The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-08-2004 Council Packet.. - COUNril. MFETING MAR 6 2G04 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 8,C0Mp?:0ltiri>M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROI.L CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of February 23,2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS -Irene Silber, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - J. Marc Friizler, Representative LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT #03-2923 Stevan Wagner, 3609 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan - Resolution #03-2959 Timothy Lattemer, 2032 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution #03-2962 Robert and Joan Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution #03-2964 Bruce and Kris Paddock, 3250 Fox Street, EAW Petition - Resolution #04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road North - Preliminary Plat - Corrected Resolution #04-2969 Terry and Gretchen Blount. 1390 Cherry Place - Variance - Resolution #04-2971 Hickory Fine Homes Inc., 3220 and 3240 Watertown Road - Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution 10. #04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution 11. #04-2976 James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 12. #04-2984 McCarthy Construction on behalf of Berkshire Properties, 2745 Kelly Parkw ay - PUD/Commercial Site Plan Review 3.#03-2923 ♦4.#03-2959 5.#03-2962 6.#03-2964 ♦7.#04-2968 ♦8.#04-2969 9.#04-2971 *• 10.#04-2973 11.#04-2976 12.#04-2984 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR ’S REPORT 13. Kelley Parkway State Aid Route System Designation - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH S, 2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 13 - Long Lake Fire Station 15. Award of 2004 Liability and Workers Compensation Insurance Package 16. Hire Full-Time Police Officer 17. Hire Full-Time Community Service Officer 18. Planning Commission Appointments 19. Tax and Spending Limits and Taxpayer Bill of Rights Legislation - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 20. LICENSES Kennel Licenses * 21. BILLS LTCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2004 03/08 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/15 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Jim White) 03/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/05 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council Liaison - Bob Sansevere) 04/07 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 04/08 - Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 04/12 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/19 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison -Jim Murphy) 04/21 - Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. 04/26 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Lii MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. C0lJNr:il MFFTINIG MAR 6 2GU4 CITY OHW»iO ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council members Jim White. Jim Murphy, Lili McMillan, and Bob Sansevere; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron. Planner Melanie Curtis. City Engineer Tom Kellogg. Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items #7,8.9, 11, 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, McMillun seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. RECOGNITION - item #2 was moved following item #4 3. EXCELSIOR FIRE CHIEF, MARK DUCHARME, AND LONG LAKE FIRE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TONY ROE - INTRODUCTION OF NEW FIRE FIGHTERS FOR THE NAVARRE FIRE STATION Chief DuCharme introduced the new Navarre Fire Fighters, four of which were present: Trevor McCanhes. Kevin S. Madeja, John Hall, and Cody Farley. While Kathy Wiest. Matt Roscoe. Adam Bolander, and Cherrise Lewendowski were in training and unavailable this evening. Chief DuCharme stated that the initial group of 12 nrefightcrs would be ready by June or July I". 2004. He added that the second half of the group would be starting training shortly. In addition, he noted that Excelsior had answered a handful of calls in the Navarre area. Roe commented that the Fire Station is coming along well with a punch list walk thru scheduled for Wed. February 25. 2004. Mayor Peterson shook hands with the Navarre Fire Fighters and thanked them for their commitment. While he acknow ledged that some people thought that Orono could not recruit a staff committed to the new Fire Station in such a short time. Sansevere commended these fire fighters for their service to Navarre. Murphy commented that these fire fighters represent the vanguard of a grand experiment of joint cooperation entered into by three neighboring communities, Orono. Long Lake >.nd Excelsior. He indicated that the new fire truck was outside and a beautiful sight for all to see. PAGE 1 of 14 0 t MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23. 2004 7:00 o’cliKk p.m. (3. ISTRODVCTIOS OF NEW FIRE FIGHTERS FOR THE NA VARRE FIRE STATION, Continued) McMillan echoed fellow Council member’s sentiments. In addition, she thanked the Council for bringing this vision together, the recruits for their dedication, and their partners in this endeavor. While concurred. DuCharine agreed, staling that the partnership and cooperation with the Long Lake Fire DepartiiKMit had been a great experience. Mayor Peterson slated that the Fire Station ribbon cutting ceremony wiiuld be held March 27. 2004. The Council look a five minute recess to view the fire truck outside the Chambers. 4. JOHN HERMAN, COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER - RE.SOLUTION NO. 5116 Mayor Peterson invited John Herman to the podium to recognize him for his outstanding sen ice to Orono and present him with a Resolution. The Council members congratulated him on his new- position with St. Louis Park, thanked him for his commitment, and wished him well. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION No. 5116, a Resolution recoiling John Herman for his service to the City of Orono and contract jurisdictions. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 2. LINDA KOBLICK, COUNTY COMMISSIONER - PRESENTATION Ms. Koblick explained that she represents District 6. which consists of 14 cities of over UiO.IMH) people. As a Hennepin County Commissioner. Koblick staled that she is part of an agency arm for the Slate of Minnesota, which is given state and federal money, and is responsible for HCMC (Hennepin C ounty Medical Center). She indicated that budget cuts have impacted Hennepin County, as well, with over $100 million cut from the 2003 budget. These cuts further impacted the health and human services div isions and corrections for the County, as well as. funding supplied to local municipalities. Koblick asked the City Council for their impressions, in an effort to gauge how these cuts have impacted them and their concerns for the future. She recognized that two-thirds of the income is generated by the suburbs but spent by the metro downlow n areas. On the other hand, she pointed out that effort was made to retain and keep the Ridgedale service center open, and maintain Hennepin County libraries overall. Koblick continued by pointing out that the County is also made up of the Hennepin County Rail Authority, the Housing Authority, inspections and licensing departments, and supports transportation initiatives such as the Highway 12 construction project. Koblick indicated that she serves on numerous task forces, including a task force for the 394 Hot Lanes initiative to institute PAGE 2 of 14 ij MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (2. UNDA KOBUCK, COUNTY COMMISSIONER - PRESENTATION, Continued) pay lanes. .She asked the Council to consider a friend on the Board and encouraged them to call her with their initiatives and resolutions. White thanked Koblick for maintaining tlie current number of water patrol deputies committed to protecting Lake Minnetonka and its users. He stated that this was a critical concern for the City of Orono. Koblick. in turn, thanked the Council for the Resolution which made it possible to present the need' to the Board. White commented that the City is expecting great things for the Dakota Rail Trail and felt the appointment of Lorry Blackst^i as Chair of llie Tliree Rivers Park District to be a judicious choice. He stated that they would be proposing a Resolution to move the Dakota Trail forward in the near future. As a large employer. Koblick commented that Hennepin County employs over 12,500 individuals. Sansevere asked Koblick if she was in support of increasing the tax levy to consuuct a new Vikings or Twins stadium in Minneapolis. Koblick was hesitant to comment on the issue; however, stated that she believed in the public process and would expect public hearings to be held on the matter. She indicated that if the State seemed more willing to commit money to the initiative, she could see more agencies expressing a willingness to partner. The County Board did, however, pass a Resolution stating that it would participate with the government requests. Sansevere asked how much she felt the County should put into it, noting that Minneapolis would be getting the most from a stadium downtown and conunented that the proposed $7 million price tag to be absurd. Koblick agreed, slating that the Minneapolis metro area would benefit most. She stated that she w’as concerned by a public entity privately owned, and questioned why the Pohlads would not be required to provide greater support. Koblick staled that she did not vote to support the stadium resolution on the agenda, since it takes funding and attention away from important matters like helping the needy, the disabled, and the elderly trying to care of their aging grown special needs children. Sansevere asked what the timeline for the hot links uaffic solutions would be. Koblick stated that the feasibility studies w'ere being performed and the intent is to institute the program by December. Sansevere asked where she stood on the advent of gaming in Hennepin County as a funding option^ PAGE 3 Of 14 i i : b ► MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (2. UNDA KOBUCK, COVSTY COMMISSIONER - PRESENTATION, Continued) Koblick slated that, while Hennepin is the largest County, it is also the most in need, which may warrant consideration of funding alicniatives. She indicated that they are investigating this as an option, while not imposing on Native American rights. Murphy thanked Koblick for supporting the hot links project, noting that the east coast had initiated this program long ago. On the other hand, he discouraged her from supporting ownership of the program by the contractors, since this selling off of infrastructure can ^ dctrinK*ntal to the public. In addition, Murphy asked Koblick where she stood on the conceal and carry legislation. Koblick stated that she had voted against the legislation as related to the County. Murphy questioned why local police departments cannot access who has conceal and carry permits. Police Chief Good stated tliat permitting most often occurs at the Sheriff s level; however, the intent to set up a statewide database for this information has not come to fruition to date. Koblick recognized that there are many problems with the conceal and carry legislation. She stated that she was adamantly opposed to it. especially since it imposed additional cost constraints upon the County. Once again, an unfunded mandate that local governments cannot control and contains manv holes. Koblick stated that sl.e would look into database access for local authorities. Moorse thanked Koblick for her support in retaining the Ridgedale court facility. Koblick stated that they were able to get additional funding to keep the Ridgedale facility open. Once again, she stated that Resolutions from local communities help to retain that service and others. Koblick notified the Council that residents would be feeling 2(N)4 budget cuts far more than those taken in 2UU3 as additional dollars need to be trimmed from the budget. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *5. Regular Council Meeting of February 9,2004 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of January 26,2004, as present^. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDermott Chair McDermott reported that the Wayzata Heritage Preservation Society would be holding a seminar the next weekend for communities interested in preservation. He indicated that he would try to attend and invited C'ouncil members to meet him. McDermott stated that the Commission was striving to rank park priorities and improvements using a contrived matrix with assigned values to help the City Council to plan for future improvements. He added that the Commission was contemplating holding an abbreviated spring park tour followed by a work session. PAGE 4 of 14 1 A r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. {PARK COMMISSIOS COMMENTS - Andrew McDermott, Continued) Sansevere voiced his concern regarding a Park Commission memo that was circulated to City Council suggesting the Council raise taxes to cover park expenditures. He indicated that he would not support such an initiative, and an informal poll taken at the last Council meeting reinforced the fact that the public would not support raising taxes for this purpose either. Sansevere pointed out that, as a Council member, he was proud of the frugality referred to in the memo and the fact that Orono has a low tux base. Chair McDermott stated that the Park Commission has not endorsed any proposal at this lime, and is simply on a fact finding mission. He noted that there is no funding mechanism in place currently for parks. Sansevere disagreed, staling that the funding mechanism is triggered by unsafe conditions. He stated that the Council would replace any unsafe playground equipment when necessary. McMillan interjected that the Park Commission is also referring to new park initiatives and ideas as well as just playground equipment funding, as presented in their vision statement. Chair McDermott reiterated that the Commission is a long way from proposing any funding options to the Council and still needs to hold work sessions, as well as. perform extensive investigation before the Commission gets to that point. Murphy commented that he was disturbed by the tenor of the memo and it being put into public record. Mayor Peterson pointed out that the memo was unsigned and not the consensus of the entire Park Commission. Chair McDermott repeated that the Commission continues to work on its priorities, which then will be followed by funding considerations. Sa^'evere recommended the Council and Commission hold a work session with all representatives present to evaluate the goals, improvements, and perspectives. .Although past City Council members have been very supportive of parks, Sansevere maintained that the Commission has since operated as an island unto itself and fiefdom of the City. Murphy urged the Council and Commission to strive to reach a point in which they've moved beyond the negative ‘crabbing’. While she acknowledged that one Commissioner may have been overly enthusiastic, McMillan pointed out that the C'ity has a huge investment in its park system, and needs to make a commitment to working out what this continued investment will consist of. She maintained that to ignore parks, as if a ‘head in the sand approach’ will suffice, would be ill advised. Sansevere agreed that the City Council may have done the Park Commission a disservice in the past by directing them to mark access points and doing nothing with the information. He admitted that the Commission may have been ill advised and left with no direction by Council. PAGE 5 of 14 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Andrew McDermott, Continued) While Chair McDermott acknowledged that marking the accesses was a big effort for the Commission which they undertook whole heartedly: he stated that it was not the first directive a Council gave a Commission and did not follow thru with. He asked the Council to continue to provide them with direction, pointing out that the Commission would like to work on a master plan for the Lurton property, investigate matching grants for footpaths, and examine the future of bike trails throughout the community. White suggested the Commission investigate partnerships with other communities to further these initiatives. Given the extensive budget cuts over the past few years. Murphy acknowledged that the support for parks has suffered. He admitted that the Council had probably let the park system suffer more often than it should have. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - David Rahn Rahn indicated that he w'as available for questions. LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorsoo Halvorson thanked the Council for the appointment to the LMCD. comtnenting that she hoped to live up to the standard set by Council member McMillan. Halvorson reported that the Hennepin County Water Patrol will continue to be funded KX)'?!: by Hennepin County. She stated that a boat density and user attitudes survey will be perfomied over the summer of 2004. The results of the study will be used for future planning for the lake. She suggested that the city include an article in an upcoming new sletter encouraging people to participate in Che surveys when approached. She noted that boat count comparison studies will take place as well. As some people are not aware of the law s as they pertain to renting residential slips, Halvorson suggested an article be written which reviews the basic LMCD codes regarding the lake. Rahn pointed out that two marinas have closed in recent years only to be replaced by accesses which has only reduced the availability of marina slips. McMillan agreed that the City and its residents should support the lake marinas as they provide much needed services to users. Sansevere indicated that he did not oppose residential leasing of boat slips to boost economics for residents. Gaffron pointed out that, while the LMCD allows two slips per lake lot, one of which can be leased in another name, in Orono, you cannot rent a slip for commercial use. In an efiort to be pro neighborhood. Gaffron stated that Orono has not allowed rental slips by City code. Murphy asked what the threshold is. or at what point, are there too many boats on the Lake. PAGE 6 of 14 I f: J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson, Continued) Halvorson indicated that the LMCD is studying this question; however, wrestles with the fa;i that these are public waters. McMillan stated that the lake management plan throws out some ideas of how to manage and restrict use. but this is an ongoing issue. While stated that parking alone can help manage use. by not allowing more boats in the water than the parking warrants for boats and trailers. Sansevcrc suggested the LMCD give thought to a small launch fee. Halvorson staled that she brought up the launch fee suggestion and was told by the I.MCD that this was ill *gal. and could only he changed by lobbying the DNR. McMillan stated that, years ago. the DNR ruled that the lake could support 7U0 car/trailer parking spaces. Today, there are merely 4(K) spaces and it still feels as if the lake is at critical mass. McMillan suggested the 700 spaces be revisited, reduced, and capped, admitting that this would likely be a political 'hot potato ’. Halvorson continued, stating that zebra mussel inspections will be ongoing over the 2004 season, especially during peak usage times and at peak use access points. While the LMCD believes a more comprehensive inspection program is necessary, at a cost of $250 million funding that program would not be easy. She pointed out that ongoing education is necessary and suggested a newsletter article be published to urge the public to be cautious. Finally, Halvorson stated that the DNR is considering liquor licenses for charter boats on the lake. While the current limit is 14 excluding beer/wine permits, she asked the Council w hether they felt this number sufficed, should increase, or be reduced. Sansevere stated that 14 sounded adequate to him. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Peterson stated that she had received a call from Mr. and Mrs. Nusbaum. 3480 North Shore Drive, regarding the drainage water problem they have along Birch Lane to the rear ol their home. She asked whether Public Works Director Gappa and Engineer Kellogg could visit the property and evaluate the construction of curb and gutter and what other short term solutions there might be. Betsy Nusbaum. 3480 North Shore Drive, stated that both Gappa and Kellogg have visited the property in the past and have not come up with a solution to date. She explained that, she and her husband, have been pumping hundreds of gallons of water out of their garage and driveway daily since the weather has begun to melt the snow. Having built their home 4 years ago. the water has continued to be a problem, causing their existing driveway to crumble. Mrs. Nusbaum stated that they were greatly concerned w hat impact this will have on their home and their intent to construct a new garage on the property. PAGE 7 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS , Continued) Sanscvere asked whal the Cily and Council could do. Gappa staled that the overlay laid 10 years ago raised (he road. The drainage runs towards the Nussbaum’s home and property. Gappa agreed Mrs. Nushauin was right, they do have a problem. He pointed out that the properties are very flat along this stretch and (he water runs onto their lot from hardcover and construction further up Birch Lane. Ciappa stated that a plan has been developed but the City would need to get neighbor’s approvals to run pipe between their homes towards the lake. Sansevere asked if the water could be tempi>ra’’ily diverted until a long term solution could be put in place. Mayor Peterson asked whether an asphalt berm would help. Nusbaum pointed out that the City had constructed a berm in the past which has eroded and crumbled. She agreed that the problem offers no easy quick solutions, noting that the water runs from Birch straight onto their lot and is currently over ankle deep in their garage. She indicated that she and her family were petrified that the water will continue to erode their garage, driveway, and eventually landscaping surrounding their home. She commented that, thankfully, no new construction has taken place further up Birch to expedite this erosion, and pointed out that the home next door is currently under construction and could provide an outlet for a drainage pipe now if the City could accelerate the process. She was hesitant to sandbag her property and lose access to her home, especially since offstreet parking is nonexistent along Birch Lane. Murphy stated that it sounded like an imminent problem to him waiting to happen and asked if the City could resolve this long term. Sansevere asked Mrs. Nusbaum if she had ever approached the City Council with her concerns. Nusbaum pointed out that this has been an ongoing problem over the past 10 years. She indicated that, at this point, she has somewhat lost faith that the Cily will resolve this issue. While she had approached (he City and Council several times before regarding this issue, and onc<* again when they built their home 4 years ago. she was told that there was no money available to resolve this issue. The Mayor indicated that she was aware that the Nusbaums had contacted the City several times in the past 10 years regarding this problem. She asked Gappa and Kellogg whether there was a short term fix and permanent solution that could be pursued. Gappa stated that come April and May the City sees these problems all over. He indicated that the City might be able to offset the costs for the project out of the Stormwater Management Fund if the neighbor allows a pipe. Sansevere suggested Gappa put (his item on the fast track, visit the site as soon as possible, and get report on a solution back to the Council. PAGE 8 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23.2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMESTS. Continued) Kellogg stated that they had developed a survey plan for a more permanent solution if and when the funding became available; however, had not put togetlier a short term plan. Mayor Peterson suggested Public Works provide the Nushaums with a stronger more efncieiil pump to move water from the garage. Sansevere suggested some sandbags be used to divert water from the garage and still maintain access. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PEIRPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD - CUP As the applicants were absent this evening, the application was tabled. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to table Application #04-2976 in tlW absence of the applicants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENCAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD - CUP - RESOLUTION NO. 5117 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5117 granting a variance and conditional use permit for land alterations within 75’ of the shoreline for James and Jean Echtencamp at 2800 Pheasant Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ♦8. #04-2985 TOM CULLUM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD N. - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5118 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5118 granting a variance and conditional use permit fur land alterations within 26* of a City- protected wetland for Tom and Michelle Cullum at 785 Femdale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #04-2981 JEFF MARTINEAU, 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5119 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5119 granting a hardcover variance in order to replace a grade level deck with a smaller stone patio for the residence located at 2565 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 9 of 14 i .. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 10. #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Curtis explained that the applicant was requesting a commercial site plan review in order to construct a 1,770 s.f. addition to an existing building. The application would consist of the following: 1. Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2,310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4,080 s.f. building. 2. Sign setback variance in order to allow the existing sign to be refaced and remain at its current substandard setback. The sign is setback 8' from the front property line where 10’ is required. The signage will extend an additional 4' into the setback area for a sign setback of 4’ where 10’ is required. 3. Hardcover variance in order to construct a 1,770 s.f. addition to the existing building. The expansion will be constructed over existing hardcover. Having met with the Planning Commission during its November work session, Curtis stated that the applicant has since received approvals from the Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. On January 20, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the application based on staff recommendations and that it be put into record that the exterior storage and use of the site has reached its maximum capacity and the exterior storage and use should not be allowed to expand in the future. Curtis indicated that staff would recommend approval and await direction to draft a Resolution for adoption at the March 8*’’ Council meeting subject to the conditions that: 1. The applicant implement the City Engineer’s recommendations. 2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls. 3. Compliance with City Code 58-1(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wagner stated that he has worked diligently with staff to meet all recommendations and improve his site and building. Engineer Kellogg stated that it kxiks as if the City has received what it needs. White complimented the applicant for his efforts, propo.sed improvements, and good operator practices. Sansevere moved, White seconded, to direct staff to draft a Resolution for adoption at the March City Council Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. MAYOR/CITY COUNCII. REPORT McMillan reported that she and Murphy had attended the initial turnback meeting regarding Highway 12 to set the stage for starting this pnx'css. She indicated that they will meet again next week to discuss 3 plans - the Lung Lake Master Plan, the Orono Comp Plan, and the Hennepin County Plan for the turnback. Murphy added that, the more discussion that took place, the more issues that arose for further dialogue. He assured the Council that he and McMillan would continue to inform them of developments and expand the size of the meetings as need warrants. McMillan stated that she had attended the Minnesota l^eague of Cities Conference for Newly Elected Officials the past week and found it to be a helpful training session. Sansevere suggested the City Council review the practicality of the urban, rural, and lake definitions as set forth by the ordinance regarding Planning Commission membership. While he commended the newly appointed Navarre fire fighters, he commented that, at some point, acknowledgement should be given to Gabriel Jabbour for his dedication and contribution to the construction of the Fire Station. Murphy stated that he had attended the public meeting with Gen Olson and Steve Smith held last week and was surprised by the standing room only crowd assembled to discuss public funding of education. He was impressed by the school related support expressed by Orono citizens during the meeting. McMillan commented that, because the State and Federal branches of government have taken away so much control from local municipalities and school boards, the access to local government and financing is critical. She pointed out that the need to regain local control and rights was one topic discussed at the Mn. League of Cities meeting she had attended. Murphy pointed out that it was apparent to him that the Metro area schools are faced with one set of problems, the rural another, which squeezes suburbs, such as Orono, in the middle. The suburbs, which raise the most amount of money, are not getting their fair share back. On the other hand, Murphy questioned the relevance of Gen Olson's comment that every dollar citizens raise Uxally, they keep, versus having to share that via redistribution. While he acknowledged that budget problems exist everywhere. White questioned the never ending succession of unfunded mandates passed on to Icxal municipalitres. In addition, he commented that he, too, attended the LMCD dinner with McMillan and found it to be an enjoyable event. PAGE II of 14 liiMiiiiiiiAji * $ • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/CITYCOVNCIL REPORT, Continued) With regard to the turnback on Highway 12, White encouraged the Council to identify the current features, via an inventory, that would be worth preserving once the outcome of the project is complete. He suggested holding 1-2 community vision town meetings for the corridor. Murphy concurred, stating that the City needs to inventory where they are and where they wish to be at the completion of the project. He suggested that a public process would be appropnate. Gaffron stated that the bowling alley application in Navarre was put on hold at the request of Mr. Keaveny until the status of the liquor license can be resolved. Moorse stated that a public hearing was scheduled for March 22"**, 2004, to discuss the liquor license. Murphy asked if staff had received any response from Mr. Thompson. Gappa stated that there had not been a response yet; however, he was expected in town the end of March. Mayor Peterson recognized the Orono Finance Department, under the leadership of Mr. Kuehn, for their Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *11. SCHEDULED ASSESSMENT HEARING - WEST FARM SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 5120 and 5121 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5120 declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for the W'est Farm Sanitary’ Sewer Project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5121 for hearing on proposed assessment for the West Farm Sanitary Sewer Project VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *12. CHANGE ORDER #7 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approvw Change Order #7 to the Long Lake Fire Station construction contract in the amount of $23,110.M VOTE: Ayts 5, Nays 0. PAGE 12 of 14 asWSiiiiHiiSUBli ; i i • • » MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23.2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *13. FUNDING OF ASSESSMENT FOR LOGIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to rescind the 2003 budget adjustment in the PIR Fund related to the LOGIS Police Records System assessment, and to adjust the 2004 PIR Fund budget to reflect the initial payment to LOGIS in the amount of $48,500. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 *14. SUPPORT OF CDBG GRANT APPLICATION BY THE WEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TRUST (WHAHLT) Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to reflect Orono's support for the WHAHLT CDBG grant application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. SUPPORT OF CDBG FUNDING REQUEST BY WeCAN Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to reflect Orono’s support for the WeCan request for CDBG funding. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. DECLARATION OF REIMBURSEMENT INTENT FOR POLICE VEHICLE COSTS AND PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTS - RESOLUTION NO. 5122 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5122, a Resolution Declaring Intent to Reimburse Police Vehkie Costs and Public Works Capital Equipment with Equipment Certificate Proceeds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett had nothing new to report •17. LICENSES TEMPORARY ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE I. Orono Rotary Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive SPECIAL EVENT 2. Applicant: Peter Erpenhach Event: Fred Kurz Memorial 10 Mile Run Location: Luce Line Trail starting at the Wayzata Middle School - approximately 4.S miles out and back Date: Saturday, April 10, 2004 Time: 8:30 a.m. - 11:30 a in. Murphy moved, McMillan teconded, to approve all Ucenscs. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 13 of 14 ......■rnaWilh • « • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *18. BILLS Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of February 23,2004 at 9:15 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor PAGE 14 of 14 .1 AGENDA FOR COUNCtt MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 8, Z004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) AMvitk itRBt an conaidcred to b* routioe itemt to be enacted upon by one mooon by the City Can- under the Item* on the acenda. Memos ngaiding each of the Agenda ttenia are available it t Public Packet • located oa the coimter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appnve/Ainend APPRO VAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of Febniary 23,2004 COIIMCII WFETING MAR 8 2004 CITY OF ORONO 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS -Irene Silbcr, Reprcscniahvc PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - J. Mirc Frittlcr, Repreacntitive LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit S Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦ 3. #03-2923 Sicvan Wagner, 3609 Shoreline Drive-Cominociil Site Plan-Rctolutioo #03-2959 TimothyLeHeroer, 2032 Shidywood Road-Variance-Resolution #03-2962 Robot and Joan Switr, 1740 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution #03-2964 Bruce andKns Paddock, 3250Fox Street, EAW Petition-Resolution #04-2968 Custom Stnictuiea lid., 440 Snibbi Bay Road North-Pielixninary Plat-Conccci Reaolulion #04-2969 Tawy and Oietchen Blount, 1390 Cheny Place-Variance-Resolution #04-2971 Hickoiy FineHomeiliic.. 3220 and 3240 Watertown Road-Lot Line Reamngement - Rcaolution #04-2973 Mumetooka CuatomHomes. 4753North Shore Dnve - Variance - Resolution #04-2976 Jamea and Judith Pieipont, 1801 West Farm Road - Condiuonal Use Permit - Resolution 12. #04-2984 McCarthy Conatniclion on behalf of Berkshire Propcites, 2745 Kelly Parkway - PUD/Commexcial Site Plan Review MAYOR/COUNCEL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13. Kelley Parkway State Aid Route System Designation - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004,7;O0 P.M ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MlNNESOl'A CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 13 - Long Lake Fire Station 15. Award of 2004 liability and Workers Conqiensstion Insurance Package 16. Hiie Rill-Tiine PoUoe Officer 17. Hiielhill-Tiffle Community Service Officer 18. PUrming Commission Apf^ntmeots 19. Tax and Spending Limits and Taxpayer Bill of Righu Legislation - Resolunon CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT I I 20. UCENSES Kennel Licensea * 21. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2004 1 03A)8 - Cooncsl Meeting. 7:00 pm. 03/15 - Planning Comxmaiion Meeting. 6:00 pm (Council Uauon - Jim Whug) | 03/22-Council Meeting. 7.-00 pm | 04/05 - Park Cominiaiioa Meeting, 7:15 pm (Council Liaison - Bob Sanstvtre) 04/07 - PUnarag Commiiaiao Work Session. Wednasday, 5 30 pm 04/08 - Council Work Session, Thundaj, 5 30 pm 04/12 — rmmnil MMtiiig. 7d00 pm 04/19 - Planaiag kteting. 6 00 p.m (Council Liaison -Jim Murphy) Date Applkatioa Received: 06-19*03 Date Applicatioa Considered as Complete: 1<MI7>03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-07-03 60-day Review Period Extension Expires: 02-07-04 Additionai 60-day Review Period Expires: 04-00-04 COlINnn MFFTINrs MAR 6 2004 CITY OF OHOivO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 4,2004 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner |\aL Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2923 - Stevan Wagner - Commercial Site Plan Review - Resolution Zoning District: B-1, Retail Sales Business District (20,000 s.f. minimum) Lot Area: 1.163 acre (S0,682 s.f.) Lot Width: 250* List of Exhibits: A. Resolution This ^plication was iq)proved by the City Council at the February 23,2004 meeting with a S-0 vote STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval of the attached Resolution. nfcffrrtlMtfiiirtii ii A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES AND APPROVING A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDINGPERMIT TO MINNETONKA A-1 RENTAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3607 & 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1288 & 1468 FILE NO. 03-2923 WHEREAS, Stevan J. Wagner and Debra J. Wagner, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: The West 250.00 feet of the East 350.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 7, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application for building permit approval per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section lS-642 for a 1,770 s.f. expansion to an existing building including approval of the following variances: 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1468 to allow the existing pole sign to be re-faced and remain at the substandard setback of 8’ where 10 ’ is required. 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow 34,349 s.f. (71.3%) of hardcover u^ere 16,825 s.f. (35%) is allowed and 35,030 s.f. (72.75%) currently exists. WHEREAS, all property owners within 350 ’ of the property boundaries were legally notified of the public hearing on this project; and WHEREAS, the Orono Plaiming Commission reviewed this comprehensive application at public hearings held on October 20, 2003 and January 20, 2004, at which time all meml^rs of the public wishing to comment on the project were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Page 1 of 6 i h I s WHEREAS, on January 20, 2004 the Orono Planning Commission recommended approval of the development plans per the commercial site plan, building elevations, stormwater, drainage and erosion control plans, and landscape plan attached to this Resolution within Exhibit A; and recommended approval of variances for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendations of staff. Planning Coiiunission, and City Engineer as well as the comments by the applicant, the applicant’s representatives, and the public, and hereby makes the following findings in regard to this application: 2. 3. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2923. The property is located in the B-1, Retail Sales Business District, which requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 s.f.. The Planning Conunission reviewed this application at public hearings held on October 20, 2003 and January 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the conunercial site review and variances based on the following findings: a. The use of this property as an equipment rental business is a conforming use allowed in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District. b. A variance is required in order to update the existing pole sign as it currently encroaches 2* into the required front yard setback. c. A hardcover variance is required as the building addition is proposed to be constructed over existing concrete hardcover, however, the nature of the hardcover will change from driveway hardcover to structural hardcover. d. The City’s Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the submitted storm water improvements and the submitted drainage calculations and has deemed ^em acceptable. Page 2 of 6 J r 4. 5. 6. e. The MCWD has reviewed this proposal and has made the following recommendations with regard to storm water and erosion control on the site: i. The proposed project requires Best Management Practices (BMP) and rate control to fulfill the stormwater management requirements of Rule N. The applicant’s proposal to convert a 3 ’ wide area along the West property boundary from gravel to MN wild grasses and the installation of a rock drain with a skimming structure has been deemed adequate. ii. The applicant is to install erosion control measures consisting of a silt fence for the site during construction. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has granted the applicant an Industrial Storm Water Permit and the applicant has submitted to the PCA a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The City Council has considered this application Including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not Aversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the commercial site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan referenced above and approves the variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1288 and 78-1468 based on the unique findings and hardships noted Page 3 of 6 r above; and approves the City ’s issuance of a building permit for the proposed building expansion, subject to the following conditions: I. Council approval is based on the site plan and attachments submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Conunission and City Council review. 2.Hardcover in the 500 ’-1000 ’ zone shall not increase above the 71.3% or 34.349 s.f per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted within Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Erosion control measures including the silt fence per the City Engineer ’s recommendations must be installed prior to the issuance of building permits from the City. 5. Required stormwater control measures, including the proposed rock drain and vegetative buffer strip, and all other improvements recommended by the City Engineer, must be installed per the approved plans (attached as Exhibit A) prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy 7. Required compliance with Orono Municipal Code 58-1 (a) Maintenance of Private Property will be achieved prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 8,2003). Page 4 of 6 I _. . J 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 10. The undersigned i^;)plicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 8* day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8* day of March, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _______, 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of___ by_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, husband of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, husband and wife. .2004 Notary Public State of Miimesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of _ by______________, wife of_____________, husband and wife. .,2004 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA__________ SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 S afl*S6» 30” E 250.00 I'-50' LEGAL OeSCft IPT ION OF PRCytSES t denotes Ironrrofliir from : GRQNBERG & ASQClf 4^I^IT Ax- IClPrTES FRK NO. : 952 473 4435 Feb. 23 20B4 KUTPM P2 „,»»***^»*S^88W30|;j: CONCRE'^ SOeWALK «l 250.00 iso.o'f- •4000' —■■—*•*——«<«•*****•********» -------------------------. .S3 GRAVEL SURFACE •MWl. TO t€9*dtV9>, V'€»*»€ tiusr §999fA »TAjd ■ XrFlfx ^ 9dJUA^ 0tf/ne c V4<amm F <M<r4f» AHUt 9Uk /4CA . TO KMM EXISTING SUHblKlG. fSAM su X ________ .i r POM : GRONBERG t RSSOCIflTES FRX NO. :473 4435 Feb. 23 2004 KMTPM P3 A^' I Quick TR'SS ver.s.47 S/N; Executed: 16:07:08 02-16-2004 A-1 MIMNETOIIKA RBNTAL After Conditions RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA I ::::::I:::::::is * s!* s s s s * J * * s s s **•****’********•*•*••• • • • • • e Coogpofite Area: SURFACE DESCRIPTION AREA (acres) Existing Buildings Propossd Addition Existing Blaektog/Concrets Additional Blaclctpp/Concrsts Oravel* C soils.future blacktop Grass. C Soils 0.10 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.48 0.31 88 98 98 98 98 79 SITE AREA --->1.15 92.9 ( 93 ) w‘ "K.j, .r .. .t ‘m F. ■ l4 ■li'ii iliMiiilheil^ii SriII I «M :BS i qssociArres Nd. : 962 473 4435 Feb. 23 2004 02:48PM P4 A^' Quick TR-55 veriion: 5.47 S/N:Return Frequency: years TR-5S TABULAR RYDROGRAFE METEOC Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 02-19-2004 10:54:38 Watershed file: --> WRA .MOP Hydroqraph file: --> MRAI.hyd A-l WINRSTOHlOl RENTAL After Conditions >>>>input parameters used to Coopute Rydrograpb «<< Subarea Description CN Tc * Tt Precip. (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) Runoff la/P (in) input/used l.is 93.0 0.20 0.00 2.35 j 1*44 I'O*.10 riiiirtiTO’fri’subarea outfall to cemposite i^ershed I -• Subarea %fhere user specified interpolation between la/p tab Total area > i.lS acres or 0.00180 sq.ml Peak disehaurge ■ 2 cfs »» conputer Modifications of input Parameters <4«< Sxjbarea Description Xx^t Values XC * Tt (hr) (hr) Rounded Values Tc * Tt (hr) (hr) la/p Interpolated la/p Messages(Yes/Mo) 0.00 0.20 0.00 No Computed la/p < .1 « Travel tins from subarea outfall to eaoq>osite watershed outfall point. ROM : GRONBERQ t ASSKIATES FAX ND. : 952 473 4435 Feb. 23 2054 02:4ePM P5 Quick TR-55 version: 5.47 S/H*.Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years TR-55 TABtJIAR KYDROORAPB MITKOD Type XI. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Stom) Executed: 02-19-2004 10:54:38 Watershed file: --> MRA .MOP Kydrograph file: mraio.hvd A>1 NIMNETOMXA RBMTAL After Conditions »» mput Parameters used to Compute Hydrograph «« Subarea Description AREA (acres) CM TC (hrs) * Tt (hrs) Precip. (in) 1.15 93.0 0.20 0.00 4.15 Runoff la/p (in) iz^r/used 1 3.37 1.04 .10 * Travel time fron subarea outfall to conpoaita watershed ^tfall ^int. X - - Subarea where user specified interp^ation between Xa/p tables. Total area ■ 1.15 acres or 0.00180 sq.ml Peak discharge ■ S efs »»CoRVUter Nodifieations of Input parameters Subarea Description Input Tc (hr) values * Tt (hr) Rounded Values Tc * Tt (hr) (hr) la/o Interpolate (Yes/No) 0.17 0.00 0.20 0.00 No Xe/P ^ Travel time from stibarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point iiufjliiiir 4 ran : GRONBERB & RSS0CIRTE5 FfiK NO. : 952 473 4435 Feb. 23 2004 B2:49PH Pfi Quiclc TR-55 Version; S.47 S/N:Page 1 Rtcum Frequency: 10o years TR-55 trbuiar kydroosafr KBTROD Type XX. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Stom) Executed: 02-19-2004 10:54;38 KySrograph^flie: —> MRAIOO.HOT A-l MIWUTOBKA REMTAL After Conditions input parameters Used to Compute ......................... Runoff la/p (in) input/usedsubareaAREA C3I TC (hrs) * Tt (hrs) Preclp. (in) 0.20 0.00 S.9S to eo™o.ite ntocheo point* Travel time rrom buomo* Vi:.rTm hatiween la/n tables.I -- Subarea idiere user specified interpolation between la/p tw Total area -1.15 acres or 0.00180 sq.mi Peak discharge - 7 ofs »» cooputer Modifications of Input Values Rounded Values DoSSSSon <S, ’(S) (hi) (te) (V.-./PO) la/p Tc * Tt Interpolated la/p Messages ■"o'!i7’”'o'oo. .0.20 0.00 _»o. . r;;i;^i'wiDi'fraIi'«ibir»'oIltmrto ccapooito w«tor«h«i oattoll point. v.v- r: ^ .! ■ . H; : AH Rcvi5eo Hardcover ca SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7i* EXISTING HAfinrovEn nv rove A. ______________ K 6XIST1H6 ’ Lrrj-Jt &;iU0lAi6j ______________ ^^?Iio 3"vV?3!{ksheet n^HSire of 75.250'250-500' <<^0.1000jp S.F. wie-ji X X X 12^ B. Csrcge vRTOf 3»r «u, • 9yTH Of AST D* Sidewalk an.-AsTk ££ai r ... X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Lydica/^ Umr^ By/^ic 0/TiVic X X O. Other 5S3S^S'otofc x6jg»)C i.4rMwfc0g TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total P/.0»E11TY AREA .*N ZONE ♦ B xi:o PROPOSED HAnnrovKP. in zont ' A House Wid-Ji X X X B. Carige C. Orivewty X X X D. Sidewalk E Pa(io/Deck X X X X* F. Lardicepc U.nderlain By Plasiic Or Fabric X X X C. Other TOTAL HASCCOVHR IN ZONE 3S^0l(?-ZP TOTAL prOPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____ B ‘_________ X ICO 1^^ lA Z n? msa. 2-7 >4. \1Z. Z\iO m o3<) |yG^ •7 2.IS 4- 465* + 76 -562. iXufiOl *+fl ISO 7?..2i n «2TH-^j6__ S.F.- g S.F.- g4lT (3104, S.F. U» ■_ S.F.-c«Me- fi6H d4se S.p-0LAO4TgP S.F." "S-F. S.r.-06«^f S.F. 022i— S.F..A0fll'nOH*L ““ OsrtAUtu __ COMCRETC S F “ WAIU-S S.F. A S.F. B H S.F. w.r • S.F.«AOOniOHwtiL s,F. Her &eiH • S.F..6R4veL RD«wCe S.P.- • S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A SF. B H Al Size Disc TWe Yr 2001 ‘x12 BOBCAT TRAILER #3 T10006332 85 CTK7425 7x14 BOBCAT TRAILER #4 G 0440K032 80 CTS8402 0 BOBCAT TRAILER 553 7x12 EXCAVTOR TRAILER 6x16 CAR TRAILER #3 G2160C556 91 CTC1741 TOW DOLLY DETH 94 30 0 94 G12138 TOW DOLLY TOW DOLLY FISHHOUSE TRAILER HM 87 3000 87 C35126 FISHHOUSE TANDEM TR G12137 BIKEALUMA 6x10 1YGUS12161B0016191 H65322 8x10 DITCH WITCH TILT HD G0480F178 87 CTW7902 3x4 KWIK TRENCH • 3x4 KWIK TRENCH 145FS0817K1140266 95 BS2887 3x4 TILLER 9 HP TRL 2003 4x10 LADDER TRAILER 2001 J119S3 3x4 EQUIPMENT TRAILER K21906019 66 E78166 3x4 EQUIPMENT TRAILER K21906017 86 A16042 4xS EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F190 94 G659S1 :S EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F191 94 E78168‘ 4x5 EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F192 94 E78167 CABLE PONTOON TRAILER G2150E207 92 H32604 NARROW PONTOON TRITON 4TCSP1228WHN22008 98 h58498 NARROW PONTOON TRITON 4TCSP22401HN24S931 H6S323 4x8 • MOWER TRAILER OLD CAT VI3904280 84 J11948 8x8 SNOMO TRAILER H33901574 79 G49809 4x4 REESE BACKPACK 4Z8KC0816VG000703 97 G49-811 4x4 REESE BACKPACK 4Z6KC0818VG000704 97 G49-810 4x8 FLOE SQL SNOMO E78-210 4x8 • FLOE SGL SNOMO .4L4T30815TH000580 96 8x10 FLOE DBL RAMP G0430K247 93 C51704 8x10 • FLOE DBL RAMP 8x18 FLOE QUAD RAMP • GC480K248 94 C93874 8x20 FLOW QUAD RAMP GC660M363 00 C93853 *X8 UTILITY TRAILER AB-S8-1500 58 G12-136 vXlO • UTILITY TRAILER AB-63-1500 63 G12-137 liiihh I ■..V ' ’. u-:- aUBk . CEMENT MIXER GAS x 2 DOCK BARRELS X6 PARKING LOT SWEEP ENGINE HOIST x2 BOBCAT X 2 753 BOBCAT X 2 553 DINGO SKID BOBCAT BUCKETS x 4 BOBCAT AUGER HEADS X 2 BOBCAT AUGERS x4 TRACTOR ALMAND EXCAVATOR TRACTOR RIDING LAWN x 2 POWER POST AUGER TR x 2 BLOCK SAW w/TRL CHIPPER x3 LOG SPLITTER X 3 AERATOR TOWABLE TRENCHERX 2 WHEELBARROWS x4 GRILLS 3* X 5 GRILLS 5* X 2 SIGNS 3X6 X 4 DUNK TANK CHAIR WASHER or'4' f . 4 i < -►A- A V n'; MAA -iff: V 4*^ ' .• > r U IN 1 i S 89*56*30 ” E_______ i\KJJ:\U INVy^ CONCRETE SIOCWALK \'. .QIES3S'? U Tw.*-es 4, . * • * t “1 CSTi^S: SmT(2A(u£4.S- OuTi^ic>€. O,, jOe^ ^!»AJc.^Tg LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES The West 250.00 feet of the Eost 350.00 feet of Lot 7. Block 7. Towns!te of Longdon Pork. / denotes iron marker 1 fc (0 NOUTM n-EVATiON & CAST B.EVATKM «* V ■55" i!w ill t§3i I t4 I i: "h : ^ lOUTW eteVATION RCTr "” hist ilcvatkin(D'Sb ^ =>• fol «IO«ine I -------- H ooroe'10' V .—..y ' UfI r * i ' ! /.‘!J \\ ^1 V ^ V b m \ * *• 11 1 i ! 1 B' /r N.„T •MM •a s ao*or49* E S 3S633 .J / n 13 I Ar\ nMNfTONKA UNTAL tTIN OiY Dit« Application Rtctivcd: 10-16-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-03-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 01-19-04 Council Approval: 11-24-03 COIIMHI. MFETING MAK 8 2004 CITY OH CHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 2, 2004 Item No ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner WiO Agenda Section: Zoning Item Deacription: #03-2959 - Timothy A Sheryl Lattemer - Amended Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area: 0.2 acre (10,521 s.f.) Lot Width: 40* Exhibits: A - Amended Resolution B - Site Finn showing deck proposal Application Summary: At the November 24, 2003 meeting the City Council approved a resolution granting the applicants the following: 1. A hardcover variance in the 75 250 ’ setback zone in order to reduce their existing hardcover from 65.1% (82.2% including rock and plastic) to 59.9% where 25% is allowed. 2. Side yard setback variances for the residence in order to add a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists and add a lull 2"^ story where currently a Vi story exists at a substandard setback of 5.8 ’ where a 10’ side setback is required. The applicants are requesting amendments to their original approvals received in November2003 in order to reconstruct their existing lake yard deck. The reconstructed deck will stall be 2.5 ’ from the side lot line, but will no longer encroach within 75 ’ of the lake. Those amendments are as follows: 1. Side setback variance, in order to reconstruct their deck no closer to the side yard than the existing deck (2.5 ’ where 10’ is required), and 2. Hardcover variance in order to further reduce the level of hardcover. Currently, 72 s.f. of deck exists extending into the 0-75 ’ setback from Lake Minnetonka. The applicants would like to remove the 72 s.f and re-construct their deck to meet the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL. Thus reducing the level of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone by an additional 2.4%.______ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Department staff recommends approval as presented per the attached resolution. Or Council could refer the request back to the Planning Commission for additional review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. --------- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282 and SECTION 78-350 SUBDIVISION (b) FILE NO. 03-2959 WHEREAS, Timothy J. Lattemer and Sheryl A. Lattemer, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants ”) arc the owners of the poperty located at 2032 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ’O and legally described as follows: All of Lot 5, Gust S. Johnson ’s Addition, EXCEPT that part described as follows; Conunencing at a point on the Northwesterly line of Lot 5, Gust S. Johnson ’s Addition said point being 101.1 feet Southwesterly of the Northeast comer of said Lot 5; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 a distance of 129.9 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along the Southwesterly or Westerly line a distance of 1.8 feet; thence Northeasterly a distance of 129.9 feet to he point of beginning, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made (q)plication to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and 78-3S0 Subdivision B to allow hardcover within the 75 ’-250’ zone in excess of 25% and hardcover within the 0-75’ zone of 5.3 %. WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to allow a 2"" story floor expansion within 5.8 ’ of the side lot line and reconstmetion of a deck 2.5’ from the side lot line.where a 10’ side setback is required. FINDINGS 1. This a) ' ’cation was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2959. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of O S acre and lot width of 100’. The property is 0.2 acre in size and has 40’ width. Page 1 of 5 3. 4. 5. The Planning Conunission reviewed this application at public hearings held on November 17, 2003 and recommended approval of the variance based on the following findings: a. Within the 75’-250’ setback, the applicants propose the removal of 296 s.f of concrete sidewalk, and 90.6 s.f. of bituminous drive in order to reduce their hardcover amount in this zone from 65.1% to 59.9%. b. Within the 0>75* setback, the applicants propose the removal of 72 s.f. of deck hardcover. c. The applicants will remove the carport, consisting of 357 s.f. of structural coverage, but leave the hard surface below the carport as an accessory parking stall. d. The small size of the lot is a hardship that supports the level of 59.9% hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone, given the existing developed status of the property and the need for off-street parking due to the high traffic on Shadywood Road. e. The second-story expansion in the substandard side setback will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties. f. The deck reconstruction in the substandard side setback will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not ^ply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable Iiardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Page 2 ofS 1 r NOW« THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 to allow hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone of 5.3%, within the 75’-250’ setback zone of 59.9% (consisting of 4504.4 s.f. of hardcover) and a variance from 78-350(b) in order to add a pitched roof over an existing flat roofed porch and to expand their current */a story into a full 2"** story within 5.8’ of the property line and reconstruct a deck 2.5’ from the property.line where 10 ’ is normally required subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amgndmenta to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above 5.3% (160 s.f). Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 4504.4 s.f or 59.9% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landsctq>e beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. The carport structure shall be removed per the approved site plan. Required removals of carport structure and hardcover shall be completed prior to issuance of building permit. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance vnll expire on that date (March 8,2005). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 ... 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 8. This resolution supercedes the approval granted in City Council Resolution No. 5082. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 8th day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of S ii a 11 J STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_day of ______2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesoto municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Timothy J. Lattemer, husband of Sheryl A. Lattemer. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Sheryl A. Lattemer, wife of Timothy J. Lattemer. day of ^2004 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 iiiMiWiiiiftiifriiiiii f i ' i i i • X h I I sSS-Tsf . jCArPtovl* vnmu: »*n«C RCSQCNCC VYMftVAi. ^fOUHO 3/4- fS!^^ aioor *CtAMNO *401 J Date Application Received: 10*22*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10*22*03 60*Day Review Period Expires: 12*21*03 extended to 2*19*04 extended to 4*12*04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COIIMCIL MEETING m 8 2004 CITY OF OHO nO Date: March 5,2004 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: 2^ning Item Description: #03*2962, Robert & Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/a acre minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet List of Exhibits A - Council Action Notice 2*11*04 B ** Minutes from 2*9*04 City Council Meeting C - Council Memo from 2*19*04 Meeting D - Resolution for Approval E - Memo from Planning Director Mike Gaffron dated 2*2*04 F - PC Action Notice 1*22*04 G - PC Memo and Exhibits of 1*16*04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to constmet a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75*250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed (also removing 2,050 s.f. hardcover from the 0-75’ zone). This application was heard before the Council at the February 9,2004 meeting. At that meeting the applicant’s were directed to further reduce hardcover to 33%, which was the amount presented in the memo by Planning Director Mike Gaffron, attached as Exhibit E. The applicants have chosen not to reduce hardcover any further than 38.6%, and request ^proval of the plan presented at your February 9* meeting. Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the following by a unanimous vote of 6*0 at the January 20,2004 meeting: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acre> in size when r . 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone when 39% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation While planning Department staff has prepared a resolution consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff would like the City Council to recognize the following when determining if the Planning Commission’s recommendation should be upheld and whether the resolution should be adopted: 1 . The lot is nearly conforming at a size of 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is required a discrepancy of 1,156 square feet. The lot width at 120’ is conforming. 2. This project is a rebuild situation where Planning Commission and City Council have consistently expected the property be brought into full confomumce. 3. Does the shape of the lot and the hardship demonstrated justify the magnitude of variance that was recommended for approval? 4. Should the magnitude of haidimver variance be closer to 3,609 s.f or 32% as discussed in the Planning Report (pg. 4) as the optimum hardcover allowance based on lot shape? Does removal of 2,050 s.f. of existing hardcover from the 0*75’ zone justify approval of 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone? 5. Reference memorandum from Planning Director Mike Gaffron, attached Exhibit B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council shall rule on one of the following options: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution granting a lot area and hardcover variance for 1740 Shadywood Road at 38.6% or. 2. Deny the request. CrrVOFORONO zoning file : #03-2962 r*.I^P«kwn notice OF COUNCa ACTION ^52)*2492«^ DATE OF NOTICE: ^ ^P^jt. TO: Robert and Joanne Switz • COPIES: 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Twif OF .................................................................... DATE OF MEETING: February 9,2004 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: Table. The applicant was directed to redesign the plans to meet the hardcover allowance of 33.6% as noted in the memo dated February 2,2004 by Planning Director Mike Gaffiron for the 75’-250* zone. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are avaUable from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notificatjon to the applicant. Your application was received on October 22, 2003 and the initial 60- day review period ended on December 21,2003. The City extended this review period to February 19, 2004. Because your application was tabled by the City Council at the February 9,2004 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action &lls after the latest 60-day period ends. Ther^ore, you must extend the 69-day review period an additional 60 days to AprU 19, 2004, PUase submit to the city your written reqi^t to fxftnd your projects review period an additional 60-days. Your application is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the February 23, 2004 City CouncU meeting. If the City does not receive a request to extend the review pei’od an additional 60-days, the City has but no choice other than to deny your request. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Sansi^ytated that Coun< near the nra^^M^ent, an Rice asked if thev wer^ft stated that Council made it clear months ago that they will not have an ice rink and the Commission needs to move on. Rice if they wer^Bng to advocate for funds as they did in the memo. Sansevere and Mayor Peterson stated it1| mot their role to pursue funding through taxes White stated that there is a grant that ei^ October for $200,000 that nobody is applying for. If they have a clean-up project, n^^should apply for the funds ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT—CONTINUE 5. #03-2962 Robert St Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road—^Variances — Resolution No. Gundlach stated that the applicant redesigned the home in an effort to meet requirements. The new plans met the 15% footprint requirement, and were at the maximum of 1 S%. The applicant requested a variance for lot area to rebuild on a lot of 0.47 acres in a O.SO acre zone, and a variance for hardcover to allow 38.6% in the 750250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. The applicants would be removing 2,050 s.f hardcover from the 0-75 ’ zone. p L............................................... I ■ « ' I I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Hardships regarding the hardcover variance consist of the shallowness of the lot and the need for a backup apron. Gundlach stated that the hardships are legitimate, but the 38.6% hardcover was an inflated number because the applicant maxed out their structural coverage at 1 S%. Staff reconunended approval of the lot size variance and a hardcover variance, but encouraged Council to consider if hardcover of 38.6% was extreme. Mr. Switz stated that they aggressively worked on the plans for their house to bring them into conformance. He felt everyone’s best interest would be served by ^proving the application. Sansevere stated that in his memo, Gaffron recommended not allowing over 33.6% hardcover in the 75*250 ’ zone. Gundlach stated that the real issue was if the applicant should be allowed to max out structural coverage at 15%. Mabusth stated that this is the hardest type of application you get because the lot is ciirrcntly completely covered in structure. They’re at 22% in the 0-75 ’ zone, and the applicant would get rid of all that. Because of the lot shape, the sqjplicant doesn’t get the full benefit they might on a normal lot—the hardships should bring them to about 33-34% ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 hardcover. Mr. Switz stated the lot is over 60% hardcover now, and they ’d make significant improvements. McMillan stated she was tom because the existing house covers the entire lot and is so far out of conformity. Moorse stated in the mid-90’s they were happy to grant applications that brought an improvement. The current philosophy is to only give variances on valid hardships. Staff couldn’t find a hard^p for coverage over 34% based on the irregular lot. Unless the property is unique, they would set a precedent by allowing the 38.6% hardcover. Gundlach stated that the difference between the 33.6% and 38.6% is 800 s.f. Mr. Switz stated that if their sq;>plication is denied, they risk the lot staying exactly as it is for any number of years. White asked if they could install porous paving material in the driveway. Mr. Switz stated he was willing. Sansevere stated the material is too new to be tested for longevity, and allowing that as a hardcover reduction would set a precedent. ^ rI ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Murphy moved, and White seconded, to approve the application. Moorse stated that if Council approved the application, they should make the situation as unique as possible to avoid precedent setting, and note the amount of hardcover removed from the lot. Mayor Peterson stated she would vote against the application because she felt they had to require valid hardships for variances. She stated she did appreciate the improvements proposed. McMillan stated that she agreed >vith the Mayor and would vote against the ^iplication. Sansevere stated that if Council voted, Mr. Switz may not get approval. He asked if there were any more hardcover reductions they could make. Mr. Switz replied there were not, and they would choose to not buy the property. Moorse stated that the Planning Commission really wanted to make the ^plication work. but there is no other hardship in the application. If there were, the Plannin g Commission would have found it. Sansevere asked Mr. Switz if he would like the application tabled. He stated he would only to allow him to discuss it with his wife. i White moved, and Murphy seconded to deny Resolutton No. granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350(B), 78-282, and 78-1288 to allow construction of a new residence, unless the applicant signs an extension of the deadline to table the application before February 18,2004. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mr. Switz staled that he wished staff had been more forthright at the Planning Commission so that the application had not needed to go that far. ■2965 Scott Sennes of Sennes Design Build on behalf of Franz & Kersten syne, 819 Brown Road North—Variances—Resolution No. Murphy moved, and Whitn^M^ to adept Resolution No. granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Oode Sc^N^^k^O Subdivision B to allow a new residence to be constructed on a lot with su^RI^^||darea and width, and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 SuhO^bRB to allow a side yard r. Date AppIkatioB Received: 10*22-03 Date Application ConiMcred ai Compiete: 10-22-03 OO-Day Review Period Eipires: 12-21-03 extended to 2-19-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 2,2004 Item No. Department Approval:Adminutrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlacl\^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2962, Robert & Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Resol'ition 2^ning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/a acre minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - Memo from Planning Director Mike Gaffron dated 2-2-04 C - PC Action Notice 1-22-04 D - PC Memo and Exhibits of 1-16-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home; 1. Lot area varitmee to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when O.SO acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed (also removing 2,050 s.f. hardcover from the 0-75 ’ zone). Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the following by a unanimous vote of 6-0: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone when 39% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation While Planning Department staff has prepared a resolution consistent with the Planning Commission ’s recommendation, staff would like the City Council to recognize the following when determining if the Planning Commission ’s recommendation should be upheld and whether the resolution should be adopted: 1. The lot is nearly conforming at a size of 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is required a discrepancy of 1,156 square feet. The lot width at 120’ is conforming. 2. This project is a rebuild situation whrre Planning Commission and City Council have consistently expected the property be brought into full conformance. 3. Does the shape of the lot and the hardship demonstrated justify the magnitude of variance that was recommended for approval? 4. Should the magnitude of hardcover variance be closer to 3,609 s.f or 32% as discussed in the Planning Report (pg. 4) as the optimum hardcover allowance based on lot shape? Does removal of 2,050 s.f. of existing hardcover from the 0-75' zone justify approval of 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone? 5. Reference memorandum from Planning Director Mike Caf&on, attached Exhibit B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council shall rule on one of the following options: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution granting a lot area and hardcover variance for 1740 Shadywood Road at 38.6% or. 2. Direct the applicants to further reduce hardcover on the property which would consist of one of the following two options: a. Refer back to the Planning Conunission; or b. Have applicant return a revised plan to City Council. A ‘ t 1 1 i i aBkL^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350 (B), 78-282 AND 78-1288 FILE NO. 03-2962 WHEREAS, Thomas B. Swanson and Marilyn L. Swanson, husband and wife, are the owners of the property located at 1740 Shadywood Road and Robert E. Switz and Josephine L. Switz, husband and wife, have interest in the property located at 1740 Shadywood Road, (hereinafter “the applicants”) within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: Lots 14 & 15, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B), 78-282, and 78- 1288 to allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot where the lot area is 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is normally required and 38 6% hardcover is proposed when 25% is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2962. 2.The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which requires minimum lot sizes of 0.50 acres. The applicant s lot is 0.47 acres in size. The Plaim'ng Comrnijsion reviewed this application at public hearings held on November 17, 2003 and January 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the lot area and hardcover variances based on the following findings: a. The lot is sub-standard in area at 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is normally required. Page 1 of 6 adL... ; I 4. 5. b. The lo* as it exists is more shallow than deep. An optimum shaped lot of the same acreage would be allowed 3609 s.f. of hardcover. c. Due to the lot ’s frontage on Shadywood Road, a drive-way back-up apron is required for the purpose of safe egress and parking. d. The lots 15% allotted strucuiral coverage, when maximized, puts the property over its hardcover allotment for the 75 ’-250’ zone. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the app.icants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants *>ariances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B), 78-282, and 78* 1288 to allow c'^nstruction of a new residence, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to ^is Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.All hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone shall be removed and not allowed above 0%. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone shall be limited to 4,409 s.f. or 38.6% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Page 2 of 6 n , i ' 11 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and incre^s in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reductions in existing hardcover. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. Required removals of structure and hardcover, including all structure and hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and the shed located in the northwestern comer of the lot, shall be completed by footing inspection for the new residence. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Coxmcil approval, or the variances will expire on that date (February 9,2005). Violation of or non-compliaiKe with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9* day of February 9,2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) Page 3 of6 < : STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota muni cipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Thomas B. Swanson, husband of Marilyn L. Swanson. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Henn.:pin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Marilyn L. Swanson, wife of Thomas B. Swanson. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page S of 6 yuju, f State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instnunent was acknowledged before me this by Robert E. Switz, husband of Josephine L. Switz. day of 2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hetmepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Josephine L. Switz, wife of Robert E. Switz. day of ^2004 Notary Public Page6of6 - EXiST MOUSE • SUPS WALK - DRIVE -> LAfOSC. TOTAL • U424 ...JCOVER X 25% - 2B56^ HC ALLWO 2665 ST K 140 sr 88 ST 1200 ST - 335 sr I 4420 SF EAST 125.46 _____ 0-75 - 9200 SF PROP^fl tXBT ^ WJST^ 3040 SF (14 8X LOT) HOUSE m AM ^ |S STOOP - 53 SF DECK - 670 SF ^boATHOUSE ST ^ OOATMSt - 370 SF 0^71 » - 560 SF 60 ST DRIVE ,/TOTAL ll (20.21 TOTAL - 2050 SF (22 3») 0ESCI6PT10N' lots 14 4 15. SHAOYWOOO. HTNN. CO. MN.^i 20600 SF 0.47 AC PO I 17-117-23-21-0020 AOORCSS - 1740 SHAOYWOOO ROAD 10 Memorandum Date: To: From: RE: February 2,2004 City Administrator, Mayor, and Council Mike Gaffron, Planning Director planning CommissiOD*s Recommendation Regarding Project #03>2962 - Hardcover Variance The Planning Commission, at their January 20,2004 meeting recommended approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone. Because this project is a rebuild, I would offer the following comments: From staff's perspective, approval at 38.6% is somewhat inconsistent with Council's pattern of approvals for total rebuilds within the past 5 years. While the applicant has reduced the proposed house to meet the 15% lot coverage limit, that fact in itself does not justify the level of hardcover proposed. It is not uncommon that homes are reduced to a level significantly less than 15% lot coverage to meet the 25% hardcover limit. Staff feels the lot shape justification (top of pg. 4 of Jan. 20 Memo) for 32% hardcover, is a reasonable method to quantify the hardship based on lot shape. A further hardship, based on the limited parking area and need for a back-up apron to access Snadywood Road, perhaps justifies an additional 15’ x 15’ in driveway, or perhaps another 225 s.f. At best, we don’t find a justification to go above 3609 + 225 = 3834 s.f. or 33.6% for this rebuild. To approve it at this level without additional unique justification will make this iqiproval stand out as an anomaly and as a precedent. A .... CITYOFORONO ZONING FILE: 03-2962 2750 Kelley Perkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: January 22, 2004 TO: Robert & Joanne Switz COPIES: 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION*;^_____ DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Hannaford, seconded by Commissioner Mabustb to approve the plans as submitted which consist of the following: 1, Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone when 39% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City Council - Monday, February 23,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plaiming Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlacb at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application. The City has made an initial 60-day extension which will expire on February 19, 2004. The applicant is required to request extensions beyond the initial 60-day extension. Because the application cannot be heard by the City Council at the January 26, 2004 meeting, please submit to the City your request in writing to extend your project ’s review period another 60~days so that your project can be heard at the February 23, 2004 City Council meeting. r-W3-2M2 January 20,2004 Pa|t I of 4 Date Application Received: 10-22*03 Dale Application Coaaidered as Complete: 10-22-03 00-Day Review Period Expires: 12-21-03 and extended to 2-19-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FroBi: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ January 16,2004 03-2962, Robert ard Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Lot Area and Hardcover Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/i minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to constmet a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Siqff Recommendation: Staffrecommendations the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size v^dien 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Approval of a hardcover variances as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-up apron provide hardships inherent to the property. Pertiaent Zoniog Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Front Yard feet)Side Yard (feet)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Sueet (feet) O.S 100 30 10 30 1 15 Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, e' ery developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. «f03-2962 January 20,2004 Pact 2 of4 Sec. 78*282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR*I A, LR* IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78*281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,C00 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Cede. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent haid cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Betw een 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits Exhibit A *• Revised Survey Exhibit B - Revised Elevations Exhibit C - Revised Floor Plans Exhibit D - City Council Action Form dated January 16,2004 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Action Form dated November 18,2003 Exhibit F - PC Report dated November 14,2003 Background This project was originally heard at the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the excessive structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12,2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project tabled as new plans were being prepared. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning Department staff brought the applicant back to the Planning Commission foi a new recommendation. The applicant has submitted new plans for a house that meets the 15% requirement. Also included is a conservative driveway of 1,000 s.f., a 53 s.f. stoop, 60 s.f. concrete walk bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4%. That applicant had also indicated that a 12 ’ x 12 ’ patio/deck would be incorporated into the new plan, however that is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f. patio/deck were incorporated the hardcover would rise to 37.6%. If the proposed 16’ x 16’ patio/deck is added instead, it rised to 4,409 s.f. or 38.6%. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET The lot analysis worksheets have been updated from the previously denied plan to reflect the new footptint and hardcover. i^aSll i M03-2W2 Janaary 20,2004 Fagt) of4 LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (Vi acre)100 ’ Actual 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)120 ’ LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front 30 ’n/a n/a Rear 30 ’44’36 ’ Left Side (south)10 ’9’ir 1 Right Side (north) 1 10 ’20 ’12’ Lakeshore 75’60 ’(house) 55’ (deck)75’ Average Lakeshore 52’53 ’75’ (not including any decks) Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)Allowed: 3,094 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,040 (14.8%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9,200 s.f.0 s.f (0%) 2,050 s.f* (22%) Os.f. '0%) 75-250 11,424 s.f. .AAA* a • 2,856 s.f. (25%) 4,428 s.f.* (39%) 4,409 s.f. (38.6%) Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing to remove all hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, including the boat I__.... in tka mviicArl riin'Av T>tA c Via H tViflt in the 7^* — 750 ’house which isn’t reflected in the revised surv ey. The shed that exists in the 75’ - 250 ’ zone is also proposed for removal. Ihe applicant is proposing 4,409 s.f. of hardcover, or 38.6% in the 75-250’ zone. These numbers include a 16 ’ x 16 ’ patio/deck which is not shown or calculated on the revised survey. A hardcover variance must be granted in . 4 myim January 20,2004 Fagc4of4 order to approve the 38.6% hardcover in the 75’ - 250’ zone. HARDSHIP As discussed in the earlier PC report, some hardships exists that could support approval of a hardcover variance, the lot is quite shallow if you consider its depth. This is limiting when calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcover, a lot with the exact same lot area (0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250’ hardcover allotment if its dimensions were 250’ x 82.5’ which would yield a 25"^ hardcover of (175 x 82.5 x .25) = 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship can only justify a hardcover level of 3,609 s.f., 800 s.f less than what the applicant has proposed. Also, because the lot is located on Shadyv»ood Road, a hardship exists in that more driveway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has proposed a 1,000 s.f driveway. This is essentially a 3-stall wide dhve\vay that tapers towards the road. Other similar lots have been held to much narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcover limits for rebuilds. The Planning Commission should discuss to what extent a hardcover variance should be granted, and what hardships allow what level of hardcover excess. Building Height The applicant should be aware that if a basement were constructed on the property, with the proposed elevations is appears that there would be a building height issue. The lot currently sites low whereby substantial fill would be neces.<‘ary in order to construct a basement. Zoning Ordinance states that building height is measured fom existing, not proposed grade. If the applicant decides to propose a basement the plans should be revised prior to building permit review whereby the total height, from existing grade, is 30 feet. Issues for Consideration 1. Has the applicant made a good faith effort towa'-ds limited hardcover? 2. What level of hardcover variance might the Commission consider? 3. How can the magnitude of the proposed variance be justified? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Planning Commission must determine whether there is adequate hardship to justify allowing 38.6% hardcover (4,409 s.f) in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed for this total rebuild on a nearly conforming lot. 75f EXIST HARDCOVER EAST 125.46 11424 SF K 25* ■ 2856 HC ALLWO o-75 ■ 9200 Sf pnoposeo exist HOUSE ■ 2665 Sr HOUSE - 5040 ST (14 8* LOT) HOUSE - 450 SF STEPS - 140 sr STOOP - 53 sr DECK - 670 SF WALK « 68 SF WALK • 60 ST BOATHSE « 370 SF OMVE - 1200 sr onvE - tooo sr lamisc. - S6o sr LAM2SC. - 335 SF TOTAL - 4153 ST (36.4X) TOTAL - 2050 SF (22JX) total - 4428 sr (388*) (2Q.2XLOT) r a£N4Knc#d ...f »> I Ol ^ ’%•:■>',r. *J5 :-J ■‘ ir^T i f.’ • . ' t •- -v! L....-._J^dH^ i I ' fWF-IUJj v*r-o- ^aer • •ZiAlik M Miir■ >M.aik^n II II Ih't'W^i n m i ‘ . V /* 1 - hn 0 -------u ■ >■»-t -1-^ 4>e6oi4p fuzy^ptAisL IfeT^l'-o ■* - CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2962 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 16,2004 TO: Robert and Joanne Switz COPIES: 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: January 12. 2003 VOTE: S FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table, and refer back to the Planning Conunission for a new recommendation at their January 20,2004 meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available fiom the City Clerk after review and i^)proval by the City Council. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 03-2962 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 18,2003 TO: Robert and Joanne Swit? 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 COPIES: TYPE OF APPUCATION:_ I^t Are^ Sjmcnir^ Cqvw _ DATE OF MEETING: November 17,2003 Planning Commbsion recommended as follows: Denial consistent with the following staff recommendation; 1 . Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when O.SO acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. VOTE;FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, January 12,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ^>proval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. 60>Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on October 22, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on December 21, 2003. However, due to your inability to attend the November 24, 2003 or December 8, 2003 City Council meetings, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60- M»-29«2 Novtnbcr 17,2003 Page 1 o(7 Date Application Rccclvtd: 10*22*O3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10-22-03 60*Day Review Period Expires: 12>21*03 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja. City Planner^ November 14,2003 03-2962, Robert and Joanne Svritz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Lot Area, Hardcover and Structural Coverage Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (‘/a minimum) 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f.) 120 feet Application Sununary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home: , 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations the following; 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25Vo is normally allowed. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed; Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Fror.1 Vord (feet)Side Yard (feet)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street flfaa) 0.5 1 100 ^30 10 30 15 Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for ail lots of 0-1.99 acres in total are^ the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not L m^l962 Novembtr 17,2003 Page 2 of7 exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. Sec. 78*282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR- IB, LR'IC or LR-IC-1 district, within "^5 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78*281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 fert to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B — Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form Exhibit C — Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Existing Footprint Exhibit E - Proposed Footprint Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G *- Elevations Exhibit H - Floor Plans Exhibit I - Aerial Photograph Exhibit J - Drawing Showing Building Pat at 15% Exhibit K - Plat Map Exhibit L - Property Owners List Background The applicants have bought this property under the contingency that the appropriate approvals are received from the City. The current conditions on the lot consist of noncoirforming hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down the existing home and construct a new home completely within 75-250 zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the existing boathouse. In doing this, a standard lot area variance and a hardcover and structural coverage variance are still required to construct the proposed home. The applicants have met with staff to discuss their proposal and what the City consistently requires with rebuild situations. The applicants are aware that the hardcover u . M3-2HX Nwtmbir 17,2009 Pagi9«f7 and structural coverage proposals are excessive to what has been consistently approved with rebuild situations but have decided to move forward without any re>design. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width! LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. ('/j acre)100* Actual 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)120 ’ < ! • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds MS.2M2 November 17,2003 Page 4 of7 Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild a new home. Because the lot is only 0.47 acres in area when 0.50 acres is normally allowed a lot area variance is required. The lot meets the width requirement of 120 ’ when 100 ’ is required. Hardcover Variance Currently a large home exists within both the 0-75 ’ zone and the 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home entirely within the 75-250 ’ zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the boathouse near the shoreline, therefore no variance is required for the 0-75 ’ zone. However, the applicant is proposing a 3,895 s.f. home, 72 s.f. of walk, and 1,060 s.f. of driveway in the 75-250 ’ zone which puts the hardcover for the zone at 44% requiring a variance. Lot Coverage by Structures V’ariance The applicants are proposing to tear down the existing house and rebuild a structure 3,895 square feet in size. This figure doesn’t include any second story decks. This proposed house footprint puts the lot at 19% structural coverage when 15% is allowed thus requiring a variance. The existing house meets the 15% structural coverage limit. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In consUfflng oppllcmlons Jot varlonco^ iho Planning Contntission shall considtt tht offtet oftht proposed vorlanee upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic eondltioHs, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there are no viable hardships to approve the hardcover and structural coverage variances as proposed. Staff would consider supporting a hardcover variance due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a driveway tum-around however, not the proposed 44%. This 44% also doesn’t include any decking or patio and staff feels that the 44% has the potential to get even larger in the future. Staff has advised the applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised that staff is not entirely opposed to a hardcover variance however the proposal needs to be re-worked to a hardcover percentage much less than the proposed 44%. The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% stmctural coverage. Staff advised the applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on J i«3>2M2 November 17.3003 Pa|«5of7 rebuild situations. Staff will hold to this suggestion as new homes have consistently been held to 1 SVo. No hardship exists to allow structural coverage in excess of 15% due to die allowable building pad of 3,093 square feet as shown on Exhibit J. This is more than double what the ordinance allows for in particularly small lots where a minimum of 1JOO square feet is allowed. Staff would support a lot area variance as this is a routine variance which is required with rebuild situations where the lot doesn’t meet the area requirement for the respective zoning district. The lot is a legal lot of record which requires approval of this variance request. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship** pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 3. 5. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* A reasonably sized home could be placed on the lot meeting all requirements. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property cot created by the landowner." There are no circumstances unique to this property which would justify graraing of the variances as proposed. Staff has indicated that a hardcover variance could be explored due to the shallowness of the lot and the needfor a turnaround bur 44% is excessive to what has consistently been approved with rebuild siiuations. as is the 19% structural coverage. A reasonably sized home could be constructed on the lot meeting all requirements. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localit>'.* The nature of the lot at shown in Exhibit 1 is smaller lots with modest footprirjs and 2-2 Vt story homes. This house as proposed may alter the essential character of the LR — JC zoning locality along Shadywood Road ‘Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* The applicant has indicated tfutt her older parents would be moving in which causes the needfor a larger house. This lot Jits within the applicant's budget however, stafffeels that this lot cannot support the amount of hardcover and structural coverage the applicants feel they need 'Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. whec in harmony with this Chapter.* j ‘ i ♦ ' J 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. M3-2M3 Ne««mbtrl7.3003 Pifif of? variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Not applicable “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable "The qjecial conditions applying to the stractur.* or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." There are no special conditions applying to the structure or land in question which are peculiar to it or immediately adjoining property. Staff had indicated that a hardcover variance may be warranted but not to the level which the applicant has proposed “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Many of the lots along Shadywood Road and throughout the lakeshore are substandard as they currently exist. The City has consistently required that at the time of rebuild the property should be brought as close to corformance as possible. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The lot can be reasonably developed as a single family home. The needs of the applicant may be beyond what this lot can support. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, winfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The granting of this eqyplication will be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and be contradictory to standards of which rebuild situations have consistently been held to. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The granting of this variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardships. . Issues for Consideration 1 . Is a 1Q23 (l^o) square foot home reasonable for this lot when 15% is the limit? 2. What level ofhardcover variance might the Commission consider if any? 3 . Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following; r aci-im No*tmbtrl7.noS Pagt7«r7 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage \^n 1 S% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in th? 75*250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. 1 r I ' I EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received Amount Paid SL^O. « ® PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address |7*40 S\rtcL^ ^, iJQq A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) SLI OO’kO Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ey. Date Property Acquired_____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Present iSTof property: fc/residential _ .(month/year) other (specify). Zoning District:. APPLICANT __ Name fioVogrb Q.yvcL AoCk G l^ »“J 30'.S’'5 ^ ^ Phone (home) ^ :S~?>« 4o I»O i 3~1 5>u3\“V‘Z-: Phone (work) n • o Address:. t A ^ ^ City: SUor.g.(-g<>vvjL Zip: \ City: Oro»~>Q ^ rAAJ Zip: 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) * Phone (home) Name fliAteiLaii (work). Addres^i -tci cn DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost SdS*‘O.oo0. CsCS Describe request in detail: t \g.,B>,o o-¥- ■gs^iv4-.»^e cVT-a<»-t/t»Ax>-n _ Q >r-%. » 4.1-) ^ I .B. f-4L t i ~ * (attach additional ^eets if necessary) orv-i.^ VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area _Ut Width ])C Hardcover Kuot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property* conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: LoV gia^ \*tr ~v.4,av^ L& . • . i .i^OiAg. VtcA- (^PpUt » t-hi/v(g.r>tvg------------------------------------- J -------y .x iirhwj-----rihftrtT r*i,, -T-Q V o4- jr4 * (attach additional sheets if nOTessaty) 77" } i / i;;' tUaM, REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed AppUcation Fonn Certified Property 0^^^lers List of owners within 15fV j , obtain this list, labels and map fromHenneoinOiiiL*r? “*P <y®“Govt Center, 348-5910). timnepin County Department of Fmance, A-603, SSo*ns°L^'^uL^'‘^^^ hardcover reproduction ^ 0) copy 8^," x 11" for XsS"S:?-,S£r property. This would include name(s) of aDDLantri\ “ mterest in the you t^sh notified of this ^pUcation.*^ ^ separate list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. II . The Applicant and Property Owner must sien this »t APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE AJnwSntnt.ipmu^ *“ AppUcant’s Signature \ro^fX. .rfr^ ^ , ---------------- P^teiDc.-i~. \S^ p,r>^ a. OWNER’S SIGNAT^ member, for purposes of investis«iou „d verification““tti?r^t“ Date Ot^ /f^ ^003 Owner’s Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the Pitv nfnr^c oc .1 e* ^ ^ Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings we held on m* ^**™““* Applicants must be present at all schedulL review meeting Council. If an applicant is unable to attend I schll.^lH I* »• ‘***,*^*«“^“« Commission and have an authorized sgeni attend in your place and t^advise the "wngements to change prior to the meeting. ® Building & Zoning Office of this '-a tu h MUlaiiMiaik 11 iiMM ■nil EXHIBIT B Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) Lylg ^ ^ggrcHgU of nsi> SA^Apyiti^mO [print aame(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at / ’y S //At^^Apalso referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or dis^)proval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires CoOneil appn>v; * ncr /p Date Oct /ji' ■j./yy'? Date I (we) [print name(s;] of \7Lo rl. [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property loc^d at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare ^)proval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for die City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council qiproval. ^ /' Ai Property Owner /rtT-if ZCffS. Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ 8 ■‘T'.'. •; EXISTt^ HOUSE f ies.95\(\_ ,,•_____. J A; - -Nsl - •!.» ' ' 7 \ \v SCALE IN FEET • vasiwc SPOT aCVATlON. PROPOSED SPOT QXVATION OilECTlON SURFACE ORAMAGE har Scover 1M24 5F X 25* - 265® 5^[ MC AILWO PftOPOSCO House - 3895 ST WALK - 72 SF ORiVt - 1060 Sf . TOTAL - 5027 ST (♦«*) EAST 125.46 0-73 - 9200 SF EXIST OISTMC House HOUSE ■ 430 Sf PROPOSED DECK - 670 SF BOATHOUSE - 370 SF BOATHSE - 370 SF 4J)» LAM»C. - 360 V V S ' '**' \' ■—Y\- umicr ^ • 11OESCfVTiON; LOTS 14 k IS. SHAOYWOOO. HEWl CO. Mil. 20600 SF 0.47 AC PO # 17-117-23-21-0020 AnnnrM* _ 4^An cu«nvuinr.‘l IMAn S i EXISTING HOUSE ,T H S89*57'48 ”E 165.95 \n I U _______-----------^--------r‘~ " .\ I S' • • *•;• \>\ . \\ TV' 'GT I n V''ll SCALE IN FEET - EXSTNC SPOT ELSVATKM. X(9980). PfiOPOSCO SPOT atVATION - 0*i£CTON SURFACE ORANACC I I ^ ' 5 '\1 HMt \754- - EXIST HOUSE STEPS WALK - ' HARDCOVER 11424 Sr X 25X - 2856 S^ HC ALLWO PROPOSED HOUSE - 3695 SF WALK “ 72 SF DRIVE - 1060 SF 2665 sr > 140 SF 06 sr ORIVC • 1200 SF LAfOSC. ■ 335 sr TOTAL •• 4426 SF (36.0X) TOTAL - 5027 SF (44.0X) fASr 125.46 0-75 - 9200 SF EXIST ' E>ISTINC nOUSC HOUSE • 450 sr PROPOSED DECK - 670 SF BOATHOUSE - 370 SF BOATHSE - 370 SF 4j)% LANOSC. - S60 SF TOTAL - 2050 SF (22.3X) - -N' £ \\ 1 ^ OE SCRS’TIOl^: LOTS 14 k 15. r-:AC-Aooo. co. m 2oeoo sr 0.47 ac PC I 17-117-2J-21-0020 AOCRtSS * 1740 SKi^rwOCO ROAD 8 Z 8 Co Co fXiSrifICf ' HAROCOVCR 79^ 11424 SF X 25X > 28M HC ALLWO 3.S. SF ~ ^ loS ^ iSJosc" -"ws'y ‘ TOTAL - 4428 SF (38M) PAST 125.46 0-7S - 9200 SF EXST • E>ISrwC HOUSE HOUSE - 450 SF PROPOSED ■ VSs X boathouse - 370 ST BOATHSC • 370 SF 4jojj LAM)SC. - 560 SF TOTAL > 2050 SF (22.3X) ^ OESCWTION: LOTS 14 6c IS. SHAOYWOOO. HENM CO. MN. 20600 SF 0.47 AC PC § 17-117-23-21 -0020 AO^^S - 1740 SHAOYWOCO ROAD FotHprirt, 4nVe, 4 proposed EXHIBIT F IITBACK ZONll (CUCLC ONS> CTiOTPiQ iia «i>cq \ir in tOtiK A. Mouw _____________ HARDCQEEB CALCULATION WOBKSBEET 7§-2§V iso^soor SM-lOQO* o S.F % X X S.F S.F S.?. B. Qtraie C. ’Pri\fwiy S.F X X SF. S.F. D. Si4«wilk E PuioDeck z BB.S.F. S.F. X X A3.(olO S.F. SF. F. UsdKap* Uadfflaa By PtaiBc X X X SF. s.r. SF. a OA«14.0 310 A A total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ... B ___ * B ___ \S'I% *rLQo X too « X100 - SF. A SF. B TTO _s % fROKKPMy A. Ho«ua » « ZONE WItfih X X X SF. Sf SP. B. Oangt C. Drivewty SF. X X Sf. sx. O. Sldewklk X X SJ. SI. E Pilic/Dcck X X sx. SX. F. laixBctpt Ucdtrlxio By PUstie 1 x X S.F. SX. sx. G. OChtr 14.0 S.F. HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ♦ B_ _ X lOO • i^oc : 'V/* . ti4 o *7^ Vt ^ ' * . { . ■* • • • • .<•*. r ^ I ( i T! HARDCOVER C.4LCC ^T10N WORKSHEET fitTBACK ZOrfSi (CUCLI ONE) O-Ti' ISMOV MtWTIWC HAMICO^TR IN M>KE A. H oum SM-IMO* S.F li '•••» ►* ffon Et-^VA-noU u 4^ -f itifc:.J Ptvn: Itc nwwod fait tivr Na471<<M39 To: CHy «f Orano Oaio: 1041/3003 Tfaiw. •:0a:3a AM taoo3era o«« SI oa OlsOta Chrlsein* M. Etdan tsa-44a-aia4 4 L‘iIIWm BT M -0«V0AiT«-.J««A.»*WA EXHIBIT H VT r\ 9*4 i ■* • •“T ^•Pia *H «U|«s|^M3 «i92*t0 CO Ct i i i f '• ... •* ........ tr y •• • / V • « v_..• I ..jik.^. ^ d'. 4 f' jr ».#' ■ V *v^., • \ ".) ;•■ .• a h•i,-’ 4aBr/3UD Fl£CT^nAKi -7 . • • - , u'.‘. Mm "f -'PS ^yJL. \^X .••V-rVni* j ' / • f V • •T • • I . .»• . / • ■p ’p - ••* r •rf • 4'' ’ '■'' *:/ r*-yWxi^Jr^r- ' > > **— .-XM. ' \4k;yf.\ % , •.•:?“ l/*A. * ^ ^ *.»•*• ry-* —:r^.|. T^v‘\: mm ^ • J>¥ f' »i>* C’l'C'tv*.'' * . V .,,• / • ' ' ■• , ••* :<■ il: ^ p f' > •• ■ . .-V..- '^- v1-'•■ V.'-.■ •;;-r :4y. ■ i\r: ’•; • •.•v. .'.• » . . ' *.' • .. I * ’... .^ ^ • •. • I . IV r/-; * •_ V • ■■ ■'• ,-v-.' ■■■•■ V -'• ;.■ V.' . ‘'■-Fv :;•: • -;;:yv^t'- y, • ' • ' ■ , * * • * • 'V «>' • ' . • -i- ’ • * ■ ‘ '• • t V ■ , . ‘ ' • • 4^- . • J i 8 ^ IPml 3 ft! •»« C!5 cf X k S: Qcik \ ___£_____CflgiC HARDCOVER ^AST 11424 Sr X 2SX - 2896 S^ HC ALLWO 0.73 . 9700 SF PftOPOSCO EXIST HOUSE - 3899 SF HOUSE - 490 SF WALK - 72 5F DECK - 670 SF OnvC - 1060 SF BOATHSC - 370 SF TOTAL - 9027 SF (44.0*) LA7CSC. - 960 SF TOTAL - 2090 SF (72 3*) 794 •- EXIST HOUSE - 2669 sr STEPS > 140 SF WALK > 88 SF OnvC - 1200 SF LANOSC. - 339 SF TOTAL - 4428 SF (38 8*) I2S '46 I ( X\ - "'S' \ - -V +______r ■E>tSTNG MCXJSt PROPOSED BOATHajSE • 370 SF 4.0X w\\ DESCWPTCN; '' ^ LOTS 14 k 15. SHAOYWOOO. HENK. CO. MN. 20600 SF 0.47 AC TO # 17-117-23-21-0020 AOOWSS -1740 SHAOYWOCD ROAD h J j>)0 §s to to •• > s H —^.... Hennepin V; ••• • • > •‘T . •• • • t ■ • V.f •• • EXHIBIT K V9W*W.«. •»> •il» . ' •*’ ■?/^W —6*.vy ,-"'”ii ;J”1 Parcel Information ♦>• •• •..**•. f .••••:•-% • . #• -••••* •• arcel ID 1711723210020- ^7 t • 5 •** *. J- • • /•■.-•• '.V** ♦* 'sdM^ rVfi^ouse Numbar 1740 Straat Name 8HADYWOOD RD • "'. • 'y** * ^ •% TMt (t no(«ItgtUyneorMmsp. Itnpfutnla § eenpi§gon\iMomit§6n ' 0nd data ItomCiy, County, and Slato nod auVteMtaana RUNOAH:: It 31 I7II7232I00C? PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSUNCD OWNERNAMB AADFRIKELSTEIN TAXPAYER ARTHUR* DOROTHY FINKELSTEIN NAME/ADDR »33 HMTH AVE H MAPLE OROVEMN 3S3M 3N i7iiT2.uinnnii ■•KOrAIMlM 3N AINNUuSK UNASSMiNliU OWHCRHAMB IHSHHEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER tlTYOPORONO NAME/ADDR POUOXM CRYSTAL DAY MN SS323 38 I7II7232IOOI9 PROP AODR 1720 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME ALANRKCZICKY TAXPAYER ALAN R KOZICKV NAME/ADDR I720SIIAOYWOOORO WAY/ATAMN 35301 38 1711723210022 PROPADOR I7M SIIADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMB DAVID H EISS* HOLLY M EISS taxpayer DAVID h * holly M EISS NAME/ADDR I7M SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN SS39I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPI INFORMATION SYSTEM propertyowmu U? list 38 1711723210003 PROPADOR 3E ADDRESSUNASSICNEO OWNERNAMB ARDFIMCELSTEIN TAXPAYBR ARTHUR * DOROTHY FMKELSTER4 NAME/ADDR 8933 HMTH AVE N MAPLE GROVE MN 33389 38 1711723210003 PROP AOOR 1719 EAGERNESS POINT RD OWNERNAMB LAUREENEDARUNO TAXPAYER LAUREEN E DARUNO NAME/ADDR 1719 FAOERNRSS POINT RD WAYilATAMN S539I 38 I7ll7232l<na7 PROP AUUH 38 ADUKKSS UNASSKJNI-U OWNERNAMB HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CmrOPORONO NAME/ADDR POOOX86 CRYSTAL DAY MN 53323 18 I7II7212MNII8 PK(N*At)l)K 1710 SIIADYWUODKU OWNER NAMF. iOlIN P FlfTPATRICK TAXPAYFJt WHN P inTPATRICK NAME/ADDR 1710 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 31 1711723210020 PROP ADDR 1740 SIIADYWOOD RO OWNERNAMB TBAMLSWANSON TAXPAYER THOMAS 0 A MARILYN LSWANSON NAME/ADDR «T40 SI lADY WOOD RD WAT/ATAMN 55391 38 I7II7232I002I PROPADOR 1730 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMB QRETCHENSSHAW TAXPAYER ORETaiENSSIlAW NAME/ADDR 1730 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723210023 PROP ADDR 1770 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMB DANIELPOOONOGHUEETAL TAXPAYER DANIEL POTONOGHUB MAMgADOB 1770 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 53391 I COrriFY THRTTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREWOSENTATIONOF INFORMATION AS IT APPOARSTIBS DATE ON THE RECORDS OPTHB HENNEPIN COUNTY TA3(PAYER SERVICES OePARTMENT. TO THE BE^ PAGE : I 12 il • •/ JUL L Date Applicatioa Rtctivad: 12-11-03 Date AppllcatioB CoasMcrad aa Coaipictc: 01*094)4 60*Day Review Period Expires: 03*09-04 rniiMrii MEETING MAR d 2004 CITY OF ORCNO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dote: March 5« 2004 1Item No Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zloning Name: Melanie Curtis Title: CityPlann Item Description: #04*2968 - Lane Moore of Custom Structures, Ltd, 440 Stubbs Bay Rd - Corrected Resolution Inning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR'IB, One Family Rnral Residential 2 acre minimum 448,107 s.f. (10.287 acres) 320* Listof Eahlbits: A. Corrected Resolution This preliminary plat was approved by Council on February 9,2004. Staff has concluded that a number of critical items were omitted from the resolution adopted at the February 9 meeting. The attached resolution has been conected and is recommended for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached corrected version of Resolution No. S113 i! ----------J A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH FILE NO. 04-2968 f WHEREAS, Lane Moore of Custom Structures (hereinafter the “subdivider") o<* December 11,2003, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally describ^ as: The South 10 acres of the Southwest V* oi the Northeast '/i of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ‘‘the property”); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Oruno Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20,2004, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on February 9,2004, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains approximately 10.287 acres of land of which 5.04 acres is delineated wetland. 3. The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot area requirement of the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District each meeting a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. 4. The proposed subdivision to create residential lots of two acres in area or larger conforms to the provision of the RR-IB Zoning District and the Page 1 of? %• L 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. MM, Rural Residential guiding as established in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. a. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 meets the minimum 200* width requirement as established by the RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. b. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 was created as a Back Lot and meeting the Back Lot Standards established by Section 78-1370 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires dimensional standards of 150% of tne minimum Zoning District Standards. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served with private wells. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing house and four outbuildings all of which must be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into separate ownership or prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served off the proposed Outlet A with no direct driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road North. All existing driveway access from Lot 1 shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. The westerly 33 feet of proposed Lot 1 shall be dedicated as Stubbs Bay Road North public road right-of-way. The City of Orono will require dedication of a 7 foot wide trail easement beyond the 33 foot east half right of way of Stubbs Bay Road North to accommodate a future trail as identified on the County Bicycle System Plan and the Orono Open Space and Trail Plan. The developer shall grant to the City standard Drainage and Utility Easements along lot lines. Primary and rdtemate on-site septic sites have been identified for proposed Lots 1 and 2. Page 2 of 7 { ill tlirtlH < A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH FILE NO. 04-2968 WHEREAS, Lane Moore of Custom Struct ares (hereinafter the "subdivider") on December 11,2003, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: The South 10 acres of the Southwest V* of the Northeast 14 of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ''the property"}; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.3S8 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20,2004, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on February 9,2004, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains approximately 10.287 acres of land of which 5.04 ai TS is delineated wetland. 3.The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot area requirement of the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential 2U)ning District each meeting a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. 4.The proposed subdivision to create residential lots of two acres in area or larger conforms to the provision of the RR-IB Zoning District and the Page 1 of 7 T 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rural Residential guiding as established in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. a. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 meets the minimum 200' width requirement as established by the RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. b. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 was created as a Back Lot and meeting the Back Lot Standards established by Section 78-1370 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires dimensional standards of 150% of the minimum Zoning District Standards. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served with private wells. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing house and four outbuildings all of which must be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into separate ownership or prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served off the proposed Outlet A with no direct driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road North. All existing driveway access from Lot 1 shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. The westerly 33 feet of proposed Lot 1 shall be dedicated as Stubbs Bay Road North public road right-of-way. The City of Orono will require dedication of a 7 foot wide trail easement beyond the 33 foot east half right of way of Stubbs Bay Road North to accommodate a future trail as identified on the County Bicycle System Plan and the Orono Open Space and Trail Plan. The developer shall grant to the City standard Drainage and Utility Easements along lot lines. 11. Primary and alternate on-site septic sites have been identified for proposed Lots 1 and 2. Page 2 of 7 I a. The primary septic site for proposed Lot 1 shall be the most southerly septic location and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 8,2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Lane Moore of Custom Structures at 440 Stubbs Bay Road North per preliminary plat drawings by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka. Minnesota., dated January 8.2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 shall be served off the proposed Outlot A with no direct driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road Nor^. Access easements shall be provided over Outlot A for proposed Lots 1 and 2. 2. The private driveway in Outlot A shall be privately maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the subdivider. The subdivider shall create a homeowners association for each ownership and maintenance. 3. Both proposed Lot I and 2 have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each lot. 4. For proposed Lot 1, the primary septic site shall be the most southerly site and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 19,2004 due to the proximity to proposed Pond 1. a. All identified primary and alternate sewage treatment system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off by the subdivider prior to any land alterations, and such fencing shall remain in place until such time that each lot is developed. b. Subdivider shall develop covenants for each Lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants sha ’l include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternate sites. Subdivider shall include language alerting future property owners of the need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Page 3 of 7 1 S. The existing house, outbuildings, and driveway shall be removed prior to sale of Lots 1 and 2 into separate ownership or prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2. 6. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee for proposed Lot 2, Block 1. 7. The subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee as established by City Ordinance. The subdivision is subject to dedication of standard Drainage & Utility Easements along lot lines. 8. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved a stormwater management plan for the property. 9. Lowest floor elevations for structures on proposed Lots 1 and 2 shall be 974.0’. 10. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of City Council approval, February 9,2005. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. 11. Subdivider shall grant Flowage and Conservation Easements over the wetlands in Lots 1 and 2. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1” s 200’. Drawings to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka, Minnesota, dated January 19,2004. Page 4 of7 jBbtaiilialMiAi ^ i b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the exterior boundaries of property and S’ along the internal lot lines. c. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over drainageways as noted in this Resolution. d. Designation of Outlet A to serve as a private roadway. e. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c. Signed and executed Developer’s Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements, and construction of stormwater and drainage facilities, etc as necessary. d. Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetlands in Lots 1 and 2. e. Drainage Easements to be taken over drainage way and detention areas within plat. f. Completed private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for primary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers available for review. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $17,648.00* Page 5 of? a. Final plat fee = $250.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivison and associated documents s $280.00 c. *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor’s report has been filed with City. d. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee = $ 17,118 [(4.0 acres 9 $2,7(X)/acre) -f (2.34 acres ® 2,700/acre)] 4.A copy of all necessary permits approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8'*' day of March 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara Peterson, Mayor * i. -‘ai. I ’ J Pago 6 of7 ,dacaJ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this S’** day of March, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by IJnda S. Vee. City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public mi: rs Page 7 of 7 COIIMP.II mfeting MAR 6 2004 Date Application Received: 12*17*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: l*8-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 3-8-04 CITY OF ORC.\ J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 5, 2004 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2969, Terry & Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Place - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (I acre minimum) 0.527 acres (22,957 s.f.) 100 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice Dated 2-19-04 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 2-17-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck in conjunction with an interior remodel of the residence: 1. Hardcover variance to allow 39.25% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone where 40.45% currently exists. Hardcover changes in this zone amount to a reduction of approximately 183 s.f. of deck area. 2. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 4 ’ encroachment for construction of a lake side deck. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit to allow land alterations within 75 ’ feet of Lake Minnetonka. The City Engineer has requested additional information in order to complete his review. Due to weather conditions this information cannot yet be gathered and the applicant has requested that this portion of her application be tabled until a full review has been completed. The review period will be extended an additional 60 days to allow for the table and a separate resolution can be drafted for the 0-75’ zone upon receipt and approval of the 0-75’ plans. Plannl' g Commission Recommendation Appre ' of the plan as submitted to allow an existing deck to be replaced in a slightly different location with a unanimous vote of 5-G. Staff RecommendaUon Approval per the attached Resolution for the 75 ’- 250 ’ zone. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances for 1390 Cherry Place to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck within the 75 ’ - 250 ’ zone. Table the request for a conditional use permit for the 0-75' zone until a full engineering review can be completed and the Planning Commission has given their recommendation regarding the plans. mm A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78.282,78-1288 (B) AND SECTION 78-1279 (6) FILE NO. 04-2969 WHEREAS, Terry J. Blount and Gretchen M. Blount, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1390 Cherry Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: That part of Government Lots 4 and 5, Section 8, Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5 “* Principal Meridian, described as follows: lleginning at the Southwest comer of Lot 7. Block II. Saga Hill Rivised; th'mce East along the South line of said Lot 7 to the shore of North Am. Lake Mmnetonka; thence southerly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka 57.0 feet, m >re or less to the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 4, “Crystal Bay View”; thence West along the North line of said Lot 1 to the Northwest comer of said Loi 1; thence northerly to the place of beginning; AND ALSO Lot 7, Block 11, Saga Hill Revised. (hereinafter the “projierty ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-282,78-1288 (B) and Section 78-1279 (6) to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck in a slightly different location in conjunction with an interior remodel; such deck encroaching four feet past the average setback line, and resulting in hardcover in excess of the 25% normally allowed in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning rile #04-2969. Page 1 of 6 A 3. 4. 5. The property is located in the LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires a minimum lot area of one (1) acre. The applicant ’s property is 0.527 acres in area. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on January 20, 2004 and February 17, 2004 and recommended approval of the hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances based on the following findings: a. The property is 0.527 acres in size where the zoning district requires 1 acre. b. The existing deck has rotted and is in need of repair. c.The property contains 40.45% hardcover in the 75’»250‘ zone where 25% is normally allowed and the applicant is proposing to reduce that hardcover by 183 square feet. d. The four (4) foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback will not obstruct any views to the lake as the neighbor to the north sits much higher in elevation and the neighbor to the south doesn’t have any views over the applicant's property to due changing topography. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 I CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78*282, 78-1288 (B) and Section 78*1279 (6) to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck in a slightly different location in conjunction with an interior remodel, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Hardcover in the 75*250 ’ zone shall be limited to 5,966 s.f. or 39.25% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the natuie of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reductions in existing hardcover. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. Required removals of structure and hardcover (183 s.f. of decking) shall be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the deck. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (March 8,2005). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs. Page 3 of 6 1 I successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 8'** day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) •7’ « -’’ iW Page 4 of 6 i ' i i< I ; ’ i i i r i i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of __, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrunvent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of t'ae City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 dttUdllfeadafllaiiiUdUi State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Terry J. Blount, husband of Oretchen M. Blount. day of ..2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249*4600 ZONING FILE* 04-2969 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 19,2004 TO;Terry & Gretchen Blount 208 N Pine Thief River Falls, MN 56701 COPIES: ______variances DATE OF MEETING: February 17.2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the following in order to replace an existing lake side deck: 1. Hardcover variance to allow 39.25% hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone where 40.45% currently exists. Hardcover changes in this zone amount to a reduction of approximately 183 s.f. of deck area. 2. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 4' encroachment for construction of a lake side deck. Table the conditional use permit and hardcover variance request for the 0-75’ zone to allow more detailed information to be submitted to the City Engineer, once weather permits. Two separate resolutions will be drafted and approved separating the 0-75’ and 75 ’-250 ’ zones. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City Council - Monday, March 8,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249- 4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on December 17, 2003 and was considered complete on January 8,2004. The 60-day review period would end on March 8, 2004. Because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission at the January meeting and not tq>proved until Febmary 17.2004, the earliest potential d*\te of final Council action falls on the last day of the 60-day review period. Therefore, the 60~day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to May 7, 2004. Your application is scheduled to appear before the City Council for final approval on March 8,2004. *04-2969 February 17.2004 Pace loft Date Application Received: 12-17-03 Date Application Coniidered at Complete: 1-8-04 <0-Day Review Period Expires: 3-8-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, City Planner Date: Subject: February 17, 2004 04-2969, Terry & Grctchcn Blount. 1390 Cherry Place - ^REVISED* Hardcover Variance, Public Hearing As of today, the applicant has decided to remodel the interior of the home, as opposed to the plan included in the packets. The applicant is no longer proposing any additions or any new hardcover and all exterior walls will remain intact. From staffs perspective these plans should no longer be reviewed as a rebuild and an interior remodel can be achieved simply by applying for a building permit. Therefore, the original requests for the 75’-250 ’ zone have been withdrawn. However, the applicant is not wishing to withdraw her request completely but to revise it. With the interior remodel, the applicant would like to replace the existing deck which has rotted. A hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance are required to replace the deck. The applicant has proposed a smaller deck of a new configuration. The proposed configuration requires an average lakeshore setback variance. The existing deck encroaches 2 ’ into the average lakeshore setback and the applicant would tike to encroach 2 additional feet in an effort to ..'thieve better views and for the deck to be more functional with the interior floor plan of the house. Revised hardcover calculations and the proposed deck footprint are attached to this memo. The plans will result in a net decrease of 183 s.f. of hardcover, bringing hardcover in the 75’- 250 ’ zone to 39.25% when 40.45% currently exists. Consistently, approval is granted for deck replacements when hardcover is not increased. The Planning Commission should discuss whether any hardships exist to allow an additional 2 ’ encroachment on the average lakeshore setback. Staff finds the topography of the lot restricts views and the deck footprint, as proposed, will not affect either neighbor’s views to the lake. The neighbor to the north sits at a much higher elevation and the neighbor to the south wouldn’t have views across the applicants due to the changing topography. Staff Recommendation Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 39.25% hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ zone and an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 4 ’ encroachment in order to replace an existing rotted deck. Table the conditional use permit and hardcover variance request for the 0-75’ zone to allow more detailed information to be submitted to the City Engineer. Two separate resolutions can be drafted and approved separating the 0-75’ and 75’-250 ’ zones. ! ir CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TERRY A,« GRETCHEN BLOUNT OF LOT 7. BLOCK 11. SAGA HIL REVISED AND IN SEC. 8-117-23 HENNEPIN COUlllTY. MNNESOTA S 30" E 36.28 Mioaiar LAKE (M MINNETONKA ta«4 CONTOUR im: NORTH ARM K 1301 xt t rcAL ncscRipnoM or pwcmiscs Tk«i aI CA«f«fmant Loll 4 ood 5. Soclion 8. o^sKip 117 Morlh. Ronoi 23 liiil of Ihi 5lh PrincJpol Mtridiofi. dttcribtd 01 lollowi: Bioiooin^ ol Ibt Soulhvtsl :orotf of Lol 7, Block 11. S090 Mill Riviiod; IhJsiulh lino of 10.d Lol 7 lo Ih# ihort of Nor ih Arm. Loko Minnelonko; Ihwct lou her Ir Minnelonko 57.0 foil, mor# or Ittf to tho Norlheoil corner of Lol I, Block 4. Cryilol Bow View . ® the Morlh line ol lold Lol 1 to Ihe Norlhoeil corner ol toid Lol I: thence no/lherly lo Int ploce of beginning, AND ALSO lol 7. Block II. Sogo Hill Revised. o : denotes Iron morker Beorlngs tboon oro boied upon on oisimed dolun. thereon II doei not purport lo ihow onr other inprovemenis or encroochrmntt GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. OONBATMO fTiBffrni LAMP MVCYORIk 9VC 4a Momi warn om. lob uk. im MJM m-47>4f4l SMf I m A MAV IflMI mic mvam Jiiir •p-at 0»-f§f I •#• HARDCOVER CALCUIAIIQILS^RKSHEET • i* ------------------------------TLAXIONJVC SETBACK ZONE: (CiRCLB ONE) 0-7S’ Z^7S-2S0^ 2SO-SOO‘ A. House-^ •X f • • • • • . X width X Ut.'h X B. Garage 10.<0 X • C. Drivevny X X D. SidewaOe X • X m E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape • Underlain X By Plastic m t VfeOr Fabric G. Other X 500-im ^OZb W Jo2a 'bll 3101 ne? 6*1^ 35" TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - rOWZ, P/?C7P£X7r^4Jt£4 IN ZONE A ifim + B -?/VfZ PROPOSED HAJtnCOVER iN A. House _____________ X lingih X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dick X X - /3->) F. Landseapt Undtrialn By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PRO^^AREA IN ZONE * B _ l$ZCO X100 m 5.F. 5.F. AjO S.F.PAd t-f-( S.F. ^a.t aA<L ''by heu S.F. PifiC * Add -'blj ' S.F. S.F. ViC f S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.lP^^ S.F. . , S.F.TOCK' s.F.meJhr^t, S.F. A IS.ZQO S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i.F. A S.F. B Date Application Received: 12*17>03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 1-20-04 120-Day Review Period Expires: 5-20-04 COHMCII ^iFETING MAR 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF 0R0.\0 Date* M^rch 4,2004 Item , ^ Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: 2^ning Item Description: #04-2971 William & Roslyn Hendersort/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road - Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2-23-04 C • Memo and Exhibits of 2-12-04 Application Summary: This is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.S6) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to 'front lot/back lot* area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990 The applicant has provided a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. The plan also indicates proposed house locations and elevations. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has provided his comments in Exhibit B of the February 12 memo. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions as noted in the staff memo of 2-12-04. Stqff Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions within the attached Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval. i #04-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Road March 4.2004 Page 2 Please review the memo and exhibits of February 12. The primary elements of this approval include: - Granting of hardcover, wetland filling and flodplain filling variances for the driveway creek crossing, limiting that to just one crossing: • Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 1 , based on the need to provide access to the back lot along the base of the hill; • Requirement of a 3S' vegetative buffer/easement along both sides of the creek; - Submittal of final driveway design subject to approval of Fire Marshal, prior to issuance of building permits; - Subject to creation of easements/covenants for shared driveway and for protection of wetlands and drainageways; • Subject to the area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater being deemed as non-buildable. - Subject to meeting all established requirements of the city Engineer and the MC WD regarding stormwater management. Staff has concluded that because this is a re-plat of property for which park fees were paid at the original time of subdivision in 1990, no further park fee is due. Regarding the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee, staff is reconunending that this $10,800 fee only be required of Lot 1, which would be unbuildable absent this re-plat subdivision, and not for Lot 2, which is buildable as-is absent the subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Preliminary Plat Approval be granted per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQLTSTED PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by__, seconded by__, to adopt resolution No.Granting Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Property Located at3220-3240Waterown Road-File No. 2971. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3220-3240 WATERTOWN ROAD - FILE NO. 2971 WHEREAS, Hickory Fine Homes, Inc. (hereinafter the "subdividers") on January 16, 2004, complete the filing of a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential re-plat o^ property legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and OuUot A, SI NN ORONO ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter 'the ptoperty"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.3S8 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20 and February 17,2004, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on March 8,2(X)4 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 9.75 acres of land of which 7.57 acres is dry buildable land and 2.18 acres is creekbed and delineated wetland protected under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and City of Orono regulations. 3. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of the property as “Senn Orono Addition", creating two building lots (3220 and 3240 Watertown Road) and an outlot adjace..t to Stubbs Bay Creek for purposes of construction of a driveway to serve the northerly lot. Page 1 of 9 ■t 4. 5. 6. 7. The plat of *‘Senn Orono Addition” was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance and one year prior to enactment of the WCA. Neither lot has ever been built on, and the driveway approved in 1990 was likewise never constructed. Applicants are prop sing a complete lot line rearrangement and re-plat of the property to allow relocation of the proposed driveway, which today would not be approved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions, and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to 'front lot/back lot’ area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. The proposed re-plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum 2.0 acres contiguous dry buildable lot area requirement of the RR-IB Zoning District. Proposed Lot 2 meets the 200' width requirement. Proposed Lot 1 requires a variance to the minimum 200' lot width requirement as measured at the rear of the defined front yard. The basis for the width variance is as follows: A primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the required 75' hardcover/grading setback from the creek bank. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is a reasonable driveway location because it avoids the 75' creek protection zone except at the point of actual creek crossing. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward p ist the base of the hill. This is the hardship that supports the lot width variance for Lot 1. The proposed re-plat meets the “front lot/back lot” standards of the Zoning Code with regards to lot areas and with regards to placement of a residence structure on proposed Lot 1 meeting the more restrictive ‘back lot’ setback requirements. Each lot will be served by private wells and individual onsite sewage treatment systems. Septic system site evaluation and design information has been submitted confirming that each lot coi.tains suitable primary and alternate drainfreld sites to serve the proposed residences. The elevation of the sites in Ix)t 1 is generally at least 1.5' or more above the 100 year flood elevation, and 3.5' above the delineated wetland elevation. Page 2 of 9 L-. 8. Both lots will gain access to Watertown Road via a shared driveway in proposed Outlot A. Lot 2 shall not have no separate access to Watertown Road. 9.The property contains a creek which flows through an extensive wetland system upstream of the propeity. The Orono Surface Water Management Plan indicates that the Normal Water Level for the large wetland basin just to the north of the property is elevation 963.S', with the High Water Level (100-year flood level) at elevation 970.4*. The top of the bank of the channel at the constriction area in Lot 1 is at approximate elevation 968.0*. and closely matches the delineated wetland boundary. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, the OHWL for setback and lot area calculation purposes for the property should be established at the wetland boundary elevation of 968*. The proposed driveway crossing will include a culvert which has been sized to meet all anticipated stormwater demands. However, to ensure that no upsucam homes are flooded if the culvert plugs, the City Engineer has indicated the top surface of the driveway crossing should be lowered from elevation 973.0* to 972* to allow for an open channel overflow that will be 2* lower than the lowest floor of the upstream residences (974* min.). The culvert should be an arch RCP to allow this reduction in hei^t The RFPE, i.e. the minimum floor elevation for any building, should be established at elevation 974*. In proposed Lot 1. based on the topography and site plan submitted by the applicant, neither the buildable area nor the septic sites will be impacted by floodplain and OHWL elevations. 10. The creek driveway crossing will require filling within floodplain as well as within the wetland. A number of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway which require variances are: a) Portions will be within 75* of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78-1286; b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or w'ithin 26* of the wetland, where no grading or filling is normally allowed. Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the MinnehiUia Creek Watershed District. Page 3 of 9 11. Substantial runoff from the adjoining properties to the east flows westward over the property. Incorporation of drainage swales is necessary along the driveway to accommodate this drainage. 12. 13. 14. Because the property includes a significant length of creek which flows to Lake Minnetonka, the incorporation of vegetative buffers for stormwater treatment is appropriate. The applicant has proposed a 35' buffer adjacent to either side of the creek, which will be subject to a buffer easement. The topography of the site indicates a steep hill at the south end of Lot 1, and the proposed driveway will skirt the base of this hill. Neighbors have expressed a concern whether this area might be buildable. The slope is approximately 40% in some areas, and portions of it may meet the definition of a bluff, which would be unbuildable area The area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater should be deemed as non-buildable. A park fee of $200 was paid for the existing Lot 1 when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Because the current application is primarily a lot line rearrangement between two existing lots oi record, no park fees should be due with the current application. 1S. Because the subdivision is primarily the rearrangement of two existing lots in order to make the northerly lot buildable, the argument can be made that only the newly buildable lot (I^t 1) should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee which is charged for land being developed. 16. Based on the above findings and appn^ate conditions of approval, the proposed re plat will result in two lots suitable for the construction of single family residences without the need for further variances. Page 4 of 9 ’ I i! ; p NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Hickory Fine Homes. Inc. per the preliminary plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Gronberg and Associates, Inc, dated January 16,2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A hardcover variance for the driveway creek crossing will be granted upon final plat approval, such variance allowing only the amount of hardcover within 75' of the bank of the creek that is necessary to accon^lish the creek ciossing. Similarly, a variance will be granted for filling within the floodplain to accomplish the creek crossing, subject to any requirements that may be established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for such work. Only the one proposed creek crossing shall be allowed. A lot width variance of '95' for Lot 1 will be granted upon final plat approval. Applicant shall establish a 35' vegetative buffer and grant a conservation easement over said buffer, along both sides of the creek within Lots 1 and 2. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property, and applicant has obtained the appropriate MCWD and other pcrm’*s for the creek driveway crossing for Lot 1 . and for stormwater management on the site. Applicant shall grant a Flowage and Conservation Easement over dl areas of the plat designated as wetland. The existing drainage easements and conservation and flowage easements will be vacated by the City in favor of new such easements at the time of final plat approval. Setbacks: a) Lot 1 is subject to 150% of the standard setbacks, per the staff sketch attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. b) Lot 2 is subject to a 50' side street setback for the principal structure from the driveway outlot, rather than the normal 30' side setback. Approval is subject to all reconimendations noted in the City Engineer’s letter of 1-22-04, plus any drainage provisions deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommodate drainage fix)m the east. Page S of 9 iMsa I 8. Neither lot is subject to the Park Fee because such fee was paid with the prior subdivision. 9. Lot 1, considered as a newly buildable lot. is subject to a Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee in the amount of $10,800. Lot 2 is an existing buildable lot and is therefore not subject to the Storm Water and [>rainage Trunk Fee. 10. The sloped area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater shall be considered as non-buildable land. Applicant shall execute a covenant establishing restrictions on this portion of Lot 1 to prohibit the placement of structures within said sloped areas. 11. Applicant shall submit a final driveway design meeting the approval of the Orono Fire Marshal and the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Applicant shall provide to the City evidence of a private shared driveway easement and covenants for driveway maintenance over Outlot A in favor of Lots 1 and 2. 13. Lot 2 shall have vehicular access to Watertown Road via the private driveway to be established in Outlot A, and any existing access points from lot 2 to Watertown Road shall be graded so as to be unusable, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any home on Lot 2. 14. AH identified primary and alternate sewage system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off prior to any land alterations, and such fencing shall remain in place until such time that each Lot is developed. 15. 17. Subdivider shall establish covenants for each lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternative sites. Applicant shall include language alerting future property owners of the need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, March 8,2005. Should the subdivider fail to co»nplcte the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Page 6 of 9 Final Plat Submittalsi The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City ’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg and Associates, Inc. dated January 16,2004, except as modified below. b.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and S' along the internal lot lines. d.Designation and dedication of drainage easements overdrainageways as may be required. Designation of delineated wetlands on the plat drawings. e. Naming of the plat. 2. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. /,I1 owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c.Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement to be granted over the wetlands and drainageways within plat. Page 7 of 9 iiiMif I1 : i i Signed and executed Buffer Easement over the portion of Lots 1 and 2 within 35' of the creek. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $11,330.00* IHnal plat review fee = $250.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $280.00 c. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee in the amount of $10,800 for Lot 1. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 8 of 9 *■ JteiiiliiMiiittuiliU f .T » STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of March, 2004, by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of March, 2004, by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 9 of 9 B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249.4600 ZONING FILE #04-2971 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 23, 2004 TO: Steve Bohl Hickory Fine Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 815 Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: William & Roslyn Henderson 430 Wakefield Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mark Gronberg Gronberg & Associates 445 Willow Drive North Long Lake. MN 55356 fmmmmmmmmmmmi TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: February 17, 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval per staff recommendation, plus add a provision that there be only one creek crossing. It was noted that payment of Park Fees again would be inappropriate because this is functionally a lot line rearrangement and not creating new lots. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Council - Monday, March 8, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Conunission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 9S2-249-46C0. 1 « t Date Application Received: 12*17*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 1*20*04 120-Day Review Period Expires: S-20-04 3 m. C To;Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director February 12,2004 #04-2971 William & Roslyn Henderson/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road - Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. 9.75 Acres (7.57 ac. dry, 2.18 ac. wetland/creekbed) Application Summary: This is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributai7 creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to ‘front lot/back lot' area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990 The applicant has now provided a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. The plan also indicates proposed house locations and elevations. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has provided his comments in Exhibit B. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. List of Exhibits A - Grading and Driveway/Creek Crossing Plan B - City Engineer Conunents 1-22-04 C - Notice of PC Action 1-26-04 D - Draft PC Minutes of 1-20-04 Meeting E - Memo and Exhibits of 1-14-04 #04-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Road February 12,2004 Page 2 Grading, Driveway Plan The proposed driveway is located along the base of the slope within Outlot A and Lot 1. It is proposed at a width of 16' from Watertown Road to where itT’s off to serve Lot 2, then reduces to 12' as it heads northward through Lot 1 . The driveway is completely outside the 0-75' hardcover zone until it reaches the midpoint of Lot 2 where it curves left to cross the creek. The driveway as designed will constitute approximately 2100 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone, or approximately 3% of the 0-75' zone adjacent to either side of the creek. The culvert has been designed to meet all stormwater demands. City Engineer Tom Kellogg has indicated the top surface of the driveway crossing should be lowered from elevation 973.0' to 972' to allow for an open channel overflow that will be 2' lower than the lowest floor of the upstream residences (974* min.). Kellogg has indicated the culvert should be an arch RCP to allow this reduction in height A final driveway plan and profile will be required prior to its construction. The driveway will be approximately 1000' in length, and the Fire Marshal will be reviewing the dii vew ay plan to ensure it meets emergency access needs. If the paved width needs to be expanded slightly the percentage of hardcover may increase to 4% or 5% of the 0-75' zones; however, it appears the driveway would still remain out of the 0-75' zone except for the crossing point. Drainage, Stormwater Management At the January PC meeting the adjoining neighbors to the east warned the developer that substantial runoff flows westward from their properties onto the site. Ttie applicant is advised to incorporate swales as necessary along the driveway to accommodate this drainage. Because the property includes a significant length of creek which flows to Lake Minnetonka, the City Engineer has suggested the incorporation of vegetative buffets for stormwater treatment, The ^licanthas proposed a 35' buffer adjacent to either side of the creek, which will be subject to a buffer easement BuUdabiiity of Steep Slope on Lot 1 The topography of the site indicates a steep hill at the south end of Lot 1, and the proposed driveway will skirt the base of this hill. Neighbors have expressed a concern whether this area mi^tbe buildable. The slope is approximately 40% in some areas, and portions of it may meet the definition of abluff, which would be unbuildable area. Staff would recommend that the area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater be deemed as non-buildable. Summary of Issues for Discussion Please again review the memo and exhibits of January 14. The following items are potential issues for discussion: 1 . Width variance for Lot I - hardship is site topography. W4-2971 3220-3240 WaUrtowaROAd February 12,2004 Page 3 2.Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75' of OHW - depending on final driveway width, will be 3% - 5% of 0-75' zone. 3.Park fee for Lot 1 - did it meet its obligation in 1990, or is this creation of a new buildable site subject to current park fee...? 4. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee - payable only for Lot 17 5.Establishment of 35' buffers along creek for stormwater management - should any other specific conditions apply to protect the creek? 6. Status of MCWD permitting process? 7. Other issues? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to: 1. Granting of a hardcover variance for the driveway creek crossing. 2. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 1. 3. Requirement of 35' vegetative buffer/easement along bopth sides of the creek. 4. 5. 6. Submittal of final driveway design prior to issuance of building permits. Driveway width subject to approval of Fire Marshal. Subject to all recommendations noted in the City Engineer's letter of 1-22-04, plus any drainage provisions deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommodate drainage from the east. 7. Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee, 8. Subject to the area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater being deemed as non-buildable. 9. Final plat approval shall not be granted until MCWD permits have been approved. u 1/1 Bonestroo gjg Rosene Anderllk & |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects ■•n«itr*«. RoMn*. Anearllk an< AiiectMM. Inc. Ii an Arnrmaflva ActlaR/SSuai Oeaortunlly ImRlajfar and Iffipioytd OwndB January 22,2004 rclnclpau: Olto a. •ontwroo. At • Marvin U Servila. M • Oltfin ■. Cool. M. • ■ofearl & Scfkaiiclii. at • Jtffy A BourMi. • Mam A. Hiviion. ^X Senior Confultenii: fo^t W. Roiene. ex • Joiepn C Andtruii. ei • tichord C. Turner, n. • Susan It IMfftn. C^A Aiiociate RrincIpaU: Keith A. Gordon. PL • Robert i Rfefferte. df • iichard w doner, df • Oavid O. lotfteca. fl. • Michael T Rautmann. dC. • Ted R. dieid. PI • Kenneth d Anderson, n • Mart R Koifs. df t Oand A ionescroo. MB. A • Sidney P. WWiamion. PI^ LX • Agnes M Ring MRA • Attan Ricii Sovmdi. dX • Thomas w dtcersoa RX • i«ntt R. Maiand. dX • Macs I enien. dX • L dhiMip Gravel M. dX • Oamti i CdgenoA Pt • hmspi Mamnet PI • Thomas A Syfho. RX • Sheldon i Johmon • Oaie A Grove. RE • Thomas a toupiar. df • Robert J Orrery. •£ Offices; Sc Raul. St Ooud. Rocheiter and WHimar. MM • MHwautee. wi • Chtcago. X MbOiite: wuvwboneifreo.ce«*i MikeOaffron Planning Director CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 'Heo orvto Re: 3220/3240 Watertown Road Plat No. 04-2971 File No. 139-04-000 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the preliminary plans for dte proposed two lot subdivi Aton on the site located at 3220/3240 Watertown Road. The proposed use is for single-ftmily homes. The two lots will be served by a sin^e shared driveway constructed across Outlet A. The driveway to serve Lot 1 requires the construction of a creek crossing and culvert insullation. The creek crossing results in some wetland impacts and mitigation vnll be necessary. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • The proposed culvert size appears to be aecepuble however we recommend the culvert be an ar^ RCP so as to reduce the overall height of the structure. • The low point on the driveway at the creek crossing should be lowered from 973.0 to 972.0 to provide adequate freeboard for frte home on Lot 1. • Plans should be svibmitted to die Miimehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. • Pinal plans should include plan and profile views of the driveway from Watertown Road to the proposed home site on Lot 1. The finished driveway should be paved and the plans should include a typical driveway section. Driveway grades should not exceed 10% at any location. • Plans should include storm water treatment provisions. This might include best management practices (BMP’s) such as filter strips, buffers, infiltration areas, etc. • Driveway easements should be in place for Lots I and 2 across Outlot A. • Erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved b> lie dty prior to any work on site. • Tire fire chief should review and comment on the access, particularly to Lot 2. Please contact me at (651) 6044863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC Sc ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: OregGappa,CityofOrono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 5S1t3 ■ 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 t I i CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkwty P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 % 'I ZONING nLE #04-2971 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 26, 2004 \ TO:Steve Bohl Hickory Fine Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 815 Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: William & Roslyn Henderson 430 Wakefield Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mark Gronberg Gronberg A Associates 445 Willow Drive North Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision • Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: January 20, 2004 Planaing Commission recommended as follows: Tabled pending completion of review of recent submittals. A copy of the City Engineer ’s January 22 comment letter is enclosed. VOTE', 6 FOR 0 AGAINST As a followup to the City Engineer ’s commoits, at least two weeks prior to the February 17 meeting, please provide the foUowin„: 1.Proposed storm water treatment plan (filter strips, buffers, infiltration areas, etc.) for City Engineer review. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Tuesday, February 17, 2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available firom the City Recorder ^er review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have F TES Or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Bremer moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #04-2969, Terry and Gretcben Blount, 1390 Cherry Place, for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT (8:21-8:43 PM.) William Henderson, the Applicant, was present Oaf&on stated that this is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, die City of Orono approved the plat of Seim Orono Addition, creating Lot I (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s wooreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Gaffron noted that both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to 'front lot/back lot* area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. Gaffron pointed out that the application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staffs latent to review the variances and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each odier for viability. Gaffron explained that, prior to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in February 1992, Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at best a 26* wedand setback was likely the only setback enforced for structures. Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had enforced a 75' septic system sed>ack PAGE 25 of 64 iStm t I FTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. from creeks and wetlands since the late I970's; tested sites for Lot I were accepted at less than a 73' setback. Since the original subdivision was created prior to dtft 1994 adoption of "front lot/back lot" starulards (Sections 78*1370 and 82-256), the existing lots aren ’t subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: - Lot I u a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it does); - Lot I is subject to 130% of the standard setbacks. - Access to Lot I must be via a 30' driveway oudot (as proposed) • Lot 2 is subject to a 30' side street setback from the driveway outlet, rafrier dun a 30' side setback. Gaffron summarized the Regulatory Impacts as follows: 1. fr)r The 968' OHWL along frie creek is frie contour from which sefr)acks should be measured this pn^ierty. The key OHWL sediacks that affect development of the site are: • 100'structure seAack from OHWL • 73' septic setback from OHWL • no hardcover allowed within 75' of OHWL Areas below the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations. The lot dxyAvet areas and fr» OHWL sed)scks as shown by die surveyor appear to be acceptable. Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have established boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot 1, due to non-buildability of wetland and frie 26' setback requiienumt 4. The original ai^nrovals to constmct a driveway wifriin existing Oudot A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crouing, are no longer valid, because dre driveway and credc crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variarves are PAGE 26 of 64 . 7,. I I J . » MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. required to allow die creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: Portions will be within 75' of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variarce per Section 78*1286; Portions will be widiin a delineated wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring variances from the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of that ^proval if not used). Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to fiieir regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, Gaffron noted that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required. Gaffron pointed out diat a primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has in^acts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes dut variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming dut a wetland/creek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along die east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the southhalf of Lot 1, is ateasonable plan. However, in order for die driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot I extends southward past die base of the hill. This is the hardship basis diat supports the lot widdi variance for Lot 1. As a design for the driveway has not been submitted and such a design would entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, die application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of $200 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee wu paid for Lot 2, on die PAGE 27 of 64 ( MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived. Since both lots drain directly to a creek which flews to Stubbs Bay, from a water (juality standpoint, they fruibi. .n as lakeshore loti. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of stormwater runoff from eidier lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore, Gaffron maintained that Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial buffer strips along die creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. As with die park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be sulirject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trurdc Fee established by Ct^ Ordinance. The fee is established at $2,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot For thif property. Lot 1 would be charged die maximum 4.0 acre fee ($10,800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of die subdivision is to m^ Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be nude dut only the fee for Lot 1 should be required. Widi regard to lepdc, Gaffron noted diat Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman hu reviewed die submitted septic testing and confinns that each lot has suitable sites for adequately*sized sepde systems. While the proposed plui appears feuible and appropriate based on the information submitted to date, Oaffron reiterated dut die lack of a requested propoaed driveway and creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house looatioiu to help in determining the feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be qipropriate until that information is submitted for review. He recommended that the Commission briefly review, provide comment, and then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plaiu. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had begun the process widi die MCWD. Henderson indicated dut this had begun. PAGE 28 of 64 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Cary Roller, 3280 Watertown Road, the neighbor on the west side, stated that he had a difficult time seeing the building site on the back lot Caffron pointed out that the buildable site was tucked in against a 4S’ setback from the west lot line, between the creek setback and wetland. Mark Summers, 7S Crystal Creek Road, pointed out that his home fell 60* north of Watertown Road and 7S-100* west of the property and he, too, was concerned with the placement of a home » on lot one. Steve Koehler, 35 Crystal Creek Road, questioned die site on the hill, claiming that this location would be much closer to his property than the alternate home site. Henderson stated that the most attractive building site for any potential homeowner would be the site in the back versus the one up front on the hill. Oaffron pointed out diat die location of the septic site would likely drive where die house building site would be. He agreed that the hill side site would be difficult, as die septic lines would have to run a long distance and acrou the creek bed. While he felt diis to be an unlikely building site, he noted that the ^licant could feasibly build there, or agree not to build on die steep slope. Henderson agreed, stating that the hillside locadoo would not likely be a desirable one, and indicated that they would consider die suggestion. Koehler asked what the location for the outlet and setbacks for the driveway were being proposed at. Gaffitm stated diet the oudot would be a IS’ wide driveway corridor that narrows. He noted that the driveway was placed merely S' from the lot line uid quesdoned whether the outlot should be wida or whedier die driveway widm die oudot offret PAGE 29 of 64 I MINUTES OF!MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Summers stated that the driveway outlet was of great concern to him, since the driveway would run the entire length of his property. Although one option might include moving the driveway further west by widening the driveway, Oaffron noted that widening too much would impact the septic sites and house size. Koehler pointed out that drainage issues might also be a concern for the future homeowner as die nmofif tends to move towards this site and under Watertown Road via % culvert. Oaffron thanked the neighbor for his concern, and acknowledged that die City Engineer would need to evaluate the drainage issues, and how these might impact constroction. He mentioned that some buffers would be likely to maruge treatment near the creek, and noted diat die applicant hopes to have these issues resolved by the February meeting. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned how the applicant would plan to erois the creek. While the City would need confirmation from the MCWD, Gaffeon stated that a 48*' oval culvert with fill on either side wu proposed to accommodate flow. He noted that MCWD may even take the position that the applicant can't build over the creek bed. Henderson stated fiiat, having spoken with the MCWD, he had been led to believe dut they would accept fiiis proposal. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would find it difficult to require additional park dedication fees and stormwater trunk fees being charged to the applicant, she would defer diis to the legal departmeat Hawn concurred. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #04-2971, William and Roilyn Hendoson,/Hlckory Fine Hornet, 3220-3240 Watertown Road, a proposed Preliminary Subdlviiion and Lot Line Re-Flat pending receipt and City Engineer review of PAGE 30 of 64 •'-CTiiai ii<in A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. requested driveway and creek crossing plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON, 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE. VARIANCE (8:43-8:33 P.M.) Robert Knuth, the Appiicant, was present Curtis exp'ained that the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance and a side street (right-of-way) variance to aliow a porch with pergola 4S.1’ from the front lot line where a 50 ’ setback is required and 35* from the street right-of-way where SO* is required and a 40 ’ setback exists currently. Curtis pointed out that the applicants home is situated nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order to avoid encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil treatment site when the home was first built in 1978, the home was constructed 56.1’ from the front property line, S’ from the required 50* setback. Along the western property boundary between 2700 and 2715 White Oak Circle a continuation of the road right-of- way exists. This right-of-way is currently and indefinitely not rued as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently located 40* from this street side yard where a SO’ setback is required. Due to the angle of the home on die lot, the proposed porch addition would extend 5 additional feet into the required side street yard. Curtis pointed out that the property is located on a cul-de-sac and die property owners wish to create a "neighborly feel” to their home with the addition of the covered front porch. Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any modification greater than S’ off the ^nt of the home requires a variance to front yard setback requirement. Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the 5* front yard setback variance and the IS’ street side setback variaiKe due to the location of the existing house with relation to die front lot line with the stipulation that die covered porch shall not be enclosed. Knuth stated that they wished to open up the house to the neighborhood and add a front entry feel to the cunendy blank wall. He pointed out that they began speaking to neighbors about their intent a year ago and gained much support for the acdoit PAGE 31 of 64 Date Application Received: 12-17>03 Date Application Considered as Complete: (Incomplete ai of 1-14-03) 120-Day Review Period Expires: (Wili not start untii complete application received) To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director January 14,2004 #04-2971 William & Roslyn Henderson/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road - Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. 9.75 Acres (7.57 ac. dry, 2.18 ac. wetland/creekbed) Application Summary: This is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addition, creating Lot I (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be ^>proved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to *fix>nt lotA>ack lot* area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. The application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staffs intent to review the variances and subdivision corKuirently, as they rely on each other for viability. Staff Recommendation: Briefly review, provide comments, then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plans. ______ List of Exhibits A • ^plication B - Existing Plat: Senn Orono Addition C • Survey/site plan including staff sketch D • Aerial photos E • Wetland delineation excerpts F - Septic systems information G • Plat m^ H - Property owners list Information requested but not submitted as of 1/14/04: • Grading plan and design for driveway and creek crossing #04-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Road January 14,2004 Page 2 Regulatory Impacts The following regulatory impacts have come into play since this property was originally subdivided in 1990: I. Shoreland Ordinance Impacts Prior to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in February 1992, Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at best a 26' wetland sedsack was likely the only setback enforced for structures. Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had enforced a 7S' septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late 1970's; tested sites for Lot 1 were accqited at less than a 7S' setback. The Shoreland Ordinance established standards and conditions for Stubbs Bay Creek (AKA Classen Creek) including structural and septic system setbacks from its Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) as well as hardcover limitations, tree removal regulations, etc. These standards have placed numerous added restrictions on development of the Seim Orono Addition lots that were not in effect when those lots were created. The primary impact is that parts of the proposed driveway would not be allowed today. In discussions leading to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance, staff and City Council acknowledged that many existing structures would become nonconforming, and a number of already platted lots would likewise be negatively affected. It was the intent of the City to deal with these through the variance process as each case came up. The City did not "grandfather ” existing vacant lots which as a result of the Shoreland Ordinances became substandard. Development of the Senn lots, including construction of the driveway and bridge, are subject to the current regulations in effect today. II. Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) RefuUuions Impacts Prior to enactment of the WC A Regulations by the legislature in 1991, the City had few guidelines for determining the boundaries of wetlands. Furthermore, the specific wetlands protected by Orono ordinances were limited to those identified in the 1974 Orono Wetland Inventory maps. While that inventory map showed substantial areas of wetland on the Seim Orono Addition property, it did not specifically identify the creek. Because the original subdivision was completed before WCA was enacted, the wetlands on the property were not delineated per today’s standards. The City merely determined at that time that areas below the 970' contour would be considered as wetland. However, the wetlands have now been delineated as depicted on the survey, Exhibit C, and generally follow the 968' contour. »04-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Road January 14,2004 Pages ///. OHWL and Floodplain Impacts The Zoning Code defines the OHWL for watercourses as “the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel”. It also establishes the “Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation" (RFPE) as an elevation no less than 1.0 foot above the ‘regional flood’, i.e. 1' above the lOO-year floo(4)lain elevation. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates that the Normal Water Level for the large wetland basin just to the north of the property is elevation 963 .S', with the High Water Level (1 00-year flood level) at elevation 970.4'. Ihe top of the bank of the channel at the constriction area in Lot I is at ^proxinute elevation 968.0', and closely matches the delineated wetland botmdary. In recent dUscussiocs with the City Engineer, staff has concluded that the OHWL for setback and lot area calculation purposes for this property should be established at the wetland boundary elevation of 968'. The RFPE, i.e. the minimum floor elevation for any building, should be established at elevation 971.4'. In proposed Lot 1, it spears that neither the buildable area nor the septic sites will be impacted by floodplain and OHWL elevations. However, the creek driveway crossing will likely require filling within floodplain as well as wetland. ly. Front Lot/Baek Lot Impacts The original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of “fi*ont lot/back lot” standards (Sections 78-1370 and 82-2S6). The existing lots aren’t subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: • Lot 1 as a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it does); - Lot 1 is subject to 150% of the standard setbacks (See staff sketch, Exhibit C2). - Access to Lot 1 must be via a 30* driveway outlet (as proposed) - Lot 2 is subject to a 50' side street setback firom the driveway outlot, rather than a 30' side setback. Summary of Regulatory Impacts 1.The 968' OHWL along the creek is the contour firom which setbacks should be measured for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site are: - 100'structure setback from OHWL - 75' septic setback from OHWl. - no ha^cover allowed within V 5' of OHWL Areas below the OHWL wiU not count toward lot area calculations. The lot dry/wet areas and the OHWL setbacks as shown by the surveyor appear to be acceptable. #04-2971 3220-3240 Wattrtown Road January 14,2004 Page 4 2. 4. Wetland delineatioas and the OHWL determination have established boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot 1, due to non-buildability of wetland and the 26' setback requirement. The original ^provals to construct a driveway within existing Outlet A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: a) Portions will be within 7S* of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 16-1286; b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26' of the wetland, requiring variances from the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have e.q>ired within one year of that approval if not used). c) Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, note that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required. Preliminary Plat Review □ Con formity to Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan The proposed subdivision to create residential lots of two acres in area or larger conforms to the provisions of the RR-IB Zoning District and the Rural Residential guiding as established in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. □ Relationship to Surrounding Development The proposed subdivision is consistent with surrounding rural-density residential development Lot Layout and Lot Standards Lot area: Both lots exceed the minimum lot area standard of the RR-IB District Lot width: Lot 2 more than meets the 200' minimum width requirement Lot 1 has a defined width of only lOS' at the rear of the required 73' front yard, requiring a lot width variaocc. «04-2971 3220-3Z40 Watertown Road January 14,2004 Pages Setbacks: The preliminary plat drawing has been annotated by staff in Exhibit B2 to accurately depict the setbacks that would apply to this subdivision. Adequate but somewhat limited area exists within each proposed lot to allow the construction of single family residences. Driveway Establishment: Alternatives Are Limited A primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shtqse and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 7S' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30* corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlet A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance for Lot 1. As an alternative, staff has suggested that access to Lot 1 be sought from the Boyer property to the west of it, avoiding any new wetland impacts or new creek crossings. However, such a driveway would require the cooperation of the owners of the property to the west, which apparently is not likely to occur at this time. The potential issues with this alternative include; • Possible significant negative impacts to the adjacent Boyer building site by constructing a driveway through it. • City codes would require tha^ access through Boyer be via an Outlet, requiring new approvals of preliminary plat. • City codes would require that for a level of three users, the Boyer driveway would have to become a road, bringing significant extra costs to the table, including issues with the width of the wetland crossing. A further alternative that obviously does not meet the goals of the applicant, is to merely sell off the back portion of the property to an adjacent landowner as additional land, forgoing buildability north of the creek. Driveway and Creek Crossing Design. As of this writing a design for the driveway has not been submitted. Such a design wiU entail variances which caimot be quantified wiuout such a design for review. The application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Park Dedication A park fee of S200 was paid fer the existing Lot 1 when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived in since some time in the 1980s. \ M4-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Road January 14,2004 Paged Lot 2 as it exists is buildable. Staff would suggest that as a former occupied dwelling site, and based on the 1990 subdivision conclusions, Lot 2 should not be charged a park fee. Lot 1 is being re-platted to make it buildable. Should Lot 1 be charged a paiic fee based on today's standards, as it is technically going to become a new record lot? Or, should it be treated as having paid the park fee in 1990, and not owe anything further? Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Both lots drain directly to a creek which flows to Stubbs Bay. From a water quality standpoint, they function as lakeshore lots. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of stormwater runoff from either lot before it reaches the creek. Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at $2,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot. For this property. Lot 1 would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee ($10,800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 should be required. Easement Vacation/Dedication. The proposal includes vacation of existing Drainage and Utilities Easements granted with the original SetmOrono Addition, withrededicationofnew easements along new lot lines, and newly described wetland easements to match the new wetland delineation. The subdivision is subject to dedication of standard Drainage & Utility Easements along lot lines. Septic Testing and Site Availability Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. The elevation of the sites in Lot 1 is generally at least 1.5' or more above dte 100 year flood elevation, and 3.5* above the delineated w etland elevation. These sites are located or can be slightly tweaked as necessary to meet the required 75' setback from the OHWL and other required setbacks. Other Shoreland Standards The slope near the south end of Lot 1 averages 29% at its steepest point, and therefore is not considered a bluff Tree removal (6" diameter or greater) within 75' of the creek is prohibited permits are granted; the creek crossing may require tree removals which need to be reviewed once a plan is submitted. As previously noted, h^dcover and other variances will be required for the creek crossing. 1 W4-2971 32204240 Witcrtown Rotd Jinuary 14,2004 Page 7 WedandM A Conservation and Flowage Easement will be required over the delineated wetlands on the property. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. 2. Width variance for Lot 1 • hardship is site topography. Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75* of OHW and for fill in wetland and floot^lain • plans needed for review. 3.Park fee for Lot 1 - did it meet its obligation in 1990, or is this creation of a new buildable site subject to current park fee...? 4. 5. Stom Water and Drainage Trunk Fee • pay^le only for Lot 1? Establishment ofbuffers along creek for stormwater management - should any odier specific conditions apply to protect the creek? Has ^)plicant contacted MCWD regarding their permitting process? Any early indications regar^ng approval of creek crossing? 7. Other issues? Staff Recommendation The proposed plan appears feasible and ^propriate based on the information submitted to date. However, the lack of requested proposed driveway and creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in detennining the feasibility of house development on diese somewhat limitPii sites, suggests tabling may be appropriate until that information is submitted for review. iiifiauriiifaii 04:U m FrM-CITYOFOMm 4ll2t4l4l1l T-fOl F. 411/911 F*241 A Appttcitleii # 7 / Date Received f^-(7-03> Ainoiint PiUd j'gQ. ^*'0 CTTY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . / Propeity Ideadficadon Number (PID)______________________- Please check one - Property___absmct or____torreos? Attach legal deseriptioa to appUcadon. APPLICANT . . ^ _ Name b\ Vvc/»^S . < •__________________ Addreii o/e.-^ ? <-W. y/CPbooefliomal c/>-^ O^WNER than QipUci^) King ^ f-re^cl »>.____________________________________ Addreu OAic^Cc^C/-1 City Cb rtN^e (attach liar if more than one) Zip PhopeOionael • .PhooeCwoik)________ / EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 7.S7 2.f8 9.7 5 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Aa -/e Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units _0 Other (speediy) ______ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot line ISxKnBgiBaim Only (no new buildUng sites) ______ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Buildini Sites .1- Existing Uruts — NewlMts n___Total Units Proposed Grots Densiw Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^___Units per %7S Acres 97./2.0 Sq. Ft Dry Buildable Land V Residential _______ Other (specify) _____ i ■ Ok^HOOI UiOlM rroi^lTY » ONM ♦nti4i4iii T-SOi P.OIt/Btl M4i MDOMDM MATniAL BIQUIRED fOR COMFUETI VREUMOfa RY AFPUCAnON 1. Pqantofftct(Rte»*^UcitioDfba* listed btlow). 2. CeaaplncdafpUcideafbtm. 3. toliodBayptatiDfenBitioBOoCertificsu of Survey. 4. CeRifledPt^icrtyOwnsnListefownciiwii!hin350* (youmustobtiiaihli listfioaRcBBcplaCoGa»De;peramtefFiBtBceA«d03 Oovt Ceoetr 612.3414271). D /o 5. As eoeddCBdom to this tpplieetioo, please etuditiepatite list ofay oiberpetioas you wish ootifird of this ippliesSan. ZooiotOlBderi Sipantf D mc MDfXMUM KATISXAL RXQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PINAL APPUCATION 1. PqoBcsrofftea (refer to PieliniDaiy Subdivision Apptovalresolu^tndpaxk fees tf^lieable). 2. SipcdCcniflcata of Survey or oyltr copies of fotmsl plat 3. Title optadoB. 4. Eas eoiiBti , covsoaais, cte. 5. DcvelepctsAtreesBeor tad Letter of Credit EoniniOiariil'a Slaatture ___________DtK_______________ L APPLICATION RES (ToaiagAdaiiaiterstoc to cbeckpC] those i^lkh apply) A. AppltcatioBBoMTaas: SknehPInReview(ClasaLn*lII)S275.00 StibdtvisiOB of a Lot r faiff Eaenengroient 1350.00 SubdiviSioa Applicatioa (Cbu IAII) S400.00 V PnlitaiBaiySobdtvisioo Applicatioa $400.00 4*330.00/101 (Class m A an Boo-residentia!) __Final Plat AppUcadoa (Class ni) $250.00 lofal Review and FQiag: SubdMsioa oa^ $100.00 _____Subdivisioaw/easemeBtt and coveaaats bud . $200.00 Totilf </C/y PinkPea(tobedet8sataedpetSectioB I2>227) L4^ tad Bdfiaecriaf Revi^ Fees (as iaeiure^ Rcacwal of Class I aad n Subdivisioa Applicatioa $200.00 (No ftoa original appliestioB} Rcaewal of Class m, Preliamanr Subdivisioa Applicatioa $200.00 (NodiaageftometiiBslapplicadoa) Rcaewal of Piaal Oast ID Subdivisioa Applicatioa $150.00 (No ehaage from original appliarioa) ** *^**S«S!!dlSSaRDS$650.00 ••'S.50niaeilft.; ____ Proposed PiAlk Roads $950.00 ■4 $30Aianl ft; Ua.ft.x30«$. U b.1Lx J0-$ Request (brCiqr 10 Accept BxistiBgPiivatB Road $950.00 Proposed SaaitBiy Sewer Mala Exteasioa $275.00 t$25/stab Pr^osedWatetaaia Exteasioa $275.00 vS25/stab Proved Seoca Sewer SytiBia(excludliiga>lvnts) $250.00 .y Oa^heSyataav Sits E2«btttioa Review (qppttcablennBalsab£visioasppIlcatSons) idQOOAierlota 2. aewbts C fleiiUeAfpUaitioBPeea/B<ise.fata ■ Variance $250.00 ($50.00 pet eadi additional varisnea) _____ Easetneat Vacation Associated with Subdivisioa $100.00 _____ PRD Applicatioa wldiSvbdivitiOBS3S.0Q/Dwe1RB|Uhlt L2 0- The s^Ucanthereby agrees to provide all iafannatioa required or requestedby (he Zeaint AdasialaaatBc, Ct^ Eagtacer. Chy Aaotniy pUaniag Commission aad Co^ aeceUS^ process this applicatioa tad ftinher tgreet to pay aS iddUonal fees' by AppUcaafaSieaaturt — Pate 1 0 OwBct’s s<gii*tu*e D mi ____________• Applicaattraist have all shbadnals into the Chy OCRce 25 days before die Piaanag BMetbig pwtwg are held on the third Monday of each mouth. AppUcaau mat be present st til scheduled review BaectBgs of Ac Plaaaing Commistioa aad CouaclL It an wlietai ii uaable to anend a Kbeduled meetiag. please make atrangoneatt to have re reAerized agtm«"-»«a ygur pkee ind to adviso At Buildia| A Soaiag Office of this chngt prior to (be '#oc V 1 4 o o I ' * \ CITY of ORONOp.Manlcipal Ofllci *•• Stmt Addnti 2750 Kelley Pvliway Orono, MN SS356 January 1,2004 MaillDi Iddrtss! P.0.6e66 ciystai Bey. MN 55323-0066 Steve Bohl Hickoiy Fine Homes P.O.Box 815 Long Uke. MN 5S3S6 REQLTST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Zoning Application #04*2971 Dear Mr. Bohl: The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (IS) business days as to the stttus of your application for subdivision of the property located at 3220*3240 Watertown Road. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting in order to complete our review: o Copies of on-site sewage treaonent system testing and design reports for each lot •>/ o Copy of dw complete wetland delineation report for the propeity. Cl o Grading plan and driveway design for driveway in Oudot A and Lot 1, including engineered design for proposed creek crossing. Cj> o Indication of proposed house locations (show on die survey). o Drainage calculations and information to indicate the OHWL of the creek and 2*year, 10* 100-year flood elevations within Lots 1 and 2. Sufficient information must be fiS * (.(# V Cdl presented to confirm the extent of potential in^acts to die septic systems on Lots 1 and 2, ^ Pr and to establish minimum floor elevations for structures to be placed on those Lots. Application #04*297 1 is incomplete. Please submit the items requested above by Monday, January 12,2004 to remain on the January 20. 2004 Planning Commission agenda. Absent timely submittal of all items requested, this item will be reviewed as a sketch plan for the January 20 meeting to merely identify potential issues, with more detailed review as information is submitted. Please call me at (952) 2494600 if you have any questions. Sincerely, . Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director cc: William dc Roslyn Henderson Gronberg dc Associates Tdaphoaa (9S2) 2494600 • Fax (952) 249*4616 rxLorono.mn.iu i HENNEPIN COUNTY. MMCSOTA The east of the Sc Toimship to have i 52 mlnte: ROA.D »)M m T=rrSrS=S“, *• »WH c-*- ^ . #eeelts **•" *e»»fc#c .: ......................... ihi. iSSi'S; ;T m? •• X \ \ mt \/^i '^171/ / \ I. \ . ^ • ! I' I t lA^ V li S m WATE^OWN RbAD 7 m I N or HtMiiftJ L-u »•"<»• ■'•“ ’• •"*•“•* *• ^., OmIM *" 9CIM QHQMI.#OSniQN ^t,. ..uut Mm4 SS35*iS"i5i^?S« / / in n **fi| 1 // / >/ yy j n.m ■ + ! N / ^/7 \i\ \—I ' t’-\ ■A,ill a m WATE^OWN R6AD f^va ?roje:ct 020 -b ■\r » d k': ■'-: wm§mfcr-; • i f.A •>; . r- - V-, > ;»• • •.. X/ V i. ' yi-i. ■ ■\‘ • _• !••*: • .» ».•• •. ’ V '*. • A*'if •• • ••"■• • /•'if ••• .. [.*'^•'•1 :, : • .V ■ • ••* f 'j •V '^y,'.- A i *■ *• ^•v ;• '■•/ -» L*wmm V r - •t V - -i 1 I ir ^ I* / . -% V^'-'.Vy' Ti v^-*:: Yg/ .r': • ' *''■ • 'V”. ^*'-h • ••wV 'lAi •• ' ■_ *V^Vj I.- . I r 1 .•,, r . 4- :.r V-•./rV!- / "/; r7T-i' fV'. . r-'--” .;...:. • r- i ’ • • ’ Xr' * mEw^ *• \' . TrV ‘ "■ r /•’‘- ■ Av’’ •'* ' •^ • ; • • • '.- ^tA- ■ /r'. • .i*- .; >> • • Tzr*»-'•**»*!(wm '% .‘• A ^ ■ t *• • * • * ;:'-V' V '.»' • . “ •.? •■ • >., *• y.» ' y 4f Vt .=*fr • ^ '■t. ii fcV ^ .*••# /’ •a < '\*i%v % • v*r . . #/• •♦ • «; wn-»4£v‘ ’ -■ ‘ ■ • ♦: > V/ • V /v ..' -V-^" ' - /‘'A i ■» .• ^sr . ■ gfj^K'&s^aUE - •NC,. -.' :i :.4. i; V, *« J. ■ • .'•i' vl'.^aB^ :=—_^3gBj5-^ ________ ^ ^-4^• ‘ i M i .. •• < ■ v' i \ 3^5.'..;•■ •".! li,V--' »i "Si. W^m ' V » . *«"ii ! b/ «•’ >< Mi • • wI r •V Jm^^^HkIL • ’ • * ' *•« v!JflHHK&f*v .V f * -rj ^Hh|1 ::• /•'. i*'.^*iv' * !’ *' * 1^* ■:' W-. :■ ■ . v- "^ * . •■awfxa-.-*-. V > • . ■.{ •■ V?>.1 -A <.i '/^t •- • j ’ ,4 -•» •* • • •% .V 5- ■' . v.^' • ., -.0 V*:- I . ; , ■» ^ * "^'f *4. V ^■^.■... - .yi ••'■«•■*WtSr'^S ' • .*» '.'»>" ri - -Tt-^X'* wm V Tm '■tiir^ iB' • #*■• lr' 4 f . « A IK m r^’’ »..•'■■ ■•-» iKV'i^ v*-V-:::'■ 1. • »w«ammmm t •i-v. -'.•*; • IMI li. iiTvV' ’ Xd > ^<1e a •* - . ■ fCi, ■;' • ••; *• • ?. -V •, ? EWV?V>-..■ »>:.■ ■’. :• ' uJlc^- ^ ♦ . • •• ■ Vi-.-‘ V- - ^ ' ' •-: vf-- • < > ■‘'." - ' • ■ ^ -r^v- *^’‘ '•’.^.4. 'T'*- . • • %■ . , , > >' v-'V. ;_v » ''''<•• ■ •■ L ^•N, .- ■#«.'«». •- if 4 ^ ^ m • ■ t .' 'V * ’V,. - !f % / :. . w V V •/■-'•■'.• ■•' i \ ' /. V'' .4 >«i. ••- -rv*r» • A\ t-v -viis;::*• *'.V.-.V.- ’-’ • > ■ ^' '»•« - <'Vx >' .. ^ *K. ;L- / V#* » • ^ «V • \r ' I* »* . '^V b ^’■'^v . ''...iCSsg-*;:.'- V/*■ I -»%f .j/fe, ■ “ i-; f /•l!*- V.* li? A 7 - . ,v.V-.-..fK.‘-. •, ''' V^ ^ ^ 1, .y r:r >J I--;?':- 9 d^^. . jJS-ss; If •5..' % Si %T ^i • i- mm*\ ■■' ij 4v4>-’-.S^ *v flKc:- ■'■> fl / >•^ I ►' IV'' :W' ’• P;-^ > « . ♦ .i«. . ' ;■' ,• jr-,> iM-■fe(4iy I. Y'* ^ mM^. • ,v ^mmM m fm^ W. j'gbiic. Afidason # S83tC^Ukei^ Miitneapolis, MN i ii! \ A ’•‘,1 » ‘ 4 • f JobnC.Afldcnoa # 383>C^UlceR<Md MiiineapoUl, MN S5416 » i I $ I » » I I t I I i i I I ♦ 9S2344.1761 Fa)u 932393.9546 e.mail: hydii^ApKMligy.net http‘i/www.proMwy/envirodtti/ •: .. JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELBENATION FOR COLDWELL BANKERS PROJECT IN ORONO, MN ■ t <} Wetlaod Delineations • Inventories • P<srmits * Mitigation J 9 9 9 9 9 9 » I WETLANDS DELINBATION DCfcUMENTATION FOR COLDWELL BANKERS PROJECT IN ORONO, MN John Anderson, EnviroData, Inc. St Louis Park, MN delineated and documented a wetland boimdaiy on the subject property on I st 2003 at the request of George Stickney. This report provides izifonnation as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as requested by the applicant LOCATION Southeast %, Southeast Vi, Section 32 Township 118, Range 23 METHODOLOGY Wetlands were idmtified and delineated using the 1987 Coips of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Coips of Engineers, 1987). The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth in. Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 19S6) and Classification nf Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31: Cowardin et. Al. 1979). CHARCTERJSTICS OF SITES INVESTIGATED Checksite A.La This is a Type 1 (PEMl Ah) zone of Type 4 (PUBRi) wetland. Dominant species are American Elm (FACW+), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), and Wild Black Currant (FACW). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is prcs«it The site is ponded. Checksite A.I.b This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-) and Bugle (UPL). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite A.II.a This is a Type 3 (PEMl Cd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Sedge (OBL). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is present. The site is saturated within one-foot of surface and in a wetland drainage pattern. ttiiMi id id id s d d d d d d d d d d d # # # i # $ $ $ I I I » I This is • nonoWBtUipd checksite. Dominant species are Common Budcthoiti (FAC-)* Reed Canary (3fbss (FACW+), Sedgs (OBL), and Fowl Meadow Grass ^ACW<f). Soils are Lester, a non-wetland soiL Surftce hydrology is not evident, as site is not flowed, ponded, or saturated within one foot of die surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite GJ.a Tlus is a Type 3 (PEMl(3d) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary (Srass (FACW+). Soils ate Marsh, a wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is present The site is ponded a^ in a wetland dndnage pattern. Checksite GXb This is a Type 7 (PEMlBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Virginia Waterleaf ^ACW-), Wild Blade Currant (FACW) and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils ate Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surfime hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surfime and in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite OJ .c This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW-t-). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evide^ as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite GJ.d This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Lester, a w«Uand soil. Surfiue hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot ofthe surfiice or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite QJLa This is a Type 7 (PEMI Bd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Gray Dogwood (FACW-), Sedge (FAC to OBL) a^ Tall Goldenrod (FACU). ^ils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surface and in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G J1 .b This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils are Lester, a non-wedand soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland draiiuge pattern. 1 d T^Uull^^^CPEMlCd) weUand cheeksite. Dominant^)ocie$«tGreen Aijj (FACW) Reed Canary Grass (FACW+), and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils arc Glencoe, a \ wetland soil SurfiKc hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland diiinage pattern. This is a non-wetland cheeksite. Dominant species are (jieen Ash (JACW) and ^nmon Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils arc Hamel, a wetland soil. SurfiKe hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surfiicc or m a wetland drainage pattern. Thi* is a Tvoc 7 (PFOIB) wetland cheeksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW), Coiomon Buckthorn (FAC-), Gray Dogwood (FACW-), and Wild Bl^ Currant (FACW). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soiL Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. T^i^itn^v^and cheeksite. Domirumt species are Green Ash (FACW), Elder (FACW) and Gray Dogwood (FACW-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surfiue or in a wetland drainage pattern. TOThfaT^? (PFOl C) wetland cheeksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Sedge (FAC to OBL), and Moss (FAC to OBL). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and m a wetland drainage pattern. (PFOl A) wetland cheeksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW), Black Ash (FACW+), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Sedge (FAC to OBL), and Moss (FAC to OBL). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. Cheeksite H.D X . This is a non-wetland cheeksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils arc Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a weUand drainage pattern. w n A Tliif is A noii’Wctlsnd chocksite. Dominant sjteciea are Green Ash (FACW)i Gray OogMVDod (FACW>). and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are Hamel, a wedand soil. Surfkce hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surfime or in a wetland drainage pattern. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I delineated twojurisdictioaal wetland aresa within the property boundaries. One wetland area has flow*duou^ hydrology and is dominoed in its center by Reed Canary Grass and open water. The nordiem wetland is a swamp that is dominated by Green Ash, Black Ash, and Black Willow. I appreciate the opportunity to present this assessment • Sincerely, fohn Anderson EnviroData, Inc. Professional Wetland Scientist (SWS, #0001065) Certified Mapping Scientist, Remote Sensing (ASPRS, #RS 127) i F'( . V CITY of ORONO Munlclpil Oflkcs StTMtlddrais: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaRInf Addrcta: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323^066 TO: FROM: MikeGaf&an Matt Bolteiman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE:January 14, 2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Senn Lot Split The property has two existing vacant lots and is proposing to re-arrange the lot lines. The septic tests were done by Swedlund Septic on December 1,2003. Both lots have two septic sites that meet all Orono and State Septic Code requirements. When the design is done next spring we will require one more soil boring per septic site. The existing design only has 2 soil borings per lot where Oionoi' code requires 3 borings per site. My only concern is to make sure the septic sites are out of the floodplain on lot 1. I recommend approval based on septic design. TUephona (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 wwwxLorono.Bin.uB V, - r ! I J a % AgsoriflTSB PHQHE no. : PAK K). : « *’* »• * •I’’ D«e. 16 2B0S $ 19*14* 0|r C 32tM F'i PHOKE NU. J FPU to. i I • •• bpe. 16 aW3 ^BS3Wn / / / / • / ;• ig!I}» ill \ . I / // / r; / /V.’ • // ; / « I »/ / *1 I'/i I I ;/' / / • /» ; <' • It /i/ ' ' '/' I 'liii ' */.W f I *1 I I V I i # •/ / ' * * / * f : i. * * * ' ^ I i t\/ * ' W * J J fi 4 * • * III/ ' » * / • / / ® K iV ' S I * * \ J % # I 'v X* *4'' v\ ' /'V \ '■ \ 'ft • * V X ' \ V \ \ -tu.\'\30f*- 7/ ©rvV ©V vv M W w ^ 1 I .. ... ^ Tj^AC«£ACertjJJ^ \ 1 » 1 I s.» »‘(N \ I *^\ \ \ I i i « /A\ s\ \ \ I : / %)\ \ V: li ir f^'\ I •r-V- m \ % \ 1 ^ i . ( 3 • V- '• ‘vf ' s !\ ‘m '. . \ : : '5 \ : \ “iMli '' \ 'o#«- —' \ 4 —-V ~ — Tso*—i-_____ • • • ------------------/ ilf'liffi'ifiiii i / ._=-7 .'M • rV./** ^.‘•• •’• •« • .... :cs^:■:::::! ' i ULj: • _vr>* “• * '.'CRYSTAIL^ .— — ■« /C*#> XUN DATE: 12/1 VSOl 31 0411723220003 KOTAOOR 3195 WATERTOWN RO WNERNAME TCRITTER*KSRITTER AXPAVER THOMAS CAKALUS RITTER AME/AOOR 3195 WATERTOWN RD LONOUKEMN 593S« 31 0SIIT23II000I ROPAOOR 3245 WATERTOWN RD iWNERNAME CJtARHAME 'AXFAYER CARL f RHAME lAME/ADDR 3245 WATERTOWN ROAD tONOLAKEMN 55354 3S 3211123440001 ROPADOR 3240 WATERTOWN RO •WNERNAME O L ROLLER AC J ROLLER AXPAVER GARY L ROLLER IAME/AOOH 3210 WATERTOWN RO long LAKE MN 55354 ROP ADUH 175 OLD CKYS1ALIIAV RU N iWNliKNAMli (TIYOEORONO AXPAVER CITVOI'OKONO IAME/ADOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55123 31 3311123110004 ROP ADDR 135 CRYSTAL CREEK RO IWNERNAME JAALOOODWALD AXPAVER 3£KRY A LORRAINE OOODWALD IAME/AOOR 133 CRYSTAL CRtEK RO UONOLAKEMN SiOti 31 31III213100I2 ROPADOR 3« ADDRESS UNASSIONEO IWNERNAME CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS -AXPAVER CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS DO STEVE KOEHLER 33CRYSTALCREEKRO ORONOMN SS154 PAGE: I 31 0411721220007 PROP ADDR 25 CYGNET PL OWNERNAME DCAALSHAUCHNESSY TAXPAYER OAVDAANNSHAUOHNESSV NAME/AOOR 23 CYGNET PL U3NCLAKEMN 55156 II Oil 17211lOOOS PROP ADDR *5 LEAP ST OWNERNAME ECCRAHAMJR TAXPAYER ECCRAHAMJR NAME/ADDR »5 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN SS3S6 II 121II234400I2 PROP ADDR 1240 WATERTOWN RD OWNERNAME W HENDERSON A R L HENDERSON TAXPAYER WILLIAM A ROSLYN LI lENOGRSON NAME/AUOR 4J0WAKEHELDRD WAVZATAMN 55191 IN .OIIH2.I.VUIIMI2 I'ROI* ADDR 15 CRVSTALCREEK RD OWNI!R NAME S M KOItIlIJ’R A A T KUI'III JiH TAXPAYER STEVEN A ANNE KOBIlUiR NAMWAOOR 13 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN 55156 31 1111121110005 PROP ADDR 145 CRYSTALCREEK RD OWNERNAME RLMELAMEOJRAKAMELAMHl TAXPAYER KIMBERLY A ROBERT MEUMEO JR NAMG/ADOR 165 CRYSTALCREEK RD tONOLAKEMN 551S6 31 12III214I00B»*«>««2. PROP ADDR 3120 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME BOYER BURDMO CORPORATION TAXPAYER BOYER BUIUNNO CORPORATION NAME/AOOR IS279 MINNETONKA BLVO D6EPHAVENMN 35391 31 04II7232200M PROP ADDR 65 CVCNETPL OWNERNAME KTKROtCZYKAMAKROtCZYK TAXPAYER KEVIN A MICHELE KROtCZVK NAME/ADOR 65CYONETPL tONOLAKEMN 55356 II 3211123440002 PROP ADDR 3210 WATERTOWN RO OWNERNAME O L ROLLER A C J ROLLER TAXPAYER CARYL ROLLER NAME/AOOR 32W WATERTOWN RD tONGUKEMN 35350 38 32II8214400I3 PROP ADDR 3220 WATERTOWN RD OWNERNAME WHENOERSONARLHENOERSON TAXPAYER YYILUAM A ROSLYN HENDERSON NAME/AOOR 430 WAKEFIELD RD WAVZATAMN SS39I M l.lllHn.UCMMM PROF ADDR 75 CRYSTAL CREEK RO UWNUHNAMI! MAKKAALAUKAUSUMMIWS TAXPAYER MARKAALAURADSUMMERS NAME/ADDR 75 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN 55136 to II 3111121130006 PROF ADDR 175 CRYSTAL CREEK RD OWNERNAME CHRIS FAUt/IUUE PAULETAL TAXPAYER CHRIS PAUL A JUUE PAUL NAME/AOOR 175 CRYSTALCREEK RD LONOUKEMN 35156 CD J-J' 1 -------!TT7r; 0m$$% • • f Avwy* TCMPUm SIM* 31 04tl723230n3 THOMAS C * KAUIS MTTER 3I9S WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN SS3M 3> 0311723110001 CARLPRHAME 3243 WATERTOWN ROAD LONOLAKEMN SS33< 31 3311123440003 GARY L ROLLER 3210 WATERTOWN RO LONOLAKEMN 33336 31 33UI333200OS CITYOrORONO POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 3311123330004 JERRY* LORRAINE GOODWALO 133 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONOLAKEMN 33336 31 33III233300I2 CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS OO STEVE KOEHLER 33 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN 33)36 •091S9AU3AV o •• t • f Otta • • • f tV*** • 6 l-SOO^AVERY m MVMKT«* >76' 31 0411723220007 DAVID * ANN SHAUGKNESSY 23 CYGNET PL LONOLAKEMN 33336 3t 04II72322000I KEVIN * MICHELE KROLCZYK 63 CYONEt PL LONOLAKEMN 35336 3t 03M7231 10003 EC GRAHAM JR 93 LEAFST LONGUKEMN 33336 3S 3211823440002 GARY L ROLLER 32W WATERTOWN RD LONOLAKEMN 35336 31 3211123440012 WILLIAM * ROSLYN L HENDERSON 430 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 38 3211823440013 WILUAM * ROSLYN HENDERSON 430 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 38 3311823330002 STEVEN * ANNE KOEHLER 33 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN 33336 38 3311823330003 MARK A * LAURA DSUMMERS 73 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN 33336 38 3311823330003 KIMBERLY * ROBERT MELAMED JR I63CRYSTALCREEKRD LONGUKEMN 33336 38 3311823330006 CHRIS PAUL * JULIE PAUL 173 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONGUKEMN 33)36 38 32118234I00M BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 18279 MINNETONKA BLVO DEEPHAVENMN 33391 #2971 AlliAV'OS'OOB'l UIM'AjBATMMM ixyidrax SUBUMRWi ii i : ill •>-/*:. f/t •09wm>0 M#«tr rf#tf ............. .•• •••• —••• # • ijiJfJr sm «M H—. $9*m*^*» /.a 4Mf VM*# r#r.««>mr b/.C. j?SSl^ !##• /.^. . ’//J. V t /i' / 1 r*“"“ y(i ^ / / L i / #MW ’ - L%Uf^ y^/WfV- r 'ti mMi/h- 'h±\r/ . ^ I* •. . .• . *. ................... • .•• • ' • V ' i ■i’ imAi, oggcwiPTWor pwaiisct^t T;,. , «- a. -I^w I. - iwui A. *«.«»-» «omoN ._«•-: OmlM «rf«Un* eiM«# "*»• / *. a ,. 4mwlI» ..I.U«# ••*'• ■iorlut* •'• •" •••“** I //At# ifc;M«I.-r55T!i;;i.4.h, •»*>•»• ■« *r» ??«‘*r' / ollur lnpro»«nniU ot •i»*t#*tlii»«li. • # T||AirAMCA/BC-i}«7 USlHC2 LONO lAKC. Mi SS9M TOTM. AHEA I t.7B . __^ lOTM. MW AlCS •• M7«- ACtCS liKii/] i li u\ •\i j'-** i* . 5 ^5m!i61 ! :d; wa Yertown r 6ad I '^OS I Mf-*orn •*fff .AMffi, iSn^--1 vjuMKrmaffs ---------------- PF^OjETCT •a* A'-OT KttMfV L Lfli« Hi iMW^i Lmt ^iiitr# mm MAH 6 2004 CITY OF OHONO Maxwell Bay Estates EAW Need Determination March 8,2004 Page I of 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 5, 2004 Item No.:I Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlachy^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 03-2964 Bruce & Kris Paddock, George Stickney, 3250 Fox Street - Subdivision Summary The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has officially notified the City of a petition by a group of citizens requesting the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the subdivision application submitted by Bruce and Kns Paddock along with George Stickney from Coldwell Banker Burnett. The proposed subdivision would have divided this 15-acre parcel into 6 residential tots served by a new private road. Under EQB guidelines, the City is designated as the appropriate ‘responsible governmental unit’ (RGU) to determine whether an EAW is required. The City Council has up to 30 working days in which to make such a determination. The citizen petition was received by the City on January 26,2004. The 30 working day deadline by which a decision must be made on the need for an EAW is March 9, 2004. List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolution including findings of fact B - 1-26-04 letter from EQB C - Citizen petition and attachments 1 - Citizens petition and signatures 2 - 1-2-04 letter to Orono City Council members and staff 3 _ 1-9-04 letter to Jack Y. Perry of Briggs & Morgan, P.A. from ProSource Technologies, Inc. with attachments D - Additional Documents 1 - EQB rules 4410.4300 mandatory EAW categories 2 - EQB mles 4410.4600 exempt EAW categories 3-11-17-03 Pla nning Commission minutes where preliminary approval was granted 4 - 1-22-04 letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 5 - 2-20-04 letter from the Mirmesota Department of Natural Resources E - Additional correspondence from residents 1 - 11-13-03 letter from David Maass to the City, 3175 Fox Street 2 - 6-2-98 letter from David Maass F - Withdrawal documents 1 _ 1-24-04 letter from applicants stating their intent to withdraw the 6 lot proposal i 1 2 3 Maxwell Bay Esutes EAW Need Determination March 8,2004 Page 2 of 5 3-2-04 letter from the petitioner stating their withdrawal of the EAW petition 1-24-04 letter (revised) from the applicants confirming their withdrawal of the 6 lot proposal Background The City received an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) Petition for project #03-2964. The project consisted of a 6 lot subdivision of the prope*ly located at 3250 Fox Street with a private roadway. The proposal included septic locations and met all requirements of the 2-acre zoning district. The project received preliminary approval at the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting contingent on engineering approval. Since that time the neighbor ’s have hired representation and have submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be conducted. The purpose of an EAW is to determine if there is the potential for significant environmental impacts and how to address those impacts. A brief report of potential environmental issues was conducted by the petitioner and included with the petition. The City will respond briefiy to these issues later in this report. Having gotten resistance from the neighborhood, the applicants have since decided to withdraw their request to subdivide the property into 6 lots and are now proposing 3 lakeshore lots and no roadway. With withdrav .il of the 6 lot proposal, the petitioners have submitted to the City a letter withdrawing their request for an EAW, Because of this the City has the option to not respond to the EAW request since it has been formally withdrawn, however, the petition remains active for one year during which the City could be asked to act on it. Therefore, staff has concluded that the City should respond to the petition so that it can be formally closed. The EQB has advised the City that this would be the best course of action due to the fact that the property will not remain vacant for the year that the petition is active, and this course of action allows the applicants to pursue the 3 lot proposal. Determining the Need for an EAW Step 1: Determine whether the project falls into a Mandatory or Exempt EAW category under EQB rules. Step 2:If EAW is mandatory, EAW is required; or If exempt from EAW. EAW is prohibited; or If neither mandatory nor exempt, the City has the option of requiring an EAW under the following guidelines: A) If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others demonstrates to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then Council shall require an EAW. B) If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others fails to demonstrate to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant enviroiunental • ffects, then Council shall deny the petition. Step 3:A Resolution incorporating Findings of Fact regarding the Council ’s decision should be adopted, and this will be forwarded to the petitioner and the EQB within 5 days of the decision. J Maxwell Bay Estates EAW Need Determination March 8, 2004 Page 3 of S Maxwell Bay Estates: EAW Not Mandatory, But Not Exempt . . tu Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 lists 36 categories of projects for which an EAW is mandatory, mandatory categories section is attached as Exhibit D-1. Staff concludes that the Maxwell Bay Estates project does not fall within any of the Mandatory EAW categories, because non of the thresholds are exceeded, nor even approached. Minnesota Rule' 4410.4600 lists 25 categories of projects which are exempt from the EAW process (Exhibit D-2). The Maxwell Bay Estates application does not meet any of the exempt categories and is therefore not exempt from the EAW process. It is staffs conclusion that an EAW is not mandatory for this project, but the project is not exempt from the EAW. Therefore, the City Council must determine whether there is a potential for ‘significant environmental effects’. Determination of Potential for Significant EnvironmenUl Effects The EQB rules do not define “significant environmental effects” nor do they specify a procedure for determining whether there is a potential for such effects. This is left solely to the discretion of the ROU. The most appropriate process would be to address the specific concerns stated in the citizen petition, and then address any additional concerns which the Council may feel is relevant to the matter. It is staffs opinion that the concerns listed in the petition have each been adequately and folly addressed through the preliminary plat review process, and that no EAW should be required. Following is a listing of each conct.-n noted in the petition with a response addressing the concerns. In each case, staff believes that the listed concerns either have been adequately addressed such that the project will have no significant environmental effects, or the concerns have been demonstrated to be unfounded. Coneern I: Surface Water and Water Quality **Based on the proposed MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) rule changes and the proximity of the proposed drain fields to Lake Minnetonka, a detailed subsurface investigatioa must be conducted as part of the EAW to determine the iropaccs of each ISTS (individual jewage treatment systems) and to avoid or mitigate the potential of significant adverse environmental impacts.” City Response The ISTS reports and plans that were submitted meet all current requirements of the City and the State Health Department, including the sites towards Lhe lake side of the lots. With the new proposal of the 3 lot subdivision these sites arc not even necessary as additional sites have been tested more than 600 feet from the shoreline. Concern 2: fifh. Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources “Since a large portion of the Site consists of undeveloped hardwood forest and grasslands, *be applicant must consult with the MDNR Natural Heritage Program as part of the EAW to verify that no threatened or endangered species or potential habitats for these species will be i Maxwell Bay Esutcs EAW Need Determination March 8,2004 Page 4 of 5 adversely impacted by the proposed development” City Response The applicant has contacted the MDNR Natural Heritage Program and their comments arc enclosed as Exhibit D-5. It has been concluded that no threatened or endangered species or potential habitats for these species will be adversely impacted, especially since the development has changed to a 3 lot subdivision rather than 6 lots. This decreases any disturbances which occur with new development. Also, due to the average lakeshore setback requirement, potential building sites are over 260 - 500 feet from the shoreline further preserving any habitats that occupy the shore. Concern 3: Cultural Resources **A cultural resources assessment must be performed to understand the historic nature of the site, which is referred to as the Gobbins Farm.” City Reanonse The q>pUcant has contacted SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) for their comments regarding the propx>sal, but as of the date of this report no response has been given. The petitioner specifically addresses the tum-of-the-20“' Century entrance monument and retaining walls. The ^plicants have stated they will preserve these with the proposed subdivision. Further, the new 3 lot proposal will not require any construction of a roadway decreasing any impacts to these features. The 6 lot proposal was given preliminary approval stipulating that SHPO provide comments which shall be implemented into the plan. The new 3 lot proposal will be subject to this standard requirement. Concern 4: Flood Plain **Fnrthcr asscMmcnt of the boundary and setback requirements from the identified floodplain must...be conducted to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts.” City Response The closest building site would be approximately 260 feet from the shoreline and well out of any designated 100-year floodplain. Minimal floodplain exists on the property and is concentrated solely at the shore (i.c. it doesn't extend with any contours further into Ae property). As with all building permit q>plications, any future homeowner will be required to comply with flood plain regulations. Concern S: Wetlands **In order to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, the wetland survey must be expanded to determine the effects of the proposed development on nearby wetland areas. City Response The applicants have shown delineation of a wetland in the northeastern comer of the site and are not proposing any disturbance to that wetland. Any development will have to maintain a 26 foot setback from it. There are not any significant wetlands within a '/4 mile of the site and development of this site will not impact those wetlands. Staff feels there would be no benefit to require the qiplicants to expand their wetland survey with the new proposed 3 lot subdivision as all drainage will be required to be maintained on the applicants property. iri MaxwtII Bay Estatas EAW Nctd DatarniaatioB March S, 2004 PagaSof S Concern Scania Viawa and Vioiit , . **Sincc Lake Minnetonka provides for a multitude of scenic viewing opportunities, an evaluaHon of the visual impacts from the proposed development must be conducted ” Due to the average lakeshore setback requirement any house construction will be 260 - 500 feet from the shoreline, preserving the current scenic views from the lake. Also, the City h« a well established ordinance which regulates any vegetation removal or alternation within 75 of the lake further preserving the natural appearance of the shoreline. Conclusion A Staff Recommendation ^ . u It is staffs opinion that the issues raised in the Citizen Petition have been and will contmue to be addressed during the subdivision review process. Further, because the 6 lot propos^ has been withdrawn and a new 3 lot proposal has been submitted the proposal will have to be review^ again by the Planning Commission where attempts can be made to lessen any environmratal impact which may exist. Staff believes it is reasonable and appropriate to make a fmding that this development (being the revised 3 lot plan) has no potential for significant environmental effects due to the following reasons: 1. The petitioners have withdrawn their petition, 2. The 6 lot proposal has been withdrawn by the applicants, 3. The new proposal for a 3 lot subdivision significantly reduces the potential for significant environmental impacts and is looked at favorably by the petitioners, and 4. The issues discussed in the environmental letter (and above) do not pose the potential for significant environmental impacts, regardless if the property is subdivided into 6 lots or 3 lots. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution finding that the Maxwell Bay Estates subdivision will have no potential for significant environmental effects, and determining that an EAW will not be required. ‘.i EXHIBIT A A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY BRIICE AND KRISTINE PADDOCK AND GEORGE STICKNEY HAS NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND DENYING THE CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) -FILE #03-2964 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (“City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has ofilcially notified the City of a petition by a group of citizens represented by Jack Y. Perry of Briggs and Morgan requesting the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed development (“The Development”) by Bruce and Kristine Paddock and George Stickney (the “proposers”). City of Orono planning and zoning application File #04-2964; and WHEREAS, under EQB Rules 4410.0500, the City has been designated as the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine whether an EAW is required. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The City Council finds that the Development does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4300, Subpart 2 through 37, and does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4400, Subparts 2 through 24, Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment Worksheet nor an Environmental Impact Statement are mandatory for the Development under EQB Rules. 2.The City Council finds that the Development falls within Part 4410.4600 Subpart 2(B) in that all governmental decisions have not been made, and falls within Part 4410.4600 Subpart 12 because, while 3 lot development does not exceed the threshold of 20 dwelling units for a fourth class city, the Development is within a Shoreland Area as defined in EQB Rules 4410.0200. Therefore, the City council further finds that the Develoment is not specifically exempt from EQB Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Page I of 3 I 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. EQB Rules 4410.1100 Subpart 6 provide that the RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City Council has reviewed the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persons as well as other information of record pertaining to the development. The Citizen Petition for an EAW has been formally withdrawn by the petitioners and due to Ae petition being active for one year the City has determined that a decision shall be made regarding whether an EAW shall be required of the applicants. The Citizen's Petition was reacting to a 6 lot proposal and such proposal has been withdrawn and a 3 lot proposal has been submitted which is looked at favorably by the petitioners. The proposal for a 3 lot subdivision significantly reduces the potential for significant environmental impacts. The environmental issues raised by the petitioners do not pose the potential for significant environmental effects, as discussed in the City Council memorandum dated March 4,2004. The City Council finds that the concerns raised in the Citizen Petition have been and will continually be addressed as the applicants continue tlirough the subdivision process and preliminary and final approval will not be given until all issues are settled through the Planning Commission and City Council approvals. Page 2 of 3 1 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Orono, Minnesota that the Citizen Petition to the EQB by Jack Y. Perry of Briggs and Morgan, is hereby denied, and notification of such denial shall be forwarded to EQB staff, to the proposer, and to the petitioners’ representative within 5 days per EQB Rules 4410.1100 Subpart 8. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 8“* day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of3 L n • f 1 '■ . , iiMH EXHIBIT B C5SCE0AH STPEET S’" PAUL MN 5S «55 •HO.<C 65i 2g7 l257 rA» 6St*2Q6 3Q0e rr, a0a627-3S2O WWW COB tTATf MH uS i. RBCeiVEO JAN I ^ 2004 CITYOFORdVO January 21,2004 Ms Janice Gundlach, Assistant City Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota SS323 RE; Citizens petition for an EAW for Maxwell Bay Estates residential development Dear Ms Gundlach: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Orono is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1.No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3 1(X), subpart 1, page 34.) A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300,4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automaticdly required or prohibit^. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. n I t1 surf a«0 C04M««iMrr 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has ^he option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. 4. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or IS working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra IS days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would iqjpreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition rdong with notiHcation of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no tq>plication has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in die EQB Monitor on Febniaiy 2,2004. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651) 296-3865. Sincerely, Jon Larsen Principal Planner, Environmental Review cc: Jack Perry, petitioners’ representative EXHIBIT C I BRIGGS Morgan 2200 IDS CENTER aO SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAFOLIS. MINNESOTA SS402 TELEPHONE (612) 977-6400 FACSIMILE (6i2) 977-6650 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION January 9,2004 VIA MESSENGER WRITERS DIRECT DIAL (612) 977-8497 WRITER 5 E-MAIL jpeny^ briggs .com Gregg Downing Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Citizens' EAW Petition for Paddocks/Stickney's Proposed Six-Lot Subdivision of3250 Fox Street (a/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates) Dear Gregg: Enclosed and served upon the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) is the Citizens' EAW Petition (Petition) for the six-lot subdivision of 3250 Fox Street (a/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates), which is being proposed by the property owners, Bruce and Kris Paddock (Paddocks), and their real estate agent, George Stickney (Stickney) (collectively, Proposers). The Petition satisfies each of Minn. R. 4410.1100, subps. 1-2's requirements. By copy of this letter with its attachments, the Petition is being sent to Proposers in compliance with Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 4. The Petition is also being sent to the anticipated RGU — i.e., the City of Orono (City). The EAW petition requirements and the neighbors' satisfaction of each of these requirements is set forth as follows: EAW Petition Requirements 1. Subp. 1 - (EAW petition w/ > 25 1. signatures with mailing addresses) 2. Subp. 2(A) (description of project)2. ResDonse See Attach. A (EAW Petition) Proposers are requesting preliminary plat approval for a six-lot subdivision of 3250 Fox Street, which is located at the southwest comer of Fox Street and Leaf Street. The current zoning of 3250 Fox Street is LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires two- acre minimum lot sizes, and it is guided SAINT PAUL OFFICE ■ FIRST NATIONAL BANC BUILOINC • WVW.IRICCSCOM MEMBER - LEX MUNOI. A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OP INDCPCNOENT LAW FIBMS BRioos ako Morgan Gregg Downing January 9,2004 Page 2 for Rural Residential in 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan, which requires a minimum lot size of two acres 3. Subp. 2(B) (proposer of project)3.Bruce and Kris Paddock, along with George W. Stickney 4.Subp. 2(C) (name, address and telephone 4. number of the representative of the petitioners) Timothy R. Thornton Jack Y. Perry Briggs and Morgan, P.A. 2200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN SS402 (612) 977-8400 5.Subp. 2(D) (brief description of the S. project's potential environmental effects) See Attachs. B-C 6.Subp. 2(E) (material evidence of the 6. project's potential environmental effects) See Attachs. B-C Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 5, MEQB must forward this Petition to the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) within five days. Because the anticipated RGU — i.e.. City — is scheduled to address Proposers' preliminary plat application on Monday, January 12, 2004, the Citizens' group respectfully requests that MEQB immediately notify City of the filing of this Petition, as well as the resulting prohibition on any final approvals while the Petition is pending. See Minn. Stat. § 116D.04; Minn. R. 4410.3100, subp. 1(A); MEQB, Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules at 5 ("[t]he statute and rule prohibit 'final decisions' granting permits. In this context, final means 'not to be altered or undone,' rather than last. Any discretionary step in an approval process that conveys rights to the proposer and is not subject to further review or change is a final decision"). Sincerely, JYP/kg Enclosures ■ 2% BRIGGS AMD MORGAN Gregg Downing January 9,2004 Page 3 i cc:Bruce and Kris Paddock George Stickney William L. 'Iiubeck and Judith W. Trubeck James G. Fullerton, III and Mama W. Fullerton W. James McNemey, Jr. and Haity McNemey Timothy R. Thornton Janice Gundlach, Orono Assistant City Planner Tom Radio, Acting Orono City Attorney from Hinshaw & Culbertson l60SSI9v2 I ii jinniHi MII iiiMuir ii -tarvfm • • CmZ£NS * PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKT'^'llET FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF "Mi%^ WELL BAY ESTATES” Minnesoti Rules requiie an Environneoial Assessment Wocksheet fora particular pcoject to be conducted wfacje, if here, 20 or more affected dtizens substantiale that the project has the '*p oteotial for significant environmental effects.** (Bn^hasis add^. While an B/vW petition is pending or an EAW is being conduct, lU govemmental i^ipnmiis and oonstnictioo of the prqi^ prohibited* * p' II[fc* III Based u|^ the attached letter, as T/dl as our environmental consul^a OQgoing fiatfaer substantiation of tiieae and tufaer issues of "potential for sigtth environmental effects," we, tiie undwaipied, herdby petition tiae Minn BpviionBMutal Quality Board (BQB) and tiie of Orono (Orooo) for an EAW ootiie pfopoaed devclopineiit of "Maxwell llayEatstea." t •• ••••• •••••• • ••• M •• • • •• ••• • • • *•• • ••••• ■■■• •• •J F MRR>22-1900 K:34 P.02 EAW FETTnON£RS; (OocaaoKpcrlise) Niae CM! 1. 1£ Addrm Sifoatiife 3065 ^U»€xJ VOKt €0f4^C3 on: 5. fM^in TOLMJA<^ ^usaW /4ow4-Ei> /ici L3^jC- s ^e^\^^u/Viu^Un Mv ST yAf-^\CU ‘i-'^V^ ¥tJljtJ i- s^TrSlS gcW6r 6A>C; M^S^Sgu C jLk ^^ mtg ytoev^i fHi^ l%s&>V;^K £U Jl»o^ tp9m V^cMcg ^Biwr ki^ Lv 15.W . .1 L^i ^^t"^>dbriL^ Wh\u ia) IS. IS. 20. ft6\0r*^c#Y' ± 0 • ■•«•••.«• w •••. •«■• * t«• MM* •• • nRR-22'190e 06:35 P.03> EAWfmnCWEKSt (OatMMiMrIiM) No* 1 AdtaH(nw) . SigatKm 1.. 1 330a /^w: \r ^ia^jA>^44jtA^ 3 1 ^ 1 />v«^ 1 fUL.eSJ^. 5. j 4 1 7. I a. 1 1 1 ^ la 1 112. 1 llJ. 1 p® I4w lb. 1 -|m 1 |l7. 1 III. 1 |19. I (aa I • «• » •• • • ••• m H •• 4.1 TOTR. P.03 .KtvjJ m&wwsww^CT^^^s^ ^ r-;< ' X ic i Ik EXHIBIT C2. William L. Tniback TO:Orono City Council Members: 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay. MN 55323 ATTN:Mr. Ron Moorse Orono City Administrator Ms. Janice Waateia City Planner DATE:January 2.2004 RE:Proposed Development of Maxwell Bay Estates' I am witttng on behalf of myself and my wife. Judith W. Trubeck, Mama W. Fullerton, and James and Haify McNemey. Jr., owners of properties located at 3300 Fox Street. 3350 Fox Street and 3400 Pox Street respectively, all locaM on Maxwell Bay. Our property (3300 Fox Street) Is immediately adiaoent to the proposed development known as Maxwell Bay Estates. We strongly rflesapprove and are most oonoemed over the proposed development of 6 new homesites on this property. Although we understand that the new owners. Bnjce and Kris Paddock, along with George W. Sdci^. have received conditional approval of this plan from the Orono Planning Commission, we iKxietheless raise the following additional. Important issues for your consideration as you review the Applicant's request for subdivision approval. These issues tochide, but are not HmKed to, the following: 1. Although we note that m eootoglcai study was performed by Svobada Ecological Resources on September 8,2003, we beleve the study tails to address adequately other ecological and environmental oonoems. For example, we are particularly concerned about the proximity of septic Installations as dose as 76 feet from the lake. Alteration of the erdsting grade and water run-off Issues potentially affecting properties on either side of the proposed devetopment also need further review. 2. The plans we have seen do not address shoreline Issues. Many trees currently line the shore and provide nesting for many native birds. The plan also makes .’to mention of the b«»t docking provlsloos. or number of slips oonlampIMed. Will the proposal comply with all LMCD and DNR regulaticns? 3. We oonour with the recommendation that the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) inspect the site prior to any excavation or further work on the land. Based upon the history of the area, and the unique features of the land, we believe a strong possibility exists that ttie land may have been used by Dakota or Qjibwa Indians. In addition, we would like to determine if any of the larKi indues "nativr prairie grasses* which should be preserved. : t! ■1 4. We believe the tree preservation plan b inadequate. Potentially removing some very old hardwood trees and replacing them with two of very small dbmeter wiO destroy the character and natural beauty of the existing landscape. 5. We strongly oppose the development of six lob on this acreage. There exisb a declaration of restrictive covenanb which provides that 3250 Fox Street *shalt not be divided into more than four (4) parcels, each with an area of not less than two and one- half (2 Vi) acres.* While thta covenant expires as of October 30,2004, the City of Orono should recognize that the original intent of the restriction was in keeping with the best interesb of preserving the beauty and environmenbl sensitivity of the site. Ordinarily two- acre home sites are considered large, but on Maxwell Bay, this Is not the case. Overcrowding the site, facing the beautiful Nurenberg Gardens Park, would bewVBfCrOwQInQ ui0 wiBt TBCiiiy ino uoauiiiui riiirviiuery wpucii» ranvf ^ inappropriate mm inconsistent with the other development In the neighborhood. Thb prop^ b one of the last brge parceb of land on Lake Minnetonka and it would be most iinlA«4iiMa»A Im It* hi/ nuArrmMfflifM. Ths other homeS in theunfortunate to see its character destroyed by overcrowding. The other homes in the Fultorton Estates are all exoeptionaily well maintained and aesthetically pleasing when viewed from Maxwell Bay. Six homes to be positioned on thb now pristine hilbide would f/e totally out of character. We would like the Park Commission to review thb development nianplan 6. Ragardbig proposed changes to the axbting entrance road, we are particularty concern^ wHh the potei^ widening of part of the entrance road to 26 feet To do ao wmm potentially Involve the partial or complete demoiiOon of the historic storw sntrenca gam and atone border waU. Wa are also oonoemsd that If 6 homesites are developed ^ the road It poeltioned as ptennad, 10 to 20 more personal vehicles phis service vehicles be using the road each day, adding to the traffic feedino into the dangerous curve ^ Leaf Street We have engaged the tew firm of Briggs & Morgan to assist us with our oonoems and courses of I*:'.*.—w.j. If necessary, and raspectfuliy request that we be afforded the opportunity ^ another eng ineering firm to Independently review potential environmental tetuas related to thb development prior to granting approval to proceed. Also, althoogh eppBcent George Stickiwy dW rimt with ue regarding the propos^ dmjetepmer^ that meeting did not cover many oflhe laaues refarenoed above. Further, our partldpation In that meeting should not be oonatrued es our eooeptanoe of the plan as outlined. Please be assured that wa do not seek to bilerfera with tha reaponslble develop mwt of thb property, but tha plan at currently presented does not matt this objective. Accordingly, we respectfuVy request that approval of the proposed subdMsIon not ba granted until wa have had sufficient time to address the sensitive and important bsuaa outlined herein and that approval not be granted in any event at least until the expiration of the exiating restrictive covenant Please (eel free to contact me at (952) 473-6672. or Mama Fultorton at (763) 543-2701 wfto questions or comments in response to thb request. Very truly yours. WHHam L Trubeck ‘ r 277 Coon Riptfi Boulevard. Suite 304 MinnMpoii. Miorefoti 55433 763-7I&1445 FaR763-786-1030 wvvwproeourcetcchconit exhibit C3 iete«. II January 9,2004 Mr. Jack Y. Perry Briggs & Morgan, P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 South S’” Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Environmental Concerns Proposed Subdivision of 3250 Fox Street (a/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates) Dear Jack: The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the environmental concerns associated with the proposed subdivision of the property located at 3250 Fox Street (a/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates) in 0:ono, Minnesota (Site). Specifically, ProSource Technologies, Inc. (ProSource) has been asked to give its opinion as to whether the proposed Maxwell Bay Estates subdivision poses the “potential for significant environmental effects," to support a Citizens ’ Petition for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in accordance with MinnesoU Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) guidelines. Based on PtoSource's review, several conditions were identified whereby the proposed project poses the “potential for significant environmental effects," including effects to wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and water quality. The following discussion summarizes our findings. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Site is 14.5 acres in size, and it is bounded by Lake Minnetonka (Maxwell Bay) to the south and large-lot, single family dwellings (>4.5 acres) to the cast and west, and a single family dwelling to the north. Based on our perimeter visual survey of the Site and our review of aerial photographs of the Site, the Site was previously developed with a single family dwelling within the south-central portion of the Site. The northern half of the Site is undeveloped with numerous mature hardwood trees and grasslands. The Lake Minnetonka shoreline was observed to be mostly unimproved. The proposed project consists of subdividing the Site into six lots of at least 2 acres each. Three of the lots will be located along Lake Minnetonka with the other three non-lakeshore lots located within the northern portion of the Site. Access to the Site is proposed to be via a cul-de-sac constructed within the north central end of the Site and intersecting with a private segment of Fox Street. Fox Street is located along the northern end of the Site, and it provides access to the homeowners located to the west. Environmental • Right of Way • Engineering J II Environmental Concerns Proposed Subdivision of 3250 Fox Street fa/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates')Page! According to the Preliminary Plat drawings for the Site, each lot will be served by a private well and septic system. To accommodate home construction and access, several retaining walls are planned to be constructed along with the placement of earthen fill to level most of the lots. Storm water ponds are planned to be constructed on Lots 3 and 4. as well as within the northeastern portion of Lot 6 adjacent to a delineated wetland and the apparent tum-of-the-20'*' century stone entrance monuments. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW To detenninc potential environmental effects, ProSourcc subcontracted Environmental Data Resources. Inc. (EDR) to conduct a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) search. Appendix A. The NEPA search included a search of federal land data. Threatened or Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife. Critical Habitat Data, National Register of Historic Places. National Flood Plain Data, National Wetlands Inventory Data, and FCC antenna/tower sites. ProSource also researched the available data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and it discussed the project in detail with neighboring landowners and the City of Orono staff. The identified environmental effects are presented below: I. Surface Water and Water Quality Currently, the MPCA is requesting comments on its possible amendment to rules governing individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 contains minimum standards and criteria governing ISTSs to protect surface water, ground water, and promote public health, safety, and general welfare. Specifically, the MPCA believes that some of the provisions “are outdated and need to be revised" to avoid or mitigate the potential of significant adverse environmental impacts. One significant rule change would be to require “either the local unit of government or a private inspector to verify that an adequate soil evaluation was conducted before permit issuance." In other words, further investigation of ^e soil types prior to design will be necessary. Based on the proposed MPCA rule changes and the proximity of the proposed drain fields to Lake Minnetonka, a detailed subsurface investigation must be conducted as part of the EAW to determine the unpacts of each ISTS and to avoid or mitigate the potential of significant adverse environmental impacts. 2. Fish. Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources The habitat of this proposed development includes not only pristine ihorelme but also mature hardwood forested areas. These areas provide suitable habitat for a variety of plant, animal and bird species. The proposed subdivision will lead to a significant reduction of the Site’s wildlife population. As such, the applicant must identify which species currently use the area, examine in further detail any potential effects posed by the proposed development and propose a mitigation plan to manage these impacts. For example, according to the NEPA report, the Bald Eagle was identified as a Threatened or Endangered Species within the search area. The MDNR coordinates the state’s Natural Heriuge and Non-game Research Program, which collects, manages and interprets information about non-game animals, native plants and plant communities. One of the many goals of this program is to promote sensible stewardship of the aforementioned resources. This program maintains the National Heritage Information System (NHIS), which tracks important data about the biology and distribution of rare features, including threatened and endangered resources. The NHIS provides a valuable source of ProSource Technologies, Inc.January 9,2004 Environmental Concerns Proposed Subdivision of 3250 Fox Street fa/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates),Page 3 information for activities such as community planning. Since a large portion of the Site consists of undeveloped hardwood forest and grasslands, the applicant must consult with the MDNR Natural Heritage Program as part of the EAW to verify that no threatened or endangered species or potential habitats for these species will be adversely impacted by the proposed development. 3. Cultural Resources ft.e.. archeological, historical or architectural resourced As the City of Orono stated in its November 17, 2003 application review letter, the applicant must also contact the SHPO and inquire as to the need for an archaeological review. A cultural resource assessment must be performed to understand the historic nature of the site, which is referred to as the Gobbins Farm. The presumed mm-of-the-20* Century entrance monument and retaining walls are believed to be the last remaining structures from the farmstead. Alterations to or demolition of the entrance monuments and farmstead retaining walls, due to the proposed widening of the private road, will significantly diminish the historic value of the landscape. If a SHPO review indicates archeological significance of the entrance monument and retaining wall structures, then the applicant must be required to develop a plan which outlines specific procedures for preserving these commemorations. 4. Flood Plain fnatlonal Hood plain data) To determine if flood plain data are present at the Site, EDR also conducted a flood plain search. Based on EDR's fmdings, there is electronic Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) daU which indicates that portions of the Site are located within the 100-year flood plain. Appendix A. Further assessment of the boundary and setback requirements from the identified floodplain must, therefore, be conducted to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental effects. 5. Wetlands To determine if wetlands are present at the Site, the applicant conducted a wetland delineation survey of the Site (Svoboda Ecological Resources, September 23, 2003) and identified the presence of a forested wetland basin (Type 1 PEM/F04A) within the northeastern portion of the Site. Although filling or dredging of the wetland is not proposed as part of the development plans, the Svoboda report did not account for wetland areas on adjacent properties which may be impacted by the development of the Site. Specifically, several wetland areas were identified within V* mile of the Site as part of the NEPA repurt provided by EDR. In order to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, the wetland survey must be expanded to determine the effects of the proposed development on nearby wetland areas. 6. Scenic Views and Vistas Spectacular viewing points along lakes could be categorized ac scenic views as outlined in the MEQB EAW Guidelines. As the guidelines indicate, many of these scenic views are not officially designated or marked, but because of their local or statewide interest, these scenic views must be considered. Since Lake Minnetonka provides for a multitude of scenic viewing opportunities, an evaluation of the visual impacts from the proposed development must be conducted. ProSource Technologies, Inc.January 9,2004 Environmental Concerns Proposed Subdivision of 3250 Fox Street fa/k/a Maxwell Bay Estates)Page 4 C. CLOSING Considering all of the above potential environmental effects and due to the high quality of the natural resources within and around the Site, our opinion is to promote continued stewardship of these resources and ensure that a sustainable balance is maintained between the natural environment and economic growth. We believe that the preparation of an EAW will greatly assist in the decision making process as plans for the proposed development proceed. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at 763-786-1445, Very truly yours, ProSource Technologies, Inc. -------------------------- Wade A. Carlson, P.G. Principal/Project Manager ProSource Technologies, Inc. P ^ 'U David E. Hennen Senior Environmental Scientist January 9,2004 ttaafsatbaMhi Environmental Concerns Proposed Subdivision of 32SO Fox Street (a/k/a Maxwell Bav Estates)Paye 5 APPENDIX A EDR NEPA Report ProSource Technologies, Inc.January 9,2004 I EDR NEPACheck® Maxwell Bay Research 3250 Fox Street Orono,MN 55356 Inquiry Number: 01107443.1r January 06,2004 I*: Environmental :Data : Resources, Inc. The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Roao Southport, Connecticut 0C890 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 Internet: www.edmet.com A SECTION EAfie EDR NEPACheck® Description........................................... 1 Map Findings Summary ...................................................... 2 Natural Areas....................................................................... 3 Historic Sites....................................................................... 5 Flood Plain.......................................................................... 8 Wetlands.............................................................................. 10 Wetlands Classification System........................................ 20 FCC&FAA Sites................................................................. 24 Key Contacts and Government Records Searched.......... 2B Thank you for your buotnoBO. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Jlselattfiar Copyright and Tradamarfc NoSca This fBport contains hfdfmation obtained from a vanety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPL lED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES. INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE AL* RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE. WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. NEGLIGENCE. ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE. FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE. INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INODENTAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ErHira contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources. Inc All rights reserved Reproduction m any medm orhemaL m whole orinpart of any reporl or map of Environmental Data Resources. Inc. or its afltHates. is prohibited withOiX prior wrinen permtaaion EUR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources. Inc. or Its affiliates AM other trademarks used heretn are the \ property of Mieirrespsctiveomers [ L The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that Fedecel agencies include in their decision-making processes appropriate and careful corwideration of all environmental effects artd actions, analyze potential erwironmeirtal effects of proposed actions and their alternatives for public urKfmtanding arvj scrutiny, avoid or mirtimize adverse effects of proposed actions, arxl restore and enhance environmental quality as much as possible. The EOR NEPACheck provides Information which may be used. In conjunction with additional research, to detennine whether a proposed site or scbon w.!l have significant environmental effect. The report provides maps and data for the fotowing items (where available). Search resuks are provided In the Map Findings Summary on page 2 of this report. Section Natural Areas Map • Federal Lands Data: • Offictsly designated wildemess areas - Ofneialiy designated wltdRfe preserves, sanctuaries and refuges - WHd and scenic rivers • Fish and Wildlife • Threatened or Endangered Species, Fish and WikMia, Critical Habitat Data (where avakable) Historic SItea Map • National Register of Hlatotic Places • State Historic Places (where avaiicble) Flood Ploln Mflp • National Flood Plain Data (where available) Wetlands Map • National Wetlands Inventory Data (where available) PCCAFAAMap • FCC antennaAower sites, AM Radio Towers, FAA Markings and Obstructions, AM Radio Inlerfarenoo Zones. Airports. Topographic gradient Key Contacts and Oovemment Records Searched .1, ■ ■ .A ■ ^ Regulation 47 CFR 1.1307(1) 47 CFR 1.1307(2) 40 CFR 6 302(e) 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(3): 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(4): 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(6); 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1337(7): 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(8) TC0l107443.1r Paget of» J jde in their :ts and acliona. Regulation 47 CFR 1.1307(1) 47 CFR 1.1307(2) 40 CFR 6 302(e) 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(3): 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(4); 40 CFR 6 302 47 CFR 1.1307(0); 40 CFR 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(7); 40 C^R 6.302 47 CFR 1.1307(8) i MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY The delebetet searched In this report ere listed below. Detebase descriptions and other agency contact mformaiion is contained In the Key Contacts and Government Records Searched section on page 26 of this report. TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS MAXWELL BAY RESEARCH 3250 FOX STREET ORONO. MN 55356 TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES LadUide (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTMY (Meiers): Inquiry #: 01107443.1r Date; 1/6/4 44.966400 - 44* 57’ 59 0 “ 93.605598 - 93* 36 20.r Zone 15 452240 2 4979179.0 NATURAL AREAS MAP 1.1307a (1) dmcialiy beeignated Wildemess Area 1.1307a (2) OOldally Designated wndlife Preserve 1.1307a (3) Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat HISTORIC SITES MAP 1.1307a (4) Listed or eligible for National Register 1.1307a (4) Usied or eligible for National Register FLOODPLAIN MAP 1.l30t (6) Located^ a Flood Plain WETLANDS MAP 1.1307 (tj Change In surface features (we«end fW) FCCAfAASiTES MAP Database Searth Distance (Miles) Within Search Within 1/8 Mile US Federal Lands 1.00 NO NO US Federal Lands 1.00 NO NO County Endangered Spedea County YES N/A National Register Hist Places 1.00 NO NO MN Historic SAes 1.00 NO NO FLOODPLAIN 100 YES YES NWl 100 YES YES FCCCeSular 100 NO NO FCC Antenna 1.00 NC NO FCC Tower 1.00 NO NO FCCAMTower 100 r40 NO FAAOOF 1.00 NO NO Airports 1.00 YES YES PowerUnes 100 NO NO TCXniQ7443.lf Page 1 of 33 TC0ii07443.lr P29e2r#33 I NatLi al Areas Map f. Tarj|®t Property .'''v' Poadu ^ Counry doyndary Walarways H Waitf K Aitpom ♦ Locatons ! Federal Araas *' Federal Linear Featurea [__J Sute Areas Sute Linear Faalures ruI TARGET PROPERTY Maxwel Bay Research CUSTOMER:ProSotfce Technologies, inc ADDRESS 3250 Fox Street CONTACT-Dave Hannttii CITY/STATE/ZIP:OfOnoMNSSase INQUIRY f:01107443.1r LAT/LONG:44 9664/93 6056 DATE January 06.2004 TCVirM] It RpliTj] (•fntM-tmaiOA *m n *c3Gor im aei 07<m MAeii»a iw>»n 1 Endangvrad 8p«clcs Uttod for: HENNEPIN County, MN. Source: EPA Endangered Spedes Protection Program Database BIRD: EAGLE. BALD Map ID Diractlon OIslaiKa OlalaneadL) EORIO Oatabaaa No mapped sites were found in EOR's search of available government records within the seaxh radius around the target property. TC01107443.tr Paos4ef33 |v Historic Sites Map ♦ Targtt Pfopsfty fsj County Boundary ■ wait, ^ Airpofli # Historic Sitas Fadffii Historic Afssi Stait Hmonc Afftt i/« ,V Scenic Trail } Ai TARGET PROPERTY:MaxweH Bay Rese^h CUSTOMER:ProSource Tacrmotogiw. inc ADDRESS 3250 Fok Street CONTACT:OaveHennen CiTY/STATE/ZIP:OronoMN 55366 INQUIRY r.01107443.1r TCiinraxiiLAT/LONG;44 9664/93 6066 DATE:January 06,2004 ^MHon xi »3H ’ M%i »«ms mi r ■ HISTORIC SITES MAP FINDINGS IMipIO CMrtcllofi CMtUnc#fOR ID DstsbSM. ,,, No mappad tilM wera found In EOR't sasrch of availabia govammant racofda within tha March radius around lha targat proparty. • '.;v^V- • 'r ‘ f V■ ••: - ,.-i. •'.../ ‘v.'’.V i TC0110r443.U 1 I uu id Dim topeor«rhudtquat*«ddraulnfoniwllen,tlMfonMn««9 tliu war* not mapptd; Status EORIO Oatsbaaa Nama; Pater and Wealthy Gideon Faimhouse Address; 833.T117.fU3 City: Not reported County: Hennepin Listed on National RegMiy: Yes UnmiKmble MN10000043 MN HUoric Sites TC01107443.tr Pegs 7 of 33 i I Flood Plain Map \ ^ * *•« F #;■&Sr T“ - yf » f ; ^ X. ■ V . «- '>?i**/'••• i:- ^ • V " ♦ •*• - ■•: '.i- X ^ if '4^ v; ;mf^ A/ Ma|or Roads Contour Unaa Wsitrways ^ COiintyBoiindary Airports ’ / Powar Ursa* ' ^ Ptpa Unas • V Fault Uf»aa H Wslar tSiiiSSi 100-yaar flood zona SOO-yasr flood zono Bactronc FEMA cUU avaOsbit Etectrorac FEMA data not av^blt 1 Mitt TARGET PROPERTY: ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP: LATA-ONG Maxwen Bay Research 32S0 Fox Sueet Orono MN S5356 44.9664/93 6056 CUSTOMER: CONTACT: INQUIRY 0: DATE ProSourca Technoiogi4F< Dave Hennen 01107443.1f January 06.2004 TOtirMir " . ............. casaaM v isos ton i« < W3 sot ip« M/iasi MSaM SauRris toufcr. FEMA 03 Flood Dota County FEMA flood data oloetronic covarago HENNEPIN, MN Flood Plain panal at largal properly; AdditiorMi Flood Plain panaKo) in aoarch area: 270178000SC YES 2701780010C ■ I • TCdiid7443.tr FagaitfSS National Wetlands Inventory Map * Mi|or Roads Contour Unas Walarwayt County Boundvy Airports - ^ Pipt Lints Fault Unas Elaelronic NWI data avaitabta Elactonic NWI data not avaSabii TARGET PROPERTY: ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP: LAT/LONG MaxweN Bay Research 32S0 Fox Street Orono MN5S3S6 44 8664/9360S6 CUSTOMER; CONTACT: INQUIRY#: DATE: ProSotace Techtxtiogles. tnc Dave Hannen 01107443.1r Januwy 06.2004 TCiitmir ««toneta»! aiAetaSMaws Source: Fish and Wildlife Service NWI data NWI harrtropy map at target property: Excelsior Additional NWI hardcopy map(s) In search area: Mour\d Map ID Dtrection Oistancs DsUnce (It.) Codt and Oescriotion*Database 1wsw CM/8 ml 529 PEMC [P] Palustrine. [EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 2 SSE 0-1/8 ml 632 L1UBH [L] Lacustrine, [1] Limnetic. [UB] Unconsolidated Bottom, [H] Permanently Flooded NWI 3 North 1/8-1/4 mi 700 PUBF [P] Palustrine, [UB] Unconsolidatad Bottom, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 4 NE 1/8-1/4 ml 798 PUBF (P) Palustrine, [UB] Unoonsolidsted Bottom, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 5 NE 1/6-1/4 ml 826 PEMC [P] PahMtrina, [EM] EmaigonL [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 6 ESE 1/6-1/4 ml 976 PEMF (P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 7 ESE 1/8-1/4 mi 977 PEMC [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emeryant, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI s ENE 1/8-1/4 ml 1152 PF01C [P] Paluatrine. [TO] Forested, [1] Broad-Leaved Deciduous, [C] Seasonaly Flooded NWI 9 ESE 1/8-1/4 mi PEMF [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 1166 *Sae Wafland Claasificalion Syelam for additional infbmtadon. tC61l07443.1r Fagellorsa r L Map ID Oiractkxi Diatanoe Oistanoa (ft.)Coda and Oascnpflon*Database PEMC10 WNW (P] Palu8tr<n«, [EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded 1/8-1/4ml 1206 NWI 11 NW 1/S-1/4mi 1298 L1UBH W LacMtrine, ll) Umnetic, (UB] UnconsoMated Bottom, [H] Pennanently Flooded NWI 12 NW 1/4-1/2mi 1366 PEMC [PI PahJStfine, [EMJ Emergent, [Cl Seasonally Flooded NWI 13 ESE V4-1/2 mi 1300 PUBF [P] Palusirine, (UB) Unconsolidated Bottom, (F] Sempermanentiy Flooded NWI 14 W8W 1/4-1/2 mi 1423 PEMC [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 15 ENE 1/4-1/2 mi 1461 PEMC [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 16 WNW 1/4-1/2 mi 1608 PEMF [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 17 WNW 1/4-1/2 mi 1667 PF01C [PJ PalusWne. (FO] Forested, [l] Broad-Leaved Deciduous, [C] Seasonatty Flooded NWI 16 WNW 1/4-1/2 mi 1667 PEMF p] Palustrine, [EM] Emergerrt, [F] Semipermanemiy Flooded NWI 19 ESE 1/4.1/2 mi PF01C [P] Palusirine, [FO] Forested, [1] Broed-Lesved Deciduous, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 1700 *See Wetland Classincation System tor additional Infbrmatioa TC01107443.1r Page 12 0139 ■ i * I < 29wsw 1/2-1 ml 3054 PEMF NWI |P] Pahnirin*, (EM] Emargent. [F] Samiparmanently Flooded *See Welland ClasaVicaUon Sytton for additional Information. WETLANDS MAP FINDINGS Map ID Dilution DistancaOManca (lt.1 Coda and Description*Database 20 ESE 1/4-1/2 mi 1738 PEMAJBF [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent /, [UB] UnconsoUdated Bottom, [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 21 WSW 1/4-1/2 ml 1769 LIUBHx [L] Lacustrine, [1] Limnetic, [UB] Unconsolidated Bottom, [H] Permanently Flooded, (x) Excavatad NWI 22 NE 1/4-1/2mi 1698 PEMC [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 23 NE 1/4-1/2 mi 2002 PEMC [P] Palustrino, [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 24 S8E 1/4-1/2 mi 2413 PEMF [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 25 NE 1/4-1/2 mi 2427 PEMCd [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Flooded, [d] Partially Orained/Ditched NWI 26 S8E 1/2-1 mi 2701 PEMC IP) Paltalrine, [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Floodad NWI 27 Norm 1/2-1 mi 3004 PUBGx [P] PMustrtne, [UB] UnconsoUdated Bottom, [G] iniarmittantly Exposed, [x] Excavatad NWI 28 East 1/2-1 mi PEMC [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Rooded NWI TC0110r443b1r Page 13 at 33 r i ^ miiaii I r • WETLANDS MAP FINDINGS Map ID Oiraction Distance Distsnoa (fU Code and Description*Detebise 30 NNE 1/2-1 mi 3101 PEMP P] Peluatrine. (EM] Emergent, (P] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 31 NNW 1/2-1 mi 32S6 PEMC PI Peluatrine, (EM) Emergent. (C) Seasonally Flooded NWI 32 SW 1/2-1 mi 3286 PF01C PJ Paluatrlna, [FO] Forested, (i] Sroed-Leaved Deciduous, (C) Seasonally Flooded NWI 33 SW 1/2-1 mi 3305 PEMF (P) Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, [F] Semipermenenty Flooded NWI 34 NE 1/2-1 mi 3331 PEMC (P] Pakistrlne, [EM] Emergent. [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 35 NNW 1/2-1 ml 3382 PSS1C (P| Palustrine, [SS] Scrub-Shrub, [1] Broad-Leaved Deciduous. [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 36 ESE 1/2-1 mi 3443 PEMC [P] PeluMlne. [EM] EmergenL [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 37 SE 1/2-1 mi 3449 PEMF [P] Palustrine. [EM] EmergenL [F] Semipermenently Flooded NWI NNW 1/2-1 mi 3450 PSS1C [P] Palustrine. [SS] Lvrub-Shrub. [1] Broad-Leaved Dedduoua, [q Seaaonaly Ftooded NWI 39 NE 1/2-1 mi 3567 PEM/SS1C [P] Paiustrlne. [EM] Emergent /. pS) Scrub-Shwb, [1] Broad-Leaved Deciduous. [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI *Sm Watoid Ciastfficatkw System for adcSlionat MbmMti^ TC01107443.1r Pigs 14 at S WETLANDS MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance " Oistanoe (ft.) Code arxJ Descrigtlon*Database 40 NNE 1/2-1 ml 3584 PEMC p] Pakistrine, [EM] Emergenl (C) Seasonally Flooded NWI 41 NNE 1/2-1 rm 3631 PF01A [P] Palustrine, (FO) Forested, (1] Broad-Leaved Deciduous. [A] Temporarily Flooded NWI 42 SW 1/2-1 mi 3678 L1UBH [L] Lecusirirve, (1] Limnetic, tUB] Unconsolidated Bottom, (H] Permanently Flooded NWI 43 E8E 1/2-1 mi 3850 PEMCd (P) Palustrine, (EM] EmefBenL [C] Seasonally Flooded, (d] Paitlatty Oralned/Ditched NWI 44 SSE 1/2-1 mi 3920 LIUBHx (L) Lacustrine, [1] Limnetic. [UB] Unconsolidated Bottom. (H] Permanently Flooded, (x] Excavated NWI 45 SSW 1/2-1 mi 3061 PEMF [P] Pahislflne, (EM] Emergent (F) Sen^permansnlly Flooded NWI 46 8E 1/2-1 ml 4073 PEMF (P] Patustrlne, (EM] Emergent [F] Semipermanently Flooded NWI 47 East 1/2-1 mi 4094 PEMC PI Patusntne, (EM] Emergent (C) SeMonally Flooded NWI 46 SE 1/2-1 ml 4119 PEMC (P] Palustrine. (EM] Emergent (C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 40 NNE 1/2-1 mi 4185 PEMC NWI (P) Paluttfint. fEM] Em«o«ni. tC) Seasonally Flooded *See Wetlend Clsssillcation Systsm for addffional Mionnsiioa TC01107443.1r MgsISofS -> •: ) i ■ S I ^ '7 d —"" r . WETLANDS MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Databass 50 NW 1/2-1 mi 4218 PEMF [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergont, [F] Semlpermonentty Flooded NWI 51 NNE 1/2-1 ml 4226 PEMCd [PJ Pelustrine. [EMJ Emergent, IC] Seasonally Flooded. Id] Partially Drained/Ditched NWl 52 NE 1/2-1 mi 4256 PEMC IP] Palustrine. (EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI S3 NNE 1/2-1 mi 4276 PEMC (P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent. (C] Seasonally Flooded NWl 54 ESE 1/2-1 mi 4292 PEMCd [P] Palustrine, [EM] Emergent, (q Seasonally Flooded, (d] Partially Orained/OHched NWI 55 ENE 1/2-1 mi 4324 PEMCd IP] Palustrine. [EM] Emergent, [q Seasonally Flooded, [d] Partially Dralned/DitGlied NWl 56 ENE 1/2-1 ml 4355 PEMC fp\ Palustrine, [EM] Emergant, [C] SeasonaHy Flooded NWI 57 NNE 1/2-1 ml 4361 PEMC [P] Palustrine, (EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 58 E»it 1/2-1 ml 4363 PSS1/EMC IP] Pahistnne. [SS] Scrub-»vub. [1] Broad-Laaued Oidduous /. [EM] Emergent, (q Seasonally Flooded NWI 59 ESE 1/2-1 mi PUBKGx [P] Pahjatrlne. [UB] Unconaoiidaied Bottom. [K] ArtHIdsly Flooded. [Q) intsrmitlently Diposad. [x] Excavated NW) 4436 *§•# W«Mn4 ClMtifteation Sytttm tor «kMonal Worn»tioa TC01107443.tr n0*16ofS3 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft)Code and Description*Database 60 SE 1/2-1 mi 4513 PEMP NWI |PJ Pakistiine. (EM) Emeroont (F) Semipermanently Flooded 69 SE 1/2-1 ml 4857 PEMC NWI p] Paluatrine. [EM] Emergent [C] Seasonaly Flooded *See Wetland Clat ilficatlon Systam tor additional Intonnation. n I i ■ i ; i 61 North 1/2-1 mi 4539 PEMC (P] Paiustrine. (EM] Emefgtni. [C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 82 ENE 1/2-1 ml 4624 PEMCd [P] Paiustrine, (EM] Emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded, [d] Partially Oralned/Ditctied NWI 63 West 1/2-1 mi 4676 PEM/SS1C (P] Paiustrine, (EM] Emergent /, [SS] Scrub-Shrub, [1] Broad-Leaved Oedduous, (C] Saeeonelly Flooded NWI 64 NNE 1/2-1 mi 4740 PEMCd P] Pelustrine, [EM] Emergent, (C] Seasoneliy Rooded, (d] Partially Orained/Ditched NWI 65 NNW 1/2-1 ml 4744 PEMC (P] Paiustrine, (EM] EmergenL (C] Seasonally Rooded NWI 66 NW 1/2-1 ml 4782 PEMCd (PJ Pehietrlne, (EM] r- «rgenL (C] Seasonally Flooded, (d] PertieSy Orelned/Ditchod NWI 67 NW 1/2-1 mi 4790 PEMCd (P] Paluatrine, (EM] Emergent [C] Seasonally Flooded, (d] Partialy Orained/Oitched NWI 68 ESE 1/2-1 mi 4795 PEMC (P] Paluatrine, [EM] Emergent (C] Seasonally Flooded NWI I ‘ I ■' f’ % TC01107443.1r n8*17of» ifaiaill WETLANDS MAP FINDINGS Map 10 Direction Olstanoe ^ ....Oatabasa 70 North 1/2-1 mi 4B65 PFOI/EMCd P) Peluetrine, pO] Forested, |1] Broed-Leaved Deciduous /, [EM] emergent, [C] Seasonally Flooded, [d] Partlaly Drained/OHched NWI 71 SE 1/2-1 ml 4891 PEMC PI Pelustrine. (EM] Emergent, (C] Seasonelly Flooded NWI 72 8SE 1/2-1 ml 4891 L1U8H (L] Lecuetrine. (1) Limnetic, [UB] UnconsoTidsted Bottom, [H] Permanently Flooded NWI 73 ESE 1/2-1 ml 4936 PEMFd [P] Pakjstnne, (EMJ Emergent (F] Semipermanently Flooded, (dj Partially Orained^Ditched NWI 74 NNE 1/2-1 ml 4937 PSS1C (P] Pelustrine. (SS) Scrub-Shrub, (1] Broad-Leaved Oecduous, (C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 75 SSE 1/2-1 ml 4970 L1UBH [L] Lacustrine. [1] Umnetic. (UB] Unconsoiidsted Bottom. (H] Permanently Flooded NWI 76 NNE 1/2-1 ml 4972 PEMCd [P] Peluetrine. (EM] Emergent (C) Seasonally Flooded, (d] Partially Drained/Oltched NWI 77 Nofth 1/2-1 ml 5063 PFOI/EMCd _ PJ Pelustrine, (FOJ Forested, (1] Broad-Leaved Dedduous /. (EMJ Emergent (C) Seasonally Flooded, (d] Partially Orained/Oitched NWI 78 South 1/2-1 mi 5101 L1U9H (LJ Laatfrine. (1J Limnetic. (UB) Unconsoldeted Bottom, (H) Permanently Flooded NWI 79 SE 1/2-1 ml PEMC (P) Peluetrine. (EM] Emergent (C] Seasonally Flooded NWI 5114 ‘8m Welland Classlflcalion Sytttm for iddUionai tnfomwiioa TC0lld7«n.1r Pi0»liof)3 1 Map ID Diraction Distance Distance (It.)Code and Description*Oatabaee 80 ESE PEMC NWI [P] Palustrine. [EMI Emeqjant, [C] Seasonally Flooded National Wetland Inventory Maps are produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice, a sub^partment of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In 1974. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a criteria ter wetland dasiificatlon with tour long range objectives; to describe ecological units that have certain homogeneous natural attributes, to anaiige these units in a system that will aid decisions about resource management, to furnish units for inventory and mapping, and to provida uniformity <n concepts and terminology throughout the U.S. High dtitude infrared photographs. so« maps, topographic maps and site visits are the methods used to gather data for the productions of these maps. In the infrared photos, wetlands appear as different colors and these wetlands are then daulfied by type. Using a hierarchical dasslfication. the maps Identify weHand and deepwater habitats accordfog to: systom subeystem class subclass moddiers (as defined by Cowardin, et ai. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 79/31.1979.) The dassification system consists of five systems; t. marine 2. estuarine 3. riverine 4. taoBtrine 5. pahistrine The marine system consists of deep water tidal habitato and adjacent tidal wedartds. Tha riverine system consistB of all wetlands oontainedwffhin a channel Thelacusirine systems incfodre aH nonWal wettends relsted to swamps, bogs & marshes. The estuarirte system consists or deepwater tidsi habitats and where ocean water is diluted by fresh water. The palustrine system indudss nontidal wetlands dominated by trees and shrubs and where saBnIty is below .5% in tidal areas. All of these systems are divided in subsystems and then forther dividad into class. Natiorwl Wetland Inventory Maps are produced by transferring gathered data on a standard 7.5 minute U.S.G.S. topographic map. Approximately 52 square miles are covered on a National Wetland Inventory map at a scale of 1 -.24.000. Electronic data Is compiled by digitiang these National Wetland inventory Maps. TC01l07443lr Page 20 3133 r pspi i>-JK •5>-r^:': ^•, -v'^'C '■. ‘.-' tAV'v- ' *■*' i-l v‘*'•«• < VI *.? iV,-•' r>r iLab^ SYSTEM MARINE r SUBSYSTEM I • SUBTiDAL 2-INTERTIDAL T CUSS Subetei KB-ROCK UBUNCONSOUDATED BOTTOM BOTTOM 1 I I AB^AQUATICBEO RFREEF OW-OPEN WATER / Uaknow* BoHom I I I I AB-AOUATICBEO RKRFEF RS-ROCKY SHORE US-UNCOICOUDATED SHORE SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM CUSS SdbclM IBcdrock 2 Rubble iCobMrGravd 2SMd 3 Mud dOrpuie lAlfM 3 Ro^ Vascular SUnknowa IConI SWoim e-ESTUARINE 1 1 1 -SUBTIDAL 1 RB-ROCK BOTTOM 1 UB^UNCONSOLIDATEO BOTTOM 1 AB-AQUATICBED 1 n RF-REEF OW OPEN WATER / Uduiown Bouoni 1 BcdracR IRuMIe 1 Cobble Grovel 2SMid 3 Mad dOffinie 1 Atgat 2 Mofluik 3 Rooled Vamlar 3 Worm 4 Floaaag Vaecaler 5 Uakaown Subrocrgnil a Unkfioero Surfbee I Algil I Corit 3 HooBcd VMCular 3 Wonn 5 Unknown S»ibmcfgtni I Bedrock 3 Rubble I Cobble^i'riYcl 3SBmJ 3 Mud dOipiilc SUBSYSTEM 2 . INTERTIDAL T T I CLASS AB-AQUATIC BED RF REEF SB • STREAMBED RS-ROCKY SHORE US-UNCONSOLIDATEO EM LMERGFIIT SHORE SS SCRUB SHRUB FO-FORESTED I AlfM 3 Rooled 4FloiiiiitVaitular 5 UuknuBwi Submcnrwt 6 Unkuowii SvBcc 3Wofm I Cobble-Growl 2Saiid 3 Med dOrpnle I 2Rtibbie I Cobble^ Grovel 2Sand 3 Mud dOrpiic 1 Beniiiefil 2 Nonptfibiffii 1 BnMd Lrovcd Oecidboia 2 Nccdlc-Uavcd Decfdeoui 3Broed-Lrovcd 1 Bnrod-Leaved OcciduoM 2 Nccdte-Leaved Decidboui 3 Braad^ Leaved Eveiyeen Eveqpeen 4 Necdlr-Lcavcd 4 Nccdk Lemd Eveipcen 5Dc»d bOaciduoui 7 Evernfccti Everycca 5Dnd bDeetdeouB 7 F.verfrm • i\ SYSTEM R-RIVERINE I SUBSYSTEM CLASS I I * ' I-TIDAL 2 - LOWER PERENNIAL 3 • UPPER PERENNIAL 4 - INTERMITTENT I KB-ROCK UB4JNC0NS0UDATI0 BOTTOM BOTTOM •SB-STREAMBEO AB-AQUATIC BED RS ROCKY SHORE US^UNCONSOLIDATEO SHORE 5 - UNKNOWN PERENNIAL ••EM-EMERGENT OW-OfEN WATER/ UfiuMnni Bofloffi IBcdracIi 2RuMie 1 CdbMe-GiBvcl 2S«id 2 Mud 40i|pmc I Bedrock 2RiibMt 3Cobblt-GfMl 4Sb d SMvd eOriOfric TVcfcUicd 1 Aliol 2 ARMtkMoet SRooNdVaKultr 4EloilMtVMCiilir S IMknowii Submcfiral 6Ui4tfioiiniSurftcc IBcdrock 2RubMe ICobbMjnvfl 2Sand IMtid 4 Organic 5Ve§tUHd 2 Nonpcnislcnl •STREAMBEO UlUnilcdlo TIDAL iMl INTERMITTtNTSUBSYSTEMS.iiidcoiiipmtfilif only CLASS in the INTERMITTENT SUBSYSTEM. ••EMERGENT is limiied to TIDAL and LOWER PERENNIAL SUBSYSTEMS. SYSTEM L-LACUSTRINE I I SUBSYSTEM I - LIMNETIC I T T I CLASS RB-ROCK BOTTOM I 2Riliblc UB-UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM ICoUdi^jMYd 2Sand 3 Mud 40rgMiic AB-AQUATIC BED OW-OfEN WATER/ I AlgM 2AR0ilkMo« 3RooiodVaaadar 4F1ooiiiiiVaaailv 4 Unknown SnHnct SUBSYSTEM 2 - LITTORAL :: CLASS 1 r RB4IOCK 1 T UB4JNC0N90UDATED ABAQUAT1C I I I I BOTTOM BOTTOM BED RS^ROCKY SHORE US UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE I Bedrock IRikMc I I CokMoGrawl 2SwM 3Mud I Alpl I Ua S 3 Rooicd ViKiilar 4 5 I CotbIc-GfiYCl 2S«id 3 Mad 40rgank SVi«Blalid EM-EMERCENT 2MM|pffy|init OWOPEN WATER/ ---— SUBSYSTEM I-------------1----------------------- CLASS HB-ROCK UB-UNCONSOUDATED BOTTOM BOTTOM Bolom T T P.PALUSTRINE J------T I I AB-AQOATtCBEO US-UNCONSOtIDATED SHOBE ML-MOSS- LIDIEN EM. EMERGENT SS.-SCRUB.SMRUB FO..FORESTED OW-Of£N WATER/ Kkkm$m SuMlw I 2RubMc 3 Mud dOrfunic I CabUe<iravcl 2SMd lAtgid 2A^u«kMo« 3 Rooial VMCular 4FlouiMgVaKular SUfdwowu Submofmi 6 Unknown SurfKt ICobbMirBvd 2Sand 3 Mud dOrgMiic SVcfMcd I Mofi 2Lidicn I BmiBeni 2Noflpm4cnl 1 On)id.Lca«cd Dcdduous 2 Necdte-Letved Deciduous 3 Braud-Lcavcd 1 Brood-Leaved Deciduout 2 Needle-Lcived Deciduous 3 Brood-Leaved Eveqpeen Empien 4 Nccdte-Lcovtd 4 Needle Leaved Evffipecn Evergifcn 50e»d 5Dead 6 Deciduous 6DeciAiouo 7 Everi^n 7 EvcfKrcen H 8 o modifiers Wl.or«p«nilmo«nImi«»yhe^!jn«U«cta^ T1»f«n»tJ.»adifaf in>y»hobe»wilmlipU«cculG«iol>i>>ic«. WATIR REGIME Non^TIM Tidal CMtialHaliaitylalMdSaltollyrHMadinmfcr A Temporarity Flooded BSalaraicd C Seasonally Floadcd DScMonaily Flooded Well Drained EScvonolly Flooded II Femianemly Flooded J Imermineniiy Flooded K AfiiFiciaUy Flooded W Inicniiiiicnily Floodcdrrcmporary K Artificitlly Flooded LSubiidil M Intgalarfy Exposed N RcfiiBHy Flooded r IrreguloHy Flooded •S Tempofify-Ti<W *R Scasooil-Tidsl •T Scmiperwauiewt -TidN V Pcimoncni -Tidal UUfduiowii F Samipcfwnently Flooded 0 iMcrnuHCfilly Eapootd Y SoRirateWScmipennaweiW Scasonol Z Inaemuitmily PpoMWIVniianfnl •These water regmes arc only used in tiddly innuoioed. WATER CHEMISTRY ill Fresh Wsicr 1 Hypcrhaline THypersaline 2 Luhstine I Eottline 3 Miftohalme (Brackish) 9 Moosaline 4 Polyhslinr 0 Fieih 5 Mesohslinc EOlifDhaline OFicsk a Arid I Cifcumneuiral i Alkaline g()r);anic n Mineral SPECIAL MODIFIERS bllcuver d Paiually DraincWDilchcd r Farmed h DikciFImpoiMded r Aftincial Subdrale sSpoU t Eacavaled £ 7 Sourer U S. Oipartincni oriht laiedor • Fish and Wildlitk Service H Naiiawl Wcdandi li 91 T FCC &FAA Sites Map /v' 8tTMto Contour UnM ^ County Boundary Walirwayt Povvor Unos I Watir ^ Airporti \ BitM OmNDvactlonaiAMIntarftfanoa F'y* Dirtcbonal AM IMarftranca V*1 IMt« ii 4 % TARGET PROPERTY: ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP: LAT/LONQ: MB)(well Bay Research 3250 Fox Street Ororx) MN 55356 44 9664/93 6056 CUSTOMER: CONTACT: INQUIRY#: DATE: ProSource Technologies, inc Dave Hennen 0ll07443.lr Januvy 06,2004 TCIIir44} Ir PlerNi/9 CMpp^<»moxmt *. KiJlQT atOd 07/» Map 10 DlrtcHon Dlftanc* 0ltUfl6« (ft.) EORIO DatabaM No Sites Roported. mm. ‘.fc •. ’I - ■p4;feK': ■ py ^ ,#^n' ■ f > '" J'- 'S - .- • 1 • V*-- >-,K ' ' ^ i. 1 'M 4.^ rv h^-W;m wm A<e5v’ I y- TC01 107443 1r Paa«29ofS9 J Site Numtwr: Airport Type: County. Fedity Neme: Uie: OumorAddreee Phone: MgmtAddreet: Mgmt Phone: U^itude: Elev(fl): Aero chert Oirfrom BuslnMC Certified Dele: le M'l Airport?: InepecHon Method: Leit inepected: Lighting: Beacon Color Single engine: Jetenglnee: Ollden: Uttrelights: Airtaxie: Runweyid: Width: Lights tntensiV: Msridr^* Longitude: Appifoeoh nghts: Centerline Lights: Reeip End ID: RedpLet Reclp Elev: Redp End Lgts: EDRIO AIR09190 AIRPORTS iioos.erc SEAPLANE BASE Stete:MINNESOTA HENNEPIN City:SPRING PARK VASA PARK Owner type:PR PR Owner RUSSELL T. LUND, JR 905 TONKAWA ROAD CHy/Steie:LONG LAKE. MN SS3S6 912-471.7480 Mgmt Neme:RUSSELL T. LUND, JR. 005 TONKAWA ROAD Mgmt City/St LONG LAKE. MN S5356 612-471-7480 Latitude:44-57-46.866N 003-37-20.853W Lat Method:E 930 Elev method:E TWIN CITIES Diet from Busineee:01 N Dele Active:Not Reported Not Reported Fed egreemerds:Not Reported Not Reported Is Customs Airport?:Not Reported 2 Inspected by N Not Reported Attendsnce:UNATNDD Not Reported Has ATC Tower N Not Reported Landing fee:N 001 Multi engine:Not Reported Not Reported Heiicopters:Not Reported Not Reported Military:Not Reported Not Reported Commerciat:Not Reported Not Reported Local ops:Not Reported NW/SE Length:7000 2000 Surfeos:WATER Not Reported Base End Id:NW Not Reported Latitude:Not Reported Not Reported Elevation:Not Reported Not Reported End Lights:Not Reported Not Reported Touchdown Lights:Not Reported 8E Rsdp marlurtgs:Not Reported Not Reported RadpLong:rtOi HmQOnBO Not Reported Redp App Lgts:Not Reported Not Reported Reeip Ctr Lgto:Not Reported TCQ1107443.1r Peg§26of33 • ii EORIO DaUbaM No Silas Raportad. TC0li074411r Paga27of33 L Various FaCeral laws and executive orders address spedfic environmental concerns. NEPA requires the responsible offices to integrate to the greatest practicel e'^ent the applicable procedures required by these lews and executive orders EOR provides key contacts at agenc a charged with implementing these laws and executive orders to supplement the Information contained In thi; report NATURAL AREAS Officially designated wilderness areas Government Records Searched In This Report FEO.LANO: Federal Lanfy Source: USOS Telephone: 703-648-5094 e Federal data from Bureau of Land Management. National Park Service. Forest Service. Fish end Wildlife Service. and Bureau of Indian Aftoirs. • National Parks • Forests • Monuments • Wildlito Sanctuaries. Preserves. Rafiiges • Federal Wlldameu Areas. • Indian Reservations Dale of Government Version: 09A>1/1697 FedemI Contacts fdr Additional Information National Park Service. Midwest Region 1709 Jackeon Street Omaha. NE 68102 402-221-3471 National Park Sarvioo. Northeast Region 200 custom Street. Fifth Floor PhllsdeIpNa. PA 10106 215-597-7013 USOA Forast Senrioe. Eastern 310 West Wisoonain Avenue Milwaukee. Wl 53203 414-297-3093 BLM - Eastern Stales Office 7450 Boston Blvd. Springfield. VA 22153 703-440-1713 Fish & WHdlle Service. Region 3 BMW Federal Building One Federal Drive FortSnelUng. MN 55111-4056 612-713-5230 Officially dasignatad wlldiife preaervea. sanctuaries and lefUgas Government Records Searched in This Report FEO.LANO: Federal Lands Source: US6S Tdoo^ono* T03'C40'50^4 FedemiSta from Bureau of Land Management National Park Service. Forest Senrice. Rsh and WMlifa Sendee, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. • National Parks • Forests - Monuments • WildUfe Sanctuaries. Preserves. Refugee • Federal Wildemess Areas. • Indian Reservatiorw Data of Oovemmantversion: 09A)1/1997 TC0il074O.tr Peee2Bof33 J Ftdeml Contacts for Additionai Information Fish & Wildlife Service. Region 3 BHW Federal Building One Federal Drive FortSr>elling. MN 55111-4056 612-713-5230 State Contacts for Addltionsl Information Dept, of Natural Resources 612-297-1308 WHd and scenic rivers Government Records Searched in This Report FEO.LAND: Federal Lands Source: USGS Talcphofw: 703-648-5094 ^ , Fwlaral data from Buraau of Land ManagamenL National Park Sarvica, Forest Sarvica, Fish and Wildlifa Sarvica, and Buraau of Indian Affairs. • National Parka • Forasts • MonumanU • Wildlifa Sanctuarlas, Praaarvas, Refugas • Fadaral Wildamass A'aat. • Indian Raaarvalior.s Oata of Oovammant Varalon: 09/01/1997 Fadaral Contacts for AddKional Information Fish a Wildlifa Sarvica. Ragion 3 BHW Fadaral Building One Federal Oriva Fort Snailing, MN 55111-4056 612-713-5230 Endaiisarad Spadaa Govammant Records Searched In This Report Endangered Spodaa Protection Program Database A Sating of endangered speciea by county. Source; Environmental Protaction Agan^ Talephona; 703-305-5230 Fadaral Contacts fbr Additional Information Fish & WHdlifd Sarvica. Raglon 3 BHW Fadaral BuHding One Fadaral Drive Fort Snailing. MN 55111-4056 612-713-5230 Stata Contacts fbr Additional Information Natural Herilaga 6 Nongamo Reshearch. Dapi fo Natural Resources 651-296-2835 LANDMARKS. HISTORICAL, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Hlalorle Places TCOll07443.1r Psea29of33 r Government Rtconte Sirchtd in TNt Rwort National Register of Historic Placet: ^ The Natlonel Regk^ of Hisloric Places it the official taderal list of districts, sitss. buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, ercheology, engineering, and culture. These oontribule to an understanding of the historical and cultural foundations of the nation. ^*)Sl preSto^an?hi!^^ of the Nelionel Partt System; ^ k. i • Nelional Historic Lendmerks, which are properties recognized by the Secretary of the interior as potie ttinQ natkxial significance: and ^ ^ • Proptftias ilonificant In American, state, a local preWstory and history that have bean nominated by State Historic Prasarvation Officars. tedarat agendas. ar>d others, and have bean approved for listing by the National Park Service. OateCfOovammant Version: 03/19/^ ) I MN Histone Sites: State Register Listings Listing of historic sites included on Vie State Register. Source: Minneeete Historical Society. State Historic PreservaVon Office Telephone; 6S1-2964126 MN HMoric SItee: NaVonal RegMsr of Historic Placas Listing of historic sites included on Vie Natlonsl Register for Minnesota. Source: Minnesota Historical Society. Stole Historic Preservation Office Telephone: 651-2964126 Federal Contacts for AddVional Infcrmetlon Perk Service; Arivisory Cound on Hisloric PrssarvaVon 1649 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 Phone; (202) 2064843 State Contacts ter AddiVonel Intermetlon Mmnesoto Historical Sodsty 661-296-2747 Indian ReNaleus Siteo Federal Contocts ter Additional Information Department of the Interior- Bureau of indton Affairs Office of Public Affairs 1649 C Street, NW Washington, DC 2024 Office: 202-2064711 Fax: 202-501-1516 I5l I I 1 Nationol Aaaodation ofTrftMl Historic Preservation Officers 1411 K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-626-8476 Fax: 202-628-2241 TC0il07443.lr ngeSOefS) i State Contacts for Additioral Information A tilting of local Tribal Leaders and Bureau of Indian Affairs Representatives can be found at; htlp;//www.doi.gov/bia/areas/agency.html Minneapolis Area Office. Bureau of Indian Affairs 331 S Second Avenue Minneapolis, MN S5401 612-373-1000 Mille Laca Band of Ojibwe Indians HCR 67, Box 194 Onamia.MN 56395 Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians Routed, Box 100 Cass Uke. MN 56633 Soenic Trails State Contacts for AddItlonsI Information North County Trail Asaocistion 49 Monroe Center Suite 2006 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 616-454-5506 FLOOD PLAIN. WETLANDS AND COASTAL ZONE Flood Plain Management GoverrHwent Records Searched In This Report Flood Zone Data: This data, available In select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal EmergerKy Ma na garnem Agency (FEMA). Data depida 100-year and SOO-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. Federal Contacts for Additional Information Federal Emergerwy Management Agency 877-3362-627 State Contacts for Addffional Information State Emergency Response Commission 651-296-2233 Wedanda Protection Government Records Searched In This Report NWI; National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR In 2002 from the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Contacts tor Additional Information Fish & Wildlife Service 813-570-5412 State Contacts for Addffional Informa tion Dept, of Nstursi Resources 612-297-1306 TC01107443.1r Paee31of33 Lis Coattil Zen* Man*0*nMnt Govammant Recofdt Saarchad In This Report CAMA Management Areas OaiM. of Env., Heath & Natural Resources 91B-733-2293 Federal Contacts ter Additiorwl Inbrmation Offloa of Ocaan and Coastal Raeource Management N/ORM, 88MC4 1305 Eaai-West Highway 8llver Spring, Mat^nd 209t0 301-713-3102 State Contacts for AddMonal Information Dept, of Natural Resources, Oiv. Of Waters 216-327-4417 PCC 8 FAA 8ITC8 MAP For NEPA actions that oottm under the authority of the FCC, the FCC requires evaluation of Antenna towers and/or support sBucturee that are to be equipped with high intensity whita lights which are to be located In residential naighborheods, as defined by the applicable zoning law. Qovemmerri Records Bearch ed In This Report Cellular Foitoral Cormiurticaliona Commis alon Mass Medio Bureau 2nd Floor • 449 12lh Street 8W Washington DC 20554 USA Talephono (202) 418-2700 Portions copyright (C) 1900 Peroon CorporaOon. AU rights reserved. Tower Federal Communlca tlona Commission MaasMedto Bureau 2nd Floor - 44512th Street SW WeaNnglon DC 20554 USA Telephone (202) 418-2700 Portions oopyrigM (C) 1990 Peroon Corporation. All rights reserved. AManna Wegl at ratlon Federal Comntunicalions Commission 2nd Floor - 44512th Street SW Wsthington DC 20554 USA Telephone (202) 418-2700 Portions copyright (C) 1999 Peroon Corporation. Ail righis reserved. AM Tower Federal Communications Commission Maes Media Bureau 2nd Floor • 449 12th Street SW Washington DC 20994 USA Telephone (202) 418-2700 TC01107443.tr 32 Of 93 I 4 ♦ ibi Biiiaei FAA Digital ObMacIa Fila National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Talaphona: 301-436^301 Deacrtbas known obstadas of interest to aviation users in the US. Used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to manage the Natiortal Airspace System. Airport Landing Facilities Federal Aviation Administration Teiephone (600) 457-6656 Private and public use landing fadllties. Etectrie Power Transmission Una Data PennWeN Corporation Telephone: (800) 8234277 This ntap Includes Information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This InfOrmaSon is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular ptrpoee. Such information has been reprinted with the permisaion of PonttWeiL Excessive Radio Frequency Emission For NEPA actions that oome under the authority of the FCC, Commission actions granOng oonstiuction permits, iioanses to transmIl or renewals thereof, onuiprnont authorizations or modifications in existing facilities, requka the determlnatton of whether the particular fodHty. operation or transmitter would cause human exposure to levelB of radk) frequency In excess of certain IlmKs. Federal Contacts tor Additional Information Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 44512th StraetSW Washington, DC 20554 Phone: 202-418-2470 OTHER CONTACT SOURCES STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION (c) 2003 Geographic Data Technology. Inc., Rel. 07/2003. This product contains proprietary and conidential proper^ of O^raphic Data Technotogy. Inc. Unauthoriaed use. Including copying for other than lesttng arxl standard backup procarhiras. Of this product Is expressly prahiblled. TC01107443.1r Paes»ef33 WqU ■ 1 i I [BITD •« IT « « —<«b Wo.4000 naoD ns. * SOD My ut< • ••rits of tiofod XX8t to fulfill •avin^ntftl xtvlow roqultooontu for an action whara dtoiaiona on uhlw^fcltarnatlva to aalact nuat ba Mda in ataqot* proataiain^Mron tha ganatal to tha apacifie. Jrior to oach daciaion whidllk^ld alimlnata from further eonaidacation any g^^fjit^tieaa uwi^t conaldaratlon# a tiarad EX8 nuat ba conplatad which addtaaaaa tB^aauaa and altarnativaa ralavant to tha daclaiona to ba Md#S^ that tlat, at a laval of datall • appropciata to that tia^ ®ha laval of datall in aarllac tiara naad not ba aa gcaat aa^^^ in latar tiara« provided that it ia auffioient to raaaonably iml^a daciaion nakarn of the aignificant anwlronnantal# a^noaic# anploynant* and Boeiological inpacta of tha cho^aa nada In that tier. Tha procaduraa for praparing ^^£ad BXSa ahall be tha aaM aa thoae for a ragular IX8r aa npaclV^d in parta 4410.2100 to 4410.3000. .tiered BZ8 My ineorporata by rafarih^ Mterial davalopad in an aarliar tier. Shi N8 a 1160.04) 116D.04S ■XSTt 21 88 14S8 maDMon cKnooRm 4410.4100 MB.- - - - - - - - -Subpart 1. Thxenbold teat. An BAN nuat ba prcpaiad for projecta that neat or axeaad tha thraahold of any of aubparta 2 to 37# unlana tha pcojact Mata or axcaada any threaholda of part 4410.4400# in which eaaa an EX8 nuat be praparad. Xf tha propoaad projact ia an axpanaion or additional ntaga of an axiating projact# the euaulatlva total of the propoaad project and any axiating atagaa or conponanta of tha axiating project nuat ba includad whan datarnining if a threahold ia net or axeaadad if conatruction waa bagun within thraa yaarn before the data of application for a parait or approval froa a govarnaantal unit for tha axpanaion or additional ntaga but aftar April 31# l»97# axcapt that any axiating ntaga or coaponant that wan raviawad undar a pravioualy conplatad BAN or BIS naad not ba includad. Multiple projacta and aultipla atagaa of a tingla projact that ara eonnactad aotiona or phaaad actIona arant ba eonaldarad In total whan eonparing tha projact or projacti to tha thraaholda of this part and part 4410.4400. Subp. 2. Mad ear fuels and nuelaac waste. Itana A to F designate tha BCD for tha type of project liatedi A. For conatruction or expansion of a facility for tha storage of high level nuclear waste« tha BOB shall ba the X6D.B. For construction or axpanaion of a facility for tha atoraga of low laval nuclear waste for one year or longer# IS !l 9 •t j_ _ _ _ V a \ 1 1 -f ■ur <*: .1 U V '1 An *v~ ^ • *• - -*-m.»(Bi3^J|rr n th« NSa aluill b« th« MU. C. Tot •spusion of a high laval nuelaar waata diapoaal aita* tha BQl ahall ba tha RSO. S. roc axpanalen of a low laval nuclaac waata diapoaal alta* tha MDB ahall ba tha R6U. B. roc axpanalon of an away-fcoia-caactoc facility foe taapocacy atocaga of apant nuclaac fual. tha BQB ahall be tha MO.r. roc conatcuctlon oc axpanalon of an on-aita pool £ot taapocacy atocaga of apant nuclaac fual# tha BOB ahall ba tha R60. _Subp. 3. Blactcle ganacating facilltlaa. Toe conatcuctlon of an alactcie powac ganacating plant and aaaoclatad facilltlaa dtaignad foe oc capable of opacatlng at a capacity of 25 aagawatta oc anca» tha BQB ahall ba tha RGU. Subp. 4. Pateolaua xaflnacioa. foe expansion of an axiating patcolaua cafinacy faoillty that incctasaa Its capacity by 10(000 oc BOca baccala pac day. tha PCA ahall ba tha BCU. Subp. 5. roal eoavacsioB faeilitiao. Xtama A and B dasignata tha SGO foe tha typa of pcojact liatadt A. roc eonstxttction of a facility foe tha convacalon of coal. paat. oc bionass aouccaa to gasaoua. liquid, oc solid fuala if that facility has tha capacity to utilica 25.000 dey tons oc noca pac yaac of input, tha rCA ahall ba tha BOO. B. roc conatcuctlon os expansion of a facility foe tha pcoduction of alcohol fuala which would hava oc would inccaasa its capacity by S.000.000 oc aoca gallona per year of alcohol pcoducad. tha rCA ahall be the BOO. Subp. 4. Veansaiaoion liaaa. roc construction of a tcansBiaaion lina at a naw location with a aoalnal capacity of 70 kilovolts oc aoca with 20 or aora alias of its length in Minnaaota. tha BOB ahall ba tha BGU. Subp. 7. ripaliaas. Xtaas A to D daalgnata the BOD foe the typa of pcojact liatadi A. roc routing of a pipalina. gcaatax than six inehas in diaaatax and having aoca than 0.75 alias of its length in Minnesota, used foe the transportation of coal, crude patcolaua fuels, oc oil os thaic decivatas. the BQB ahall ba tha RGU. B. roc tha constcuetion of a pipalina for distcibution of natural or synthetic gas under a license, pacait. eight, or franchise that has bean granted by the Bunieipality under authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.36. designed to operate at pressuraa in axcasa of 275 pounds pac squaca inoh (gauge) with a length gcaatar thant (1) five Biles if the pipalina will occupy stcaets. highways, and other public propartyi or (2) 0.75 alias if the pipalina will occupy pcivata propertyr tha BOB oc the aunioipality is the BGU. C. foe construction of a pipeline to transport I « I‘A - < It- i % r a«tur«l or lynthctie gaa tubjoct to rtgulation undtr the fodtral ■atural Cai Aetr Vnlted Stataa Cod«» title 15, aeetion 717, #t. eeq., designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square Inch (gauge) with a length greater thant (1) eiTO miles If the pipeline will be constructed and operated within an existing right-of-way; or (2) 0.75 allea if construction or operation will require new tes^orary or peraanent right-of-way; the IQB is the BGV. This item shall not apply to the extent that the application is expressly preeapted by federal law. or under specific circumstances when an actual conflict exists with applicable federal law. 0. for construction of a pipeline to convey natural or synthetic gas that is not subject to regulation under the federal Natural Gas Act, united States Code, title 15, section 717, at. seq.; or to a license, perslt, right, or franchise that has been granted by a nunicipality under authority of Minnesota ®^*^ntes, section 216B.3C; designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than 0.75 allies, the NQB is the NGU. Items A to 0 do not apply to repair or replacement of an existing pipeline within an existing right-of-way or to a pipeline located entirely within a refining, atorage, or manufacturing facility. Subp. I. Vramsfer fmeilities. Zteas A and B designate the X6U for the type of project llstedt A. for construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring 300 tons or more of coal per hour or with an annual throughput of 500,000 tons of ooal from one mode of transportation to a similar or different mode of ^^•oeportation; or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, the PCA shall be the RGU. ■. For eonstruction of a new facility or the expansion by SO percent or more of an existing facility for the bulk transfer of hasardous materiala with the capacity of 10,000 or more gallons per transfer, if the facility is located in a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district Minnesota River ^oject Rlverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, the RCA shall be the RGU. *■ storage. Items A and B designate theRGU for the type of project listed; A. For expansion of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids tliat requires a permit, pursuant to Minnesota Itatutes, section 1031.681, aubdivielon 1, paragraph (a), the OMR shall be the RGU. B. For expansion of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids, using naturally occurring rock materials, that requires a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, ssctlon 1031.681, subdivision.!, paragraph (b), the DNR shall be the RGU. i I- V' . ..-f. i’f** >1 i I* .<•I f.5 (w I 8ubp. 10. •torag* faellitiaa. Items a to C designate the ROT for tbs type oC project listed! h. For construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing nors than 7»500 tone of coal or with an annuel throughput of nore than 125.000 tons of cosl; or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, the PCA shall be the RGU. B. For construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hatatdous materials, the FCA shall be the RGU. C. For construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing on a single site 100,000 gallons or nore of liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas, or anhydrous ammonia, the PCA shall be the ROT. Subp. 11. Metallic mineral mtniefj and processing, items A to C designate the RGU for the typo of project listed: A. For nineral deposit evaluation of netallic mineral deposits other than natural iron ore and taconite, the DHR shall be the RGU. B. For expansion of a stockpile, tailings basin, or mine by 320 or nore acres, the DMR shall be the RGU. C. For expansion of a mstallic mineral plant processing facility that is capable of increasing production by 2S percent pet year or nore, provided that increase is in excess of 1,000,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for processing natural iron ore or taconite, the DNR shall be the RGU. Subp. 12. Bonmstallic mineral nlnliig. Items A and B designate the ROT for the type of project listed! A. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of peat which will result in the excavation of ICO or more acres of land during its existence, the DSR shall be the ROT. B. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonaetallic ainerals, other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, the local governaent unit shall be the ROT. Subp. 13. taper ox pulp preeesaimg mills. For expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facility that will increase its production capacity by SO percent cr more, the FCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 14. Indnstrialf coamercial, and iastitntioaal facilities. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed, except as providsd in items C and D: A. For^construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light Industrial facility equ*^ bo or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local governaental unit shall be the RGU! (1) unincorporated area, 150,000i ■rv"' • 4T^‘y: . . . f. 'sf'i (2) third or fourth clasa city, 300«000) (3) Btcond elaaa city, 450,000; (4) first class city, €00,000. B. For construction of a naw or sxpanslon of an txisting industrial, eommsrcLal, or institutional facility, other than a traxahouslng or light industrial facility, equal to or in sxcsss of ths following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local governoent unit shall be the RCCi (1) unincorporated area, 100,000 square feet; (2) third or fourth clasa city, 200,000 squarefeet; (3) second class city, 300,000 square feet; (4) first clast city, 400,000 square feet. C. This eubpart applies to any industrial, 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13, 15, or 17, for two or more of the coaponenta, regardless of whether the project in question Mets or exceeds any threshold specified in those subparts, in those cases, the entire project aust be coaparcd to the in'Si ■ ‘O ««teraine the need for P*®1*®* •aeeeds the thresholds as well as that of item A or B, subp^ «steralned as provided in part 4410.0500, th.r.°4. •ubpart does not apply to projects for which 13 1? category specified in subparts 2 to *®o,**' **•'* 4410.4400, subparts 2to 10, 12, 13, 17, or 22, regardless of whether the project in **^^*..r •*'••**• threehold specified in those subparts, in those cases, the need for an BMr oust be ^parieon of the project to the threshold specified in the applicable subpart, and the RCO aust be the qovernaental unit assigned by that subpart. 8u^. 15. Air pollutioo. Iteaa A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed; A. Por construction of a stationary source facility ttet generates 100 tons or store per year or aodlflcatlon of a stau^ry source facility that increases generation by 100 tons Vt V pollutant after installationof air pollution control equlpaent, the »CA shell be the RGO. 4 ««« * construction of a new parking facility for fh?! ••*•11 »»• the RGO, except thatthis category dMs not apply to any parking facility which is 14 i!* %*’*®^*n reviewed pursuant to part 4410.4300, eubpart or 34, or part 4410.4400, subpart 11, 14, 21, or 22. P* !*• Baxardous vasts. Iteas A to D designate the rgu for the type of project listed; A. For construction or ei^ansion of a hasardous waste -• P 'MPyW • J -i t'"-* V t A disposal facility* tha PCA shall be the RGU. Bi Foe construction of a hasardous waste processing facility with a capacity of 1*000 or more kilograms pec month* the PCA shall be the AGO. C. For expansion of a hazardous waste processing facility that increases its capacity by ten percent or more* tha PCA shall be the RCU. D. For construction or expansion of a facility that sells hazardous waste storage services to generators other than the owner and operator of the facility or construction of a facility at which a generator's own hazardous wastes will be stored for a tine period in excess of 90 days* if the facility is located in a water-related land use suinageaent district* or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock* the k'ZK shall be the RCU. 8ubp. 17> Solid waste. Items A to G designate the RCU for the type of project listed: A. For construction of a nixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100*000 cubic yards of waste fill per year* the PCA is the R6U. B. For expansion by 25 percent or store of previous capacity of a nixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100*000 cubic yards of waste fill pec year* the PCA is the RGU. C. For construction or expansion of a nixed municipal solid waste transfer station for 300*000 or store cubic yards per year* the PCA is the RCU. D. For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste energy recovery facility or incinerator* or the utilisation of an existing facility for the combustion of nixed municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel* with a capacity of 30 or store tons per day of input* the PCA is the RGU. B. For construction or expansion of a nixed municipal solid waste compost facility or a refuse-derived fuel production facility with a capacity of 50 or nore tons per day of input* the PCA is the RGU. F. For expansion by at least ten percent but less than 25 percent of previous capacity of a nixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for 100*000 cubic yards or nose of waste fill per year* the PCA is the RGU. C. For construction or expansion of a nixed municipal solid waste energy recovery facility ash landfill receiving ash from an Incinerator that burns refuse-derived fuel or nixed municipal solid waste* the PCA is the RGU. Subp. 18. WMtewater systens. Items A to c designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A. For expansibn* modification* or replacement of a nunicipal sewage collection system resulting in an increase in design average daily flow of any part of that system by 1*000*000 gallons per day or nore* the PCA shall be the RGU. ^ . i.2Si*saB3si B. For expansion or reeonatxuetlon of an axiating nunlclpal or domastle waatewatar traatpant facility which raaulta in an incraaaa by 50 pareant or mart and by at laaat 50.000 gallons par day of its avarags wat waathar daslgn flow capacity, or eonstruetion of a naw aiunleipal or donastic waatawatar traatawnt facility with an average wet waathar design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons par day or more, the PCA shall be the RGO. C. For expansion or raconatruction of an existing industrial process wastewater traatnant facility which incraasas its design flow capacity by 50 percent or note and by at least 200.000 gallons par day or nore, or construction of a new industrial process wastewater traataent facility with a design flow capacity of 200,000 gallons par day or nore, 5,000,000 gallons per sionth or aore, or 20,000,000 gallons par year or nore, the PCA shall be the RGO* This category does not apply to industrial process wastewater traataent facilities that discharge to a publicly-owned traataent works or to a tailings basin reviewed pursuant to subpart 11, itea B. Subp. 19. Beaidential developaeat. An RAW is required for reaidential developaent if the total nuaber ‘of units that nay ultimately be developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to purchase by the proposer, and that is coned for residential developaent or is identified for residential development by an applicable comprehensive plan, equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart. In counting the total number of ultiaate units, the RGU shall Include the nuaber of unite in any plans of the proposer; for land for which the proposer has not yet prepared plans, the RGO shall use as the nuaber of units the product of the nuisber of acres aultiplied by the aaximua nuaber of units per acre allowable under the applicable toning ordinance or, if the aaxiaun number of units allowable per acre is not specified in an applicable coning ordinance, by the overall average nuaber of units per acre • indicated in the plans of the proposer for those lands for which plans exist. If the total project requires review but future phases are uncertain, the RGO may review the ultimate project sequentially in accordance with part 4410.1000, subpart 4. If a project consists of nixed unattached and attached units, an BAW aust be prepared if the aua of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of unattached unite by the applicable unattached unit threshold, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the number of attached units by the applicable attached unit threshold, equals or exceeds one. The local governaental unit is the RGO for construction of a peraanent or potentially peraaneot residential developaent ofi A. 50 or aore unattached or 75 or acre attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area; B. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a I asisaiuau city meeting the eondltioni of item D if tne project ie not coneistent with the adopted eompreheneive plan; or D. 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes> section 473.859, or in a city not located within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed with the EQB chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the following elements; (1) a land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent of use of land and water for residential, industrial, agricultural, and other public and private purposee; (2) a transportation plan describing, designating, and scheduling the location, extent, function, and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation facilities and aervices; (3) a sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the areas to be served by fcbe public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, and the standards and conditions under which the Installation of private sewage treatment systems will be permitted; (4) a capital improvements plan for public facilities; and (5) an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan, and a description of official controls addressing the natters of coning, subdivision, private sewage systems, and a schedule for the implementation of those controls. The BOB chair may specify the form to be used for making a certification under this item. Subp. 20. Campgrounda and R7 Parks. Por construction of a seasonal or permanent recreational development, accessible by vehicle, consisting of 50 or more sites, or the expansion of such a facility by 50 or more sites, the local government unit shall be the R6U. Subp. 21. Airport projects. Items A and B designate the RGO for the type of project listed; A. Por construction of a paved, new airport runway, the DOT, local governaental unit, or the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall be the RCU. B. Por construction of a runway extension that would upgrade an existing airport runway to permit usage by aircraft over 12,500 pounds that are at least three decibels louder than aircraft currently using the runway, the DOT, local goveriuncnt unit, or the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall be the AGO. The R6U Shall be selected according to part 4410.0500, aubpart 5, ! 'in*9Tr.PCTTr I iHUt., -■■.... -v^ ••v.-'t;' Subp. 22. Highway projweta. Item* A to C designate the RGO for the type of project listed! A. rot construction of a road on a new location over one mile in length that will function as a collector roadway, the DOT or local governaent unit shall be the RGU. B. For construction of additional travel lanes on an existing road for a length of one or note Biles, the DOT or local governnent unit shall be the RGO. C. For the addition of one or more new interchanges to a eoapleted llBlted access highway, the DOT or local governaent unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 23. Barge fleeting. For construction of a new or expansion of an existing barge fleeting facility, the DOT or port authority shall be the RGO. Subp. 24. Hater appropriation and iapoundnents. Items A to C doslgnate the RGO for the type of project listed: A. For a new appropriation for coamercial or industrial purposes of either surface water or ground water averaging 30,000,000 gallons per month; or a new appropriation of either ground water or surface water for irrigation of 540 acres or nore in one continuous parcel from one source of water, the DHR shall be the RGU. B. For a new peraanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres or for an additional permanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres, the DHR shall be the RGO. C. For construction of a dam with an upstream drainage area of SO square miles or more, the DRR shall be the RGU. Subp. 25. Marinas. For construction or expansion of a marina or harbor that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of water surface area used temporarily or permanently for docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft, the local government unit shall be the ROD. Subp. 26. Stream diversion. For a diversion, realignment, or channelization of any designated trout stream, or affecting greater than 500 feet of natural watercourse with a total drainage area of ten or more square miles unless exempted by part 4410.4600, subpart 14, i^em E, or 17, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 27. Hatlanda and protected waters. Itens A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed! A. For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any protected water or protected wetland except for those to be drained without a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103G, the local government unit shall be the RGU. B. For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or czoss-section of 40 percent or more or five i >»fW' aj , «*• ^ 'm • »t* mm *m 11^# ^ • or mor* acres of typeo 3 through 0 wetland of 2.5 acres or more^ excluding protected wetlands, If any part of the wetland la within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a atata or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota Rivet Project Rlverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, the local governnent unit shall be the RGO. Subp. 28. forestry. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project llstedt A. for harvesting of timber for commercial purposes on public lands within a state park, historical area, wilderness area, scientific and natural area, wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Rlverbend area, the Mississippi headwaters area, or critical area that does not have an approved plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 86A.09 or 11SG.07, the DRR shall be the RGU. B. for a elearcuttlng of 60 or more contiguous acres of forest, any part of which Is located within a shoreland area and within lOO feet of the ordinary high water nark of the lake or river, the OHR shall be the RGO. Subp. 29. Aolaal feedlots. The PCA la the RGO for the types of projects listed In Items A and B unless the county will issue the feedlot permit. In which ease the county Is the RGO. However, the county Is not the RGO prior to January 1, 2001. A. for the construction of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more or the expansion of an existing facility by 1,000 animal units or mors if the facility is not In an area listed in Item B. B. for the construction of an animal feedlot facility of more tixan 500 animal units or expansion of an existing aniisal feedlot facility by more than 500 animal unita if the facility la located wholly or partially In any of the following sensitive locationst shoreland| a delineated flood plain, except that in the flood plain of the Red River of the North the sensitive area ineludes only land within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water aarki a state or federally designated wild and scenic river district I the Minnesota River Project Rlverbend area; the Mississippi headwaters area; or an area within a drinking water supply management area delineated under chapter 4720 where the aquifer la Identified in the wellhead protection plan as vulnerable to contamination; or within 1,000 feet of a known sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, Rarst window, blind valley, or dry valley. The provisions of part 4410.1000, aubpart 4, regarding connected actions do not apply to animal feedlots. The provisions of part 4410.1000, subpart 4, regarding phased actions apply to feedlots. With the agreesent of the proposers, ■the RGU may prepare a single EAN to collectively review Individual sites of a Rultislte feedlot proposal. Subp. 30. Matuxal areas. For projects resulting in the V . - r I ! i ' ( li i r».r, .>>Ci _ _ _ _ ptrnanent phytlCAl encroachment on lande within a national park, atate park, wilderneaa area, atate lands and waters within the boundariea o£ the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, scientific and natural area, or state trail corridor when the encroachaent is inconsistent with laws applicable to or the nanagerent plan prepared for the recreational unit, the DNR or local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 31. Bistorical places. For the destruction, in whole or part, or the moving of a property that is listed on the Rational Register of Blstoric Places or State Register of Bistoric Places, the permitting state agency or local unit of government shall be the RGU, except this does not apply to projects reviewed under section 106 of the National Bistoric Preservation Act of 1966, United States Code, title 16, section 470, or the federal policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites pursuant to United States Code, title 49, section 303. Subp. 32. Mixed residential and industrial-eoMereial projects. Zf a project includes both residential and industrial-oonmercial components, the project must have an EAW prepared if the sun of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of residential units by the applicable reaidential threshold of subpart 19, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the anount of industrlal>coamercial gross floor space by the applicable industrlal-comaerclal threshold of subpart 14, equals or exceeds one. The local governmental unit is the RGU. Subp. 33. Cnmnunications towers. Por construction of a communications tower equal to or in excess of 500 feet in height, or 300 feet in height within 1,000 feet of any protected water or protected wetland or within two miles of the Nisslssippi, Minnesota, Red, or fit. Croix rivers or Lake Superior, the local governmental unit is the RGU. Subp. 34. Sports or eatertainmeat facilities. For construction of a new sports or entertainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 5,000 or more persons, or the expansion of an existing sports or •utertalnment facility by this anount, the local governaaatal unit is the RGU. Subp. 35. Release wf geaetically engineered orgaaisaa. For the release of a genetically engineered organism that requires a release permit from the BOB under chapter 4420, the BQB is the RGU. For all other releases of genetically engineered organisms, the RGU is the permitting state agency. This subpart does not apply to the direct medical application of genetically engineered organisaa to humans or animals. Subp. 36. Land oae coowersloo, iacludlag golf cooreem. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed! A. For golf courses, residential development where the lot sire is less than five acres, and other projects resulting in the permanent conversioa of 80 or more acres of I SJu-, .1 « • »•» . • «•" agricultural* native prairie* forest, or naturally vegetated land* the local government unit shall be the RGU* except that this aubpart does not apply to agricultural land inside the boundary of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area establiehed by the Metropolitan Council. Be For projtctB resulting in the conversion of 640 or more acree of forest or naturally vegetated land to a different open space land use* the local government unit shall be the RGU. SAt MS a 116C.94> 116D.04> 1160.045» L 1990 c 401 s 54 BXni 11 8R 714; 13 SR 1437j 13 SR 20461 17 SR 139; 21 SR 1458; 24 SR 517 1.4400 MAmOORT BIS CAnOORIBS. t 1. Thtealiold test. An RIS must be prepared for projl^s that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts 2 to 24^^hltiltiple projects and aultiple stages of a single project e^t are connected actions or phased actions must be consideceS^ total when comparing the project or projects to this threshoMs of this part. Subp. 2. ^elear fuels and Bueleac waste. Items A to 0 designate the IHD for the type of project listedi A. For theWonstruction or expane ion of a nuclear fuel or ruclear «w^e processing facility* including fuel fabrication faeilitWs* reprocessing plants* and uranium mills* the OMR shall be the^ffO for uranium mills; otherwise* the PCA shall be the RGU. _a high level nuclear waste be the RGU. an away-from-reactor facility nuclear fuel* the CQB shall be B. For eonstt‘>ctio|L of disposal site* the BOB snKl C. For construction for temporary storage of spel the RGU. _ D. For construction of a level nuclear waste disposal site* the HUB shall be tlk RGU. Subp. 3. Mlectrlc generating fi^Uities. For construction of a large electric power generating^^nt pursuant to part 4410.7000* the BOB Shall be the RGU. Subp. 4. Petroleum refineries. For^snstruction of a new petroleum refinery facility* the FCA shal^be the RGU. Subp. 5. Fuel conversion facilities. I%ns A and B designate the RGU for the type of project lii A. For construction of a facility for thWjConversion of coal* peat* or biomass sources to gaseous* lig^^d* or solid fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilixd^50*000 dry tons or more per year of input* the PCA shall bo B. For construction or expansion of a facility the production of alcohol fuels which would have or \ increase its capacity by 50*000*000 or more gallons per vwr of alcohol produced* the PCA shall be the RGU. ^ Subp. 6. Franaaissioa lines. For construction of a high voltage transmission line pursuant to part 4410.7400* the BOB 1 ! woe s/ \ h f EXHIBIT D2. .ftdtrally dtslgnatvd wild and ■ecnle river> the local govcrnoent it shall be the R6U. Subp. 20. Wetlands and protected waters. For projects will elinlnate a protected water or protected wetland* the loe k. povernnent unit shall be the RCU. S proje cosawt prepare naabei threshold the anount applicable 21. Nixed reaidentlal and coaaercial-industrlal If a project includes botn residential and 1-lnduatxlal eonponents* the project must have an ZZ6 the SUB of the quotient obtained by dividing the eeidentlal units by the applicable residential subpart 14* plus the quotient obtained by dividing industrial-commercial gross floor space by the uatrlal-eonaerelal threshold of subpart 11* equals or exceeds 0 Subp. 22. i^rta or antertalnaent facilities. For construction ofnew outdoor sports or ontertainment facility designed for or noected to accomaodate a peak attendance of 20*000 or Bore pervns or a new Indoor sports or entertainment facility designed fW or expected to acconmodate a peak attendance of 3O*O0oVr more persons* or the expansion of an existing facility by l^ese amounts* the local governmental unit is the RCO. Subp. 23. Water divl^ieiis. For a diversion of waters of the state to an ultlBate^^catlon outside the state in an amount equal to or greater than ^^00*000 gallons per day* expressed as a daily average over any 3^day period* the dnr is the RGU. Subp. 24. Pipelines. Frikrouting of a pipeline subject to the full route aslection proeWurss under Hlnnesota Statutes* section 1162.015* the IQB is tIL RQO. Subp. 25. IncineratiOD of i«tes containing PCBs. For the incineration of wastee eontainlnl^CB's for which an EZ8 is required by Minnesota Statutes* al^tlen 116.38* subdivision 2* the PCA shall be the RGU. Ms NS a 1160.04; 1160.045 HlflTt 11 SR 714| 13 SR 1437; 13 SR 20^; 21 SR 1458 4410.4500 DZWaarZOHRRF BNN. A governaental unit with jurisdiction Ihy order the preparation of an SAW for any project that^kes not exceed the nandatory thresholds designated in part 441^4300 or 4410.4400 if the governaental unit deternines that becau(te of the nature or location of the proposed project the projec^uy have the potential for significant envlronnental effects*^pd the project is not exenpted pursuant to part 4410.4600. 8A1 MS s 116D.04 subd 5a 4410.4600 Subpart 1. Scope of excnption. Projects within subpaets 2 and 26 are cxenpt froB parts ‘4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Projects within subparts 3 to 25 are exempt from parts 4410.0200 to 'r"W». "11.^1 e> •- i L ft il Tl 1: M:IITD^ .; ) i < /tdcrally dtalgncttd wild and acenic rivetr the local government lit shall be the K6U. 8ubp. 20. Wetlands and protected waters. For projects thi ellnlnste a protected water or protected wetlands the loc rnaent unit shall be the RGU. 1. Wised residential and eoewerclal-lndustrlal pre If a project Includes both residential and eon -Industrial conponentt. ths project must have an EXS pr« f the sun of the quotient obtained by dividing the nus residential units by the applicable residential thi « sttbpart 14« plus the quotient obtained by dividing Industrial-commercial gross floor space by the iil lustrlal-eonaerelal threshold of subpart 11> equals on( >cts or entertainaent facilities. For new outdoor sports or entertainment facility the amount applicable or exceeds fubp. 22. construction of designed for or tf^ected to accommodate a peak attendance of 20#000 or store pervns or a new indoor sports or entertainment facility designed fW or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 30»000^r more persons, or the expansion of an existing facility by l^ese amoui.ts, the local governmental unit is ths RCU. _ ~ lions. For a diversion of waters of icatlon outside the state in an as»unt 100,000 gallons per day, expressed as SOMay period, th.. DWR is the ROD. routing of a pipeline subject to the full route selection proeWures under Minnesota Statutes, section USX.015, the SOB is tiL RGO. Subp. 25. Incineration of i«tes containing PCBs. For the inelneration of wastes eontaining^CB's for which an EI8 is requited by Minnesota Statutes, Motion 116.38, subdivision 2, the PCA shall be the RGU. Sht M8 a USD.04; USD.045 ■XSTi 11 SR 714; 13 SR 1437; 13 SR 20H; 21 SR 14S8 6ubp. 23. Water di the state to an ultimate equal to or greater than a daily average over any Subp. 24. Pipelines. 4410.4500 DZSCRWnOMMff BMf. A governaental unit with jurisdiction ky order the preparation of an BAM for any project that^^es not exceed the mandatory thresholds designated in part 4410^300 or 4410.4400 if the governaental unit determines that becal^ of the nature ox location of the proposed project the projec^My have the potential for significant environmental affeets,^pd the project is not exeapted pursuant to part 4410.4600. SAt M8 a 1160.04 subd 5a 4410.4600 MUMr-A . Subpart 1. Scope of exenption. Projects within subparts 2 and 26 are exenpt Cron parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Projects within subparts 3 to 25 are exenpt from parts 4410.0200 to f5*^ Ch«cact#tl.tlc« which n««t or •xe««d ^8ubo**^J In p«t 4410.4300 or 4410.4400. r*qulr#d»*’^°^**'^" '*'**®** "® «®''*'nm#ntal daclilona arc b«*n 90vtrnmantal dccislona have^en B4de. However, this exemption does not In any wav altar w^Sct governmental dec? !;« apUoy. lproject under part 4410.3100; «pptove a unit tee Swlin IV • governmentalnit naa denied a required governmental approval} D. projects for which a substantial portion of thm feMl?lnJ*i **?*" *nd an Eis would not influenceremaininq implementation or construction; and •n Ilwtric «T'*‘*"* **«‘l‘‘Aee. Construction ofIlnJiI iiJf g«n*ratlng plant or combination of plants at a ii lllali fW. ..;.w.tt. 1’ conversion facilities. Expansion of a Buhn ,® ‘‘‘••c eotpsctlve amounts, is exempt. ..clujin, ..plo..to„ bo.f4.l "« f.«lu«.!’T!!S*“ ■***U ‘' Wm™! pUnt ptoc.lM ti-n t.n p.p..«t «r',r :*p°j.}^r;i::"i„L'::.“:‘}r.:j.^;Sp ( 5 -: i.f E* »em*.rw • • ;• w*^e ->• *«'o • *•/“ t TTrris •n- >5a f «■<•••» t-'y• :rv. vV^^;';':>‘ Mfeurf? J^!!!I *’** ^*** ^*** **■• ®* ««cilitl«f for proetsaingnatural iron ora or taeonlta, la axaapt. Fso«aaing C. feran mining oparatlona ara axanpt. «# 1-^*4*;. procaaalng faellltiaa. Expansionof an axistlng papar or pulp procaaalng facility that will “• e.p.eur b, ul. .h„ 1. 8ubp. 10. Zoduatrial, coMareial, and inatltutlooal Cacilitiaa. Tba following projaeta ara axanpti A. Conatructlon of a naw or txpansion of an axistina J"ii noSj iw.r*" '*• *br..bol4., .. .r.., sWoS''iJJ,?i !J! or part of tha davalopnant la withi; a aJwIJInd Ir^ dJuna.t.a Jlwa ‘^d*itrlJt*^thriif***'*J^^ a»»l9natad wild and aeanie 7*** conatructlon of a warahoualngp light 4?«!; !! ficiuty .ub i.„ P..I.1J, ijcuiti.. a..i,„.4 for o “j.::ru kk ^®o*^***ctlon of a naw parking facility for laas ouop. XX. aawaga ayataaa. Conatruction of a naw srt™ •»““ >■» 1 — tb.n 5,o« * «. ;S:p“- «• «bU~in, prol.ct. *. Con.tcuction of . .m..M r..iaM,il.x a.,.iop.„t. ®r®® city. It®® than t®n unit® in an unincorporated laaa than 20 unita in a third or fourth claaa (3) (4)laaa than 40 unita in a aacond claaa city, or laas than 00 unita in a first elass •I ! I i th« Minntiota River Project Rlvetbcnd area# or the Niealsslppi headwatere ereif la exempt. B. Construction of a single residence or multiple residence with four dwelling units or less and accessory appurtenant structures and utilities is exempt. 8ubp. 19. Airport projects. The following projects are exempt t A. Runway» taxiway> apron, or loading ramp construction or repair work including reconstructionr resurfacing, marking, grooving, fillets, and jet blast facilities is exeapt. except where the project will create environmental impacts off airport property. B. Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting ' systems. Including beacons and electrical distribution systems, is exempt. C. Construction or expansion of passenger handling or parking facilities, including pedestrian walkway facilities, is exempt. D. Grading or removal of obstructions and erosion control projects on airport property is exempt, except where the projects will create environmental impacts off airport property. Subp. 14. Highway projects. The following projects are exempts A. Highway safety improvement projects are exempt. B. Installation of traffic control devices. individual noise barriers, bus shelters and bays, loading cones, and access and egress lanes for transit and paratranslt vehicles is exempt. C. Kodernisation of an existing roadway or bridge by resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation that may involve the acquisition of alniisal amounts of right*of-way is exempt. D. Roadway landscaping, construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities within existing right-of-way ace exempt. 8. Any stream diversion or channelisation within the right-of-way of an existing public roadway associated with bridge or culvert replacement is exempt. F. Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge structure on essentially the sane alignment or location ■ that may involve the acquisition of minlsial amounts of right-of-way is exempt .*> 8ubp. 15. Hater impouiidBenta. A new or additional permanent impoundment of water creating a water surface of less than ten acres is exempt. Subp. 16. Marinas. Construction of private residential docks for use by four or less hosts and utilising less than 1.500 square feet of water surface is exempt. Subp. 17. Ditch maiatcnaace or repair. Routine maintenance or repair of a drainage ditch within the limits of its original construction flow capacity, performed within 20 4 i r r # J s ■4 f5 I 5 ! ytars of Subp* project! A. •xnpt. B. eohitruction or najor rtpair, U .x.Bpt. 18. Agtleultur* and forcatry. Th« following Barvoatlng of timber for nalntenanee purpomem ii n»>h«.> «.k prlvmt* foreat management practleos. Aa Thx construction of an anlaal faadlot I... tl»n 100 .Bl«l unit, nt ,t, m « «1m ^euit, br 1... tb« 100 .nlnnl unlf., nTpirt Jf liJta^., hlch t. locattd within n ahot.lnnd .r..i d.lin.at.0 flood pUln, .tat. or fadatallf da.lw«tad alii "d “IJ" wIilMlinl“LlIi“r°“ **’•' "®J"‘ »‘*.rtand aiaai thab««dwatera area; an area within a drlnklno water Bupply aanaganant area daaignated under chapter 4720 where th« •quifet ia identified la the wellhead protection nl.n .1 vulnerable to contamination; or 1,000 feet of a known ainkhol* -i-PP..rin, aprlng. Karat wlnSi:^1r;d f.r.n7z.a The conatruction or expanalon of an animal feedlot anv vlthout expansion of capacity of Ki. :“:;nj::.::‘nid;."t‘“ ”i:?‘ t.u»S: ”• ..t.n.i«i .„*;.„,t.. B. local electrical aexvlce llnea; S*i”” «d“‘“ '*•* " *••• *"' ‘"'X telephone aervieea llnea. •re exeaptJ’ P*oJecta. The following projecta A. Conatruetion of acceaaory appurtenant etrueturaa Including garage., carporta, patlSa, awlJlJjrpS^S? feedlota, or*^her aiallaruildinga not changing land uae or denaity is exempt. 4«a..-!*d eppurtenent to any comnerclal.induatrlajU or Inatltutlonal facility are exempt. aubet-n«.4j?*!*^^‘*!!' or repair work having no r..““ilI„d u.., or n.t.t.i D. Peatoratlon or reconstruction of a atruetur. 4. «.j,t, prcldjd that th. .iructor. 1. Sit .rjuSHci;, cult»..l, .tohlt.ct»Ml, .rch..olo,ld, or t.ct..tion.i v.l.,. c. diameter •> Da Subp • • J !>S i B. DcBOlltioa or ramoval of buildings and rslatsd stxuetursa is exempt, except where they are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance. Subp. 32. I«nd use. The following projects are exempts A. Individual land use variances, including minor lot line adjustments and aide yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of a new subdivided parcel of land or any change in land use character or density, are exempt. B. Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effect on the environment are exempt. C. Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs, excluding the use of pesticides, is exempt. 8ubp. 23. Besearch and data oollectioo. Basic data collection, training programs, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation projects that do not result in an extensive or permanent disturbance to an envlronaental resource, and do not constitute a substantial commitment to a further course of action having potential for significant environmental effects, axe exempt. Subp. 24. Financial transactione. The following projects are exempt! A. Acquisition or disposition of private interests in real property. Including leaseholds, easements, right“Of“way, or fee interests, is exempt. B. Purchase of operating equipment, maintenance equipment, or operating supplies is exempt. Subp. 25. Licenses. The following decisions are exeapti A. Licensing or permitting deeisiono related to individual persons or activities directly connected with an Individual's household, livelihood, transportation, recreation, health, safety, and welfare, such as motor vehicle licensing or individual park entrance permits, are exempt. B. All licenses required under electrical, fire, plumbing, heating, mechanical and safety codes and regulations, but not including building permits, are exempt. Subp. 26. GovemBental activities. Proposals and enactments of the legislature, rulws or orders of governmental units, executive orders of the governor or their Implementation by governmental units, judicial orders, and submissions of proposals to a vote of the people of the state are exempt. 8A! NS s 1160.04! 1160.045! t 1996 C 401 S 54 ■XSTs 11 SR 7141 13 SR 1437! 21 SR 1458! 24 SR 517 XARLT MOnCB BULBS 4410.5000 AOnOBXTT ___ Subpart 1. Bulletin. TopnOM^At^notice of impending projects which nay have significantenvfPMMS^^l effects, the BOB shall, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, seci EXHIBIT D3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. i3 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC. 2665 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, .AN REVIEW, Continued Acting Chair Mabusth approval of Application #03-2963, WJM PropcrticrEEm^^miysg^Boulevard, granting approval to construct a 20’X75* addition t^^^M^^^fe|||a^^i^cture as the project meets all standards of the Industrial District. VOTE^^^||^'s 0. (#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY PLAT (10:43 -11:15 P.M.) George Stickney, the applicant, and Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, were present. Waataja reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 6 lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell Bay Estates. She acknowledged that all of the proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and setbacks. Waataja pointed out that the surrounding development is residential property in all directions with Maxwell Bay of Lake Miimetonka to the direct south. She stated that the applicant has proposed a private road approximately 590 ’ in length with a cul-de-sac serving the lots. While the City Engineer has not submitted his comments, the applicant will be required to meet all his recommendations prior to Council review. Waataja continued, noting that the applicants would be required to dedicate the standard easements. She pointed out that the applicant has also proposed stormwater ponds to be situated on lots 3 and 4, as well as, the northeast portion of lot 6. With regard to tree preservation, Waataja pointed out that the applicants have submitted a tree preservation agreement which states that no trees shall be trimmed or removed within 20’ of the lot boundary. In addition, the agreement provides strict penalties for tree removal consisting of a 2 to 1 replanting of at least 6” diameter trees. Waataja pointed out that copies of the proposed septic plans were submitted and reviewed by the City’s septic inspector, who is recommending approval. Waataja indicated that staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Implementation of the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the fmal plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing home and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. PAGE 34 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether there might be any bluff issues with the subdivision. She asked if upgrades of the road were warranted. Waataja indicated that they had not performed that analysis. Gaflron acknowledged \hat there could be potential bluff issues and indicated that this would have to be determined. Waataja stated that the upgrade would not meet 24', adding that this had been explored in the past and found to have limitations to how wide the road could be. Stickney stated that the applicants were sensitive to tree preservation and had also met with both neighbors to address any concerns they might have. In an effort to resolve the drainage issues faced by the Maass, neighbors at 3175 Fox Street, Stickney stated that they would propose a catch basin at the top of the property to catch runoff that currently runs over onto the Maass property. A second drainage berm would run the edge of the lot line where the current driveway is situated directing flow towards the lake. Acting Chair Mabusth asked where the access to the development would take place. Stickney stated that access would be past the existing entry gates and 230* retaining wall. He reiterated that they have proposed 6 properties without variances and commented how nicely it will lay out. David Maass, 3175 Fox Street, stated that drainage is a continual problem for them as their home is located at the lowest site in the area. Beyond his drainage concern, Maass asked wdiether the County drain pipe directing flow from across the road might cause additional problem. Although there was no report from the City Engineer at this time. Acting Chair Mabusth assured Mr. Maass that the Engineer would be reviewing the applicant’s drainage plans and making recommendations. Gronberg indicated that the County indeed had a catch basin near the road which would not be eliminated, but enhanced to slow down the runoff In addition, he stated that they have proposed to create a 2’ swale along the property Ime to retain the runoff on this site, which will likely result in solving the current drainage problems faced by the Maass altogether. Maass promised to provide the City with photos of die cunent runoff situation in an effort to assist the City with its planning. PAGE 35 of 41 aadteii J! ■ I I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued Ms. Maass requested that the trees near the driveway be preserved to ensure adequate buffer. Gaf&on stated that the use of light equipment should not impact those trees. Gronberg stated that he would be willing to work with the Maass’ to locate an acceptable place to daylight the drain. As somewhat historically significant, Hawn asked if the existing home could be preserved and relocated. Stickney stated that if someone were inclined to do so, they could relocate the house in sections. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicants were interested in pursuing septic scv'cr. Stickney indicated that this could be an option, not too far off in the future. Gronberg acknowledged that this could potentially make their properties more valuable; however, they were not interested in delaying the project in the hopes that it will come soon. Gafiron asked if Public Works Director Gappa had passed along any comment on City sewer. With a stub at the end of Oxford, Waataja stated that costs could be shared with the church. She stated that she would follow-up with Gappa prior to the City Council meeting. Gaffron pointed out that the Little Orchard residents were amenable to protect the bluffs area and retain the natural look of their shoreline. He encouraged the applicants to maintain the natural look of their shoreline, in order to avoid the mowed grass shoreline, in the 0-75’ zone. Stickney reiterated that they ’ve attempted to place restrictive tree covenants within their policy to do this. Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2964, Bruce and Kris Paddock and George W. Stickney, 3250 Fox Street, granting preliminary plat approval with the following stipulations: 1. Acquisitiou/Implcmcnta^n of recommendations by the City Engineer prior to Council. PAGE 36 of 41 k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14) M13.2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued 2. Implementation of the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of all structures prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. 7. Implementation of Tree Covenants. 8. Consideration of bluff impacts. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Gaffron pointed out that if sewer were to happen, ensuring the specific proposed building pads and grading for those may not be necessary. Gronberg acknowledged that without the need for identified septic sites, the location of each building pad would be more flexible. ^1^ #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h) m«L^7, REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DI^^^^UZS Foth reviewra^^^nunary of 1. New reguIati^^B||^ districts in excess^^B lary of proposed changes to the regulation: ing parking vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R” lbs GVW. 2. Housekeeping and terminold 3. Special Mobile Equipment was speciflBIM ted and regulations were added. In the past, storage of special mobile equipts m^ulated to be stored inside an enclosed structure by the introductory parat . ^fcilv Code 78-1577. 4. The inclusion of utility trailers within 78-1577(d). 5. Change in the required setback for parking and storage of recrem mobile homes to maintain consistency with the setback for utility trailers - side yard, no closer than 5 feet from the property line ides and Foth explained that, historically, special mobile equipment and vehicle parking was addressed within the introductory paragnq>h of78*1577 regarding exterior storage. This revision of City Code Section 78-1577 is in part to maintain consistency between the various code sections that deal with parking, to establish additioiud updated standards PAGE 37 of 41 liil EXHIBIT D Bruce and Kris Paddock 2700 Medicine Lake Blvd. E Plymouth. MN SS441 January 22.2003 George Stickney Coldwell Banker Burnet 201 E. Lake Street Wayzata,MN SS39I Re: 3250 Fox Street, Orono Dear ^>pUcant: We have received your preliminary plat from the City of Orono for comments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding permit requirements. The proposed project will require a permit from the MCWD. This permit will require the approval of the MCWD Board of Managers. Board meetings are held on the second and fou^ Tburs^y of each month, variance requests are heard the fourth Thursday of the month. Permit applications must be conq>lete at least 21 days before the Board meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. The following MCWD Rules apply to your project Rule A: Procedural Requirements • Submit mailing labels from Hennepin County for all properties 600 from your property for pubic notification of the Board meeting at w^ich your permit application vrill be heard • Submit a Combined Joint Notifleation permit application available from our website at www.minnehahacreek.org • Submit a $ 10.00 permit application fee Rule B: Erosion Control • Submit a plan with existing and proposed contours which includes temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control Rule D: Wetland Protection • Provide a 16.5 foot wetland buffer for the wetland on the property Rule N: Stormwater Management • Submit modeling of the existing and proposed stormwater runoff rates for the 1, 10, md 100 year storm events. The Proposed runoff rates may not increue • Provide 50% phosphorus removal from runoff from the site • Propose Best Management Practices (BMP’s) permanent in nature in addition to those required for rate control and water quidity. Please reference the Urban Small Sites BMP manual on our website As we review your submittals, we may fmd the need to request additional information, and will so inform you. If you have any questions please call Renae Clark at (952) 471-0590. Sincerely, Renae Claik District Technician C: City of Orono i i : 1 ) i uaMsi [BlTDi Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 2S .MXI Lal;i>ciic Koail Si Paul. Mimv .oia Phone:(651)296-7863 Fax:(651)296-1811 E-mail: sarah.hoff; iar stMe.mnus February 20,2004 George W. Stickney Coldwell Banker Burnet 201 E. Uke St Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Request for Natural HeriUge information for vicinity of proposed Maxwell Bay Estttes, T117N R23W Section 5, Hennepin County NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20040513 Dear Mr. Stickney. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or iininnal gpecies or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are 5 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed printout and explanation of selected fields). However, based on the nature and location of the proposed project 1 do not believe it will affect any known occurrences of rare features. • Please note that there are Namral Resource - related issues for lakeshore developments which should be considered in addition to their potential effect on rate features. If a buffer zone of native vegetation is present around Maxwell Bay, I recommend that it be maintained and fnhan*'^ If not, I recommend that one be established. The combination of uplaixl, lakeshore, and aquatic plants creates a buffer zone of natural vegetation in and around lakes, which provide numerous ecological benefits. Lakeshore and upland plants help stabilize banks and protect the shoreline from erosion by absorbing the forces of wind, waves, and boat traffic. They filter pollutants that would otherwise drain from the watershed into the lake, thereby protecting' vater quality. Most noticeably, lakeshore and upland plants provide a variety of vital habitat components for wildlife including food, protection from weather and predators, denning sites and nursery areas for young, perching and sunning sites for buds and turtles, and fly ways and travel corridors. Aquatic plants produce oxygen, purify lake water by subilizing bottom sediments and reducing nutrient cycling, and provide underwater cover for fish. Please refer to the enclosed brochures for additional information on aquatic plants and lakeshore design. If you would like more information on how to enhance lakeshore habitat for wildlife. I recommend the book, “Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality” which was produced by the DNR Nongame Wildlife Program. This book covers a wide array of topics associated with managing lakeshore property and provides step-by-step instructions for designing ecologically sound lakeshores. If you have any questions about the concepts of lakescrqping. please contact (Carrol Henderson, Nongame Wildlife Program Supervisor, at (651) 296-07(X). Another helpful reference is the newly released “Restore Your Shore” CD ROM, which guides the user through the process of protecting a natural shoreline or restoring a degraded shore with a natural buffer zone (see http://www.dnr state.mn.u8/testotevourshore/index.html for details). DNR Information. 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 PfiniBd on flBcycMPacMT Containing a MMnymof 1O%PoBl-Cof«um«rWMl0 An Equal Oppoctunity Employer Wlio Vilum Oivenity I The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Depaitment of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new infonnation becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its purpose is to foster better undentanding and protection of these features. Because our infonnation is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural feanires in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Hennepin County. Our infonnation about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, bwUi printout formats are copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to the neatest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should inclade the following disclaimer ‘Copyright (year) Sute of Minnesou, Department of Natural Resources. This index may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natural resource plans, and internal reports. For any other use, written permission is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the fhU>record printouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware tbat review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other wildlife- related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmenul Assessment Ecologist, Wayne Barstad, at (651)772-7940. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed fo” map and da tabase search and staff scientist review. Please forwul this invoice to your Accounts Pay^b^; Department. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. cincerely. Sarah D. Hoffmann Endangered Species Envir ital Review Coordinator escl:Database search results Rare Feature Database Print-Outs: An Explanation of Fields Lakeshore design / aquatic plant brochures Invoice cc: Wayne Barstad EXHIBIT E I D «c A MAASS. LLC ,;, v I'O HO\ L«*N<i a.AKi:. MJNNr.SM't \ AV’*.li November 13. 2003 Mike Gaffron Director of Planning and Zoning 27S0 Kelley Parkway Orono.MN SS356 Dear Mr. Gaffron; My name le David Maass, and my wife and I live at 3175 Fox Street in Orono (Lot 001, Block OCI, Property ID 04-117*23 33 0010). We have been made aware that the land direcUy to our west has been recently purchased by Bruce arid Chris Paddock, and is in the process of being subdivided Into six lots. As owner of the adjacent property, I have two principal concerns with this oevelopmenL We have lived here for nineteen years, and have often been negatively impacted by drainage issues. A ravine divides these two properties for almost the entire length, and gradually slopes toward the lake. The lowest part of this area is on our property. During heavy rains, spring snow melt, and particularly In wet years, we have a tremendous amount of water cascading through and eventually flowing Into Lake Minnetonka. A substantial amount of water remains pooled, and the woods are wet tor weeks. A considerable amount of erosion has occurred, and many large and small trees have been lost along this meandering path At the present time, there is a catch basin on the northwest comer of our property, which collects water through a culvert from a portion of the property being developed, and also receives overflow from a pond across Fox Street. This water is carried through drain tiles and empties along our driveway. While we have never before had any portion of our driveway wash out. we are concerned that this could become an issue when we are facing the possibility of increased hardcover from five additional homes. Our second major concern relates to the impact upon our trees. The existing driveway into the developing property very closely paral'eis our lot line, starting at Fox Street and proceeding several hundred fe^ before veering oif to the west We have been informed by the developer that this driveway will be removed Our <ot is heavily wooded, and we have a variety of hardwood trees, some quite large, that are very close to this driveway. We are concerned that many of these trees would be vulnerable to root damage if any major excavation Is done while removing the driveway. It is my understanding that a tree which has been harmed may not actually die for two to three years. We, therefore, are alarmed that we may potentially face the loss of trees due to both additional drainage issues and excavation damage. I M i-i d -2-Novembex 13,2003 We are aware that the City of Orono &nd the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District impose stringent regulations to protect city land and Lake Minnetonka. We appreciate those efforts, but would like to state our personal concerns with regard to this particular development Thank you for your attention to this matter. * Sincerely, k David A. Maass I ( U*------------^j EXHIBIT E], L P/it\flQ MAAS$~-pfUiM a J^T& -JUa^G '2- , /?f<f O/TTf y^.4!ZK F^H FuiL^fZTZ>AJ$ - P^A/}Y4f<F PAIW- dASl/V. f / M4P FFuTO(=^F=-fy&POA^p77iifrii^AS P(A2P(r Pt/yATSP PPPM FcyUPAPAJ //U7V •fHF <P4TCH PASW) <^ALl-&0 (f^POy $TF/Pi:/<c"Zf^/VK^/A/ cou//ry HfGHujAiS 2AiTyt^6(S4&^. ejiAP //UOfCAf&> -TFFT'TF/y Ci/AS A FSUi^-, G-Of^oy GVROC«CAU$ fA>P/CA7FS 'TVAT' r?M- U/ATPR from TH6 /iJPmZ f/pe PF TP6 FVLCA^TVA DRlV6U>Ay FtZPULP Fi-ou) n> TH^/Uo/st F A>pF 7^ PuP PIO&. CFuUC-Fiva J^ hap PAP/<J6P PF A CuLVHlT Uaj O^P -THAtP. p^!\/Ac^Ay TFAFC^omp FAPF cAna !&p rPP ^AT&t^ fds 77/^, FArm pas /a /) fonoy GTRoc^ CALLS - H67ALPBO 77) aaa PK GP-oHlB^c A aj P 'P>i-P HIa 4 tFFT 7FP euAwn /a TP/fT LOCO AH^^A a >OPTH Tf^TFP FOLCAmA pm\Fc^AyF/Foi-P FZoco pc/r TV r?z6 /Pvpt H- MF /apivat &o tFat ttihtf /Amr HAPp TV 0P $0/AC CP£-[/PtZF CLFA aj OcJTFTZ. TV /HAkS TWF FAPF)£-aj , (pvPPy PfpVKF: AiAV lAC>/^i*rBP THAT PLCAPA-pFTPLF loFtnf^ /T £oAS AF VFf^-~P<)AP pnopLPti AFP TUP CVCFTy CtiooL() Ajor HA /aovah /ah . » • L « * • • JW6 S'., ms............................ ^4l-l6P ^P^aJ0£:R6-. T^y SAP /^OT'y^AJp U'/PiyiLO a>oT Pl/TA C^l\/Pfi7~ OR ,1'S6 T7fe F^^-^^Tz>. ■ > pf lveoMY, H6 .9AtP S9 /9Pc/A/a TP TAi-K ro-TVeS^Ai^ CoHO booottr TH6 SR0C6 ppPKi?7 y A&ou r oivPPry'Vt^ "XlffOPATm. TP mp/U£>RTTf .......................... • • « • ••• • •»• •• • • • ■ • • • • • * • •« • *«* • •• •• • ••* • • t «N» .«< \ • •• i i 0kns«;» %!l '■A v"^ "f,i 02/26/2004 10:01 952476^2^4 . • «•••• [BITFI FtbiMiy 3^ 2t04 CIlirPluMn CItyarOmo ITMKdUrFarimnqr BE: J25# FOX STREET, ORONO. MINNESOTA l**fc w® tar* • fc**** ptinie dtiwwty* flimwtyi MC.FaLock ' MW I i- \,t..- ’ySiSii ri'• . wf: • • . 1 MAR 02 2004 12<13 PH PR TO 20092 P.02 EXHIBIT srigigt S awp Morgan ?SOFSSSIONAL ASSOClATiON 3200 IDS CINTta *.‘*:j’* ■ •]' • -r-160 SOUTH BiQKTH rrasiT MIHNSAK>Lt& MINHCSaiA SM03 •: i ae 1TEurHONT ieo» en.6400 .1 ? _____FACSU4IU tew an-eeso 'it' wunas DtucT dial ■■.K * (612) 977*«457 WMTEI15 l-MMl jpeayObriggixoA Muoh3,2004 VIAFA Jmic6 OondlacD OronoCiQrPliiiiier 2750 Ptticway P.O. Box 66 Ctysnl Bay, MN 55323 Fropoted Six-Lot Stibdhrbloa of 3260 Fox Street (o/k/a MaxwcUBayEitatet) Don Janice: The EAW potitioiMrs have received your March 1.2Doa memo regarding die above plat application with the attached letter fiom the applicantt. Tto EAW ^tien« Swio’8 ooncem that the applicama* letter flBly lapiwwta diat i^r are gong tg clarify that they "ate withdrawing ” and have withdawn their apphM^ a^Lion City of loch clarificalioii, the EAW pedtonen withdraw their EAW petition. Sioncrely, •ckY.rwiy cc: jYP/rbm William A Judith Tiubeek James and Haity McNeiney Mama Fullerton iasN4»i tAfilT fAUV OfffCt •ftBBT HAtlOMAL MM lUROOiO ■ WVWJIlOQlCOli - iJUL MUN1M. A C mMa L AUOCUTIOM Of IHOlltNpEIIT LAV fUMI • V. .1 .. if ••I’: . • i.'i I f • i; i : !. ! r. < i* "• 1-. • i . • !: I. • i• . t •/, 0 I •.# f. j.r> \ f I' Virr': > .*U. r‘. • f '••Ac •1 • :-tw;- »•I !i ivI*/ A * .\t • t # t. . .!• ' ! i t • • I • 1 oV• •!. 4r :> it: J -. ••« V 1-^ •»* mm TOTAL PAOE.ez mm 4*ai 03/04/2004 ll;24 9524759293 CS BURNET GM5 PAGE 02 EXHIBIT F, FAnNU]r24,2M4 CttjrafOfBM 27MlMh)rrBrkivigr BE: 22MrOX8TRBBT,ORONO,MlNNES|NA TUi Mier li to talbni yoa thit W9 Bfv •oMMilag tke proftfty lalo ilB (C) loti that h» almiay bMo oppmd bydbytio V Iiatoad wa aio iotof to propoia a aaw tfciae (3) lot applleatloa wHfc lo roodw^i ■aali Bto wB havo a Brtaio pilvala Mmay. M6.PaModi ' Si | l^HlaoM^ck"^ 02,2.Sro^ Pate ty Dote ‘f ■ ' - « , -S' Date Application Received: 12-17-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-17-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 2-15-04 extended to 4-15-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COliMOtl RflFFTING MAR fl 2004 CITY OF OROno Date: Marchs,2004 Item No.: I ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2973, Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre minimum) 0.173 acres (7,550 s.f.) 50 feet Ltot of Exhibits A - Memo dated 3-5-04 from Building Inspector Bruce Vang B - Revised Plan C - PC Action Notice 1 22 * D - PC Memo and Exhibits oi 1-14-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following in conjunction with a previously approved project: 1. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constmeted within 5’ of the property line. Planning Commission Recommendation This request was heard before the Planning Commission at their January 20,2004 meeting. T* applicants were requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance and also a conditional use pe..nit to allow retaining walls and fill within 5 feet of the property line. The City Engineer visited the site with City Building Inspector Bmce Vang and submitted comments regarding the requests (attached as Exhibit D of the planning report). The Planning Commission instructed the applicant to work with staff on a plan wh^ch incorporates the comments from the City Engineer for approval by the City Council. The applicants have submitted a revised plan attached as Exhibit C. The new plan no longer requires an after-the-fact hardcover variance; however the {q>plicant’s are still requesting a conditional use permit to allow a retaining wall within 5 feet of the property boundary. The revised plan shows the wall at a 4 foot setback. City Building Inspector Bruce Vang has drafted a memo regarding this request and it is attached as Exhibit B. If the wall were moved to meet a 5 foot setback no planning actions would be required, however, the applicant feels the extra foot is needed to accommodate the side entry. Staff Recommendation Deny the request consistent with City Building Inspector Bruce Vang ’s comments attached as Exhibit B, to allow a 4 foot setback for a retaining wall when 5 feet is normally required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The City Council has two options: 1. Deny the conditional use permit request to allow a retaining wall within 5 feet of the property boundary as the plans can be revised to eliminate approval of the conditional use permit, and direct staff to draft a denial resolution; or, 2. Approve the conditional use permit to allow a retaining wall within 5 feet of the property boundary and direct staff to draft a resolution for approval at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. ye#! /?■■■% <■ .'r. ftp:? 0 tJ*'- ■ 4, »;• r EXHIBIT A March 4,2004 To: Orono City Council Re: 4753 North Shore Drive File no. 04-2973 After meeting at City Hall and on-site with the applicants we have arrived at a grading solution which vrill not require hardcover beyond the 44.85% previously rq)proved. The additional 80 lineal feet of retaining wall will be balanced by slight decreases in the size of the driveway and walks. However, the q;>plicants request that the retaining wall by their front door be allowed to be approximately 4 feet from the side lot line where 5 feel is required. This encroachment is not necessary to meet entry width requirements for building code or structural requirements for the retaining wall. In this area two 3.5 foot tall walls with the lower tier on the property line will be changed to a single wall 7 feet high. The applicants feel that the extra width will make approaching the front door feel safer. This encroachment will still allow drainage flow to be kept from going over the property line at this location. Inspector Bruce Vang : . i EXHIBIT B COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 , 990.9 K 993.2 » EXISTING H4AOCOV » 8A2.0 Concrete N UTrSBO" 99l.0”jil Decking Shoreline Preseivalion Surface (SLPA) S9I.2X 49.70 765 - r proposed DRtVli toe. 6 X ^993: 985.3 X [iT990.6 Total HanScovar Total Area Percent of Covcroge EXISTING HAROCOVTR 7A 966.3 » ^PROPOSL 10L Buildings Oriye/Walk/Deck Walls Total Hardcover Total Area Percent of Covc’vgc - AfJjOCMt House PROPOSED HARDCOVl HOUSE/ Decking Shoreline Preservation Surface (SLPA) r*'.. 980.5 7t*13.5 10.23 97B.0. *i-irr\r . “"/■ ^ptkout (gfll) 1 -- 976.9 X .1___ Total Hardcover Total Afea Percent of Coverage - I PROPOSED HARDCOVE n 9 c k looeo 977.2 * ■■ ouM-p • 1 —____ ............ —I - U '••fback //n^ S.*9A_gontour •I- (EAP) »76.2 x| X 9/8.5 —-----974 7^- 1 - - SIS ••*Z. 17S ol-^aj 9S(. -1771 *1 Buildings Drive/Walh Walts H Total Hardcover foiol Area Percent of Coverage ORON .1--------- : J. _ - LOT- - •«« ■ • * CITY OF ORONC DC SITE PLAN GRAD I B APPROVED- A/E^ □ APPROVED WITH REVISlOr n OISAg BY ry^ nATP^ 6r'io.d^ — xl ----N-09*20'36I-----------I ^ 938.0 xl _Suw_‘Ai»__ nr------!-;• — -• 1 i- ••-^4e 1 I ? 937.7Isr***937.7 X —X 000.0 I (000.0) c —— £ 931.7 xjT ■ -in*™ SeonSns M loeotod 04-KMU LAKE MOmSTONKA iMatar 0«-t0-« Propes Prapos Propoe BENCMi ■SM*. I i EXHIBIT C CITYOFORONO ZONING FILE: 04-2973 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: January 22,2004 TO: Minnetonka Custom Homes, Inc. COPIES: Steve Sexton 2950 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION;_.........._ DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Mabusth, seconded by Commissioner Rahn to approve the following staff recommendation: Accept the City Engineer’s commetus and approve the fol'owing staff recommendation: 1. The wall on the east side of the property be relocated westerly onto the applicant’s property to provide a 5’ setback to the easterly lot line. 2. llie steps on the east side of the property be removed. 3. The wall following the property line on the west side of the lot be moved easterly to a point 5* of the west lot line and its length be cut in half. 4. Reduce the replaced existing wall on the lake side of the home to the previous height. 5. Remove the northerly wall on the lake side of the home. 6. Removal of fill along the side and lake side of the home and require the construction of swales. 7. Approval of the steps on the lake side of the home as they are needed due to the steep grade of the slope (once the fill is removed). 8. Grant a minimal additional hardcover variance to allow the above The above recommendation shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This house is intended to be in the Parade of Homes and the levisions need to be completed ASAP to avoid buyer surprises. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, February 9,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from Ae City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Counci' If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gu^' llach at 952-249-4623. 1 exhibit D /3 IP04-2973 January 10,2004 Pagt 1 of S Date Application Rcccivad: 12-17-03 Date Application Coniidcrcd as Complete: 12-17-d3 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 2-1S-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ Date: January 14,2004 Subject: 04-2973, Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc., 4753 North Shore Drive - Hardcover Variance - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre mia) 0.173 acres (7,550 s.f.) 50 feet AppUcathn Summary: Applicant request the following in conjunction with a previously approved project; 1. After-the-fact variance to allow 49% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 44% was previously approved and 25% is normally allowed. 2. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5’ of the property line. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 44% was previously approved and 25% is normally allowed. Staff recognizes that a new hardcover variance may be needed in order to allow some additional hardcover, however, not the 49% which currently exists. 2. Denial oi the conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5’ of the property line. The City Engineer has indicated that the walls can be moved within 5’ of the property line while still maintaining the needed swale to control drainage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicants Narrative Exhibit C - After-the-Fact Plan Showing Un-Approved Retaining Walls Exhibit D - Memo from City Engineer Dated 1-13-04 Exhibit E - Plan Approved with Building Permit Exhibit F - Plan Previously Approved by Planning Commission and City Council Exhibit G - Resolution from Original Approval Exhibit H - Photographs , -V -.. .. iit. . 'i ^ ^ M4-2973 January 20,2004 Page 2 of 9 Exhibit I - Property Owners List Exhibit J - Plat Map Background The applicants received a number of variances in April of 2003 in order to construct a new residence on the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive {see Exhibit G). Hardcover variances were received for the 0*75 ’ and 75*250 ’ zones of 9.34% and 44.85% respectively. During the building permit approval process it was concluded tha; the City Engineer needed to review the grading plan and that to result in proper drainage on the property the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions (see Exhibit F and Exhibit E). The changes included raising the house approximately 2 feet and installinp gutters directing all the water to the driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shor j Drive. Also, approved was a short retaining wall on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance. Following construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City’s Building Inspector noticed a number of retaining walls were constructed in the 75-250* zone in an effort to control the drainage on the property. Also, repair of an existing wall at the top of the bluff and a second wall at the top of the bluff were also constmeted all of which were not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan approved in April of 2003 by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff informed the applicants that this work was not approved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49.2% hardcover when 44.85% was originally approved would be required if the walls were to remain. A conditional use permit is aho required in order to allow retaining walls within 5 ’ of the property boundary. Revised Hardcover Celculations At the time of building permit review the applicants proposed less hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ zone than was approved by the plan attached as Exhibit F. This occurred because ihe applicants went from a footprint of 1,500 s.f to 1,451 s.f. and a smaller driveway/walk (525 s.f to 481 s.f). At this time the applicants were also approved to construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance (shown on Exhibit E). This retaining wall added 8 s.f of hardcover, which brought the total hardcover to 44% (when 44.85% was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council). Hardcover Zone Approved Hardcover Additional Hardcover Allowed by Building Permit Existing Hardcover (after-the- fact) 0-75 354 s.f (9.34%)NONE 480 s.f • (12.6%) 1 75 - 250 1,965 s.f ' (44.85%)8s.f 2,153.9 s.f* (49.2%) ^ Iai 'U. T1 ! i ■- I ^ I J M4-2973 January' 20,2004 Pa|c 3 of 5 The as-built survey sho'^ in Exhibit C shows hardcover as it now exists. The most notable new hardcover consists of 148 s.f. of retaining walls bringing the total hardcover to 49.2%, nearly 5% over the original approved hardcover amount. Analysis of the As-BuUt Plan The City Engineer reviewed the plan and his comments can be found in the memo dated January 13, 2004 (attached Exhibit D). A summary of his comments and the necessity of the wails is discu. ied below: East Wall & Steps: West Walls: South Walls: Neither the steps or retaining wall were approved with any of the plans. The City Engineer has determined that a smaller wall is necessary to provide a transition from the driveway elevation to the elevation of tlie side yard. A smaller wall can achieve the same results as the current wall and nor be within 5 ’ of the property boundary. The steps are also not needed because, if the site were constructed according to plan, an access to the lake would exist on the west side of the lot (see west wall comments). The only wall that was approved is the wall that protects the side entryway. The original plan was designed to grade a swale leading to the lake, much like photograph #’s 4 & 5 in Exhibit H, v/hich shows pre-construction grading along the west side. Further, these walls encroach onto the neighbor’s property, which isn’t allowed by City Code. These encroachments potentially create problems later when maintenance may be required and responsibility for them becomes shaded. The City Engineer has stated that an extension of the existing wall protecting the entrance may be warranted, however, the rest of the walls and fill should be removed and a swale should be re-graded as shown on the approved plans at approximately the original site elevation (Exhibits F & E). TTie wall that was approved was the pre existing wall, which has since been repaired. The applicants also constructed a second tier to this wall and brought in fill in an attempt to create a larger lawn and to avoid a l’-2’ step down from the walkout level to original grade. It should be noted tliat these walls are within the bluff impact zone. The City’s Building Inspector authorized the applicant to improve the pre-existing wall in an effort to protect the bluff. The applicant did improve the wall but also constructed a new, second tier which extends onto the neighbors property. It is of the City Engineer and Building Inspector’s opinions thui this second tier wall was not necessary. The second tier wall and the fill should be removed and re-graded as originally approved. The second tier wall and fill raises the walkout yard to an elevation k.i M4-2973 JiDUiry 20.2004 Pa|t4ofS higher than the neighboring yards. Hardship Analytis A hardship must be presented in order to allow the walls and steps which account for an additional 5% of hardcover. The hardships for each situation are discussed below: East Wall Sc Steps: West Walls: The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the wall as built is that an access to the lake is needed and to control drainage. Staff doesn't view these hardships as valid due to the following: • An access isn’t needed as the lake would have been accessible from the west side of the home if the site were graded according to plan. • The City Engineer has stated that currently the drainage is being directed onto the neighbor ’s property. A smaller, shorter wall can control the drainage without it being diverted to the neighbor. The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the wnils as built is that the tree line didn’t allow for adequate room to cic. te a swale and that, aside from adding fill to the neighbor ’s foundation, the walls were needed to prevent water from entering the neighbor ’s property. Staff doesn ’t view these hardships as valid for the following reason: • A swale could have been constructed solely on the applicant’s property, regardless of the tree line or elevation of the neighboring property, without impacting the trees. The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the second tier wall is that the slope from the house would have been too steep. Staff doesn't view this as a hardship for the following reasons: • The wall caused unnecessary fill in an attempt to create a larger lawn • The area is in the bluff impact zone which limits any earth moving activities in an attempt to preserve the slope. • Steps could allow for a safe access from the house to the original grade. Issues for Consideration 1. Has the applicant controlled drainage in the most efficient and least obtrusive way? 2. Have any hardships been presented to allow the as-built plan to be approved with its excessive hardcover? 3. Should the applicant be allowed to bring in fill and construct retaining walls in an effort to create a larger lawn or to avoid a step down from the walkout level? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? South Walls: #04-2979 JMMiryM.2004 PtfiSofS Staff Recommendation . Accept the City Engineer ’s comments and approve the following staff recommendaton: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The wall on the east side of the property be relocated westerly onto the {Applicant ’s property to provide a 5’ setback to the easterly lot line. The steps on the east side of the property be removed. The wall following the property line on the west side of ^ lot be moved easterly to a point 5’ of the west lot line and its length be cut in half. Reduce the replaced existing wall on the lake side of the home to the previous height. Remove the northerly wall on the lake side of the home. Removal of fill along the side and lake side of the home and require the construction of swales. Approval of the steps on the lake side of the home as they ture needed due to the steep grade of the slope (once the fill is removed). Grant a minimal additional hardcover variance to allow the above The above reconunendation shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occiqpancy. This house is intended to be in the Puade of Homes and the revisions need to be completed ASAP to avoid buyer surprises. Kiw? V- Pi'- ;’r V ♦ i ■ EXHIBIT A AppUcadoo # ^^*2^73 Date Received lltin Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ ^ Site Address Type of AppUcation to be Filed WlU> 0^ lUV-t Property Identification Number (PI.u.) Pi• II*?• Z3**3ZO0Zi>* APPLICANT . ✓ I , -------------' Name CUinT^ f^C. Phone (work) Address /V. City ~ ^9t*.A.d Phone O Zip__££3^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES ■ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request \^ith CUP application y S2SO.OO Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____ $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PED - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom original application) After*the*Fact Fee - Double Current AppUcation Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Re>iew (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule *73 REQUpED SUBMITTALS 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Form. 7^ Describe request in detail. -----Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fiom Hennepin County Departitient of Finance A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^ -wvTwiuujiiUl v.t'Ulcr, ! IJ. — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ------Topogr^hic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ------List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). ------ 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 ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS S^MITTED. (Staff mil require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicmt 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: ________________ ^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATIRE The applicant hereby agrees to proude all information required or requested by the Zoning Ac^strator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or imusual exj^nses mcuned in review of this application, and certifies that the infonnation supplied IS true and coirecyo jh*-best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE //^j 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 imestigation_^d verification of this request. Owner's signature / U/ l/oDate / IJ/ I/O'S ^ C.‘—S7V«v Building A Zooiog Office of thu change prior to the meeting. -oviic me V* ; / X-—y A J•• Applkatfon # Date Received J2-- t~7-Q^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address HIS?) AJcttrn Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) on - nt ? 3 -co'do • • • • • A. e* AaaAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pi^eitv Acquired ____________________________ I (do) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Xmonth/year) Present use of property: V residential Zoning District: 1 <L- \ m other (specify). APPLICANT Phone feemel Co/L--<»^9 V Name fy\ g ITvcPhone (work)_J________________ Address: yjitu City: AVeM-.ivQ_______Zip: S~S>(»V OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Phone (home). Phone (woric)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side X Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore V Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ______________________________ (attach additional sheets if nec#2973 REQUIPED SUBMITTALS AJI office followfag InfermMiffq i^wbrnlttctf bv the_application deadlipt data In nrrf^r for vour application to be considgred gnmpU»^» ----- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603 Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addivion, provide one (1) copy 8'/»" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade w proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11"). List of the le^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest in the property This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). &n a cnduni to this ^)plication, please attach a separate list of 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 vour y^rimt WPliCHtoP b m gompktc if the above information has not hi>Pn APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Applicant’s Signatur correct to tiio-best OWNER’S SIGNATURE A/v /va CU.st»- Owner’s Signature Date / Z.bx » ^ C«.S7W* Hn^jc w ^ 0 / -1 1^*-,■2973^4 y tr 4 » a F EXHIBIT B 2950 lalaad View Dtivt MoQDd,MN SS364 (U-386-4494 612-600-7510 December 16.2003 To Whom It May Concern: Re: 4753 North Shore Drive 4753 North Shore Drive is a narrow steep lot. As we went through the process to build this house we were told repeatedly diat water from our lot MUST not flow onto the neighbors property. This is an explanation of our actions in arriving to the cunent ianH«raping When we went through the variance process the first time we had build in approximately a lOOsq/ft of excess ground cover for retaining wall on both sides of our house near the ' When the planning committee denied us a side setback variance our bouse was narrowed, side entry was adcM and the house was lei^thcncd. Jennifer, our city planner, changed our hard cover betwera plann in g and city council. She lengthened the house and removed the amount taken off the drive but fiiiled to account for a side entry, which reduced our over all hardcover. 1 do not blame the omission fbr our entire problem on this site. We still would have gone over the ground cover slightly. Becaus'. we were concerned about the hardcover issues we selected retaining walls that had the least amount of hardcover, (i.e. block and timber walls and not boulder wall) As we were building our house we discussed with both neighbors exactly what they would like to see ud bow to accomplish all objectives. I will start with the east side of the house. The retaining wall placed near the garage and stepped down as rapidly as possible but still controlling erosion and preventing run-off onto our neighbors. The drop is so steep diat we, along with our landscapers, deemed it necessary for steps, as it is the only access to the back of the home. The steps are located as close to the bouse as possible and partially under the eves to cut down the impact of water shed. Our neighbor requested us to move dirt up to his foundation and taper it down to the property tine. We also did this to our house creating proper drainage at the property litte. This was easily done because we had no tree line on that side of the smd the nei^bor ’s bouse sat high enough that we could add dirt to his lot. The west side of the home is quite different We have a tree line on the property line and we could not place dirt along that nei^bor ’s house. Again consulting with this neighbor and our landscaper we came to the following consensus. The retaining wall by the door was always planned to be there. We decided to do a nvo-tier wall for safety; if we had done a single wall it would have been over 7 feet tall at the entry. We felt this was too high so we did it in two shorter walls. We continued a knee-high wall (about 2 ft. tall) weaving around die tree, as this was foe only way to control water flow. We could not cut the property line down because of the old oaks and we were not allowed to add dirt to this neighbor ’s foundation. His lot sits lower than ours, so without these walls water would flow towards their property. 973 I ( in j .... . On the lakeside of the bouse added a timber wall just bdiiad an existing old timber wall that we replaced at the suggestion of the city, which we agreed needed to be rq)laced. A second timber wall (around 3ft ht^) was also added for safiily reasons. Ifthis wall was not placed there, the slope from the patio down to tire existing wall, and subsequently to a clifi^ would have been so steep that if you stumbled off the patio you could very likely end up going over die wall. 1 apologue for tiiis somewhat disconnected summary of die reasons for our landiuiaping I do want to assure you that we did net what to spend all this extra monex' on walls. We felt that these walls were needed as a safety issue, and to control water flow. I would also like to reiterate this landscaping came out of discussions witii botii neighbors and the landsc^r. This is what everyone felt was the best solution. tteven i se: President Miluietonka Custom Homes, Inc. #28 2 o 1 ii' f.EXHIBIT C ntonm mkmpiwiv ( cumi ut 4, «M* •, MHGQinr * RcnoMM nwK m mpim Cavatf, IWnn—tU ma4 tM*t pari at Uka tUami aa 4a4Uatai to BUmtim * VICRUtoM AUK Sna«#to Ctoua^. vtoek Bar Maaaa tka aaaUkaitp aatamaiam at tka aaat aa4 vwt ItoM at tat 4, Black B, raid BtBGBvar k mcnimBt bmb. COUNTY ROAD NO. i9 miM9 0-7B lONf OK**lf (UM) NmO€9B9T r«i«i Atm PArmM ml Cmmrmgu 340 SO n. •31 SO ft. 400 SO ft. 3,f0t 90 n. 1 tow OOOmtD NMKXMB 7S-2S0 lOMf t,440 f so. fT. OrtvOi^S57.1 SO. n. ■Mi ISO so ft MBk joo to rr. TmiwI HafOcmmr 2.IS3J to n. 4rw 4.Jif so n. PanmM ml Cmmto9m 40.2M •PiiAX Non rmr tnt nctxmno walls oonsthucted urm TM9 wmutcr appo ^i to m voir aownoM. m MEOPM0 m omwwyo s on nc PwomrY. rJkm MINNETONKA WISCD: i2/02/DS RtASCDi 5/23/03 RCASCD: 5/00/05 * 000.0 cliMlia mWOmo Wmm. . iW/i omo; (5j22 252X2111000.01 19MMm lit mA mNm. OOOiOfe <hmmImSWmm wm m AOmmomOmmmM» Ott fmo 40 Om oW oit# O i&B^m 053S mts c \cr\cNAm\ 1X06^ vmr DEKAU^QAUUa um fframoHL uvc. ^SLXZkiiiaT' t^.(?43) m-BKB ram .fTWt) m~Ban mal I am a at am SMi alMmaaata. B m fN9 ImO 4/f 1/33 wm. w$§. mUMUL n§ Mfi 12054 t 411--54 CERTtnCATE Of POO MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES Jan 14 8004 7<44nn J/U Bonestroo Rosene AnderttkA Associates Inginvars ft ArchltacM BONE6TROO ROSENE RNDERLIK EXHIBIT D 6916361311 P. 1 •offastfoo* liosaae, AaMllli sad Astoclaftr. lac. la aa A#fi#^ac*^ AcMaa/Bawai ap^mfornitg Caifioyaf aai Owm§0 rnaciMR< ow* ®- « t. soraaia. n. • Oitna a coat. M • tooefc o. icrwimcm. r.i. • Jtrry A BMdoa M. • Mark A Harion. CoaiulcaiHfi Wit •OJfaf. • joftp>^ C AndS’Hk. R5. • Rlcaafd C. TUrntf. Ai • Suian M ItMC.Ift C PA. AiiMtata PHaa<M4i Kmvt a. oorooa. Pf. • llobtti«. PMf^fla. Pt • iicPard W. Paiitr. PI. • Oiirid O. Lojtoil. Pt • Mfcncei T. M0^tm9twt aa. • T«a a. ac • aaaaata a AnscrcaA. af • Mars a. aoi-i. aa. • oatfia a- Panacs^ea. maa. . SMn^ P Wimamipa PA t.1- • Agnai m. «ai0. M lA • aii«p tics scrvaiot ftf. • rnomti w. rtiai son. pc • IL MifpiP. P.I. • Msti I. iansan. ft • I PWlllp Giavai II. Pi. • Da«*ti stftrsoii, Pi. • twui Ft • rpamac A Syfio. Pi • lhaioon J. ioaruen • Pale a. aia«a. M. • Ti4aR«ac A Pouihar* Pf. # Peac.*i J. OavtiP8. orficast IE Paei. Pi CiauP. Pocnejter and WUimar, fPN • ^ IL weptiiai wtawPoACtiraa^aMfi jHUMiyl3.3004 Ms. Oundlaeh Flaanar CiqrofOrano rottofflcsBoxac CkyMalBay. MN S93Z3 Re: 4759 Korlh Shore Drive Ffle No. 1394)3-000 Flit No. 03-2979 Da« Juiet: Wo have reviewed the ecttifioete of survey ftomDeroen-Oabriel dated l-S-04 for the newly eofutrueMhenne at 4753 Nfltdi Sboce Drive. We else made a rite visit to the propsrQf today to review the landaevifS retalntaiB wells. The letrinliiE wells era locetedeest of the house, west of the house sod south (lakeside) of the hcMN. The mainlnt wans east and WMt of the house awnach onto the neifhborins ptopertioa by ss much at 2.2 ftft The south retainiBg wall is a two ttsr limber waU that appears to encroach oow the neighboring westerly property by more thaa 5-Cwt These ttsnbet wella aUe ^peas tebe looeledM^ly^thinms bluff ifftbick Bca. BsKd on. a review of the cunrey and our rite visit we have (he fbllowmf obacrvitiona sod cormnoua: East WaU • Tha aari wall was not shown nor ^rproveo on the origmsl building plans. The wall is modular block md is loealed ptiimsily along tie aist let lint. The survey imheatee that at osie poiat ftis wall tnwiTtr*‘Tf onto the neighbeting pioperiy by 0.2 fast In adiritioQ to the wall tosse has been a aet of vv iM4t4 slept oonsriucted adiacent to the bouse between the parking area and the side yard. The steps wereiwtahowBoreiiimivedanihepcopoMd grading plan. It appeara that come form ofa smaller well ianeoesiaiy adjacent to the driveway to provide atnaritioD Dorn the driveway devadon m the easterly fiAm ygfi, Jhe wall could be raloealed wastsrty aatf the subject property to provide a five fi»t setback to dw eaeterly lot line. The steps sse not nsoeeseryifN' scoeM to the lake side of the home (see WestWell oommoois). The iwsle shown lakeside ftomthe Stops wee graded inooits^ end dira^ draio^ the adjntwing p-.'.jpesty. TWa fide yard swale sifaMMild be reipadedto oontain flows on die subject properly. • The weetwalls area smlsa of dcred moduler bleakjwaUs. The esdy wall thatwu shown sndapprov^ ' on a proposed grading plan is ths wall adjaoem to the northwest oomw of the house. This is neoeisary to provide ecoese to a door toeatod on that side of the house. An additlosial well was eommicted along the weat lot line. This wall meandeia along the tract on the west lot lino and onto the neighboring propeiw in seyerd locatlooa* at one point by 2.2-fbec. It appears ihjn die wall along the lot line oould be relocated to a point 9 4mi eafi of the west lot lint and ill iMgih oould bo eut in half. A swato could be eonitiucled between too hone tnd the wall to convey me smaU dninagt aiea diit reaohee lua tide of dit home towvdi the like. The iwale oonairuetoo would require removal oftoina fill adjacent to (ho heme. TWs would provide for a five fool ^isssdsiea from file driveway to the lakeeide fbt pedcitiiin traffic., asso WmMt Highway 9* • Ct. Raul, MN *^119 • a»l-aPa-a400 • Ran: aci-saa-ljil I •r Jan 14 eoo4 7t44nn B0NE8TR00 ROBCnE nflDERLlK 6816381311 SouOiWaU* • 'nmoalhwtltow66tWDtl»titnb»wlliBfiUBiTh40iJywiflihPwnontt mpprpVEdydiflgyl«a ww iH mMag tnbfr wall at 4m tap of tha bluft I ftviowod tUo iMua wltb Bnioo Vm>§, mty of Oiono Mldiag ofSdal. BniM iadiealad that duriiit conitnetlan ht Mt tht tadftiDf tinlMr Will WM ta mod of ropafar duo to i8> *nd dota rioiali gn. Hb autfwriaad tlw buildor to npalr tbo oxisllna wall. iBstaad, dia ealaliiig wall wu laplaead with a tillar wan aad a aaeoad tiar initallad JuR oarth of dit nphmd ailftlnf walL ftappamfliii wade wu dona to oroata a level lawawaalakande ten tha I. bia appaaii feat aaofafln than apjuuagd anticipaiadbanaecn tha borne and fee awtaang wan. By rBBa ootng B flu adlaeotR 10 fee hoota fee 80W aofdMrty wall oould bi raaovad lad dw iqdaoid axifeiag wan could bf liduead tat w ■wtali fee alovatten of fee pravteiM wan. The laha aide yard eoald fean be graM to ptovlda a alepa feat doao oat aaoaod 3:1. It appaan feat an walk taladai to fee aeufe waUa baa bean dona arlfhia tha bhiffiafeack • The Bva lla fe a t wwa Inata llad are Bacaiahia and oaoba nifaifin la a d and rebc a tad while adn mai ntain ing dntaafa 06 fee afta. • Tap naiah flUwaapi a oedadlaoaattotbahoaBa on fee aide ywdi and lake atda tea fee bea n an d tha t by iteo vlng ac me offeii flu ftaawalia can bo oonatntotadaa ap pioved without fee naadibraaeat of a The pwpoiidfaoliiona to feaferibar wall ayawmoutlfiiad above aw neociaaiyiytheatodular block walla a» ralocaiad and fea alda ynd awalaa tnaiaiUed. If you have any ^tlooaplaaac eatt aaa at («S 1) d04-4M3, Yeutavaiytndy, BTKOO, ROSBNB, AMDBBLK fe A880CIATB8, INC • • • T#)C p -5^ ToniXelloai Ce: aratOoppa,CiiyofOnBO Btuoa Vang. Ct^of Orano EXHIBIT E PnOPEKTY OtSamtOH ( CU mC mipplM) tot 4. mock A mmaqum * fICiaUNBr MRA lUnnoptn county, maao—io on4 that part ot Uko AlfWt M Mleatok to 0U0Vn8r * tnCOMtoa PAMK. Ilaamapio Coonlf. wblek llao between the eetilherlp exteaelen ef the eeel end weet Unae of Lai 4, Uaek A **td BmeQUisT i naamos ptu. M4.t «HAS • COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 itcii ■ msiM tmrmo mmocovoi iont -------mo 0»tP»f US so so n. 400 so n: r#l«f A tm XfSI so rr. PtmtM 40 0mm I9.SH OOSTMC MMOCOftOI n-2S0 lOMT S97 SO ft 0rf49/Wm/09dk fSJ SO fT. W9Sb 29 SO rr. IJI2 sa fT. r«lt«Ar«t 4j0f sa ft Omrofc________44.5B MOPom mmxoytR o~n toMi ^ MS so n. M ««0 SO. TMif A«w SO. ^ r« ns.* cism0‘ Pircwil tf CovtrvQt i^Horoun iiNtoco^s /m* l,4H 90. ft. 4Si so n wdH yo MT 90 n Hw4t mkm‘ 1.994 90. n. fm4t A/w <Jii SUi K Ffcwni t/ Ctmo99 AS 99 CITYOFORONO SITE PLAN ^ GBAOINQ 0 APPROVED. /Bgy. □ APPROVED WITH REVISIONS • Otnplit H a wmamawa I • OwlM wirMf alAii t OOOO 0M«9 MtoMif «liv. (BOO.C0 OPMtM LUE MINNETONKA A mt OH l* fOS l«# 0t f^Stmn 4499 m 991% Iwtrt A mt fOt-S SCMCNMAAX; r«p 0# <row pipt mohmS lm*a 099mii9nm «V1SC0; S/2J/0J «VIS£D; 5/00/03 c \rr\oRA0\ 1900 1 owe OaUMS-OdUBMt um avBvnoM, me.sS2:-swyS<£r:'Tf-?^‘s»»a OmM e. Ohm 4I11I49 AA pm. Atf. iiw. H0y4 mp M«. 12004 f 4M*04 ScOit I "-SO* CCRTlFTCATr OF MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES V75 3 pj ihpre Or 1 EXHIBIT FfMOFOtrr uscmmoN (euutt tupput^) L*l. 4, Ml0«k 0, aue^UIST it WtcnVMOS nmM. Mtnmtplu CbuaOr. JOajitMU Mtf ttaC p0H 0t Uk0 8in0t M MImM in Ulteqt/ar * Wtcgumas PMOC, ntaatpln Cnwip. mhleit Ucf kttmnta U« teutktrijr •tUanion at Ui« om( and wMt Uaaa at tal 4, Bleek «, Mid BBtGV/tST n WICKlVUnS PAHK. m.T «*M.S « COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 1 ffOlf * 9fllJL tmrm hmxovcb o-ts mnc n «rM‘££^' ff Ml.d 6atm§J4f SO FT. sa ftSartarn (9lt0 Tot0 HatOeamp 400 so. rr. tatat Aam JlTOf so rr. OanaM 0 Cawrtu 1249 OrrSfMO HM0C0IC8 79-J90 lONC Off SOL FT. OH iOmVOOc *TfJ sa rr. INii 22 sa FT. rolof Hafdeaaar 1.512 sa FT. T0m A tm 4.J01 sa FT. 0anaM 0 Caaatm$t 34.98 ro f^9.4 C«il«ur mW>SCD Hf^BOCOVOI 0«75 /ONE OMMif J4# SO. nr. — fi!Sri£»r^ •" » "• »iy dc»wr 480 SO. FT. WFf rol«l J,70l SO. FT. r« OiO.4 Canlour P»rc«nl •/ f2fS n FWOFOaCD IMWfKOlCIt F9-790 fON f.9U0 sa #T. Orarn/mai SOf sa FT. 22 so FT. so FT. <381 SO FT.r«IM A tm 4$ 79 IS. Mii&r ttf ecoi«^ ■m ISO 32«f> • Owwiw km • omim 90am mma M OOOJO Oiwiw 90kUa% atmn (000.0 OtrwiM —— OidWiM aartma IAKE\ iONNBTOSKA ftaar lit lamrntim airn.mOOi Omt OOtCHmRN: Tm mtirm 9tM tim/ka§ C:\OF\OM0\f7O94 OmC DBUBS-GABKEL urn simvEYOMs, me. M No. \u? -0000 •0470 I karakf mrOtf or attdar Smmrar m*0m mrOtf that IMO §>0O^. 0m Of maart woo i my Okact au0oia Am ani that I am a OaO moot tfio Lova * 8m Sioto of iSmooCo. Ax ______________ Cfoaa Data:NOf. na No. 12004 0 DO*-/>Oyo 4lt-04 r^2o* CERTffTCATE Of SURVEY too MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES • .exhibit c CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING CERTAIN VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 3 (2); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 3 (3); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C)(2); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (0(3); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J)(5)(h); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(l); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2) AND DENYING CERTAIN VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZO^WG CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C); AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5(B) FILE NO. 03-2887 WHEREAS, Minnetonka Custom Homes Incorporated (hereinafter "the ^>plicants") are the owners of the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive, whhin the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 6, BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, H^mnepin County, Minnesota, and that part of Lake Street as dedicated in BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, Hermepin County, which lies between the southerly extension of the east and west lines of Lot 4, Block 6, said BERQUIS*; & WICKLUNDS PARK (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (3^, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(r.); Section 10.56, Subdivision 15 (C)(3); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(5)(h); SecUon 10.56, subdivision (L)(l); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit construction of anew residence on the property, with a lot area of 8,172 s.f (0.19 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (I acre) is required; lot width of 50’ where 140’ is required; rear yard (street) setback of 19.2’ where 30’ is required; side yard setback of 7.6’ where 10’ is required; 480 s.f (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 2,051 s.f (46.8%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1,095 s.f (25%) is permitted; 1,504 s.f of lot coverage by structure where 1,500 s.f is permitted; 15’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30’ is required; T +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted, in the LR-IB zoning district; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Page I of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 n VJ Commission held a public hearing on April 2 1,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2887. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.19 acres. The Orono Planmng Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 2003 and recommended partial conditional approval by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The lot was platted in 1888, prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and requirements for bluffs; B. The 8,172 s.f. (0.19 acre) lot with a 50’ width does not meet the minim um lot area (43,560 s.f. or 1 acre) nor lot width (140’) requirements for the district; C. The property contains an existing home and detached garage; D. Due to the size of the lot, it would be difficult to constmet a home meeting all setback requirements or that did not exceed the required hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone; E. The existing detached garage and concrete driveway pad located within Hennepin County’s right of way will be removed with this application; F. Completely avoiding impacts to the bluff would severely limit the size of the house on the lot. The proposal minimally impacts the bluff; and G. There is no hardship to support the proposed 10’ setback from the side lot line or structural coverage in excess of 1,500 s.f. Therefore, the proposed home must be located no closer than the required 10’ setback from the side lot lines and should be limited to no more than 1,500 s.f of lot coverage. Page 2 of 6 1 •. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A Q e City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application, including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variaiKes on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER. AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances firom Municipal ^ning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); SecUon 10.56, Subdivision 3 (2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (3); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(3); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(5)(h); Section 10.56! Subdivision (LXl). ond Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit construction of a new resittence on the property with a lot area of 0.19 acres (8,172 s.f.) where 43,560 s.f (I acre) is required; lot width of 50 ’ where 140 ’ is required; rear yard (street) setback of 16.2’ where 30 ’ is required; 354 s.f. (9.34%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 1,965 s.f. (44.85%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 1,095 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 14’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30 ’ is required; T +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted; and hereby denies variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B), denying a variance to exceed the maximum allowed 1,500 s.f. lot coverage and denying the requested side yard setback variance. Approval is subject to the followinc conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants as amended by staff and as attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any further amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 3 of 6 I d ifiu CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 5 O approval is subject to the following conditions: a) a pennit must be obtained from Hennepin County to change the access to the property; b) plans for building application should include contours showing proposed grading and flow arrows indicating drainage waj^s and rain gutters and proposed discharge points; c) heavy-duty silt fence with steel t-posts should be installed south of the home ud north of the retaining wall. It is critical that erosion control be installed, inspected and approved prior to work on the site; and d) the existing decks located within the 0-75 ’ setback zone must be reduced to no more than 32 s.f. landings prior to footing inspection on the property. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but an permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (April 28,2004). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variwee shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically termmate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vcej.£il;yClerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor __________Pits Property Own^(s)"^^I* Page 4 of 6 1 Ml CITY of ORONO STA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ft S P _■ fESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv. 'Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this.-^/O*^^ day of April, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of OronO; a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. i RACHaOOOGS I Ocoi^ f y ncr;jy pusuc • mw.*i5“ota Commbaon EiqIm Jn. 31.2008 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of April .2003. 1 • StxTon appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me (X whose identity I proved on the basis of "O ^ jiersonally whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness ja and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. DENISE M. LESKINENaoraxY Fiauc • 'A Notary Public Page 5 of 6 I 11 M t oT STm^rmSwESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. i 9 5 9 On this __day of appeared before me, 2003,j)ersonalty Mdio is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of, credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that be/sheAhey executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public ^Mratnr otscmmoH ( atmat 1st. 4» Missk ft kMkG^UtST k WTCMLUtnS ^A/UC^ M^mn^pim Csualj, Mlnn^wU msd (AaC pmri •/ tmkm Straai mm tfatf/calad iu MMOQUOT Jr WlCKtUHOM PARK, JTaaatp/a Couji^* wtteA l/t« Jatiraaa iJ« aauCJtrOr ^MUntisn •/ U« ■««! mnA wmBt Uo9s m/ L§i 4, Rlssk §, aa/J RKRGqUm R WtaOJUHOM PARK 994.7 9 9903 9 COUNTY BPAD NO. 19 \ 990.9 § oosnMa NMOcoici o-ts zomt N arjj'W" f PM MSLI ■ P9ft9M mt.e999m§9 sssrcSxT faW ^ A9it9M 9f Caiiaai H OacMaf J4S sa rr. SMca (m^111 ML IT. faM N^i.y 4M M. If. TUI Sf99 J.rfi M. rr. fi.ts OBSnwO MmoCO^fO 73-IJO MNC •tr sd 0Af9/9l9k/09€k ifj M. rr. Wgat II SQL n. ratal WpJwiaf t^tl M rr. falal ^ML rr. r# fjf.a |2JB5oUJl'n u\l 4959 mtoma mmocowh •>» ntc M sa rr. » Ilf ML n: M. fT.x?f r so. n. U 9794 e99llmtf 9009030 NMOOOKS 7S-1S0 |OMC a# aM. rf, _ , ^ M #r. 9, ^ lr9 4.JSI M. rr. . ^ . ajWIK/ir PPtUtS mA^teescuiCP **8 MD 32 • SvMm Iw 4 wt.y • SanaiM arfMC aiala jr OOaO Ovialaf #*«. (Mao> flMaa pfapataS aifa *aiaai iW5i" lAXEl MINNETONKA •MJt at<»ia-ai laar a<av.«fft.S N# a# tm0*49t!mm ala««tfS ■ar a«ra.*f ^ raa ar C.\0*\cmr\ f DEUARS-GABRiEl LARD SUEVSrORS. IRC, M^ar^W 55t-O900 rat :CMJ) S39-047f 1 aa^alr cari;^ ir»af INa a**-*^. p«aa ar raaart aat praparaa ir ma n* Ma. fMf4 • at f-«4 Oa^ C. Oaa* Sca«a.OHr CERTinCATE OF SCWVEV TOR MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES iirtiffiiiMrtftMiltfhfi'wi ' f • I . hf *; ' !/ . ^ * '7 *' s ■D '• * 1 % *Vit I f j*' ■ V[u (f ' ;' • I U _^**. '*■ u^»—— ' *• * _ -^1 A. *1 • J %-• ^ i' =1 . ^>v LV • .>: •••-^. V. * »r> *'>* ' -r A. j • ^ ^ j OA >uc 7.'^> ' < .T 1. ;<i v: n 'i/ *•> »w '' ■* »> /i\>’. 4i kS . *% ■' t 1 ^ I » t ^ # « ? ,' ^J> ? ;#/ V 4 r/. I I ^1 r:m .■ - w 1 ‘ * w , *• .^'\ ' ^ •• A \1?'. . Y • —*• V •. , ''- . '"■ma»t<^::f 5^-.. ♦» • -:, H lA - - 4^ V '^‘ 4 •:» ^' . •< > »* ^ ! ^ ., /■ ^■v’i •<1^ - ■^■*- r ^ ^; ^ it •r.-*^vr '' ' V V'-'T-' ' "■ ; ^'1 .y%i. '' Vs •♦'v . I'’ . " ■' ■ '•, ■ «^^‘!k!>'''*^'r' .... '.' Vy;V^, ^ !■ .■■IT • I -* k r*i2 IQ m''. . Av< piySilt'-vM^^f WV.^‘.'m »' I » * > V ^ ' I t ^ 4^.% V. )>■ •4C xC' HMr #M T ► t fi'4W, f t ! ' IIM V t U \ 1 mf \u.1 . 7 n'.' ittFP m In <*ftiiicit !>'■ PM UlliRa ''iliWlltw 'm i- - * •'.<■■ v't;-> r>iti;...-’ / / ? »•*. W <w«>* •4r m ^ ^ ‘ S; «r ,■•»»» v-rf-- i{filKiw m\ ». r |!^ ' I»• Mir «, • ■*- ’’ . ^ .*« vr'VH 5o:« ■ «%«#' Wi 'mt; m^. itas •Tl % “ « I* k \ !• Aii V.' I**- V> .ti1^/Pwr^^y » -« • .-♦' T<^’,- >"/,< ■<id><h.‘C^ « T >►' ; -T m .1" f ' •L^tv -‘r \\r:v V , • * 3* i2-iir-a* M«ti nnM» S THONAS t i S THONAS A f AOn NINNEAPOl HOUNO NN 553 SO OT-llT-ZS M7SO NORTH CHRISTINE J .SI CHRISTINE J SI A7S0 NORTH SW NOimO NN 5S: PROP AODR OHNER NONE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO #7-n7-2S 0A751 TONKA S. A SCNAUER 0 S A SCNAUER 0 A7S1 TONKAVIE HOUND NN 5S PROP ADOR OHNER NONE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M e7*117-SS 00725 NORTN P HENRY ETA P HENRY 0725 NORTH SH HOUNO HN 55 J J ■K -- > TOP AOOR .MER NONE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 07-117-2S 00753 NORTH PELLETT 0 S LOREN PELLETT 07SS NORTH SM HOUNO HH SS PROP AOOR OHNER HONE TAXPAYER MANE/AOOR SO 07-117-2! 0O7W NORTI NEWIEPIN FORI CITY OF P 0 OOX M CRYSTAL DAY I RUN DATE 1R/RVR2 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SVSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXA3MI1 PACE 29 •ATCN 5M PROP AOMI OMNtR NAM TARPAYCR NANC/AOOR SA 12'X17-a4 41 MU MODI NXNNEAPOLIS AVE C S TNONAS REN TRADER C S TNONAS ■ E N TRADER 40*1 NXNNEAPOLIS AVE NOUND NN SSS44 SO 07*X17*2S 52 IMS •472S TONKAVXEW LA EAT CHRISTIANSON CARL I TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4M1 TONKA VIEW LANE NOUND NN S5SM 50 S7-117-25 52 OEM •4755 TONKAVIEN LA S V MNXTNAN ONE MHITNAN STUART V HHXTNAN 4755 TONKAVIEN LA - NOUND NN SSSA4 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO tr-llT-SS 52 •••• •47S4 NORTH SNORE DR CNRISHNE J SCHANZENIACN CHRISTINE J SCHANXENDACH 4754 NORTH SHORE DR NOUND NN 55544 50 OT-llT-XS 52 ••!• •4745 TONKAVIEN CT JANES R TNONSON ETAL JANES TNONSON 4745 TONKAVIEN CT ORONO NN 55544 54 •7-117-25 52 ORll •4757 TONKAVIEN LA T 0 OLSON • L N NALLACE T 0 OLSON ■ L H WALLACE 4757 TONKAVIEN LA HOUND NN 5S344I PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 5S •7-117-25 52 RaiS •4751 TONKAVIEN CT S.A SCNAUER 1 P E KOUDSKY S A SCNAUER • F E KOUDSKY 4751 TONKAVIEN CT NOUND NN 55544 5D *7-117-25 52 ••14 •4759 TONKAVIEN CT LARRY A 6REENHAGEN ET AL L CREENNAGEN A V GREENHAGEN 4759 TONKAVIEN CT HOUND NN 55544 50 •7-117-25 52 ••!* •4751 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 440S NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN 55544 PRDP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR M •7-117-23 52 aoir •4725 NORTH SHORE DR J P HENRY ETAL J P HENRY 4725 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN 55544 SO OT-llT-XS 52 ••IS •4751 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 44Sa NORTH SHORE DR HOUND NN 55544 50 •7-117-25 32 flll9 •4745 NORTH SHORE DR HCRNAN CRAMrORD ETAL HERNAN CRANFORD 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE HOUND HN 55544 , TOP ADDR ANER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR Sa •7-117-25 52 •020 •4755 NORTH SHORE OR L PELLETT • S PELLETT LOREN PELLETT 4755 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55544 5S *7-117-25 52 ••21 •4755 NORTH SHORE OR 0 R EVERSON P H E EVERSON GARRY S NARIE EVERSON 4755 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55544 50 *7-117-25 52 at22 •4775 NORTH SHORE OR 0 E DOLL A S E DOLL DOUGLAS E A SANDRA E DOLL 4775 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55544 PROP ADDR DNNER NAHi TAXPAYER HANE/ADON SD 47-117-25 52 492S 44795 NORTH SNORE DR HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 DOK 44 CRYSTAL DAY NN 55525 54 47-117-25 52 9457 4475S TONKAVXEM LA DANON S' MRXONT/NANY F JONES DAHON S NRXGNT 4755 TONKAVIEN U HOUND HN 55544 SO 47-117-25 52 44S4 44745 NORTH SHORE DR A N A T K RASCIKR ANOREV N A TRACY K RASCNER 4745 NORTH SNORE OR _ A ' ••/ . L.M ii:IITJ •; >' 3 } ■ »■' 1 J ) •’ i \V:’^ cr-V/^' •i • •« R fiv , ) ... •• ./ Jv. V'" « V * ' ***••*• --^ "/r t1 ' r I Vn') .'; r • ♦' I ' J . ;' / ' f • * * * / I * 1111 •' V M.; - - ^ '7" ‘ ^ V- • -V* ' '. • ^«• •' ______________________;_1_^___!!________________' ••*.• -I'^v '.^.. . I i ' . >r Date Appllcttion Received: 12/21/03 Dale Applicatloa Comldered as Complete: 12/21/03 Initial 60>Day Review Period Eipircs: 2/19/04 60 Day Extension Notice 2/19/04 to: 4/18/04 COliMni MPPTING MAR 8 2004 CITY OF ORO.WO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Febniary 20. 2004 Item No.: d ' i 3'6A/or Department Approval: Nanw: Title: Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2976 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Ruad - CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Structure - Resolution Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. (87,120 s.f.) Lot Area:(Per approved lot line rearrangement) 4.01 ac. (3 ac. dry, 1 ac. wetland) List of Exhibits A - April 23,1997 MPO Memo re: Accessory Structures B - July 21.2003 MPG Memo re: Refresher Course on Guest Houses, Guest Apartments and Plumbing in Accessory Buildings C - Resolution (no change from February 9 version) D - Notice of 60-Day Extension 2-19-04 E - Notice of Council Action 2-11-04 F - Draft Council Minutes 2-9-04 G - Memo and select exhibits of 1-29-04 Application Status: Council tabled this item on February 9 and directed staff to explore ways to allow the kitchen to remain. Analysis of Zoning Ordinance Please review the attached staff memos of April 23.1997 and July 21.2003 addressing the issue of guest houses and the like. I i 1 «04.2976 February 20,2004 Pate 2 Wetland Issue. First, I would like to state that, as strongly as the applicant believes that the only reason he was required to combine in 1990 was the septic system over the line, I am equally convinced that the primary reason for combination was that without it, the property did not meet the 4-dry-buildable-acres for a guest house in the 2-acre zone. The definition of what portion of his property was wetland has not changedsince 1990. Theboundarybetweenthewetlandanduplandonour 1974mapsisvirtuallyidentical to that depicted by the current topographic survey. It’s an abrupt change from upland to wetland, and not much room for interpretation. Guest House Standards Reflect Density Concern. S taff believes the City’s need to regulate guest houses is directly related to the intended density and intensity of dwelling uses. A second dwelling on a gi ven standard sized property potentially brings in double the traffic, double the hunuin activity, and half as much open space as the same lot with just a principal dwelling. That is why the Code since 1967 or earlier has required that “all regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house". This guarantees a measure of separation commensurate with the intended zoning. The Code has never differentiated between the relatively benign impacts of an occasional house guest staying for a few days, and the much greater potential impacts of the family or extended family memberfs) (r long-term caretaker and family who occupy a guest house as their primary residence. Indeed, it would be difficult for the City to monitor such uses, nor to monitor whether rent is exchanged for such use, and that is likely why the broad-brush guest house CUP was established. The City has in fact had to contend with illegal rental occupancy of accessory buildings that were provided with plumbing. We have had multiple situations in the Navarre area where detached garages with plumbing were rented as dwelling space. It may be affordable housing, but the neighborhood suffers. Staff believes that the proliferation of detached garages with studio or other non-storage space that have been approved for a ‘plumbing in accessory structure’ CUP set up a situation for separate dwelling rental uses, regardless whether they have kitchens, and regardless whether they have executed a covenant agreeing to no such uses. Defining “Guest House’’. What is a guest house? The zoning code defines it as follows: "Guest House - An accessory separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests, of the primary dwelling. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. ” A guest house is an accessory separate dwelling on a property that already has a principal dwelling. The definition of dwelling is key to the issue. The zoning code definition of ’dwelling’ is: "Dwelling - A building or one or more portions thereof designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boardinghouses, nor trailers, tents, cabins, or trailer coaches. A dwelling shall not be interpreted to include lodging rooms." 5 : 1 >■ * I i .y I* li 1 «04*297< Ftbniary 20,2004 Page 3 If the intended use of a guest house is for residence purposes, that seems to infer a long-term use as a petmanent place to live, which suggests the need for complete living facilities. The Building Code indicates that a dwelling is characterized by containing facili ties for "sleepina. eating , cooking and sgoitsiisn" The building code also indicates a number of other features of a habitable dwelling, a separate closet, a kitchen sink, refrigeration, a cooking appliance, and plumbing to include as a minimum a toilet, a tub or shower, and a lavatory. One could also argue that in Minnesota, a source of heat is also necessary during a portion of the year. 1 believe Council will agree with staff that other than the bathroom fixtures, heating equipment and kitchen sink, virtually all other elements that make up the four characteristics of a dwelling am ‘plug-in’ items that can be purchased and installed without City permits. Need for ‘Full Facilities. I .imited I Jse’ Potion? TheZoningCodedistinguishes between an accessory building that doesn't have the complete facilities necessary for permanent dwelling status, and one that does have such facilities, via the ‘accessory building with plumbing CUP and the ‘guest house CUP’ regulations. Perhaps there should be an additional CUP option, based on the intended length or intensity of use as a dwelling vs. the occasional guest. For example, a covenant could be required that allows only infrequent, short-time residence use, say up to 2 weeks, only 4 times per year, or similar. This type of limitation is, unfortunately, difficult to monitor. We would ultimately rely on the neighborhood to let us know when a problem occurs. Ultimately, the question comes down to enforceability. If acunent owner uses a full-facility accessory building for occasional guests, it is not a problem for the neighborhood. If the next owner buys it with the idea of tenting it out as a source of income, or merely has his caretaker live there, it can have an impact on the neighborhood. Conditional Use Permits go with the property, not with the applicant. Despite the existence of acovenant in the chain of title, a new property owner might change the use from a benign one to one that has greater i mpacts. The covenant gives the City an enforcement tool, but it requires City action, whereas not allowing the creation of a full-facility accessory building would potentially avoid the need for enforcement. Options for Pierpont Situation The primary issue we are dealing with in the Pierpont application is whether retention of the kitchen, or even just the sink, will be allowed. It has been staffs contention that, absent any clear direction in the Zoning Code, the existence of the kitchen is what functionally differentiates a ‘guest house’ from an ‘accessory building with plumbing’, and is what gives the guest house the ability to function as a dwelling. While it may be attractive to merely require that the owner execute a covenant stating the accessory building with full plumbing, heating equipment and a kitchen sink won’t be used as a guest house, Mr. Pierpont has described its past use and projected use as a place for guests to stay ovemigiit That is in fact a guest house use under the current interpretation of the code. If you wish to conclude that the intended use should be the defining factor, then staff believes a code amendment would be prudent. M4-2976 Fcbnury 20.2004 Pagt4 Staff would strongly recommend against granting a variance to the diy*buildable*area lequiiement to allow this guest house use. That has not been varied in past guest house approvals, and would set a negative precedent in terms of the density issue discussed above. When the terms of an allowed use are abused by a property owner, the City typically relies on a neighborhood to inform us of the problem situation. The code was designed to plan for the worst possible scenario situations, and when a consistent pattern of approvals and enforcement has been followed, enforcement is relatively easy. However, if the Council waivers from the consistent pattern of approvals to acconunodate a special situation, future enforcement can become more difficult. Finally, recall that the ‘plumbing in accessory building CUP’ standard covenant includes the following elements: 1. No use for home occupation purposes 2. No use as a dwelling without a guest house CUP 3. No rental or leasing for use as a dwelling Options for Consideration: 1.Approve the plumbing in accessory building CUP and require removal of kitchen sink and any other kitchen facilities, require standard covenant execution. 2.Approve the plumbing in accessory building CUP and require removal of all kitchen facilities, and allow the kitchen sink to remain merely as a basin, not as a source of water, by removing its supportive plumbing, require standard covenant execution. 3.Table the application, direct Planning Commission to nuke a recommendation regarding a potential code amendment and clarifications that would clearly esublish CUP standards for various levels of use, based on the applicants ’ intended levels of use rather than on the extent of facilities provided. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Determine how you wish to proceed on this matter. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #04-2976 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; February 25. 2(X)4 TO: James & Judith Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit - Plumbing in Accessory Structure DATE OF MEETING: February 23, 2004 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: Table - applicant was not present. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confinned as: City Council • Monday, March 8, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Please advise City staff whether you will be able to attend this meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. k 1^ To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron Date:April 23. 1997 Subject: Accessory Structure Policies Related to Dwelling Status Accessory Structure Not To Be Used As Dwelling Except By CUP Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subd. 11 states: "Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling". An accessory building with the potential to be used as separate dwelling urn; t.'< cates a potential violation situation. However, Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3 (G)(1) provides for one special circumstance under which an accessory building mav be used for dwelling purposes via a Conditional Use Pemit in residential zoning disuicts: '‘Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guesthouse." Guest House Performance Standards The above language in italics has been part of the zoning code since 1975 (perhaps earlier). The City has long interpreted the phrase "all regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house" to mean that the property on which a guest house conditional use is proposed must contain double the required lot area of the zoning district in which it is located. The intent of this requirement is two-fold: 1. Allow the ability for future subdivision to place the guest house on its own conforming lot (hence setbacks from lot lines and the principal residence structure are taken into account when a guest house CUP is reviewed). 2. Preserve the intended degree of residential density in Orono's neighborhoods, even if the guest house is never subdivided off. Limiting guest house use to that of the occupants of the principal residence and their domestic employees and non-paving guests, is intended to allow for a caretaker, maid. etc. to live on the site as well as to provide for the occasional relative or guest (length of stay not specified). This eliminates the use as an income-producing separate dwelling unit which would function totally independently from the principal residence and which would therefore lose its "accessory" character. Of course, it is often difficult or impossible for the City to monitor whether a guest house is being rented out, and the City generally relies on neighbor complaints to identify violations. t; j I • 1 i \ < 1 T j A XI. Accessory Structures April 23.1997 Page 2 What Constitutes a 'Dwelling'? The primary issue for building & zoning staff is to determine whether a guest house CUP is required for a given project . This determination relies on a definition of what makes an accessory structure a dwelling. The zoning code definition of 'dwelling' is: “Dwelling - A building or one or more portions thereof designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boardinghouses, nor trailers, tents, cabins, or trailer coaches. A dwelling shall not be interpreted to include lodging rooms." The terms 'building', 'boardinghouse', 'motel' and 'hotel' are further defined in the zoning code. It is unfortunate, however, that the physical features that differentiate a building that is a dwelling from one that is not. are not defined. We then must turn to the Building Code, which indicates that a dwelling is characterized by containing facilities for "sleeping, eating. sQolsiog and sanitation." The building code also indicates a number of other features of a habitable dwelling: a separate closet, a kitchen sink, refrigeration, a cooking appliance, and plumbing to include as a minimum a toilet, a tub or shower, and a lavatory. One could also argue that in Minnesota, a source of heat is also necessary during a portion of the year. Permanent Fixtures vs. Personal Property The next difficulty is that many of the physical objects which would reasonably and normally be used for the activities of'sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation' are not fixtures but can be relatively mobile items of personal property rather than real property, i.e. a bed. perhaps a space heater, a table/chairs/eating utensils, a microwave oven or even an electric or gas stove and a refrigerator. These 'portable' items can be brought into and removed from a building at will and, significantly, without the requirement of a building permit, hence using them to defiiK whether a building is or isn't potendallv functional as a dwelling, is not practical. However, the function of sanitation generally requires permanent fixtures which are readily distinguishable from personal property, and which technically require that a building permit be issued. Toilets, showers, tubs and lavatories fall into this category. And, most heating equipment falls into this category. Presence or Absence of a 'Kitchen' For some time staff has considered that the presence or absence of a Tdtchcn’ is a key determinant of dwelling status. Also, staff has generally considered that a secondary kitchen within a dwelling is one of the key factors that can create an apartment unit, and has usually noted to the builder/owncr via the plan review that use of the second kitchen for a separate dwelling unit requires City rqiproval (guest q»ttment CUP). Accessory Structures April 23,1997 Page 3 The problem here is that the only permanent fixture in a kitchen may be a kitchen sink, and a lavatory in a bathroom might serve the same function. Typical Accesssory Building Utility Amenities It is not uncommon for accessory buildings to be provided with electricity, not only for lighting but for many other purposes (lawn maintenance, workshop, etc.). A telephone jack might also be placed in an accessory building for convenience. Less common would be natural gas, except for heating purposes. Water piping might be common in an accessory building for someone who is a gardener, with a washtub or sink area. A home workshop in an accessory building n>ight include a toilet and lavatory for convenience. Much less common in an accessory building is ashower or bathtub. Such a fixture technically would require a permit from the City, and is perhaps the single 'built-in' feature most likely to make a building suitably functional as a stand-^one dwelling. In our society, where the majority of individuals tend to bathe on a regular basis, the absence of a shower or tub suggests a space that, even if provided with most other amenities, is not intended for anything more than short term use accessory to abuilding that has juch a facility. Without a tub or shower, it is not livable. By the same token, without a toilet, it is not livable. Yet the presence of a shower stall in an unheated garage for seasonal or occasional use by the homeowner to remove the grime from a hard day 'in the coal mines', hardly would constitute a separate dwelling unit in itself. This suggests that perhaps a shower or tub in combination with a toilet is necessary to comprise a functional, if not necessarily legal, dwelling unit... It may therefore be reasonable to define whether a structure or space is a (potential) dwelling unit by the presence or absence of a bathtub or shower In combination with a toilet. Restrictive Covenant: Alternative to CUP? We need a useful policy statement on what fixtures can be allowed in an accessoiy building without requiring a Guest House CUP. The policy becomes more difficult to define now that the Council has in at least one case allowed an accessory building to contain a shower and a toilet, with a covenant filed in the title stating that the building may not be used as "an alternative living space, guest house, secondary residential unit, mother-in-law apartment, rental structure, or the like." Council apparently has taken the position that even though an accessory stiuctuie has the amenities to be used as a second dwelling unit (i.e. it looks and smells and feels and tastes like a guest house), the determinant of whether it needs a CUP is the owner's intended use of the structure. And, if the owner does not intend to use it as a guest house even though it can easily function as one, a covenant filed in the title stating the owner agrees to not use it as a dwelling presumably at least gives the City the right to sue for breach of covenant if it is in fact used as a dwelling unit. The covenant also notifies future owners of the property that dwelling use is not allowed. Accessory Structures April 23. 1997 Page 4 But such a covenant does not result in physical traits of the structure being created in a manner non* conducive to dwelling use. It effectively allows all the necessary physical features for a dwelling to be put into place, then assumes the homeowner and all future homeowners will abide by the restrictions (similar to allowing the manufacture of cars that can go 120 miles an hour when the speed limit is SS). Determining Policy Given the Council's recent action to allow via a mere covenant ail the physical improvements which make an accessory structure functional as a dwelling, it appears the Council expects staff to take into consideration the intent of the owner, not just the physical i mprovements in the building. It is not clear whether Council wants to review each individual case, or whether Council expects staff to determine whether a CUP or covenant is most appropriate for agi ven application and let staff deal with the covenant situations. And, Council has not given clear direction as to what fixtures or facilities are necessary to consider a structure to be a potential guest house. 'Sewer Connection Charge' Policy Has Been Inconsistent Council has given inconsistent direction through the years as to the sewer connection charge for properties with guest houses. In the past, where sewer was available, approval of a guest house CUP was accompanied by a requirement that a full sewer unit connection charge be paid, regardless whether the property was conforming in lot area requirements. However, in the recent (1994) Stoddard request for a Guest House CUP on sewered property in which the lot did not meet the 'double area' standard. Council chose to not require aconnecdon charge, apparently on the theory that charging one would provide a future basis for the property owner to demand lot area and width variances for a future subdivision. Draft Policy Statement The Orono Zoning Code prohibits the use of an accessory structure on a property as a sepaz ate dwelling unit, except via a Guest House Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP may be issued by the City Council upon finding that all Code requirements are met. AUTHOR ADDENDUM 2*204)4: This memo was a precursor to Ordinance No. 179, Second Series, adopted 10*12*98, which established the “Plumbing In Accessory Building" CUP. I !f ! ill 8 To: From; Date: Subject: Building Sc Zoning Staff Mike Gaffron July 21,2003 Refresher Course on Guest Apartments, Guest Houses, and Plumbing in Accessory Buildings 1. Guest Apartments are attached to the principal residence structure, and standards are established in 10.20, Subd. 3(G)(2). 10.20, Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA” One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: G. Guest Houses Sc Non-rental Guest Apartments. 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 2. Guest Houses arc free-standing accessory structures, and standards are established in 10.20, Subd 3(G)(1): 10.20, Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no stmeture or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: G. Guest Houses Sc Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house.* Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 ii ■r -......^ — *Ed. Note: ’’All regular lot requirements” means that: 1. Property must have double the dry buildable acreage required for a principle structure; and Guest house must be located so that it could be subdivided off from main house and both main house and guest house would have conforming setbacks from lot lines, etc. 2. 3. Accessory Buildings with Plumbing are those accessory structures which are neither intended nor used for overnight occupaiKy. Overnight use would presumably make them dwelling units, which triggers the Guest House status and need for a CUP. Accessory Buildings with Plumbing are divided into two categories: Those that do not contain any of these fixtures: bathtub, toilet, or shower. These are subject to an administrative permit and covenant filing: and Those that contain one or more of any of these fixtures: bathtub, a toilet, or a shower (or a combination of these fixtures). These require a Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP. Accessory Buildings with Plumbing are governed by Section 10.03, Subd. 9(F): 10.03, Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. F. Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the City to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: 1.The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor watc: supply shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. 2. Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does include a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner executing a covenant providing that: b. c. Accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City orif allowed by City code. Accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. Accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. , I » ••TP I I j 1 3. Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, which meets one of the following criteria: a.The accessory building has been approved for a 'Guest House* conditional use permit; or b.The accessory building has been approved for a Plumbing in Accessory Building' conditional use permit. Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10>12>98 Accessoiy Buildings with Plumbing that includes a toilet, tub, or shower or a combination of these fixtures, but not intended to be used as a Guest House, are governed by the "Plumbing In Accessory Building" CUP standards of Section 10.03, Subd. 3(Q): 10.20, Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or luid shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Q. Plumbing in Accessory Building. The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1.The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2.The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. 4. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 5. b. The property owner a^ees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. the accessewy building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained, the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling und» any circumstances. Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Scries Adopted: 10*12>98 c. I 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-303, SUBDIVISION (17) nLE #04-2976 WHEREAS, James W. Pieipont andJudith A. Pieipont, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1801 West Farm Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally d^iibed as: Attached ‘'Exhibit A” (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-303, Subdivision (17) to allow plumbing including a toilet, bathroom sink and shower to remain in an existing accessory structure formerly used as a guest house; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a puldic hearing on January 20,2(X)4, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2976. 2. The property is located in the LR-1A 2^ning District, where 2 acres is the minimum lot area. The property is approximately 4 acres in gross area including wetlands. Page 1 of 6 ■ i I aUt, • < 3. 4. 5. The Planning Comniission reviewed this application on Januaiy 20,2004 and on a vote of 4* I recommended approval of a CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, based on the following findings: a.The proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. b.The plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory structure. c.The property size and accessory building location are sufficient to allow the conditional use permit to be granted. The nonconformity of the building location is mitigated by the existing screening and adequate separation distances to neighboring homes. d.The CUP should be subject to the standard “Plumbing in Accessory Structure’ conditions. e.The retention of the existing kitchen fixtures in the structure would not be appropriate as that would make the building easily functional as a guest house for which the property does not qualify. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and tlie effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the accessory structure will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-303, Subdivision (17) to allow plumbing including a toilet, bathroom sink and shower to be retained in the existing accessory stmcture, per the site plan and building floor plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and as annotated by City staff, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. The applicants shall, prior to this resolution taking full effect and within 90 days of the date of this resolution, remove the following existing kitchen fixtures from the structuraqinstion: - cooktop (no oven exists) • refrigerator - kitchen sink and its associated plumbing The applicants by executing this resolution agree and covenant that the property will be bound by the following conditions: Kitchen fixtures including kitchen sink and its associated plumbing, refrigerator, stove/range and cooktop, shall not be reinstalled or installed in the accessory structure unless specific approval to do so is granted by the City Council, and installation of such fixtures in the future without City Council approval shall be considered a violation of the conditions of this resolution; The accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code; The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CLT is obtained (site is not large enough to qualify); and The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circ’ ’.mstances. Page 3 of 6 d 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only andmust be exercised by completing the kitchen removals within the time frame established above and by obtaining a final inspection for same within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (February 23, 2005). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a vidation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted heidn, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this res<riution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assi gns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of February, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoi ng instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of Febmary , 2004 by Baibara A. Peterson, ^yor of the City >f Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instnunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of..,2004by LindaS. Vee, City Qerkof the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 p STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This insmimenl was acknowledged before me this____day of. James W. Pierpont. husband of Judith A. Pierpont. ..2004 by Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this Judith A. Pierpont, wife of James W. Pierpont. day of..,2004 by 11 Notary Public PSi0B6af6 .UJjttUt T> CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4^ ZONING nLE #04-2976 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 19. 2004 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE 2-19-04 952-475-1678 tmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^rnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm • •• • — ••• • •••••• • m mmm mm TO:James Sc Judith Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit - Plumbing in Accessory Structure State law providei that Cities shaf i make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to die applieanL Your application was received on December 21, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on January 19, 2004. However, because your application was tabled by die City Council to the February 23 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falU after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended on additional 60 days to April 18, 2004, Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council • Monday, February 23, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. J iji ■ —— I CITY OF ORONO 27S0 Kdley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #04-2976 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 11, 2004 TO:James & Judith Pieipont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake. MN SS3S6 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit - Plumbing in Accessory Structure mmm mmmmmmmmmmm^mmmm mmmmmmm m mmmmmmm m mm mm mm m mm mmmmmm'arnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmt DATE OF MEETING: February 9. 2004 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: Table - directing staff to explore options for allowing the kitchen to remain. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council • Monday, February 23, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire ceitifled copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at 9S2-249-4600. ^ 1 ■ I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 F Resolution No. Murphy moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow construction of a covered porch 45’ from the front property line and 35’ from the side street property line where 50’ setbacks are required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #04-2976 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road—Conditional Use Peimlt Mr. Pierpont stated that he requested the item be removed from Consent because of the condition that the kitchen be removed. He passed around pictures to show t’ae kitchen in their guest house. It consisted of a mini-fridge, cooktop, and small wo^nbasin-style sink. He stated there is no disposal, microwave, or other appliances typically found in a kitchen. He stated the kitchen was solely for the convenience of their guests, should they want to boil water or keep milk handy for babies. Sansevere asked why the kitchen should be removed when the fixtures in question were smaller than standard size. Gundlach stated that the technicality was over conformity because the code docs not allow ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 for kitchens in accessory buildings. Mabusth stated that she felt the kitchen should not be removed based on its small scale however, if the applicant combined the lots, they would be in compliance and the kitchen would not be an issue. Mr. Pierpont stated that they moved the lot line because of a septic issue. They wanted to have two separate salable lots, one of 2 acres and one of 4 acres. He stated the problem arises with the wetland debate. He maintained that there is no more than V^-acre of wetland on the lot. As a result, they have approximately 3.5 acres of dry buildable. instead of 4, which results in the requirement that they remove the kitchen. He stated the sink is the furthest point in their plumbing and if they shut off the sink, they would have problems with pipes freezing. He asked Council to approve the application without requiring the kitchen be removed. Murphy clarified that the matter arose because of a lot line rearrangement issue. He stated he felt it ludicrous to have to remove the kitchen. McMillan stated that the guest house was nonconforming, and removing the appliances was a technicality based on City code, which therefore should be followed. Mr. Pierpont stated that the rule about dry buildable and the confusion about the amount ■ III ■nrimirt J ORONO OTY COUNCa MEETING MONDA.Y, FEBRUARY 9,2004 of wetland made hit guest house nonconfonning. Mayor Peterson asked about the original application. Gundlach replied that the 1990 permit for the guest house required the lots be combined. If that had happened, there would not be any issue. Mr. Pierpont stated he would covenant that the guest house never be used inappropriately. White uked if they could have a wet bar in an accessory structure. Gundlach stated he could not The intent of the code was to allow a bathroom only. The issue is with the sink and the plumbing associated wiUi it McMillan stated that the ordinance was designed to prevent renting out accessory structures. They had issues to address and the ordinance was the only way to handle them. While the Pierponts might not cause problems, the codes apply to the properties, not the owners. Moorse stated the City could regulate plumbing matters, but could not control appliance use. White stated he would vote to enforce the ordinance. f i 1.1 y ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Sansevere moved to allow the kitchen to remain provided it never be exp^ded in % any way. The motion failed as no one seconded it Murphy asked if there was any restriction on the City pursuing the kitchen issue because of the way it came up: accidentally during a lot line rearrangement application. Barrett replied that there was nothing to prevent the City from addressing the fact that the expected lot combination never happened. McMillan moved, and White seconded, to approve the CUP subject to the removal of the sink, cooktop, and fridge, and that a covenant be placed to insure the guest house never be used as a residence. Vote: Ayes 1, Nays 4 (Mayor Peterson, White, Murphy, Sansevere). Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the CUP, allowing the kitchen to remain, with the guest house being regulated by a standard use limitation covenant. Barrett stated that the applicant has a g^est house, not an accessory building with plumbing, therefore the Pierponts should pursue a CUP for a guest house. He suggested they convert the application to one concerning the guest house, and then Council move to grant a variance to the lot area requirements for the guest house from the 4 acres required to the 3.S that the Pierponts have available. j ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Mayor Peterson moved, and Whiu seconded, to Uble the application ^th an <0extension of the sixty days. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Stnsevece stated that he has serious concerns about the direction of the Parks Comnission. He felt Council should address the matter soon. Sansevere congratulated Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis on their marriages. Murphy stated that the memo concerning tax increases for the parks saddened him. He felt that Council and Psffk Commission relations are failing. McMillan stated that as the liaison to the Park Commission she hears both sides of it. She noted that no one signed the memo, and she would spc.o /tew McDermott this week. She suggested a joint meeting in April to encourage them to focus on goals that they can control. White stated that the chair should be in sync with the Council, and realize the position of carrying out Council’s goals. He felt they laid out a great plan, and then ignored it He i' r BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT LYLE OMAN Building Official INSPECTIONS: CALL SECRETARY- GIVE 24 HOUR NOTICE OFnCE HOURS: MONDAY-FRIDAY 8:00 AM • 4:30 PM iNPEX: £88£ Application Procedures and Survey Requirements ..............................1-S Minimum Standards ..........................................................................6-7 Zoning Map......................................................................................8 Application Form..............................................................................9 Data Privacy Advisory ......................................................................10 Energy ("U") Computation Forms.....................................................11*20 Hardcover........................................................................................21-23 Shorci^nd Regulations ......................................................................24-27 Miimehaha Creek Watershed District Rules .......................................28-29 Septic System Information Sheet .......................................................30 Check-Off List (office use only)........................................................31-32 REVIEW & PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED TO AVOID DELAY .1 li BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDLUE Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by the data indicated below. Failure to submit complete information will result in return of applications. Please read carefully the listed requirements. 1. A. B. ALL APPLICATIONS Completed application forms including all information required in numbered spaces, dated and signed by applicant. Two copies of building plans, drawn to scale, together with specifications containing the minimum information noted below: (requirement for building plans may be waived by the Building Official for small structures or minor work). One set will remain on file with the City and one set will be returned to applicant. Residential Plan reviews will require a minimum of 7 to 10 woridng days for staff review. All new conunercial structures must be approved by the Orono Council. Moditication of existing commercial structures will require a minimum of 2 weeks for staff review. Minimum Information Required: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (signed by a registered land surveyor). A survey is required for all types of construction including new homes, room additions, porches, decks and accessory buildings. The survey must include the legal description of property, location of existing and proposed structures on the site, location of all propos^ improvements such as driveways, retaining walls, decks, sidewalks, etc. Lakeshore lots must show existing and proposed contours in minimum 2* increments. (Refer to mlnlmiiiii survey standards sheet on page 5 attached.) Survey Requirement Exemption - A survey will not be required for detached accessory structures of less than 1,000 s.f. in total floor area when aU of the following conditions are met:* a) The area of the property exceeds the minimum lot width/lot area standards of the zoning district. Owner/applicant has staked the location of the proposed structure meeting the required setbacks, and the property comer pins are staked and visible and a plot map of the property drawn to scale has been submitted. Owner/applicant has obtained written non-objection of most-affected adjacent property owner. *A survey will not be required for accessory structures without foundations and with less than 120 s.f. of projected roof area if b and c are met. A site inspection by City staff is required. Site inspection fee is $30.00 and shall be paid with the building permit. I 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. - where any changes in grade or drainage are proposed as a result of the construction, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted showing existing and proposed contours or grades. Required jfor gU projects. Floor Plans - each floor or level including basement or foundation, decks, porches, garage or carport. Size, spacing, and direction of floor and ceiling framing members, girders, beams, columns and piers. Location and size of all windows and doors including manufacturers identiflcation and documentation of window and door infiltration test data. Location and size of all permanently installed cabinets, plumbing fixtures, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Exterior Elevations - all sides of building showing windows, doors, finished grades, exterior finish, depth of footings, foundation walls, piers, finished floor elevations and type of materials. Details and Sections - a minimum of one section detail through exterior wall for each type of construction proposed, showing materials and dimensions of each member from footing to the highest point of the roof. Details including calculations and stress diagrams together with manufacturers specifications are required for all trusses. Fireplaces, if proposed, must be detailed in plan and cross section. Details and calculations are required for each critical construction detail including beams, overhanging or cantilevered Joists, stairways, balconies, or other unique structural features. Provide window and door schedules, shop drawings of sky lights, and manufactured stairways. Information and Calculations - pertaining to thermal transmittance values and resistance values of each proposed material are required and may be shown either on plans or in specifications (see detailed energy requirement sheet for complete listing of information). Mechanical Designs - complete calculations, details and specifications are required for each heating, ventilation, humidification-dehumidification, and air conditioning installation including heat loss/heat gain calculation, design temperatures, equipment ratings and identification as to type, manufacturer and model. Data shall be presented on form provided. Identification of and specifications for water heating equipment shall also be provided. Specifications - requii :d for commercial/industrial, residential i f applicable) may be separate or part of drawings and shall include description of materials to be used, identified as to grade, species, type, manufacturer, and conditions of use. If not included on plan, specifications shall include detailed thennal transmittance calculations together with supporting data used in computation. J c. E. 9.All applications for structures which require driveway access or in\ olve a change in use of an existing access to a County hi^way or City road, must be accompanied by an access permit issued by the Hennepin County Highway Depar.tnent or Orono Public Works Department. 10. For projects which will require the installation of an on-site sewage treatment system, a site evaluation report and system design must be submitted with the building permit application. (See septic system information sheet on page 25.) 11.For all projects located within 1,000' of lakeshore, shoreland regulations and hardcover limitations apply. Hardcover, by definition, is any structure, blacktop, or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. Hardcover calculations must accompany each application involving additional or replacement proposed hardcover in the affected zoning districts. (See the attached "Hardcover Woricsheet" on page 14 and "Shoreland Regulations" on pages 21-24.) One set of building plans and specifications noted with corrections or code compliance date and stamped as approved by the Building Official will be returned with the permit. This a pproved copy must be kept on the individual iob site, available to inspection persoimei >uyhout the construction.UiL» A Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to the use or occupancy of any new structure erected within the City. This certificate will be issued by the Building Official at such time as final inspections demonstrate that code compliance has been achieved. Final inspections are required for all existing structures altered or changed in use. Changes in the use of the commercial structure must also be approved by the Zoning Department. Time of Construction. Section 12.05 Subd. 1.Permit Expiration. Notwithstanding continuing or on-going work, any building permit issued by the City shall expire and by limitation be null and void and shall require issuance of a new permit and payment of a full new permit fee if a Certificate of Occupancy and final completion has not been issued within the following length of time after the date of permit issuance, which new permit and fee shall be necessary to reimburse the City for on going and more than normal number and cost of inspection services. A. Single Family Residential dwellings, including new construction, remodeling or additions: 24 months. I B.Accessory Buildings on Single Family Residential properties: 12 months. C. All Multi-Family and Non-Residential construction: 24 months except when a longer time is authorized by the Council at the time the original permit is issued. Subd. 2.Exterior Work. Notwithstanding continuing or on-going woric nor issuance of new or extended permits, ail exterior work shall be expeditiously brought to completion to protect adjoining and nearby properties as follows: No land shall remain disturbed and extx)sed without established grass or other ground cover for a period exceeding 12 months, or any lessCT period as may be specified in the permit. B.All exterior construction including siding, roofing, doors, windows and finish shall be completed and present a finished appearance within 12 months of the start of coiutructiort NOTE: Permit applications for projects for which a variance h2;s been tqrproved must be submitted within one year of the date of variance approval, and permit must be obtained no more than 6 months after date of permit application in order that variance remains in effect. IDENTIFICATION OF PREMISES REQUIRED Approved addresses shall be displayed, plainly visible and legible fiom the street fionting the property. 4 i ........ ‘^ ^ . jh t 1. 2. 3. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. CITY OF ORONO BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION All surveys shall be certified by a Minnesota Registered Land Surveyor. Civil engineers may certify topographic surveys. A certified land survey shall indicate that permanent iron monuments are in place at each lot comer. Offset stakes shall also be placed on each side lot line indicating front and rear building lines. In the event the distance to the side line is greater than 30 feet, stakes shall be placed on the fitmt and rear building lines a distance not to exceed 30 feet from the building side lines. Primary and alternate drainfield area comers shall be staked per septic design. Line stakes shall be placed on the nearest affected lot lines. Indicate all proposed buildings with dimensions of each building and reference dimensions measured perpendicular from the front, side and rear lot lines to the nearest point of each building. Indicate the location of all existing and proposed decks, porches, driveways, curb cuts, and other accessory structures. Indicate the total lot area in square feet. Indicate elevations to sea level datum of the top of curb or, if no curb, the edge of the pavement of the street at points where the side lot lines of the property intersect said street Indicate proposed elevations to sea level datum of the top of foundation, garage floor and the lowest most floor. Indicate proposed elevations to sea level datum of proposed and existing grade at each comer of the proposed buildings. Indicate existing and proposed elevations to sea level datum of grade at each property comer. Indicate location and elevation of any stmetures on adjacent properties within 30* of lot lines. For lakeshore lots, the principal structure on each adjacent lakeshore lot must be shown. Indicate all existing easements, drainageways and wetlands within the property and within 30* of the property. Indicate with arrows the direction of proposed surface drainage. Topographk surveys are required on all lakeshore lots. (A hardcover survey and calculations will be required for all Lakeshore Residential zones when the property is within 1,000' of lakeshore.) For property adjacent to lakes, ponds, streams or wetlands, indicate the established high water elevation as approved by the City Engineer. The lowest floor elevation shall be no less than one (1) foot above the regional flood elevation. Lowest floor adjacent to Lake Muinetonka shall be no less than 932.5 feet. I. IV. ZI ICt STANDARDS CITY OF ORONO Sitiplg Family Rtaldential Zoning Dlitrkts (S«e Zoning District Map on Page 8) [UM LOT REQUIREMENTS _____Lfii___Setbacks (required yard areas) Section 2fias Afea Width Front Bsii Sids Side/Street 10.27.5(B)RR-IA 5 Ac.300’100'100'50'100’ 10.28.5(B)RR-IB 2 Ac.200*50’50’3(f SOT 10.23.6(B)LR-IA 2 Ac.200’50'50’30'50’ 10.20.5(B)R-IA 1 Ac.140*35 ’30’lO*35 ’ 10.24.5(B)LR-IB 1 Ac.140’35 ’30’10'35 ’ 10.21.5(B)R-IB 1/2 Ac.lOO*30'30*10*15’ 10.25.6(B)LR-1C& LR-lC-1 1/2 Ac.100*30’30’10’15’ II. SHORELANDS For properties located within 1,000* of lak^hore see pages 21-24. III. WETLANDS SETBACK 26* minimum (Section 10.55.8) - No building, excavatic n, grading or filling allowed in wetlands nor within 26* of wetlands. GENERAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Building Height: 30* maximum (Section 10.02, Subd. 13) - contact Building & Zoning Staff for height determination method Minimum Floor Area: None V. LOT COVERAGE In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acie in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area (Section 10.03, Subd. 14C). VI. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (Section 10.03.7-15) Maximum Floor Area: Contact staff Setbacks: Same front yard (street) setbacks as zone and no closer to street than principal structure. f iSttia ► vn. VIII. All zones ••Side: 10* Rear: S'(except gaiages lO*) Structure-to-Stnicture: 10* Detached Garage: ntinimuin 30* to street if doors face s^eet (but no closer to street than principal structure) ^Accessory structures in excess of 750 s.f. footprint area but not exceeding 1,(KX) s.f. footprint area shall be located at least 15' from any lot line. Accessory structures exceeding 1,000 s.f. shall be located at least 30' from side or rear lot lines and shall meet the minimum zoning district principal structure setbacks. Private Stables and Bams: Minimum 75' to lot lines Minimum 150' to nearest adjacent residence. Section 10.20, Subd.4(N) Hei^t:30' maximum and no greater than principal residence structure whichever is less. Note: All accessory buildings on double-frontage lots ("through lots") require a Conditional Uoe Permit. Lakeshore Lots:Accessory structures must be located to meet principal structure lakeshore setbacks (must meet shoreline setback aod average lakeshore setback defined by adjacent residence structures). Also, detached garages may be located 10' fix>m street lot line if doors face to the side. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Setbacks. The minimum setback distance requirements are as follows: (Se ion 12.30) Feature Sewage Tank and Soil Treatment Area Water Supply Well 75' Wetland 75' Lake: General Development 75' Recreational Development 75' Natural Environment 150' Tributanes, Streams 75' Driveways, Sidewalks, Decks, and other Hardcover 20' Property Lines, Buildings and Buried Pipes 20' Lawn Sprinkler Systems 10' WELL SETBACKS 3' to buildings 5' to property lines 20' to approved air tested buried sewo- lines 50' to untested buried sewer lines 75' to septic tanks and drainfields Mlif Official Zoning Map City of Orono, Minnesota Contact City Offices at 952-249-4600 for a copy of the zoning map. 8 r Total Fee: $. Entered By:_ Date Received:, Permit#: CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Ail information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) OWNER OR CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS:ZIP: Will this be a Parade of Homes, Remodelers Showcase Home or other Display Home? rn Yes D No Ifyes, a special event permit is required with Police Department and City Council approval 60 days prior to the event. Non^permitted events will not be allowed. NAME OF OWNER:PHONE: (home). (woric) MAILING ADDRESS:CITY:ZIP: CONTRACTOR:PHONE: CONTACT PERSON: MAILING ADDRESS: STATE LICENSE: # MOBILE/PAGER: CITY:ZIP: EXPWATION DATE: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS:___ NAME: PHONE: CITY:ZIP: REGISTRATION # TYPE OF WORK: New Addition Accessory Structure Move Home Remodel/Alteration PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail): STORIES:SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATTACHED DETACHED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above ir> complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be m accordance with the approved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:DATE: AilL 1 MCHTS OF SUBJECTS OF DATA Subd 1. TypcofdBa. The riifits of individiiil on vvfiom the dm ii itored or to be stored shiU be as ICC forth in this lection. Subd.2. InlbfmtfioQ required to be liven individual An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concenwng himself shall be informed of. (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested dm within the collecting stm apency. politicil subdtvtsion, or stmwide system; (b) whether he may refae or is kgally required to supply the requested dm; (c) any known consequence arising from his supplying or revising to supply private or conlidailiald?!a;Md(d) the idemityofocher persons or entities authorized by mte or federal law to receive Che data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual it asked to supply mvestigadvedata, punuani to section 13.82, subdivision S, to a law enforcement officer. KC lly fmtke Itiu tuMivkinn in the indivvhial t‘lAMl.’tax or 9tv tar those fa Subd. 3. Acems So dm by individual Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether he is the sul^ccl of stored dm on individualB, and whether it is cimifled as pubhe. private or confidential Upon his farther request, an individual who is the subject of stored privm or public dm on individuals than be shown the dm without any charge to him ml if he desves, shall be mformed of the content ac^ meaning of dial data. After an individual has been shown the private dm and mformed of its memiing, the dm need not be disekned to him far sU months thereafter unleu a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additionLj dm on the individual has been collected or cremd. The responsible authority shaO provide oopiaofihe privm or public dm upon request by the individual suliectorihe dm The responsible authority may require the lequestm person to pay the actual costs of rnakinf. certifying, and compiling the copies. The rcipmibte authority shall cornplyimmedialdy. ifpossible. with any request made pursuant to this subdivnion, or within five days of die dace of the request, eachiding Saturdays. Sundays and legal holidays, if immediaie compUtmee is not possible. If he cannot comply with the request within that time, he shall lo inform the individual and may nave an additional five days within which to comply with the request excluding Saturdays, Sundays and le^ bulidiyi. Subd. 4. Procedure when dm is not accurmor compide. An individual may cooteM the accuracy or compktenemofpubhc or private^ concerning himself. To excicise this right an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreemcm. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either (a) correct the dm found to be inaccurite or incomplete and attempt to notify pas t recipients of maccuramvinoompkle data, including recipients naiiMd by the individual or (b) notify the individual Ifatt be believes the dm to be correct Dm in dtipule shall be disclosed only if the ksdividuaTi statement of disagreement is included with the discloied data. The determindion of the rcH»mibte authority may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the administrdive proceifare act rdatmg to coimted cases. DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a pennit or license from the City of Orono or any of iu departmenu may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that I. 2. 3. 5. 6. The information you iiimish will be used to determine your qualification for the pennit or license requested. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the pennit or license. The information may be shared with other local, stal? or federal agencies to the extent neccs&iry to process the permit or license. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (available upon request) to review private data on yourself. Your full U required to process this qpplic' ai or pennit First Middle Address Sate I understand my rights as stated above. Slgiiatsrt la Date Application Received: 1*21-04 Date Application Coniidcred a* Complete: 2-11*04 60*Day Review Period Expires: 4*11-04 COI iwril MFETING MAR 6 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 5,2004 Item No.: /2i Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2984, McCarthy Construction on behalf of Berkshire Properties, 2745 Kelley Parkway - Commercial Site Plan Review Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 6, Highway Commercial District/PUD, Planned Unit Development 2.56 acres (111,308 s.f) 376 feet List of Exhibits A - PC Action Notice 2-19-04 B - Fire Marshall Comments dated 3-2-04 C - Shared Parking and Access Arrangement Documents D - Revised Landscape Plan E - PC Memo and E:^bits of 2-13-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36,000 square foot medical office building. Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the plans as submitted with incorporation of the following staff recommendation and approval from the fire marshal with a unanimous 5-0 vote: 1. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review which incorporates the comments contained in this report (submitted - see Exhibit D). Staff Recommendation Approval of the commercial site plan review incorporating the Fire Marshall’s comments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to execute a PUD/developer’s agreement for approval at the next scheduled meeting. 1 CITVOFORONO ZONING FILE; 04-2984 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: February 19,2004 TO: McCarthy Construction • COPIES: Robert Ritter Attn: Dave McCarthy 3260 Bohn’s Point Lane 11100 Bren Road W. Wayzata, MN 55391 Suite 200 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Lampert Architects Attn: James Berthiaume 13837 NE Lincoln Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 TYPE OF APPUCATI_qN:______?9*P!}l«iyaLSite_PlM R_eyiw............................... DATE OF MEETING; February 17,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review which incorporates the following: a. An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained, b. The trash receptacle shall be screened, c. 11 trees of at least 2 '/j inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landscape islands, d. A landscaping estimate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 78-797, and e. A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to 1 '/a times the value of the landscaping. Submittal of a revised parking plan showing a 20’ parking setback from Highway 12 and the revised parking stall arrangement required to achieve this is NO LONGER required. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: City Council - Monday, March 8,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. pending submittal of the items listed above. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plarming Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. City of Orono Fire Marshal March 2,2004 RE; Plan review of proposed medical building at 2745 Kelly Parkway The proposed Orono Professional Center II, located at the above mentioned address has been approved with the following changes; A- A fire hydrant shall be added within 100 feet of the fire department connection located on the north side of die building. B- All medical gas systems shall be installed and maintained as per Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, Cluster 30, Section 3006. Any questions, I can be contacted at 612- 490 2307. Sincerely, Bill Meyer, FM, City of Orono !! iiiiiilibiiiM MfilhiiiillflBilBiiiiih I DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS AND COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION is made as of the day of . 2004, by and between Professional Properties of Orono, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership (“Professional Properties”) and Berkshire Partners, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership (“Berkshiir”), being hereinafter collectively referred to as ''Declarants". WHEREAS, Professional Properties is the fee owner of t?al property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows, to-wit: Lot I, Block 1, WILLOW PROPERTIES ADDITION (hereinafter Parcel 1); and WHEREAS, Berkshire is the fee owner of rea* property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows, to>wit: Lot 1, Block 2, CITY OF ORONO ADDITION (hereinafter Parcel 2); WHEREAS, Declarants desire to subject the above described Parcels (hereinafter sometimes collectively the ''Property") to the easements, covenants and restrictions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarants declare that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed, subject to the covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth, which shall run with the Property and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property, or any part thereof, their successors and assigns. Any conveyance of the Property, or any part thereof or any interest therein, shall be subject to the covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth: DFJTNinONS Parcel. "Owner" as used herein shall mean the person or persons owning a fee title interest in either "Parcel" as used herein shall mean cither of Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. -i 1. Access Easement Upon Parcel 1. Professional Properties hereby grants, creates and establishes a permanent, non-exclusive easement over, under, across and upon those portions of Parcel 1 legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part hereof (hereinafter "Parcel 1 Access Easement"), which Parcel 1 Access Easement shall be for the benefit of Parcel 2 and shall run with the title to each of Parcels 1 and 2 forever. The Parcel 1 Access Easement shall be for ingress and egress for motor vehicles and pedestrians and shall be for the comfort and convenience of the Owners of said Parcel 2 and the customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constructed upon Parcel 2. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Parcel 1 Access Easement is a non-exclusive easement and that the Owner of Parcel 1, its customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvemenis constmeted upon said Parcel 1 shall be entitled to use that part of Parcel 1 encumbered with the Parcel 1 Access Easement for any purpose which does not unreasonably interfere with the purposes of the Parcel 1 Access Easement set forth herein. 2. Access Easement Upon Parcel 2. Berkshire hereby grants, creates and establishes a permanent, non-exclusive easement over, under, across and upon those portions of Parcel 2 legally described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made part hereof (hereinafter "Parcel 2 Access Easement"), which Parcel 2 Access Easement shall be for the benefit of Parcel I and shall run with the title to each of Parcels 1 and 2 forever. The Parcel 2 Access Easement shall be for ingress and egress for motor vehicles and pedestrians and shall be for '*.e comfort and convenience of the Owner of said Parcel 1 and the customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constructed upon Parcel 1. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Parcel 2 Access Easement is a non-cxclusive easement and that the Owner of Parcel 2, its customers, invitees. licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constructed upon said Parcel 2 shall be entitled to use that part of Parcel 2 encumbered with the Parcel 2 Access Easement for any purpose which docs not unreasonably interfere with the purposes of the Parcel 2 Access Easement set forth herein. 3. Parking Easement upon Parcel 2. Berkshire hereby grants, creates and establishes a permanent, non-exclusive easement over, under and across those portions of Parcel 2 legally described on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made part hereof ("hereinafter Parking Easement"), which shall be for the benefit of Parcel I and shall run with title to said Parcels 1 and 2 forever. The Parking Easement shall be for the temporary parking of motor vehicles and shall be for the comfort and convenience of the Owner of Parcel 1 and the customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constructed upon Parcel 1. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Parking Easement is a non-exclusive easement and that ^e Owner of Parcel 2, its customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constmeted upon Parcel 2 shall be entitled to use that part of said Parcel encumbered with the Parking Easement for any purpose which docs not unreasonably interfere with the purposes of the Parking Easement set forth herein. No motor vehicle may be parked, stored or otherwise left upon any part of the Parking Easement for a period in excess of 24 consecutive hours. 4. Trash Receptacle Easement upon Parcel 2 . Berkshire hereby grants, creates and establishes a permanent, non-exclusive easement over, under and across that portion of Parcel 2 legally described on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made part hereof ("hereinafter Receptacle Easement"), which 'hall be for the benefit of Parcel 1 and shall run with title to said Parcels 1 and 2 forever. The Receptacle Easement shall be for the maintenance of a trash receptacle and shall be for the comfort and convenience of the Owner of Parcel 1 and the licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants located at or in any improvements constructed upon Parcel 1. It is expressly understood and agiced that the Receptacle Easement is a non-exclusive easement and that the Owner of Parcel 2, its licens»*es, tenants and employees of all businesses and CKCupants located at or in any improvements constmeted upon Parcel 2 shall be entitled to use that part of said Parcel encumbered with the Receptacle Easenicnt for pi'^poses of maintain.ng a separate trash receptacle or sharing of a single such receptacle with the Owner of Parcel i. If separate receptacles are maintained each Owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with its receptacle, including but not limited to tiie cost of trash removal therefrom. If the Owners elect to share a single receptacle, all of such costs will be equitably divided between the Owners of the Parcels, on the basis of usage. The Owner of each Parcel shall be responsible for one-half of the cost of constructing, maintaining and repairing any fencing or other screening upon or adjacent to the Receptacle Easement. Neither Owner shall allow trash or debris to be placed upon the Receptacle Easement except within designated receptacles and each shall coeperate with (he other to maintain the Receptacle Easement in a neat, clean and sanitary manner. 5. Maintenance and Snow Removal. The Owner of each Parcel shall promptly at all times keep it respective Parcel in a good and safe state of repair and mcntenance and in a clean and orderly cendition, including but not limited to, the prompt collection and removal of all rubbish and debris and the prompt removal of snow, ice and excess surface water. Neither Owner shall allow any condition to exist upon its Parcel which unreasonably interferes with the rights granted or reserved h ereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Owner of Parcel 1 shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Easement Parcels described herein until such date as a building has been constmeted upon Parcel 2 and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for said building. 6. Real Estate Taxes . Each Owner shall pay or cause to be paid, prior to delinquency, all real properly taxes and assessments which aie levied against the Parcel owned by such Owner. 7. Insurance . Each Owner shall procure and maintain in full force and effect general public liability insurance and property damage insurance against claims of bodily injury, death or property damage occurring up^.., in or about its own parcel, each Owner's insuran to afford protection to the limit of not less than $2,(XX),000 for injury or death of a single person, and to a limit of not less than $2,000,000 for any one occurrence, and to a limit of not less than $500,000 for property damage. Each Owner shall provide the other Owners with certificates of such insurance from time to time upon written request to evidence that such insurance is in force. Such insurance may be written on other property in addition to the property co\ered by this Agreement. Such insurance shall provide that the same may not be canceled without ten (10) days pnor written notice to the other Owners. All these policies of insurance provided for in this subparagraph shall name each Owner as an additional insured, but only with respect to events which occur on the Parcel owned by the Owner carrying such insurance. 8. Indemnity . Each Owner hereby indemnifies and saves the other Owners harmless from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims or judgments arising from bodily injury, death, or property damages occurring on or from its own Parcel, except if caused by the act or negligence of the other Owner or the customers, invitees, licensees, tenants and employees of all businesses and occupants of the other Owner’s Parcel. 9. Remedies for Default. In the event either Owner shall fail to perform as required herein, then the non-defaulting Owner may send written notice to the defaulting Owner setting forth the alleged default. In the event such default is not cured within a period of fifteen (15) days after such notice is given in the manner set forth in paragraph 13 hereof, the non-defaulting Owner may proceed to cure such default. If the default causes an emergency, or if performance of the def^.alted obligation is necessary to relieve or prevent an emergency, then the notice required to be given to the defaulting Owner need only be such notice, if any, as is warranted by the nature of the specific condition involved. In the event the default is cured by th* non-defaulting Owner, the defaulting Owner shall be obligated to reimburse the curing Owner(s) on demand for the total costs and expenses of said cure, plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum or the highest rate allowed by law, whichever is less, together with any attorney’s fees or other costs incurred in connection jvith collection the same. If litigation or arbitration is commenced for the interpretation or enforcement of the terms of this E)ecIaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive an award of its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, unless the judge or arbitrator determines it would not be equitable to make such an award. 10. Run with the Land. The easements, restrictions, benefits and obligations hereunder shall create mutual benefits and servitudes running with the land. This Declaration shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. The singular number includes the plural and the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. Additionally, each Owner agrees to make a good faith attempt to notify the other Owner of a transfer of its fee simple interest in its Parcel. However, failure to give such notice shall not invalidate any of the covenants, restrictions or easements created by this agreement, it being understood that said notice is intended for the convenience of the parties only. 11. Interpretation. The headings hereunder are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this document nor in any way affect the terms and provisions hereof. 12. No Public Interest. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to create any publicly dedicated roads or right-of-ways to the City of Orono o. any other municipality or governmental entity, nor shall any rights in the public he created hereby. Each Owner reserves the right to temporarily close driveways located on its Parcel for the puiposc of avoiding the establishment of any prescriptive easements or rights therein. 13. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the Owner to whom notice is to be given, or on the second day after mailing if mailed A to the Owner to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to such Owner at the address where real estate tax statements for the Parcel owned by such Owner are mailed. Any party may change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other Owners written notice of new address in the manner set forth above. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may only be modified or amended in whole or in part, with the consent of each of the fee simple title holders of the Parcels as reflected in the records of the Hennepin County Recorder, by a declaration in writing which is executed and acknowledged by each of said holders and recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Declaration as of the date and year first above written. Professional Properties of Orono, LLP By: Its: General Partner Its: General Partner Berkshire Properties, LLP By: Its: General Partner By: Its: General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2004, by _______________________and____________ day of General Partners of Professional Properties of Orono, LLP. a Minnesota limited liability partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public 1 STATE OF MWNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2004, by _________________________and___________ day of General Partners of Berkshire Properties, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public DRAFTED BY; John Brennan Attorney at Law 125 West Lake Street Wayzata. MN 55391 \\Fcl\wplOeoliVnpofettiooal PropatoNDecUfitoi #3^ i 11 BIT “A” The East 13 feet of the North 65 feet of Lot 1. Block I, WEIXDW PROPERTIES ADOmON. r EXHIBIT “B” The West 15 feet of the North 40 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, CITY OF ORONO ADDITION; also the South 25 feet of the North 65 feet of the West 25 feet of said Lot 1; also the East 20 feet of the West 45 feet of the South 241 feet of the North 281 feet of said Lot 1; also the West 25 feet of the South 26 feet ot the North 174 feet of said Lot 1. 8 1; 11 MT “C” The East 20 feet of the West 25 feet of the South 47 feet of the North 228 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, CITY OF ORONO ADDmON. f ‘ 1' id EXHIBIT “D” The East 20 feet of the West 25 feet of the South 24 feet of the North 266 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, CITY OF ORONO ADDmON. •vJ W--: *T *'rf • ! ' KELLEY ROAD *1/ • j I 1 i''L ^ «• j («) n»tvin- ON \ ' MUl.O« KO (f^) '*2S£;’'5^ P'i • Er r Ljft«TK • rwTUNC n« i '.as’s -n- 9 V»fKMI MKATtf t» rt NOUS M M( _ . >r» niinjNfs* V'Oir?oii ^ ' I\ UL-f •occoNAn^c raiuKSv MOUNTtD TO iUOWC ^ t • H*-or A.r f V (• THIS) iS.W 5M —- ' -'- EXISTING BLHLOINC onoNO ANortisoHAc WC9CAL CtNim I \ 3 i;ii4-i'4-J-3:3\r S WMO^OC CAN UO«TMC UNOOl DllMV CAMQNV PROPOSED BUHDtNC J IS I I m ir HOOT MUO« KO / AOOCD SCNCCMNG I AflOM 1NA»* /y u . s .HIGHWAY Sc UGH TING PLAN______________________ N 0 5t5c "■RHNPNNN"""""" ■ irr COMMON NAMC botamcal mamc ""sit MTMO REMARKS mmmrmni acpnaimmks 1 »/r K ■fl AMKIUI m PNMMI^Knb 1 «/r ■r mmmtmmwma neUNiMM r tau .■ T mommfmmmi NAUM ■ WMHI 'MOMMTT »’/r -H ■r MUMUMI VK>MMMA ■ MAIAA OAKVANr M*o»t ■r AM Mi AOBIMAU n/r m B 1 J------MS ----------------------------------- 1 ■ .IT»W IMMTMM THUS **ATU«Ai rOOM tv PNUMNG INANOCS nup* «1W lAlM INAM WOUAK OMC TMHO 00 MOT CUT iCAom STANMC at CONmACTORS i*-r i&9€ GRAOC «Rrv tOCATIKl K MUMIIMOS «U NOT NflUOIK «/ im KNOi - tK.13I U f tM^jQO «.r mm > nm fm tkk tOOOfO ANtAl o NC« MLANI WlUTtt r LAIK MDOO CH» yuUM tuna iaoi iunlan ftAucn RUM140 Mil «TM mnxiOR KNOV! mm AMO PUtDC AAKR TKX «a M •9i»aom mxo* ncar (i >n ^) -NUUX OCPiM 4*^. ir niai inum 0 OmAU TNOl u mom»iL MOM Muio« Tigris TO r>r ocRM • pcmtir •CRAM MCM*1R OUT I*»r OOM TO MOtO NUICM .AUMT1NG tOL MIfiD MM MN. SOI CMOtlMC OTf 10L. 40«CVC MQKR SAL TOniK TQA r lAMNOMI. MX A SAf«Y LOAM tO ttr MM. JM*MM0 plan M NC Ml* UOM N/CUC MM « KM MO tr aeoimk DETAIL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO ~ m Or«iNi Oy NX Cnacmp tr u.AM> */20/0*OTV tUMP^AL t/^'/04 NC-ftMMir'N. 1/23/OA NC-ftMMinAL A LANDSCAPE & UGHTWCi PLAN S^•«^ NumbK ProfKt No. Ml 003-2 §□ Page 1 of < Date Application Received: 1>21>04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2>11>04 60*Day Review Period Expires: 4*11*04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: February 13,2004 Subject: #04-2984, McCarthy Construction on behalf of Berkshire Properties, 2745 Kelley Parkway - Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B-6, PUD Planned Unit Development (2 acre minimum) 2.56 acres (111,308 s.f.) 376 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36,000 square foot medical office building. Stqff Recommendation: Staff recommendations approval of a commercial site plan review with the following stipulations: 1. A revised parking plan shall be submitted showing a 20' parking setback from Highway 12 and the revised parking stall arrangement required to achieve this, prior to City Council rev*ew. 2. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 3. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review which incorporates the comments contained in this report. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-792. Review of Building Permit Application. All applicants for a building permit shall be reviewed by the council tmd referred to the planning commission for review. Section 78-793. Permitted Uses. Within any B-6 highway business district, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the council: (1) offices (business and professional). Section 78-797. Area. Height. Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. F February*!?^ PafcloTb List of Exhibits Exhibit A- Application Exhibits- Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape and Lighting Plan Exhibit D - First Level Floor Plan Exhibit E - Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit F - Building Elevations Exhibit G - Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Utility Plan Exhibit H - Plan/Profile Utility Plan Exhibit 1 - Plan of Surrounding Development Exhibit J - Property Owner’s List Exhibit K- Plat Map Background In November of 2002, Professional Properties of Orono, Inc, received approval for the dental office building that exists just to the west of the applicant’s property. During this time the applicant’s property was platted and given an address with the expectation that the site would develop as Phase II. The applicant's current proposal is in accordance with those expectations and is proposed as a medical office building to be known as Orono Professional Medical Building II. PUD Designation The PUD, Planned Unit Development designation originated at the sale of the property just to the west where the dental building is currently under construction. Professional Properties of Orono, Inc., the owners of the dental building bought the property from the City who required that any development of the lot be brought to the City with a PUD designation. This allowed the City to have more control over the development and design of the site. Because the applicant’s property was platted simultaneously with the property to the west it was conditioned that the Pl^ designation be required at the time of development of this site. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET , B-6,PUD Lot Area Lot Width Required 20,000 s.f. (2.08 acre)100 ’ Actual 111,308 s.f. (2.56 acre)376 ’ __________________________________________ «04-2*84 February 17.2004 Pagc3or6 B-6, PUD Required Existing Proposed Front (Kelley Pkwy)45’n/a 153’ Rear (Hwy 12)45’ (1.5 X building height)n/a 45’ Left Side 10’n/a 143’ Right Side 10’n/a 30' Structural Coverage Because the property is in excess of 1.99 acres it is not subject to the 15% structural coverage requirement established under Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed two-story footprint is 18,000 square feet for a total of 36,000 s.f. of floor space. The anticipated use of the building is for medical offices and proposed floor plans are attached as Exhibits D and E. The building will comprise approximately 16% of the site. Hardcover Calculations and Green Space The subject property is not located within 1000 feet of an ordinary high water level of a lake, pond or flowage or within 300 feet of a river or stream and is therefore, not subject to any hardcover restrictions. The B-6 zoning standards do not specifically outline a green space requirement; however staff has consistently expected a minimum of 2S% with all new commercial development. The dental site to the west was held to a 25% green space figure and the applicants have submitted plans depicting a green space amount of 28.9%. well within the expected 25%. Parking Location. The property is surrounded on the east and west sides by properties zoned B-6. The property has frontage on Kelley Parkway to the north (zoned Residential), and Wayzata Boulevard to the south (zoned Industrial). The setbacks for parking shall be 20 ’ at the fronts and 5’ for interior side yards. The proposal meets the 20 ’ setback to Kelley Parkway and the 5’ setback at the interior easterly yard. There is a shared parking arrangement with the dental building to the west, so the construction of the parking lot will appear contiguous of the parking lot to the west and a 5’ parking setback would not be required. The site plan does not meet the 20 ’ required parking setback along Highway 12. The applicant must revise the site plan to show a 20 ’ setback to Highway 12 prior to City Council review. I #04>29M February 17.M04 Page 4 of 6 Number of Parking Stalls. Required s 1 per 200 s.f. of floor area (Net = 36,000 s.f. -10% » 32,400 s.f. /200 = 162 stalls required) Total stalls required = 162 Total stalls proposed = 157 (5 are proof of parking) To meet the 20’ required yard at Highway 12, mentioned above, the parking will be reduced by 3 stalls. The applicant has stated that 3 proof of parking can be incorporated into the revised plan. Staff finds that an additional 3 proof of parking stalls is acceptable to achieve the 20’ required parking yard. 5 proof of parking stalls are proposed in total and 157 stalls will be constructed. Staff finds the 5 proof of parking stalls is acceptable and these parking stalls would only be constructed if necessary to meet parking demands. Surface Water Management The applicant submitted a Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plan for review by the City Engineer and is attached as Exhibit G. The applicant has supplied the City Engineer with a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations. All storm water will be directed, via pipe, to the storm water retention pond to the east. The City Engineer has reviewed all plans as they relate the storm water and finds them to be acceptable. Sanitary Sewer and Water Services The applicant has provided the City Engineer with a profile view of the proposed sewer. The site will connect to City sewer and water services from the existing stubs along Kelley Parkway. The City Engineer has reviewed all plans as they relate the sanitary sewer and water and finds them to be acceptable. Road and Pedestrian Access The property fronts on Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 and the site will be addressed off Kelley Parkway. The lot is considered a through lot due to parallel frontages. In determining setbacks, staff required both frontages to be considered front yards to ensure adequate site lines from the roadway. The property will have 2 accesses off Kelley Parkway. The most westerly is the shared access with the dental building and a new access, aligned with the public works driveway. The City Engineer has reviewed these access arrangements and finds them acceptable. The City has not received a copy of the shared access agreement, which will be required prior to City Council review. The applicant will be required to extend the existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk, from the dental building to the west, to the eastern property line. This provides pedestrian access from the existing trail along Old Crystal Bay Road, east along Kelley Parkway. Subsequent development of property east of the subject property will also be required to extend the concrete walk to allow pedestrian access. Signage The subject property has 376 feet of road frontage on both Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 for a total of 752 feet of frontage. Thus, the site is permitted one square foot per foot of frontage, with each individual sign being limited to 100 square feet and setback 10’ T; 1 i * ■ < 1 #04-2984 February 17,2004 Page 5 of 6 from all property lines. The applicant has proposed a single monument sign to be located at the south east comer of the property, 20 ’ off the property boundary and viewable from Highway 12, to match the signage at the dental site to the west. No sign is proposed at the Kelley Parkway access. The applicant shall be required to obtain a sign permit prior to installation to confirm that all signage regulations outlineo in Section 78-78-1468 arc met. Landscaping Plan The applicants have submitted a landscape plan attached as Exhibit C. The plan proposes 5 maples, 4 ashes, 8 spruces, and 8 crabapple trees to be distributed around the perimeter of the site (25 trees total). Goldflame Spirea, a landscape shrub, is proposed along the building and within the landscape islands. Section 78-797 (8) lays out specific landscaping requirements for properties located with the B-6 zoning district. The following is a list of requirements which need to be incorporated into a revised landscape plan prior to City Council approval: • An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained, • The trash receptacle shall be screened, • 1 1 trees of at least 2 Vi inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landscape islands, • A landscaping estimate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 78-797, and • A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to 1 Vi times the value of the landscaping. Lighting The B-6 Highway Commercial District does not require specific lighting requirements: however the applicants are required to comply with City Code Section 78-1573, which governs light transmission. The applicants have proposed a lighting plan that has been reviewed by th? City Engineer and Planning Department staff and have deemed it appropriate. The lighting fixtures will match those on the dental site to the west. Building Quality and Materials The type and color of the exterior building materials are proposed to match the dental building to the west. An elevation is attached as Exhibit F. The applicant has proposed rock face block for the base, brick throughout the facades, and an eifs material will run along the top of the building. The applicant has proposed a flat roof. Planning Department staff feels the buildings exterior is acceptable and a pitched roof would make the building appear taller. All other materials, including windows and columns, will be required to match the dental building to the west. The Planning Commission should discuss the design of the building and determine if the proposed flat roof and appearance are acceptable. Connectivity to Surrounding Development The reason for the PUD, Planned Unit Development designation was to ensure congruity to the surrounding commerciu development. With the construction of 160 units of townhouses the commercial pieces along Highway 12 will all develop in the near future. i d «04-29M February 17.2004 ht>bof6 The plan attached ai Exhibit 1 shows how commercial pieces only the northern side of Highway 12 are tentatively proposed to be developed. The Planning Commission is encouraged to discuss the sites relationship to the area and determine if anything further could be incorporated into the plan. Staff finds that a congruence of building materials and color, along with the shared access and parking arrangement allow this proposal to fit well with the surrounding development. lasuca for Consideration 1 . Are the 5 proof of parking stalls acceptable? 2. With the incorporation of 11 trees into the landscape islands, will the landscaping be adequate? 3. Is the appearance (materials and color scheme) of the building and the flat roof acceptable? 4. Does the proposal fit well with the surrounding development along the northern half of Highway 12? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan review subject to the following stipulations: 1. A revised parking plan shall be submitted showing a 20’ parking setback from Highway 12 and the revised parking stall arrangement required to achieve this, prior to City Council review. 2. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 3. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review which incorporates the following: a. An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained. b. The trash receptacle shall be sctcened, c. 11 trees of at lerst 2 Vi inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landscape islands d. A land^aping estii.'ate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 78-797. and e. A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to 1 Vi times the value of the landscaping. CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# O *4 ^ ^ Date Received i ~ 2-1 ~o Amount Paid ^oCO>t^ P£>^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address JX 7^ *5 p<-r *^( rcyVQ S i Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name fV\C^v-<AU‘^ -vv;c^"loA m______ /i_____v r»i__________i^\ Cl ^ ^ t y\e^r>Phone (home) Address Phone(work) 6 2. 6 ^ 10*^ .City____________Zip.i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Be rbs! \ v»*v. Phone (home). Address_____ iplicant) 1 y rc(j^ r~n e ^/tUZ> Phone (work) 95~> *=^~7S RCtS>.C> City_______________Zip________ Date Property Acquired . Iw><^ o 3 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Ci e, Cc*»‘ (month/year) . •f ^.*'C ■< • __$600.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ______$600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______$600.00 Land Alteration Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTH^ APPLICATIONS X '$600700" Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______SedOTUO Vacation $600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______.■'^^^00.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule' • •! ^ » r • t •? '' ; »• -c> '1 > •. C.r ' % \T%' i 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). .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 ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date________ APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Informatioi^equired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees'to pay addi^al f^s (st^time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusuah^hrpenses ingtiff^ jn revi^ of this application, and certifies that the information suppited is trugyyto tl^ ^st of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature •' ^Date //O ^ OWNER'S 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 sobmittals 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 KELLEY ROAD occoiunvc mruNCS y*.....\AF*'-!^ ^-LiJWD lA© ^ \ A .1__i-J I -'•, —rg MOMQC CAN UCMTMG viNOCK CNiay CAN(rv PROPOSED BUILDING JIS•) rmnian m rt-k < » . vAa ^Qsa NOOI MX04 KO U. S. HIGHWAY ^^L^AN^^APE tc UG h TiNC N 0 . PLAN M CY COMMON NAME 1 iOTANlCAL NAME 92C Ml>€REMARKS NMNAT MM 1 aORNAUMKl I'/r « •■■A1MJ m p^mJIi^n ^iAMU ca I'/r ■ CMMOOMBiMlI NCUNAMM r tiii ■ •OMMYOUMiPiU Muil • mmbs «o«arr »«/r •1 flUPUM MIA MMA • MAIAA *«MPUMr •W OMT mmam mmc^nm mwt io k «« ^ UK»HW 9 PUMtliilllU NOT Ml ■ iMoi - »3a.<ai %*/ ni.joi vu.m > m N« f\jm It ftOCNAftc U0«1«e « t AMOAMCViCt •/ luc cmmtcwL fm mL MCOtP MCAS o NCV nlan ^MCI C 0/ iffOmORMTO •Ulyt PT OCCTNCAi OQHNUlCTaO. < -r •*-o* 4-r r-«r f-k .o* ♦•-o' r-0' ^♦*-0', r-o* ; COVERED entry j I I I I I! ! I I ItSTIBUU 1^ ^ ■r «•-«• »•-♦• r-o* .♦•-0' r-o" . »-•* .•‘-o'^ *'*C ENTRY 1 L LL^ 1 POtMLC LM 10 P0in«iLC SJT^ fDMMf NQO ELEV EOUtP r\j MECHANICAL 3a«sss=sss7s:sszssrsa FUTURE Jim E MEN fl lAJy FUTURE CORRIDOR sssssassAsssssnssss' S3 4 CORRIDOR NORTH FIRST aOOR PLAN uiouT must «M IHIMIT tU^-OUlt 5n (D r.#*#*-®* 4‘-r r-r ♦*-r •*-r. r-0*••-r r«‘-a* © i'-o* 4’-€T r-B* 4-r>-Brr 100*-«r •• .r r-flT >-«•, r-o* > liil) !!!!llllll I I «m: S- SSSS3SSSSS3SSS3SS5S MCCHANiCAL pAN n^TURC CORRIDOR >3 3- SgCOWD TLOOW PLAN © acr-r rrv.«‘^4‘-r r-r v-cr r-«* ^4 -r 4‘-flrr4*-r jar-«r r-or 4*-«* r-€T 4*rr4’-or 4-r r-r 4*-r>’-r/-4* 1 FUTURE CORRIDOR SSSS333S •3 »« 3<3 3-3 => MEN 4s3SS3Sr = 3 = WOMEN -C 3^3 ir - H I-----! IF * ’ • % • .* . ■ ^ 1 oroncTprofeM^ ORONO, MN VICINITY MAP i iHitdinwi KELLEY PARKWAY ~ **" * TbSTwc 90t»ALfc ^ v***ir*>i * Ts-a-.'-T’ r7:-«s;-^ ^ ^ ^ — coi0$tcf ID rdSHM6 rrwt ^tc foofo^ fnn© y I » rx MH r^omta ro oaswe r n?“ S —i «! 107? M It, foorto^__■‘4” iOATr MM^C STM ■/ r3ny4* m ‘fSSmooNtmucnox BrriAwiLi4ar * « or Mor WH tC J00M2 ^■1—^iB iT II-------.Mii—■ t =»«■ [vru'-;! N VV. r . .' Aisi- - % ----------------------------- . 4. i V" \ \ USTINC BUILPtNC «OdIli t h , c * ^W ✓t';: /a'l ••{ I . ' < T • i 3d ac-id^rsi^ If toifjt t?A a :V* »«?j^ r't ■;/;'ai# id JBSgilfiKs? / / ’v W- ____ 1.5 “ BIT aCAH (MHOOT TiPt «1A) ----- 2.a* »T BASC (MI«OOT Tvac 3’B) - e* aASS 5 ACC basc (mnoot 3i3e) ir SCl£CT GRAIAILAa BAS£ (UNOOr S149J28) C0MPAC7C0 suecnAOC « 4* cum Q/r ,' "I}T ■•k'h-* 1 m ii r'fr - '■d •' II U0pt mf tnm^ IX iOlAO / ^ imtiTw TO fwrr* - auUMC AT iOCATtm 0 OCTDIMMCO »r OMI* / / PROPOSED BUlLOlWC 7 FFE. 1025.0 .foor obam ici0 novy sue md omx WTH MtCMMACAU L, >«*: ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCt PAVEMENT SECTION >.» * •' • ■d. % ■ ---- ■ --------------'----^____•___LJ ’if""'* > ;rV ;V l;. ir. ^ t^'uin. MX if IOIAJ9 TO MATO* OBDMO MOf KB eta • SW4Cf iy EROSION CONTROL NOTES SmSmSSS*m^ mS|PM (II M^uw <«* • E»-5r»i~i - •, ___ »U9T€ ____«HM A ui Mmtrmi mm mpm ait taa men (mum ic ' ’fiTA ywnllSi • OUfcJKA TL- . VBK «r bha COWMCin jWAM. ACUD SMTt iXUWpw DXV> W g ^^2* ***NDVT UMMIV or ««* WaWQMAB AMA VO vi« fTalT or OM«*wCKM A —~ ><T««A RM«1 K MOTAu IA IMO MAAttAtfCV Af ummea VO catvHc mmo MVAa aoam asa cw»ya **oR«A*i M rtrr $$ blMCOt AM aO aor as iCCtSAAA' roo *aTW U« I * r »ir AbMMMB FLO¥¥E ENQhEBVNO, NO. §tm ifjmmt mf m emeu mma tm asb>a<jkm PLAN/PRORLE UnLITY PLAN ORONO PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING ORONO, MN I I >4 ' "w'? * * ^ ■> • T-,-. . : i ^ ' - V » < <v : €M i a 9 u. ; .*• y V • V, ?'■/.'■ ■ * .^v - i =-■ '■‘I:'' ■ ■• .rt- n '.‘t-v :-}n^T 3 ^ tfd' >1 l<tn #<l. #"• # ^ »«.'«' < * A/ ’■> i C^D?JjT3Gn^ i v»r** >4"., .^- ,-^stC i_, $!-1--\ * ■^K V.4 i£^- i fZ^S£'<i ^1^ »4! ' 'i'Mm y^ ■' M’ 5'4 ■ >>.-. - —.'' » . >> -. 'S. .v»... aa-£^ I * S u2lv „ V’ . : 'T.t'i^SSSISL iili t ■ oirii.Ba.Mr «» ■y M liTfiyrr B St' , ♦ < ‘V ' J .- -V- n •■.. -■t; I‘fii!!^ I'SJ pp®rT RB^- _ * ■ • ■ I ^ j • “*7 •■V J, . cTjrrs LANDFORM 5 1 Xk IQ RUNDATC; l/mOM HENNEPINUXINIV I'KUrCKl I inruiunniiuMoioit^M PROPERTY OWNERS LIST }• 3311123120002 PROPAOOR 27*3 KELLBVPKWY OWNER NAME PROFESSIONAL PROP ORONO UP TAXPAYER PROFESSIONALPROPORONOUP S3SPARTENW00DRD LONGLAKEMN S33S6 31 33III23I20004 PROPAOOR 3S ADDRESSUNA OWNER NAME CTTYOFORONO TAXPAYER OTYOFORONO NAME/ADDR 1335 BROWN RDS WAYZATAMN SS39I 38 3311823120007 PROPAOOR 2700 KELLEYPKWV OWNERNAME HRAOTYOFORONC TAXPAYER HRAOIYOFORONO NAME/AOOR >333 BROWN RDS WAYZATAMN 33391 38 33III23I200Q8 PROPAOOR 2745 KELLEYPKWY OWNERNAME PROFESSIONAL PROPORONO LLP TAXPAYER PROFESSIONAL PROP ORONO UP NAME/ADOR 835 PARTENWOOO RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 3311823130002 PROP AODR 2687 WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME ACE PROPERTIES l.U: TAXPAYER ACE PROPERTIES LLC NAM&AODR 5500 ANDERSON ESTATES RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 33339 38 33II823I300II PROP ADOR 2765 WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME VEDA INC ETAL taxpayer VCICAPTFALINC NAME/ADOR PO BOX 375 LONGLAKEMN SS3S6 38 33IIB23I300I4 PROPAOOR 2723 WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME VEDA INC TAXPAYER VCI CAPITAL INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 375 LONGLAKEMN 53356 38 33II823I300IS PROP ADDR 2605 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNERNAME WJM PROPERTIES LLC TA3CPAYER WJM PROPERTIES LLC NAME/ADOR ATTN OREOORY W WAOENER I25S0 WAYZATA BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55305 (S - ■ r i. 33-118-23-12-NEW DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC 7745 POLARIS LA N MAPLE GROVE MN 55311 I CERTIFY THATTW FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUBREPRESEKTATTONOPIPTORMAnONAS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RBOORM OFTHE WNNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SFRVICES DBPARTMajU]0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. , \ DATE A BY r r *0%£' ---------- « ^/fPETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAf{ a 2004 ClfYOFORONO DATE: March 8,2004 ITEM NO.; / 3 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Tille Direclor of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director s Report Item Description: Kelley Parkway State Aid Route System Designation - Resolution The City is allowed to designate a State Aid Route system and streets on this system are eligible to utilize Municipal State Aid funds for construction projects. This system consists of City streets that provide an integrated street system affording, within practical limits, a State Aid Route street network consistent with projected traffic demands. State Aid Route streets must coimect to other State Aid streets. County 1 lighways, or State Trunk Highways. This system can comprise a maximum of 20% of the public City street mileage in the City. The City ’s current State Aid Route system mileage is 12.58 miles of a potential maximum system of 12.75 miles. The addition of Kelley Parkway from Old Cr> sial Road to W’illow Drive to the State Aid Route System, and the removal of the segment of Stubbs Bay Road north of WatertowTi Road from the State Aid Route system is being presented for consideration by the Council. These proposed route designation changes will result in a revised State Aid Route system mileage of 12.43 miles. As part of the StoneBay development project, the connection of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive has been substantially completed. Formal acceptance of this street by the City will occur upon final completion of the construction work. This 0.50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road (State Aid Route Number 102) to Willow Drive (State Aid Route Number 101) is eligible for designation as a State Aid Route as it connects two other State Aid streets and provides access to a high density residential housing development, an office and commercial business area, and the Orono City- Hall, Police Department, and Public Works Maintenance Facility. Kelley Parkway also functions as a frontage road connector to reduce local traffic on State Trunk Highway 12. Kelley Parkway is designated as a future Municipal State Aid Route in Orono’s 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. In the StoneBay development, and the new dental office construction project, the developers will install sidewalks, decorative street lights and boulevard Uees along Kelley Parkway. In order to provide for a uniform and consistent character along the entire length of both sides of Kelley Parkway, the City staff recommendation is for the City install a sidewalk, decorative street lights and boulevard trees along our Kelley Parkway frontage consistent with the remainder of the street. The designation of Kelley Parkway as a State Aid street will allow the use of Municipal State Aid funding to install a sidewalk, decorative sueet lights, and boulevard trees along the City ’s portion of the street. Page 1 1 r L- The existing 0.65 mile segment of State Aid Route Number 108 on Stubbs Bay Road north of Watertown Road ( State Aid Route Number 103) is no longer eligible for State Aid designation as the coimection to State Trunk Highway 12 has been eliminated and a cul de sac constructed on Stubbs Bay Road. The remaining 0.45 mile segment of State Aid Route Number 108 on Stubbs Bay Road from County Highway 84 (Bayside Road) to Watertown Road (State Aid Route Number 103) is still eligible to remain inplace as a State Aid Route. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the resolution for State Aid Route system changes to remove the 0.65 mile segment of Stubbs Bay Road north of Watertown Road from the State Aid Route system and to add the 0.50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Cr>'stal Bay Road to Willow Drive to the State Aid Route system. Page 2 : :l- 1 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING KELI.EY PARKWAY FROM OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TO WILLOW DRIVE AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROUTE WHEREAS that the City ol Orono is allowed by Minnesota Rules Chapter 8820, Department of Transportation, Stale Aid for Local Transportation Division. State Aid Operations Rules to designate a Municipal State Aid Route system on City streets. WHEREAS such designated State Aid Route system shall consist of City streets that prov ide an integrated street system affording, within practical limits, a State Aid Route street network consistent with projected traffic demands. State Aid Route streets must connect to other State Aid Routes, County Highways, or State Trunk Highways and such system shall comprise a maximum of 20% of the public City street mileage in the City. The City’s current State Aid Route system mileage is 12.58 miles of a potential maximum system of 12.75 miles. WHEREAS the existing 0.65 mile segment of State Aid Route Number 108 on Stubbs Bay Road north of Watertown Road ( State Aid Route Number 103) is no longer eligible for State Aid designation as the connection to State Trunk Highway 12 has been eliminated and a cul de sac constructed on Stubbs Bay Road. The remaining 0.45 mile segment of State Aid Route Number 108 on Stubbs Bay Road from County Highway 84 (Bayside Road) to Watertown Road (State Aid Route Number 103) will remain inplace as a State Aid Route. W1IHREAS the 0.50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Cr>’stal Bay Road (State Aid Route Number 102) to Willow Drive (State Aid Route Number 101) is eligible for designation as a State Aid Route as it connects two other State Aid Routes and provides access to a high density residential housing development, an office and commercial business area, and the Orono City Hall, Police Department, and Public Works Maintenance Facility. Kelley Parkway also functions as a frontage road connector to reduce local traffic on State Trunk Highway 12. Kelley Parkway is designated as a future Municipal State Aid Route in Orono’s 2000-2020 Community Management Plan WHEREAS the proposed State Aid Route system chiuiges to remove the 0.65 mile segment of Stubbs Bay Road north of Watertown Road and add the 0.50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive will result in a 0.15 mile reduction of the State Aid Route system, so the proposed State Aid Route system of 12.43 miles is less than the potential maximum system of 12.75 miles. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Orono City' Council does herby approve the proposed City of Orono State Aid Route system changes to remove the 0.65 mile segment of Stubbs Bay Road north of WateriovsTi Road from the State Aid Route system and to add the 0.50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive to the State Aid Route system. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of March 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 1 certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at an authorized meeting held on the Sthday of March 2004, as show ’n by the minutes of the meeting in my possession; Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____day of_____________, 2004. Notary Public My Commission Expires Linda S. Vee, City Clerk 7 IL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March S, 2004 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Neat Ron Moone Title City Administrator Adminia^tor Reviewed: Agenda Sectioo: City Administntoi*sm/ Repon Item Description: Application and CertiQtUte for Payment No. 1 3-Long Lake Fire Station Rochon Corporation, the General Contractor, has submitted Application and Certificate for Payment No.l3 in the amount of $58,198.21. This ^>plication has been certified for payment by both the Architect and Project Manager, and a lien waiver related to the amount of this payment has been provided. This application would complete all payments to Rochon, with the exception of $15,540.00 related to the final paving on the paridng lot. All punch'list items on the station are complete, with the excq>tion of the carpet replacement related to the water in the training room, and the resolution of {Moblems with the epoxy floor in the vehicle bay area. Based on these incomplete items, it is recommended a portion of the payment request be withheld, pending completion of the itenu. It is recommended a payment of $40,650 be made to Rochon. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a partial payment of $40,650 related to the Application and Certificate for Payment No. 13 from Rochon Corporation, to be funded from the Joint Fire Account. BKV group ArcMltctura Inttftof OMign Er^InMHng 222 Nordi 2nd Strtct HinMaMii.MN5540l Phona 4120390752 Fiic4l3039.42t2 OatK February 9,2004 Attantieiu Michell* Mors* AddratK City of Lor\g Uk« 1964 Park Avanua P.O. Box 606 Lon| Lake, MN S5356 R k Lon{ Lake Fire Station Pr^octNo.: 1515.01 WE ARE SENDING YOU: □ Shop drawingg □ Prinu □ Pfan* □ Samples □ Specmcatloni □ Copy oi letter n Change order ^ Other Q Messenger Q Fax 3 OtherTRANSMITTED VIA:□ Mall rOf :FS tiA r F NO DFSCfflPTION 2 Aoplicidon tnd Certificice for Payment No. 13 ______ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ~~| For approval ^ For your use □ As requested □ For review and comment □ FOR BIDS DUE______ Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other _________ □ Resubmit_____copi« for approval I Submit _____ copies for distributfon □ Return_____corrected prints □ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Endosed are two copies of Application and Certificate for Payment No. 13 for work performed on the Long Lake Fire Station Project This application has been certified in the amount of $58,198,21. Please process for payment to Rochon Corporation. Thank you. Nan Gust^on COPY TO: Bill Wolters, Constructive Ideas, 901 Jefferson Avenue, SuiU 300, St PauL MN 55102 Jeff Wellman, Rochon Corporation.3650 Annapolis Lane North. Plymouth. MN 55447 ROUTE COPY TO: CABK. 1515.01 QM SIS-OI \BU$\Cacr> 14*.«wn«r-n|.p» 13.doc lf«nclo*ur«i V notM liolid, Undty nedy lil ttentl.Phnwd: 2n/04 WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS February 1,2004 For good and valuable consideration, the undsi signed hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) right* md claims for a construction or other lien on land and buildmgs being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and to the appurtenances thereunto, (b) rights and claiitu on any payment bond($) furnished in conjunction with said construction, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by City of Long Lake (owner), is located at 340 Willow Drivf, MN is described as Lone Lake Fire Station and this waiver pertains to a portion of the work to be performed by Rochon Corporation (prime contractor). This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undenigned under a contract with City of Long Lake through the date of this waiver in the amount of FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT A 21/100 DOLLARS rS58.198.211. This lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has been received. ..........................................................>.>>>>>>>>. GRACE L BURQHAROT notary PU9UC - MINNESOTA My Comm. Eapites Jan 3i . 200S Contractor Waiver Form ellman Its Vice President k [«' •: & ■* .IS, 4';'' APfUCATIOM ANP CIRT1FICATI FOW MVMCNT ItUtlTITUTt AIA POCUMK^T Q702[^ TO lOWHWll tf UM PWMCft uni Ulit Aft tlMton 1M« Avmya ^ Orw« Un«UU.MMH)M U#»i IMcMIi M3I0 ONi 0» I *««§ TROM ICOMTIUCTOaii R mRW> C«#R»faiWi 3IM AIWURM LtAt NtflR. l«Mt lQl PlyrMA. MN 1144? VIA lANCMTtCTI: MV OiMR :12 N»n»i Sfii Sirftl MmntMtfc MN IMOt IMltMlCONTIUCTPON- OtAA»N_CgggirM^_______ CORinUCTOW i APPUCATION fOW PAYMENT AP9UCATION NO: 11 RCMOO TO: Sl*JtA>04 ARCHITICr I MOJlCTNOt nil 01 CONTIUCT OATl!___________ CHANOC OnOER SUMMARY CRMOt OMRM MprPMR m MMRM «RRP« tv Omm AOOTlONt ocoucnoNS total 217.200 41 a ^mrmrmn Mrrm MMORT OMR A rrs R wRR 7 1/200004 21.11100 totals 21.11100 000 NM d»MM Mr OlMiR OrRRIR 210.121 40 ApphCRtion if tnadR for P4vr»M»t M ihown OMow. m 6onnoei*on wnn tM Coffiftei. Co<«K<oi««A tutmx. kktnww Otcumtm G70J « ■noenotf CoMfiOor MItl tot wort OvIlM •I MMMNN4 <Mh (NO COANMI MM ROM R4N Or ON C«mior taf Wort io> I NMO tni ROMMKlt fOSMO Mr R mtiwM N m Ml OOCiMM. MIM WAMN prCvM C oMMMM M PfvrwM IMI* ON OM. 4M IIM CM«MI RtMNTM thMrfl MfMl • OfM. NN am M 1. 1004 1. OMOMAi CONTRACT SU«4». 2. m Omm M CMrm OrMrt.. 2. CONTIUCT lUM TO OATl iUM I • 4. total COMAJTB) A ITORIO TO OATt....... • lC«Mwi C tr* OTOH t. RfTAMAQC. • _% 0T CMMMIM WtM IC oN rtw 0 »I m OTOU R._« •( SmiM mmmn IC a Maa R an GTOlt Toul IMuriitA AM M ♦ M V ifi C oN ana I •( 07091.•••••••<•«*•**»•«••*••»>• R A total CAANK) LiSl RCTANUai........................- • AM 4 MM LM • TauH 7. LiSl RNiVKXli CfRTMCATIl RON PATMINT am • Imm PMT CMlRsaMt..—. » A CUARINT PAYMINT out...............................— • i. TO PNMN. PWt RCTAMAOI. AM a MM IM ft 1.NOJ70 00 2R0.111 4R a.aivifi 4i 2 ail.041 4f 000 2.ai».04«.4t 2.117.041 It M.1M11 11.410 00 i| •liuof: Mmwmip IMlcrMM n M MMW M iMiarv PMic CMNyat: M M KM 1tl 44Y of HMuarv. mM 4r» 4«»-i MAMH AAOmCTi dimPKATI POR PAYMRNT Ml MMfMAM WNR M CMUTMI OMUTMM. M M iMt MM*«M PM M41 OwMT Ml M IM R4M Rf Mt A mURRSTI VITM RM prUMWi M vKMtlti. M MNR*T 4# Mi MM»R M •» mft% M CRMTMt OaOMMMI. • amount cvmpiio lAtlACfl 44* •* iR rm M r IMrupm MPMn MM ANCMTlCri f| M AMOIMT CflTMO. MtMiMMRN mI^JK^VOMM a TRt amount UPt^NRMrii M MV R|NM Rf MV 1 i PAGE 2 OF 2 CONTiNUATlON SHEET Swfeifitutt AIA Oocymtnt G70:i lOHG LAKE FIRE STATION AmiCATlOll NUMMR: AmKATlOII OATti HMOfnomi TO; COWniACTO* t PHOJICT MO IS 1^a»04 SIsMA-04 osot ouovt«« lOlOOOlaCM l MOMTf lonstllOMO 1 022001 tAATMWOMI |02*oolsrrf utiutics OlftnlAMHAlT PAVMO Oimlsin COMCMCTt/SlOCWA |o24ao|uUiOSCAMliO |02)Oo|cONCN|T| lo24lO|MIICA«T CONCAfTf 0420oi«IAiOMAV lo24MlAfCMPf«CAtT loftooina rAlMCATlON ItTm lAfcnoN lOtiOOjCAAMMTflY |CM200lcitfVtNTflY MAT Ll IOt400lMALMO«l |07SM|lK)On«lO on mImatiiimoo ^mio lo’tOolcAUUUliO I Ot 1 0o|NM/OOOAtAlOM« Iacciu doors lltCT OVfRHtAOOOOn lossoolcoiuio OOORS pMlolwOOO WINDOWS I omoo|olassk (lasmo 1 Of 2SOIORVWAU/IPS OfSOolciAAMlC/OUARRV TUI lotSOOlACOUSTlCAL COUNO Tl lOfAfolcAMFfT/VWn Tilt OfSOolcTOIT ^tOOR I Of tOoUAiNTlMaA^lNn 1 ICSSoinAO ^IfS lO'SolTOiLn PARTITIONS '01 101 1 102 loi: I 'O'l 11( IHi 1241 I2fl 1211 11V Ilf! It If; iTOfJT ACCISSORNI locurs IwOCVfRt InRI IXTWOUIWRS |aiALA/TAC« OOAROS loCNTiPViliiO OtViCfS IRISCfNTJki lOUiR IwiMOOW RUNOf |R.OOR MATS |vf»«cu >.^TAP« Inc tCTioM scfUN |hvac IpIUMSMIIO |p«RS MlOTfCTlOA tCAlOlAlD PMViOUf AMUCATlOii II liaCTRCAi M MI20 IS SOI 00 If? SSf 04 117.223 00 M.S2f ?f 23 102 ?0 I1.S24 00 IS.70S If 172.M2 00 11S.I11 00 • I?? 00 74 ISI 71 27.IS4 00 2f .f2S SI I 422 4? 2f.4?2 41 120.07? 70 1X00 7.119 00 27.IMOO 2f?07 40.000 00 J.SfSOO 21.740 0? 14.210 00 BI.SIOOO II Ilf 00 1.141 00 11.707 00 21.72100 32.14100 1.tJ7 SO 2.7M 00 2.01300 21.I7S00 1.0ISOO H4.12 1.11100 3.IMI0 1.4IS 2f 2.012 00 2 21SOO :.m M 111 os iioisaoo 177.227 21 X 92110 i|4 MS X ti«t APfiCATMH •TONU MAT|«Ai TOT 44 T0 04TI SuSIOTAi* Iftt TOTAl M.SSf X 1S.M7 00 1I7.3M04 117.222 00 Sf.no 22 I1.SHM I1.SI4 00 fS.4f? If 172.M2 00 111.Ill 00 s.fl? 00 74.MI 71 27.t;4 00 2S.Mf IS 1 422 47 X.1X41 1X.077 70 sxoo 7. US 00 li.Ofl 00 2M 17 40,000 M 3.MS00 U.I40 07 14.2MOO SS.IMOO 13.17100 I.I4S00 12.717 00 2t.72f 00 12.204 00 1.137 M 2.7H 00 S.fS3 00 2IJ7SOO I.OtlX Sf4 12 1.112 00 3.SSI m 1.41S If E0I2X 2.31SX 2MSM 111 01 1X.7MW 177.227 2f M.SXX 1t1.7MiC 2.12S 2S4 29 llOlf 707 72 101127 14 1 17.21112 2 231 2fi 4f I 2 173 tf3 M 000 000 000 000 12 111 93 12102 10 OM 1.201 OC 0 00 000 000 OX OX MIX OX 242 X OX OX OX I 4HX in X ox OX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 744 X OX OX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 3.049 X ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ax ox ox PX ax ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 coo 000 000 000 000 ox ox ox rx ox ox ox ox MSff X 1S.X7 X It? 3St 04 117.222 X 71001 7S 21X2 7fi 11.174 X M 70S If 171103 X Iis.f1i X SI77X 74.IX 7S 27.014 X 30 S3S IS f.42247 21473 41 120.077 70 sxx 7.IISX 27.191 X 317 07 40.0XX 3 fOS X 2f 740 07 14 2XX 69 OfO X 13 fIS X •.64fX 22 717 X 2f 721 X 33»4f X 1 U7 M 2 7M X 2X3 X 21 f7SX I.OtSX SS4 12 1.112X 2.fSS X l.4lf 3f 2002 X t.3if X lots if If1 OS IN 7KX 177.327 29 N I2f X 114 XS N IX IX IX IX 12 IX IX IX IX ix IX IX IX IX f4tA«CI IX tx X tX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX IX 33.1X12 I.M1 02 O X lux X4 29 0 X I 1W §27 14 41 »47 69 0 XI 2.219 »41 41 IX tool IX ix 1X rX ox ox ox ox 1S4XX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox o.x ox ox ox ox ox ox ox o.x ox o.x ox ox ox ox fi.x o.x o.x ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 401 ox ox 000 000 000 0X1 0X| 0X1 ox ox ox| ox ox ox 0 X ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox OK ox OX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 0 00 ox 0 00 000 000 ox ox IS 4XX ox ox ox 19 490 X ox I ' i ,1 WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS February 1,2004 For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land and buildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and to the appurtenances thereunto, (b) rights and clauns on any payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said construction, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by City of Long Lake (owner), is located at 340 Willow Drive. Lone Lake. MN is described as Long Lake Fire Station and this waiver pertains to a portion Oi the work to be performed by Rochon Corporation (prime contractor). This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undersigned under a contract with City of Long Lake through the date of this waiver in the amount of FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINFTY EIGHT St 21/100 DOLLARS (S58J 98.211 This lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has been received. I NOTARY PUSUC - M^NNESO^ 1 .My Comm. &pi«a Jan 3i. 200S Company Name Rochon Corporation President Contractor Waiver Fonn i AmiCATION AND CtPTIFICATt >OW MVMiMT ISUtSTITUTl AIA DOCUMBfT C702I TOlOWNiAl CltT»M^UM 1H4 t«M. MN S59M PHOJICT 940 WMvwOrtwt U«^ \M». MN U9M 0*€ Of 1 ^AOtt APPUCATIOM MO: U MMOO TO: J9P-04 mm icoMTiucTOMt pmm 3IM iMt MtrM. SiM 101 MN SS447 VIA lAMCNITtCT): OIV i aaiNtmi m smmi MNl»40t AACNinCTI PAOJtCT MO:tftftOt COMTMACT >0W: OtiN»M C4AMNM044 • <*»»*** COMT1UCT OATV CHANCC OROEN SUMMARY ONiNa Oiaart tauNwaa n total AOOlTiONS 33‘« lot 4t OCOUCTONS LaaNaai iNa Manat Nianaar Data Aararaa 33.113 007 t/29/2004 TOTALS 13.119 W 000 Afpi»cMion M ni40« lof haymow. M ^ co«noci»o" «vHh UM Coowaei. CoNi*miiiiON Shatt. Subitiiuta A ia Oocvin ^i 0703 M tuachad. I. oiaoiMALCOMTAACT Sum ...... . s AM feM tfia aavana St MN AaaMaMN OacARNma. 9m m $0m waftMaCanvaa Av aa CaMrw«a* Im NNrA Nr N( wart N mM tni MiaNWN NcawaO lr«« UN OwNM. aai UNI eiaitru pav«NM mom* N »nn Data: FaArwarv 1.1004 1 Mai ClNtift ay Ctianta Oravt................ a COMTfUCTSUMTOOATIIUNWMl a. total COMAtf TtO A STOaSO TO OATl ICaNMA G an 07031 i MTAMAGi #._% •! CatnaNNi NNrl tCaMvm 0 « f an 07031 a Of S«a*aa Mnaou tCaMnri f «n 07031 TfNf Aatavuga IUn S« • 94 or TmI 9t CaNmn I of G703I i. TOTAL iAfNm LiSS aiTAMAOt. IlM 4 MM ima 9 T««all 7. UlO AUlVfOUS CtATUlCATU fOA OAVMCNT lUra 0 tiwn pnar CarMNaial • CUWNNT OAVMfNT out.. i. iALANa TO MNISK ALUS AtTAtNAOl lima 3 Nat Un •> Counvati H a a ^ I I.StO.970 00 aio.sn 4t 1.331.391.49 2.319.S41 49 I »*a**a*«»4«*4*«a • «*a«* • • •#»*# ooo U18.I41 <• .«•••••»«» •••••««•• a* •••• 1.197.S43 30 SO.fSO 31 19.490 00 SiaiAat: Mamaaata »N arrom la Aaioia wa Uas lai aay a» Ai4rwa»T. My Comm. E»pifts Jan ai. Maiary ^N*C: jtnmy 91. 3009 AACMNtcr 9 csmaiCATt too aatmuit N aaaananat lAa Canm OaciMNnN. mi »• aaif canumaN Ma •Maaa Muartaa Ownai UNI N UN aaai ai u«t AictNiira Mta an an»N ataamatana UN Aicfaiaci carUfNa la un . auarmaaan and 4Maf Un AaaouNT comm.... rfao UNWara Irara UNN »njU aaaaad N> I Wari 444 arayaN4a 4t mdaaiaa. UN au Mn ai UN Nara n n acaarOaaca «»4N UN Ca«»aa 0acNn4HN. ana UN CamracNi N amiuaa la aafUNM if tha AMOUNT ClATUitO. ------IMT ClAT^f 0 a aayaiNN nal nnoiiiila. tiN AMOUNT ClATi Camraciar narnaa int Mi taananca. aatNam ana aacaa<a 4N «aiAaui ar#w4ica N any iffhlt af UN Ownar er Canifi ihNCantract. ~I I'liiNm iiiiiiaiiiaM PAGE 2 OF 2 CONTINUATION SHEET Subtthutt AIA Dociimtnt 0703 LONG LAKE FIRE STATION APmCATlOM NUMKK: AmiCATlON OATt PfIllOOraOM; TO COKTfUCTOII S fROJfCT NO: 1i 14«rOS 02M 01000 01IM 02200 02M0 02I1S 02S1& 02410 02X0 GCN'l NOMTS ■ONO UHTNINOM tiTI OTAITICS AIMAlT rAVWO »TI CONCMCTC/Mf Wi LANOICAPINO CONCHfTI 04200 02410 OflOO OMOO Otico 00200 00400 onx 07110 MtCNrrei tCMfOJUO VAiUl I WAATON 02410 Mice AIT CONCRtTf MAfONOV AACMMCCAST ITCIl. FAINO^TIOM rrcii cocction CAAOfWTIlV CAAPHfTII\ i4AT-iO MU1AOM N004MQ WATCNMIOOnNO OTOOOlCAUUlMO HNtOOORSAONIIOilOOl 00200 002001 00200 000101 ATCCIO DOOM MCT OVCMAOOOOO COA.1MQ OOOOt WOOOW:nOOWI 00000Ok>n^cAXMO OOCOOtOOWirAlUtOt OOlOOfCtlUMlC/OUAMT Tiu ACOOltlCAl CUUNO T) I ooooolCAiior AHNn tu 00000 VQMy HOOO 00900 OAMTOKUVMn l02M|nAO MXff tout oAnmiONf Toor ACCiOOOMCl lO'OO 10000 10000 lOCAM 10200 100M 10100 10440 moo 12400 12IM 13100 1SOOO 10400 1S2O0 '4000 lOJVtAS 4MC f4TtNCa0»€0i CHAUUTACA OOAOOS I0IMT#VIN0 OCVtCff AtSiOCNTlAL VVIN001W OUNOf HOOO MAT9 VC»«CiC CUOTAM nix PNOJCCTlON ICOtCN MV AC HUAMNIO TMC MOn CTION lactocAi M SU 20 1S M7 W 197 219 04 117 222.M M929 74 22.M2.70 91.674 M 90.709 19 172.692 00 119.911.00 9.977.00 74.999 74 27.994 00 29.924 94 9 42247 29 472 49 1X.077 70 4X W 7.199.00 27.9MOO X7 97 40.000 00 2.999 W 29.740 07 14.2X W 94.9X W 13.979 W 9.949.M 22.797 « X.729 00 X949M 1.927.K 2.799 00 2.992 M 21 979 M 1.099 X 994 12 1.112X 3 949 X 1 419 39 2M2X 2.219X 2 999 99 191 09 1X.7X X 177.227 29 X.929 X 194 X9X M.9UX 14.M7X 197.399 04 117.223 X M910 22 11 999 X 91.974 X 99.497 19 173 M3 X 119.911 X 9.977.x 74.999 74 37 994X 34 9U 94 9.422 4 7 X.1X 49 1X.077 70 IX X 7.199 X 29.M2X 299 97 40.0XX 3.999X 29.740 07 14 3X X 99.9MX 13.979 X 9.949 X 22.797 X X.729K 22.204X 1.927 M 2.799 X 2.993 X 21.979X 1.M9X 994.12 1.112X 2 994 X 1 41139 2M2X 2 314X 2 999M 191 04 1X7XX 177.327 29 X.IMX 111 7MX APHCATON tUOTOTAi Hi 2.129.394 29 I 2.079.707 72 109.927 14 1 97.299 12 TOTAL 2 231.291 49 I 2 173 993 94 OX OX OX ox 12.179 IJ 12.103 10 OX I 201 X OX OX OX OX OX 999X OX 343 X OX ox ox 2.4MX 111 X ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 744 cr ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ex ox 3 049X ITOIOO MAflMAL 33.1NI2 • 991 02 41 §47 94 ox OX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox QX ox OX OX ox OX ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 0.x ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox T0741 TO 0411 1X1 1x1 ox ox ox 99.499 X IIX 19X7x1 IX 197.399 04 IIX 117.323 x 1 1 71.0M 74 I 92 ;3.X2 70 11 41.174 X I IX M 709 19 IIX 172.993X1 IX m.in.xli f.977 x|lX 74 9M 79 11 27.994 00 29 93 .*4 9 422 47 |i 29 472 «9 IIX 1X.077 70 4WX 7.149 X 27.949X 247 47 40.00000 3 944.x 29.7X07 14.2XX I9.4XX 13.97fX i449X 22.797X |iX 29 729 X IIX 23.949X 1.437 50 2.7XX 2.993 X 21.979 X 1.099X |1 994 12 11X1 1.112X 3.991 X 1.419 20 2 092 X 2.311 X 2 494 49 191 09 1W7XX 177 327 29 X.929 X 194 909 X IX 1x1 11x1 IX X IIX 11x1 jix IX IX IX 1x1 IIX 11x1 |ix| IIX IX 1< uo| IX IX 1X1 IX IX IX 1X1 tx| IX ox ox ox ox 11.410 X ox ox 0.x ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 0 X ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 0.00 000 000 ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 000 000 000 000 ox ox ox ox ox ax ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ex ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 2.109 104 29 I 99 101 937 14 I 10v| 1I4MX ox ax ox 2 214 941 49 I ff I 14 440 00 •4 • , 5 . I M V REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 8,2004 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: 2004 Liability Insurance Policy and Worker Compensation Insurance Policy Premium Tabulations and Award Recommendations Attachments: (1) Liability ’ and Worker Compensation Insurance Premiums Tabulation (2) Worker Compensation Plan Estimated Premium Quotation A comparative tabulation of the 2003 and 2004 renewal insurance premiums, and the 2004 budgeted amounts is presented for your review. At this time we are recommending award of all the policies as presented. The City will continue to carry an umbrella excess liability policy of $2 million and will not waive the statutory limits established under Minnesota law. The LMCIT requires that the City Council adopt a resolution stipulating whether the City will or will not waive the statutory limits under the law. A resolution to not waive the statutory limits was adopted by Council at the Januar)' 12,2004 council meeting. The estimated cost for all policies for 2004 is $148,181 compared to $165,108 for 2003, and $173,659 for 2002. The City will place all coverage with the LMCIT program. Worker Compensation Coverage: The renewal premium quotation for worker compensation insurance reflects a gross initial premium for 2004 of $74,486. This compares with the 2003 initial premium of $69,026, an increase of $5,460 or 7.9%. However, the City ’s experience modifleation adjustment has gone from a surcharge of 4.0% to a discount of 18.0%. The experience modification discount plus an additional 8.7% premium discount results in a net initial premium of $55,751 for 2004, compared to a net initial premium of $65,442 for 2003. The decrease in pre mium is primari ly the result of the favorable change in the City ’s experience modification, going from a surcharge of 4.0% to a discount of 18%. This more than offset increases in certain worker compensation payroll rates from the prior year. March 8,2004 2004 Liability Insurance Policy and Woricer Compensation Insurance Policy Premium Tabulation and Award Recommendations, page 2 Liability Insurance Package Policy and Excess Liability The package policy and excess liability policy premiums total $ 92,430 for 2004 compared to $99,666 for 2003, and $114,937 for 2002. The decrease from 2003 to 2004 is $7,236, or 7.3%. The premium decrease is due to a savings of $2,000 in the umbrella excess liability and to a reduction in the average amount and severity of claims for the prior five year period. Staff recommends the award of the 2004 insurance coverage as presented in the attachment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Award the2004 insurance package effective January 1,2004 to the League ofMinnesota Cities Insurance Trust for worker compensation coverage, $55,751; comprehensive municipal property and casualty package, $71,674; umbrella excess liability, $ 16,929; petrofund reimbursement, $244; open meeting law, $510; boiler and machinery, $1,932; surety bonds, $578 and golf course liquor liability, $563. 1 X ------.f 1 INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM TABULATION Policy Awarded To: Actual Premiaros 2003 Renewal Premiuns 2004 Insuraace Premiams Budget 2004 Worker Compensation LMCIT $65,442 $55,751 $75,690 Comprehensive Municipal LMCIT Property and Casualty: Property $11,691 $13,704 Vehicle I itb/Coll/UM/Equip 14,587 15,301 Inland Marine 2,360 2,737 Crime (incl)—mm General Liability 47,857 39,932 Total Comprehensive Municipal Property A Casualty $76,495 $71,674 $91,820 Petrofund Reimbursement LMCIT 257 244 570 Open Meeting Law LMCIT 713 510 720 Employee Dishonesty Bond LMCIT 959 578 900 Boiler LMCIT 1,703 1,932 1,670 Umbrella Excess Liability LMCIT 18,976 16,929 21.470 Liquor Liability for Golf Course LMCIT 363 563 700 TOTAL $165,108 $148,181 $193,540 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Group Solf'Insurod Horkers* Coaponsation Plan 14$ University Avenue West St. Paul. MN 55103*2444 Phone (651)215*4173 Information Page 1. The 'City* ORONO, CITY OF PO BOX66 CRYSTAL BAY RENEWAL Agreement No.: 0200036219 "City* is: MN 55323 JL City __ Joint Powers Entity _ Other (describe) 2. The Agreement Period is from 12:01 a.m. 1/01/2004 to 12.01 a.m. 1/01/2005 at the "City's* address. 3. A. Workers' Compensation Coverage: Part One of the Agreement applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of any state of the United Stales of America and the District of Columbia. B. Employers Liability Coverage: Part Two of the Agreement applies to work in each state listed in item 3.A. 'The limits of our liability under Part Two are: Bodily Injury-Each Occurrence $1,000,000 Bodily Injury by Disease-Agreement Limit $1,000,0(X) C. Part Three of the Agreement applies to Infectious Disease Diagnostic Testing. D. Part Four of the Agreement applies to Peace Officers' Posttraumatic Stress Syndrome Benefit. E. This Agreement includes these amendments and schedules: 4. Retro-rating option selected?Yes X No 5. Elected Officiak Covered? Yes Boards and Commissions Covered (List) NONE 6. The premium for this Agreement will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit. Pranium Basis Rates Entries in this item, except as specificaly provided Estimated Estimated Total Per $100 of Code elsewhere in this Agreement; Do rwt modify any of the Annual Annual Remuneration No. other provisions of the Agreement Premium Remuneration SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE FOR DETAILS Agent: 00573 MtnuAl Premium 74486. .Expeiience Modification .82 13407. Standard Premium 61079. Managed Care Credit OZ Deductible Credit .0 Z 411810899 1,115.02 GALLAGHER/TOWLE AGENCY INC Premium Discount 5328. 7825 WASHINGTON AVE SO. SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 Net Deposit Premium 55751. 1/27/2004 LM 4670(12/99) League of Minnesota Cities Insurame Trust Group Self*Insured Workers' Con^nsntioo Man 145 University Avenue West St. Paul. MN 55103*2044 (651)215-4173 The 'Cily* ORONO, CITY OF P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY Agreement No.: Agreement Period From: To: 0200036219 1/01/2004 1/01/2005 MN 55323 CONTINUATION SCHEDULE FOR INFORMATION PAGE REMUNERATION 353650. 60980. 1117450. 424600. 38530. 83210. 21300. 506400. 18200. RATE 6.27 2.70 3.61 .54 2.91 1.53 2.86 .98 .37 CODE 5506 7520 7720 8810 8831 9060 9102 9410 9411 DESCRIPTION STREET CONSTRUCTION WATERWORKS POLICE CLERICAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES NOC ANIMAL CONTROL CLUB-COUNTRY/GOLF PARKS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS EST. PREM 22174. 1646. 40340. 2293. 1121. 1273. 609. 4963. 67. Manual Premium 74486. Agent: 00573 411810899 GALLAGHER/TOWLE AGENCY INC 7825 WASHINGTON AVE SO. SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 1/27^2004 LM 4680(8/99) -------- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rni iM/'ii i>«ppj||yjQ MA»^ 6 2004 CllYOFORCNO DATE: mm ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name: Stephany Title: ChierofPMke / Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Hire Full Time Police Officer Exhibits: DISCUSSION: Susan Day has successfully passed all the hiring requirements for employment as a full time police officer for the City of Orono including a written test, two interview panels, physical agility testing, and a complete background. Ms. Day has served as a Community Service Officer with the City of Plymouth for three years. Ms. Day graduated with a B.A. degree in Criminal Justice from Metropolitan State University. She is committed to becoming an excellent patrol officer for the City of Orono and establishing good rapport with the community. Her hobbies include playing softball, working-out on a regular basis, spending time with family, friends, and her two dogs. Ms. Day resides in Monticello. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED : Motion to hire Susan Jane Day at the starting rate for patrol officer of $ 18.62/hour effective 3/8/04. COiiMrii mfETING MAR 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: 3/8/04 ITEM NO: / 7 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Stephany Good Title: Chief of Police Item Description: Hire Full Time Community Service Officer Exhibits: DISCUSSION: On 1/26/04, the Orono City Council passed a motion to advertise and extend an offer of hire for the position of Community Service Officer, to fill the position vacated by CSO John Herman. The Orono Police Department has completed a hiring process for the position of CSO, which included a written test, oral interviews, and a background investigation. An offer of employment was extended to Christopher Michael Pharo. Chris was attracted to the Orono Police Department because of its efforts in community oriented policing. He is extremely service oriented, holds a B.A. degree in psychology from Northwestern, and is attending North Hennepin Community College to finish an Associates Degree in Law Enforcement prior to attending police skills school. Originally from New Jersey, Chris and his wife reside in Maple Grove. His hobbies include reading, fishing, cooking and riding his motorcycle. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to hire Christopher Michael Pharo for the position of full time Community Service i ^"PF.TING MAR 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: March S, 2004 ITEMNO: /S’ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Titk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Report Agenda Section: City Administrator's Item Description: Planning Commission Appointments The Council has interviewed three candidates to fill three vacancies on the Planning Commission, and will interview a fourth candidate prior to the Council meeting, llie Council may at this time take action to make the appointments. Two of the vacancies are three-year terms expiring on March 31,2007. One of the vacancies is an unexpired term expiring on March 31,2006. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to nudee iq^intments to fill the following vacancies on the Planning Commi^ion: •Three year term expiring March 31,2007 —Three year term expiring March 31,2007 -Unexpired term expiring March 31,2006 i i ------------ ^ f i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MftR 8 DATE; ITEM NO: /^ Department Approval: Nine RonMoorse TUIc City Administrator Adminiatrator Reviewed: 1 Report Agenda Section: City Administrator's Item Deecription: Legislation Regarding Constitutional Amendments to Place Strict Tax and Expenditure Limitations on Governmental Jurisdictions-Resolution There are a number of proposals being promoted at the State legislature that would place strict tax and expenditure limitations on the State, and potentially local, levels of government. These proposes require a referendum election to override the tax and expenditure limits. Although proposals to limit taxes may initially sound appealing, when they are applied to the State and to cities in a broad brush, inflexible nrtanner, they eliminate the flexibility and local decision-making authority necessary to deal with crisis situations and unique needs. A resolution opposing these tax and exp^iture limitation proposals is attached for Council consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution opposing tax and expenditure limitation proposals. A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TAX AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATION PROPOSALS (TABOR and Similar Proposals) WHEREAS, the Taxpayers League and others are endorsing proposals to amend the State Constitution to institute tax and expenditure limitations at the state, and potentially local, levels of government that could only be overridden by a vote of the people - an example of these proposals Is the ‘Taxpayers Bill of Rights ”; WHEREAS, such proposals would tie the hands of stale and local leaders in times of crisis and other unpredictable circumstances, putting state and local governments on “auto pilot’ and circumventing thoughtful consideration of policy decisions; WHEREAS, such proposals would prevent state and local officials from making the tough decisions they were elected to make, passing the responsibility for learning all aspects of often complex issues to citizens who have other jobs and responsibilities; WHEREAS, amending the constitution is a virtually irrevocable action and should only be undertaken when legislative remedies have proven inadequate; WHEREAS, such proposals arc unnecessary - a “solution in search of a problem” - us demonstrated by lawmakers at both state and local levels of government taking action to deal with one of the worst budget crises to hit the State of Minnesota and, by result, Minnesota’s cities; WHEREAS, this is further demonstrated by the fact that state and local spending as a percentage of personal income has actually declined in recent years, even before the 2003 deficit; WHEREAS, regardless of whether TABOR/TELs are applied just to the State or to local governments as well, these proposals would bring great harm to local communities through continued reductions in state funding, increases in unfunded State mandates, and, potentially, direct tax and expenditure limitations at the local level, which .‘'ould severely erode decision making at the local level and the ability to provide the basic services residents and businesses expect and deserve; WHEREAS, such proposals would force the State, and potentially cities, to spend valuable time and money asking for permission from the same people who elected them before any action can be taken on important issues, and would also force taxpayers to pay twice for Page 1 of 2 A • governance - once for elections of their State and local officials, and again for elections to make the decisions those officials should have made. WHEREAS, such proposals contradict the fundamental principles upon which our constitution and system of government are based - that representative, not direct, democracy is the most effective form of government as it is most likely to result in good pub'ic policy; WHEREAS, those states that have instituted proposals similar to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, such as Colorado, now face severe problems in meeting the basic needs of their citizenry; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the city of Orono that this Council believes that state and local elected officials are elected to do a job - that Job is to represent the interests of their constituents, to deal with difficult decisions, to thoughtfully debate and determine the best course of action for the state or the community they serve. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Council opposes limits on state and/ >r local taxes and expenditures, whether through constitutional amendment or other means, and supports the principle of representative democracy as the best route to sound public policy. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council this 8“* day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 rtlii ■ SMm-- i I MAH 8 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: March 5, 2004 ITEM NO:20 Department Approval: Namr Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1. Kevin Garnett 450 Orono Orchard Road South 2. LuAnn and David Runkle 2684 Cusco Point Road COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. Agenda Section: Licenses 4 1 KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,200to December 31, 200^ Owner: / ^ 1/ O fj- deceived j I 20dj Property Address: ^4/) Oi'U^O Orz^hfird, £ai (include City snd rip) , Pk^aJh Mailing Address (if different): 5. > c3CfV/ Phone: (home)________________________(work) '^6?? -Q//^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:__ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: 4 C.0W/ iW |,'7' 7 ( iv\ss^ fr Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dog’’ normally kept: 'SC inside kennel structure COM?.IERCIAL Kennel License Fee; $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_________________ Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:____________________________________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone). Dog runs/excrcise areas are:____inside___^outside__^both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigi»d agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. in/^n -/O'OZ Applicant Date Tot dry/ Use OnN Kennel inspected by Recommends: Appro ml V Denial Date g J- y py i KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION . Effective January 1, 200^ to December 31,200_^ received OK J 7 2005 CITY OF ORONO Property Address; 'Poih'h / (include city and zip) ^ Mailing Address (if different): Phone; rhome^ ‘tl/- nSJ ? fwor» 4hSl RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) . Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^_____________________ (over 6 mooihs of age) Principal Breed: (3olo/ffK. ------------------------------- Purpose for more than 2 dogs:__** Dogs normally kept: inside kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_________________ Business Activities; (example: boarding, breeding, veterinai)- care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: _______________________________- After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:____inside___outside__^both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; t>ae undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the pretmses prior to license approval and at any other reasonable timedurmg the license duration; and die undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval, Applicant /Ji! !b fojj Date fnr dry Use Only Kennel inspected by Dale '3’ Recommends: Approyd l Denial^ CITY OF ORONO 03«5/04 9:18AM Pagel *Check Detail Register<§) MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment MAK a 2004 10100 Primary Cash PakJChK# 077861 2/24^004 DEPUTY REGISTRAR E 101-43000^1 Licentes & Taxes Total DEPUTY REGISTRAR $14.50 160-604 License Tabs -#211 $1450 PaidChk# 077862 2/26^2004 MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION E60M940CM37 Trair'.^ng S Development E 601-40400-437 Training S Development E 601-49400-437 Training & Development E60M9400-437 Training & Development Total MN RURAL WATER ASSOaATlON $100 00 Detaere $100 00 Hanson $100 00 Oberainger $100 00 Rathbun Water School Water School Water School Water School $400.00 10100 PrlmaryCaeh $414.50 Fund Summary 101 GEr^ERAL FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 10100 Primary Cash $1450 $400 00 $414.50 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 03/05/04 9:16 AM Page 1 MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Pfinwry Cash PaktChki 077885 3/8/2004 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS E 101-41900413 Office Equipment Rental $490.80 17979402 E 101-41900413 Office Equipment Rental $673.45 17979436 Total ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS Copier Lease 1/21-2/15/04 Copier Lease 2/15-3/15/04 $1,164.25 Paid Chki 077886 3/8/2004 ANDERSON, KRISTI E 101-41300-319 Oltier Profeaaionat Seivioes E 101-42400319 Other Professional Services E 101 -45200-319 Other Professional Services Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $165.00 217-302 $205.00 217-302 ___$165_0q^ 217-302 $535.00 recording fees recording fees recording fees i l>aid CfiW 077887 3/8/2004 ARROWWCNX) RESORT E 101-41300-437 Trairvng & Development $268.38 031604 conNM 78943/Conf/L Vee Total ARROWWOOD RESORT $268.38 Paid ChM 077888 3/8/2004 BOS LAUNDRY SYSTEMS E 425-48945-580 Other Equipment $4,216.34 475893 Washer/Dryer - Nav Fire Total BOS LAUNDRY SYSTEMS $4,216.34 PaidChk# 077889 3/8/2004 BEARCOM E 425-48945-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $3.861 32 2434304 Pagers • Navarre Fire Total BEARCOM $3,861 32 Paid ChM 077890 3/8/2004 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $60 91 W214627 Bedeneood biff Total BIFFSINC.$6091 Paid ChW 07^891 3/8/2004 BOLTERMAN, MATT E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $35 00 030104 mileage & meeting dues E101-4240C-331 Travel Expenses $117 30 030104 mileage & meeting dues Total BOLTERMAN. MATT $152 30 ^ald Chki 077892 3/8/2004 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-41900-201 Offioe supplies $68 63 colored copies E 601-49400-331 Travel Expenses $841 022304 shq)pingrMDH E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $313.52 28557 Jr Officer Badges E 101-41900-201 Offioe supplies $618 28647 Plaque E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $119 76 28671 No Parking Signs E 101-42110-201 Offioe supplies $212 39 30140 envetopesAietterhead Total BUDGET PRINTING $728 89 Paid Chki 077893 3/8/2004 CENTER POINT ENERGY •GC E 613-49830-381 GasftElectnc $47281 031404 265 Ofono Orchard Total CENTER POINT E CRGY-GC $472 81 ^aidChki 077894 3/8/2004 CENTER.'OINT ENERGY E 601-49400-381 Gas A Electric $1.225 70 mar192004 gas utilities E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric $2.665 47 mar102004 gas ytiifties E 602-49450-381 Gas A Electric $1.332 75 marl 92004 gasi«^ E 101-41900-381 GasAEIecInc $649 60 mar192004 gasubMies E 101-42110-381 Gas A Electric $69513 mar192004 gas utilities E 60249450-381 Gas A Electric $106 28 mar192004 gasutSilies E 60149400-381 Gas A Electric $444 25 mar192004 gas utiHiffe Total CENTERPOINT ENERGY $7,319.18 I U CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 03/05A>4 9.16 AM Page 2 MARCH 2004 Check Amt kwo4ce Comment 077896 3/8/2004 CHUNKS^LAKESHORE AUTO G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $160 37 24766 Wiring - #192 E 101-42110-402 Repaifs/Maint-Auto Equip $558 60 25056 Oil. Alternator #192 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $161 00 25059 Power St Hose #188 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $706 51 25060 Water Pump. Hose #191 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $102 69 25066 Oil, Fuel Filter #198 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $1,456 71 25068 Ball Jnt, Tune Up #193 E 101-42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $243 83 25077 Oil, Ck Heater #194 E 101-42110*402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $470 51 25092 Shocks. Coils @193 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $32 92 25109 Oil Chg#197 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Mamt'Auto Equip $46 00 25118 Siren Head #198 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $48 77 25152 Siren Control Head #198 Total CHUNKS LAKESHOKE AUTO $3,987 91 3/8/2004 CLARErSPaidChkf 077896 G 425-20200 Accounts Payable E 425-48945-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts Total CLARETS $398 00 72527 $272 92 72527A Truck Equipment - Nav Fire Truck Equipment - Nav Fire $670.92 Paid Chkf 077897 3/8/2004 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION G 234-20200 Accounts Payable $1,200 00 213L277254D Lease - 2003 Lurton Total COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION $1,200 00 Paid Chk# 077898 3/8/2004 COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses $30 00 3/8/04 Total COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD $30 00 Welcome Cake-New Officer Paid Chkf 077899 3^/2004 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES E 101-42260-407 Janitorial Services ___$186 38 83584 Total COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES Janitorial - Nav Fire $186 38 Paid Chk# 077900 3^/2004 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE E 101-43000*408 Contracted Street Maint ToUl DAHLKE TREE SERVICE $125 00 022404 banners replaced $12500 Paid Chk# 077901 3/8/2004 DCA-WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spendmg Accounts G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts ToUl OCA-WIRE ONLY $1,375 74 $346 04 03022004 2003 wire transfer/030204 2003/wire transfer 3/3/04 $1,721.78 Paid Chk# 077902 3/8/2004 DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP E 101-42110-311 Data Processing Communication $37 00 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $50 66 E 101-41900-321 Tetephooe $118 20 Total DEPT OF ADM-INTERTECH GROUP DV04010299 W04010593 W04010598 phone service phone service phone service $205 86 Paid Chk# 677903 3/8^004 DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC E 425-48945-520 Buildings and Structures Total DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC $1.538 20 1779 Nav Fire Access Sys • 1st Half Paxi ChMI 077904 3/8^004 E-2 RECYCUNG ^ E 101-43270-316 Contract Recyckng Pickup Total E-Z RECYCLING $6,518 20 6327 curbside for Mar04 $6,51820 pa^J3an)77905 3/8/2004 earl F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. 0101-20200 Accounts Payaole $155.33 57791 Signs MM CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 03/DS/04 9 16 AM Page 3 MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC.$155 33 PaidChMI 077906 3/6/2004 FEDEX E 10M1900-322 Postage $4 20 1-573-59956 Health Questionairs Total FEDEX $4 20 Paid Chki 077907 3/8/2004 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY E 101-42110-520 Buildings and Structures $4.82264 721133 security upgrade Total FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY $4,622 64 Paid ChM 077908 3/8/2004 G A K SERVICES E 60249450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $35 01 1006837126 uniforms E 61349830-226 Clothing & personal equipment $575 1006837126 uniforms E 60149400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $11 67 1006837126 uniform E 10143000-221 Equipnr>ent Parts & Accessories $50 00 1006637126 uniforms E 10143000-226 Clothing & personal equipment $7008 1006837126 uniforms E 60149400-226 Clothing A personal equipment $12 12 100684369 uniforms E 60249450-226 Clothing A personal equipment $36 36 1006843698 uniforms E 61349830-226 Clothing A personal equipment $575 1006843698 uniforms E 10141900404 Repairs/Maint-Bidgs/Grounds $94 25 1006843698 uniforms E 10143000-226 Clothing A personal equipment $72 70 1006843698 uniforms E 10142110-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $147 03 1006843699 mats E 10141900404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $54 90 1006843700 mats E 10141900404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $6207 1006843701 mats Total GAKSERVICES $657 69 Paid Chk# 077909 3/8/2004 G B TECH SERVICE INC E 425^945-520 Buildings and Structures $1.335 00 2004020 TV Outlets - Nav Fire Total G B TECH SERVICE INC $1.335 00 Paid Chk# 077910 3/8/2004 GERRING'S CAR WASH E 10142110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip _$1100 022604 carwash Total GERRING S CAR WASH $11 00 i^aid Chki 077911 3/8/2004 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL E 60149400489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $54 05 4010630 locates E 60249450489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $54 05 4010630 locates ToUl GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $108 10 Paifi Chki 077912 3/8/2004 GRAINGER E 42548945*520 Buildings and Structures $51088 973-799611-7 Cabinet - Nav Fire ToUl GRAINGER $510 88 Paid Chk# 077913 j'8/2004 GREGORY, JAMES E 601-49400-437 Training 8 Oevetopment $43 88 030104 mileage/terronsm semmar Tout GREGORY. JAMES $43 88 Paid Chki 077914 3/8/2004 HENN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH E 613-49830-437 Training & Developniant $35 00 Steffenhagen Cert Food Mgr • Refresher Tout HENN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH $35 00 Paid 6hki 077915 3^/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY E 10141600-309 JaU Charges $497 25 000351 room A board Jan 2004 E 10143000489 Other Misoellaneous Charges $25 00 2004-17 Big Island Lake Access Total HENNEPIN COUNTY $52225 PaWChki 077916 3/8/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATRNY-FOflFEIT CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 03/05/04 9 16 AM Page 4 MARCH 2004 G 231-20200 Accounts Payable ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY ATRNY-FORFEIT $186^ 6/26A)3 $186 00 Paid Chk# 077917 3/8/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV G 421-20200 Accounts Payable ^317 38 TIP 2003 TIP Adm Costs Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV $31738 Paid ChWI 077918 3/8/2004 HYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY E 601-49400-227 Utility Systcfn Maint Supplies $1.939 35 25852-IN ToUl HYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY $1,939 35 meters for resale Paid Chk# 077919 3/8^004 J H LARSON COMPANY E 601-49400-227 Utility System Mainl Supplies Total J H LARSON COMPANY JW_57 4394479-01 $6 57 light bulbs Paid Chk# 077920 3/8/2004 JEFPERSON PIRE & SAFETY, INC G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable E 425-48945-222 Vehide Equipment & Parts E 42548945-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 42548945-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 42548945-222 Vehicle Equipment & Pads E 42548945-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts ToUl JEFFERSON FIRE A SAFETY. INC $1,104 00 103097 Turn Out Gear - Nav Fire $3.82060 103497 Turn Out Gear - Nav Fire $5,037 42 104448 Turn Out Gear - Nav Fire $347 00 104449 Truck Equip - Nav Fire $359 50 104789 Helmets - Nav Fire $1,104 12 105206 Truck Equipment - Nav Fire SI.262 51 105213 Turn Out Equip - Nav Fire $3,779 23 105830 Turn Out Gear - Nav Fire $288 00 105831 Truck Equip - Nav Fire $175 00 $17.27^38 106220 Truck Equip - Nav Fire P«d Chk* 077921 3/*"nX)4 KEEPERS E 101-421 iO-22t ciothing & poraonal equipment Tout KEEPERS «55JM 18906 $35500 buBet proof vest Nd Chk* 077922 3/8/2004 KENNEDY E GRAVEN. CHARTERED E 2344568a307 Legal-Consulting $1.213 09 60347 MNOOT/Luilon Matter E 10143290-800 Speaal Protects. Contingency ToUl KENNEDY A GRAVEN. CHARTERED $36 00 60347 St.249 09 MNOOT/Borgeit Matter ^ald Chk* 077923 3/8/2004 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA E 101-41600-306 Legal-Piosecution Total KENNETH N. POTTS, PA $2.500 00 3/1/2004 $2'500 0b~ Prosecutions 2/2004 Pad Chk* 077924 3/8/2004 LANO EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total LANO EQUIPMENT ___8M_97 103974 $50 97 RoOer Guide Paid Chk# 077925 3/8/2004 LASER TECHNOLOGII E 10142110401 Repaifs/Maint-Ofhce Equip E 10141900401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip E 1C142110401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip Tout LASER TECHNOLOGIES INC $6522 $13043 $2C? 68 $403 33 119651 119651 119924 printer cleanings printer cleanings parU for HP 4100 pnnter Paid Chk# 077926 3/8/2004 LMCIT - BERKLEY - PO BOX E 7034996a 361 General Uability Ins E 61349830-369 Dram Shop Insurance E7034996a362 Umbrella Liability Ins E7034996a361 General UabiMy Ins E 70349960-361 General UaUMy Ins $18.546 00 $563 00 $16929 00 $244 00 $510 00 15160 15185 1f*86 15187 15188 Comp Munic Cov Pmt #1 Oram Shop Ins Munictpal Excess Liability Petro Fund Irs Open Meeting Law CITY OF ORONO 03A)5/04 9:16 AM Pages *Check Detail Register® MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 703-49960-151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem Total LMCIT - BERKLEY - PO BOX $27.87550 2914 Worker's Comp • 1st Half $64.667 50 Paid Chk« 077927 3/8/2004 LOGIS E 101-42110-310 LOGIS-Applications $2.407 00 23768 police records E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-OfTice Equip $650 00 23790 network wellness E 10M21 10-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $650 00 23790 network wellness E 101-42110-329 Other Communications $196 50 23821 Internet 1/2004 E 101-41900-311 Data Processing Communication $3000 23821 Henn Cty con E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $196 50 23821 Internet 1/2004 E 10M2110-,i.-LOGIS-Applications $1.876 00 23821 police records 1/04 E 101-42110-329 Other Communications $19144 23880 webservice E 101-41900-310 LOGIS-Applications $184 77 23880 reflections renewal E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $191 43 23880 webservice E 10M21 10-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $95 63 23902 support E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $95 62 23902 support ToUl LOGIS $6 764 89 Paid Chk« 077928 3/8/2004 LUBE TECH E 10M3000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubncanti $338.60 1047319 vehichle supplies Total LUBE TECH $338 60 Paid Chk« 077929 3/8/2004 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT E 602^9450-437 Training & Development $150 00 04Vac!or clinic 2 day vector dinic/DO&SO 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $155 73 2035314 Hose. Saeen G 101-20200 Accounts Payable ($81 58) 5032 Return - Hose Total MACQUEEN EQUii MENT $224 15 Paid Chk# 077930 3/8/2004 MCLEOD USA - PHONE BILLS E 602-49450-321 Telephone $5306 60893 Phone Service E 602-49450-321 Telephone $3945 60893 Phone Service E 10M1900-321 Telephone $477 55 60893 Phone Service E 601-49400-321 Telephone $2274 60893 Phone Service E 101-42110-321 Telephone $204 66 60893 Phone Service E 601-49400-321 Telephone $4295 60893 Phone Service Total MCLEOD USA - PHONE BILLS $64041 Paid Chk« 077931 3/8/2004 MEDIA COM E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals $5 58 022604 cable/golf course Total MEDIA COM $5 58 Paid Chk» 077932 3/8/2004 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS E 601-49400-101 Full-Time Employees Regular $73 45 770709 Excess Solids - Nav WIr Total MEl COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS $73 45 PaidChk# 077933 3/8/2004 METRO FIRE G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $32,263 17 14428 SCBA - Navarre Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $519 57 14550 Boots • Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $146 03 15626 Truck Equipnrrent - Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $27339 15745 Turn Out Gear - Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $396 14 15772 Air Mask Bags-Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $327.16 15773 Tnjck Equipment - Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $281 63 15774 Tnicfc Equipment - Nav Fka G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $157 42 15777 Gloves - Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $173 17 15778 Truck Equipmern - Nav Fire G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $450 60 15779 Truck Equipment - Nav Fire CITY OF ORONO 03/05/04 9 16 AM Page 6 *Check Detail Register© MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable E 425-46945-222 VehK:le Equipment & Parts E 425-48945-222 Vehide Equipment & Pacts E 425-46945-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories TotM METRO FIRE $429 32 $9377 $181 67 $1.304 59 $554 34 126 31 $328 18 $678 94 $38.58560 15781 15782 15783 15784 15785 15867 16340 16717 Truck Equipment - Nav Fire Truck Equipment - Nav Fire Truck Equipment - Nav Fire Truck Equip/Gas Detect - Nav F Truck Equipment • Nav Fire Truck Equip • Nav Fire Truck Equipment - Nav Fire Hose Washer • Nav Fire f^aid Chk« 077934 3/8^004 MINNEAPOUS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $14 82 RI02040856 Medical Oxygen Total MINNEAPOUS OXYGEN COMPANY $14 82 Paid Chki 077935 3/8/2004 MN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE E 613-49830-441 Licenses & Taxes $20 00 Steffenhagen Pest Applicator License Total MN DEPT OF AGRICULIUKE $20 00 PaidOhl5 077936 3/8/2004 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION E 234-45680-412 Building Rentals $1.200 00 T79 213L2772 monthly rent *or Feb 2004/3580 E 23445^80-^512 Building Rentals $1 200 00 T79 213L2772 monthly rent for Jan 2004 E 234-45680-412 Building Rentals $;.2GQ00 T79 213L2772 monthly rent for Mar 2004/3580 Total MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION $3,600 00 - Paid Chk# 077937 3/8/2004 MOTOROLA E 601-49400-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip E 101-43000-2 V* Small Tools arxJ Minor Equip E 602-49450-240 Small Tools arxl Minor Equip Total MOTOROLA $1.907 68 13365684 $1,907.67 13365684 $1.907 68 13365684 3 -800 mhz radios 3 -800 mhz radios 3 -800 mhz radios $5.723 03 Paid Chk# 077938 3/8/2004 MTI DiST CO. £613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip E 613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip Total MTI DIST CO. $807 24 390733-00 $419 97 390744-00 Sharpen blades sharpen mowers $1,227.21 PaidChkA 077939 3/8/2004 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $1,405 80 58910 ToUl MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION Supplement Pages - Code $1.405 80 Paid Chk# 077940 3/8/2004 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 AccounU Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable G 425-20200 Accounts Payable E 425-48945-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts E 425-48945-222 Vehicle Equipment A Parts E 425-48945-222 Vehide Equipment A Parts Total MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES $428 95 $1.817 76 $692 00 $33 50 $692 39 $18 27 $20 57 $58 58 $342 72 $4.104 74 180870 181844 182482 182890 187281 187486 188153 188199 190065 Truck Equip - Nav Fire Trudi Equip • Nav Fire Truck Equip - Nav Fire Tmck Equip - Nav Fire Truck Equip - Nav Fire Truck Equip • Nav Fire Truck Equip - Nav Fire Trud( Equip • Nav Fire Truck Equipment - Nav Fire . ! Paid Chk# 077941 3/8/2004 NATIONAL WATERWORKS E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maifit Supplies Tout NATIONAL WATER1 curb box 5 $19671 Paid Chk# 077942 VB12004 NCPERS GROUP UFE INS 0101-21710 UM Insurance $304 00 021804 hfe msurar>oe for Mar04 ; CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Registei® 03/05/04 916/VM Page 7 MARCH 3004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total NCPERS GROUP LtFE INS $304.00 Paid CWdH 077943 3/8/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 613<49830-321 Telephone $56 28 326130427-00 ceH phones E 101-42400-221 Equipment Paits & Accessories $166 24 326180427-00 oek phones E 602-49450-321 Telephone $130 53 326180427-00 cellphones E 101-41900-321 Telephone $261.09 326160427-00 cellphones E 601-49400-321 Telephone $43 52 326180427-00 cellphones E 101-42110-321 Telephone $726 56 726 56 Ce» Phones - PO Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $1.384 22 Paid Chki 077944 3««004 NORTH AMERICAN SALT E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Matehals/Supply $1.040 25 11062732 100 ton salt E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Matehals/Supply $3.177 20 11062733 salt Total NORTH AMERICAN SALT $4,217 45 Paid Chk* 077945 3/S2004 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-41900-201 Office supplies ($8.77) •Mi E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $8943 -■ E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $89 43 235718188 m E 101-42110-201 Office supplies ($8 77) 236165296 return headset E 101-12110-201 Office supplies $217 95 236177103 supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $217.95 236177103 supplies ToUl OFFICE DEPOT $597.22 PaidChkA 077946 3/8/2004 POSTMASTER E 101-41900-322 Postage $150 00 031704 BULK MAILING FEE Total POSTMASTER $150 00 |!>aid dhki 077947 3/8/2004 QWEST E 613-49830-321 Telephone $62 55 021904 phone Total QWEST $6255 Paid Chki 077948 3/8/2004 SA-AG INC. E 101 43000-224 Street Maint MatenaJs/Supply $3,282.07 34923 Sand E 101-43000-224 Stref.i Mii»nt Matehals/Supply $1,314.67 34940 Sand Total SA-AG INC.$4.59674 Paid Chki 077949 316^004 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Pacts & Accessones $20529 SI26169 loader lights Total ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC.$205 29 Paid Chki 077950 3/8/2004 STATE TREASURER E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $35 00 Oman Building Code Seminar E 101-42400-437 Training & Development $35 00 Vang Building Code Seminar Total STATE TREASURER $70 00 Paid Chki 077951 3/8/2004 STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE G 231-20200 Accounts Payable $9300 6/26A)3 Smith • Bonneville Tout STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE $93 00 f»aid 077952 3/8/2004 STREtCHERS E 101-42110^02 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $36 00 4099901 Siren Repair E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessones $21 19 4101341 Gun Lock Head E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment $59 95 4143671 WeapoccsVesi E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment $59 95 414367 2 Weapons Vest E 101-42110-226 Clothing 8 personal aqulpment $47 80 418153 1 Bools i Ii CITY OF ORONO 9 16 AM Pages 'Check Detail Register® MARCH 2004 Total 8TREICHERS Checl^nt $224.89 Invoke Comment Paid Chki 077953 3/8/2004 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 101-41900-322 Postage ToUl UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $1,800.00 030804 postage for meter $1.800 00 Paid Chki 077954 3/8/2004 ^VALLEY-RICH CO E 601-49400-405 Repairs/Maint-Watermams/plant $1.600 00 Total VALLEY-RICH CO $1.600 00 7960 frozen line/Cty Rd 15 Paid Chki 077955 3^/2004 VICTORIA REPAIR S MFG G 425-20200 Accounts Payable $ 197 03 G 425-20200 Accounts Payable ____$31 95 Total VICTORIA REPAIR A MFC $228 98 4308 4706 Map Box Bracket Paid Chk# 077956 3/8/2004 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electric $21 42 E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electnc $30 06 E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric $3665 Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $88 13 021/04 0/1704 071/04 1160 Willow electric electric Paid 6Kki 077957 3/8/2004 XCEL £nERGY E 101-42260-381 Gas 8 Electric Total XCEL ENERGY $360.69 032604 3770 shoreline/electric $360 69 PaidChk# 077o -a 3/Mi)04 ZIEGLER E 101-43000-2H Equipment Parts 8 Accessones Total ZIEGLER $75.15 PC123021861 misc parts $75.15 10100 PrimaryCash $211.305 47 fund Si*mmary 101 GENERAL FUND 231 ORUG/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND 234 DONATED PARK 421 LL/OR FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 703 INSURANCE FUND 10100 PrimaryCash $54 293 34 $279 00 $6.01309 $31738 $72.329 36 $7,633 05 $3,881 82 $2.453 93 $64.104 50 $211,305 47 V k CITY OF ORONO check register 03A)2y04 1019 AM Pitga 1 Clwck Pay Numbtf Employaa Nama Paflor 053893 OOOGE. RACHEL M S 053894 LESKINEN. DENISE M. 5 053895 SILUS, BARBARA O 5 053896 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 5 053897 BOBZIEN. SUEA 5 053898 BORIS. SCOTT W 5 053899 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C 5 053900 ERICKSON. KURT R 5 053901 FARNIOK. CORREY L 5 053902 rISCHENICH. DAN T. S 053903 MADSON. ADRIENNE M 5 053904 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. 5 053905 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 5 053906 PERSEU. WILLIAM R 5 053907 RUSSETH. KYLE M 5 053906 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 5 053909 TOMCZYK.MARKW 5 053910 WITTKE. ANTHONY A. 5 053911 HERMAN. JOHN R. 5 053912 PHARO. CHRISTOPHER M. S 053913 QAFFRON. MICHAEL P. S 053914 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 5 053915 OMAN. LYLE E. 5 053916 VANG. BRUCE L. 5 053917 GREGORY. JAMES D. 5 053918 HANSEN. STEVEN 5 053919 OBRIEN. RANDY L 5 053920 PALMER. GREGORY A 5 053921 RATH8UN. BARRY J. 5 053922 SKREEN, DALES S 053923 ROSS. JOHN A 5 053924 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 5 003227 MOORSE. RONALD J 6 003228 VEE. LINDAS 5 003229 KUEHN. THOMAS M 5 003230 OLSON. RONALD J. 5 003231 PETTIT. SANDRA K 5 003232 ANDERSON. BRUCE L. 5 003233 BOBZIEN. SUEA 5 003234 BORIS. SCOTT W 5 003235 BUDIG. STACIE M 5 003236 CORNICK. JAMES L 5 003237 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. 5 003238 GOOD. STEPHANY R 5 003239 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 5 003240 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L 5 003241 SCHOENHOFI- . JOHNB 5 003242 T084CHECK. LAWRENCE F S 003243 LEE. JOSEPH P S 003244 BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW .A 5 003256 CURTIS. MELANIE 5 003246 GAFFPON. MICHAEL P 5 003247 GAPPA. GREGORY A 5 003248 OUNDLACH. JANICE J 5 003249 OMAN. LYLE E 5 003250 DEBAERE. DONALD L 6 003251 HANSEN. STEVEN 5 003252 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. 9 003253 OBRIEN. RANDY L 5 Chack Chack Amount Data Chack Statua $1.042 63 3/3/2004 OulsUndmg $868 6< 3ry2004 Outstanding $484 96 30/2004 Oulsianding $562 48 300004 OuUtanding $95 15 3/30004 Outstanding $1.43135 300004 OutsUnding $1,753 17 300004 Outstanding $1.859 68 300004 OutsUnding $1,652 52 300004 Outstanding $1.508 20 3/30004 OutsUnding $696 36 300004 Outstanding $549 18 300004 OutsUnding $1,691.05 300004 OuUtanding $1,033 65 300004 OuUUnding $1,257.01 300004 OuUtanding $429 88 3/30004 OuUUnding $1.37C 49 300004 OuUUnding $1,439 07 300004 OutsUnding $1.140 13 300004 OutsUnding $192.08 300004 OuUUnding $1,426 50 300004 Outstanding $549.87 300004 OuUUnding $64 72 3/30004 OuUUnding $1,323.53 300004 OuUUndirg $768 39 300004 CuUUnd:.)g $368 57 3/3/2004 OuUUnding $674.10 300004 OuUUnding $868 80 3/30004 Outstanding $1,325.66 300004 OuUUnding $1.418 04 300004 OuUUnding $103 33 3.00004 OuUUnding $1.343 17 3/30004 Outstanding $2,370 61 300004 OuUUnding $1.266 69 300004 OuUUnding $1.328 20 300004 OuUUnding $1,161.61 300004 OuUUnding $1.092 32 300004 OuUUnding $1,135 00 300004 OuUUnding $830 00 300004 Outstanding $20 00 3/3/2004 OutsUnding $818 78 300004 OuUUnding $1,683.00 3/30004 OuUtanding $1,721.10 3/30004 OuUUndmg $2,047.95 30/2004 OuUtanding fi.532.12 300004 OuUUnding $1.100 00 3/3/2004 OuUUnding $1,514 67 3/3/2004 OuUUnding $900 00 3/3/2004 OuUUnd«*g $282 66 3/3/2004 OutsUndng $1,022 64 300004 OuUUnding $1,058.36 3/3/2004 OuUUnding $125.00 300004 OuUUndaig $1,810 50 300004 OutsUndkig $1,155 07 300004 OuUUnning $1,400.00 300004 OuUUndmg $1,184 25 300004 OuUUndng $775 00 300004 Outstanding $1.289 30 300004 OutsUnding $500 00 300004 OuNUndUg -’-'-mm CITY OF ORONO 03/02«4 10:19 AM Page 2 chtck register Chtdi Numbtr EmployM H hk Pay Parioii Cfitck Amount Chock Date Chock Status 003254 PALMER. GREGORY A 003255 RATHBUN. BARRY J. b 5 $3M)00 $200.00 3^/2004 Outstanding 3/3^2004 OuUtending 162.919 76 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 03/03/04 10 39 AM Page 1 MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary CMh Paid Chki 077674 3n/2004 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTE0CUST G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2.979 68 MN STATE RETIREMENT Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2.979 66 Paid Chki 077675 3/3/2004 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G 101-21703 FICA TaxWithhoktirtg $4,81021 FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding $4,81021 FICA & MEDICARE W/H G 101-21701 Faderal Withholding $9.546 60 FEDERAL W/H Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $19,167.02 Paid ChkO 077676 3^/2004 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 G 101-21705 Other Retirement 12.251.62 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 12.251 62 Paid 6hidil 077877 i/3^004 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE G 101-21707 Union Dues 10 00 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $0 00 DEFEHRED COMP-302030 UNION DUES radCN# 077878 3n/2004 MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR O 101-21712 Other Deductions $0 00 Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $0 00 Paid Chk# 077679 37372004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 0 101-21702 Slate Withholding $3.933 31 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3 933.31 M.Cadson«0014164432 STATE TAX W/H Paid ChMP 077680 3/3/2004 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM O 101-21718 Post Employment Health $243 12 Total MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $243.12 postretirment Paid CNdP 077861 3/3/2004 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 101-21705 Other Retirement $1,877.00 G 101-21705 Other Rettrement 19 86 Total NATIONWIDE RERREMENT SOLUTION $1.886 86 USCM-ENTITY 2339 OBRAS2343 Paid Chk« 077862 ^004 PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 0101-21704 PERA $157.35 pera/en^ioyee share Q 101-21704 PERA $170 62 pera/city share G 101-21704 PERA $5.37519 PERA EMPLOYEE W/H G 101-21704 PERA $6.69361 PERA CITY SHARE Total PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $12.59697 G 101-21708 United Way $7000 ToUl UNITED WAY $70 00 CHARITY DONATIONS Paid Chk# 077884 3/3/2004 WISCONSIN SCTF G 101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSSt SCTF $184 62 $184 62 JOHNSON i 0002756898 10100 Primary Cash $43,313 20 CITY OP ORONO check register 03A)3A4 9:34 AM Page 1 Chock Pay Chock Check Numbof Emp4oyM Name Poriod Amount Dale Check Status 053926 PETERSON. BARBARA 3 $32322 3/a/2004 OutfUnding 053927 MCMILLAN. ELIZABETH T.3 $269.36 3^/2004 Outstanding 053928 MOORSE. RONALD J.3 $369 40 3/8^004 Outstanding 053929 SANSEVERE. ROBERT 1C 3 $269 36 3/8/2004 Outstanding 053930 MURPHY. JAMES L 3 $269.36 3/8/2004 Outstanding 053931 WHITE. JAMES M 3 $269 36 $1,770.06 3^/2004 Outstanding CImcK Nuinbtr EmplojrM Nam« 053925 MOORSE. RONALD J. CITY OF ORONO check register 03C3/04 0:21 AM Page 1 Pay Chacli Pariod Amount 5.1 $659.65 $659 65 Check Data Check Statue 3/3/2004 Outstanding V •INFORMAUbN ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING MPETING m I' >8 2004 OF CITY OF OnONO % % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:. Acting Chair Jeanne Mabusth; Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and Alternate Jules Hannaford; City Council liaison Lili McMillan; Representing staff were Planning Director Mike GatTron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Kristi A: Jerson. Chair Sandra Smith and Commissioner Stephanie Zugschwert were absent. Acting Chair Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. While Item #17 was added to the Consent Agenda, Item #I was removed for further claritication. CONSENT AGENDA *(#2) #04-2975 REVEREND LOREN D. DAVIS ON BEHALF OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2975, Reverend Loren D. Davis on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, granting a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to change the roof structure from flat to pitched on the existing classroom portion of the church. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. *(#3) #04-2980 ORFIELD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INC. ON BEHALF OF MARILYN MCCLASKEY, 2693 KELLY AVENUE, VARIANCE Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2980 Orfleld Design and Construction Inc. on behalf of Marilyn McClaskey, 2693 Kelly Avenue, granting a front yard setback variance in order to add a 2”’' story addition on the existing home 20’ from the front property line where 35 ’ is required. VOTE: Ayes 6, nays 0. *(#I7) #04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, 1005 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth secondecL to recommend approval of Application #04-2979, Dr. Donald Ristad and Kent Cassidy, 1005 Old Long Lake Road, granting a lot area variance, conditional use permit to allow the pool to remain on a through lot, and a variance to allow the existing pool to be setback 28’ from Highway 12 when 50’ is required as the pool has existed since 1978, no complaints PAGE 1 of 53 L_. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. *(#04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, 1005 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) have been received by the City, and the pool is sufikicntly screened from Highway 12. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#1) #04-2970 ROBERT P. MACK, 1525 BAY RIDGE ROAD, VARIANCE (6:07- 6:15 P.M.) Robert Mack, the applicant, was present. Planner Gundlach briefly explained that the applicant had requested a side setback variance to allow a side setback of 18’ at the southeast comer of the home when 30 ’ is normally required and 18’ currently exists; an average lakeshore setback to allow an encroachment of approximately 50’ in order to construct a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exist; and a hardeover variance to allow 27% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 28% currently exists. Gundlach reported that staff would recommend approval of the side setback as the existing setback is nonconforming and no additional living space is being proposed; approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as the home was constructed in 1950 according to all zoning ordinance regulations, because the proposal doesn’t include any expansions of the current footprint, aitd the raised roof will not affect any sightlines as an existing tree line currently covers the southern property boundary. Staft' is also recommending approval of the hardcover variance due to the square footage of removals being greater than the square footage of additional hardcover bringing the lot closer to conformance. Rahn inquired whether a hardship was necessary to allow the construction of 14’ hi^ ceilings as proposed. Mr. Mack stated that the existing flat roof was leaking, and it was their intent to raise the roof to repair the damage, let in more light, balance the rooflines, and improve the aesthetics. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Applkation #04-2970, Robert Mack, 1525 Bay Rid|se Road, granting a tide setback variance to allow a side setback of 18’ at the southeast comer of the home when 30 ’ is normally required and 18’ currently exists; an average lakeshore setback to allow an encroachment of approximately 50’ in order to constract a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exist; and a hardcover variance to allow 27% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 28% currently exists. VOTE: Ayes 6, nays 0. PAGE 2 of 53 ■iiimyiL I i \ r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#4) IW3-2923 STEVAN WAGNER* 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE* COMMERCIAL SITE PI.AN REVIEW (6:15-6:25 P.M.) Stcvan Wagner, the applicant, was present. Planner Curtis reported that in September 2003 the applicant submitted an application for a building expansion and remodel in the B-1 Z^oning District. As per City Code Section 78- 642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2,310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f building, a 1,770 s.f total expansion. 2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8 ’ from the front property line where 10’ is required. The signage itself will extend an additional 4’ into the setback area for a sign setback of 4’ when 10’ is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural hardcover.* *Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review Curtis continued, stating that the application was presented at the October 2003 Planning Commission meeting and the November 2003 work session. The following information was requested by the Planning Commission at the October meeting for the applicant to provide for their review: 1. Storm water management plan (indicating drainage and grading). 2. Detailed landscape plan including any vegetative screening. 3. A lighting plan. 4. Existing and proposes! exterior storage plan, including any cxiuipment staging area. 5. Exterior building material detail. 6. Hazardous waste management solutions During the November work session Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide more detailc*d information and receive approval from other jurisdictional permitting authorities such as the Hennepin County Environmental Serv ices. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Curtis indicated that to date the applicant has complied with Hennepin County Environmental Services hazardous waste generator requirements, applied for a MPCA Industrial Waste Water Permit and received a permit (for Rule B; Erosion Control and Rule N: Stormwater Management) from the MCWD. The Rule B permit states that tTosion control consisting of a silt fence and a gravel construction entrance have been approved, and the Rule N permit states that the applicant’s project requires Best Management Practices (BMP) and rate control in order the fulfill the stormwater management practices of Rule N. The MCWD has determined that stormwater runofi rates PAGE 3 of 53 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) will not increase as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has proposed to the MCWD that he will convert a 3* wide area along the west property boundary from gravel to Minnesota wild grasses and will install a rock drain with a skimming structure (PIG) for the proposed equipment wash site as BMPs. Curtis slatc*d that staff performed a site visit with Hennepin County Environmental Services statT and addressed the issues Planning Commission brought up during the work session. Those issues were: the appropriateness of curbing, paving the west parking area vs. gravel, and how effective the proposed waste trap and skimming structure would be. Hetmepin County did not feci that the existing site would require extensive improvements regarding the afore mentioned items and felt that they would best be addressed, if necessary, by the MCWD. Additionally, during this site inspection it was noted that the area behind the building to the rear had an accumulation of scrap, scrap metal, inoperable trailers, tires, and general debris. Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions being met: 1. City Engineer ’s recommendations must be implemented. 2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is maintained. 3. Compliance with City Code 58-1 (a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to being placed on the City Council agenda for final review Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the current debris behind the building would have to be removed prior to addressing City Council. Mr. Wagner stated that he had done his best to comply with the Planning Commission recommendations, and worked with staff'to come up with a plan which works for the City, as well as, fits his nc^eds. While he is awaiting specific direction from the City Enginc^er with regard to plant material, Wagner indicated that he would be planting a 3’ buffer of Minnesota wildtiowers. He requested that, if recommended for approval, his application not be heard until the February 20 City Council meeting which would allow him adequate time to remove the debris behind the building. There were no public comments. Hawn thanked the applicant for supplying the City with all the necessary information; however, questioned how the hazardous waste exposure would be contained and washing; of cxiuipment handled. Wagner indicated that he had been instructed by the MPCA to continue to use the waste trap system both inside and outside for washing, which is latcT removed by a licensed PAGE 4 of 53 f : r-M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) hazardous waste hauler. With regard to the proposed diagram of the site, Hawn questioned whether Wagner’s intent was to add more to the site and expand his operation. Wagner maintained that he had no intention of expanding the operation, and in fact, believed he had maxed out his facility. He stated that it is his intent to beautify the whole site and make it more comfortable. Hawn asked whether additional hardtopping of the surfaces was intendexi. Wagner indicated that he had no intent to blacktop the lower area, and believed this v ould not be feasible. Curtis inteijcctc*d that, during the site walk, Hennepin County did not feel blacktopping the lower area was necessary at this site. She pointed out that further discussion will take place between the City Engineer, Applicant, and the City with regard to stormwater management before being heard by the City Council. Acting Chair Mabusth voiced her concern that the ’use ’ of this site would be increased. She agreed with Hawn that the site use had been maxed and suggested that the City take an inventory or record the specific items that exist on the property currently. Rahn stated that the renovation would hopefully alleviate the concerns expressed by the Commission, since some of the pieces of equipment could be stowed away more readily. He recommended the City use the plan as a record to track increased use. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2923, Stevan Wagner, 3609 Shoreline Drive, granting approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions being met: 3. City Engineer’s recommendations must be implemented. 4. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is maintained. 3. Compliance with City Code 58-1(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to being placed on the City Council agenda for fhial review VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEW AL VARIANCE (6:25-7:05 P.M.) Judd Dayton, the applicant, was present. PAGE 5 of 53 ^aidkMi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («09-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - Continued) Gundlach explained that the applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing oversi/ed accessory structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming kK'ation in the rear of the lot. She indicated that the application was originally heard at the October 20,2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission encouraged Mr. Dayton to combine parcels and move the bam to make it conforming. Doing this raised questions about whether or not the parcel would be conforming as to the amount and size of accessory structures on a single property. Therefore, the application was tabled so staff could research the existing accessory .structures and whether or not moving the bam would alleviate the current situation. With regard to the option of combining the Lots and the Feasibility of Adding the Bam, Gundlach noted that to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, or simply moving the bam to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road would require the following planning actions: [Bam (48* x 24’) =1,152 square feet] Variance: Variance: To allow the acces.sory building total to exceed 6,000 square feet (5,168 4 1.152 = 6,320 s.f.) To allow more than one oversized accesstiry structure on the lot due to the existing bam/stable. Since the chart in the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance only extends out to 9.01 acres or more, this brings into question the feasibility of the above planning actions. The Ordinance sets the limit to 6,000 square feet of total accessory structures allowed for any property 9.01 acres or more. The chart starts as 0 - 1.99 acres allowing a maximum of 2,000 square feet of accessory structures and increases by approximately 400 square feet with every additional acre. If this chart were extended out to include the applicant’s property, which is 21 + acres, it would allow for 10,800 square feet of accessory structures and the applicant could conceivably add the bam to his parcel and be within the allowable limits of square footage, should the Planning Commission deem this appropriate. On the other hand. Gundlach pointed out that the same section of the ordinance states that a property is only allowed one oversized accessory building (any building in excess of 1,0(K) s.f.). This requires that an additional variance be granted to allow more than one oversized accessory structure. The Planning Commission should discuss whether there are any hardships to grant two v ariances; one to allow more than one oversized accessory structure per property and also to allow' more than 6,000 square feet of accessory structures. 1 ■t I . 4 ^ i PAGE 6 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-29S8 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - Continued) In light of these considerations, Gundlach stated that it is staff s opinion that there are no convincing hardships to allow the bam to remain at its existing si/e requiring two variance approvals. The “Little Orchard" subdivision has eliminated any context the bam previously had in relationship to its surroundings. Further, the bam has already been reduced in size, further lessening is historical significance. The bam could still be allowed, without any planning actions, if it were reduced to 832 s.f. and either moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road or if 2885 Little Orchard Way were combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road and the bam is moved to the location shown on the plan. Gundlach suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the following options: I. Require that 2885 Little Orchard Way be combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road if the applicant wishes to keep the bam. This action would also require the bam be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and the following plarming actions: a. Variance to allow the total of all accessory stmetures to exceed 6,000 s.f. b. Variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure on a single parcel. 2.Same as above but requiring the bam to be reduced to be under i ,000 s.f. to alleviate the need for a variance to allow more than one oversized accesst>ry structure. A variance may still be required to allow for the accessory stmeture total to exceed 6,000 s.f. if the bam isn’t rc'duced to 832 s.f. or less. 3.If the applicant doesn’t wish to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, the bam must be reduced to less than 1,000 square feet and it must be moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road in a conforming location. It the bam isn’t reduced to 832 s.f. or less a variance would still be required as noted above. Gundlach explained that it would be staff’s recommendation to require the bam be reduced to 832 s.f. or less to alleviate the need for any planning actions, and if the parcels are combined the bam must be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and if they are not combined then the bam must be moved to a conforming location on 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the large the existing bam was. Gundlach indicated that the bam was 1152 s.f. In an effort to do the responsible thing, Dayton explained that their original request w as to simply move the bam to a better loeation, which was stwn complicated by other issues. He PAGE 7 of 53 ii U L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (<103-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - Continued) stated that even though the building may not be considered historic any more, it provides a lot of history about the area before dev elopment came to the area. While he indicated that he had spoken to his attorney’s about the possibility of combining the parcels, he wished to explore his options. Having also spoken to many of his neighbors’, he believed that many liked the 100 year old bam, with some repair and maintenance. Acting Chair Mabusth asked what further historical significance the bam held. Dayton stated that the bum was part of the early Carpenter estate, and stixHl for what made up the early landscape of iiie area before construction. He noted that all of the accessory structures have been in their present locations for over 100 years, acknowledging that it was the Ordinances that have changed. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if there were any formal letters in support of the application or in opposition to it. Hawn asked if the applican' would consider reducing the si/e of the bam. Dayton stated that, while some work needs to be done to repair the structure, he would have to do further study to determine whether reducing the si/e of the bam would eliminate its character altogether. He asked that he be given a date to meet the staff recommendation, by mid July for instance, while he investigates the options. Gundlach reiterated that the bam needs to be moved as a principal stmeture doesn’t exist. She pointed out that if the bam is moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road that the parcels would not need to be cr>mbined; however, if moved to any other location the parcels would be required to be legally combined so that a principal structure exists. Dayton asked whether the Commission might be amenable to allowing him the variances to move the structure w ithout legally combining the properties. Hawn repeated that she believed the parcels must be combined if he wished to keep the bam, adding that a reduction in its si/e would also allcv iate some issues. Hawn noted that, unless it was turned into a principal structure, the bam could not exist without one. Dayton stated that it made little sense to him to move it to 825 Old Cr>'stal Bay Road and asked to be given a date to conform or determine how to proceed. PAGE 8 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - Continued) Rahn stated that, short of a hardship, he would expect the bam to be moved to a compliant location and size. He indicated that the Commission does not have the authority to say otherwise and suggested the applicant be given a deadline. Gaflron indicated that the Commission could grant the staff recommendation with a timeline attached, which might differ from the standard year. Dayton stated that he would request to be given a deadline of up to a year, if customary, in order to determine if the bam could be moved, combined, or turned into a principal structure. Gaffron stated that a mid July timeframe would be a reasonable amount of time to comply. He stated that the Commission could deny the renewal variance application and accept that no action be taken until the deadline date for compliance has been met. In addition, grant the variances that would accompany the options presented. While she wished someone would have already evaluated the relocation of the bam, Bremer stated that, as a neighbor to the site, she liked the bam and would prefer to sex* it remain on the main propc'rty. With renovation, she indicated that she would allow it to be kept the same size and moved to a new location to preserve its charm. Hawn agreed, stating that she did not see how reducing it in size addc*d anything to the application. Bremer suggested that the Commission extrapolate from the table what is allowed at 21 + acres, which would allow the bam to remain as large as it is, but moved to a new location. Rahn disagreed, stating that he failed to find a hardship, and would require the bam to be rc'ducc'd and moved. Acting Chair Mabusth concurred with Rahn. Hawn stated that she had been swayed by Bremer’s comments. Fritzler stated that he couiJ consider the size of the bam in a new location. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Haw n seconded, to recommend approval of the request by the applicant in Application #03-2958, Judson Dayton, 2885 Little Orchard Way, that the bam be allowed to remr n at its current si/e of 1152 s.f. if the lots are legally combined with the homestead parcel and the barn moved to a conforming location, VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Fritzler and Rahn dissenting. PAGE 9 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - Continued) Rahn reiterated that he saw no specific hardship to allow the structure to remain at its currcmt si/e. Wliile he could accept the lack of hardship, Frit/lcr believed that the combination might be subject to subdivision at a later date. Gundlach reminded the Commission that they would also need to consider granting a variance for accessory structures in excess of6,000 s.f. and the addition of a second oversized accessory structure, if they wished to follow this course of action. With regard to the potential for subdivision, GatTron pointed out that the applicant would need to sign covenants for oversized structures which could require the removal of the structures if the parcels were subjects of a future subdivision. He felt the future potential for subdivision could be addrt*ss^ at a later date with reference to the oversized structures. IVf abusth added to her motion, nwving that the combination deadline of July 20,2004, be noted and that a second variance is granted to allow for 2 oversized accessories structures on the legally combined parcels in excess of 20 acres. Hawn seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Rahn and Fritzler dissenting. Rahn and Fritzler referred to their previously noted rationale for denial. (#6) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE (7:05-7:24 P.M.) Robctl and Jt>annc Switz, the Applicants, were present. Gundlaeh reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Gundlach explained that the project was originally heard at the November 17,2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that mec*ting the application was tabled due to the excessive structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12, 2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project tabled as new’ plans w ere being prepared. Subsequently, the City CouiKil and Planning Department staff bn>ught the applicant back to the Planning Commission for a new recommendation. PAGE 10 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE - Continued) The applicant has submitted new plans for a house that meets the 15% requirement. Also includ^ is a conservative driveway of 1,000 s.f., a 53 s.f. stoop, 60 s.f. concrete walk bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4%. Gundlach stated that the applicant had also indicated that a 12* x 12 ’ patio/deck would be incorporated into the new plan; however that is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f. patio/deck were incorporate the hardcover would rise to 37.6%. If the proposed 16’ x 16’ patio/dcck is added instead, it rises to 4,409 s.f. or 38.6%. The applicant is proposing to remove all hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone, including the boat house which isn’t reflected in the revised survey. The shed that exists in the 75 ’ - 250 ’ zone is also proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing 4,409 s.f. of hardcover, or 38.6% in the 75-250 ’ zone. These numbers include a 16’ x 16’ patio/dcck which is not shown or calculated on the revised sur\ ey. A hardcover variance must be granted in order to iq>prove the 38.6% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250 ’ zone. Gundlach relayed that some hardships exists that could support approval of a hardcover variance. The lot is quite shallow if you consider its depth. This is limiting when calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcover, a lot with the exact same lot area (0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250 ’ hardcover allotment it its dimensions were 250 ’ x 82.5 ’ which would yield a 25% hardcover of (P5 x 82.5 x .25) = 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship could justify a hardcover level of 3,609 s.f., 800 s.f less than what the applicant has proposed. Also, because the lot is located on Shadywood Road, a hardship exists in that more driveway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has proposed a 1,000 s.f driveway. This is essentially a 3-stall wide driveway that tapers towards the road. It should be noted that other similar lots have been held lo much narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcover limits for rebuilds. The Planning Commission should discuss to what extent a hardcover variance should be granted, and what hardships allow what level of hardcover excess. Gundlach indicated that statT w ould recommend the following: 1. Approval of the lot area v ariance to allow a rebuild on a lot w hich is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance as the shallow ness of the lot and the need for a back up apron provide hardships inherent to the property. Acting Chair Mabusth inquired as to how much hardcover existed in the 0-75 ’ currently. Gundlach stated that 2050 s.f currently exists in the 0-75 ’ zone, which would be entirely removed in the new proposal. PAGE II of 53 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD. VARIANCE - Continued) Mr. Swit/ indicated that they planned to work in the equivalence to a 16'X16 ’ deck along the lakeside of the residence in a meandering fa.shion so as not to infringe on the 0-75 ’ setback /one. Acting Chair Mabusth complimented the applicants on redesigning their proposal to more closely adhere to much of what the Commission had requested. Rahn stated that he liked the revised application and did not see any excessive areas to further reduce hardcover. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she was willing to accept the hardships set forward in the application which would warrant the variance requests. Hawn questioned, even with the hardships, whether the hardcover could be aduced an additional 800 s.f. Gundlach pointed out that the back-up apron is virtually accomplished by the construction of a three stall wide apron at the garage access. Swit/ stated that, as it stands today, the property is dramatically out of conformance. He maintained that it is their intent to create a better situation than what exists, e\ en beyond the mathemiatics. Rahn concurred that by adding more driveway for a three car garage; the applicants have given themselves a ready made back-up apron. Bremer agreed, stating that given the reductions made, the tight lot parameters, she could support what has been proposed for the appropriate zones. Hannaford moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2962, Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadvrsood Road, granting a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is .47 acres in size when .50 acres is normally allowed, and a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-up apron provide hardships inherent to the property. \'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS PAGE 12 of 53 MINUIESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7) (1103-2965 SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND KERSTEN JEVNE, 819 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE (7:24-7:38 P.M.) Scott Sennes, the Applicant, was present. Curtis explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance in order to remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage within 24,1 ’ feet of the side yard where 30’ is required. The existing home is on a 1.0 acre property within a 2 acre zone. The applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home, adding additional living space while utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the applicants were requesting a 10.7’ setback from the side lot line where 30’ is required. After discussions with staff, the applicants have revised their plan to extend no frirther into the side setback than existing resulting in the request for a 24.2’ setback where 30’ is required. The requested side yard setback variance of 5.8 ’ is in order to utilize the existing foundation on the south side of the garage and continue the plane of the garage toward the rear yard to change the 3-stalI front loading to a 2-stall front loading and a I-stall side loading garage. The applicants have proposed this change as the result of the meetings with staff and their hope to minimize hardcover on the lot. Curtis laid out additional issues for consideration: 1. Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a '/: story bt>nus room above more intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low one-story garage? Will either expansion have negative visual impacts? 2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If view^ as a rebuild, should it meet all zoning requirements, including setbacks? Under the proposed ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. 3. Is the applicants' desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback considered a hardship? Curtis stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.1 ’ where 30’ is required, in order to construct an expanded one- story garage with bonus rtH>m, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: 1. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan. Mr. Sennes stated that it would be their intent to reuse the existing 12’ concrete blcKk foundation. Jim Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, inteijected that the proposed improvements would be an enormous upgrade than what ’s currently there. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the applicant was aware of the position of the most affected neighbor. Sennes stated that he had spoken to them and their feedback was favorable. PAGE 13 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. («03-2965 SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND KERSTEN JEVNE, 819 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE - Continued) Acting Chair Mabusth noted that the existing west side of the house is buffered by pines and she questioned where the driveway to the north would be placed. Gafhon pointed out that the northerly drive would likely be close to the north boundary line. While she did not have a difficult time accepting the proposal, Hawn stated that she viewed it as a total rebuild, and asked if the Commission would be setting any precedent by allowing them to reuse the existing foundation. Fritzler concurred. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she could endorse the proposal, since the northerly driveway next dmir will be along the applicant’s north property line. Gafhxin pointed out that if the applicants find that they can’t save the existing foundation, the basis for the proposal is gone, and they will have to adhere to the ^oning for new construction. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the Commission would need an engineer’s report to confirm the stability of the foundation before proceeding, in order to be consistent. She stated that the approval could be based upon the engineer’s report. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2965, Sennes Design Build Inc. on behalf of Franz and Kersten Jevne, 819 Brown Road North, granting approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.1* where 30* is required, in order to construct an expanded one-story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the approved plan and that an engineer*s report will be completed to confirm the stabilit)’ of the foundation before proceeding to City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:38-7:48 P.M.) Sharon Guimond, the Applicant, and her son, Matthew, were present. Curtis explained that the applicant requests a variance to allow an oversi/cd accessory structure 1500 s.f., (30’x 50’ pole bam) where 1200 s.f. is allowed on a 2 acre lot and a conditional use permit to construct the oversized accessory building on the through lot. She PAGE 14 of 53 1 : ; I • ( • ; I i I i Mi T MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Continued) reported that, in June of 2003, a 2,616 s.f. bam on the property was destroyed by arson. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Oversized Accessory Structure limit to replace the bam that was destroyed with a 1,500 s.f. bam. The maximum size for an oversized accessory structure on a 2 acre lot is 1,200 s.f. Additionally, the nature of the property is a through-lot. Accessory structures constmeted on through-lots are a conditional use. The purpose of the conditional use permit in this instance is to assure minimal visual impact on neighboring properties and views from the road. Curtis indicated that the Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions: 1. Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed bam. Hardship: Staff' finds a hardship exists in that the situation which destroyed the bam was a situation not created by the applicant. Ms. Guimond stated that it is her wish to replace the bam that had burned down with a smaller, but similar, style bam garage. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how large the original bam had been. Curtis indicated that the original bam had been 2600 s.f. and 40’ tall. Hawn recommended the applicant remove some of the cement and remaining damaged property from the fire. Guimond stated that these would be removed with the new construction. She indicated that she would like to retain the bam look and roof line. There were no public comnaents. Frit/ler maintained that the applicant could reuse the original concrete slab and reduce the size of the structure to 1200 s.f and still have a bam style building. Harmaford pointed out that the original structure was almost twice as large as what was being proposed. Hawa moved, Aetiag Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommeBd approval of Application #04-2967, Sharon Rae Guimond, 2900 Watertown Road, granting approval of the variance and conditional nse permit as requested with the following provisions: Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual PAGE 15 of 53 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Continued) impact from Wear Circle is minimized, there wiil be no access to Wear Circle for proposed bam, and the new bam is not to exceed the height of the 2*story home on the property, since the situation which destroyed the bam was not one created by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1. Fritzler dissenting as mentioned earlier. (#9) #04-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD„ 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT (7:48-7:53 P.M.) Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, the Applicant, was present. Curtis reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on one block at 440 Stubbs Bay Road to be known as Stubbs Addition. She explained that th^ existing home and outbuildings on Lot 1 are proposed to be removed upon approval. The proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and setbacks. Curtis noted that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on a City Council agenda. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. Mr. Moore had nothing fiuther to add. Curtis added that the wetlands would not be disturbed. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabutth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2968, Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, 4^ Stubbs Bay Road, granting Preliminary Plat Approval with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on a City Council agenda. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. PAGE 16 of 53 1 I T MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD„ 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT - Continued) 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:53-8:21 P.M.) Gretchen Blount, the Applicant, was present. Gundlach explained that the applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 0.S27 acres in size when I acre is normally required. 2. Lot width variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 105’ in width when 140’ is normally required. 3. Side setback variance to allow a 2"’* story deck to be setback 8’ Irom the south side property line when 10’ is normally required and 25’ currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to allow 8.41% hardcover (653 s.f.) in the 0-75’ zone when 0% is normally allowed and 11% (860 s.f.) currently exists. 5. Hardcover variance to allow 35% hardcover (5,321 s.f.) in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 40.45% (6,149 s.f.) currently exists. 6. Conditional use permit to allow restoration of an existing railroad tie wall in the 0-75’ zone which consists of a boulder outcrop area. Gundlach pointed out that the applicant has met with staff to discuss the proposed plans and whether or not the proposal would be viewed as u renovation or a rebuild. The applicant is proposing to tear the existing house down to the cap, replacing flooring as needed and keeping the wall on the south side of the house in order to reuse the fireplace. The applicant has stated the intention to reuse whatever the buildtT is able to, although the cost of a renovation to retro-fit plumbing and electrical work is higher than it she were to do a rebuild. After review of the submitted plans and further discu.ssions with the applicant, staffhas concluded that the project will be reviewed as a rebuild. The existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is 40.45"o or 6,149 s.t. The applicant is proposing to tear down the detached garage that sits on the street property boundary, add two large additions to the existing fiKitprint, add two dcxks, reduce the existing driveway by 1,379 s.f, construct a 92 s.f stoop, and to keep the existing keystone walls and steps. This brings the propiised hardcover to 35% (5,321 s.f), well below the existing hardcover but still requiring a variance. PAGE 17 of 53 I .! Ii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04>2969 TERRY AND CRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Continued) In the 0-75 ’ /one, Gundlach indicatc*d that the applicant is also proposing a conditional use permit and variance to replace a large railroad tie retaining wall, concrete stair system, and railroad tie stairs which comprise 11% hardcover. The applicant is proposing to keep both sets of stairs and replace the railroad tie retaining wall with a boulder out-crop, which reduces the hardcover to 8.41%, rcxiuiring a variance. While staff finds that there may be some hardships warranting some amount of a hardcover variance for the 75-250 ’ zone, Gundlach questioned the 35% that is currently propo.scd. The topography of the rear of the lot, and how the existing walls, which the applicant is proposing to keep, tie into the existing foundation make it difficult to shift the house further towards the road requiring a substantial amount ot driveway. Stall has reviewed the proposed driveway and finds that it, as proposed, is a minimum and isn’t an area for potential reductions. However, Gundlach stated there are potential areas for additional hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f. of hardcover. The applicant is alsti proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f The decks and porch together comprise 5.6% hardcover (861 s.f). The applicant's plans also are proposing what appeam to be a 4-car garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has stated that their real need is only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attaches) to it. The applicant has dennonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, porch, and garage. Gundlach urged the Planning Commission to discuss with the applicant the need of the proposed decks, porch and 4-car garage and determine if a re-design incorporating a smaller pt>rch and deck, and smaller garage area is warranted. The Planning Commission should also consider that a full 2"’* story isn’t proposed and could potentially be an ideal way to reduce hardcover on the property. As proposed, Gundlach stated that stalT would recommend: 1. Approval of a lot area varianee to allow eonstruction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105’ when 140’ is normally requirc*d. Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback of 8’ when 10’ is required. The proposal should be re-designed so us not to encroach into the required setback. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41% hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone when 0®o is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed restoration plans for review by the City Engineer Table of a hardcover variance for the 75-250 ’ zone. The applicant shall further refine the proposal in an effort to reduce hardcover. 2. 3. 4. 5. PAGE 18 of 53 > i i S I 1 I i t I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04>2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - ContUiued) The applicant should consider re-designing the plans to incorporate the following: 1. Re-design the southern deck to meet a 10* setback. 2. Reduce the amount of decks/porch on the property. 3. Reduce the amount of garage space, and if possible, driveway connected to it. 4. Consider a second story in an elTort to reduce the footprint and hardcover. 5. Revise the plans for the 0-75’ zone to only allow one access to the lake. 6. Submit more detailed plans for the railroad tie retaining wall restoration. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that it would be dilTicult to pass the application on to City Council for review until further reductions were made and more detail supplied with regard to the 0-75’ zone. Gundlach stated that the applicant did not wish to send the 0-75’ improvements and the rebuild to Council separately, but hoped that the Planning Commission might be able to discuss the 75-250’ zone and supply her with some direction. Blount stated that the current retaining walls in the 0-75’ need to be replaced, since the railroad ties are failing. She explained that they had purchased the home with the intent to use it for their retirement home and preferred to keep the master bedroom on the main floor. Blount indicated that the additional garage space was necessary to house her husband’s workshop and hobby area. In addition, she pointed out that the decks were intended to be kept within the setback zones. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the driveway could be reduced to accommodate the two car garage excluding the workshop area. She asked the applicant whether they had considered building a new structure, as the costs of upgrading plumbing and eltx-tric can be excessive. Blount indicated that they had hoped to reuse the existing foundation, but would consider this. Rahn stated that he would like to see further reductions in hardcover, noting '.hat the home meets setbacks in the current location. Although he would allow a stairw>*y to the lake and retaining walls to help with drainage, he maintained that more details were necessary. In fact, Rahn questioned whether further reductions might be found in the 0-75’ zone, if the slope was altered in order to potentially eliminate the need for the retaining walls. Gundlach suggt'sted the Commission table this section of the application in order to allow the applicant to discuss their options with the City Engineer. i i PAGE 19 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Continued) Blount siaicxi that the most critical items to them would include the main floor master bedroom, sun porch, and workshop. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to meet with her architect and bring the Commission revised drawings, which would include one stairway access to the lake. Blount asked the Commission whether what they were requesting was within the realm of feasibility. While she was hesitant to supply the applicant with specific percentages, Bremer asked w'hy the applicant wished to keep 2 walls in the first place. She questioned whether the applicant felt keeping the walls would be helpful to their case. Bremer pt>inted out that, while keeping the foundation might be po.ssible, the applicants might be better otVpulling the home back and starting over. Blount stated that she hoped to keep the fireplace on one of the walls. Rahn encouraged the applicant to question their architect, as to how they might benefit the most, for instance by pulling the home back and constructing a front loading garage could reduce the hardcover closer to 25%. Bremer moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #04-2969, Terry and Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Place, for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT (8:21-8:43 P.M.) William Henderson, the Applicant, was present. Gafl'ron stated that this is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property liKated adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addition, creating Lot I (3240 Waterit)wn Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertt>wn Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Ct^e Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conser% ation Act (WCA). Gaffron noted that both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants arc proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow reliKation of the proposed driveway (which was ne\ t*r built and now would not be approved in its PAGE 20 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - Contiaucd) 1990 configuration due to Shorcland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to ‘front lot/back lot’ area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. Gaffron pointed out that the application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staff s intent to review the variances and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each other for viability. Gaffion explained that, prior to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in February 1992, Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at best a 26* wetland setback was likely the only setback enforced for structures. Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had enforced a 75' septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late 1970's; tested sites for Lot 1 were accepted at less than a 75 ’ setback. Since the original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of “front lot/back lot standards (Sections 78-1370 and 82-256), the existing lots aren’t subject to these special .setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: - Lot I as a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it docs): - Lot I is subject to 1 50% of the standard setbacks. - Access to Lot I must be via a 30' driveway outlot (as proposed) - Lot 2 is subject to a 50’ side street setback from the driveway outlot, rather than a 30' side setback. Gaffron summari/cd the Regulatory Impacts as follows: 1 . The 968’ OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be measured for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site are: - 100' structure setback from OHWL - 75' septic setback from OHWL - no hardcover allowed within 75' of OHWL Areas below the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations. The lot dry/wet areas and the OHWL setbacks as shown by the surveyor appear to be acceptable. Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have established boundaries w hich have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot I, due to non- buildability of wetland and the 26’ setback requirement. PAGE 21 of 53 n MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - Continued) 4. The original approvals to construct a driveway within existing Outlet A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: a) Portions will be within 75* of the OH WL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78*1286; b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26 ’ of the wetland, rc*quiring variances from the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of that approval if not usc*d). c) Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, Gaft'ron noted that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required. Gaflfron pointc^d out that a primary issue for development of Lot I is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetlandVreek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot I, is a reu.sonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlet A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward past the ba.se of the hilt. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance for Lot I. As a design for the driveway has not been submitted and such a design would entail variances which cannot be quantific*d without such a design for review, the application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Furthermore. Gafiron explained that a park fee of $200 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2. on the basis that Lot 2 pres iously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived. PAGE 22 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC, 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - Continued) Since both lots drain directly to a creek which flows to Stubbs Bay, from a water quality standpoint, they function as lakeshore lots. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of stoimwatcr runoff fn)m either lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore, GafTron maintained that Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial buftcr strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at $2,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot. For this property, Lot I would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee ($10,800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot I should be required. With regard to septic, Gaffiron noted that Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. While the proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the information submitted to date, GafTron reiterated that the lack of a requested proposed driveway and creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in determining the feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be appropriate until that information is submitted for review. He recommended that the Commission briefly review, provide comment, and then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested drivew ay and creek crossing plans. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had begun the process with the MCWD. Henderson indicated that this had begun. Gary Rol’cr, 3280 Watertown Road, the neighbor on the west side, stated that he had a dilTicult time seeing the building site on the back lot. GafTron pointed out that the buildable site was tucked in against a 45’ setback from the west lot line, between the creek setback and wetland. Mark Summers, 75 Crystal Creek Road, pointed out that his home fell 60’ north of Watertown Road and 75-100’ w est of the property and he. too, was concerned w ith the placement of a home on lot one. PAGE 23 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - Continued) Steve Koehler, 35 Crystal Creek Road, questioned the site on the hill, claiming that this IcKation would be much closer to his property than the alternate home site. Hendersi>n stated that the most attractive building site for any potential homeowner would be the site in the back versus the one up ftont on the hill. GatTron pointed out that the location of the septic site would likely drive where the house building site would be. He agreed that the hill side site would be difllcult. as the septic tines would have to run a long distance and across the creek bed. While he felt this to be an unlikely building site, he noted that the applicant could feasibly build there, or agree not to build on the steep slope. Henderson agreed, stating that the hillside location would not likely be a desirable one, and indicated that they would consider the suggestion. Koehler asked what the location for the outlot and setbacks for the driveway were being proposed at. GatTron stated that the outlot would be a 15 ’ wide driveway corridor that narro'vs. He noted that the driveway was placed merely 5* from the lot line and questioned whether the outlot should be wider or whether the driveway within the outlot offset. Summers stated that the driveway outlot was of great concern to him, since the driveway would run the entire length of his property. Although one option might include moving the driveway further west by widening the driveway, GatTron noted that widening too much would impact the septic sites and house si.'e. Koehler pointed out that drainage issues might also be a concern for the future homeowner as the runoff tends to move towards this site and under Watertown Road % ia a culvert. GatTron thanked the neighbor for his concern, and acknowledged that the City Engineer would need to evaluate the drainage issues, and how these might impact construction. He mentioned that some buffers would be likely to manage treatment near the creek, and noted that the applicant hopes to have these issues resolved by the February meeting. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned how the applicant would plan to cross the creek. While the City would need et>nfirmation from the MCWD, Gaflh)n stated that a 48” oval culvert w ith fill on cither side was proposed to accommodate flow. He noted that MCWD PAGE 24 of 53 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT > ContUmed) may even take the position that the applicant can ’t build over the creek bed. Henderson stated that, having spoken with the MCWD, he had been led to believe that they would accept this proposal. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would find it dilTicuIt to require additional park dedication fees and stormwater trunk fees being chargixl to the applicant, she would defer this to the legal department. Hawn concurred. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #04-2971, William and Roslyn Henderson,/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road, a proposed Preliminary Subdivision and Lot Line Re-Plat pending receipt and City En^neer review of requested driveway and creek crossing pians. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON, 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE, VARIANCE (8:43-8:53 P.M.) Robert Knuth, the Applicant, was present. Curtis explained that the applicants arc requesting a front yard setback variance and a side street (ri^tH>f-way) variance to allow a porch with pergola 45.1 ’ from the front lot line where a 50’ setback is required and 35’ from the street right-of-way where 50’ is required and a 40’ setback exists currently. Curtis pointed out that the applicants home is situated nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order to avoid encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil treatment site when the home was first built in 1978, the home was constructed 56.1’ fh>m the front property line, 5’ from the required 50’ setback. Along the western property boundary between 2700 and 2715 White Oak Circle a continuation of the road right-of-way exists. This right-of-way is currently and indefinitely not used as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently located 40’ from this street side yard where a 50’ setback is required. Due to the angle of the home on the lot, the proposed porch addition would extend 5 additional feet into the required side street yard. Curtis pointed out that the property is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owners wish to create a “neighborly feel” to their home with the addition of the covered front porch. Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any modification greater than 5’ off the front of the home requires a variance to front yard setback rc*quirement. PAGE 25 of 53 n i f: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON, 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE, VARIANCE - Continued) Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance and the I S’ street side setback variance due to the location of the existing house with relation to the front lot line with the stipulation that the covered porch shall not be enclosed. Knuth stated that they wished to open up the house to the neighborhood and add a front entry feel to the currently blank wall. He pointed out that they began speaking to neighbors about their intent a year ago and gained much support for the action. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth acknowledged that many neighbors had indicated their support for the improvement. Rahn asked if the stoop would be considered a legal encroachment. Gaffron stated that the stoop is not an encroachment as long as it is at grade level and not covered. He believed the applicant should be allowed some leeway for a covered entryway. While the stoop itself was allowed, Rdin was hesitant to make it nonconforming and urged the applicant to accept the 6 ’ to the setback for a covered stop. Hawn did not feel this was an obtrusive addition and noted that most of the affected property owners had voiced their support. Acting Chair Mabusth concurred. Bremer moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2972, Robert Knuth and Mary Thompson, 2700 Willow Oak Circle, granting approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance and the 15* street side setback variance due to the location of the existing house w ith relation to the front lot line with the stipulation that the covered porch not be enclosed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Commissioner Hawn left ut 8:53 P.M. (Recess taken from 8:53-9:04 P.M.) PAGE 26 of 53 5 \ , i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#13) IIN>4>2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC,, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (9:04-9:35 P.M.) Steve Saxton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, was present. Gundlach stated that the applicant requests the fallowing in conjunction with a previously approved project: 1. After-the-fact variance to allow 49% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 44% was previously approved and 25% is nonnally allowed. 2. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be construct<xi within 5 ’ of the property line. Gundlach explained that the applicants received a number of variances in April of 2003 in order to construct a new residence on the property loeated at 4753 North Shore Drive. Hardcover variances were received for the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ zones of 9.34% and 44.85% respectively. During the building permit approval process it was concluded that the City Engineer needed to review the grading plan and that to result in proper drainage on the property the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions. The changes included raising the house approximately 2 feet and installing gutters directing all the water to the driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shore Drive. Also, approved was a short retaining wall on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance. Following construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City’s Building Inspector noticed a number of retaining walls were constructed in the 75-250 ’ zone in an effort to control the drainage on the property. Also, repair of an existing wall at the top of the bluff and a second wall at the top of the bluff were also constructed all of which were not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan approved in April of2003 by the Planning Commission and City Council. StaflT informed the applicants that this work was not approved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49.2% hardcover when 44.85% was originally approved would be required if the walls were to remain. A conditional use permit is dso required in order to allow retaining walls within 5* of the property boundary. Gundlach pointed out that, at the time of building permit review, the applicants proposed less hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone than was approvcxl by the original plan. This occurred because the applicants went from a footprint of 1,500 s.f. to 1,451 s.f. and a smaller drivcway/walk (525 s.f to 481 s.f). At the time, the applicants were also approved to construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance, which added 8 s.f of hardcover, bringing the total hardcover to 44% (when 44.85% was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council). PAGE 27 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., 4753 N. SHORE DRIVE^ AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Gundlach explained the analysts of the As-Built Plan as follows, along with the City Engineer ’s comments regarding the necessity of the walls: East Wall & Steps: Neither the steps or retaining wall were approved with any of the plans. The City Engineer has determined that a smaller wall is necessary to provide a transition from the driveway elevation to the elevation of the side yard, which achieves the same results and is not within 5’ of the property boundary. West Walls:The only wall that was approved is tin* v* all that protects the side entryway. The original plan was designed to grade a swale leading to the lake. Further, these walls encroach onto the neighbor ’s property, which isn’t allowed by City Code. The City Engineer has stated that an extension of the existing wall protecting the entrance may be warranted, however, the rest of the walls and fill should be removed and a swale should be re-graded as shown on the approved plans at approximately the original site elevation. South Walls:The wall that was approved was the pre-existing wall, which has since been repaired. The applicants also constructed a second tier to this wall and brought in fill in an attempt to create a larger lawn and to avoid a I ’-2’ step down from the walkout level to original grade. It should be noted that these walls are within the bluff impact zone. The City’s Building Inspector authorized the applicant to improve the pre-existing wall in an effort to protect the bluff. The applicant did improve the wall but also constructed a new, second tier which extends onto the neighbors property. It is of the City Engineer and Building Inspector’s opinions that this second tier wall was not necessary. The second tier wall and the fill should be removed and re-graded as originally approved. The second tier wall and fill raises the walkout yard to an elevation higher than the neighboring yards. Gundlach stated that, in addition to the acceptance of the City Engineer ’s comments, staff would recommend: I.The wall on the east side of the property be relocated westerly onto the applicant’s property to provide a S’ setback to the easterly lot line. 2. TTie steps on the east side of the property be removed. 3. The wall following the property line on the west side of the lot be moved easterly to a point 5’ of the west lot line and its length be cut in half PAGE 28 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC„ 4753 N. SHORE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CoBtiBued) 4. 5. Reduce the replaced existing wall on the lake side of the home to the previous height. Remove the northerly wall on the lake side of the home. 6.Removal of fill along the side and lake side of the home and require the construction of swales. 7. Approval of the steps on the lake side of the home as they are needed due to the steep grade of the slope (once the fill is removed). 8. Grant a minimal additional hardcover variance to allow the above The above recommendation shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This hou.se is intended to be in the Parade of Homes and the revisions need to be completed ASAP to avoid buyer surprises. Mr. Saxton stated that after being given approvals for the original home, and during the permitting phase, the City Engineer indicated that he had not ever seen the plans. He indicated that they ended up with a two-tiered wall versus one 10’ high wall, and a side entrance with wall which directed the water flow to the street, unlike the original plan which directed water towards the lake. Saxton maintained that the understanding was that the side access would be on the east side, which had been overlooked during the permitting phase. In addition, he noted that he was unaware a conditional use permit was necessary for the walls and indicated that a landscaper would fix and move the walls over. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned why the walls were added to the west side and a second tier down below. In an etTort to try to avoid one very high 10’ tall wall, Saxton stated that they chose to tier the walls for safety, as well as. facilitate drainage. He indicated that it would have been his preference to create a swale versus going to the added expense of building retaining walls, had he felt they would suffice. Gundlach stated that the City Engineer, in his review, acknowledged that a second tier wall was necessary. Rahn asked when the plan was changed to reflect a side entrance and how they w ent over on their hardcovt*r levels. Saxton stated that they lost hardcover w hen the side entrance was mandated by the City Council which made the house more narrow. He maintained that, while some increases in hardcover were necessary to keep the retaining walls, he acquiesced that they would be PAGE 29 of 53 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (m-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., 4753 N. SHORE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARUNCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CoatiBMd) willing to work with staff to make things right. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to work with staff and the City Engineer to go forward. Fritzler asked if this was the first house they had ever built. Saxton replied that this was the first home he had built. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the retaining walls could be cut off on th^* west side. City Engineer Kellogg inteijected that he had visited the site over the past week and believed the side retaining wall could be moved closer to the sidewalk. He also indicated that several of the retaining walls could be removed in lieu of grading, including removal of the retaining wall on the south west side to redirect drainage onto this property. Gaffron suggested that an alternative to the 3:1 slope might be to dig down 2* at the grade level to allow the homeowners a small walkout area with a flatter lakeside yard. Kellogg agreed that this would be an acceptable alternative. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc., 4753 North Shore Drive, granting approval of necessary minimal hardcover variance and conditional use permit, subject to the applicant working with the City Engineer and staff to develop a plan which creates swales in the side yards and removal of retaining walls. Since the home will be shown during the Parade of Homes, Gaflron pointed out the importance to rectify the situation so that a potential owner will see the required removals prior to purchasing the property. \’OTE: Aves 5/0. PAGE 30 of 53 i I M t : i * f I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND ttIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (9:35-10:20 P.M.) John Traut/, Reliance Development, and Vickie VanDel, the Applicant’s Representatives, were present. Gaffran explained that the applicants propose a commercial retail/office development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow treestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The propo.sal includes a re/.oning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process trom RR-IB (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots as follows: Lot 1: 1.53 acres -10,000 s.f. otTicc/rctail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres - 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres - 14,490 s.f. Walgreen ’s rctai 1/pharmacy building Since the proposal is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, in that it includes freestanding retail not specifically associated or supportive of an office use on the site, the applicant requests an amendment of the CMP. Gafliron noted that the amendment would tn tliic finnnwavl nc nnrt nf'h PI ID on tht? finitini? thllt‘allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD, based on the finding that the amendment would comply with the spirit and intent of the City’s Community Management Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, would provide limited retail to serv e the neighborht>od, and would allow development of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed.” The amendment would apply only to Outlot A of Stonebay. GafiVon indicatcHl that the City Council has infonnally reviewed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the conte.xt of its impact on development in Long Lake, in full knowledge of Orono ’s statetl intent to not take actions which would be counterproductive to Long Lake’s etforts in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council’s general conclusion was that the magnitude and types ot retail proposed will ha\ e minimal impact on Long Lake's ability to move forward with its Dtmntown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of neighborhood service/retail and otfice can prov ide the business locations, serv ices and quality employment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 20(K)-2020 CMP. Gaffron cited additional factors w hich might come into play in terms of this proposed amendment including: PAGE 31 of 53 L........... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) The other three quadrants of this intersection arc devoted to retail uses. The Long Lake Downtown Master Plan docs not at any location provide for the Walgreen ’s model of a building set back from the street with parking in front. The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streetside with parking in the rear. It is highly unlikely that Walgreen ’s would locate in Long Lake ’s Downtown area. From a staff perspective, Walgreen ’s is an amenity that would be welcomed by the public in this area. Having service retail uses within walking distance of both StoneBay and our senior housing less than Vi mile cast, provides a positive amenity. The location on Highway 1 2 will enable certain types of retail uses that can serve the Stonebay development that we would otherwise probably not attract to the area without the Highway 12 traffic. Review of the traftlc study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of the general Stonebay PUD in 2002-2003 indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed retail uses would be very similar to the traffic generated by office uses at this site. The upgrades to surrounding roads required us part of the Stonebay PUD approvals will still be applicable if the amendment is approved. Gaffron pointed out that, procedurally, this CMP Amendment rcquirc*s approval of the Mctropt>litan Council: however, it is expected this will be viewed as a minor amendment, will have no new or unplanncd-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by Met Council. In addition, Gaffron added that a copy of the plans had been provided to the City of Long Lake, although no comments have been received as of yet. With regard to permitted uses in the B-6 District, Gaffron stutc'd that these ineludc business and professional offices; banks and financial institutioris; libraries; and motels & hotels. In addition, retail uses arc allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Rezoning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the “Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area’’ of zoning code St*ction 78-1065, and was anticipated PAGE 32 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Seetions 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site: Gaffron continued, stating that the proposed site plan meets the City ’s established standard for no direct access to Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicants are proposing a right-in, right-out access to Willow Drive and a full access to Kelley Parkway, which will be further discussed as the review process moves forward. Trail links are provided as called for in the City ’s plans and in the Stonebay approvals. Gaffton acknowledged that interior site circulation is a major concern which requires additional discussions between staff, applicants and consultants. Gaffron pointed out that City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City ’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson of DSU, Inc., have been asked to comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. He encouraged the Commission to review their comments. Since the site plan has a number of significant issues which should be worked through at the staff'devcloper/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a detailed site plan review, Gaffron stated that the plan details were not included this evening. Gaffron indicated that a public hearing would be scheduled for this proposal at the January 20 meeting. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to identify any specific concerns they believe need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics for comments included: I.Site orientations, relationship to Stonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to 12/Willow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity 2. 3. 4. Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-thru’s Building materials and building design Pedestrian aceess and circulation S. Signage, lighting, and landscaping 6. Other topics of concern or interest PAGE 33 of 53 f ft' A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (M04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Gafiron stated that staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Staff recommends tabling the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of identified site plan issues. The intent would be to present Planning Commission with a revised site plan for a comimhensive review at their February 17 regular meeting. Acting Chair Mabusth asked what type of amendment would result from this proposal. She acknowledged that this proposal has the ability to provide both for office and residential needs of the area. She questioned whether added CUP’s would be necessary for drive- thrus. Gafhx>n indicated this would reflect a text amendment for this outlot only. He explained that the drive-thrus are set apart in the CUP and PUD development, which gives them the ability to move things around to improve traffic routing. Gaffion believed the routings could be worked out at the stafficonsultant level. While the plans were in need of some ’tweaking’, Mr. Trautz indicated that it was their intent to distribute drawings to the Commission for initial comment. He stated that the retail would happen first followed by the office use and noted that this development would complete the 4*" quadrant at Willow and Highway 12. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether there would be pedestrian trails within the site. VanDel pointed out that the pedestrian ways had been identified. Trautz maintained that the drive-thri's were low use, with stacking unlikely. Although staff had asked the applicant to provide them with an alternative plan in case a bank chooses not to lease the space, Gaffion indicated that nothing has been presented at this time. Although he believed the space could serve as office, service retail, medical, or multi/single use tenants, Trautz indicated that it is their intent to pursue banks at this time until that avenue has been exhausted. Gaffion encouraged the Commission to address the five issues for consideration presented tor their consideration. PAGE 34 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (iV04>2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-CoatteHcd) While Hannaford believed the concept was attractive enough, he pointed out that the comer is already a grab bag of uses, though the Commission needs to give consideration to whether they wish to see those uses continue. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she liked the renderings and exterior materials presented. VanDel asked for further direction before they present their final plan to the Commission at the February 17 meeting and, hopefully, move on to Council. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would prefer minimal signage and felt that the traffic flow was critical. Along with a 6’ high sign at Highway 12, Traut/ indicated that the plan proposes one 10* sign per lot for the commercial uses all made of the same masonry style. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the site would contain any community seating area. In addition, she asked who would maintain the common areas. Trautz pointed out that the coffee retailer would allow some outdoor seating. With regard to the common areas, Trautz stated that interconnection is a common way of developing properties, guided by easement agreements which regulate the common areas. Rahn stated that he wished to see the final draft. Gaffron stated that the Commission could wait until after the February work session, take action this evening, or table the application. There were no public comments. Bremer staled that she was concerned about the possibility of bringing in a Walgrecn’s, so Close to the Snyder’s in Long Lake. She indicated that she was surprised the City Council would change their position on retail, given their past position on redevelopment of the Long Lake business district. She believed it would not promote healthy competitioii to allow a Walgreen’s to come in and likely displace the Snyder’s. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the City had been supplied with any comments from Long Lake. Gatfron stated that he had not heard any specific or general comments from Long Lake. He PAGE 35 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-Continued) explained that the City Council did not feel that this magnitude of development would specifically harm Long Lake ’s plan to revive their downtown. He questioned how others felt this comer might impact Long Lake. Bremer disagreed, stating that she believed it would have a huge impact on the health of Long Lake Bank and Snyder’s. She believed the City of Orono should support those businesses, although she did not disagree these new services might be necessary once StoneBay is complete. While she believed it was for the City Council to decide, Bremer was reluctant to support Walgreen ’s as a potential tenant. In addition, she felt allowing a 24 hour operation like Walgreen ’s into the community would take the City to a whole level. Fritzler disagreed, stating that the flip side to Bremer’s argument was that allowing additional businesses into the community was a good thing. He maintained that Orono just can ’t sit by and wait indefinitely for Long Lake to do something. Although he did not disagree that Long Lake may risk some loss due to competition, he also believed they need to step up their commitment to their business district. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #04-2974, StoneBay Marketplace, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Willow Drive, a Proposed Commercial PUD Development, in addition, when the final Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision is presented, that they be accompanied by a progress report of where the original StoneBay development project is at currently. VOTE : Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (10:20-10:53 P.M.) James Pierpont, the Applicant, was present. GatTron explained that the property at 1801 West Farm Road contains a principal residence and a guest house originally approved via CUP Resolution No.2854 in 1990. During the recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition of Restdution No. 2854 had never been fulfilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801*1849) and the Planning Commission and Council confirmed that the 3 ac. dry/I ac. wetland area of 1801 West Farm was not sufficient to meet the intent of the Guest House ordinance regarding lot area. Bused on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line P\GE 36 of 53 t i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) rearrangement approval on successtully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be removed. Because the City will not accept continuation of the Guest House use without 4.0 acres of dry buildable land, applicant has chosen to pursue a Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP. Discussions at the Council level established that removal of the kitchen facilities from the existing guest house structure would be required, but the plumbing would be allowed to remain subject to applicant successfully obtaining a CUP. The lot line rcjurangement approval does not take effect until the Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP is obtained. Gaflion pointed out that 1801 West Farm Road has been confirmed to have a site for construction c*f a S-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system servin j the house and accessory building. However, the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that the property will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near futive. While the accessory building is conforming as to height, it is nonconforming as to size and location. The structure consists of two buildings • an old stable and a newer garage, connected by a circular room. The total square footage is approximately 107S s.f, which would place this building into the category of an ‘oversize accessory structure* subject to principal structure setbacks (50* front, 30* side) and not nearer the street than the principal residence structure. However, this building is located approximately 49' from the cul-de- sac where a 50' setback would be required, and it sits between the house and the street. Further, its location ranges from I .S' to 6' from the north side lot line. GatTron indicated that the building today is screened from the north by vegetation existing on the adjacent property. StafI'believes the neighborhood visual impact today is as minimal as it was in 1990. GatTron stated that it is assumed that the property owner will agree to the covenant requirements, including: - the building will not be used for a home occupation; - the building will not be used as a dwelling; and - building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling. In order to approve the CUP. Gatlron explained that the Council must make the following two findings: - the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing v. .1 not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. PAGE 37 of 53 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (IVC4-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) • the plumbing fixture's proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. He encouraged the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses of this building once the kitchen is re*moved, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied. Kitchen retnoval should include the following, in the opinion of staff: 1 . Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. 2. Remove refrigerator. 3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing. Planning Commission should confirm that these arc the appropriate fixtures to be removed to result in the conversion from a ‘guest house’ use to an ‘accesstrry structure with plumbing’ use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as ‘not allowed to be reinstalled’ in the CUP resolution. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, subjec' to the following: 1 . Applicant.*: to execute standard ‘use limitation’ covenants os required by City Ordinance. 2. Conversion from ‘guest house’ status to ‘aeces.sory building with plumbing* status will require removal of existing kitchen facilities including stove and microwave oven, if any; refrigerator; and kitchen sink and associated plumbing. While Mr. Pierpiint agreed with staffs conditions, he questioned whether what he used for a kitchen sink, which was an antique piece of furniture housing a sink, could be differentiated from a kitchen sink. In addition, he piunted out that the guest house provides a small refrigerator and cook top. Pierpont pointed out that it was their intent to divide the properties into 4 acre and 2 acre sites. He argued that due to the change in axle, the '/* acre wetland has diminishc*d their propc*rty to the point at which they cannot have their guest house. He maintained that the wetland has always been on the site, as has the stable and guest house, and only the Ordinance change has changed disallowing these things. He asked for an exception. Acting Chair Mabu.sth asked whether the applicant found the subdivision neces.sary if they planned to hiH>k up to City sewer when available. Pierptint stated that they are trying to correct a flaw in the property and make a second stand alone parcel. PAGE 38 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (IW4-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) While the sink as it exists was small, Gaffron questioned the Commission whether they felt the covenants would limit its use. Pierpont stated that he was willing to sign any covenants. Acting Chair Mabusth did not believe the small sink enclosed in the antique piece should have to go. Fritzler disagreed, stating that he felt a cook top and sink constituted a kitchen in his mind and would have to go. Rahn concurred with Fritzler, stating that the concept allows a bathroom facility but stops short of a kitchen facility. GatTron suggested this be revisited in the code at a future date, as the original intent of the code was to allow a bathr(x>m facility in the garage. While she believed the sink housed in the piece of himiture was lovely, Bremer was concerned that the Commission has denic*d similar requests in the past and could not allow this request. Pierpont reiterated that the only thing that ha: changed over time is the law. He maintained that he had not changed a thing to his properly and been given approvals from the original construction decades ago, as well as, as recently as 1990, and now they are being told they need to remove this amenity. He again repeated that plumbing had always been a part of the stable and merely upgradc*d over the years, just as the wetland has always been a part of the property. He felt this should be a non-issue, since his guest house was approved 14 years ago in a previous application. Rahn reminded the applicant that the previous approval was based on the legal combination, which was not performed. Pierpont maintained that he was unaware, until beginning this process to uncombined them, that they were never combined in the first place. Rahn stated that the dilemma facing the Commission is that there is no hardship to support this request; therefore, they must stick to the Code. Hannatbrd disagreed, stating that in his opinion, there was a hardship, the application before the Commission had been approvr^ in the past, and ni>w they are asking him to remove something that he was alre^y granted approval of. Harmaford stated that the PAGE 39 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Commission has the ability to exercise some judgment here, in addition, to satisfying the code without setting a precedent. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the City Council will be given the oppt>nunity to hear the applicant's rationale, she believed the Commission would be remiss in approving the application. Rahn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2976, James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, approving the lot line rearrangement, subject to staffs recommendation that the applicant execute the standard ‘use limitation* covenants, and the conversion from a ‘guest house* to ‘accessory building with plumbing* status requires the removal of kitchen facilities including the sink and cooktop, and associated plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hannaford dissenting. Hannaford deferred to his earlier comments. (#16) #04-2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:53 P.M.-12:20 A.M.) Mike Keaveny, the Applicant, and Paul Ode, the potential restaurant lessee, were present. Gundlach explained that the applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial s'te plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan rev iew in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.* ♦Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review’ PAGE 40 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Gundlach continued that the applicant's intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staff in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation. Planning Department staff met with the building owner, Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee, Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed improvements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant. The property located at 3425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono. While the proposal doesn't include any new hardcover, the major changes that should be noted are the entryways and awmng which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along the southern boundary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining wails separating the lower pacing lot from the upper parking lot. Gundlach pointed out that Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15% maximum structural coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural coverage is two entryways and an awning. The applicant has stated that these entryways arc proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern entryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50' x 12') and the western entryway is proposcxl at 36 square feet (6' x 6'). The proposed awning will extend along the south elevation of the building to cover the current sidewalk. The structural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be included in the building square footage when they are 2' or less in width. The awnings proposed are 4' in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square fcx*t of structural coverage (2' of awning x 97.5'). This is a total of 928.5 square feet (1% of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16% where the existing percentage is 15%. Gundlach indicated that it isn't out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be grantex! for commercial properties. In fact, variance's in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20% or 30% for commercial properties. Gundlach encouraged the Planning Commission to consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet the required setbacks of 20' to Shoreline Drive and 10' to Kelly Avenue in an PAGE 41 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) cflorl to increase green space on the site. The 20’ rct]uired front yard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. The number of parking spaces will be afl'ected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. Required Number of Parkinu Stalls. Restaurant Use:1,890 s.f. @ I spacc/80 s.f, = 24 spaces Bowling Alley Use:10 lanes @ 6 spaccs/lane = 60 spaces Lounge (w/in bowling alley):535 s.f. @ I space/80 s.f = 7 spaces Total Required Parking = 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces = 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76,9 ’ x 20’ spaces) As proposed, Gundlaeh noted that the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking rexfuired by Section 78-1516: OlT Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that with the existing demand for parking, coupled with the propi>sed restaurant use, a shared parking arrangement of these 84 spaces would be adequate if not cxcenisive. On the other hand, Gundlaeh explained these numbers do not take into account the 15 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 1 5 spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building. Assuming a net floor area of about 8,000 s.f for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall per 150 s.f is about 53 stalls, as compared to the 30 stalls that exist. Because the upper level businesses arc piimarily retail uses that tKcupy the front of the building and olYer prime-time day hours, a shared parking arrangement would provide adequate overflow parking between the restaurant and retail uses, should it ever be needed. Howc\er, it should be noted that during times when all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday aftcnuxms), parking could be short by about 20 stalls bast'd on Ctxle requirements. The parking required by the zoning ordinance should be discussed against the actual need of parking on site. With regard to pedestrian access, Gundlaeh stated that sidewalks currently exist along the front of the property providing pedestrian connections to the properties east and west in the Navarre area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair system which connects the top gravel parking area to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A new stairway system is proposed with a small sign and minor lights at the top of the staircase providing a safe pedt*strian connection trom PAGE 42 of 53 -iranurnKs MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bowling alley, and restaurant entrances. Gundlach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f. The applicants proposed signage meets all the city code requirements. While the applicant has not provided a landscape plan, Gundlach pointed out that there are three potential areas for landscaping: 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, ard, 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast comer of the lot She recommended the Planning Commission discuss rc'quiring implementation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on the property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20’/10’ green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the grave* lot. This area has been functionally a “no-man ’s land’’ and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that, approaches City Code Standards. With regard to lighting, Gundlach statc*d that the applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting. The lighting for the current lower parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. StatT would not recommend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts residentially zoned property. In addition, the City’s Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f casement be granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D’Vinci ’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast comer of the applicant’s site. A 10’ x 10’ easement in the northeast comer of the site is profjosed. While the City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter, Gundlach suggested the Planning Cominission determine whether this should be included with approval of the commercial site plari review, and how this will impact the applicant's signage or parking plan. While the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed PAGE 43 of 53 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider "Hours of Operation” conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in conjunction with the proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10’ from the south lot line and located frirther west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened. Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Planning Commission: 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many parking stalls arc needed to adequately serve the site? 2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the propi>sed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? Should tra.sh facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monui ent style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours ofOperation” be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are appropriate? PAGE 44 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? In conclusion, Gundlach stated that the Planning Department staff recommends the following: b) c) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the Plaiming Commission’s recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed, lire building materials match the existing south facing facade and the roofs be shingled. If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast eomer of the site, the existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place. All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the residential property to the south. The sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument style rather than pylon style (no poles) and not higher than 8’. The applicant shall have the comers of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10’ setback. The sign is also limited to 50 s.f. d) e) Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover when 35% is normally allowed, stipulating the following: a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast comer of the lot, b) The landscaping between the retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary. Approval of a structural coverage variance allowing 16% structural coverage in order for the pniposed entrances and awning to be constructed. Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. The applicant grants an easement to allow re-location of the bus shelter to a I O’X 10’ northeast comer of the site. Mr. Keaveny stated that the bowling alley has been closed since summer and this new proposal allows the applicant to incorporate the current bowling alley with a restaurant and lounge. PAGE 45 of 53 I I i p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORE .INE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, the nearest neighlx)r to the south of the bowling alley, voiced numerous concerns: 1) As Kelly Avenue is a residential street, he found the additional traffic worrisome within a residential neighborhood. 2) The fact that the restaurant and lounge would have a liquor license was a concern, especially since the neighborhood is kept up at night from the commotion at the Narrows currently. 3) He questioned whether there was adequate space for restaurant use and the parking to accompany it. 4) The City cannot ensure how long the Pizza Factory will remain, and the City would lose control of what type of restaurant or lounge occupies this space in the future by allowing this today to go forward. 5) The traffic exiting onto County Road 1 5 would make a dangerous situation and intersection worse. 6) Evans cautioned that re-location of the bus shelter at the junction of Kelly Avenue and County Road 1 5 would be far more dangerous than v here it is currently. Encouraging pedestrians to cross 2-4 lanes of traffic between car.s stacked up for the light would be hazardous. 7) What would the impact be to Lake Minnetonka from this additional development merely 200’ from the lake. Might people try to snowmobile or obtain boat access to the restaurant. 8) 68% of tne little proposed landscaping at all is located primarily in the rear where few see it. In fact, no landscape plan has been provided. Reminded of the Navarre Town Meeting a year ago, during which residents asked for additional landscaping along County Road 15 in Navarre. 9) The proposed parking facilities are incomplete and inadequate. While 53 spaces are required, contrary to zoning regulations, the proposal offers a mere 30 spaces for a 75 scat restaurant. The additional use requires 91 total spaces, short 7 in the proposal, with no setbacks or greenspace provided. 10) This approval would increase the use of the lot to 16,000 s.f. of retail space, which required by zoning .should assume I ’ of lot area per 4’ of retail space. Evans maintained that by approving this request the City w ill continue to perpetuate an unacceptable planning state of affairs for Navarre. 11) In the Navarre Town Meeting several points were echoed by the residents. Since Navarre is considered Orono’s town center, why not make it more like Wayzata or Excelsior with additional landscaping, street lighting, and updating facades of the businesses in the area. Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to give serious consideration to denial of this applicant’s request and recommend the owner address alternative uses for the site. He PAGE 46 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) maintained that Orono is at a crossroads of determining which direction to take the Navarre business district. Sylvia Bertagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, a resident of 10 years, asked whether it was too much to expect to have a nice home and quiet street to live on. She did not wish to see the additional noise and traffic this proposal would allow at alt times of the day and night. Barb Ward, 2S03 Kelly Avenue, asked if the Planning Commission were familiar with the proximity of the homes to this business location. She stated that the current level of noise and smells from the Navarre area is horrendous and feared this would only perpetuate with this application. Ward encouraged the Commission to demand a new face be put on the Navarre town businesses which started with Rick ’s and should continue with this site. In addition, she stated that it would not be appropriate to have this business facing a residential area. Mike Kellen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, questioned what sort of element the City would like to promote in the Navarre area. He suggested the Commission focus on fixing up the buildings and the overall appearance of Navarre. Kellen discouraged the Commission firom allowing a business to go in facing this residential area. Paul Ode, fiwchisee of the Pizza Factory, stated that it was his intention to improve the area, make significant upgrades to the buildings, and dress it up with this proposal. He indicated that the Pizza Factory would be a restaurant for families to gather in Navarre. Acting Chair Mabusth inquire whether a full liquor license was necessary. She asked whether improvements were going to be made inside. Ode stated that the combination of full Ixu*, bowling alley, restaurant is what makes the operation successful. He indicated that bowling alleys have not kept up with what clientele want and have since failed across the nation. He noted that the restaurant would be added to the east side of the bowling alley, replacing the current garage storage area. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether additional parking could be placed above the garage. Keaveny stated that he was unsure whether additional parking could be added above the garage. He stated that improvements would include painting the back of the building, repairing lights, improving or repairing the stairwell, and overall cleaning the place up. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Bertagnoli inteijected that the Navarre area provides family restaurants via Culvers, the coffee shop, and D'Vinci’s. Fritzler asked if the upper lot would be paved. Keaveny stated that this could be done. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that any approval would include upgrades and asked how the City would deal with the applicant’s desire to upgrade and renovate the site. Keaveny indicated that he would wish to add retaining walls, plus additional green space along Shoreline Drive. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the City Engineer had seen the proposed parking plan. Gundlach stated that the City Engineer felt the plan was adequate with paving and striping. Keaveny reiterated that the retaining walls would be repaired, more green space could be provided, and the brick work would be repaired and matched to the front of the building. Bremer asked what the proposed hours of operation would be. Ode stated that, generally, the hours would run until midnight or bar time of 1:00 AM. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the City doles out liquor licenses. Gaffron stated that the City has the ability to dole out 7 licenses in the Orono area; however, to date has only one. He indicated that Mr. Ode was currently going through the review process of obtaining a liquor license. Gaffron stated that, since the ai^lication is a CUP and backs up to residential neighborhood, the Commission can put reasonable standards on the application. While she was sympathetic to the traffic concerns on Kelly Avenue, Bremer was also concerned about the proposed re-location of the bus shelter at Kelly and County Road 15, closer to the dangerous intersection. Gaffron stated that the police department has been looking into moving the crosswalk, and felt this location might be a safer alternative for the shelter. He indicated that, new discussion of this subject this evening, had caused him to think twice about moving the crosswalk to Kelly Avenue. PAGE 48 of 53 t 1 • \ : i I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Keaveny mentioned that he’d suggested to the metro transit authority the .tually pull into the park and ride to pick up and drop off on Shoreline Drive to avoid having pedestrians cross traffic. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she agreed with the neighbor’s comments that the City needs to take this opportunity to get the upgrades in Navarre as the opportunities present themselves. The rest of the Commission concurred. Gundlach indicated that they are uncertain exactly how much square footage of retail exists in the building until doing further examination. She pointed out that the site would lose an additional 10 spaces if the City requires 10' and 20’green space yards along Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive respectively. Gaffron cautioned the Commission from allowing too little green space, as had occurred on the Snyder’s site which required only 10’ setbacks. Gundlach agreed that little opportunity presents itself, reiterating that the establishment of yards will cost the loss of 10 spaces; whereas, this plan provides 40 stalls. Rahn stated that it was difficult to gauge what the balance between parking and green space might be with the lack of a landscape plan. He noted that he would like to see more green space, and acknowledged that the plan requires additional parking. With regard to the issues for discussion, item 2, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she believed the existing upper gravel parking area should be paved and striped. Hannaford pointed out that the access to the bowling alley has always been off of Kelly Avenue. Ward asked if the proposed size of the striping on the top lot would match the stall si/e below. Gundlach stated that the stalls are the same size on the top or bottom of the lots. She added that signage would be added on the upper lot near the stair to direct patrons down the steps to the restaurant. Gaffron suggested that the applicants make it more inviting for people to park above and use the covered stairwell versus parking below. He asked what type of screening was proposed near the trash enclosure near the south end. PAGE 49 of 53 i ■j L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Keaveny indicated that the receptacle wjk proposed for the southeast comer and would be fenced. Gaffion believed the applicants could hnd a better location for the trash receptacle, further away from the access and neighborhood. Keaveny stated that he would propose placing a monument sign and planter box directing people on Shoreline Dr. to the Piz/a Factory and bowling alley off Kelly Avenue. Gundlach pointed out that the sign loeated in the right-of-way of Kelly Avenue would be removed in conjunction with a new sign to be erected in the northeast comer of the lot. Smaller directional signs would be placed below to mark the access. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to talk to the Public Works department about the proposed location of the signage and monument sign as they might interfere with sight lines. Gundlach noted that the lighting plan would include illumination for the stairwell and staff would recommend that all lights be shielded and directed downward elsewhere on site. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would support a monument sign at the northeast eomer of Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive versus a pole sign. Frit/Ier pointed out that a pole light would interfere less with sight lines at the comer. Keaveny agreed that a pole sign with a .)lanter and signs on it would be less obtrusive. Gaffron acknowledged that a monument sign would have the potential to cause problems. In reference to the ‘hours of operation’, Bremer que.stioned whether delivery would be envisioned in the plan. While he anticipated it could be planned for at a later date. Ode was unsure at this time whether delivery times would be an option. He indicated that his preferred hou» of operation would be iKX>n - 1 :00 A.M. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that there were many other open issues as well, including resolution of the bus shelter location. Fritzler acknowledged that patrons may decide to use Kelly Avenue to cut over the County PAGE 50 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST* 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Road 19 versus trying to access Shoreline Drive to reach County Road 19. He maintained that Kelly Avenue was not designed to handle a lot of traffic. Bremer asked if the proximity to Lake Minnetonka was a concern. Fritzler stated Uiat he could envision people trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to access the restaurant via boat or snowmobile. Rahn asked ..ow the City would be tbie to deal with the additional noise levels orce the license has been issued. He noted that this is the same type of issues faced by residents living near Al & Alma’s and admitted it is a conditional use which is allowed. He believed more thought needed to be devoted to the consideration of hours of operation. Fritzler stated that it is difficult to regulate how loud the use is, since the violations follow the individual and not the facility. Gafh’on indicated that the negative impacts can be reduced with a CUP. If it is allowed, the City can place certain limitations upon it up front, and then have to live with their decision. Keaveny reminded the Commission that it is not their intent to attraa the same audiemee as that of the Narrows Saloon. Gaffron asked if bowling would be available during other hours than the restaurant. Ode stated that the two operations would have separate entrances and closed off* from one another. Bremer referenced the old adage, ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’, referring to the fact that if the City wishes to improve the site it must also be willing to accept what comes with it. Evans asked what provision for parking of delivery trucks and what priKcdures would be followed in the proposal. Keaveny stated that he had referenced v.'here the delivery trucks would be allowed in his proposal. Evans pointed out that the lane pnivided for delivery trucks should be re\ ised, since the plan also identifies these as parking spots as well. Keaveny mentionc*d that the loading area could be in the back near the storage to the '^est PAGE 51 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out were accurate. Rahn stated that the plan doesn’t reflect what’s precisely required for parking and landscaping to determine whether these are adequate and requested further information, Evans noted that staff has merely estimated a reduction of 11 spaces to allow for green space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces above for a total of 147 spaces is what is required by zoning ordinance. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that a further detailed study would need to be provided to determine specific amounts, which would enable the Commission to base its judgment. While not uncommon for commercial property, Gundlach recognized that a parking variance may be required, especially, in light of the differences in the hours of operation of all the individual businesses on site. Although a parking variance might be found acceptable now, Evans encouraged the Commission to consider what the future use of this site might be. For instance, if used as retail the site might require even more additional parking. He maintained that, when he and his neighbors purchased their homes, there was simply a bowling alley with limited use which resided at this location, he never would have imaginc'd a full liquor licen.sed restaurant use would move in ne.xt door. As the next door neighbor most affected, Bertagnoh asked where the venting for the restaurant would be. Keaveny stated that be would work with the f anchisee and the City on the ventilation and air conditioning placement. Ode reiterated that, in c .dcr to be successful bowling alleys need this combination of ser\ ices; restaurant, liquor license, and bi>wling alley. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application #04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit., subject to receiving a complete site plan, parking plan and analysis of needs, locate loading areas, type of lighting, signage locations, minimum green space of 10’ along both avenues, landscaping plan, staircase repair, type of exterior materials and elevations, proposed improvements to the structure, and exhaust fan location. N OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 52 of 53 i IJ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#18) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8,2003 AND JANUARY 12, 2004 While there was nothing to report from the December 12,2003 City Council meeting, Gaffron reported that the Resolution was adopted for the Wildman Application during the January 12,2004 City Council Meeting. (#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged staff and the City Council to appoint new permanent Planning Commission members as soon as possible on behalf of Commissioner Hawn and Chair Smith. The next Planning Work Session will be held on February 4,2004. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17,2003 Bremer moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to Approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17,2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#21) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 26,2004 AND FEBRUARY 9,2004. January 26 - Lili McMillan February 9 - Mabusth ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 12:40 A.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A.M. Sandra Smith, Chair P.AGE 53 of 53 teiibiiiiyttik 'i