schedule: a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed developments. b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. ORONO CC 359-6 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-0-89 % ORONO CC § 10.53 c) Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate^ the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description/ description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property in question. e) The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f) The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. 3. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(D) for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. 4. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be sumbitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. General Information: (1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. Ordinance 67, 2nd Series 359-7 Adopted: 5-8-89 id ^ 0m ii L c) ORONO CC § 10.53 (2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3) The names and addresses of ail professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the property. (2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet ( 1,000') of the property. (3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. (4)A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the mar)cet which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Pla.i and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100'). 359-8 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 a V ^ ORONO CC § 10.53 (a) Contours; minimum two foot (2') intervals. (b) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (c) Slope analysis. (d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (e) Significant rock outcroppings. (f) Existing drainage patterns (g) Vistas and significant views (h) Soil conditions as they affect development All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. (6) Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (7) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (a) Area developed to residential uses. (b) Area developed to residential use by building type. (c) Area devoted to common open space (d) Area devoted to public open space (e) Approximate area cevcted to streets. (f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. Ordinance 67, 2nd Series 359-9 Adopted: 5-8-89 M\4 S 10'.53 (h) Approxiroate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (9) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10) Any rescrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds - • . . • • • • ^ A ^ ^ W w ** w W ^ db. 4» A 4 4 W to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13) The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to : (1) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. ORONO CC 359 -10 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 i i t ORONO CC § 10.53 (2) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than cne inch equals one hundred feet (1" - 100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (a) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject property is situated). (b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (c) The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, and existing buildings which will remain, if anv. (d) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (e) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (f) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (g) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (h) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. (i) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (j) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. 359-11 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 "% Iuuqni^'TJ^’TO^'l ’V**-'*' 1 ?.‘^‘;aiir--;:>:-..;?:: 4^, , . ‘ V * ' ' ^ • •''•* - i ’'r; i „ -V' ru: ' • !^' ' ?f. ■ •i\V'. >.: > -.' ■>: >• : '■U-: .VV l?S<:i.:'.i‘;^;r::' ■■ ■ ■'V^' ■ !£■■: ■': ■ '.• •. ■■■' f;' ' TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL, ORCNO PLANNING COMMISSION. AND ORONC PARK COMMISSION'0v"■cROK: Diin* Sf Ichs*n I\^’\ r i 'T* L^v 2500 6t:h Ave. N. Long La^«. Wi 5S356 .V'.v-r.'-v, -V > .V I iir> Ciitf r*SiU«fi*iC k 2500 6tn >n«* u, in Crwtic«T —iTiCvec nei ? o £i %Go '.'I'h '?•/ hu9<2iric! ^."d t'*o y*2f old ds•Jgh^*^. On* •"? cascr.s tor T.ov.r.g to tr.e ir*a 'ms oeoaose or :r.* rural 90 it IS v#ry aisturoing to h*af that thert may oe a large ice Arena a few ooor? cicwn frotj* n»y nosne. Mot or*i * v« * • *w«3 ^U4«* %*te rurai aciwM|)h«r« oc Uut acta for ail the rasicancs, out I also raa; tnis :s a vary oangarous situation tc nava a cnveway entrance off County Road 6. The average speed on County Roac 6 appears to o« 65 oipnv, ano to have cars stopping ano turning on this roao is an accicent waiting tc happen. ■■■ ;:-y . V ' ■■-X e> ‘ j-■-•■■«■" ^ •i'.. . . . . . . '■im I am not against an ice arena tor Orono, sut I ac feel thiit it wouio oe oetter suitea off highway i2 and Gid Crystal eay Road for access anc safety reasons. Sincereiy, P : ■- V. 0 ^ mm •i •.'■■' A: ;.!' y k .7 •■ ■ -Im'0y: V' ■ » M luna^n ■ ;,d ■'•'vX ., ‘■- ■ V \v, ■■ ■. V 3'' •-•■-• „i^| ^mmMMmm• : V •y^ -rs-'V-v . ^ ^jyy:y>\'s yy.*ty5«yfV"yvp-y;“"^>,v,:;-ji'. ■'y.. . . . .... -> • V y> ■ • .rr - y--z^ < ■ M& 0y0. f ^ />'/./-* v;<-j',*'* *i r' •»**! ■ ' ''*.:.'.l‘ ' ‘.Vvt'k.- -■■.S' : • 'i ' t ‘ ' ■■■' '''-yAyyy0y^■ y:yyskis?wa# y!t> ■'v-SiSK.:*r' »*A<4 - .•=« v;;--.- :-:X. ',.• .? . 7vr ■: . .V •^••Wy • ' :•■ : •>; : -^ : ^ ^ > ^ :v/: -m - i ^‘0:. 0: ■'} •• *5 X{- ■."1 .• •*..'• 1 .• « . • ■•• 'i.: ■••n- -- - ‘ V *?.••%- p. M' {■ ^ S:''■ ■■,■'?•:-■ a •^3fer1 ‘>% - -vf -i. .-.r'( ;,..^ .. ^ . . f'A? 'v : ■■! y*>m OPONO CITY council, OPOMC PLAMMIMC COMMISSION, AND OPOMO PARK COMMISSION i" -'■ •X.. *> v» *, - '■- V K};4 .xua I : •r? :-•% *■■: WiliiirTt Erichs^n 2500 6th Avenue N. ?-5e « •*i*. •. ‘ '■ ^ MAJ 5S^C i'/ n aine . s «i i i I oiii s,;* 1 cnstf n.I ; </t? iZ 4^0%Jk/ cCn nV^TiU^ itOrCri au S** •»%« S •>• IW « ».• * • I «/«fcr'« » ri O* »»fri»2**J ** *'!?^ ?* r!C3C 3crc^5 rr *««•<• V • >» U • r»^c: > •re.a «ame pfooliKRS ccRing to cur r»jr3: irea •^ith -he iddition of an ' a 1, ^ <a ^ "a »rt * c*^** )• •• .-»»i^vi«A« %»^i344ie • w'^*« cne niom scnooi. During special sporcinoi events ;ne :ra£:ic was &m$S. insane: police were neeueo :o airecr. trartiv. .cere was a *oC oc cfisv Ofivlno with people squealing tires out oi rne parking lot, i.f- orignt lights, noise, anc congestion. I ncvea to tnis area to ^9 % sa I a a • % ■•%•••% ^ *• «k|f s* V •• ^ ^ 4.* •' ::t'I feei the ouiloiiig would de inotu suited In a coiQiQerclal area off Highway i2 oy the other city eftices/buiicings going up.( ■■ 'i >n' - X : .,v% Thanks for iooking at the dramatic impact this would have or. t.he residents off of and around County Road 6. ■■ . ^ •-.» (32^^^:wuilm ErTchsen ■ ■- -<i-,.- .• ' • ■ '■ • ■ - : I -^ • . .i r -‘ I.*-;. t;- ■■. ■- ■.:' rpi/--rvrprr«p: • ,:.,r '■ - ,.r ■: r:-,,;v'ir;Vrar'^;>sr^\ A . ' i ' •• ‘ .. • ■. .'■ J 1 .i ^rmm r. ;';v ^ V. ,.•■•■ •1.. . >.* ■:» ■'• .y^vrr;r — ipvk''^-'"r- iv :t wif- r'- ^.r-rMr ■ : . .» , '_* ■ ’■ ■' ’i'' ^^ diirlti Si V ” V •■* ' » ■_ Vv v’r ‘T • V' it.;* -- ^ - r-:-".*; V rw. -.. r>V \.>: rf^ -I'-to'flU.-- • * v-^ - i''-••vTA*: ••'.^ r-i '^■ 'r-. '1^. -' ‘i- . ■' ■ .I’w »a^- ■«»ki .'J ■:.,'.f'-A- fc--f T ’•' •-’* . 1^ ' '>^w!-:i'.';' ; vvjftev ■ ^-r;- 5. . -'m ^V. V. .f liM *0:Jeanne A. M&auStn. Chairman KeMey, ano Planning Commission Heaoers rfon: John H. Lein 2700 6tn Avenue North *»ong Lai< e. MN 55356 RE: The proposeo site tor the Orono Arena Sports Facility 1 am not opposed to an ice arena going into the general area. However. I am vehemently opposed to it being erected across tne .highway from me. with ingress ana egress near mine. This w:>! nave a detrlmenral ettec: on the value of my property. My argument is as follows: areThis project ooes not meet with tne current zoning, ihere certain specified recreational uses permitted by special use permits in residential areas. If you consioer the uses allowed, tne majority of these uses are substantially less intensive and Obtrusive. The proposal before you asks for approval of a 240' oy 140'. 32' high structure which requires variance by ordinance. If you consider all the detrimental effects of this expansive building. 2S0>» parking spaces* together with the obtrusive lighting and high amounts of traffic generated, you will quickly get a feel for how devastating this use would be to us, the residents who have been enjoying living in the Orcno countryside. V- -.4 •rSrS:Jf#s-'L . . ’i Staff, in their reporet. mentioned that the reason this site was chosen, was because it was the most economical and suitable for tne purpose of the Corporation. Ve do not feel, as existing residents, that simply because this plan provides them wirh an economicai site tnat it should be allowed to oe eonstr :.ced consioering the fact t.nat it destroys the nature cf our living environment. Kay we p'.eao with you the horror this proposal brings to us wnen we have always oelieved we wouic oe in a country setting with only single family residential neighbors. As we have anticipates development around us, we have pictured attractive homes, not parking lots, lights, traffic, and noise. V ii- ''i \ 4 •*. ' ■ . • -‘ir ‘•v,t . V / .Aj. »/ * M .•: S' ?,• : • .4.:. ■>i ■ ' ■: .•••';>■ V ■ Staff reports states that compatibility is a xey issue. Ve couldn't agree more. Considering the adverse effects this proposal w>i!d have on us. there is no possible way to look at tn.s proposal anc consioer that 't is compatible. Staff also states oerming and planting should oe provided to buffer the use from the neighbors. Although it looks good on paper in eradicating the use. there Is absolutely no practical way you can even begin to buffer ail of the adversities. PleaM consider that we have to live across from this. !f the buffering ooes not work and the lighting is still bright and the traffic intensive, our lives will be effected beyond our csmprehension. -F ■nrtry-v'.r . w'. f‘i"'- - ' ■ If,"'•'• ■ J , '. ._ ‘ , _■ u,i*'*‘»A '• * .’-i ^1, . ' ■ •■.■.■'■ •■ *'■■ _■*"-. . 1 ' ' ' ^ r V >■ J te;#; •'ol «. -• ■‘ ■- '•■•^ ’ •n ' ,M.. Ir: c.csing, we uou'.r: .;At :o &t.r.t c;ut on pege 4 ct staSts report, tnet staff aomits tnat tne proposed locati:;r: uouio r.ave the most impact on eAisting ana future residential areas. Host importantly of all, staff states tnat it would oe tneir wish to rtiocatt the use. This gives us the oelief that they agree with us in the fact that we would oe terribly effected by this proposal. Please, in your wisoom and foresight, consider us and help us to maintain the happiness a.nd lifestyle we t:ow enjoy.% 1 ii Thanic you for your consideration. Sincerely, ■•’iS I r -:' " f*T . W * , V ^ ■ m •* J** * < . . . W-. _ , • ,i;-K .... y U-... ____ ■; ■ \r■ . . .. . f- \ ■ * >. : ; ■*>: ■I ■, i, V _ - .•!; i-.-i .rV: ■ r ■4- h -V.T if: ♦; ■'... ■ri..(,'/r-7 i. :^r /' * I Vr-■■. t-'^V,: ; ■ .i. * *C <k.s Sv: •V'. 'y-rKt'yy'y-i'y'I / Ip' .* • ' .... • I = ■•J. ^ t'yyy ■’* •• ■ vl’v t, ' -•V ;c. 'V -t. v.> • ■....................... *• .. -;•-^ .• r ■\\: ■i- 'i- */ *' J >^: v‘-V •; '■•*<• r ' h > r •■*^v ■ •I-..* .' r I ’ .. ^ ^.-v ., V. ' ■»" s ■* :^■3 : : PP: .f;^7:;'/vK:i-■■ ;s/v^*'V-- 1' It '.•w * ^ .•'• » r 33^3^3.■>7'y- ’•' ', . ■ ■ .i';" .„ if.■% ,*A'r ' .■*•;> . ■ • . i ■•*' . • -y v’rT!. ' j ,?:.V: ^* 3 • *'- •. . :*■-:• - ■' *■■ :r • • ' *■, #■ • A s'a- '^■3^ :.:d.; K --' ’ r . : ^'- ^. :••er*r ■: . 4 . s»/■ 4 •* >-V . . V'. ^•■-•Ti .■ • ;.=5 - .-^•;• .*' r 'T • V '•9 - - •--. -. jp.:•r-'- • • j .. ' ■ J “ ^. •fv •.- ;■ M > -y w f ■ F , «*, ' \■" ■ >• ■•-•:•• ?/... -: . *■ » ,-1 •; •’.' ; /‘ r ,- - •■= ..• y ;-*;•%V’’f J-r ■■ .*i ’- i. .*• u V / ':••.'■•A - ,vr a. -Pr. '5 V- '.‘r v>^ '■: ;:| . e ' l/ . -"It- /. « % •‘ :.f-' . .. I _>'V..-^- - - V .r...^‘. V.; V ' ■^:ppp-'rppis;;al* .V i-:‘. /J'i-a:,v5^ ;'rn*^';-v-, .>,.*. . .r *S», , X.. •■s' ■-•; m .>•5..> ■•?■■% ;>^r; V:> ■ ' mB* •?(':• V irv /.’ >J•/?■• V 'd-. .•;> * ■ '■■s:i.: 2::^,i’i y:^3yy . ’V h'- >■1. 'o’ ^7Ti^r'> m:‘ TO: Jeanr.e h. KaDUSth. Cr.airrr.ar. J>l iey. and Planning CoaT.issicn Kemners FPOM:Connie J. Lein 27C0 6th Avenue North Long Lai<e. MN 55356 RE: The proposed rural residential site for an Indooi arena and outdoor rinK e hoCKey • • • w *of all. I want to rnak-e It dear that I am no; opposed to naving an Ice arena in the vic.nity of the ‘ schooi teacher I am well aware cf the need for physical activities for our youth. ' -I ?* ‘i 'S.' \^To.Z"^Lnl "LTo-u uj t uouid suit our lifestyle. Ve have spent much to ma*<e the pasture that we bought into a sanctuary for many wild creatures as well as cur pets and ourselves. .i' ■: I »» »a«Mrt! y owosea to MrrTHIMS .0"'^" ocviiut our rtslotnc*. This ooes eo«»i.rci«-..looiai.g BuilSing in »“=■ f „tothe seven days a week/open at all hours of the day and .ate the night tine frame by which it would be used; the I am opposed to the amount of ^1* bring into ny residential area, i am f B'i’d’hO a facility of this magnitude in a 5o mph s,.ee« whlch*wouid*slgniflcantly jeopardise the safety 0. ay neighbor . the families using the facility, and us. r **0^ It is mv hope that you will work with Oronc Area Sports r>«i! -V In'* a'*Q Orono School District 287 tc tine a new «acUl?y .no chus .r.,.rv. rh. rur.l =h.r.c«r c£ our neighborhood. Than< you fo; listen.ng. -Ccuy iH - i t < ' -.i ■ s - *!l' ' f.-.V » ? • \ ■‘ t • \\ ■M y i . •'W- '*\Wk\ V'^i.-v. ■ #iii 1: ^ jis^• f • I .V. V 1 ' » * > • r /■ VS V ' X re \VV ...• St-v^... K \ t f//V 'I V’‘'*’C‘ ‘n '•V V—r-Vv 4 A \ • ''-w V • B j. .• . •. i ’ *V ! • Mff dc^?(n) —~£r3 ___•____ ORONO ICE ARENA •' ■.V ^’.•3 '.. •' •■• .* >f fy ^ , *'’i*. H ■•"’iVi. mt W- i Vos Chalrnan Kelley and Planning Coi Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron NoorsOf City Administrator ilsslon Members Jesuine A. Mabusth# Building a Zoning Administrator June 11# 1992 #1738 Orono Area Sports Facility# Znc«# 2675 Sixth Avenue North - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit - Public Information Meeting Scheduled at 8 s 00 P.M. Soniag Districts RR-IB# Rural residential# 2 acre minimum Pertineat Ordiaaaces Section 11.10# Subdivision 6# 7# and 8 - Requirements and purpose of sketch plan review. Section 10.28# Subdivision 3 (A) - Applicant plans to file an application under this section for a proposed indoor ice hockey arena and outdoor rink. The section reads as followss m 4 / -'n a *Clubs# camps# etc. Golf courses# country clubs# tennis clubs# public swimming pools serving more than one family# scout camps# YMCA camps# YWCA camps# church camps# or private non-profit parks# playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot In a 7;esldentlal district# and any accessory structure shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line.* The Planning Commission Is asked to determine If the proposed use can be classified as a similar use In consideration of those specifically under the conditional permit section. You are also asked to review another section under conditional use permits for residential sones entitled "Recreation Areas”. ^Is section reads as followss > <"Private gun clubs# archery ranges# ski slides# provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use 1l less than 150 feet from any lot line.” Note this section Is very specific as to permitted use and does not suggest other similar uses. rmhomsivm Plan t No. 2 - Nighifay 12 Corridor Study ■ Review the following pages# Pages 5# 7# 13# 18 (MUSA boundaries)# 37# 40-48# and 60-62. i-» •IV -'^J! -.1 i f. ' I r t : F ?.1 K-. v^ ?! Zoning Fi:^e #1738 June Hr 1992 Page 2 List of Iblta A - Application A~1 - Orono School Diatrict Letter B-1-2 Notice/Map Sent to Adjacent Property Oimers C - Property Oimera List D - Notification Map E - Nemo on Meeting with Orono Staffr School District Personnel and Athletic Association. P - Park Connission Minutes 8/2/92 G - Hennepin DOT Letter 4/27/92 H - Gaffron Nemo 5/29/92 I - Oman Memo 8/10/92 J - Gustafson Report 8/10/92 K - Plat of Orono School Expansion L - Developer's Agreement for Orono School Expansion Plat N - Easement Agreement N - Conceptual Site Development Plan for Orono School District 10/1/90 0 - Packet of Exhibits and Information Prepared t Submitted by Del Ericksonr Architect for Applicant. (Please refer to this packet for elevations# site plan# site r topography# review of alternate sites# and cost analysis•) Review of Sketch Plan Application The applicants were advised to apply under a sketch plan review as part of the cos^rehensive proposal involves a future subdivision. A major issue for both applicant and City is the issue of proposed use and the fact that the use is not specifically listed under the specific conditional use permit section but references other similar uses. The City is asked to consider the ice hockey arena as a similar use to those listed as permitted via the conditional use permit. In the late 1960's# the City completed a comprehensive plan of the Highway 12 area. This property was specifically approved for single family residential use. The property had been included within the MUSA boundary line and with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ho. 2# the aastem portion of the property bounded by Willow Drive was now to be included within the MUSA. The saturated soils will necessitate sewer as septic use is not feasible. John Shardlow# the consultant planner for the City# has been asked to review proposed use in relation to the ordinance section under consideration. As of this writing# staff has heard nothing but will report at your meeting. • ■ I •ii ■ - ‘ •' f- A ■■ . ' w" •iiy* ',:i» -M rr*. It Zoning File #1738 June Ilf 1992 Page 3 Neighboring property otmers to the northr during the time of the comprehenaive plan revieWf were aware of the more intense uses proposed within southern portions of the corridor but were promised a residential buffer along the north lot line. The current RR*1B soning does permit certain quasi-commercial uses found to be conq>atible with single family residential soning. In early discussions with the Planning Comsiission Chair# it was decided that it would be beneficial for the City to receive early input from adjacent property owners. The City staff advised the applicant of their concern for the proposed location in the northeast portion of the school property and questioned if they had asked for access and a site off of Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant advised that the school district# based on their comprehensive development plan for the property# Exhibit N# noted the only suitable area available for sale would be the northeast portion of the property. The reviewing staff was also advised that members of the City Park Commission had discussions with the Orono School District about the leasing of lands for ballpark use. Ballpark use is not a formal part of this application. The applicant has provided an information packet that should answer many of your questions and provide background information on the applicant. Applicant has met with both staff and the Chair of the Park Commission and Planning Commission and was given guidelines as to the types of information that would be needed to complete at least this very preliminary stage in review. In the information packet submitted by applicants* architect# note various other parcels of land were considered within the corridor and it was determined this site to be the most economical and suitable for their purpose. The applicant is a non-profit corporation and# based on a recent bill approved by the State# will be exempt from payment of real estate taxes. The very first objective for the Planning CosBBission is to determine the compatibility of use and to decide if it is similar enough to be considered under the conditional use permit section of the code. If the use is found acceptable but not specifically addressed in the code# would the Planning Commission recomsiend an amendment of the code to include this specific use? Staff has reviewed approximately 7-8 cities that have similar ice hockey arenas. The majority of them are on City-oimed property within a municipal PUD with underlying residential soning. Although owned by the cities# many are operated by private sports organizations. In reviewing the commercial sections of our code# there is no specific ice hockey arena use nor is there a section that deals with similar sports-type arena uses. The majority of recreational uses in the Orono code are permitted under conditional use permits within residential zones. 1 • i ■’m i»V-r■ m .-'•L1 h t--- : Zoning File #1738 June Hr 1992 Page 4 It will be important for Planning Commission members to listen to the concerns of the residences most impacted by the proposal. If the use and proposed location of use are approvedr many of the concerns raised by the residents should be addressed in developing a conditional use permit and approved site plan for the formal conditional use permit application. Some of these issues have been addressed in the City Engineer's reportr Exhibit J. He recommends buffering with berms and landscaping along the east and north side of property# relocating structure so that parking and outdoor activities requiring lighting are relocated to the west and south side of building (i.e. building can be used as the buffer to many of those activities). If members feel a zoning amendment is necessary# provide staff with direction as to appropriate setbacks# special landscaping needs# parking# lighting# signage# etc. It is unfortunate that the only available site on the school property is the proposed location at the northeast corner providing the most impact on existing and future residential development. It would be the hope of the City to work with both the sc)k>o1 district and the applicant to determine if the use could be relocated along Old Crystal Bay Road (review Exhibit N# specifically area of soccer field) in an attempt to minimize impact on residential use. its Concerning Site Plan Structure is shown at approximately 240* x 140* at an approximate area of 33#600 s.f. In the earlier review of parking needs# staff reviewed the formula for community centers# stadium and auditorium parking. Applicant has provided parking for the most restricted at 250 with the potential for future expansion. It is the Intent of the applicant to provide parking for the baseball users during off-season. The two curb cuts are shown directly off of County Road 6 and in an early meeting with Hennepin County DOT# it was determined that access along the west side of the property is unsafe and that access to the site must be at the most eastern edge. It is recommended that an interior road be planned along the east side of the property. Applicant would be responsible for installing road per standards set forth in City Engineer's report, in that report the City Engineer recommends that the road be installed to the south side of the proposed lot with a temporary cul-de-sac and that a through road be deve^developed at the time of further development. Staff will address this issue later. The building is shown at a maximum height of 32* and will require variance approval# as 30* is maximum allowed for the zoning district. Review Exhibit I# Osian has listed all the pertinent items that will need to be addressed by applicant# i.e. sprinkling of building# payment of approximately 20 sac and sewer and water units. His report also noted the need for an elevator to mezzanine area. attorns • ►r’f Ij- r* •■■'V i.^ Zoning File #1738 June 11» 1992 Page 5 The facility will require the extension of municipal sewer and water. The City Engineer recommends the force main be extended from the manhole 800* south of entrance road to Orono school expansion plat (review Exhibit K) and then through the property via the outlet to the hockey arena building. Water can be extended from Old Crystal Bay Road or via the south from the City's new water tower and water lines. These are matters that must be worked out with the school district« the owner of the property. It is most important that if this use is approved and for this location that applicants' site plan specifically address buffering and shielding the residential properties to north and east. Lighting should also be designed to address the same concern in addition to all planned outdoor activities. Rarriev of Issues Related to Orono Sdioel Expansion Subdivision Please review Exhibits K and L. The plat was created as a means to facilitate the purchasing of land by the school district from the former owner. The school district cannot purchase land via contract and had to purchase under a fee title. The four parcels were specifically divided and the school district was to acquire fee title over a lO-year period of time. The City and the school district entered into an agreement whereby the City would agree upon the acquisition of all four parcels by the school district to vacate the road outlot and all public easements as shown on the plat. It is the City's understanding that the school district is in the process of completing final acquisition of the fourth parcel. It was then the intention of the school to legally combine all four parcels and Outlet A into one parcel for future school use. The issue for the City now is how does the current subdivision impact the original agreements for the Orono school expansion. The subject parcel will no longer be owned by the school district. In order to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan access to site must be from interior roads. Can the City vacate Out lot A? Bow can City provide utilities to the eastern portions of corridor as well as the Orono Sports Facility if all easement are to be vacated? As all utilities are located either within Old Crystal Bay Road or to the south within Ciyt property, it is neccessary to expand utilities from west to east through this property, especially if we are ever to realize looped systems to the existing lines at the southeast corner of this corridor (at Willow and Highway 12 intersection). Applicant 1.Is the ice hockey arena similar to the uses already listed in the conditional use permit or is a code amendment required or is the use not compatible with existing residential zoning? rifcHminiii'tirtn r /> j7 ^V. #' 'f '<%'■ • I ‘ ii ■5 •V M !>■■ i, ■ hi.•>i- ■M w •-.■ ’ Zoning File #1738 June Hr 1992 Page 6 2. 3. 4. What are your concerns with the location of the proposed use? Absent relocating front facility to Old Crystal Bay Roadr how can isipact of this use be minimized on surrounding residential developments? In light of the agreement executed by both school district and City# how can municipal sewer and water lines be legally installed and maintained by the City? Bow can we plan utilities for ice hockey arena without also planning for future school? How that the future use of the school property has been determined# are interior roadways necessary to provide access to ballparks# school# hockey arena and residential neighborhoods to east based on intent of Cosqprehensive Plan Amendment? Review of issues that must be addressed with the planning for a formal site plan review. • n a. W b. Relocate building as close to east and north side of property line and relocate parking and all outdoor iviticactivities to south and west side of structure. Lighting must be shielded downward and not directed towards residential lot lines. Applicant must provide information on type of lighting to be used. Parking shall be based on the standard for auditoriums# 1 parking stall for 4 seats. c.Redesign plan so that a 50* wide road is shown running along east lot line to south boundary. Provide interior driving lanes from road within site plan providing access to parking areas and rink. d.Signage is limited to 12 s.f. with a conditional use permitted use. Illumination of sign must be review by City. Engineering plans for municipal expansion. sewer and water f. Develop plans with school district for stormwater detention pond designed for both storage capactiy and phosphorus removal for the stormwater runoff from the sports facility and future school. Ponding and drainage easements will be provided to the City with the subdivision. Landscaping plans showing berming and landscaping to shield impact of structure along north and east boundaries . Provide fire lanes adjacent to structure. - p« ' Zoning Pile #1738 June 11» 1992 Page 7 i. Building and Fire code review. ■i-'- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) H • ■(6) (7) Building classified as an A>2.1 occupancy. Minimua type of construction. Type V, 1 hour. Autosiatic fire sprinkler system and fire hydrants required . Building must be accessible to handicapped persons. Elevator required for mezzanine level by State Building Code and Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Pertinent issues raised by neighboring property owners. r! .r Zalraea to be Addressed with a Formal Subdivisioe J^pUcatlom le ?rv;- V ll Future access road to be shown along northeast side of property and to be dedicated and designated along east boundary to provide further loop road access to future residential developswnts to east and possibly to west. 2.School to file in conjunctuion with subdivision application a vacation application for Outlot A of Orono School Expansion and all other drainage and utility easements deemed unnecessary by City of Orono. ■ U The redesignation of access and utility easements through school property to provide for expansion of municipal services to east and north. Per Park Commission recosmirndation of June 2, 1992 meeting (review Exhibit F), school to grant bike easements along 0l< Crystal Bay Road and County Road 6 and in lieu of additional park dedication lands to encourage leasing of lands from school district for baseball field use. Should the applicant be advised to work with the School District on filing a PUD for the entire property? The proposed uses and impact of those uses suggest a need for more comprehensive pla*ming. Review of issues raised by neighboring property owners in attendance. Oth(lised by Planning Commission. It is the intention of the staff to present the Planning CoflUiission's complete review comments to the Council for their final coBBMOt and direction. Isv : A ' A**--* •A-««^‘v*''w ' k,'. CITY OF OROHO - SUBDIVISIOH APPLICATION <iF-ri^ f! • • • PROPERTY LOCATION » • Site Address Property Identification NuBber (P«I*D*) _ Please check one - Property____abstract or ikP^Zl 19 torren.^? It U < a .V ■bd Attach legal ^ascription to __________________________ APPlftlCANT Phone (hosie) ---AfaA 5^As -Ac.htty-*; lA.t^hoB« (work).3Hi_^fc2fi------ 3taO cltva O/o—fi *lp«j£23ll---- Nane Address t ONNAR (if different than applicant) Name Offe ■wy" nool Phone (home) Phone (work) •j> •y ■.u< Address:City:Zip: (attach list it more tnan one) mSTIHC LAND U8S Number of Tax Parcels ? * Development Size Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Qjry q,c QHQi^ Acres Total, all parcels hTfimE OFFICE ilzOEOv^ _ ^ Residential; no. of units Oi UicCls ^ eivVevryouother (specify) Present Zoning District 4244160 cool Ml TOO 06/0- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units V - “ Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify)iJi f ■ /i man 1. 2. 3. LBTB PRBLmiMAKT APFUCATK 4. MATERIAL MBCB88ART FOR Coapl«t«d Application Form Pr^inlnary Plat infonnation on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of otmers within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ , As an addendum to this application» please attach a separate list of any other*^persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is oos^lete. toning Official's Signature Date 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. ^ 3. Title opinion. 4. Basements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is o toning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ iplete Signature 11 . 1 y Sketch Plan Review (Class I, ZZ 8 ZZZ) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class Z & IZ Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class ZZZ a all non-resldential) ft Final Plat Review (Class ZZZ) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $200.00 4 300.00 • ' w- 300.00 f 325.00 *V ■ 25.00/Lot 175.00 Rsnewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or roquested by the«.„Zqning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning CommissiM"taiA«Xouncil necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay i|Jl"*hd44tlonal fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature h Owner's Signature Date ate Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 d«>ys before the punning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings yrm held the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Cosmission and Council. If an applicant is nasble to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building • Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 4 a R a N O 5 C H o o 685 Old Crystal Bay Road P.O. Box 46 Long Lake, Minnesota S5356-0046 (612) 473-7313 Fax (612) 473-1477 L S • • Independent School District 278 Neal J. Lawson Ass’t. to the Superintendent June 3, 1992 J«ann« A. Mabustn Building 6 Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 U >- M ■j■rsr. Osar Jsanns, Par our tslsphons conversation this morning in regard to the Subdivision Application initiated by the Orono Area Sports Facilities Inc., the School District has been advised by our legal counsel that we should not sign the application until the District has approved the sketch plan. It was also his opinion that the option to purchase agreement for the land should be conqpleted before we sign the application. y* It is certainly not our intention to delay the Orono Area Sports Facilities Inc. in completing the process required. The District would not object to the City of Orono reviewing the sketch plan submitted by r.- > -f' that group. Please call if there are any questions. .ja Mr Sincsrely, Neal J. Lawson x -: .I r A-* • y V ^ •-> 'I'«! ■- J ; i fjur ^ \•' J 1 is;;f.; V ... ,...i T-y ./■u- -J* A -> . r; f .'.jic;i 'v- r'- • ■ r'' ’■r-i i • ;r v- ' , ''V > '■*1,.;.'!■ * :\9 - 1 ''i ■ -.i 5/S:-■?&« :il r -ft t f-*'.. .. r. r < -V : 4 t fiAri . 'Uj- . '-tr Serving . . Inikpefidcnce—Long Lake —Maple Plain—Medina —Mioneloiika Beach —Orono An Equal Opponuniiy Employer --__________________________________________- -A.I ii.irtinii' ' ininiiii i f - ■ !'‘ ' r>»: : »»?• «> • --T ■ * •. ,r r • i ^ -■*rJ> .- -. -if ^ .. '■' • •*. ••*. • >f ■ ►.. cm OP OKOMO - aoncB Th« Planning Connlsslon of the City of Orono will hold a Public Information meeting on June 15» 1992 at 8s00 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing a sketch plan submitted by the Orono Area Sports Facilities# Inc. (hereinafter O.A.8.F.I.) that proposes an indoor and outdoor ice hockey arena on property otmed by the Orono School District. The subject property consists of 40 plus acres located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of €th Avenue North and Old Crystal Bay Road - refer to location map on rear of this page. The parcel to be acquired by O.A.S.F.I. is approximately 5 acres in area and is located at the northeast corner of the property with direct access proposed at 6th Avenue North. m The indoor rink is shown at 140'x240* and the outdoor rink at 85*x200*. Detailed site plans are available at the City offices for review. The City offices are open 8i00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.# Monday through Friday.i All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Your written comments are encouraged. If residents have any questions# please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357). Nabu^h # Buiidi^ 4 Z<^lng Admin ft tra tor • ^ • • ■^ :7T .—j.— '»' • % I 'v i mi •• •m Property Owners list for the proposed Ice Arena located on Sixth Ave N.t •■ m at-'" 6 ■i ti:-;- 4 Sr'f 28-118-23 32 0013 Henn Co Park Reserve Dist 3800 Co Rd No 24 Maple Plain, MN 55359 4 - 5 - 10 - 11 - 28-118- 23 32 0003 Francis M Johnson 3060 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 32 0001 F B Buschbcxn 1150 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 32 0002 Floyd E Buschbom 1150 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 31 0001 Louise M Otten P.O. Box 117 Lona Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 42 0002 John Lein 2700 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 42 0003 Thomas P Carroll 2600 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 41 0005 Thomas P Carroll 2600 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 41 0004 Diane M Zrichsen 2500 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118- 23 41 0003 Steven J Bouley 2450 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 41 0002 Michael J Schwarz 1125 Willow Drive N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 32 0006 Henry t Nancy Brantingham 3185 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 28-118-23 32 0007 Benedict & Denise Young 3105 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 23 - 28-118-23 32 0008 John & Barbara Ryder 3045 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 32 0009 Jeffrey Eccles 3025 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 31 0004 Jeunes Swanson 2995 JeuRiesto%m Road Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 31 0008 Gary Larson 3085 Jamestoim Road Long Lake, MN 55356 .11 28-118-23 31 0005 Michael & Jo Ellen Wahlig 2945 Jamestown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 31 0006 Roger Zeeb 2905 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 31 0007 H Robert Glavas Jr 2885 6th Ave N Long Lake, MN 55356 n. f z 28-118-23 31 0002 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 28-118-23 42 0005 Albin Thies 1442 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 N' 28-118-23 42 0006 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Rd N Long Lake, MN 55356 24 -28-118-23 44 0001 Orono Center Properties c/o Reiersgord Law Firm 4945 Halifax Ave S Suite 7 Edina, MN 55424 r property Owners list for the proposed Ice Arena located on Sixth Ave N./ Ky 25 - 28-118-23 33 0014 Michael & Laurel Awes 3175 Jamesto«m Road I«nq Lake, MR 55356 ^ 26 - 28-118 23 33 0015 ’f- James & Penelope Grabek 3050 Jamestown Road Lonq Lake, Id 55356 27 - 28-118-23 33 0012 Stanley Stroup 3155 Jamestown Road Long Lake, MM 55356 - ^ 28 - 28-118-23 33 0017 James & Cynthia Kinney 3145 Jamesto%m Road Long Lake, MR 55356 29 - 28-118-23 33 0016 Hillieun Lurton 3135 JauDesto%m Read Long Lake, MM 55356 30 - 28-118-23 33 0010 Gary Larson 3085 Jamestown Road Long Lake, MM 55356 » 31 - 28-118-23 33 0008 John 6 Susanne Koob 3065 Jamestoim Road Long Lake, MM 55356 r-:;.32 - 28-118-23 33 0003 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MM 55356 33 - 28-118-23 33 0001 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MM 55356 34 - 28-118- 23 34 0002 Jaunes & Penelope Grabek 3050 Jaunes town Road Long Lake, MM 55356 35 - 28-118-23 34 0001 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MM 55356 W'•V.V *s : 'fe 36 - 28-118-23 43 0006 Albin Thies 1442 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 37 - 28-118-23 43 0007 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 38 - 28-118-23 43 0008 School Dist #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 39 - 28-118-23 43 0005 Orono Community Church 770 Old Crystal Bay Road N Long Lake, MN 55356 40 - 28-118-23 42 0004 Lou & Jean Beasley 1265 Maplewood Dr Long Lake, MN 55356 s > ‘ - v/'; \ '■•v' .■ ■ * ■ ’ > ■ / r 'ii a.m&«MM>n • />mm ® ‘r.<V) i': fe*'-'V'--- '■• 'X Ml. • i-.v; % ■ '■» '. ■".• At :. • * M K'-S.*^T » vf A' >. A .s O 4r \ . ‘ »: : * ( ‘ -" ■■■ .>’ ^ ^ ‘ -4 ^ -«l 1^ r. a. a'-l V •.. ^ ; V-. .Of*.to .V ^ ^ .■’»' ■ v! ^ i :.>iivV; )jam A‘»eS/ m \ A ^,|J Wn^A3. i s. .f- V.' t> ■ \ i| ‘MS- ' >. f -. Ti . Jr ■ ■• l.A V- X «< M*■■ v-i f; <j n <<* . « !■ ? t»- .M ^ ^ 'r'. i '*' ,"*a f ;<«. :. ■f» *. r r ■ ^ i) •; ■ ::3 wrtilf I 1 V ’ 1 • .■; ,i^.. ^ > \ . J 9m f 00, Itv • w 1 «a« /9 •// * 4 0.4 a.44: 1 f': ’ M ;;.^ 57 ^ f ^ 't:*V-,. . C :■ :.J ■*i : -iV •’*■ ■*< • - > - lli)1 O o ^ * '-r :.f- V ■ *.- - Aiv -- -- MMtiim on tho oalo or loaso of School District land for an Ica Arena and/or Littlo Baaaball Fiolds •:00 a.a., Monday# March 30# 1992 Parsons prasant: Ren Moorsa - Qrono City Manager LieJohn Garbardson - Orono Public Works Director Nark Johnson - Athletic Association Ton Mich - Supt. Orono Schools Meal Lawson - Asst* Supt. Orono Schools The Meting was called by Dr. Mich to infomally explain the school's position on the possible sale of land to the Athletic Association for an Ice arena and the possible lease of land to the City of Orono for baseball fields. Or. Mich explained that the District had a coepgehensive plan developed for the apixroxinately 50 acres of land being purchased by the District ineediately across the street from the Mi^ School* The plan provides for en elementary school# related parking and necessary outside facilities. The plan also indicates approxiMtely 10 acres of land in the north east corner of the property ^at would not be required for the development of this site. The District's current intention is to offer for sale the north east most 9-6 acres of land to the Athletic Association for the future site of an ice arena. An option to purchase agreement is currently being drawn up by the District's legal counsel for this intent. The District is also willing to discuss the potential of a long term lease with the City of Orono for the east adjacent 4-S acres of land for baseball fields* Zt is anticipated that the City will approach the District with its intent to lease the land in the near future. 4: Dr* Mich indicated that the paramount use of the property indicated above is for the purpose of housing Orono school District students and the proposed elementary school# however the District is willing to sell/lease the property as indicated above# provided this did net in any way adversely impact the District's intended use of the property. It was also indicated that the land has been and is intended to be rented for farming and any restrictions on the use of the land for this farming season should be presented to the District immediately by the City of Orono or the Athletic Association. by MJL 3/31/92 W0',v,* 1 mF • I ' . If' .S' ^:\L. ■-■ r..-/I'lP MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 3750 BAYSIDE RO - CONT. Mabusth stated that the Burger property flat along the roadway, but further east the property gets v^ry steep. It was moved by Vongries, seconded by Wilson, to recommend InoorporatIng a bike easement with the drainage and utility easement and to request cash payment for Park Dedication for the subdivision at 3750 Bays ids Road. Ayes 6, nays 0. Mabusth suggested that the Commission review subdivision applications prior to the Planning Commission review. Qerhardson suggested a Park Commission representative ^attend the Planning Commission meetings at which a subdivision request Is reviewed. He noted he would send the Commission a copy of the Planning Commission agendas. (•80) ORONO SPORTS ARENA Mabusth explained that the project is being proposed by the "Sports Recreational Facility Inc. Group". The Group is acquire at least a 5 acre parcel from the Orono School District at the northeast corner of the property. There is an existing road that goes through the middle of the property. She noted that **ark Dedication of land or funds was not taken at the time the property was divided to allow the School District to acquire the property. She stated the School District has asked that the Hockey Association pay for any dedication of land or funds for this subdivision application. She explained that sewer and water would need to be extended to the property. There are two accesses proposed to the site from County Road 5, but the City Intends to approve only one access because of safety reasons. She noted they proposing both an Indoor and outdoor rink. Mabusth noted that It is the Park Commission’s duty to determine If land or money should be requested for Park Dedication. She noted that because of a recent bill, the Hockey Association will be exempt of taxes on the land. Wilson reminded them of their desire to extend a bike/hike trail along County Road 8. Chair Flint reported that the Commission could recommend the taking of approximately 4 acres of land for park dedication because of the acreage of the overall parcel. He stated County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road would probably be under that aI lowed 4 acres. Mabusth reminded them that with the Shadowood plat, the bike trail was Incorporated within the drainage and utility easement. .y : 31 1 t Fi- i,' ; \[: ■.. M n ■‘i V- '» T 1?^ vmi ■^vr'A f*\‘ MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 ORONO SPORTS ARENA - CONT. could b« usod also for the bike trail. Mabutth reviewed that the ball fields are shown to the west of the proposed hockey arena site. Chair Flint reiterated that the ball fields were o/‘9jnally proposed to be under a Joint powers agreement. He felt that following the drainage and utility easement along County Road 6 may not be the most idea location. Mabusth said that the bike path could be along the Interior platted roadway. She noted that the Commission should determine what they wish to do with the land In terms of open space and park land prior to development. She reviewed that the School District has determined a location within the parcel for a future elementary school and informal ball fields. Use asked about the proposed timing for the development of the property. Mabusth understood that the Group wished to start building the Spring of 1993 to be completed by Fall of 1993. Gerhardson reviewed the plan submitted by the County for the bike separation between the roadway and the trail. Wilson felt that It Is more appealing to separate the trail from the roadway and felt they should request the additional easement. Chair Flint noted that in some areas along County Road 8 the utility easement goes through a wooded area. S.rh.rd«on not.d that th. t.a.Ibmty study 'or th. tral I along Old Crystal Bay Road will address the issues related to both options proposed. ss;ra''.'n'd'’^f.':rt^.*t'’rV. to*v. ?rth2i*r:Vn to avoid these areas. Bradley asked if they would be dealing with both the School District and the Hockey Association for lane, dedication. SlattAdeid^ikKd.<.<biaaMS i i '4 .^3 -i ■kJ'v ,-;■ MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 ORONO SPORTS ARENA - CONT. Mabusth axplainad that thay would ba daaling with tha School District as tha ownar of tha land, but tha Hockay Association would flla tha conditional usa parmit for tha praposad hockay arana and would ba raquirad by tha School District to pay for any land or monay dad I cat Ion. McMillan askad If thara would ba additional lots pares I ad off with tha subdivision application. Mabusth axplalnad that an existing pi at tad Interior roadway creates land divisions. She is aware of three different parcels that would be created with tha subdivision. Chair Flint axplalnad that thay have decided to request aasamants for bike trails In lieu of land dedication to allow tha ownar of tha property to usa tha aasamant area for raquirad land area and raquI rad setbacks. Bradley asked If tha Ordinance permits tha acquisition of land through an aasamant and still require payment for park dedication. Chair Flint clarified that tha Ordinance refers to tha acquisition of land as "an Interest In tha land". Mabusth axplalnad that In previous subdivisions, tha City has raquirad an additional 10* wide aasamant for future bike trails. Chair Flint stated tha reason for not requiring tha total A for park land Is tha nature of tha development. Ha noted ha would Ilka to sea tha proposed trails drawn on tha plans. Mabusth said tha developer should stake tha location of the proposed trail along County Road 6 at tha different setbacks to allow tha Commission to review tha area. Chair Flint stated thara are four aspects of tha racommandatIon: 1. North/south trail following County Road Option A; 2, East/wast trail south of tha County Road 6 utility aasamant; 3. Bike trail to follow the Interior roadway; and 4. Joint powers agreement regarding tha baseball field west of tha proposed hockay arana. t *' V 4. mm m ■t!. 1 A-.'- •' .'v*' '".V >/3L 1;?:^MM '’‘•‘ * '* « vV^ i •(•..,* » •- i MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 ORONO SPORTS ARENA - CONT. Vongrits f*lt that a bika path along both County Road 6 and tha intarlor roadway may not ba nacassary and may destroy any possibility of future davalopmant of tha property. Ha fait that everyone was being vary conciliatory towards tha Hockey Association. Mabusth disagreed and stated that the City did not feel that was tha most desireabie location for the hockey arena and even the Hockey Association felt that way. Wilson asked If the interior roadway will continue through the property to the east when developed. Chair Flint said that If there Is an Interior roadway there ought to be a trail easement along it as It is a safer place for a trail than along the County Road. Bradley asked If the easement along the Interior roadway would be an additional 10’ width. He stated that It would be logical to assume the Interior roadway would be a low-speed road and it may be possible for It to exist with an extended shoulder for a bike trail. He asked If the access road off County Road 6 to the hockey site would be considered for extension to the frontage road along Highway 12. Mabusth felt that probably would not happen because of extensive wetlands, but explained that the Comprehensive Plan encourages an east/west road linking Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive. Wilson stated that It was hard to determine at this point whether both trails would be necessary, but felt they should retain the option. Vongries felt that emphasis should be placed on the ball fields. It was moved by Bradley, seconded by WlIson, to recommend the following: _ ^ ^ ^.1. North/south trail following County Road Option A; 2. East/west trail south of the County Road 0 utility easement; 3, Bike trail to follow the Interior roadway; and 4. Joint powers agreement regarding the baseball field west of the proposed hockey arena. Ayes 6, nays 0. iiriii II •' ''v r* • HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TEL No.612-930-2513 May 28.92 15:43 No.007 P.02 k ►r . . ._■ •'! V.-'k:k' -.5 . Ij . ■t *.s .. •• ■ ■ , ->"■iffi-amrL; ►*v;. & Sv- t^.-r ■*r TT HENNEHN DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS 320 Washington Avenge South Hopkins, Minnesota 66343-8468 PHONE: (612)930-2500 FAX TOO; (612) 930-2613 (612) 930*2696 3E ' April 27, 1992 Oaannt Mtbusth Plinnlnp and Zoning Dipt City of Orono p. 0. Box 64 CryoUl Bay, NN 99323 n V, ; . • ■>■■ :M " k-'i 't /: tf V *'» • * » Rt: propoaaO Atniatle sita, Southaaat Quadrant eSAH 4 at Old Cryatal Bay Road '> i , < *• ^ X r ■'•‘t rii- Jianna: At M dlieutiMl during our on.»1t« fWl«», Humiupln C^t;; uyld pruft^ jTLii^risSnSStr.:rs4i5*i5r«?iS?s;‘ ICb5S*trtha^fSno^^^^ p5JfHJaJ!t1?l SrSt?*"" •> Kr. ■ r J - - A elty-atraat-type antranea ulth full auxiliary lanas (waatoound bypaas, taatbound right turn), aarvlng an intarnaT atraat syatan, Ideatad at tha aaat proparty lino. , m ■ c-y'-yh V _ ;.S .4. . \- 5,5^ i::ri:::usLnnr,rfLtTt!;. proparty lint. *, ^ ' •'f ' 6 • ,.N’ • ■ k ^ - «i Any accaaa to CSAH 6 ahould bt batxaan 40- *!2**fl*intlrna1^foot into tha alta. cartful atttntion should also bo paid to Intarnai elreulatlon, parking, and drop-off aarvica araaa 5ir.ii ’rti!ii?2iiSL?“c?s.‘Jisss’tr2is;rtS'bi2j?isw alto and tha aotorlng public. Plaaaa call with any further quaatlona or dlsouaalon. Sincaraly, /cCLi/e David K. ZattaratroB Cntranea Paralt Coordinator 0KZ:avr ce: Dal Erickson, Architect HENNEPIN COUNTY 1 *1 r 1 TOt FROM: DATES Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building fi Zoning Administrator Michael P. 6af£ron» Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Administrator May 29, 1992 SOBJBCTi #1738» Orono Arena Sports Facility Per your May 27th memOf the following comments are offered: 1. L ' L ? • V The Orono Comprehensive Plan indicates single family uses for this property. The School's purchase of the large tractr while not in total conflict with the Comp Plan since school's are a conditional use in RR-IB, still results in uses not really contemplated when the Comp Plan Amendment No. 2 was formulated. Now# going one step further and creating what essentially is a commercial appearing sports facility generating traffic at all hours of the day and late into the night# is probably not what the neighbors to the north were led to believe would happen with this property. This area is within the MUSA boundary and therefore can be served with sewer. Although the Comprehensive Plan surmised that this would develop at a 2 acre residential density# the high water tables resulted in the entire area south of County Road € between Old Crystal Bay and Willow be included within the MUSA for future sewer. Glenn Cook will have to advise regarding the need to extend the municipal sewer system. Will this development have any impact in forcing an early need to construct the sewer interceptor that eventually is needed to bypass existing Long Lake mains? This site has no designated wetlands# and is not within the Shoreland Overlay District. % r .■ ■■■ . ■ A., - . >• *- 1 - - -‘k- J- F L">'. TO* PROM* DATE* RE* Jeanne A. Mabuath» Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Omanf Building Official June 19f 1992 Orono Hockey Area 1 have completed a preliminary building and fire code review of the proposed Orono Hockey Area. The following items should be noted* '>.1 pr' -r ‘ R *• riJ L 3 Building would be classified as an A-2.1 occupancy. Nin. type of construction - Type V one hour. Allowable area - O.K. Preliminary exiting review reveals some fine tuning is needed. Automatic fire sprinkler system and fire hydrants required. Pire apparatus access O.K. Building must be provided with City sewer and water <- approximately 20 SAC units. Building must be fully accessible to handicap persons. Elevator required for meszanine level by State Building Code and Pederel Americans with Disabilities Act. K - hMi .V, . 4-••a iJ*:'^ > 'r' r : ■ ■ - v : ■ ■ Vi Vii y-'vi •:*‘V -1 'f •*v r >.;■■<'’^4^ ''1^ '*rr> • vj ‘'ii. ’ a ' . vr'. ivn, • ■j'-:’ 1V4 F. J .1 ' f * V < • .ym I : . xi V V F . - • V i * it'.: ii ;0«' - • •* . . A’ ‘ f. ‘4 , ti s* ^ . . _ •, ' ... ^ . » * ■■• >.P- ' . ■ ■ . ■ -; s u . . ■ ••.FTF-r.. • : V ^ i i*. .•'F - - .1- , . . *• , ;. W . ■■■ ’ ;'1, YK 1 t.'V ♦ - . ' k - r, . - ' ' *xy ' ' r. i.*> rial♦^k.> ■"/ ■•■ ;■ V: \r* pm- \ » S . i am a i V- i:'. ^ ■ir 1/1 Bonestroo jijl Rosene SB AnderlHcA Assodates Engineers A Architects June 10,1992 Olio G Bore*!*TX!L P£ AoOe«T W flosene. PE * Joseph C Anoerttii. PE Mjrvm L SorvjU. PE fbchjrr* E Tuffw. PE Glenn R Cooic. PE Thomas E Noyei PE POOerr G SchinichL PE Susan M Ebeflei. CPA •Senof Comuttjnt HcwrtJ A Sante*o PE Keen A. GonSoa PE Roeen R PfePene PE Rjcnafd W Ebster. PE OavO O Losiiota. PE Rodert C Russell, ai .a Jerry A BrufOoa PE Mark A Hansoa PE Michael T. Rautmann Pt T«j K FieHl PE Thomas R Arxlenofi. AlA Donald C Rurgarot PE. Thomas E Angui PE Gjn» E Ryianoer PE ismaei Martinei. PE Mcnaei P Rau PE Agres M Ring. AiCP Thomas W Peterson. PE Michael C Lynch. PE James R Maiana PE. Jerry O Pemscr:. PE Kenneth P Anderson. PE MariiR «oRv PE Mark A. Sekli PE. Gary W Monen. PE Oa*^ J. Edgerton. PE PhAp J Cas\^e« PE Mark D vmv PE Mkesi Jensen. PE L Phikip G'awei w. PE. Karen L Wiemen. PE P ibdd Poster. PE Ke<h R vapfx PE Shawkn 0 Gustaftoa PE. CecAo Oihner. PE. Charles A cnckson leoM PawkCisky Hartan M Olson James P Engetftasdi Ms. Jeanne A Mabustb Building A Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Miiuiesota 55323 rr I. Y' )\ J- ■ Vi “ ■■.f t. • Re: Orono Arena Sports Facility Sketch Plan Review #1738 Our File Na 139-1738 JUM 11 •f Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the sketch plan and supporting docments submitted for the Orono Arena Sports Facility. Our brief overview of the facility was concentrated on the engineering issues related to sewer and water service, access roads, stormwater drainage and aesthetic issues due to the adjacent residential zoned proper^. The sanitary sewer can only be served by connecting to the existing sanitaiy sewer manhole and 8“ VCP sewer, along the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road, approximately 800 feet south of the future School Drive. Due to the minimal elevation differential between the proposed site and the existing sanitary sewer, a grinder pump station will be required to service the sports facility. (The future school may be served by a gravity sewer). A forcemain would then be constructed from the grinder pump station to the existing sanitaiy sewer manhole. The nuinber of sewer and the sewer and water utility connection charges will need to be determined for both the sports facility and the future school The sports facility site is 5.35 acres and the remaining school property is approximate^' 44 acres. The water service can be provided by connecting to the existing 8" CIP water main along the west side of Old Crytial Bay Road or to the recently constructed 16** DIP water main near the City elevated water reservoir site. It should be noted that both connections will be required at some time to create a water main loop that will provide adequate fire protection flows/covera^ and a more reliable ^tem for the area. In the future, the City should extend the water main to the cast and north where a connection can be made to the City of Medma’s water system. This connection would be a tremendous improvement in the water systems of both citiesl We would recommend that both the sanitaiy sewer forcemain and the water main be constructed to follow the proposed School Drive alignment. The forcemain and water main should then be extended north to the sports facility at right angles lo this alignment. The Hennepin County Department of Public Works has required that only one street access be permitted onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 6. The street access would require the / ■li y } 23ii VBkst Htelwwav • ft. Paul. MIrmesett §5113 • 6l3-636'4600 .4'» «• I i . •'. ►• : ‘•ft.; J- !*’■ construction of a westbound bypass lane and an eastbound right turn lane on CSAH 6 to fariKtafe adequate trafiBc patterns. The access street should be constructed adjacent to or centered on the east property line of the site. The spoils facility should be required to provide a 60 foot wide right-^-way along the east property line. If the road is to be centered on the east property line. 30 feet of property should be purchased by the sports facility from owner of the adjacent property, together with 30 feet of the sporu facility site, to be used as right-of-way. We recommend that the access road be constructed 42 feet wide, from face to face of B618 concrete curb and gutter. This width will allow a left turn lane onto CSAH 6. The road could be narrowed to 32 feet wide, south of the left turn lane. The access road should be constructed to the south line of the facility site with a SO foot radius cul-de-sac at the end. When the school property develops, they should be required to construct School Drive to the east and connect to the access road, providing a through street for the area. The driveway frmn the sports facihQf pnriring lot to the access road should be a minimum of 100 feet south of the proposed right turn lane on CSAH 6. The drainage for the site runs northwesterly to the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and CSAH 6i, by means of an existing ravine that traverses the site. The drainage eventually reaches Katrina Lake which is within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District A stormwater detention pond should be designed both for storage capacity and phosphorus removal for the stormwater runoff of the sports facility and future schrol. Ponding and drainage easements should be provided to the City. The property north and east of the proposed sports facility is zoned for residential development. Parking areas for public recreation areas such as the proposed sports facility and adjacent playfields and ball fields are known to create numerous inconveniences to such residential properties. With issues such as noise and aesthetics in mind, we recommend that the parking areas be located to the west and south of the sports facility. sports facility would be moved north and east of the proposed location to accommodate this parking lot shift. The parking lots would then be located in a more convenient area for the people using the playfields and ball fields. The residential property could be buffered from the sports facility by installing berms and landscaping along the north and east property lines. We hope this engineering overview will be of use to the City Council and City Plann^ Cbmmission with their review of the proposed development We ^vould be pleased to meet with the City Staff at their convenience, to discuss the above review and recommendations. Please contact me or Glenn Cook at this office it you have an/ questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK A ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafron, P.E. SDG:dh ,A.— ■k *iS£-":,:/:i.w V* r «• # »■><►> . r .■- • L t'" ’-4,1 '. ■•j’l V ';^'V. d«J.Jt,.|.;- ;■ l> • ->■ '\-f' i''- ;S:-' w • • w • % r,v^c:;tw FOhr.iJT 1 ••/Ui.“V» igiMItVI t stateHT!i A!C‘mm&. IJ,-. I*, rt.r- ' ■ — v.iC.H.v;.Y _______I. —1^ <r------- /:v, ■■‘Kv- ^ : -.' -^: 4J^-^ .,>:• ^ -r^*» OS' > • :,: ■: 5C , • V" 1 •r - >-■ ' I >,’A -4" ■■ ? iifea* I %4 vo-'" ■ '^: , ' -irij .’I ■f- '< r*. ■ IfIL--I-----^-------- 1 :-■««»■—L-J. i*9m \ miLDT dss& Kgs-g:::^ a . *^|jlIT 1 ^--------_T:p__~------------- ■ ■’% V^"V. h.A-.A. ,w:^3 a : ■ - ' i'tS'i; •■ • Ikw4i» $m mmtmf MiMm* A« Aa^ i|N» *• atiiiif 'W /* i-. ii MIM V SSI" ^s4^^niiirTJ Wiiiyir^ ■i| m ,t un imt I, mmu mw |J,,f I mM ar«i-rj*.s»4rrjS!;tt.. f«^ l» wiMf> Mi ii|MMII« «tMM IMM M M tM »IM. easrz U>T BLOCK I CRYSTAL TB5| CREST --------------------------------:j>p ^ t -V V ' (■■ irmro r.J >„ *!•■■•. .4 ■K :■ Si'g"£as=^ <■» Mtmtm mm mmami imt •«»% u nuiiim mi ii^ lu muum* wmysL^iMiS^sr^iMisMi* £sir^«riMMPM*********** ** •f «M mm Iff 9%{ tit mm tmmm mm muut MM MHMl MM IMi b. MmUsM Mi tl>ff| i. f MMi MM - ___ <M tt , tit. ‘tttiUi£*«S ^rasTw '•sriBsr Korcncnnir .,bb— fMIC M \ ,Mm r«M V**'• 5 IMiIImm \ . 11 .;- x; ^ Ml«. Mt a niMiliii.i ifffMff mm Uiit iSLliwm:***- {••■qiS*<rsrLSUSs^i*!« ss?*** **"* *** NUiiiff 1. fiM lOTiM m. jMiMff.M. tItM. cm or ntm mut mt tm ■MMMU. M • MtttM MMMCI tm Cstf^jM^IM ptMCtJ ‘Lsra.""j*xy“ “ r !*r —‘- •f «Mi, MMff il«l I mnm Mftiiy MM Mm mmm ti ^ •• - ■ *•_____. tllM Mr i. IM “ -V i/< t ■'.V; ■>*;m . # .• • * '#/* A MiNMIlU VMMnruufwue TRMISnR CNmCO ■ r^ v4 ** L^ VW^wVl (2 OK itm NIPMmM^MM I. *>MJW r OCVtt.OPtR*f AGRIBIEIIT rO* TMI PUiT OP ORONO SCHOOL tXPAMSlOH (N«M ot OvvalopMnt) r.*^. IHOEPEHOBHT SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 27S (ORONO) (Nan* of Dovolopor) CIT. Of (NKMO HBNNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Of. THIS ACRE] Novamtoor Ji t 4 T, Had# and ontarod into thia day last, by and batwaan tha City of Orono. a »» • r. ^ Municipal corporation organised under tha laMU of tha State of Minnesota (barainaftar called *City*). and Independent School District HO. 27S (Orono)* sn independent school district sad political subdivision of the State of Minnesota* {hereinafter called 'Developer*)* its agents* successors and assigns. NlTHBSSRHt MHBdEAS* the Developer is the buyer of the Prepecty borMinsfter defined pursuant to that cortain purchase Sfr ;tMR*«l>RM.Atreensnt .dated .BepteMhsr^SS*^.'lfStU«ollMtisoly« :v /'* MBtlRd* Albin Thios and Arlene Thins* 'she* AlMn P. ThiM and Arlene L. Thins« reapectively. husband and wife* and •idaey R. PhilUps and Ruth L. Phillips, fornerly hneun as Ruth L* thiss* ’’aspect)vely. husband and uifa (eellectively* th* Page I of l| *. *Thi«t tiid rhllllps*), »tm th« Mll«rt pursuant to tlio Purclisso A«ro««ant and sro tho prosont oimocs in Coo aiaiplo absotuto of tbo Pcopoctp* NHItEAS, upon tho closing of tho transaction contooplatod in# antf subject to tho tocais anP conditiona of* tho Purchaso Agrootnont, Thioa and Phillips shall grant and warrant to tbo Oovolopor (a) foo sinplo absolute title In and to that portion of tho Proporty which will bo legally described as Lot 2* block 2* and Outlet A* Orono School Bspanslen, according to tho plat thereof to bo recorded in tho office of tho County locordor in and for Hennepin County* Minnesota (the *Plat*) and (b) a leasehold interest in t<ot 1* Block 2* and Irfits I and 2* block 1* of the Plat* together with an option to purchase fee sinple absolute title in and to said Lot I* Block 2* and Lots 1 and 2* block 1. MHBblAS* the City Council has granted approval Cor tho Plat on tbo condition that tho Oovolopor* with tho consent of the Thios and Phillips* enter into this Agteoa ... * ' ^ tho tonw and conditions upon whioh tho 0ovolopoc"1ibsll~bo : it to provido jCos ^.......** , obllf atod rto.inatall .coctalnlTpublio :roa**ay ^and.Htllity'; h'*?-iai»r iti ■ boroinaftor doscrlbod^on tbo tofiw^and oowiUIom MNBBIAS* the City Council baa granted approval of tbo M 1 r. •n ••MMnt ) in tlm fora ottoehoa borato oo tebiMt J^of public roodwoy and utilit/ purpooM over, under end ecroee eeid Outlet A. dOW, THEMfOAE, in considorekion of tbe Fropertp end tbe Mituel preniees and conditione bereinafter contained, it ie hereby aereed aa fellowa: Pticrtptinni The real property ("Property*) in located in Hennepin County, Ninneaota, and ie preeently deacrlbed aa followa: Lot 1, pieck l. onriTAL OltT, according to the recorded plat thereof; and that part of Lot 2, lying eaat of tlie vent <42.00 feet thereof. Block l, anrSTAL CIBST, accoi’ding to tbe recorded plat thereof. •• 2.1 The City ahall net peceit or require the uae of Outlet A for public or private roadway or utility purpoaea without the prior written conaent of the Developer, which conaent ahall be at Oeveloper*o aole ■ •• V - . Trll • -iirr.l 4 • . -JTf ( discretion, and ahall not have the right to eeeetrectie^^ inatall or to require the Developer or akyl^tlMc T* ** Mar**.—. a-CF w ■ I an ^9 .owadd T * • •9 VMfclVa ...oinr Idpfovaiwite fer.puDlle.bt private roadway or utility perpoeee (coUortivoly, "*"DrD'^d*n«te*> over, under and aeroaa eaitl Outlet A, !• 1 it \ If.Iu 4 • •• *• . I «•»»•#«. Block 1, oe tbo riot on ot ptioc to tho oMooMk (lUM onnivotoocr doto o( tko dir iod pdoc Clcot obooo oiitto. .nd to Mko o lot eoabliwtlon pucwut to diction 2.5; or (b) tko Oiroiopot or the thlon end "•Ulipi or their holro. roproiontitiroi or ooiipni. Unrolopi, „ „en tor. in hocoini(tir ipwrUleolir dotinod. ill or portiono of tho Proportp Mltbin OMh otovon UD-roit porlod. Th. tom end eondltlono o( thin ioeclon a.l chill control end tho loeotlon o( oitd Ootlot A, ii ihonn on the Plot, chill not b. ehenpod or oth.r.li. ifmm not.ithitindln, in, dorolo^mt •« th. lend locitod ...t Of the Proporty. Th. Omlopor .hill not b. obllpitid to Chine or othomle .((.ct tko locitlon ot ..Id Ootlot A or to conctroct or l..t.ll ey inprorownti, oieopt nen the oecurrooeo ot th. eontiimnci.. m tortk 1. doctlon a.l<.) or <b), •ot.lth.ti.dl.* «, nooon or dmnd by ey doelcp«r • •t, or etion Iw.1., . ie„ „ neltibl. Intomt thm lanl locatad aast of tho ProMctr. V,1.1 ;:wtho.t iMti.* th.' ettioi.«^-if^'^i"'" •vitfonct that Do- -•equirod foo aiivu —lot. titi. to hot I. „«k 2, ..d Loti I ..d 2, Blent 1. ot tho Pl.t, tko Dovoloer-i tKordlo* ot . doMl.i to ioch l.-. tro. tho Thlo. end Phluip. or th.1. kolr.. ropmontitl... or ...i*.., ^ •• orantaop shall ho eoneluaivo ovidoMo that tho - .^---;iu- I . • -. ,f * w. /•.v D«v«lop«K hM acquisatf Cm tl^pl* tbsolut* titl« to itld Lots. 2.3 Tlis torm "Oovoleps* ss usod in Soetion 2.1(b) •hall moan and roCor to any uso of all or portions of t«io Propsrty for purposos othor than thoso purposss for which tho Psopocty is prosontly usod. Foe purposes of osaaplo and not limitation, said torm shall include use of all or portions of the Property for construction of rssideiicss. athletic fields, bleachers or other structures. Said torm shall esclude use of all or portions of the Property for farminp or aoricultural purposes and for classroom activities and research, including, biology classes* provided that the Developer complies with safety, security and signage atandards reasonably required by the City for such use. 2.4 If either of the contingencies set forth in Section 2.1(a) or (b) occurs* then the City shall have /j the right to require by written notice the Developer 4>’-« (and/or the Thivs and the Phillips and their heirs* •;^^w-^:~ ^-v.v.f«pfaMiitstives-snd sssigns* If st'^tbe time ef seeb ** r^'r. y» ' occurrence they hsve s legsl or equitsble interest im " 'V- 'ell or portions of the Property) to construct or install the Improvements to the extent reasonably determined by the City to be necessary given tho extent to which the ••r w Page S of If ’ I • ift r4.,r. r :vv »'* ■'•.'v.Vi |i 1 • . Property is thsn bsing ussd or Dovslopod. fseh eoBstruetion or instollstlon of iMprovoMots*. If so s rsquirod* ohsll bo in aceortfsneo with tbs torso sn4 conditions sot forth in this Agrossisnt sad then spplieabls City* Stats and Psdsral ordinaneso* statutsd* laws* rulss and rsgulations. Upon eosglstion of th# construction or installation of Isprovosonts* if so rsquirod in seeordaneo with ths iiwasdiatsly prsesding ssntsnes* ths City shall up<;n ths pstition of ths Osvslopsr sntor into and rscord any nscsosary rssolution* instruanint or othor roasonabls doeuoMntation tsrsinating this Agrsoawnt* but ouch tsraination shall not offset ths Basosant. in ths svsnt ths Osvslopsr rsfusso to construct or install ths Zsprovsssnts* ths City say do so aftor writtsn noties to ths Osvslopsr. Ths Osvslopsr (and/or ths Thiss and Phillips and thsir hsirs* rsprsssntativss and assigns* if at ths tlaw of ths ^ J* s4 oceurrsnes thsy hsvs Isgsl or sguitsbls Istsrsst In all • r ^ or portions of tbs Propsrty) by this Agrsssont«'^SfciMn'tir'r Its sithsr % m s4 pay ^all^rsaaonsbls_eoats.of jths.Xovrov ___ __ . . _ _ _ ’ 4^ • •• » . . *. ««« ■ • %««• i • t S s^^';{^****®**S^’•*■>*• .nlldw-onch^fssssnsbls-oostn*:%s.”bs asnssssd *'ithoot objsction against all poctionn sf ths •* Propsrty in which ths Osvslopsr* ths Thiss or ths Phillips havs a logal or oquitablo intsrsat. V nW-* I . Pago i of li .'T»i <1 rf4tfSi-'Tiiwrr I III idiiuS. It 2.5 If n«ith«r of tho contingoaeioo lot forth in Soctloo 2.1(0) nor (b) oeetiro. or If tho OovoXopor oequlroa foo oi«plo obooluto tltlo to all of tho broporty within said olovon (ll).yoar poriod. than tho City ahall. upon tho Oovolopor'a potition for eoad»iaation of Lota l •nd ?, block 1. Lota 1 and 2, block 2. and Outlet a into a oinglo lot. provide tho naeaaaary roaolutiona. approvala and other reaaenable documentation, all in recordable term, to orant approval of aueh coa4»ination. to vacate, abandon and terminate tho laaement in Outlet A. and all other auch oaaoMnta. oacopt thoao which adjoin the outer boundary linoo of Lota 1 and 2, ■lock 1 and Lota i and 2. block 2. and to tonanato tLib • Agroeawnt. ** PI mil ZC conotruction and tnbtallatldh of any ImprevoMrca are required under thia Agroaaoot. dotal led plana and apociCicatiooe for tho conploto Inatallattoa of tho laprovomanta ahall bo autaattod by tho Oovolopor for tho Jv . •PProval Of tho City prior to tho atart of conatructlon. .uhlch:;;^, •pproval .ahall not bo uaroaaonably withhold or doIafod.‘'“^^’^'^S plaaa and apocificatlona ahall conforai to all then curroot City ataadarda for all applicable work. ** of TiwravtaantiT Xf eenatructlea tad • #« • Pago 7 of li 1 1 * ■j • #.f * .#.• kSCi,'. I'.. 4 * * if \ (■ ■ v'4 ' / ‘‘■ I •I :r: i • I ■ * installation of any improvoMnto aco roquirod undor this Aqtoonont, than tho Oovolopor shall eonply with tho previaions of tho City coda and shall imnodiatoly ontor into on aorooawnt with tho City sotting out tho following inforoation: 4.1 "CoononcoMnt Oats* - Tho constcuction of Zi^rovoaonts shall bogin no lator than a dato roasonably agrood upon by tho City and tho Dovolopor. 4.2 "Conplotion Dato* - All Inprovononts :4all bo complotrtd no lattr than a dato roasonably agrood upon by th# City and tha Davalopar. 4.1 -Contractors- - Tho Oovolopor shall soloct, rotain and suporviso tho Contrsctor(s) rosponsiblo foe toprovonont construction. Tho City rosotvos tho right to rngniro roasonably satisfactory proof of succossful osporionco and adoguato financial status of sny such Contrsetor. mioro roquirod by City ocdinaiMo« tho Contractor shall first obtain a liconso fron tho City. •bro-Construction Conforonco- • Prior to tho start of any construction, tho Oovolopor and tho ’ ' Contractor shall aoot with tho rosponsiblo City offioioljrrrr to roviow eonotruetion piano and sehoduloo. " 4.S -Ponaits* - Prior to tho start of any construction, tho Contractor shall apply for and rocoivo — 4 *. i I t’ 1 •11 Mc«a««ry parnits fron.th* City and/er govarwaaat •ganclM having juciadietion, which pcriaita ahall not ho unroaaonably withhold or dolayod oy tho City. 4.0 "Construction” - Tho construction* Inatallation and laatoriaU ahall bo in accordanco with tho plans and spoeifloations roasonably approvod by tho City. 4.7 *Znsuranco* - Tho Dovolopor will cauoo oach porson who conatrueta and inatalla any ImprovosMnt to maintain cemploto inauranco covorago including itorlimon’a Componsation* Liability and Property Damago. 5. Pnffnrmaiiew xf conatruction and installation of any XavrovoBwata aro roguirod under thia Agroomoiit* then for tho purposes of assuring to tho City that tho Zmpiovomonta will bo completed according to tho terms of this hgraomsnt* and that tho Dovolopor will pay all claims for iiorh done and materials and aupplios furnished* tho Oavolopar deposit with tho City prior to tho Cemmoncomont Oats as irrevocable letter of credit in a form roasonably aatiafactory : ;, ..yi>*.bba^Clty.-.prov4dlnf that tho.'Cit/ will bo ablovtm-draw ufam'iw^ ^rii- 'V ••'letter of credit in its solo discretion to eoMtote the ’ leprovomamta If tho Dovolopor fails to complete in a reasonahly satisfactory manner tho work prior to tho Completion Data. The amount of such do’*.oait shall not bo reduced before suhatantlal Dago t of li • V. • ••• I mV. ;.- }fr:\ iv.*" j.-:r • .V ; . . >Ukioo of tiM liipcev«MAkft. Th« l«tk«r of er«ait flitll «s»ic« no aooMr khan ais annkha afkac kba Coavlakion. Data* oc a data raaaoaably a«raad upoa by kha City and kba Oaaalapar* Mbiebavar in latai. Upon pacfacMaea by kba Oav#iapar of kba ^•*** •* tbla Agraasank, kba City Mill ralaaac ko thn Oavalopar aueb laktar af cradik aa and whan raquirad ta ao da by kha kanaa of this Agcaoaank. a. Paaa aad .:W • I%%>. f*l Tbo City baraby waivaa kha park faaa andicaad *••• **i*ib^ ka kba Plat and kba Proparky unkil aiicb kina* if and wban* all or porkiona of kba Proparty ia Davalopad. f.a Xf coaakcuckion and inakallatiao of any Inprovonaata ara raquirad undar tbia JUpKaia'wat* khan kba Davalataw n«raaa to pay all city ta»» yagMiod par kba khan arrant City paa Scbadala and furkbar aqraaa> conpiakaly to rainburaa kha City for all kba aariobla idtikiodal aapanaaa ik raaaonably incura ia raqard ko kba raviaw and approaal of kba inprowanaaka* iaeludinf • OVi. iritliMt linitatloQa dirict City pa^otl raaaonabla ovarhaad* eoaka and faaa paid ka eanaalkaaka^Sra r " '7* V ' . . . . . . . . . . .f ■ idifllMXtnaa af ntyi Oavalopar aqraaa ko ha bound by <$ba proviaiona aak forth in all raaoiuklona of kba City Couneik approviaq tha Plat. ■ \ ;*♦ . ■ ’ • t*. *•0.* • # • ». WoaiM fffirr- Tk* tern aiK pcoviaieu kMMf ••«u t. MMii., .pM ,„a „ ,a, b«»fU „ ,P.-----Trt.r. •»a utipM at tk« pwttM iMtato aiid tlw tktM lad PkUlipp pnp tkpi. rMpMtl*. b.i„, M««MPOCP i. iatatMt ta tka Pcapax,. latataaeaa kacata ta Oaaalapac, ie that, ba aata tk« aaa. ikall aa.> aaek ua alt •( ii*,. „„ kaaa-^t akall ka plaead .( raeard aa aa ta ,»,a kataat t. ...ba.,.a.t p.tek.aar. aad a.«,«.t..cata at all a. aap part at tiM t*rop«rtr« >. NhM«v«r in this Agrasmsnt it shall ba ta,uir«l or paralttad that aatlca at daaaad ba pWaa at aataad bp aitkat pattp to thi. Aataaaaat ta th. atbat pattp, aueb aatlea at daaaad akall ba dallvatad pataoaallp at aailad bp »au«l stataa cattltiad .all (tauta t^alpt taaaaatad) ta tka •Mtaaaaa aat tank balaa. taek aatlea at da«ad akall ka 4aa»d plvaa aa tka dap Maa dalivatad pataaaallp at MMa bapaattad la tka nil ta aeeatdaaaa wltk tka akava. • ♦ Ifl ntx ^ . ..... , . * »»«« irx: w Sld‘c^j:t'^4'?kaf^^ *•* y^MfinriMnn br Hfirtnn- aii punsa spMisi previslQns, proposslsa spMlfiestlons and eontrsets for ths <*»• r.*,# ## • P# V, :T' L.?- liE'-* 't f . ►’ ^ •bk r# •• : *♦*-• • •• ?<• ► •‘h . I. ' •«-,. . . f ^- • (acnliM »«cw..t to tUa AocooMot okoU bo uO *•••»» 0.0 M. 0 „„ „ ^ .« 00 tl aot oat katolo la Cull. U. aua.l», b, rife It 1, »oo.,too« 0.0 oocoao taot »• Cltr. tko Cltr eoaaell. OM MO ooaato oaO oa»lo>aoa of tbo «»» okoll «t »0 oo,.o..u, „.au o, .OMoaoiaio 1. 00, ****^**** ** ®o*olofo**o eoatcoctoco# oubeoatcactoro* Mtoclolaoa. loborofa, o. oar otkoc pocooa Co. «obt. elota, .cti..., „ „„„ «»«.to„ .,1,U, .« ^ Aorooumt o. tko forfonoaco oaO eoapiotloa oc tko -- - - -„ aaloo. cooood br tho b.ooeh br tho Cltr oC «v oC Ita obligatloM barsundac. **■ Morula.. ..a ..a—^ Oo»olo»or Okoll ladaaalfr oa« bold kocalooa tbo Cltr, tko Cltr Caaaell, •M tko OMoto oad oarlorooo of tbo cltr Croa oad oo.laot oil elolao, daattoa, looaoo oc otpouaaa, laeladla* ottocaar'a Coaa -blob tbo Cltr. Cltr C«.aell ..oat oad oa,lo,aoa oC tb. Cltr •or oaccoc o. foe Milcb It .or bo bold Ifbi.. noaltlaa Cco. tko o.ooMio._kdolMt>tbo«>f .^oodaoaeo Of .tbo,»ocfoi«a ~ p** b - •rJfe^?i;S5iass.-saf-S£- - - dabooatfootoco. aaooot to tko oatoat ...... br tk. b Cltr of a«r of ito ebligatlona borouiulof or toctiooo oaiaaion of tbo city w L i \ l' H > IV < 5*' T “ •>. • 13.1 Mfault bf th& O«»«lop«t PC Mf of tfcp tp«»p of tbip JUrrwtnr shall autopstlcally rssalt in ths susfsnsicn oc tiithholdino of all paniita, lleonapa* oc occupancy cottiCicafcaa Isauod by the City in connection with the Ptopotty. 13.2 The Oovalopor hereby pranta to the City, its apenta and its anployeas. the ripht to enter on the Property for the specific purpose of construction or eoavlotinp any and all of the Xeprouaeenta. if repuired.to bo constructed or inatallod heroundor. should the Developer not eoepleto those irprovaeenta by the Coepletion Date. 13.3 The roa*diea afforded to either party under this hpreeesnt shall be in addition to any oti.ar rsnodies to which such party eay be entitled by law or other apeesaont ID MtlDlM tmiMOP. the City and Developer have ceesed this Apreseent to be duly esecuted on the day and yssc first above written \ H ■ —W-- *S!!***?*r into this 2nd day of SS^^JtS^So JIJIi Indspsndsnt fehool Dlstriet th. «;,S‘3 SfiiSSti '“•'•* ■ffirnrii* WIWiAf ^ tlw School District is ths ownsc of Outlot A*ssr.1! *• “• 9»nnt to thl^SJ'b^IuiJ^JillfZ that ths School DistrictfSth. ^ ^ ^ ssnsnont hsrsiasftsr sot Citv __- ***• *®**®®A District dsslrss to srsnt to tho 22lKSs;*SrSrSf^**‘ «»«-^t?ons Doii^ (Sf"S!t *■***”■•» ^" «®»*id**«tion of Ono sad no/lOOths cwsnsnts hsmin contsinsd 2d o^ S?Sk Si- «»“»4f«'*tion ths rscolpt snd sufOcisacy^ SuSsir «cluioolsdgsd, tho psrtioS hsrst! SSg^Jr^ ss mmrn. «-**!. 'li.- ^ ^ coadltlons horoiasftorCM fortt* ^ s^ool District hsrsby grants by quit olsia to tho taslgas, s noa<wlMivo ossLMt ^"•****» •g*g»»» aecsss, road sad utility amooM* •JMsnd fM no other purpose or uso on. oyo»,^id2 STS? usseiMat shall iaelude a full aadfraoSiSt Outlot A to eoastSotf repsir-e-sanltsry aeuor. iatMooSStriift •*»«s-«uiu or'une^.oray5SE^ coAtei «»€—«y u« «l«lHbU to tko^S^oH "tiBtoooooo, oporotton onO ropoir oC tho ^*** Oity agrees that the easeaent granted hareia ^1 te subject to the Uaitationsp tsras and coSitiSe mS fMta in SMtion 2ol of that certain Developer*o Agreeoant for the plat of Drone School Expansion, dated nSesAer 2S, Ittl, * raeordcd D«c«ab«r 12* 19lt« In th« oCfiea oil th« County Xocordor in and for Honnopin County« Ninnoaota« aa oeauBont Mo. 94M394 (tha *Dovoiopor*a Acraonont*). 3. Tha duration of tha aaaamant eraatad haraln ahall ^ parpatual, providad that such aasanant ahall taminata pursuant to tha toraw and conditions of daction 2.S of tha Oavalopar's Agraamant. 4. Tha tana and conditions of Sections 2.1 and 2.S of tha Oavalopar's Agraaaant ara incorporatad harain 1^ rafaroneo as fully as if sat forth harain in full. 5. In addition to any other raaedy tha School District or City nay have, tha tarns and conditions containod harain nay be enforced by injunction. 4. This Agraenent shall be binding upon and inure to tha benefit of tha raspactive parties hereto and thoir roapaetivo suecossors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHERBOP, the parties hereto have eausod this Agreanent to be duly executed on tha day and year first above written. SCHOOL DZSTHZCTt ZNOEPENOENT SCHOOL OZSTEZCT NO. 271 (ONONOI Bv U Its «.< / . ..4-* . • .» •• «»• • #And »v«w- fir '• i.'^tv; f■ • t 4 *J ■ ""-ik ■ •. ' 't'- ■;</■*-'■ ■ ' ■-» r i^:H^:..:':’-Wr< ■■ .mk^ ;. •. iH : ■ / ‘ ‘ \ • ^------ ... •:. Vj'"'.. . -J Kv'^ ^ ■'1•" * -jjs . v-.;4- KM v.v->;1 ^ * K i ' .''}■'■■ ■ jl ■ N ' V . ••= < *,..' '.;• • N r. A - *. ‘' 1 ,v>r ■ V- - Itm 'S i :r^ m' \ •'- ■■.■■ ■**■ rj^. z ... \k 0 • / i-— 4 ‘:&r£k % * -K •• ■-> O Sx ; ! ••. “^'ii np lUillUIKIIlUIll miiiiHHimm 1 UliUlUU fimiiiMi ujM4un lUilHHUlllll ‘j > ■• 7- AM .*' <«/ Era.. » V- i';- :»-iv.ai .s> f -H « • • i ■.j I'» ?.ML • • * L:£IbC .'•V :*.v?^ - • -Mr. - -k^%.V*> -- »*-“»*: rw«« . 9 L‘^1 T «’ .V ..Mft- 4 . , . ,, 1; • t' • ORONO HOCKEY BOOSTER ASSOCIATION ORONO AREA SPORTS FACILITY INC. #17 SBi: * !► • 4 r*-* CIS REPORT and FEASIBILITY STUDY for:-4 • • ^ '■ ^ ’ » I »■• ORONO AREA SPORTS FACILITY I • "Is . *'ORONO SCHOOL SITE - ORONO, MINNESOTA i wy j v.iff, • V'.- «•». 1 tfft , h, r/;lr s^";'...........•■•fc ^T!' '^11' ’<r%^ ^ . mm m s:- li'*. *■ • 4.‘. . * m id 'I ir ... ^rr/> f .*^-- ■ ■ rSnSPECTIVE view from northeast - HWY 6 ORONO ICE ARENA cpo^jo MWNesoT* -t K r. ,‘.r- L%. •' ■ I DEUNO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS r 1 s!l- V ’ r oo 74 1S WAVZATA SOULEVARO MINNEAPOLIS. MN 6542E 612 S44 S370 APRIL 1992 -» L- If. . ^ . .*> ... ,- »'»->» • -"pr” — ',i?r: - 4 t' / i/s ■’9>«—. ,-- ARCHITECIS REPORT TO ORONO AREA SPORTS FACIUTY INC. FEASIBUITY STUDY for - • ORONO AREA SPORTS FACILITY n r ■ i. April 29, 1992 Conn. No. 9201 ' ! Bp. iJ. ••M ■» • ' ^ :.r: • ■ •-.^■ .• ■ •' Table of Conteits bitroduction Usage Projection Cost and Operations Sunnary Program Suanary Construction Cost Estixnate/Altemates . V.. I’5} 45 r' Building Design r * Perspective View Site Pin « • Floor Plans, Section, & Elevation Sdiool Property Aerial Photo School Property Plat Over^l Site Layout/Master Plan Alternative Sites and Site Issues ■ il *' r ■ < Appendix Cost EStinate Breakdoun • • «e Site Development Cost Alternatives Alternative Site Plans & Studies Memorandums Soil Report Hennepin County Highway Access y- '"■'iV'■ •;■ 1 *4 t. ■\ Edge 1 P^ 2 & 3 Page 4 Page 5-8 Page 9-11 ■ f''. ♦ ./■ > Sheet 1 Page 12 Sheet 2 Page 13 Sheet 3 Page 14 P^ 15 Page 16 Sheet 4 Page 17 Page 18 ■**. Included in Master Copy .’4 ^. * r ■11 ikii* I At* ♦ ;■' i ' •:•.■• r^‘*- i.® . ' ■• • at V -.1- •I m •■#‘r- ..JLi I." r*> ?'.-^'i !:r' TWraODUCTION ORONO ICE AREM^ Coran. No. 9201 April 29, 1992 m • * The enclosed report constitutes our analysis of a milti-use.sports facility for the Orono area. This project is a follow-up to the 1990 stu^ for a milti^purpose recreation center on Old Crystal Bay Road. The .initial objective «as to develop a ice skating facility on the imdieaat comer of sdiool property they indicated could be available. A site area was determined .and negotiated with the school. lAiresolved reit'jirenents are the sewer and water service. 0^ the past few months the project was progressed thru site studies and meetings with the hockey boasters and sports faciU^ coranittee to develop the enclosed program and design on the proposed site. Consideration and . analysis of aceonnodating park desires, little league fiel^, alternative sites, sewer and water, etc. has r^lted m a number of site plm and site develojgnent cost estimates \diich are included in ^ appendix (master copies only). Soil tests have been taken to determine the suimbiliQr of the site for this use as well as site development costs. Discussions have been held with city and county officials regarding requirements for construction | parkiM, county road access and appr^l process. Some of the foregoing is included in ^e appendix (master copies only). The resultant concept and cost projections are presented.herewith for use as a basis of fund raising and negotiations and/or approval of the Orono area eoamxiity. Reapectfiilly submitted % DELANO QtIGKSON ARCHITECTS fV ‘w o ^ -I ' ; Del Erickson, AIA Registration No. 7137 > K \ t ‘ ii> E/se I ■ . %:t,.■ ■ V V • ^ ; !*■ mmi 1. iiilwhrvi fiiiirnnsAi' 1 r. 1 i • ■>>* U3AGE PROJECnONS %• c-1 »yl.- ?■' ARE/^ SFOBTS FACIUTY Market Analytlt & Potential Ice Usage Goan. No. 9201 H. y. •"Ht. , • • • • The following sumarizes our projections regarding ice usage and potential markets we have investigated: Prime Ice Demands are during 24 weeks from mid October to end of Hardi. . On a daily schedule of 7 AM .to midni^t there would be approodnately 2^50 hours available.. Assuming an SOX efficiency of renul yields approodmately 1,800 ” 1,9^ hours of marketable ice. e • The breakdown of ice time by category for the above season is as follows: Prime time SPti to llRl weekdays “ 430 7fk to lUM Saturday * 312 Noon to 10 Sunday * 192 10 game High School schedule 964 hrs «• ' ir*(241 V.-'Net Prime Time f.' 980 hrs .4 •' ^ * ' V i'■*T-' *W.' r't n J •... ■- *■ »7- • ■ Hi^ School Hockey afternoon School AM/FM phy ed (24 wks) Noon hour recraation/fitness Early mozning/figure Early cvening/hockey Sunday AM recreation/leagues Late hoinr leagues -i'-m 'M r. 4 •'m'-m 'j Y'} i »'ttV': 160 hrs 360 hrs 120 hrs 240 hrs 120 hrs 70 hrs 170 hrs Total 2,200 hrs ■f.. :s f - X Rule of thund> for breedc even usage is IGhrs/day x 7 x 24 wedcs - 1,680 hrs. li’-m 2. mtk r ' *iP'...I- I '■■ ;S;M ftp *v,- USAGE PROJECTIONS (cont.) « The following list identifies potential users and projects amount of ice time: * ik t t Orono H.S. hockey High School hockey games Middle School Fhv Ed Orono Hockey As^uciation Assume marketing of Pond Ice to others Wsyzata Hod^ Association . . figure Skating Club (needs program) 150 hrs 25 hrs 200 hrs 525 hrs Noon hour open skating Mens leagues (5/wk Q 1 1/4) 525 hrs 125 hrs 120 hrs 150 hrs ‘I Total Potential Usage 1,820 hrs • • The foregoing projections need to be confixm^.a^ comnitxnents obtained where possiMe.^_ _ _ _ .Impacts of other arenas in development stages must be considered, however, marketing of prime time hours is usually not a problem. Competition for ice time in the northwest suburban area exists with the following arenas and their respective distance (straight line) from the Orono School site: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Pond Arena, Mound Delano Arena, Delano Uayxata High School, Wayzata Minnetonka Arena, Minnetonka Buffalo Arena, Buffalo Osseo Arena, Buffalo New Hope Arena, New Hope Hopkins Arena, Hopkins 5 mi '*• 1 . • 1 ’ ‘ • 9.5 mi 6 mi X 7 mi ■ 20 mi ■fKw 12^5 mi 11 mi 10 mi • • • • Investigation and confirmation of above projections must be assigned and developed to finalize schedule and usage. ‘.'V- ■’ >- : ■' , ■ :V' - vti mm f-I ■ fr, • SPORTS FACILITY FINANCIAL SLTIM^Y * t S"/*^ .» The following cost summary is based on 1992 construction and .site development of a good quality masonry and steel trultimse heated.sports facility building at die 5.4 acre northeast school site. The develqxnent costs and operation costs are broken down into major areas summarized to to show approximate finding requirements. DEVELOPMENT Q^HAL COSTS School Site Cost . . . . . . . 5.35 acres at 9,000 -* 10,000/ac Site Development & Building Construction Cost Includes A/E fees. • a • • • $ 50,000.00 1.8^1,000.00 Equiproent/FUmish^ Costs Includes Zamboni, ice maintenance, concession • • • 80,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET • • Any financing costs must be budgeted as additional. OPERATIONS $1,991,000.00 r'V Revenue and operating costs are dependent on usage and method of operating personnel. Rough projections based on this facility: . Income.... Areiu. - ice at $100 prime ice at $ 80 non prime Arena - dry floor/net Arena summer hock^ school Concessions, gmes, service • • • • • • $ 220,000. $170,000 10,000 10,000 30, •/ .1 /- ♦ t ■ ‘' •. ,< »% • • a • » I Costs Personnel ill utilities Supplies Insurance Services K- .V * <w/ $ 80. 50.000 S • 20.000 10,000 • • • 20,1 ■ 'A • s s • • • $ 180,000. ■’-•X • II Net Revenue $ 40,lllf There is potential for a better than breakeven operation, however, capital building costs can not be totally provided for by income. S . I ✓ i-; ■■V'V kJ» f> .F]'-‘r ■ Xr^ 1 ti. fc. ■ PR(XiKAM ORUNO ICE ARENA Coiim. No. 9201 Program for d^ign development based on input fron comnittee and goals of the Hockey Association. i ’ The following information will form the basis of the building design, understanding that some of the development may be future to allow phasing to fit the available budget based on fund raising. OBJECTIVE 0-. . '•/The primary charge is to provide an enclosed facility with an artificial skating rink which has space for future developrafoit of support facilities, seating, and improvements. Basic to the first phase is a durable, economical shell which is structurally capable of future additions, meets building code requirements and provides as many amenities as budget will allow. .j , ^ SITE ISSUES V . The site orientation and configuration warrants access from the north on County Road 6. Constraints of setbacks, utility lines and required parking affects use of property for building location. Set backs on site are 100 feet front yard and yards abutting residential. The yards may be used for parking with miniiium 20 feet setback. :c City ordinance requires one parking space per four to six occupants v depending on classification. Occupancy to be based on number of seats and/or floor usage per code. The west portion of site has a drainage swale and hill «Siidt could be leveled for ballfields. The east portion of site has proper elevation, however, the upper 3 to 4 feet of soil is composed of black dirt and silt which nust be removed and backfilled for proper base under building. The subgrade has frost susceptible soil and therefore some protection must be utilized in design of ice rink base (ie sub floor heat). Alternative plans will address concept of an arena building with shared parking and drive for little league ballfields. A future outdoor rink should be sited to allow for interaction with arena (both Zamboni and people) and best orientation. 5. ■■* t 7 i * -X # r ^ t r-T’^ PROGRAM (cont.) Conin. No. 9201 BUILDING PROGRAM The following functions and their respective requirements are to be acccniKxlated in the master plan for the arena: t- pymction 200' X 30 meter Olympic rink surface with 24' radius comers with dasher boards and protective screen (preferably glass). Double gate for Zamboni, preferably in strai^t section. Players boxes and timer/ penalty boxes opposite from seating. Ice surface and ice making equipment should be based on 6 month operation and allow for other uses during down time. Spectator Area Approximately 1,000 seats in bleacher type stands which could be over dressing rooms or storage. Elevated seating at dasher boards for good visiblity. Team/Dressing Rooms Four rooms of capacity for 20 players (approximately 12' x 24') with easy access to ice. Toilet and shower should be planned for joint use ^ two rooms, although first phase may not include. Toilet/Shower /future) 2 at 150' so ft Officials^irst Aid Small room for game officials storage and^ changing with storage for first aid supplies. ni Room Heated area for storage of machine, ice making and grooming equipment, nets, work bench, hot water heater, and snow melting if necessa]^. Room to have overhead door access to ice surface, outdoors, and future outside rink. Refrigeration/Mechanical Room Roor^ near rink to house ice making equipment and building mechanical systems (ie heat reclaim). Net Area 19,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 1,000 sq ft V 300 sq ft 100 sq ft sq ft ‘v* ,S-400 sq ft S'^ . IV !■ •:, ■:r. I : .H- PROGRAM (coTit.) Cocnm. No. 0201 S V : BUILDING PROGRAM (cont.)Net Area ;• . Public Toilets Men and women facilities to meet state code requirements for fixtdres (30 s.f. per occupant for rinks ■ approx. 1,000 occupants) Women - 4 wc, 3 lavatories Men - 2 wc, 2 urinals, 3 lavatories 400 sq ft Concession Area Space for preparation and selling of typical menu such as pop, popcorn, hot do^, etc. provide approximately 20’ of sewing counter adjacent lockable storage room is desirable. 250 sq ft Office and Control Area Central location with good visiblity and control of entrance and ice surface. Components should be arranged so one person can manage facility. Space for manager office, ticket sales, skate r^tal/ sharpening, pro shop, and general office. 200 sq ft Lobby Area large enough for crowd control and heated lounge s^ce with access to concessions, toilets and entrance. 800 to 1,000 sq ft 4 * Club Room/Offices Plan for future heated club/game room with vision of ice. Comfortable place for parents and s^ctators as well as offices/ storage for figure skewing club, hockey assertion, etc. 1,400 to 3,000 sq ft V. -* 'A#'I Storage 200 to 500 sq ft General building storage as required for maintenance, team equipment, and building furnishings. Total Net Area Using a 15% net to gross conversion factor for walk space and building construction »»slimy 30,650 to 32,750 sq ft TOTAL GROSS AREA 4.600 to 4.950 sq ft 35,250 to 37,700 sq ft 7. .la r-. PROGRAM (cont.) Conn. No. 9201 EUNCnONAL RELAnONSHIPS The uses in the building should be arranged to separate public from participsnt during games. The control area should be convenient to maintenance area, however, does not have to be adjacent. A clear separation (ie barricade) between occupsnts and the Zanboni machine is desirable. Zanboni should be located to also serve outdoor rink (needs clean patiliw^ *■ could be combined with ice dumping area). the entrance/lobby/seating relationship should be reasonably direct and under control of office area. An ui^>er level, enclosed space with an over-view of the skatii^ rink is desirable and should be at least planned for future. The seating for spectators along side of rink is preferable to ends. Skaters access for team rooms, lounge, rink^ toilets, and concessions requires skate tile flooring and concentration of these areas minimizes amount. The configuration and dimensions of the building to minimize construction costs omy impact on the foregoing relationships, however, long .tezm planning' should take precedence over short tezm economics. .Analysis of a larse shell to accomnodate future interior development versus ndnimum building with future add on capabilities should be done. • f ,\y: .* m r.- -i ■ ’i)► ' A. •r: r y ,«■ -■• *s - i V *ik ‘V- ■ ' '• •' ■'Hi K ■ ' d • •y* ■ f > \ 8.. V . \* climl r ■ * Vi '--■?■•.'k * V■ ■• 1 OONSTOUCTTON COST ESTIMATE ORONO ICE ARENA Comoi. No. 9201 The following cost estimate is based on area takeoff and unit prices as would be provided by subcontractors to the project. The project wDuld.be built by a general contractor providing co*ordination, supervision, and control. The cost estimate is fo^- a complete build^ on a fully developed site. Alternate materials and systems are identified with estimated costs. The cost estimate is broken down by specifications division which can relate to subcontracts. Div.1. General Conditions Allowance for costs related to general contractor for supervision, equipment, permits, review fees, insurance, temporary facilities, and testing. $ 59,000.00 Div. ! I. f'/ ^ ' ,■ 2. Site Work Excavation, backfill and grading Includes excavation to basil soils under building and compacted back fill with coarse alluvial soils from off site. Fill and grading of .avhrall site. Footing excavation and backfill, under floor sand cushion. - 61,000 302,100.00 - P :■ Tl Parking lot and drives . Class 5 base, paving, curbs and entrance walks. - 98,500 . V.-. Landscaping Allowance Seed, sod, and trees. - 5, Site Lighting Allowance Watt'.r and Sewer Service To Old Crystal Bay Road connectors thru school property. - 8,000 •129,600 Div. 3.Concrete Includes footings, columns, perimeter floor slab and precast mezzanine. 122,000.00 Div. 4.Masonrv' Includes concrete block foundation and interior partitions and insulated energy rockface block exterior wall to 10 feet. 68,400.00 -s 4- i i ■M CONSTOUCnON COST ESTIMATE t ote •ICE ARENA Ccxm. No. 9201 t-* • 'rWi' ■ Div. 5. Steel Includes quality pre*'engineered steel frame, roof and sidewall upper facia with 4" insulation, gutters and misc. steel. $ 309,500.00 Div. 6.Carpentry . Includes allowance for miscellaneous 25,000.00 carpatry, drywall partitions and framing. Div. 7. Moisture Protection Includes perimeter insulation and caulking. 15,500.00 Div. 8. Doors and Windows Includes heavy duty exit doors, interior doors, overhead doors, windows and hardware. 58,800.00 rv f f,-') . ii. Div. 9. Finishes Includes ceiling in toilets and meeting rooms, skate tile, painting, and trim. 58,000.00 Div. 10. Specialties Includes toilet partitions and bath accessories, .ben^s, concession, and 1,000 seat bleachers. e • e 85,600.00 i?.» Div. 11. Special Construction Includes ice rink .system, with concrete floor, subsoil heat, ddumidifer and dasher boards. • • e ;■ j. 390,000.00 142,650.00Div. 15. Mechanical . Includes service and plumbing,, fire sprinkler system, radiant and unit heating system, and eadhaust system. Oiv. 16.Electrical Includes service, 50 plus foot candle lighting, and minimal power distribution and auxiliary lighting, sound and scoreboard. 136,000.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $1,772,550.00 -V. 10. mm 1i 1 #1 w >"'■. ;>,j r. ■• ‘, \! ■ CXJNS'raUCTION C»ST ESimiE ORONO ICE ABEKA Conin. No. 9201 Consttuction Cost * Includes site preparation and sewer and water service. -e $1,772,550.00 A/E Fees and Soft Costs @ 5%$ 88,450. as • • imAL BUDGET FKt SITE DEVEIDFMQIT & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION » $1,861,000.00 C , Deduct Alternates 1. Acrylic screen for dasher 2. Crushed rock parking & drive 3. Metal exterior wall 4. Mezzanine finishing & stairs 5. Radiant heating system 6. 16' sidewall in lieu of 20* 7. Concession counter 8. Delete dehuaiidifier 9. Delete sound & scoreboard 10. Onit site lighting $ 7,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50.000. 00 20.000. 00 4^ m ^ -Pm ^ %•‘■a-r M. Other Deduct Options include:V' -m ■Reduced aad/at volunteer site work. • • Reduced quality in hardware and doors. Delete all finishes, some insulation, etc. Volunteer labor on dashers. Reduced seating and accessories. m ’sm-i* : 1 - - - -- -ihhi •MW'- 5» ■iyiV-mi te.. : vi: ?: ■■’ .*^' 'fe* --. r4r ' ■ •' ' fc.\'i:*i^-. ■ < j-.-,: ■.' - ' "■■ to' " •■■ ' ■- ';■ —F ‘f ■'-'. ^-f ;»iLi !• ■ ^ -"jU •/• 7' *' "• '/■'> ' d r ^ / Li ’ ^ t 1 1 MCMi0«*C«1OHMOMttCl«<tea)?»jD m7^>'ViATm7SrJiSt ttm !■ •• WMB ___OIK>NO ICE ARENA MTOi Mn Mir. ♦lilt IK jt.n ili m —-iM^ '. . -, I'.'**-- ■T / ' U>* ^ ALTERNATIVE SITES ORONO ICE ARENA Corm. No. 9201 A number of sites located between Highway 12 and County Road 6 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road were investigated as follows: 1. Northeast comer .of school property (selected site) 5.35 acres ** satisfies program - needs sewer & water. 2. Northwest comer of school property, (park proposal) Access prcblem, increased site development, school disfavor. 3. Commercial site at Highway 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road 4.6 acre, 2 party, small site, high land cost. 4. East of City Hall site 5.67 acre, road cost, poor soils, close sewer & water, high development costs. 5.Southeast of City Hall site 5.17 acre on Highway 12, high .land cost?, close sewer & water, low development cost, needs further investigation. 6. North of City Hall site . ... 3.0 acre, small site needs joint use of parking areas at school, church, and city. Close sewer & water, soil ?, needs approval of city. Of the foregoing sites 1 and 6 are the most attractive. Site 1 has.high sewer and water cost. Site 6 is small and contingent on city approval. We recomnend proceeding with Site 1 unless circumstances cha^e and present a more desirable site. 18. r '/€aV^ HT‘^ '----Ai-J-.'-r frg^i/L/ 'L\Soco^\ VACCO iS<<b^.ka, . I I at: s?=g^ I I I I if,> 'L^Oflfofrf}•7^«eo- 52cOrr. • { i • 1 Sbee>( i^ad II1_L JlLUJ \iStS(kJCt.i^ ! 1%^/^/>LA^ -@.<54 ■ ^ ^ ■P- %i^ l! ■iiiwwg I® I i I * i • I * T- r“ * I f * • ! 1.1.1^ j— • 1 » • I i * ^ .________ ,,Uot^ i'^-f .^icbte H' • f® :!6a/H;h^SSriWs^ <3o i *i^52» ,I?liA\'& ! 1/3?^ AlytoU) '}iyr)^y'' jo^gfecp^fojy^(^ WI5GC- :i f6l5P-^(• ..........aM tetMMMMMiliiifeflkUi ‘\'Uoi Cgj 11^d?t/A(0 ^^1>X "PT •F=|Ul>i?Vfe6 6>\A- &rkc^. yS': a •’• fecco S^ooo t <* • I <VN I t ^sofm-<i?,^ t I • I 1 i 11 'i- I ! < f « fl 1 r* eiaJM t i» • »: I I I i V.WaV, M t I M I 'U^iffoa. ^ 9B I ? 'p7>A\i^g^4 ‘^^y fgfcca? I ! Ll^^jOT-K?^ ,1 Jfeeto^ 4J (i^T t^1Tiv\ AlCr Aiyf f PR. ’I'ecf'^icT^ •i' A(“R ^booa 'UlfiOA isifiss- 4t£>P«) \,855ceo Rink-Tec International Inc. ARENA SPECIAUSTS TELEPHONE (612) 635-0127 — -i :V- 1751 W COUNTS *10AD B ROSEVlu^MN 55113 March 20, 1990 rBCEWE.0 Del Erickson Erickson Delano Architects 7415 Wayzata Bvld. St. Louis Park, MN. 55426 (612) 544-8370 RECFIVPH 2 1 1990 Dear, Mr. Erickson, This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation yesterday concerning the Orono Sports Complex Project. Rink-Tec International is exclusively in the business of designing and installing industrial ice rink refrigeration systems and dasher boards. Each member of our staff has over fifteen years experience in the ice rink industry. We offer complete design services for refrigeration and dashers and are available for consulting on entire arena projects. Our ice rink refrigeration systems consist of industrial multi stages semi-hermetic compressor packages. Multi-stage compressor allow for maximum energy efficiency by matching operating horsepower to actual rink demand. Our refrigerated floor systems are constructed of high density polyethylene I" tubing on 4” centers. Polyethylene tubing has proved to be the most durable tubing for ice rink refrigeration systems. As ice rink concrete deteriorates over the years and starts to develop cracks polyethylene tubing will not be effected by corrosion as in steel materials. Our ice rink floor circulate methonal and water, which is a stable and inexpensive secondary refrigerant. Rink-Tec International is a leader in the Industry in energy saving technology. We offer a centralized rink floor header which reduces energy consumption by reducing brine pumping horsepower. We also offer a two pump brine pumping system where a smaller brine pump is used when refrigeration tonnage requirements are lower. Our compressor are available with Copland Discus compressors which are the most efficient in the industry. We also offer a large range of dasher board systems including: Wood frame, sLeel frame, and aluminum frame set with acrylic or tempered glass facing. I hope this letter gives you an idea of the services and products we supply. We would be happy to assist you on the Orono, MN. project or any other project you may be involved with. I have enjoyed working with you in the past and hope we can continue to work together in the future. If you have any questions please feel free to call. s. ^ . nr —r • ./TO- .•;.;rVH ^.• !>» ^ 4 • * '.'•rrT^ <>f‘ XV .*: .: -;i r * *#" 4 / •>53S» fi.n^-'V’*:'- iu ' * 1^ -» 1 ^ "• ■^*’.‘^iC.* •’ jrtjr • , *>‘ ‘4^' ^ 0fm— ^ . 'r'r^TJ - • . 1 •’• •r?sss: 'fkrrr :jT(?;.“ii|| .>_»!Um.*- r rrs •» • • ? ^4 . -rr-^ ‘•i*--^‘. ' ■ -.4^mMMM. *r ' li.. v^ ;;r. ■ ri* 'i/' **-; *• 4 N j» - -Mi r'l^: MTJ !Ji i.* II I ar. ^23 ? ? -LV, vi«,4/71K r:; . % •<^. ».->,' . 'JV i^-; rp:x.:,s| ' • c'- g|^'• * r' -r 4 c-l »i- ■ I ^^'0/">j r\. 'i *K(■•*>»• 1\J.C '■ :-^ . ^ .4il ‘■ ■ y^ -psr # 7-^. « • • • »« <• 4 iT1 . ^W*>vfr«»-> - ^ Ifer^-V e ;>1 -’i ry - «• . • •» r • V..Itlr. .:^^-• KiS: E^lr tS • I . —- >- s^ . _ ■ »iM r. . • 2$Sr • •#% v,^v;*rix.vr-;; “a* ^ - V' 1_ V 'i^ T < ' r ' ..'j« jfc'-^'.’^#'--'’ ::ii* •m , » ^ '^\x.i'-- r,\‘y%u U > w^iiSfco^ , ' iH' ; ' • It; ^ TZ^- S BL J -; - • >C* • % <cfr*<i*- . .1* " »*» _r ■ « r • ^ «?r W --■ » '^-p :=S:^. ^ "2 ia ^ ’ -^i-SiSr.sa ^ V, .*5.t . 7i. - I E'- ^ ^ - f rjl'n..K5:-r' ■»? 5. :^-1SriT V ' . S - '* -■-' N , t »rs' .«•-*» 1/ -«T V. O '1^' ^ ^V.5. - A • .* > * * jgi>ij^";^fl»^^^ ^ . jT ^ h«* <D&.0k3b -efOi2t<7 -^AC-iun^i'1^£>\ (D i?i iJ.il -2. :!>£>ne-WiCTP^ ;iScC !Z)tiX-..- 6fetJD/ OMrr ll^xT 891^91«ieio _...ljJfiC«CK - ~ r--. U-AH6W $*\riij2i-- t/tSUOA)Mcp4 Mi2«--Ht;p..... , , l«j7JVk>i> i I l/jsag 9l«lSO- tfcSRo ft • • •>#- * •♦ • I • i i ^ WMJU I T mxes^i imem _____, lAziswi ,?ra5^B uM: I I I • t I i ' ! I • ,- V r- 1 MSf-^ASpaO Ma>Mq|i|n /^ttntt. 'I«*r nu«-iwm&iL :; 1W25?. at,.ip&e=L, k.v. 9)aac j Joas ■ III! 4-4 !l I I ! 1 * ( » J 1 I TT t » irrTT V/ i • i iH- — H SBBaisei'; *t. t f I ; —•I ♦ . ^ . ll Auinu'' d600 'll ^^A \osoo^ I I liioiio ' TT '^%bG<2h UiW ; -tiviieocr i • ^ U) ^ ^ „ S 3 'v'"* ^ ^'■‘?' -- 1 r^—f.* yyr-> X • .•/—1 •« . ;. . ^v* A/’' ^^^^!^,^^ •^^..^V'->V''V:- V av ■•■ . r , / I V » ' ' \\'v^v ■ - "i ! » : ; \ wvN'*"'. '- '•'' . , / • ■* .^, V T ' % k « • •• — ■>im0 — • »•'« ^ ^ . \ V ------------________ >*' , .'..>*■^^''v.^‘ •!- ;'{*/. *•• 'n ■ X '-c ' ' O I?: 1 I t-/ iI f- % . ">: ~ — —y/— ---------—*f “/'■— —:r— - - ^ V*** --•— ------------------------------- -— i 1 *«•••• «• •• •«M«.(* )«x* 1 •! • •*«••I «. ••• M old C^rJTA•. 8A* «0A0 NORTH OK on 1<5 4<X|C69 -scale in feet f'yjr-A ih -fc^TUpV c;nnr'/inn rno I OElANO ERJCK3C.N liRCHsTEC’S CteTitisPu W*»« A * •*.■> .¥ '••*■ .................if * •••. ' • • !••% • •<•• I ••* •. Ik ••• » ■ K ' "t , ,r m* '» - 'L:5o <5o7 ' 2c; - I g>i? •Ha>Lrr’ >«SMA 6TwTV At.7: ^• I I' % ! -Itr-^-y i>'Jr^ i COMM.DATE REVISIO^ ,1' I'',.1 # ♦ CGLANO EPICKSOfJ AnCHITCCTC !•■ II • 7411 W4V747A OOUirVAflO • r * ' '•. • *M » ^ « *• 1 i .r1 =u s i • / I / ’.VA '' • A >■ \ *• ‘‘. ■/< • \ *\ •• -i'l *• V \' *•• /••\ ^ \> # ■( * 'f t * ’ • J’ • ' ''a** ' / *S - /®_^r7^l-v(-' '"T'- 4 r % 0 \ L # •p V. \\ > \i y‘ Si t . •. -T * ..**'*. • ^ ... !: •./• •> •> .^^.' 'v- • •. • • ■ ^ rr.rr, • ^ ^ -■r- * ‘ « ; •. C^MTAt SAV 4OAO liO^* ••* . ••«■ 200 j ■1 ‘I •■■*•■—■'tr-' ' ■f r "X X ' .' / I * —-•—^------V-^———T*»—^-fe-- — ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------••■A _ - ' \»S>K'^—V. ' J \ •«tt«l fi^u? I>:2L j;- — *\ ^ ■ ,t i _l >T_! !_,|—^—2^-*^,-^-----H- • -\Jf, K.; '!i/( ■«'!..T ^ ,r. ■'■±^ \Li < '\ •;'! 'v '' ♦ - ’ ' 1i, // ' Li» ------ !_____ ~~ w »»«•••*• •• v-^ ¥»■-------A. . . 4- < >t1 « I •V-__^ ___ 'X^-1 y <»H <;?s . - Mt ' *1 K\ J 1 . ■<j*4-k'*M V T • \ % V I f ;,4t •'1 . il .^0 i i[ K&l ••■nk >. o- '■«4' /■• ■ ^ I f» V ' * '> s v > , ;^i h\il1 \ •■ '• I 4* iX / %>' ' .* ^ I ^-''’ '.y A ✓ // ' ■ 'Ar y' y* ^ ''r#v y' / . ^ ' 's .* •' X i * 'tr' --' - ' f //A; A: -'*'* ' /"->•• > \ • >''-.-....:----v//-'<<:::-^'•. •s ”'' ' /‘'n- ^• . V -.........* .................■*'.^“. 's 'A '' *A. >■- ^ s s ----- ' - •• ' ----------------- 'v ' .•« •»•• •••• ^> s sS I•i % • -•*• 1^ ••' •• • <4». . I• • ••* »•( old CW^S^A l iA» *040 IC'■■• «••• • •«# ••■ • ••• < • . • • • •• I'OO ----------------IIiitifiMwy >iii 11 > <j I L* - •••• • »•• • n R^km. I- 2.- ■. IT^TAL. - PAk4UK^- bKMvJhJ - HaxiHuH--^ta^f TOTAL '^z.i Acfcee U. nb t>FACJB^ ■'-'2X)D \0 10^ -iD -rf’-Ace^ RF HIGH profile rigid FRAME NOTE: PURLIN AND GIRT DEPTHS DEPENDENT ON DESIGN REQUIREMENTS I sll • •>20 MPLL • • • • 30 Fspi.1.' ‘•.'1 - •’. 40 FSF LL' 'V/*-»•i i i.' *, • •• •,., .t ‘.ex..--t ..-V,-*•a-p 9 • 0 ••:a '^ •. ;d . e ^ -Q J . A ^t'O .t*i.*: - Q /-■A':^ :• ** ■ .»■ ^ - 4 * ^'— 1 y-i(T 2T-ir i4*-i(r 7-rr 25**ir 14*-10-!(T 0*-4-13--3-25*-r i4*-ir rr 8*-3-13*0- 11 *10-2r-ir ir-i(r r 10-8-15-6-25*-ir 16--10- 10- icr-4-iy-r 25-r i6*-ir r-r 10*-3-15-0- iy-10-2r-ir ir-i(T 7-12-a-ir*6-25-11-ir-io-10-ir-4-ir-r 25*-r ir-io-r-r ir-r ir*r1r-i(r 3T-r ir-r 9-r-5-15-0-34-r i6*-r r-r r-10*i4*-r 34*-r ir-r r-r r-r 14-3- ir-KT 3T-3-ir-6- 9-10-5-ir*o-34-r 16--6-rr 9*-l(T ir-6-34*-r ir-r r-r r-r ir-r ■Si in(T 3T-r 20**r 9-ir-5-ir-o-34-r 20r*r r-r tr-ir ir-6-34‘-r 2<r-r r-6-ir-r ir-r Si 15-10-3T-r ?r-r r 14-5*21-0-34*-r 22--T r-r 1T-1(T 20r-r 34*-r 22*-r r-6-ir-r 2ir-r ir-io-36*3*266- r ir-5-ZS'-O-34 r 26*-6-r-r ir-io*24*-6-34-1-26-6-1-6"24-3“1/ -6 2TKr 3rr 30-6- 9-22*-5-29*0-34‘-r 30'-6-r-r 2r-ir 2r-6-* 34*-r 3o*r r*6-2r-8-2r-r 11-10-45-5-£o*-r r-r to*-r 18-4-44' r 20‘-r r-5-9*-8-ir-r 43*r 2tr-r 1* 6-9*-r ir-ir•13**10-45-5-22*r r-r ir 2-20*-4-44--0-2r-2-r-5-ir-r*20*-0-43*-r 22*-r r-6-ir-6-i9*-ir iy*ir 4?*-5-24*r rt-14-r 2r4-44*-r 24*-r r 5-iT-r*22*-(T 4T-T 24*-r r-r ir-r 2r-ir 19*-10-45-0-28-2-r-r 18-2 26-4-44-0’28-2-r-5-ir-8^26-0-1 43*-8-2r-2-16-ir-6-29*-ir • .*23*-10-45-5-32*-r r-r 22*-r 30*-4-44*-0-3r-2-1-5-2i*-r 30*-0-43*-r 32*-r r*r 2r-r 2y-ir [ir-ir 54-r jr-iir r-r 9-10- 20-0-53-6-2i‘-ir r-r 9-6-19*-6-53-4-21-10-rr 9*-5 ir-r o IT‘10-54*-r 2T-10'r-r 11-10’22'-0-53*-6-23*-ir r-7*ir-6-21-6-53-4-2)-ir r-r 11-5 21‘-6-S 15*-10-54-7-25-l(r r-r 13-10’24-r 53*-6-25*-ir r-r 1T-6-23*-8-53-4-25-ir r-r 1T-5-23*-6* f 19-10-54-7-29--i(r r-r irio-2r-o-53*-6-2r-io"r-r ir-r 2r-r 53-4-2T10-r-r ir-5-2r-5- f 23-10*54*7-J3»0*1 -r 21-10 3r-o'53-6-33-10-r-r 21-6-31-6’53-4-33-10’r-7’21-5 3i -5’ ir-10 64 - 3 *23 6-17-9 9’21 2- '62-10’23 6-r-i0“9'-3 20-10’62*-6-23-6-19’r-r Z0'-ir F o 13-10*64 3 25-6-1 r Ilf.23 r 1 52-10-25*-6’1-10-11-3 22 -10- •62*-6-25-6-r-9-ir-r 2ZM-L i 15’ ;o !64 3*::*-6*1 ;»: 3 :5 2 ;62 -O'27 6”1 10 13 *3 24 10 ‘62 -6 27 6 1 j u-r 24-11 i 1 19 to*64- 2’31 -r 1 r i:-9*29 *2 62 10’31*6-r-10'17 2 28 -10’ ;62 -5’31 6’- r !7 r 2ltr 23-10**64* 2-35-8-r-r 21-9-33* 2-62-10-35-r r-ir 21-2-32'-9' j ar-6-35-6-r-r 2i**r 32--il- 1 13 10 i 7.r-r 27-2‘*14 11 4*25* 1- 1 -1 6-2TT I* ir 10-9 24-5'71 O’27 2’111"10-7’24 5- ;8015 to •/3-r 29 ?-r^1.T 0“27-r I 29-r r-ir 12 9 26 5* '7r-0“29-r r-tr t2-.r-28*-5’ i f*910 >73 -6 33 2 1 4 1/ -0 ji -r !71 6 33 2’1 -II 16 -9 30 5’ 1 ;i -o*33 -2 1 -II 18-/JO-5- 1 t 23 10 :3‘ r 37 2 1 4 21-6-JV-r ;7V -6'37 2’r-ir 20-9 34 5-71-0’37 2’r 11 20* 7 34 5’ : A 13*10“92’*8*30 6-1-5 ir-r 28*-4” j 30 -4 • ' 34 -A. 1 91 2 30-6'1-9’10 7 2r-t1* *90*-r 30 6 r-r 10-3’2; r j O 15* 10*02 3-32 6*1 5’13 2’0! r 32* 6*r-9*ir 7-29 tr 90 r 3r 6 2* r i,r-3 29-7" ! i9*10 92-8’36 6*r-5’17-2'91 2’36*-6-1 -9’16-7’33-ir i 90-r 36-6 ’2 1*16-3"j3-r 23 O'92 0’40 r-5-22-2“J9 *4* ‘?i 2 40-6-1 r 20* 8’37--11- j 90-r 40' 6"2-r 20 3'37 r I*o 13 10”112 6"33-10’r-r III'n 6’ j no r 33*-10“r-r f0*-r 30'-11- !109 6’33 to r 2’10-O ’30' 10- j N 15' to*112 6-35 10-18 13 1 33 -7’ ‘tn 4 35-10-2 1 12 4-32* ir t09-6'35 10 2 2 12 0 32 10- 1 19 10’112 6-19-10^r-6-17- r i;* 8 'no i 39*-ir 2 1 16 4 35-n :t09’€'39 10"2 2-16 r )6-i0' 23 lO’112 6'43 10’18-2ir 41 6 no 4"43-10’r 1 20j4_40-ir 109-6 43 10 r 2 20 O’40 10* ••S* 4 4 • "AM i I J '•»**«**orv »hu«rt« .Vm »u* D4t« /g il .k) j ibiv 5 *,*Vr*f- 1*^ >1 ^ ••;-i—^_-_- ?r* .w.* -.^ r.• 7-r^-n»*.rr:;rr»--^*r ^•^r.-A":*.* *?'-.'5rr - • ^\. - • • *.^w,v-.r ..• •..jrrrs u GME CONSULTANTS, INC JOB NO. - SHEET____L J Geotschmcal * Macenals * Environmental 14000 21st Avenue No Minneopolis. MN 55447 1612) ssMase F^(612) 559^720 JOB NAMF /t '- 0 /Ui /O g> BY DATE ^-2.7-9-L^ CHECKED BY DATE r . . ' . I l : l>eC ^A^tclLs^c*^ % : Stt^o Df^O(tsjit»d dF"^c/C i 716k^S 'TTti^ OAj ^AJ-o / yy£^ 7^psc/c ujs Foo^o C/uy SA<nojj^B^ '77/e' AJ<^nZH‘ <LL^ /C LiSU> C^J^TIS^ C^ //tc^ y ¥>aeV. tUy z yvtff- / ^ ST/F^ ^ Cj /NiiiP*Fe 5>^/tr7Aj<5 ReUto rK^ 7^Uf/c. /Kf MkV fii0o7)4^so ^cu ^ ooe SuPy^ C^Af^f 7^ DefTT^ oF ^7^0 C Fsfrr^ S//04tc^ /hur?^ OftA^t^^4*^ /o ‘ 7V^ c^C4y /^^/tntTu y79Le^€:^ry F/]4^ AisxeV- Tt rAyvrV 4 ‘CA^4:J nte k?e Fvof^o dAonAu/y un^ngr^ z /t ^OeFt/tr cx^ / 2,4^ *“ 'TVnJ /J c^^S^XT^l I 7H uiui e FtLL'AiQ ^/j ttzc T Jtrs' 7^ THe ^/ytXT~ /aJ u) Fiyd (//trie's^ /ou P<^4g^ (^Z'\ , 3 • ohi(* F^ *t6 u. c^ulP y7/ty~ (ce" ^h^ATY]//^ J/*tiry^ FvUT^^SC B / CC' /yiK/eyuF S 14 0 fj yi4 S 'T'i! ^ *^c F"/ ^ /7" 7 • i4aAZwa»Wji .i>«I r - - • p.\. it.TCc; • -‘“rv'. *r,*J iti - .'*ii t. : i *. ;r- o.i:y:r»«f « *. .LCir rr ;• u-.*s»»t. v..v*»‘*X I ^ll I GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 6«otBchncal • Matentlf • Environmantat 14000 Slat AvenuBNa Mmneapolm. MN 55447 (61S)50&il809 Fax (6121559^720 joe NO ^ SHEET ^ JOB NAME BY /C^ fhl^yjA' OA^tJO kj- l^vt/)r:^^y nATP 4^-2^--^ 7^ / ____________DATE___________________CHECKED BY I I I ft^^sncfiy^ TV^T' C 2-3 */i-^ / l'7~ d ij>^Oti*^ Ffv n <j ^ piCft^ u> / TH ava - £fytttJUt,AA~y SctL, Ti^ ^oTr»^ (3 P~ FirjTi^C. I'J. \ I' I I I I I J) A-TTd H / 0^ ^VnvUTZr^ F-i^U. ^ c LO Lfk ^ -t /HiSru^ P'UdAy yj^/^ /l/^JUA/Gy <^/i4h)e^ /JemOtO:? . ^ pz A/ -r% S^rfTT^ SUA^ Pu,T~ /aJ 77^^ ^^fc?>fT7/u c pit^nr crK^ 7v^~ i ^r\ '—^ #3^6^ Pg— L^fTL^puc Dic^u^ r ia —~ /4<y Xhr^S/ TlrtA OlSyUA^Ji^^ce^l P/hfJ'tfJ ^ f(L£fHGK^ i =7r*^S Cl^%} (filC h iru y^lAj (^ %'^^/C/hS~ pUA c^ FH Pli c U^LHh S'^eZT~ piOL ru^J^p- 1 Pi^^^por 2/^f.'^^ / rtf dL/t^^Su Li I jy^ '7^ % 6ti 7^ p- 3 kiib4ai4AiAiia 'm- - «: .• * - .•• •.-.* j: .*! - . - -w I ? • w . ■ ji*Z,^J^ .•»r anrv*» • *iiwnaus,*4a^ J«r»ir3 •»rsr :* I. ^ll GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Gaotechnicai • Material* * Environmancai 1400021st Avenue No Mmeepolis. MN 55447 (E1S) 9S9>i899 F4x (61 SI 5984)720 v‘. • X .jixrs. ar*«-*.r^. m jrzr r!{ JOB NO. _3i£i^2__ SHEET___^OF J JOB K.A»c /C^ -^A^a ) ^ HATI.BY. CHECKED BY DATE r. ; V ^ PuT bA*h*J'S 7V£~ Pu/L UkiH^ — J’/>4^/aj cs-f C Pt^iios P/Ps- 6f^fr i4><^7~~) O*^0e>^ 9fiv gyk.a:>i'Tf '^ug^iCtiO^ SA»P uiu^it'PfKiC j'cu'O j*i£Cu^^ & /aJ 6 <L^ -p 0^0 Ois:JtCAj P/h)d^. /. M2^ hu. <S»«Tr~fc ■War *■■ - - .• A -«.***- -I r k.CCj Wl* ft^Wl'MlVO «^* • PROJECT Proposed Ice Arena OWNER Orono Area Sports Facility, Inc. SITE County Road 6 - Orono. Minnesota ARCHITECI-ENGIf EER Delano Erick ,on Architects Ui U. I s i UI 1SS Ui > UJ or Ui < $ 2 2SS 3SS 4SS 6SS 6SS UJ UJ UIo <Zu < *- 1.8 4.0 7A 8.0 11.5 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE elevation h -1028 Black CLAY WITH ORGANICS, trace sand ■ stiff - (OL) itopsoil) (/) H 10Uior (O UI SIUJ ^a. ^ V) o Vi: $O tu < > 2 Gray brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel > firm - (CL) Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gfavel • firm to stiff - (CL) Brown SILTY CLAY, trace sand - stiff - \(CL)7 Gray brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - stiff to very stiff - (CL) End of boring at 11.5 feet Hand auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound hamnter falling 11 inches correlated to 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS W.L.E3 1.8 feel while drilling W.L.X 1 foot 4 hours after drilling W.L. Borina caved at 10 feet after auger 0.75 1.0 1.25 19 UNCONPMCO C0MPR£SSIVE SrR£MGTM 70NS/F tT • — *0* “ • ! 2 3 4 6- ■ --------I 4 ..H---------4- WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION (B4.0W8/F00T1 to 20 30 40 SO nm QMB CONSULTANTS. INC. OMtechrecel MeUnaJs* Enyworvrrcmai 14000 21st Awemjc No Memcepoi«. MN 8544/ 1812) ssnsst BORING STARTED 4/24/92 BORINO COMPtETEO . 4/24/92 wo Hand Auger driller DW DRAWN JLH approvec WCK JOB s 3464 SHEET 1 of 1 removal The stratification lines represent acproxiotate boundaries between soil tyres; insitu the transtcon may be gradual* wwu wr owniivij o* ^ PROJECT Proposed Ice Arena OWNER Orono Area Sports Facility. Inc. % dc 8!z 1SS Ul 2 s I H*UJ illu. X U < 1“ H-V> 2SS 3SS 4SS 5SS 6Sf 2 jL£L 7SS 12J1 15.0 SITE County Road 6 - Orono, Minnesota ARCHITECT-ENGINEER Delano Erickson Architects DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION Black CLAY WITH SAND. ORGANICS. \trace slit - (OL) (topsoil) Brown and gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel • stiff to firm • (CL) Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel • very stiff to stiff - (CL) Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - stiff (CL) End of boring at 15 feet Hand auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings Blow counts obtained from an 89 pound hammer falling 11 Inches correlated to a 140 pound hammer failing 30 inches (/> in Ui O £ A.o :.25 1.1 0 e UJ1 UMCONf WCO CCMfdiSSIVE STRENGTH TONS/PT * . . .Q. - . 1 2 3 4 9 ---------1-■■ ■ I---------------•—-f 4- WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION (BL0WS/FOO71 to ro 90 40 BO 8 1.0 r; IS (S ::i *9 WATER LEVFL OBSERVATIONS I BORINO 3TARTC0 4/24/92 W.L.^ 2.4 feet while drilling W.L. W.l tofing caved at 12.5 fe et after auge r removal GMfi CONSULTANTS. JNC. GeolMhiticef • Mefcei»ele ■ 14000 21et Averxie No. UmepoAe. MN 9544 7 (812) 669 1858 BORING COMPLETED 4/24/92 RIO Hand Auoer DRAWN JLH apfroveo WCK I JOB #3464 SheET 1 of 1 1 ORILUER DW The stratilicatioi) lines rearesent approximate boundaries between soil types; insitu the transiton may be gradual. 3 7K HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 53343-8468 PHONE: (612)930-2500 FAX (612)930-2513 TDD: (612)930-2696 April 27, 1992 Jeanne Mabusth Planning and Zoning Dept. City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Proposed Athletic Site, Southeast Quadrant CSAH 6 at Old Crystal Bay Road Jeanne: As we discussed during our on-site review, Hennepin County would prefer that all access to the above site be via Old Crystal Bay Road. However, If th^s reconmendatlon Is deened Impractical by the City, then one entrance onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 6 would be permitted, subject to the following conditions In preferential order: - A city-street-type entrance with full auxiliary lanes (westbound bypass, eastbound right turn), serving an Internal street system, located at the east property line. - A parking lot driveway similar to the above, with a westbound bypass lane^located within 300 feet of.the east property line. Any access to CSAH 6 should be between 40- and 52-feet wide, at least 100 feet Into the site. Careful attention should also be paid to Internal circulation, parking, and drop-off service areas. Our Initial contact was Del Erickson, architect for thelce arena group. We all should maintain close contact to ensure the best product for the site and the motoring public. Please call with any further questions or discussion. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ.mvr cc: Del Erickson, Architect HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 0 •- V: ‘1 - vww -1»' f ^ K 0 m (;EN OLSON Senator. Dirtrict 43 125 State Office Building St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 (M2) 2%-l2S2 Home: 6750 Count) Road 110 West .Mound. Minnesota 35364 (612) 472-3306 Senate State of Minnesota rv April 16, 1992 I l ; u. ^ • •> WAV 5 Mark Johnson Krause and Rollins Attorneys at Law 310 Groveland Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 // -i o O ^ J- ^ '€j Dear Marks Enclosed for your information are the pages from the tax bill and the education bill pertaining to ice arenas. Both have now passed and are expected to be signed by the governor. I've enjoyed working with you by phone and by mail and am obviously pleased to have been successful in honoring your request. Best wishes 1 Sincerely, Gen Olson State Senator GOted COMMITTEES • Education • Education Funding Division • Environment & Natural Resources • Encrg>' ii Public Utilities • Taxes and Tax Laws • Transportation SERVING: Deephaven. Eden Prairie (portions oO. Excelsior. Greenwood. Long Lake. .Minnetonka (portions of). Minnetonka Beach. Minnetrista. Mound. Orono. St. Bonifacius. Shorewood, Spring Park. Tonka Bay and Woodland i i ^ A _____ 04/15/92 tRSVISOR 3 JKR/KJ CCRKF2940 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (20) Real and personal property, including leasehold or other personal property interests, owned and operated by a corporation if more than 50 percent of the total voting power of the stock of the corporation is owned collectively by; (i) the board of regents of the University of Minnesota, (ii) the University of Minnesota Foundation, an organization exempt from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal ■ Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1990, and g (£iij n corporation organized under chapter 317A, which by its articles of incorporation is prohibited from providing pecuniary gain to any person or entity other than the regents of the University of Minnesota; which property is used primarily to manage or provide goods, services, or facilities utilizing or relating to large-scale advanced scientific computing resources to the regents of the University of Minnesota and others. (21) Mind energy conversion systems, as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 12, installed after January 1, 1991, and used'as an electric power sourcs. f22) Containment tanks, cache basins, and that portion of fhm etrueture needed for the containment facility used ^ eerlcultural chemicals as defined in section 16D.0U 3. as required bv the commissioner of agriculture under chapter 18B or 18C. (23) Photovoltaic devices, as defined in article 6y sectio.n , after January 1. 1992, and used to produce or store electric power. Real and pereonal property owned and operated bv^l r;t,et.e. nonprofit corporation eTT—f" federal income taxation pursuant to United States Code, title 26, sectio^ 501(0(3). primarily used for an ice arena or ice_..nk. a_n ,<»arilv for-Vouth and high school orocrams,^ sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 1990. section 272.115, is amended to read: 272.115 tCERTIFICATE OF VALUE; FILING.) SubdlvUior, 1. .. ■.ro.M.d In ..Ibdlvlsicn wh.n.v.r .n, r..l ..ft. i. .old 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 > r ■ 04/13/92 (REVISOR J RJS/S? CCRKr2i:i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 rs 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Itarnino readiness aid fcr scnool districts. The formula shall take into consideraticr. thg number of participating elioible children in school districts, provice incentives to districts tc conduct ourreach activitiesr encourage all elioible children to Darticioate« and provide adequate services to individual children based on each child's needs. Sec. 26. [XCE ARENA LEVY.] (a) Each vear» an independent ichool district operatino and maintaining an ice arena# may levy for the net operational costs of the ice arena. The levy may not exceed the net actual costs of operation of the arena for the previous‘year. Net actual costa are defined aa operatino coats less any operating revenues. (bt Any school district operating and maintaining an ice arena mustdemonstrate to the satisfaction of the office of monitoring in the department of education that the district will offer egual sports opportunities for male and female students to me its ice arena, particularly in areas of access to prime practice time, team support, and providing -junior varsity and younger level teams for girls* ice sports and ice sports offerings. Sec. 27. [DEPARTMENT STUDY.1 Subdivision 1. [WORK WITH DISTRICTS.] The department of education shall work with school districts to determine the required educational services and costs of the services needed to establish the allowances in sections 5 tr 8. The department establish a representative sample of districts to incxude in the research. The department shall evaluate the inclusion of revenue provided under Minnesota Statutes, sections 124.311. 124.32, 124.332, 124.573, and 124.574> in the allowance,.—The department shall report to the education committees of the legislature on the progress of the study on_February 1 of eacji 32 33 34 35 36 year Subd. 2. (INDEX.) The department shall evaluate develop a cost differential index for each school distr^^—The index shall distinguish the prices and costs of resources neede_d to provide instructional services over which a local boar^a^ 112