Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-22-2004 Council Packet
L/j? AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 22,2004,7:00 P.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 it^l^ available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ' '* ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend PRESENTATION 2. Gabriel Jabbour - Dakota Rail Corridor Update HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. 3. West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment Hearing A. Adopt Assessment Roll - Resolution B. Award Construction Contract - Resolution 4. On Sale Liquor License Public Hearing A. Paul Ode at 3435 Shoreline Drive (Navarre Lanes) ^ 2 soot “'"’'‘"•<*.0^0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 5. Regular Council Meeting of March 8, 2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pauline Bouchard. Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Mlnates Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • 6. #2587 7. 8. • 9. m 0 Kris Rudd on behalf of Richard Rudd, 4575 Blvd. - Extension of Effective Period of Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution. #03-2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution #03-2962 Robert and Joan Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution #04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753 North Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 10. #04-2976 James and Judy Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road - Plumbing in Accessory StrucUire CUP - Resolution 11. #04-2974 Reliance Development Corp., Hwy 12 / Willow Drive (Outlot A, Stonebay) - Comprehensive Plan Amendment 12. #04-2986 Natural Environments Corp. on behalf of Shawn Vaillant, 847 Tonkawa Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 13. #04-2988 Sean and Leah Daly, 605 Park Lane - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution 14. #04-2990 Patrick and Loring Kaveney, 1444 Baldur Park Road - Variance - Resolution 15. #04-2991 Pat Flemming, 4760 North arm Drive West - Variance - Resolution 16. 2765 Kelley Parkway - Dental Office Sign Height AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 22,2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 17. Municipal Facilities Janitorial Services Contract CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 18. Bid Award for Equipment Certificates • Resolution 19. Pay Request - Navarre Fire Station 20. 800 MHZ Radios for Navarre Fire Station 21. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Partners in Prevention Coalition and the City of Orono. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 22. LICENSES Kennel Licenses Special Event Permits * 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2SM 03/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/24 - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Stubbs Bay Public Information Meeting at Orono Middle School Cafeteria, Wednesday, 6:45 p.m. 04/05 04/07 04/08 04/12 04/19 04/21 04/26 Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council Liaison - Bob 5anse\ere) Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Jim Murphy) Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 05/01 05/03 05/05 05/06 05/08 05/10 05/17 05/24 05/31 Spring Cleanup Day, Saturday, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council Liaison-Jim White) Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Spring Cleanup Day - Construction Debris Only, Saturday, 8:00 a m. - 2:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Mayor Peterson) Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Memorial Day i Public A ttendance Meeting D ate H-27-0^1 ^C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please ntLOUTTHE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I. rnicL^<i\ ( /Ihulk All,. . y !^ Ir^ >V l/c^0K> >. u <;< *>-r - /Tr'* _______‘~l lc,r‘ Kj/-(<_»*» A<?»vA ______fiH - ?n C)< >vct N^l & 2(1 pr^tkll \7r~Tl i(/,^ vs' Uv 4 9.S. .jMUC.A \a 10. /\ L 11 i(liLL^__L_£ n. ^'ACU, ..., .-o'/r?. A/i 4y! ll ^ - i’ll Ad •^■i4’,^Kj ' •*' 9 ^ j f V/- c <y CkA^^ 14. 7 A:£// a /' ^ ?/ rc *i /C X Z:tLl^L, y IS. ■* Li; At. T>A/y.______C c^y TAHji fa W :\A4minimrart»t InppartMEocnMrPnMk Aittnd«ac«.«pd r f Public A ttendance Meeting D ate □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please filloutthe information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 2. KtWv / 0^1 i<?j fiij ii\^^ 5ot/0 fJu/yJ.f A \ t f A.(hfcU<y(l ZH 7j o\ rv/ J ) 5. 6.. 7. 8. 9. 10. n.. 12.. 13. 14. IS. W:\AdmiMairatt»« Snppofr4FonMPf«Mh Amndanwpd #ci ^ 4 & i DATE: Match 22,2004 ITEM NO: 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/fy^ "^^004 Department Approval: Namt Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda SectionrC; Public Service Director's Report Item Description: Assessment Hearing for West Farm (Homestead) Sewer Project- Resolutions This assessment hearing is for a project to install a pressure sewer system to serve the West Farm (Homestead) neighborhood. The hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. The proposed assessment is $6,400 per property for the seven properties in the project. The assessment is for a 15-year time period at an interest rate of 6.25% which results in an annual payment of approximately $650 per year. The attached legal notice for the assessment hearing was published in the March 1” Laker/Pioneer newspaper, and a letter was sent to each property owner notifying them of the assessment hearing. There are seven properties in the project area. One property is undeveloped, five properties have nonconforming septic systems, and one property has a conforming septic :ystem. City policy allows property owners with a conforming septic system to request exclusion from the project assessment, and the City will then finance the assessment debt service co.'d until the property does connect to the sewer system, 'fhe property owner may continue to use the conforming septic system until either the system fails, or a new or expanded house is constmeted, at which time connection to the sewer system is required. Payment of the current sewer connection fee is then required before a sewer connection permit is issued. The initial sewer connection fee is based on the project assessment, and the connection fee is then increased by a cost of living adjustment every year. A property owner with a conforming septic system may also elect to be assessed for the sewer project and continue to use the conforming septic system until connection to the sewer is required for one of the following reasoits: either the system fails, or a new or expanded house is constructed on the property. The one property owner with a conforming septic system has contacted the City regarding possible exclusion from the project assessment Cormection to sewer, for properties with nonconforming septic systems, is required by December 31, 2007, which is the city-wide deadline for the replacement of nonconforming septic systems which are in the Shoreland zorw. Connection to sewer before the deadline is required when either the septic system fails, or a new or expanded house is constructed. fhe assessment amount does not include the cost of making the connection from the home to the sewer line, or the cost of a grinder pump needed by each property. The cost for the grinder pump is approximately $7,000. The cost of the private service connection can range from $3,000 to $5,000 or more, depending on the distance and topography. Asiessmcnt Appeal Procedure n p If a property owner wants to q>peal the assessment, a notice of intent to ^>peal Ae assessment must be filed widi the City Clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the Mayor at the a ssessment hearing. An appeal must then be filed with the District Court within thirty days after the assessment hearing. Staff Recommendation The City staff recommendation is that, if no written notices of an assessment appeal ate submitt^ to the City at or prior to the assessment, the resolution adopting die assessment be approved. If any writtoi assessment ^ipeals are received, further discussion by die Council is recommended. If the assessment is adopted. Council ^iproval is also required for die attached resolution accepting die quotation fiom Red Pederson Utilities for this project. This project cost is less than $50,000, so the City is allowed to solicit competitive quotations for tUs work- Requests for quotations were sent to three directional boring contractors, and quotations were received fixim ^ diree contractors with Red Pederson Utilities submitting die lowest qw •)! COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve resolution adopting the proposed assessment for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Motion to approve resolution accepting the quotation from Red Pederson Utilities, Hopkins Minnesota in the amount of $34,914.50 for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sev^ Project. '^■fesT FARM IROAD (13)(14) <J5> (‘j> CONNECT TO EX. 4“ FORCEMAII \\- ;ed fi EMAIN (16) mmmm 1 1/4“ SERVICE & :URB STOP (TYPICAL) SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORONO. MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 HOMESTEAD ROAD SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION • I (17) (I^ 1801 TERMINATION FLUSHING CONNrcTION :d>J9! •-•••Ill M2 780 \ Bonestroo Rosene ^^Anderllk & Associates ffipiri—r« t AfthMtcH Affidavit of Pubiication • •• » State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. II Notolihtfibyilvinihiitf OronoaiyCoufiolwgfwidanmmfinKhairtng m Mtrdt tt t004 at 7:00 pjfL In tw Orono CounoM Cnambtrs, 1700 Kaliy PvtoMif 0 oomidif andpoM upon fit prapoMd inpwy«n»n>.f>i«>Dlow«notitw>i>lB>» ‘TTw Mowing prapwtN In HwMpIn County MtnriMott: Bin Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: 27-1ig«»4S«)1t go-iitM-it-omg«>iig4s>ii-oooig«>iii-a»-ii-goor a4>iig4s-ifrooogS«>1ia49-12<<)0H 1040 WMnvm Mood 1001 WHtnrm Mood •00 Bromn Road N 770 ■rotan Rood N 744 Imin Road N ral la an Ro tor puMa hapaBlon ol tw 0% OadCa awonila$44J0d.aM0hBaaaaamantahoi A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. MpmMtoagueanrMdMMnNniiktwiMyMrattwMMtwnii 10MpiyMia B.) The printed Hearing On Proposed ABsessments snorbitMfwMMondMiNJonuaryaooSandMbotrlnlwMioigioiwlialdM Ml Man la I. andP^I vadlbo 2.' Afiartio I ON Nia praaanlad ol Ha mMtm, Or ot^aoiDr noy cRi oftnaia taavfiofw aa tia obioolof doaifoai Tha aam pwoadb io bf tniaa I. 4. S. 0. OMict Court sdMn Ian daya afiar aondoo upon tia MRfor or OkirtL (PuMOtadlntia which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for _l___successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 6 day of March 20U4, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday. day of 2004; Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this £_day of .2004. KRISTI HOUM harm pueuc •mmcsota Mr ComniMlon &#■ Jw. 31, aos (1) Lowtst dauiiieC *aie pa>d by commercial users for comparable space; $l S.50 per irwh. (2) Maximum rata allowed by lew lor above mancr: SI S SO. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter. S7.96 per inch. Eech addhionei euccesstve week: SS.79. J^Boneslroo ^fllioiene Anderilk & |\|| Associates Dif^tri ft AfcMltcti Pra(«ct Name; Momitaad Hoad SanKafy Se ar impfovamanta ________ Project No.:_______________ No.139^141 / henby certify mar this fsMn ffxacf r^pfOdUcf/onoftkis/9C9fv9A Bid OpeninQ: Thufaday, Fabruafy 19,2004. at 11:00 AM.Owner. t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BID TABULATION Bidder No. 1 Bidder No. 2 RedFedereofiUttllUeeJnc. E. J. Mayen, Inc. Thonms P. ReoistnUon Bidder No. 3 Minncomm Utility Construction Co Inc Item jjuia Item Units Qty Unll Price Total Unit Price Total Uni! Price Tots! PARTI-BASEBID: M/2* MOPE. SDR 11 DIRECTIONAL LF 410 $10.45 $4,284.50 $12.87 $5,278.70 $17.25 $7,072.50 onioEo r HOPE SOR11 DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 1400 $10.45 $14,(>30.00 $10.82 $15,268.00 $16.25 $22.750 00 MM* HCPE, SERVICE PIPE SOR 11 LF 300 $11.45 $3,436.00 $15.00 $4,500.00 $22.25 $6,675.00 DIRECTIONAL DRIcLEO MM* CURB STOP AND BOX EA 7 $050.00 $6,650.00 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $400.00 $2,800.00 2* ISOLATION VALVE EA 1 $766.00 $766.00 $500.00 $50000 $600.00 CONNECT TO EXISTING FORCE MAIN EA 1 $850 00 $650.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 BITUMINOUS TRAIL PATCH SY 50 $10.00 $500 00 $1.00 $5000 $40 00 $2,000.00 TERMINATION FLUSHING CONNECTION EA 1 $1,175.00 $1,175.00 $1.200 00 $1,200.00 $750.00 $75000 FLUSHING CONNECTION LS 1 $575.00 $675.00 $1,200.00 $1,20000 $700 00 $700.00 CLEAR AND GRUB EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 SILT FENCE, REGULAR LF 300 $2 00 $0.00 $0.00 $1 00 $300 00 SODDING, LAWN TYPE SY soo $1.00 $500.00 $000 $0.00 $5.00 $2,500.00 MNOOTSEED MIX80A AC 0.5 $500.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $2.000 00 $1.000 00 WOOD FIBER BLANKET SY 300 $1 50 $450.00 $0.00 $000 $100 $300.00 TOTAL PART 1 • BASE BID $34,914.50 $37,519.70 $4S,94S^ Contrador Name and Address Red Pederson UtBUes. Inc.E. J. Mayen, Inc.MmoommUtlity 100 Intedachan Rd.21300 Larkin Rd.Consmjction Co..Inc. Hopkins. MN 55343 Harmei.MN 55340 1949 Shsdy Acres Lsrw More MN 55051 Phone:(952) 935^163 (763) 478-9680 (320) 679-9616 Fax (962) 936-9993 (763) 478 9880 (320) 679-9817 Signed By:Thomas Rod Pederson Emia Mayers OenWsidner Tide:Presideni Presidsot President 13e03141tTA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WEST FARM (HOMESTEAD) AREA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the West Farm (Homestead) area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amoimt of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2004. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. Page 1 of 2 t \ 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same maimer as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 22nd day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2of 2 Ji& Assessment Roll for West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Date: 22 March 2004 Muolcipal Code: 38 Maakipality: ORONO Levy Number Total Project AsscMneot: $44,800.00 Levy Description: West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project Interest Rate: 6.25% Number of Years Payable: 15 PID Number Total Principal Property Owner ’s Name Property Street Address Property Owner ’s Mailinc Addrcm 27-118-2343-0016 S6,400.00 J. W. A J. A. Pieipont 1849 West Fann Road 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake MN 5S3S6 27-118-2344-0016 $6,400.00 J. W. A J. A. Pieqxmt 1801 West Fann Road ItOI West Fann Road Long Lake MN SS3S6 34-118-23-11-0002 $6,400.00 J. D A P. M. SUvid 780 Brown Rrad N 780 Brown Road N Long Lake MN SS3S6 34-118-23-11-0001 $6,400.00 R. D. Benson A B.A. Luikens 776 Brown Road N 776 Brown Road N Long Lake MN 5S3S6 34-118-23-11-0007 $6,400.00 V.AD. Stein 800 Brown Road N too Brown Road N l.ongLakeMN SS3S6 34-118-23-12-0006 $6,400.00 II. A1. Hutter 770 Brown Road N 770 Brown Road N Long Lake MN SS3S6 34-118-23-12-0005 $6,40000 T. M. Schultze A M. L. Steil 744 Brown Road N 744 Brown Road N Long Lake MN SS3S6 Total AuMamcnt S44J00.00 i L TTirr ri inif'.uw CBf.--. : -«:n_k a. •*•mmr'imw r*siT4r«vt 5 ^ ; T otsjlpa rror>AAUSA WRT 111121041411 THZ4 P.0I/Q2 PHI2 I I ABN AMRO 135 SOUTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 711 CHICAGO, aUNOlS 60603 FAX NO. 312-f04-648S FAXNUl FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 952.34M616 lbr-2Z-04 '02:2ln Fro»-AAU$A MGNT 1tl12e0464li T-B24 P.02/02 P-902 I j James W. Pieipont 1801W. Fanil Road Orono.MN 55356 March 22,2003 City of OroQO AniLOrono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Ref.Match 22,2004 Hearing on Sewer Asset! West Farm Road and 1801 West Farm Road M I I for various properties including 1849 Unfortunately neither my wift nor 1 will be able to attend die Council Meeting this evening: however, we would like to provide our support for the West Farm Sanitary Sewer inqirovemem as referenced in die February 27,2004 letter. As the owner of both 1849 West Farm Road and 1801 West Farm Road, we would directly benefit from inatallarion of the sewer. We have been involved in die petitian process and strongly siqppoft this iraprovemem to die neighborhood. it is our understanding diat we would receive a sewer connection capability fer bodi 1849 West Farm Road and 1801 West Farm Road and diat there will be an assesamem of S6.400.00 for each of those propeities. In your letter you say that the assessment win be payable in equal annual installmentt. You indicate diat the first payment would be due in January 2005; however, you do not mention the number of years for those equal annual installments. Qarity on that matter would be rqipreciated. 1 note that it is hoped that the contract could be awarded for construction later diis qicing. The Pierpont’s would welcome diat eventuality. Sincerely, ^an^ W. Pieipont 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^^004 DATE: Marei^fif ^ ITEM NO: ^ Dcpartncnt Approval: Name RonMoorse Tiilc City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: f) lici^ m Agenda Section: City Administratoi*s Report Item Description: Paul Ode Application for an On-Sale Liquor License at 3425 Shoreline Drive-PublicHearing Background Mr. Paul Ode has applied for an on-sale liquor license for the property at 3425 Shoreline Drive. The liquor license is proposed to be one element of a pizza restaurant and bowling alley concept in the lower level of the “Keaveny” building. The on-sale liquor license {q)plication requires a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the application. Order of Business The following is the suggested order of business for this item: 1 . presentation by staff 2. presentation by the ^licant 3. open the public hearing 4. receive questions and comments from the public 5. close the public hearing 6. Council deliberation City Review The City ’s authority and concern in its review of the liquor license application is the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The City ’s review of the application has addressed this concern in two ways. One is through a background investigation of the iq)plicant for the liquor license. The second is through a review of the impacts on the area properties of granting the on- sale liquor license. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation of the applicant. Based on the results of the investigation, the Police Department is recommending denial of the liquor licoise. A memo from the Police Chief regarding the recommendation is attached. The key issue in the review of the impacts on the area properties of granting the on-sale liquor license is the proximity to, and orientation of the entrance and parking toward, the adjacent low- density residential development. Please see the attached map showing the relationship of the J\ « |Ag^il building and paridng to the adjacent neighborii The spacea proposed fm the on*sale liquor license include the **Crib**> a small existing lounge adjacent to and connected with the bowling alley, and a new *Tizza Factoiy ” restaurant to be located in die adjacent, currently vacant space, and which will also be connected to die bowling alley. The "Crib*has had a non-intoxicating malt liquor (3.2) license and a set-up license in the past The building entrance for diese uses ftces south, as does die paiking area, i^ch is adjacent to low- density, residential development A restaurant with liquor requires a conditional use pennit This memo don not address die conditional use permit for a class II restaurant, but only addr esses die inqiacts of an on-sale liquor estidilishment at this location, regardless of whether a restaurant is opened at this locatiort Impacts and Co -ibiUty The bowling alley is a use that, in itself, can produce a level of traffic, noise, and activity that is not ideal to low-density residential development The addition of on-sale liquor to Ais equation creates a new level of potential impacts and concerns. On-sale liquor brings die potent for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that ate incompatible widi low-density residential development Staff Recoomrod^m Staff is reconunending denial of the on-sale liquor license qiplication based on the denial recommendation from the Police Chief, and based on the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential developmoit COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to m>prove/deny the Paul Ode application for an on-sale liquor license at 3425 Shoreline Drive. a* I J. V I * *. ■‘I *:i. Lv; »■/'>?! • • 1, <>: mi fci ,ii^« J U.> • i: .«•* rovM 1 ‘"T ‘.‘•■* • -■''.v'- * •-.*■<- -Vi* • *j:^'^/**“'’’^ - :'5 ««5? CS?> •-?;'■..''.:■'U| . I v> ?e^: k'l- >lf * . -Js. 'a' ■ ^ ‘/-f ' is jiV*:t^ ^ V, >•' i^il r ’ ‘ 1 - ^ ‘; * k' ^ ■ V r> >r^ ♦r :- 3.^ . •-.. /y .'■ ^ rr.i- ^ '"• - .-■.5*T» .. r* *‘3- -1 ■ - •iv “ '' IfT ' ■j». -•^/ *' .. ■ X ' y '. • .■ •'*T'V?V*^ >,i % r^r j m.^ v« (r. ‘ . . '■ '- r. S -V V ^ ' ^ rFst -I i / ' -i '■’■' •• "'i;-'' i- ‘ r “• ^ ' j *' ■ '' ' ■"'• Hi I yr< riE>] »T'.38 tSW^W^A^A. 'A‘ fmM r^ZJTX ^ Jfe/ ^1 .. %>■'■• ■■■■:?&- * •'/?tV‘ '* - -*i- ^ ..»‘ - k*. .••^•"'f'* • ,/■'- V ^*« « ’ •*' 3 »» f’ ^,v . y ^'-<1' 4-^ ;T***'' >.' ^.-.' ^;w- • ■: [ -.U..;A*’'--&•• '! #:i-ilK^S-l^t -l^p pi'i ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MR. RON MOORSE FROM: CHIEF STEPHANY GO SUBJECT: PAUL ODE, LIQUOR LICENSE INVESTIGATION DATE: 3/19/2004 CC: FILE The police department has completed the licensing investigation in regard to Paul Ode, DBA Navarre Lanes (Paul N. Ode, 5040 Enchanted Rd. Mound, MN. 44364) We found that Mr. Ode failed to supply information required to process his application in a timely manner from the beginning of Ids request for a license. He failed to meet deadlines in producing liquor liability insurance and workers compensation insurance. The credit history report was not provided when requested. The bank reference was not provided when requested. On his liquor license application, Mr. Ode indicated he had never been arrested or detained. He indicated he had never been convicted of a crime. He indicated that he had never had a license or permit revoked or denied. Police records indicate that he has been arrested diree times for DWI, with two convictions. His driver ’s hcense was revoked on 3/12/86,5/1/93, and 9/13/99. On 2/18/03, at Paul Ode ’s request, staff met with him to provide an opportunity for him to respond to our concerns. His response included a number of rationales for some of the inaccurate application information, and for a number of financial difficulties he has had. He did not address the false information on the application regarding past arrests, detentioos, and siispensioas. The fact that Mr. Ode has had three alcohol-related arrests, the last one being as recent as 1999, and that he provided false information regarding these arrests on the application, leads the Police Department to have substantial concerns regarding authorizing Mr. Ode to operate a liquor esublishment On that basis, the Police Department recommends denial of the liquor license. AUSTIN H. EVANS 2497 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN SS331 Td: 952 - 471 1170 Fai: 952 - 4711184 RECEIVED MAR I 0 2004 cmroFonoNo March 18.2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attention: Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members Re: Application for an On Sale Liquor License at 3425 Shoreline Drive, Navarre. I would bring to your attention that the granting of an On Sale Liquor License for the above property would be: \ Detrimental to the public health. 2. Detrimental to the public safety. 3. Detrimental to the public welfare. 4. Materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. It would seem to me that these issues go to the core of whether an On Sale License should be granted. Before yon can make your decision you have a duty and an obligation to the citizens of Navarre and of Orono to determine if a licensed bar and restaurant would not be detrimental to the public health, public safety and public welfare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements In the vicinity. 1. PUBLIC HEALTH I must bring to your attention that the use will be detrimental to my health, and my neighbors. Every night until 1.30 AM we will be awakened by the slamming of car doors and loud talking as patrons who are in a **merry” state leave the establishment. Our sleep will be disturbed on a constant basis to the detriment of our health. There will be cars parked within 55 feet of my house (less distance than between the pitcher ’s mound and home base). How can I not be awakened >^en cars are so close? In the summer months I am constantly A;vakened by the roar of motor cycles leaving the Narrows. I shudder to think what it will be like within 55 feet of my house. This increased traffic in the early hours of the morning will mean that it will be impossible to sleep with my windows open. 2. PUBLIC SAFETY Public safety will be affected in a big way. Cars traveling south from the establishment will use the quiet residential street of KeUy Avenue. The extra traffic generated by this use will compound the already very dangerous exiting on to County Road 15. In addition patrons wiU be tempted to find a parking space on the lower level which if full will force mtd than to fctura to County Road IS. The conununity expressed their traffic concerns at the Orono Navarre Town Meeting held on March 13,2003 where 11 statements were made about the danger from current traffic volume. This use will only increase traffic coming from other parts of the Twin City Area and contribute to an even greater danger to the safety of the public. 3. PUBLIC WELFARE The location and use will be very detrimental to public welfare in seven ways. In the first instance it will only increase run off water into Lake Minnetonka fimn the expanded car park. While the iqiper car park is technically “hardcover^ at present, the hardtopping of it is bound to increase the run off water into Lake Minnetonka. I am astounded that a commercial site such as this within 200 feet of a Lake Miimetonka lagoon is permitted to have a 90% hardcover whereas the city stringently enforces the hardcover regulations in respect of residential property. Why do we have to perpetuate and compound an already sorry state of affairs? Serondly Navarre has one liquor bar and restaurant at present (The Narrows) which is almost opposite this site. Two sudi establishments so near to each other are not in the best interests of the public welfare. Neighbon are constantly grumbling and complaining about the noise element from the existing establishment. More importantly is there a need for another one? Thirdly a second establishment consistinig of a bowling alley will attract an element of patronage which will be irresponsible and rowdy. When the bowling alley was in operation, then every spring 1 would have to collect empty beer cans, bottles and other g^age v^diich regularly filled a garbage container; items thrown over my fence by customers of the bowling alley. How much worse will diis be Mdien because of a full liquor license the profile of the patroiuge will in all probability be much worse. Fourthly the cooking smell that will emanate from this establishment will be unacceptable. When the wind is blowing from the North or East we currently have to endure Rick’s Supermaricet cooking of chickens. An additional smell is detrimental to the public welfare. Fifthly I would point out that the community had many strong statements to make at the Town Meeting on Match 13,2003 about improving Navarre, plaiming proactively for the future, and working to create a Navarre we could all be proud of. PuUic welfare depends on a good environment and the grantingofthisLicense will be very detrimental to that environment Sixdily the area is zoned B1, which is defined in the zoning ordinance as a district intended to provide a district for businesses that supply coauioditics or perform a service priauiriiy for residents in the surrounding area. Some have estimated that as much as 70% of the Narrows clientele are from ontiide of the city. A licensed establishment has no place in a B1 district Finally how much extra woik will be put on die shoulders of our ^e police force as it monitors and responds to the normal complaints that come with the existence of such an establishment. 4. INJURY TO PROPERETY VALUES The last issue is the most important one: material iqjury to property and improvements in the vicinity. My bouse is oidy iqiproximately 130 feet from the subject building (about the same distance between home plate and 2^ base by way of a straight line). Ihave i been informed by experienced Realtors that a licensed bar and restaurant so close win severely affect the marketing ofmy property when I come to sell it Estimates of a price reduction over its current value of iq> to $50,000 would have to be considered, paiticulariy in a competitive market The same foctors apply to the odier 3 units in the Kelly Cove Homeowners Association. I would raise the question of why should the owner of the subject property firumcially benefit at a major and material cost to myself and my neighbors? It is my understanding that the new residential property on 2505 Kelly Avenue has received an assessed value of some $3,500,000. Is it wise policy to grant an On Sale License to the above property for a folly licensed bar and restaurant which is only 80 yards from a $3,500,000 home? What will be the reduction in value to fois property? There Is no way in which one can say that the granting of this On Sale License would not be detrimental to the public hcahli« safely, aad welfare and would not be materially iniurious to properties and improveamnls in the vidalty. Ibelievethat the CouacQ therefore has no altemative but to deny this application. Youn truly. H.EV1 I iiiimifrllMTS 03/19/2007 10;13 962472302783 I' •i PAUL N CSE PAGE 01 !• . « i V4/4p l!• \/^ 1?«vo /Wdorsf-e;l =1 •i '5 • *sr 7W, , . ^ 40^ ■:/?»«/ k) 0M«!W . i 9*'^^ ;. y l/^yiieu^ • , 4?^CS4/^' ^ 6,tg - ^ /(^ • I tUi- Tm-/ ^ • I . • . \-^-* 03/19/2007 10:13 952472302783 PAUL N ODE PAGE 02 M^.PndOde Moa^MNWJM 9 *• >M«f noedtDlLIMfChlheodMr}. ____.«.1t liMvwlieoiBe. 2. No * Bdvite«»OnyC«>^**®*Bdvitf«re,onyw»»— iKnihjatfco SSi i, OW« * . _ A-M ■* - - tljOill_________‘^~.=g-:ir»::.asira:. 3.2%bf»Ucanie.Potion of mosH BOOiAg fi«n S:Sk!5KS5inih«'^“^^ ((ll^SOS-OttQ). OoodtaskwWiSfowttw*'^'*****' Siocoidyy KoaMdOT _ B?AIClw*MtivoW»«*« n. March 14,2004 0 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 For thirty-five years I have been a home owner in Orono. Ten years ago I purchased a home on Kelly Avenue. I have sacrificed a lot to live here for the peace and serenity. '•'{■■I, 1 know you all have a difficult job to do and it might be hard to put yourself in my shoes. But I wish you would do so at this time. I am sorry, but 1 feel you owe me protection on my investment. What might be a more common sense question; "Do I not have the right to peacefiilly enjoy my property?" That is the question truly in your hands. I have the faith this council will not put a full liquor license bar next to my home or would it YOURS. I bought this home believing that nothing like this would ever happen. If so, it is clear that I would not have ever made that decision to purchase this property. The factors of having to live with closed windows in the summer so that the noise of cars doors slamming, loud good byes, motorcycles starting up is just too much to contemplate. Besides all this, the traffic would then exit onto Kelly and presumably drive through the residential area. I just do not get it!! I have spoken to over ninety people and all but two showed concerns for this project. The following illustrate some of their conunents: 1) People walk on Kelly (no sidewalks) with children going to fi'om the parks and beaches. They should not be confronted with additional bar traffic. 2) You must give all these people credit. They know how this is going to Cusioiueia paiMUg, tmu u luu, oau Uicii try to drive to the upper level parking making an impossible left hand turn onto County 15. Thereafter, at closing, customers will leave and drive down Kelly to avoid police and other traffic. 3) There is absolutely no buffer zone between project and immediate adjoining property. 4) What planner would allow this bar project within 300 feet of a 3.5 million dollar residential home.*' 5) Some businesses expressed concern that our town (Navarre) could turn into a bar town like St. Boiufacious. 6) Many neighbors are concerned that there will be snowmooiles tr^g to trespass wooded areas to reach the bar. 7) Perception of "why do we have to pay?" Bar owner gets rich and we lose property value. 8) Realtors have suggested that the yearly average increase of Lake h^nnetonka home values (6>10%) ^1 not be realized and in Act could suffer actual lose of valuation. 9) Some are concerned with the lack of a bonafide buriness plan. No applications for the "Pizza Factory" could be found. Is the existing bowling ally really a good investment? Might it be scuttled and a general enlargement of the whole square footage into a bar really be the plan? 10) Many have concerns about the potential exhaust vending and odors and noises associated with the project. 11) Why does a "Family" restaurant need a foil liquor license? 12) Mr. Keaveny (deceased) put his support and fiuth behind all buanesses that promoted health and weUness. In the recent Town Hall meeting, it was stated Navarre could be the shining spot of Orono. This project would be against his wishes. 13) Who puts baby buggies, smtdll^es, and chQdrei on the same street as a ba^ The above represents my views and thoughts on this proposed liquor license and project in general. Other comments only echo my concerns. I trust you will all t^e them seriously and nuke the right deciaon on this matt«. • • • • %w3pvwilUlljf dUUtlllUCU, Svma BeitaflSyltna Bertagnoli 952 471-8540 1 i "V, WAW orricc:! SlESCL, BRILL. GREUPNER, DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A. wAMCi^ 0CPI4C*. s ZLtrr wcco m ro»riR. TMOVAf M 0009M %r« JOHN 1. «•!»• Bfr.vrCww J 9wCCHCL AON lB jOAOA h m .CWift* • MIAM c WtlS«CM9 i300 WASH KOTO10- AAf lOOW^iESkH NCTQN AX'CKL C IOUT m MI^MCAPCLIS. MINNCSOTAS5401 ?ft.lP*ONC »6I2* 337*^iC»e rACBlMtLC l•l|) ircvcN J. prc'N^c*.vr «. mcOCNf •fAHCi; A Ya MCIP V.CR C U «.OMCH MA«* rpicAorp *AOO tAtT WI»COH*iA av C-WB *wm ij} JA (P.WAAUKCC, W»*COW»«H iJfOt «A4» »«t«i CR»-B«A« f AR 19C 0##l March 22.2004 23.751 -T(i Mayor Barbara Peterson City Council City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway T'.O Boa 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: A|ipKeatlon for On-Sale Lii|aor License at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Navarre Dear Ms. Peterson and City Council At the request of Austin Evans. Charles NaJler and some of the other neighbors of the site referred to above, we have reviewed the application by Mr. Paul Ode for an on-salc liquor license. .As we understand it, the liquor license is proposed to bo one element of a piiia restaurant and bowling alley concept in the lov^er level of the "K-eaveny” Building. As we understand the facts, the sue is in the B*l zomng disiricL The existing bowling alley is a iton«conforming use in that zone. If this is not correct, please let us know immediately because our opinion is based upon these facts. We are also given to understand that the rcsiauram and bowling alley will be operated as one use According to the maiutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 20,2004 (page 47), Mr. Ode suted; “...that the combination of full bar, bowling alley, restaurant is what makes the operation successful. He indicate that bowling alleys have not kept up with what clieiuele want and have since failed across the nation. He noted that the restaurant would be L Page 2 March 22.2004 added to the east side of the bowling alley, replacing the currenl garage storage area.” According to the pending application for conditional use pemui for this site, a new, single enuyway would serve both the bowling lanes and the restaurant and the two would be operated together as a modem bowling center including the combined restaurant with full liQuor license. Based upon the above, it is our opinion, that tbe requested grant of a liquor license for this establishment would be illegal under Orono’s Code of Ordinances. We detail our reasons for that opinion below. 1. A liquar license etutnoi be greeted if the premises do not comply fvitk zoning regnlntlons. Under Orono Section 34*83: "No license shall be granted for use ia any premises that does not or will not conqily with the City’s zoning regulations set forth in Chapter 78." In addition. Orono City Code Section 34.122 provides: "Notwithstanding any section in this chapter to the contrary, all premises that are licensed must be located in zoning district in which they are permitted and must be in compliance with the eomng regulations set forth in Chapter 78.” Does the bowling center, as proposed, comply with Chapter 787 If not, then the two code sections quoted above, prevent the issuance of a licenae. 2. The pmqiosed bowling center^restaurant use would be an extension of a non* conforming use and Ologol under Orono City Code. Tbe remodeling of this site to add a restaurant to the bowling center would extend and intensity an existing non-confotmirg um. This ia illegal under the common law and under Orono’s Code. Orono Code Section 78-71 provides: “Non-Conforining Uses. Any land or building which were actually and legally devoted to a non-confoiming use on January 1. 1973, may be continued in the non-confomting use pursuant to conditional use penmt granted as ^lecified and subject to the following provisionr. (Jj The nen-conformlHg use mey not be changed to mother non-conforming use. 1 ^ . tK 1' V \ \ • 1:l gfiiaiNh Page 3 March 22,2004 (8)Monnal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-confomting use is permitted, including necessary non-atructural repain ano incident alteraiioni which do not extend or intensifi the non-conforming tae. [emphasis added] It is our conclusion, therefore, that the proposed new bowling center is a change of use, vW.» 0™» City Code SccUoa 3443 ud Section 34-lM «d« pre«nt«l. Very truly yours. Thomas H. Goodman THO/pd MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 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, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend While item #2 was removed from Consent, items #6, 14, 15, and 19 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved. White seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Items 16 and 17 were moved to the top of the meeting. 16. HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER Administrator Moorse introduced Chief Good who presented Susan Day for appointment as police officer. Good indicated that Day had met all the necessary requirements and had served as a Community Service Officer for the City of Plymouth the past three years. Mayer Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded to hire Susan Day at the starting rate for patrol olllcer of $18.62/hour effective 3/8/04. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Moorse swore in Officer Day and the City Council welcomed her to Orono. 17. HIRE FULL-TIME COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER (CSO) Chief Good introduced Christopher Pharo for appointment as CSO. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to hire Christopher Michael Pharo for the position of fuil time Community ^rvice Oflicer, at the pay of SI 2.58/hour effective February 27,2004. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 1 ofl6 0 T I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. Rtgalar Council Meeting of February 23,2004 Revisions were made on Page 3,4"' paragraph, identifying Larry Blackstad as “Commissioner" of the Three Rivers Park District, and Page 7, 7* paragraph, revising the sum of $250 “million" to S2S0,000. McMillan moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Minutes of February 23, 2004, as amended. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Irene Silber Silber reported that the Orono Baseball Associati{vi ’’id requested increased use of Bederwood Park for youth t-ball and it was the consensus of t.^/ V'ark Commission that they ask the City Council to reconsider and revisit the limitations set on Bederwood Park through the appropriate public process, as it appears to be an underused park. In addition, Silber stated that the Commission will be developing a master plan for the Lurton property and establishing a permanent location to relocate the bam this fall. Lurton Park will be serviced by an endowment fund and the Commission felt a more prominent location as the western boundary to Orono was appropriate. Silber added that the Lurton’s will be invited to attend an upcoming Commission meeting to share their vision for the park. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Mark Fritzicr Fritzler stated that the Planning Commission had recently hosted a joint work session with the Long Lake Planning Commission and City Council to discuss some of the proposed zoning changes along Highway 12. Fritzler pointed out that the face to face meeting was long overdue and it will be their intent to hold similar meetings annually at minimum. LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson While Halvorson had nothing new to report, she indicated that the LMCD held the charter boat liquor licenses at 14. She also stated that the DNR had agreed to help with the zebra mussel inspection program at S certain landings from mid-May to mid-September and busy holiday weekends. Mayor Peterson asked if a schedule for inspection would be published for distribution. Halvorson indicated that she would expect there to be a schedule. McMillan inquired what the cost of the program was estimated at. Halvorson stated that the $30,000 estimated for the program was included in the budget. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ralph Kcmpf. 3675 Togo Road, complimented the City on its new website. Having seen an article in the Star Tribune several months ago about the potential for round-abouts, Kempf asked whether the City was still considering a round-about at Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15. Moorse stated that the City had reviewed this topic in depth with Hetuieptn County, who had come to the conclusion that it would be more detrimental to slow the 20,000 or so vehicles traveling on County Road 15 in order to allow easier access for 2,000 from Orono Orchard Road. Kempf maintained that traffic from County Road 15 should be slowed at Orono Orchard Road anyway; therefore, a round-about would be a good solution. He also felt round-abouts can add interest to an area with landscaping etc. Murphy stated that he agreed with Kempf. although he was one of few He believed a round-about would provide an appropriate solution to that intersection. He maintained that something should be done with that comer soon in the fear that something dreadful will happen before the County feels a change is necessary. Kempf stated that he W'as amazed at how well round-abouts work m other countries and indicated that round-abouts accomplish what a clovcrlcaf does in a tighter situation. McMillan pointed out that the intersection at County Road 1 5 and 51 is also bad. Gappa concurred that the Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 intersection was a mess, but noted the County has not chosen to present a solution. He stated that the City is stuck in the middle, since the County does not wish to address the intersection. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *3. #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRI\T - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 5123 Murphy moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5123 a Commercial Site Plan Review for the property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. #03-2959 TIMOTHY LATTERNER, 2032 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5124 Murphy moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5124 , granting amendments to their original hardcover variance in the 0-75' zone in order to further reduce their existing hardcover by an additional 2.4% by reconstructing their deck to meet the 75' setback from the OHW'L, and a 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). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 3 of 16 ..... A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 5. #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOAN SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE Gundlach reported that the applicants had requested a lot area vanance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is .47 acres in size when .50 acres is required and a 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. of hardcover from the 0-75’ zone). Gundlach explained that this application was heard at the Council meeting of February 9, 2004, during which the applicants were directed to further reduce hardcover to 33%, or an additional 800 s.f. The applicants have chosen not to reduce hardcover any further than 38.6% and request approval of the plan presented at the Feb. 9"' meeting. Mayor Peterson indicated that she revisited the property since February 7'*' and watched the traffic flow along County Road 19. After this examination, she felt there was legitimate hardship to justify and support the applicants' request to warrant the 38.6% hardcover presented in their proposal to allow for adequate driveway and turn around apron. Sansevere questioned whether there was quantifiable hardship to justify the hardcover request. Gaffron explained that, within the past five years, the City Council has said that total rebuilds must meet a higher standard than remodels. Rebuilds have been consistently held to 25% hardcover, or close to It, which has caused many applicants to significantly change their plans to meet this requirement. GafTron noted that the hardcover variance, in this application, is related to the size of the home and driveway required to safely access the busy road. In recent years, he pointed out that the Planning Commission has attempted to quantify hardship based on limits imposed by the shape of a lot. Having taken the lot shape and location into consideration, staff still believes 33% hardcover is appropriate for this situation. lie maintained that by varying from this position, the City Council would be inconsistent with what it has ruled in the past and could be setting precedent without adequate support, which in turn makes it impossible for staff to correctly advise future applicants in terms of variance requests. Mayor Peterson pointed out that the home meets the 15% structural coverage limitation as proposed. She believed the Planning Commission was approiniate in voting 6/0 that this was a reasonable request which allowed for sensible driveway and back up space. Gaffron reminded the Council that 15% is a limit, not a right, which in certain situations they should consider further reducing to 12-13% if necessary to meet hardcover requirements. On the other hand, Gaffron suggested the City consider looking at making code changes based on how big a driveway is necessary in order to support homes on certain roads to be consistent. Mayor Peterson stated that the City Council is generally pretty consistent. White pointed out that, in this specific application, the lake proves to be the hardship. He indicated that the whole house must fit within this zone, which impacts the hardcover. White maintained that, if the City docs not consider this request, the poor situation which exists currently will continue indefinitely. He agreed that the road also imposes safety restrictions and warrants additional hardcover. PAGE 4 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. McMillan was cognizant of Gaffron’s statements and agreed that the City must adhere as closely to the code as possible when it comes to rebuilds. She found it diflicult to justify 38% hardcover when staff had built in a hardcover credit to the driveway within their recommendation. McMillan reminded the Council that the City needs to adhere to the limitations put into place as it continues to redevelop. Murphy pointed out that the difference between 33% and 38% is merely 800 s.f. Having examined the exhibits and the site, he found it difficult to determine what could be removed from the home or driveway to bnng the hardcover to within 33%. Gundlach stated that more would have to be removed from a limited patio or dnveway, since the applicants had maxed the house. Mr. Switz stated that the reality is that the precedent is already out there. He maintained that this is a unique property and that their proposed improvements will be significant, not only reducing the structural coverage to 15%, but also remo\ing virtually all structure within the 0-75’ zone. He pointed out that they have attempted to work with staff to get a minimal driveway and apron, while maintaining ample space for the home. Switz indicated that hardships exist, as admitted by staff, and accepted by the Planning Commission 6/0 to warrant the amount of hardcover proposed in this application. He pointed out that the Planning Commission fought thru many of these same issues faced by the City Council and came to their unanimous conclusion that this was reasonable. If the home was moved closer to the road to reduce the amount of driveway hardcover this would not make a better situation either. Switz maintained that the City should take the magnitude of the proposed improvements into consideration along with all of the other factors, since the home wnll be in conformancy to all but the hardcover condition. He believed that this would be the most consistent conclusion the City could reach, given the other trade-offs, especially since it is the preservation and protection of the lake which takes precedence to all else. Murphy questioned whether the property would indeed be improving the 0-75’ zone situation significantly. Gundlach stated that a significant portion of the current home and deck falls within the 0*75' zone. Murphy maintained that, since the applicants would be clearing out over 2,000 s.f. of hardco\’cr in the 0-75’ zone, and that the variance request generally is impacting the driveway on the street side, he would side with White and Mayor Peterson. Murphy stated that based on the shape of the lot. and the fact that his biggest concern involves the lakeside, he would not wish to cause any safety problems on the streetside by imposing further limitations. Sansevere pointed out that, by Code, applicants do not get ‘bonus points’ for removals within the 0-75’ setback zone. While he wished to give the applicants some leeway to sec this proposal to fhiition, he asked if the Cit>’ had a legal obligation to the contrary. Mrs. Switz indicated that during their first \isits to the Planning Commission, they were told by staff and the Commission that if they could get the structural cover down to 15%, they would be given adequate dnveway. PAGE 5 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. Gaffron stated that the best that staff ever offers applicants is to present 15% structural cover and ask for a minimal driveway to accommodate it. He encouraged the Council to consider recommending new standards for driveway and parking, when safety is a key factor, as well as, the magnitude of removals in the 0-75’. Mayor Peterson disagreed with Sansevere that the City would be, in essence, granting 'bonus points ’ for removals. She stated that she had based her recommendation on safety and the fact that this will be a far better situation than what is there currently. She urged staff to craft a resolution that would not be seen as precedent setting and one that hits on the Council's key points in this case. Sansevere asked if the resolution could be crafted to justify a hardship. Gaffron maintained that, once quantified, staff could support 15% structural cover and safe driveway access, however, he questioned whether the City might be opening itself up to people returning from past applications to ask for more. McMillan suggested that the City give consideration to increasing hardcover from 25% to 30%, if the reality is that the City is continually bombarded by hardcover variance requests. Gaflron noted that if the City wishes to give credence to removals within the 0-75’ zone, there may be justification for upping the coverage within the 75-250’ zone. Murphy .'knowledgcd that, in this case, the applicants can’t be expected to safely back out onto County Road 19. Mayor Peterson moved. White seconded, to grant a lot area and hardcover variance for 1740 Shadywood Road per the Planning Commission recommendation, directing staff to revise the resolution to reflect the concepts of discussion amongst the Council this evening. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Sansevere and McMillan dissenting. *6. #03-2964 BRLCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, EAW PETITION - RESOLUTION NO. 5125 Murphy moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5125 flndin^;' that the Maxwell Bay Estates subdivision will have no potential for significant environmental effects, and determining that an EAW will not be required. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #04-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD., 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 5126 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *8. #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5127 Murphy moved. While seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5127 granting hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances for 1390 Cherry Place to allow reconstruction of an existing rotted deck within the 75-250’ zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Murphy moved. White seconded, to table the request for a conditional use permit for the 0- 75’ zone until full engineering review can be completed and the Planning Commission has given their recommendation regarding the plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC, 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 5128 Gaffron explained that this is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August of 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat for 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 the 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. Gaffron noted that neither lot has ever been built on. As a result. Gaffron pointed out that the applicants arc 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 noted that 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. Gaffron stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and made comment. Steve Bohl, of Hickory Fine Homes, asked whether they would be responsible for the park dedication fees and stormwater and tnmk fees, or whether he could request these fees be waived. Gaffron explained that, since the park dedication fees were paid with the original subdivision, as the Planning Commission recommended, these fees should be reconsidered. On the other hand, he pointed out that the trunk and stormwater trunk fees were not applicable with the first plat and should be considered for the back lot as it is new. Gappa agreed that the City is doing something for the applicant in order to make it a buildable parcel which warrants the fees. PAGE 7 of 16 I anfciiiahiitrtiifc II iiifffliMiiiiiiiiiiiiiAi MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Bohl stated that it was the intent of the applicant to allow for two residential lots from the beginning, and they have been taxed accordingly. He felt the trunk fees to be excessive for one lot. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5128 granting Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Property located at 3220*3240 Watertown Road - File no. 2971. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES. 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE Gundlach stated that the applicant requests the follow'ing in conjunction with a previously approved project: A conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5 ’ of the property line. She explained that the City Engineer visited the site with the City Building Inspector and made specific recommendations which were incorporated as part of a Planning Commission recommendation: however, the applicants arc still requesting a conditional use permit to allow the retaining walls to remain within S’ of the property line. Gundlach indicated that staff would recommend denial of the application consistent with City Building Inspector Bruce Vang’s comments to allow a 4’ setback for a retaining wall when 5 ’ is normally required. Murphy questioned whether allowing the extra foot for the side entrance was a matter of safety. Bob Piper and Steve Sexton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, indicated that they placed the safety railing inside the block retaining wall. Gaffron pointed out that the original plans the Planning Commission saw showed the entrance facing the street and not a side entrance. McMillan pointed out that there is a drainage problem that needs to be addressed and that is why the Engineer had suggested a S’ separation and construction of a drainage swale instead of retaining walls. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to deny the conditional use permit request to allow a retaining wall within S* 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 for the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11. #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5129 Gaflron explained that the Council tabled this item on February 9, 2004 and directed staff to explore ways to allow the kitchen to remain. Gaffron stated that the primary issue is whether to allow retention of the kitchen, or whether even just the sink, will be allowed. He maintained that it has been staffs opinion that 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. PAGE 8 of 16 •r ' i w MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffron offered three 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 the Planning Commission to make a recommendation regarding a potential code amendment and clarification that would clearly establish CUP standards for various levels of use, based on the applicants ’ intended levels of use rather than on the extent of facilities provided. Gaffron reminded the Council that the Code docs little to distinguish between the occasional guest use versus the permanent caretaker facility. He noted that the differentiation could be between minimal or total use as the rule distinguishing guest houses. Murphy asked how much time and effort had been devoted to this particular issue. Gaffron pointed out that the Planning Commission has discussed this issue over the past 2-3 years and found reasonable use would be to allow plumbing for a bathroom for other than dwelling use. Murphy asked if the City could differentiate between periodic visitors versus guest house situations. Gaffron stated that guest house residents have other implications on parking and traffic. In an effort to determine what it would take to turn the guest house into a residence, staff and the Planning Commission found the kitchen facility to be the delineating difference, a kitchen sink, stove and refrigerator. Murphy commented that he found it philosophically difficult to punish people, like the Pierpont’s, for being able to potentially use the facility wrong. This presupposes that they will go against the rules and use the facility as it was not intended. Mayor Peterson pointed out that none of this would be an issue today, had the Pierpont’s combined the two lots as they were directed to do in 1990. Gaffron noted that, had they been combined, the City would not be faced with this subdivision, because the original guest house CUP was approved subject to combination. Sansevere maintained that he had stayed in a hotel room recently that housed the same kitchen amenities as this guest house and he would not consider it to be a residence. McMillan pointed out that, nonetheless, this is kitchen capable. She stated that Code denotes, even w'lth a substandard kitchen, this is kitchen capable to support guests and is the only way the City can enforce the Code is via the kitchen. Gaffron stated that the sink outside the bathroom, makes it a kitchen. PAGE 9 of 16 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. If the sink rises to the level as being deemed a kitchen facility, Sansevcrc stated that, unfortunately, he must side with staff, though he was uncomfortable calling the Pierpont’s sink and cooktop a kit:hen. McMillan stated that it is also the paperwork trail which is important as the enforcement tool within the CUP. She noted that a future owner might see fit to use the guest house as a permanent facility. Gaffron agreed that if a guest house rises to the use of a dwelling unit the trail allows the City to enforce the Code. Mr. Pierpont indicated that there are several elements within his estate which were deeded as part of his property, including lake access via his property for his neighbors use and a driveway easement for his other neighbor. He suggested that the City establish a covenant with him that says that he won’t use this as a guest house. Sansevere asked if this was possible. Gaffron stated that, potentially, the City could establish a covenant with the Pierpont’s which would give the City something to enforce if the use was misused. Attorney Barrett interjected that a covenant could be created with any landowner; however, this would, in essence, be like amending the Code ‘willy nilly’ without adequate examination. He noted that this could be setting up a precedent inviting oth».r landowners to come forward to request CUP’S for guest houses also. Murphy asked if a covenant would go with the property in perpetuity. Gaffron indicated that covenants remain with the property. Murphy questioned whether the use of a covenant could limit the future use of the guest house in the future. Moorse noted that, if the City had to enforce the guest house rules, the covenant would make it easier to do so. By acknowledging that, if the City found the resident to be using the facility in an unapproved way, the City could come in and force the property owner to remove the plumbing. Murphy asked what would be required of the Pierpont’s if they were denied their request. Gaffron stated that the inspector would return to the property to inspect and make sure the c.*’^ctation of plumbing removals has been met. Pierpont suggested he be limited to a certain number of drains. Gaffron stated that the applicant can be allowed a tub, sink, and toilet. Pierpont stated that he did not wish to rip out the pipes and existing flooring etc. PAGE 10 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. White moved to adopt Resolution No. 5129 including option #2, approving the plumbing in accessory building CUP and requiring removal of all kitchen facilities, allowing the kitchen sink to remain merely as a basin, not as a source of water, by removing its supportive plumbing, and requiring standard covenant execution be put into place. Mayor Peterson stated that she remembered the 1990 application which made the CUP approval subject to combination. Pierpont questioned why his property could not be ‘grandfathered’ to allow the guest house. He stated that he has an enormous 4 acre plus 2 acre parcel, which has been discounted by a 4/10 of an acre wetland. He indicated that he was offended and believed the City was wrong to disadvanuge him the use of his guest house. While Sansevere was cmpathetic that the kitchen did not fit his definition of a useful facility, he stated that the Code leaves the Council few options. Sansevere seconded. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Murphy and Mayor Peterson dissenting. 12. #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERKSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY - PI D/CO.MMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Gundlach explained that the applicant requests a conunercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36,000 s.f. medical office building. She pointed out that the increased setback from Highway 12 was due to the height of the two story building. Gundlach stated that, while the 159 proposed parking stalls is 3 short of the required 162, the applicants have provided 3 proof of parking stalls within their plan. She noted that the Planning Commission voted 5-0 appro', al of the plans as submitted with incorporation of the following staff recommendations and approval from the fire marshal: 1. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to the City council review. 2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted pnor to the City Council renew which incorporates the comments contained in the staff report. Gundlach indicated that staff would recommend approval of the commercial site plan review incorporating the Fire Marshall’s comments, landscape plan, and would further suggest the Council direct staff to execute a PUD/dcveloper ’s agreement for approval at the next scheduled meeting. Sansevere moved, .Murphy seconded, to direct staff to draft a PUD/developer*s agreement for approval at the next scheduled meeting. McMillan questioned lighting of the sidewalk and trail. Gundlach stated that the applicant would be responsible fo. s trail along Kelley ParkwTjy. GaHron pointed out that development is getting close to the point where construction of lh‘ blacktoppcd sidewalk along Highway 12 will be in order. PAGE 11 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Mayor Peterson asked whether there was room to construct something other than a flat roof. Murphy pointed out that a hip roof would shield everything north of that structure and he believed that a flat roof structure was appropriate for this location. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Mayor Peterson dissenting. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that he received a call from the Nusbaum’s, at 3480 North Shore Drive, over the weekend informing him that their water and drainage situation had worsened. He asked what the City had done for these residents. Moorse explained thrt the public works crew had constructed a temporary berm or curb to direct the water past the Nusbaum’s; however, the water appears to be circling through the neighbor’s yard and back onto the Nusbaum’s property, since they are the lowest point on the block. Gappa stated that it would behoove the Nusbaum’s to build their new garage and correct the slope of the driveway and yard to direct water away from their home and towards the street. He reiterated that they need to raise their yard and garage to slope towards the road. Mayor Peterson asked whether that the City had allowed the situation to worsen by granting the neighbor’s application to build to raise their lot. Murphy questioned whether the City had done all that they could for the time being, and further questioned whether the problem now, more or less, belonged to the Nusbaum’s instead of the City. Moorse stated that the City had done just about all that could be done to provide a temporary solution to the problem; however, pointed out that the City is in the process of designing a permanent solution that is to totally regrade that road and get the water out of there. He stated that this will be no easy task. He noted that the elevation has been established for new structures, but they have one old structure that needs to be replaced. Gappa pointed out that the yards along Birch will remain wet, since they arc so flat and close to lake elevation. Moorse stated that rather than building a slab at grade, the Nusbaums constructed a crawl space which is continually wet. PAGE12ofl6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Engineer Kellogg pointed out that the neighboring house and grade is unfinished; therefore, no swales have been created to direct water away from their property. He stated that there is no single good solution. Two issues are the elevation of the road at 932 ’ and the lake at 929’ which does not allow for much slope for a pipe directing water away from the road and toward the lake. One solution may be to consider 2 catch basins with a crown on the road splitting the drainage in half with one pipe running to the west and one to the south. Murphy asked what an appropriate expectation would be for the Nusbaum ’s at this point to have from the City. Gappa reiterated that the City has done what it can with a temporary curb, but he was unsure what more they could do right now. Murphy questioned whether the time might come when the Nusbaum ’s might say the City did not do enough to resolve their issue and is liable for some damage incurred. Attorney Barrett stated that the first rule in Minnesota is that people do have the right to keep water from their property. Although he was unprepared to concede that the City would have liability, he did acknowledge that it seems the residents along this stretch who built these structures did so in something of a flood plain. In his judgment, Barrett believed the structure of the street alone did not necessarily set up a liability; however, he pointed out that, if so, the City was insured. Mayor Peterson asked if the City could provide the residents with a more permanent solution in the spring. Kellogg stated that, having met with Mrs. Nusbaum and the neighbor, he had explained that the cold mix solution will be a temporary fix until road restrictions are lifled. Until then, he noted that surveyors have gone out and are working on preliminary plans and then it will be a function of how to fund the project and get it done. On a different note, Sansevere mentioned that he was questioned by a Long Lake resident the other night on why Orono had insisted on a two lane rather than a four lane Highway 12. Sansevere told the resident that it was not Orono who had insisted on two lanes, and he urged the Council to correct this misconception being passed along on behalf of Long Lake. Murphy reminded the Council that the Navarre Fire Station Grand Opening was slated for Saturday, March 27,2004. PAGE 13 of 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Mur,'llsy mentioned that, he and McMillan, had attended their 3"* turnback meeting regarding Highway 12. He indicated that they will be proceeding with a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting to brainstorm what the given cities’ expectations are and how they envision the corridor to grow over the next 20 years. McMillan added that they had discussed certain visions and will address these expectations in the joint meeting slated for mid April. Mayor Peterson stated that she had met with Spring Park Council members and suggested they hold a joint City Council meeting with these neighbors in order to get to know each other better. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 13. KELLEY PARKWAY STATE AID ROUTE SYSTEM DESIGNATION - RESOLUTION NO. 5130 McMillan moved, White seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5130 for State Aid Route system changes to remove the .65 mile segment of Stubbs Bay Road north of Watertown Road from the State Aid Route system and to add the .50 mile segment of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive to the State Aid Route system. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *14. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT NO. 13 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Murphy moved. White seconded, 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. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. AWARD OF 2004 LIABILITY AND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE PACKAGE Murphy moved. White seconded, to Award the 2004 insurance package effective January 1, 2004 to the League of Minnesota 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. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 14 of 16 ■MlMliU i k MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 16. HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER -Addressed at the outset of the meeting. 17. HIRE FULL-TIME COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER- Addressed earlier. 18. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Moorse pointed out that there are four applicants who have ^plied for three positions and a potential alternate position. While all of the candidates proved themselves to be very capable and impressive, Murphy recommended applicants Kempf, Leslie, and Jergens, an applicant with experience as a surveyor. Mayor Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to appoint Ralph Kempf to the three Planning Commission term expiring March 31,2007. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to appoint Roland Jurgens to the three year Planning Commission term expiring March 31,2007. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Peterson moved. White seconded, to appoint Jim Leslie to the unexpired term expiring March 31,2006. V’OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to recommend Bill Peterson to the Planning Commission as an alternate. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. McMillan reminded the Council that the topic of Chairs for the Planning Commission also needs to be addressed in upcoming meetings. *19. TAX AND SPENDING LIMITS AND TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS LEGISLATION - RESOLUTION NO. 5131 Murphy moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5131 opposing tax and expenditure limitation proposals. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett informed the City Council that it is his responsibility to represent the City Council, only. He stated that it is his duty to report to the Council on pending litigation, and the absence of said reports is a good thing. PAGE 15 of 16 I. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 20. LICENSES RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1, Kevin Garnett 450 Orono Orchard Road 2. LuAnn and David Runkle 2684 Casco Point Road Murphy voiced his concern that the City would approve the kennel license for Mr. Garnett. He stated that it is unnerving at times to see 5-7 rottweillers and other dogs running the fence line. Mayor Peterson asked if the City had received any complaints that they were aware of. Although there was considerable concern early on, Moorse stated that he was unaware of additional complaints. Murphy moved, White seconded, to approve all licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *21. BILLS Mnrphy moved, White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono City ConncU Meeting of March 8, 2004 at 10:05 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor PAGE 16 of 16 msoim ► ^2587 <rtT7- 2765 Kelloy PkRiy " 1"-" —U ir. if <HQ? :^2974 1 > •TNMIIII „.j2976 I2988H yt 2986 2990 2962 J2928 MAY08/C0UNCXL REPORT envoi: "eHTINQ 2 2004 CityofOrooo CITY ATTORT^Y ’S report u UCENSES ICfloosl Ucenset Special Event Pennitt • 23 BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EV'ENTS 1004 Middle School Cafctena. Wtdnasday, 6 45 pm. 04A)S - P«k Co mmlwiiw M-y pa^ S«“*^ 04/ia - CoaacU ><««B»»7;00r^_ ^ SlV-ESSinfiSltKSJSi. i-.-*.' »r* 04/26 - Couacil Meecisti 7;00 pm SS; SiTo..,.- 05/24 - Council Meedag. 7 00 p m 05/31 - HOLIDAY. Obfer^eoce of Memonel Diy a CKNSA for council MEITINC set for MONDAY, MARCBJL ORWO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 1780 KELLEY FARKWAY.ORONO. MINNESOTA m AiMrilk tt«M « con«do«j u. b. routa. a*oa » M eoKiM by^m«io« by IM ”^Sc^tan*8»a»tlPulA Mano.«pi*n*e«*ora»A|Oi4.iMi»»er,.xl.bl.o«h. Public PiCkN • loctted on the counter oe« the ngn in ibect ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appcove^AfflCod presentation ^ 2. G4bfiel Jabbour > Dikota Rjul Comdor Update ***^^1^1 pi^ ^toestecd) Smitiry Sew Project Atsessmeci Hemag ^ /^^40p( AdCttoieot Roll Resoluhoo B. Aw«d Cooctnictiofi Conwet - RooluCon 4 OuSile Liquor LkeniePubUcHeinag A. Paul Ode at 3435 Shoreline Dnve (Nevirre Lenet) yr'A2rsss~,.iM»i. •. FAMC COMMISSION COMMENTS - PtuDfi* B*iich*rf. Rep™«iti»« PLAIOONC commission COMMENTS - Je«»» M*uiai. RqatMonBv. FDHUC COMME.NIS - (UiM« » «».«» f*t Pmoo) ** of Preliminary Plat Approval -Reeoluooii. 1 «L2«I Mich«»MiichkAl972ShMy*oodRoM-Vtt,^.R-oh«^ lobmt and Joan Swtti, 1740 ShadyvroodRoed-Vananoae-EoiolBlioe • 9 !i*!!!l!!^ r<aJ!^on€L«7Sl North Show 111 -U.J976 rrfp • ReaolutionRLnrtDr--opc-MCon...HwyU/WiUo-Onv.(Oud<HA.8to-My)- . n .oLMia n Sr Bo^o"-—C-p ~>*-fofSb-«iV«^ . ». 80..J9II 2r»?U-.M».MSF«kUi-.^-0.^ <- • HI REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; March 18,2oW ^ 2 }0m ITEMNO.: Department Approval: > Name Mike Gaffron w Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Title Planning Director Item Description:#2587 Richard Rudd & Kris Rudd, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard Preliminary Road Plat - Extend Effective Date of Preliminary Plat Approval Zoning:RR-1 A, One Family Rural Residential, 5 Acre Minimum lot size List of Exhibits: A Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 4479 Letter of request Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 4479 Extension resolution No. 4905 Staff Report and Exhibits of 6/5/00 B C D E Background: Townline Road was closed at Highway 12 in conjunction with the proposed intersection changes and signal planned for the Highway 12/Townline Road intersections. As partofthisproject several accesspointsto Highway 12 will be eliminated or changed. To be eliminated is the access on 12 cast of Townline Road that serves four Orono residences. This fiontage road will be built fiorn Townline Road to the east to serve these residents. MnDOT will fund the gravel base portion of the road. This road will go through the Rudd’s property. To receive MnDOT funding for the frontage road, Medina needed an exact locationo f the road and had to submit a request by September, 2000. The Rudd’s preliminary subdivision approval was granted by Orono in June 2000. However, they did not proceed with the final subdivision at that time. In Resolution #4479, condition 4, the one year requirement for final plat tqjproval was waived, extending the initial final plat deadline to December 31,2003. This date was based on MnDOT’s intent to let the project in the fall of 2002, and construction would be in 2003. The MnDOT timetable then changed to letting the project in the fall of 2003, with comtruction in 2004. Because of this the effective period of preliminary plk approval was extoided via City of Orono Resolution No. 4905 in December 2002. Due to additional changes in MnDOT’s scheduling and funding, the project is now scheduled to be let by June 30,2005 and the road constructed by June 30,2006. The applicants are requesting that the effective period of preliminary plat approval be fimher extended to July 31,2006 to match the updated schedule. Staff has no problem with this extension. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To adopt or amend the attached resolution, extending the effective period of final plat ^pro val to July 31, 2006. WHEREAS, on June 12,2000, the City Council of the City of Orono (the “City ”) adopted Resolution No. 4479 granting preliminary approval for platting of a section of public road easement located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard approval; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4479 required that Richard Rudd and Shane Rudd (the “Applicants”) submit the final plat for approval no later than December 31,2003; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT*) has delayed construction of an access road which will serve the Rudd’s property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants requested and were granted an extension of the effective period of preliminary plat approval to December 31,2004; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested an additional extension of the effective period of preliminary plat approval to July 31,2006 as a result of MnDOT ’s further postponement of the road project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota, as follows: 1 . The effective period of preliminary plat approval is hereby extended to July 31, 2006; and 2. All other terms and conditions of Resolution #4479 are hereby reaffirmed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page I of2 *^mili STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of March, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said institunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowIed 7,ed 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 Page 2 of2 02/27/2004 09:24 9524730371 ELITEAUTO PMC 01 •• 0 • F«bnuiy2^2i City of Ore PO Boot 66 CiyCilBay.MN SS323 Fax: (9S2) 249^16 Atti: Zooiog Adniaiilntor 93ti FHaFla. 2567->Extwiioa af FkaliMiaai^r Flat DaadUaa ToWhocBltMayCoiioero: gfi fimdinB and irhwiiiliiig I am rBnuoiiiM ttig <m>i plat appficitioD daadliiie fbr File No. 25t7(Reioltttioo4479)becacteiid0dfiomDecaribe 31,2004 to luty 31,2006. v.ivi»:Bt bu agreed to coiiribute flinda to the City of Medina fiir tUs project, prov^ thretheprojectbelatby Juno 30,2005 and the road constnicted by Aine 30,2006. On Fcbruay 17,2004, Madina City Council voted to accept MNDot'a fiuM^ and cottcod tiMir final ^ appGcalion deadline to July 2006. Pleaae adviae as to the next atop in ac your aiiiitaooe. ipliahing this change. Thank you in advaaoe fiv Kfk 601ParicLane Long Lake, MN SS3S6 (952) 473-2488/(612) 270-9749 S . 7-7-00 m GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL NO. A ^ A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY ROAD PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4575 WAYZATA BOULEVARD PID 30-118-23 31 0004 FILE NO. 2587 WHEREAS, Kris Rudd (hereinafter the "subdivider”) on behalf of Richard R Rudd, filed an application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") requesting preliminary platting of a section of public road easement located on property at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard. The property is legally described as follows: The West Half of the West Half of the Nordieast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the east 148.50 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest (Quarter all in Section 30, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesc* Statutes 164 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Plannir^ Commission held a public hearing on May 15,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on June 12,2000 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1.The property is located within the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiting a minimum lot size of five acres dry buildable land. 2. The property contains less than 10 acres of dry buildable land and 473.11 feet lot width. Page 1 of 6 +1 m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 44 ?9 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Subdivision of property in the RR-1A zoning district requires a minimum of 5 acres of dry buildable land and 300 feet of width along a public road. Subdivision of the property is not permitted based on the lot area and lot width requirements for the zoning district. Platting of the road would result in the lot remaining conforming for lot area and lot width. Orono, Medina, Mn/DOT, representatives of the Burlington Northern Railroad and adjacent property owners have been discussing providing access to several properties in Orono that cunently have direct access to Highway 12 over the Btirlington Northern railroad tracks. Access to the properties has been in place for many years and continued by a licence agreement between the railroad and the properties. The railroad has indicated that their long range goal is to eliminate this crossing for safety reasons. The road layout indicates a road that will serve a proposed subdivision to the north in Medina and provide access to the potentially landlocked properties in Orono. The Medina property is zoned for single family residential use at a 30,000 s.f. minimum lot size. The properties in Medina would be served with sewer and water which is available in Townline Road. No utilities will be extended to properties in Orono as the Comprehensive Plan has guided the properties for rural residential services. The properties Orono are q£21 within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA), and therefore are not allowed to be provided with sanitary sewer service. The proposed storm water management plan will include construction of a pond on the 4575 Wayzata Boulevard lot. A MCWD permit will be required for the grading, storm water management and erosion control on the site, including the iumre lots in Medina. It is the intent of the subdivider to not file an application for a final plat approval in Medina and/or Orono until 2003 due to funding availability from Mn/DOT. 10. Most of the proposed road is in Medina; therefore, it is appropriate to plat and develop the right-of-way to rtandards in Medina to maintain consistency. Medina Page 2 of 6 M CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ----4 4 7 9----- vdll require a 60' right-of-way ^ch is shown on the preliminaiy plan. The road width and size of cul-de-sac will also be developed to standards set by the City of Medina. The cul-de-sac shall be a n.inimuni paved width of 80' and a minimum right-of-way width of 100'. 11. Owners of property located at 4545 and 4301 Wayzata Boulevard require private easements to provide access from the road to the properties. They would access the proposed cul-de-sac via a private easement over the 4555 Wayzata Boulevard property. Access to the 4301 Wayzata Boulevard lot would require a legal easement over the property located at 4545 Wayzata Boulevard. 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 road plat application for Kris Rudd per the preliminary plat drawings by Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The storm water retention pond shall be developed to NURP standards and be protected by granting of a drainage and utility easement to ensure the area will not be developed, and drainageways are protected. The road shall be dedicated as a public road and developed to standards established by the City of Medina, subject to a Developers Agreemen to be executed between the City and the developer. Road construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road as well as stormwater management plans have been approved by the City, the Developers Agreement has been executed, and the final plat has been recorded with Hennepin Countj-. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MC WD has iqjproved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. The Council recognizes the applicants may not proceed with a final plat application in Medina until 2003. Tncrefore the Council agrees to waive the one year requirement for final app'oval, and agrees to extend the final plat application deadline to I)ecember 31,2003 . Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary application with the City. Page 3 of 6 r VT<*i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ 9 5. Prior to Final Plat approval, a final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Final Plat Submittals: 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 fourlr* Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the fonn of two (2) mylar copies < .me copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one /I) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: Road platted per preliminary survey by Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easement over the area of the NURP pond. The naming of plat and public road. Legal documents required: a.Title information addressed to the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, indicating ownership of the property. All owners, mortgage holders or others >^ith property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.Signed and executed Developer’s Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements, landscaping and construction of private road (Outlot A), stormwater and drainage facilities, etc. c.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Page 4 of 6 A *;^1 CITY of ORONO ^esBW RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 a 7 a 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee * $200.00 b.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of Jime, 2000. ATTEST: r^c<rU^/^’ ^ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk GabrieNabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of June, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour Sl Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, aMirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARY ANN JOHNSON NOTARYPUBUC-MINNESOTA 8 IArConmMonEipitw.aa.31,a0Q5 | Not^ Public ^ Page S of 6 I 144 so SJI 'S53 c:) uK s '3 T ^ .J s J-'J ^ • Li S-'J c:> ^4.4 N V r - s r ^ ^•J •% ^K. \-s ^ ii»« « f/r •/ ■« #/Jf MLt 9/4 •/ ant gm 9/4 0f 3^ JO Pagtt 6 of 6 <> i AiF I%i 1^'IKLt CITY of OROXO esHo; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. € 9 0 >!> ■ A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4479 FILE NO. 2587 WHEREAS, on June 12,2000, the City Council of the City of Orono (the “City”) adopted Resolution No. 4479 granting preliminary platting of a section of public road easement located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard approval; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4479 required that Richard Rudd and Shane Rudd (the “Applicants ”) submit final plat for approval no later than December 31,2003; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDot ”) has delayed construction of ap access road which will serve the Rudd's proper^; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested an additional year before having to submit the final plat as a result of MnDot's postponement of the road way project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The effective period of preliminary plat approval i» hereby extended to December 31,2004; and 2. All other terms and conditions of Resolution #4479 are hereby reaffirmed. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Miimesota at a regular meeting heM on the 9th day of December, 2002. ‘ ATTEST: LmM sVVcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of 2 n • s [■' r CITY of ORONO . t RESOLUTION OF T NO. _____n ITY COUNCIL05 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of December, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf cf the City. Notaa^^ildbbaaa! STATE OF MDiNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN aussaavwnternheimer NOTMtr » JBUC. MNNiSOTA Mr CamWn Eipiros Jai. 31. aon The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this Ilf day of Decemb^, 2002 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 2 of 2 Application Date: Completion Date: Deadline: 4/20/00 4/20/00 8/18/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 5,2000 ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:M2S87 Richard Rudd 4S7S Wayzata Boulevard Preliminary Road Plat inning:RR'I A, One Family Rural Residential, 5 Acre Minimum lot size Application: To plat the eastern portion of a public road to provide potential access to four lots in Oreno. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Resolution Property Owners Map Proposed Plan Notice of Planning Conunission Action Planning Commission Minutes (May IS, 2000) Planning Report Background: Orono, Medina, MNT50T, representatives of the Burlington Northern Railroad and adjacent property owners have been discussing providing access to several properties in Orono that currently have direct access to Highway 12 over the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Access to the properties has been in place for many years and continued by a licence agreement between the railroad and the properties. Please refer to Exhibit F indicating the location of the railroad crossing and potentially “landlocked’’ parcels. The railroad has indicated that their long range goal is to eliminate this crossing for safety reasons. It is also an objective ^or MNDOT to eliminate this hazardous direct driveway access to Highway 12. Representatives from all agencies involved and the property owners have considered several options to develop a permanent and safe access for properties that could potentially become landlocked in the future. A concept plan was reviewed by the Orono City Council on April 10,2000 that has proposed M a public road with access to Townline Road in Medina. This option would eliminate the access over the railroad to Highway 12. Greg Gappa has noted in his memo to the City Council, dated April 10, 2000 (attached to Planning Report), that MNDOT has offered to pay for the road construction and provide access to the properties that will lose access across the railroad provided that the Cities or projjerty owners provide the necessary right-of-way and easements. Also, please read the attached minutes from the Council meeting. This proposal would create the road segment in Orono to provide access to the properties. It appears the property owners to the east (Slaughter and Hickey) have existing easements in place over the Fraizer property to accommodate a shared driveway. Proposed Plan: The plan indicates a road that would serve a proposed subdivision in Medina and provide access to the potentially landlocked properties in Orono. The Medina property is zoned for single family residential use at a 30,000 s.f minimum lot size. The properties in Medina would be served with sewer and water which will be extended from Townline Road. No utilities will be extended to properties in Orono. The proposed road in Medina will be public and it is recommended by Staff the road in Orono will be public as well, primarily due to maintenance issues. Only the eastern 450' of the road will be in Orono. Surrounding Properties: The properties located in Medina are zoned for a minimum lot size of 30,000 s.f A proposal has been m^e by the applicant to have that subdivision completed this summer. The lots in Orono are all zoned for a 5 acre minimum lot size, and guided by the Comprehensive Plan for single family residential. With the exception of the Rudd property, no lots in Orono will be impacted for zoning purposes by the proposed road. The Rudd property would maintain a dry buildable area of approximately 7-8 acres. If the dry buildable area is less than 10 acres dry, the property would not be able to subdivide into two 5 acre lots. The total frontage along the proposed road is only about 500' which does not provide the total lot width required in the zoning district. New lots require a minimum lot width of 300' in the RR-1A distict. Road Standards: Because most of the proposed road is in Medina it is appropriate to create a right-of-way to standards in Medina to maintain consistency. Medina will require a 60' right-of-way which is shown on the preliminary plan. The road width and size of cul-de-sac will also be developed to standards <«t by the City of Medina. The cul-de-sac shall be a minimum paved width of 80' and a minimum right-of- way width of 100'. Ponding and Grading: The applicants are developing a ponding and grading plan for the road. This is an on-going project involving the platting of the land to the north in Medina. They have proposed aNURP pond south of the road, in Orono. The pond would collect ninoff from the new road and from the newly platted S! d area to the north. The ponding calculations and grading plan, when complete, shall be submitted to both cities for review and tq>proval prior to the final plan set being approved and recorded. Final Approval and Time Schedule: It is the intent of the applicant to have the preliminary platting completed for the lots in Medina this summer. However, filial platting and road construction will not be complete until about 2003 . The Rudds have stated MnDOT will pay for the road and engineering costs if it is constructed in 2003. The applicant has stated there are two primary reasons to not plat the road this year. The first is MnDOT would only reimburse for the materials, not engineering and other costs. Secondly, if the new lots in Medina are recorded the property owner may be subject to a higher tax obligation on six buildable lots rather than one that exists today. The applicant will be requesting the preliminary subdivision approval be granted automatic renewals through 2003 when they will complete the final plat. Burlington Northern Railroad has indicated to the City of Orono they would be willing to pay for completing a road plat across the property located in Medina. Please read the attached comments from Burlington Railroad. Prior to final plat the following additional information shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the City of Orono. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Fiiud grading and erosion control plan set Stormwater calculations for the drainage area that will drain towards the pond in Orono List of all easements that are recorded on the Rudd property Easement documentation indicating legal access to the Slaughter and Hickey properties over the Fraizer property Final construction plans for the road Final plat drawing for recording the right-of-way Applicant shall dedicate to the City an easement for the NURP pond. Planning Commission Recommendation: At their May 1S. 2000 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plans by a vote of S to 0. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat based on the resolution attached, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To adopt or amend the attached resolution. r.f I Date Application Received: 7-18-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7-18*03 60-Day Review Period Extension Received 1-21-04 to: 4-1-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 18.2004 ^ Item No.:1 Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Caffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 /2-acre min. 0.16 acre (6,915 s.f.) List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3-18-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 3-11-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests hardcover and setback variances to replace an existingl - stall garage with a new 2-stall detached garage; and hardcover and setback variances to construct a small deck on the lake side of the home. Applicant provided two site plan options for Planning Commission consideration, one for a side-load garage, the other end-load. For either option, lot .overage is proposed at 1490 s.f., just under the ISOO s.f. limit for this small lot. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission reviewed this on March 1 S, 2004. On a vote of S-2, Planning Commission voted to recommend Option A, the applicant’s preferred plan, with allowance for a 100 s. f. deck, with limitations, which results in a 0-75’ hardcover reduction fiom 31.5% to 26.3% and a 75-250' reduction from 69.5% to 57.3%. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission Please review the memo and exhibits of March 11 . The applicant has attempted to minimize hardcover on this extremely small lot while allowing construction of a minimum-size 2-stall garage and at least two parking stalls within the property boundaries. Three-fourths of the lot is within the 0-75' zone due to the channel, one lot to tlie north. The proposed garage will be 5' from the north lot line to maximize the open ^ace along the south side of the lot, as was recomiiiended by Planning Commission last summer when this application was first presented. The minority voters ^parently were more in favor of Plan B; the difference is that Plan B has slightly less overall hardcover, but also less off-street parking viability. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE .SECTIONS 78-350(B); 78-282; AND 78-1288 - FILE NO. 03-2928 WHEREAS, Michael Mischke, a single person, (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1972 ShadywoodRoad within the City ofOrono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: ^ . Lot 37, "Shadywood", Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-3S0(B); 78-282; and 78-1288 to allow construction of a detached garage and a first floor level deck on a lot ofO. 16 acres in area and SO* width where 0.5 acre*: in area and 100' width is required; to allow a building encroachment of the side yard and street yard, as well as building encroachment within the 75' lakeshore yard where no structure is normally allowed; and to allow hardcover in excess of the 0% hardcover normally allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore zone and in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore zone. NOW, THERE FORE BE IT RESOLVED bythe City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2928. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 0.5 acres (21,780 s.f.) and minimum lot width of 100'. The lot area is 0.16 acres (6,915 s.f) and defmed lot width is 50'. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on March 15, 2004 and on a vote of 5-2 recommended conditional tqiproval of the applicant’s “Plan A” based on the following findings and recommended conditions; a.A house has existed on the property for many years, and the prop«ty is served by m micipal sewer and water. Page I of5 4. 5. c. d. e. The existinghouse and proposed 400 s.f. garage will constitute 1490 s.f. oflol coverage bystructures, just under the 1500s f. lot coverage allotment for lots less than 10.000 s.f. in area. The configuration of tlie existinghouse and proposed side-loading garage will ininiinize hardcover wliilc still allowing for off-street vdticle paiicing in front of the garage. The side setback variance of 5' to the north lot line will allow fur adequate parking area and backup apron on tliis narrow lot while having no negative impact on neighboring properties. The street setback variance to allow astreet setback of 9.8' where a 1 O' setback is normally required will have no negative impacts on the neighborhood. A small first-fioor level deck of no greater than 100 s.f. should be allowed on the southeast lake side of the house to serve the two existing doorways at that comer. However, such deck, landings and steps to grade should be located so as to minimize the additional encroachment of hardcover aiid structure in the 0-75' setback zone. The small lot size and the proximity to Coffee Channel arc hardships in that approximately 3/4 of the area of this developed lot is within 75'of the shoreline. The 25% 75-250' hardcover allotment would allow only 438 s.f ofhardcoveron the site, w hich would not allow for the minimal existing house, garage, and driveways and sidew alks nec<*ssary to maintain a residence on the site without vanances. The City Council has considered this application, including the recommendations and findings of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the ^plicant and the public, and the effect of tlie 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 jqjplicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessar>' to preserve a substantial property right ofthe applicant; and would be in keeping w ith the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based n one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350(B), 78-282, and 78-1288 to allow constructionof a detached garage and a first floor level deck on a lot of 0.16 acres in area and 50' width where O.S acres in area and 100' width is required; to allow a side yard setback of S' where a 1 O' setback is normally required, and a street yard setback of 9.8' where a I O' setback is normally required, as well as building encroachment within the 75' lakcshore yard where no structure is nonnally allowed; and to allow hardcover in the 0-75' lakcshore zone of 1 357 s. f. or 26.3% where no hardcover is normally allowed; and to allow 1003 s.f. or 57.3% hardcover in the 75-250' zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and to allow the garage and deck structures within 75' of the shoreline where no structure is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions; I Council approval is based on site plan “A” submitted by the applicant and as 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 Plaiming Commission and City Council review. Only the hardcover areas noted as ^proved on Exhibit A shall be allowed. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 1357 s.f. or 26.3%and within the 75-250'zone shall not exceed 1003 s.f.. Applicant is advised that any future proposals for additional hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent hardcover removals to result in no net hardcover increase on the property. 3.Areas shown on the approved site plan listed as non-hardcover decorative landscape beds shall not henceforth be lined with plastic or fabric sheeting, nor by any other material that would make them imp>ervious to rainfall runoffinfiltration, and any such exiting materials shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the garage. 4.The deck on the lakeside of the house shall not be enclosed and shall not extend above the first floor level, except that a standard railing may be constructed for said deck. The deck shall not exceed 100 s.f. in footprint area, including the deck, landings and steps to the ground, and no part of said deck, landings or steps shall extend more than 4 feet lakcward of the east wtll of the existing house, but maybe configured in a shape of applicant’s choosing as long as it serves both existing doors near the southeast comer of the house. Page 3 of 5 -1. iL ► 5.Final garage plans shall be revised to incorporate a low-pitch roof system such that will be in con^liance with City requirements that the defined height of tl ie garage shall not exceed the defined height of the principal residence structure. 6.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtainingabuilding permit for die new construction within one year of thedateof CoiuKil approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 22,2005). 7.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall consdtui e a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the i^plicanf arid the tqrplicant ’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 this 22nd day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Ma'^or Property Owner Page 4 of S 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on thi s__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 Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_day of ^2004by Linda S. Vee, City Cleric of the City of Orono, a Minnesota mui:icipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cir;,'. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this Michael Mischke, a single person. dayof ^2004 by Notary Public Pages of5 I i i tt kt Li rr CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 ZONING FILE #03-2928 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION g Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: March 18, 2004 TO: Michael R. Mischke 1972 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: March IS. 2004 Planaing Commission recommended as follows: Motion: Recommend approval of Plan A as presented, subject to the following cond’tions: 1.Deck at southeast comer of house is approved for hardcover in the 0-75* zone, but may be no more than 100 s.f. in area including landings and steps, and no portion of deck, landing or steps may extend more than 4* lakeward fix>m the east wall of the house. 2. Appropriate conditions shall be included in the resolution regarding use of non- hardcover materials for walkways. VOTE: 5 FOR 2 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, March 22, 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 Commission. If you have questions, please call Plaiming Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Date Application Received: 7>18*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7>I8>03 60>0av Review Period Extension Received 1>2I>04 to: 4>l-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Mocrsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffion, Planning DircctoP^-Z/'^J^^ March 11, 2004 #03-2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road • Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min. 0.16 acre (6,915 s.f.) Application Summary: This item was tabled at your August 18,2003 meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to re-think his attached garage & second story addition project. He has provid^ two potential revis^ site plans for your consideration. His primary intent at this time is to remove the existing deteriorated detached garage and replace it with a larger detached garage; also to construct a small deck on the lake side of the home. The second story is not proposed with this application. Variances required include 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover, street setback, lake setback, and side setbacks. The magnitude and hardcover zone balance differs between the two options. For either option, lot coverage is proposed at 1490 s.f., just under the 1500 s.f limit for this small lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the setback variances for the detached garage in either of Plans A or B as presented. b) Approval ofhardcover variance for either Plan A or B, but not for the lO'x 10'deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-hardcover materials for walkways. List of Exhibits A - Proposed Plan A (applicants preferred) B - Proposed Plan B C - Updated Hardcover Calcs for Plans A & B D - Proposed Garage Plans & Elevations E - Notice of PC Action 8-26-03 F - PC Minutes 8-18-03 G - Memo & Exhibits of 8-11-03 Pertinent Code Sections 1.78-350: Area, height, lot width and yard requirements for the LR-IC District; The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Ysrd Lot Lot Front Side Rear Adjacent to Area Width Yard Yard Yard Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet Garage facing street: 30' street lot line setback. Side opening garage: 1 O' setback to street lot line. 2.78-282 & 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shoreland Distnet 0*75* zone: 0% allowed 75-250’ zone: 25% allowed <<03-2928 • 1972 ShadyM-ood March 11,2004 Page 2 Backgrouod In August 2003, Planning Commission advised the applicant that the project as presented was not acceptable, and suggested that applicant revise his plans. Great concern was expressed about adding a second story that will be so close to the house to the north. It was noted specifically that encroachment ofboth side setbacks was not reasonable, and applicant needs to keep one side open for access alongside the house. The proximity of the garage addition to the neighbors garage to the south was also a concern. There was some support for encroacliing the 0>7S' zone with garage in order to maintain an open south side. Applicant has considered a variety of options for expansion of the house itself and has given up for now on those additions. He has provided two options for a detached 20x20' 2-stall garage, and is requesting to be able to build a lO'xlO' deck on the lake side of the house, 42' from the lake at its closest point. Plan A is applicants preferred option. It places a detached side-loading garage 13' from the house, S' from the north lot line and 7' from the street lot line. It opens to the south, and leaves an area of about 20' x 25’ for on-site parking and maneuvering. Plan A results in 0-75' hardeover of 26.6% and 75-250' hardcover of 57.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2378 s.f. or 34.4% of the entire lot. Plan B is an alternate suggested by staff to reduce the hai dcover. It places the garage 1 O' from the house, 5' from the north lot line and 9.8' from the street lot line. It opens to the street, and leaves adepth of 10'- 1 8' in front of the garage for parking, and includes a 20'x 1 O' side apron for additional parking. This plan leaves the entire south 15* of the lot in yard area. Plan B results in 0-75' hardcover of31.3% and 75-250' hardcover of 3 8.3%. Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 228S s.f. or 33.0% of the entire lot Plan A provides a parking layout that would easily allow 2 large vehicles to be parked outside the garage without hanging into the street. Plan B would allow for complete on-site parking for one smaller vehicle and one larger vehicle. Visually, the plans result in very similar character. I believe the applicant is more likely to maintain an attractive pervious lawn with Plan B. In Plan A, the proposed grass area streetward of the garage could easily tend to become a storage or paiking area.. Strucniral Coverage . Stmctural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly 1490 s.f as allow ed by code. The result is that 21.5% of the lot will be covered by structure. Hardcover. Hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250' zones with either plan will be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The trade-offbetween plans is that the hardcover is greater in the 0-75' zone with Plan B, but its overall hardcover is 93 s.f less than Plan A. W ith the new proposals, the main entry to the residence will remain as the door at the S W comer of the house with the existing stoop. Applicant still proposes to add non-hardcover walkways and non-lined eos- i-J 2928 -1972 Shadywood March 11,2004 Page 3 landscape beds around the residence (see site plan). A condition of approval would be a stipulation that these remain as non-hardsurface areas, not paved and without fabric or plastic undcrlayment. Deck. Applicant requests approval foralO'x 10'main floordeck extending from the existing door at the lake side of the house. The deck will be 42' from the shoreline, and in itself will constitute approximately 2®/o hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Tltis deck is clearly for the convenience of the applicant, and staff does not see a hardship that supports it. REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f (0.5 acre)100' Actual 6,915 s.f. (0.16 acre)50' defined width 48' average functional width Hardcover Calculatloni: LR- 1C Required Proposed Plan A Proposed Plan B Lakeshore (East)75'106'103' Lakeshore (North)75'57'57' Rear (Street)A: 10' B: 30'T 9.8' Left Side 10'S'5' Right Side 10'ly 23' Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,915 s.f. (0.16 ac.)Allowed: 1500 s.f. Proposed: 1490 s.f (21.5%) Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Hardcover Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Plan A Plane 0-75*5165 s.f.Os.f (0 %) 1630 s.f (31.6%) 1375 s.f (26.6%) 1616 s.f (31.3%) 75-250'1750 s.f 438 s.f (25 %) 1216 s.f (69.5%) 1003 s f (57.3%) 669 s.f (38.2%) Totals 6915 s.f 438 s.f 2846 s.f 2378 s.f 2285 s.f 1 . I L #03-2928 • 1972 Shadywood March 11,2004 Page 4 Hardship Statement Applicant has provided abriefhardship statement in Exhibit A of die August 11,2003 memo, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the revisions to the application. Hardship Analysis (See iuformation in the 8-11-03 Packet) Issues for Consideration 1.Is the location of the new garage mostly in the 0-75* zone offset by the retention of open space along the south lot line? 2.Plan A meets tlie applicants goals of providing adequate on-site parking. Plan B more closely meets the City’s hardcover goals but parking functionality is decreased. Which of the two plans will Planning Commission support regarding the garage? 3.It should be noted that the plan reviewed last summer resulted in only 1952 s.f. total hardcover, 300-400 s. f. less than the cutrent proposals. The di fference is in the request for 100 s. f. of deck, and the additional sidewalks associated with the detached garage scenarios... 4.Is there any hardship demonstrated that supports the hardcover and setback variances to allow the proposed deck? 5.The proposed non-hardcover walkways and landscape areas need special consideration in terms of documenting their non-hardcover status for the future... 6. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore, relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, staff recommends as follows: a) ApprovalofthesetbackvariancesforthedetachedgarageineitherofPlansAorB as presented. The nature of the County Road right of way at this location reduces the concerns about a garage that backs out into the street. b) Approval of haracover variance for either Plan A or B, but not for the I O' x 1 O' deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-hardcover materials for walkways. : coiMrY^^wooD * ^ ^ «”*•«. ^ fmi A f ^■S-Q'£ k •* # / \ ' rl /f i / /^/^ yt \ \ — _ *•«-«. M«.. ®f“«D CPif; \ \AAT4 ......... “'•SS-WS4 3, ,7 •v•v \*• 17: o / r^r- 20: V J'--aj\ 1 ^I6«ACL. A HARDCOVER^LCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE X •A. House Len|ih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 9.6 X •X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ Unfih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X - X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B Widih ss 3 4»9 X too WldU) m m xlOO 500-1000' 003 SF.'t^tf'^ST 25/ T55 163d 5>4T ■91. S6 34<? m 51 Ar 2t..6Z SF. SF. SP. SF. „ yrmtvr€» S F.* SF-wo»o STfPS. SF. S F. ■ 3P aa £a SF SF. S7fP55 p . siof or hO'»sl S.F. A SF. B ejosrrM& SF.- »K>use SF. SF. S.F. PROBXPO S.F.- 6AeA6>£ S.F. S.Fv • EXISUM6 STt»- SF.- ATSH^/ig SF. S.F.-PW^^» WZi S F.-WW*. Vifii S.F. S.F. S.F. _ >6RA x/iTF S F- S.F. • A S.F. 3 W f /^icHAeu HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 0-75' X Ungih X X X B. Garige C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plutic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Unfih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B irriiBiifhrili 2SO-SOO' Width X lOO Width xlOO 500-1000’ ZOl S.F.-W0UJ£ S86 117 1714 M50 69.49 2^ f003 nsiQ-177 S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. SF. SF.- S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. ST.' //t ftftO S.F. A S.F. B % ST " HOw»SC SF. Cxis Tin ASTO o S.F.-A mO AbPAb S.F. S>____S,F.-S^f> SF-FAWWfO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-4.'*6iilANlTf S.F. -A S.F. B H T i 1 I - M\CMA£C All$CMW'r - ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ___ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plaslic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other 3.3 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Palio/Dcck X X X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B 75-250'2S0-S00' WidUi iZ.3 4s’T X 100 Width \ 0 xlCO 500-1000* S.F."N0>^3C 345’ i63d> 31.9^ 993 ^40 ISO loa su 3Lrt SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-6®*vfC0*»'Ar ST. S,F.-V snp«f S.F.-wioO $T£/*| S.F. S.F. S FrWcK AREA S.F. S.F. Of HCHAC S.F. A S.F. B V. „ c ^exisTrH6 S f *' HMTSE. SF. S.F. S.F. PfidPOicq s F.- eM^t, S.F. SF. SF. (• ( ii SF-IP^O S.F.- 5TtP5 S.F. S.F - EAiSTiAfi,STltt: Sf "AT SHtfjag. SF -A SF B H i ? .. • MidHAeL AliscwkC- B HARDCOVER CALCULATUHiVVORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 0-75' K Unfth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. LandKape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X K G. Other 7.S' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __________ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* K House _____________ Lenfih X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B QS-2S0^250-500* Widih s e m ■I X 100 Width X 100 500-1000* lg>7 S F. e>B6 117 nso ’L07 nso 38. Zi SF. SF. SF SF SF SF.' SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. - PAD SF. A S.F. B % -P Ex»5T(H6i H E)l»ST(H4rSTO<l S.F.'amoaX:. Ado S.F. 3 p -.p«»p. S.P. • “ p noe^Muc S.F. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S F. A SF. B b'l PtAM (\ lun i 2[)fi V J 'A- . ' ’4 <. • ' ';■ ; t:S^ '-i'»..' /A «« 2. r V I c ’• u 0 0 r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING nLE #03-2928 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; August 26, 2003 TO: Michael R. Mischke 1972 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion to table, to allow applicant to submit revised plans, with the following gwdelines: 1. Have the foundation inspected to confirm that it will support a second story addition. 2. Maintain setback of 10* to north lot line with second story addition. 3. Try to maintain 10' setback from south lot line from garage; issue of keeping gvage outside of 75' setback is apparently not as critical as earlier assumed... 4.Propose minimal hardsurface walkways in appropriate locations so that they can be approved now with iq)propriate conditions and limitations. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, September 15, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Please submit revised plans at least 10 days prior to the September meeting to allow adequate time for review. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. 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 July 18, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on September 16, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the September 15 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to November 15, 2003. i _ . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#5 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, CoDtiaued) \ entryway at thclSont door. The variances include: 1. Average setbwk encroachment by decks and screen porch. 2. While hardcoveris not increasing with this proposal, it is noted that the 75-250' zone remains out of compliance with the 1995 hardcover approvals for this property. Applicant proposes to remot^^o areas of existing concrete - an tpron behind the garage, and an unused walkway/apron n^een the front porch and the driveway. Gaffron reported that staff s recommendation would be to approve the enclosure of the crrA^n nnmVi tiAr nion 1 .1^..!. __ _ _ _... .1_screen porch per the revised plan over^'^portion of existing 1** story deck, approve the extension of roof to cover the portion ofthe front porch per the revised plan, and that, in addition to the 225 s.f. of hardcover remov!^ proposed, that an additional 103 s.f. of hardcover be removed to reduce the site toliie 4,910 s.f limit ofthe 1995 approval. Chair Smith questioned how much driveway removals could take place before affecting access and safety. - ' v Gaffron believed that a 1 t2’ driveway removal would b^ inconsequential, noting that the removals should have been done by the previous owner. r ^ Nagel asked the Commission to table the application once agaimto allow her to meet with the architect who has brought up some additional issues with the mofline. There ^ere no public comments. / Hjiwn moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application #03-2905, Heidi Nag^^995 ^Wildhurst Trail, at the request of the applicant for the purpose of redesig^VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS iS4ir««i iwira (#9) #03-2928 I^nCHAEL R. MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:01 - 7:24 P.M. Michael Mischke, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant requests a number of variances to construct an attached garage and second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75' setback zone, 46’ from shoreline. 3. Second story addition encroaching 2.9 feet from left side lot line. 4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line. 5. Two story garage structure encroaching 12.5 feet from street lot line. PAGE 10 of 30 nMOiiMnAaMiiMitiyiaitiltiiifilttit mm i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (H9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued) 6. Hardcover in 0-75' reductions proposed from 1630 s.f.(31.6%) to 1000 sf (19.4%) where no hardcover is allowed, by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas, 7. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 1216 sf (69.5%) to 952 sf (54.4%). Additional factors: • Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s.f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f. allowed). - Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5’ away from this residence (separation between fireplace chases is 1.7'). Gaffron explained that the property is the second lot south of Coffee Channel, and is subject to 75' setbacks from two sides. He noted that the applicant proposes to remove the existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely within the side 0-75' zone, and add a new 2-stall attached garage, plus add a second story over the existing house and new garage. Gaffron pointed out that the property is very small, and impacted not only by its proximity to the lake, but by the proximity of neighboring structures. The house to ^e north is only l'-2' from the side lot line, and the existing separation between the applicant’s house and the neighboring house is 4'-5' (their chimneys are only 1.7' apart). Gaffron pointed out that the stmctural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly 1500 s.f as allowed by code. The result is that 22% of the lot will be covered by structure. In addition, hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250' zones is proposed to be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The detached garage moves out of the 0-75' zone, but is replaced with a larger garage in the 75-250’ zone. This results in less open parking area on the property, but still yields a parking area on the lot with depth from 12' to 21', allowing for one larger vehicle and one subcompact car in the driveway. Gaffron pointed out that the main entry to the residence would be the door on the lake side, with a secondary access through the garage. Applicant proposes to add non-hardcover walkways and non-lined landscape beds around the residence. He added that the garage addition is the smallest functional footprint (20'x20') and is located so as to be out of the 0- 75' zone, which places it 6.9' from the south lot line. This also forces the garage to be nearer the street than the required 30' setback, but as a trade-off it minimizes hardcover. The street right-of-way at this location is a widening of County Road 19 due to the bridge, and the street area in front of the lot acts as a shared driveway. Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore, relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, Gaffron stat^ that staff recommends the following: Approval of the right side and street setback variances for the garage addition. PAGE 11 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL It MISCHKE, Continued) b) Conditional approval of the left side setback and lakeshore setback for the second story house additions - the second story should be setback 8-9' from the lot line to maintain a 10* separation between the two homes (i.e. only a 1-2’ encroachment of side yard); however, requiring a full 10’ side setback would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... - applicant to confimi the structural ability of the existing foundation to support a second story, and address the degree of removals intended to allow a determination that this will not become a total rebuild. c) Approval of hardcover proposal, with appropriate conditions placed on use of non hardcover materials for walkways. Given the difficult parking siniation along Shadywood, Chair Smith inquired whether the parking design of the application might accentuate the problem. Gaflfron reiterated that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near the bridge, which acts as a shared driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking problems. Chair Smith asked what future 'maintenance and openness issues’ might arise. If the home were situated just 2’ from the lot line, Gaffron indicated that it would be difficult to maintain the home, or even erect a ladder that would not sit on the neighbor ’s property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for repairs as well. Rahn stated that, personally, he would like to see a 10’ side setback maintained and a longer driveway. He believed it would be more acceptable to allow an encroachment into the 0-75 ’ setback a little bit in exchange for a 10’ side setback. In addition, he suggested the garage be slid back into the home and that the second story be stepped back on the other side so no further massing of the encroachment occurs. Mischke stated that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage. Hawn asked whether the foundation had been evaluated to see if it could support a second story. She asked why the applicant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. Mischke stated that he had plans to have the foundation examined; however, felt he could not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick fa9ade currently in place. PAGE 12 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. {#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued) Hawn pointed out that the ^plicant would be gaining only half &e second story size he desired if it were stepped back and slid into the garage. Mischke indicated that he would need to determine how the 10’ requirement the Planning Commission was recommending would impact the design of the home. Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application for redesign purposes. Mischke asked if the Commission could approve a portion of the design in order to allow him to proceed with the garage addition. Gaf&on felt this would be difficult given die proposed second story above the garage, since the Planning Commission had not yet determined their comfort level with the entire property. Mischke asked for further direction. Chair Smith stated that she would be comfortable with the staff recommendation. In addition, Rahn asked the applicant to include a 10’ setback from the garage and no further encroachment on the other side. Hawn recommended that the applicant have the foundation evaluated to ensure it could support a second story before proceeding. Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road, felt that, aesthetically, the design would be a nice change. Mischke stated that he also had a signed letter of support from the neighbor on the chaimel. Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application #03-2928, Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road, for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mischke asked if other Commissioners, as well as Rahn, were opposed to leaving the garage where proposed. Hawn and Chair Smith indicated that they were not against it. While he empathized with the applicant, Rahn stated that he was against it from the standpoint that there should be access to the lakeside from at least one side of the home for maintenance, as well as, safety reasons. PAGE 13 of 30 I J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. iH9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Continued) Chair Smith stated that she could support encroaching further into the driveway area to obtain a greater side yard setback. Hawn stated that she was opposed to a rock walkway to the front door, since as Fhtzler has pointed out on many occasions, the walkway is often resurfaced after the first year. Mischke asked what the Commission would suggest instead of rock. Gaf&on suggested the applicant reconsider where the main entry should be placed. Hawn indicated that she would be receptive to or prefer allowing a wooden slat walkway, in lieu of the rocks, as a better way to access the front door. Fritzler indicated that he agreed with Rahn’s earlier reservations. (#10) #03^930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF>RlCHAIU> AND D£LORES%ITTLE, 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE,^4 - 7:38 P.M. Jeff Ripley, Appli^nt’s representative, and the Applicant, Mr. L^e, were present. Foth indicated that the ^plicant requests a hardcover variance in order to construct a 22*x 25’ garage over existing dnV^ay hardcover. The varia^includes: 1. Hardcover variances fob(hc 0-75’ and 75’-250^nes. Hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone is currently at 60.5753 s.f.) and ipf^e 0-75’ zone is at 4.91% (378 s.f). The nature of the hardcover iVq|ianging i^oth zones resulting in a full hardcover review. Foth explained that, in 1986, under previqjis ownership, variances were granted for construction of a 2"'* story deck and stai^ay cont^Ffsing 0.16% hardcover within the 0-75 zone where no hardcover is allowed ^nd 37.6% h^deb^r within the 75’-250’ zone where 25% is normally allowed. A 3’ strjictural encroachmennum the 0-75’ zone where no structure is allowed was also approved. The i al hardcove^qpounts approved were 0.16% in the 0-75’ zone and T7;6% in the 75’-250’ zone. In 1995 under the previou/owners, variances were granted to penmbconstruction of a two- story addition constitut^ additional hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone in^cess of the 25% normally allowed. As4 condition of this hardcover variance approval inh\e 0-75’ zone was limited to 0.2%^d the 75’-250’ zone was limited to 5,777 s.f. (31.7%)N^though the additional shared^veway within the 75’-250’ zone was not figured into the m^cover within that zont, Foth stated that for staff purposes it was now included. Therefor^per Resolutio^WlO (5,777 s.f. + 1,518 s.f. for additional driveway) 7,295 s.f. total PAGE 14 of 30 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 2004 Date: March 17,2004 Item No ^ V Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach)^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2962, Robert & Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road, Variances — 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 - Resolution per City Council Action of 3-8-04 B - Council Action Notice 3-10-04 C - Minutes from the 3-8-04 City Council Meeting D - Council Memo of 3-5-04 Application Summary: 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. 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. of hardcover from the 0-75’ zone) This application was last brought before Council on March 8,2004. With a 3-2 vote, approval was granted for the requested variances, however staff was instmeted to re-draft the original approval resolution to incorporate the special circumstances which the majority of the Council believe exist and which support the approval. Attached is that approval resolution for final adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Per ^lirection at the March 8,2004 Council meeting, adopt the attached Resolution granting lot area 5U ^ hardcover variances for 1740 Shadywood Road. 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 2ioning 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 in the 75’-250’ zone is proposed when 25% is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2962. The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which requires minimum lot sizes of 0.50 acres. The applicants’ lot is 0.47 acres in size. 3.The Plaiming Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on November 17, 2003 and January 20, 2004 with City Council review on February 9, 2004 and March 8, 2004 at which time approval was granted for lot area and hardcover variances on a vote of 3-2 based on the following fmdings: Page I of 7 4. 5. a. The lot is sub-standard in area at 0.47 acres when 0.50 acres is normally required. b. The lot as it exists is more shallow than deep. An optimum shaped lot of the same acreage would be allowed 3609 s.f of hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone, which amounts to 32% for the applicants ’ lot. c. Due to the lot's frontage on Shadywood Road, additional drive-way is required for the purpose of safe egress and parking. d. Due to the shape of the lot, nearly half of the lot is in the 0-75’ zone. Therefore, because the house is near the 15% lot coverage limit the resulting structure itself accounts for more than 25% of the 75’-250’ zone. e. An extra-ordinary amount of hardcover is being removed from the 0- 75’ zone amounting to 2050 s.f or 22.3% of that zone. 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 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 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 fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby ^ants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B), 78-282, and 78 1288 to allow construction of a new residence, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of? J r 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 ftuther Planning Commission and City Council review. 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. Applicants are advised that any future requests to increase liardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reductions in existing hardcover. Applicants 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 Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (March 22,2005). 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, 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 22"** day of March, 2004. Page 3 of 7 1 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 Otono. 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 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 5 of? r n State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instnunent was acknowledged before me this by Thomas B. Swanson, husband of Manl)m L. Swanson. day of .2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Marilyn L. Swanson, wife of Thomas B. Swanson. Notary Public Page 6 of7 day of .2004 1 State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument 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 Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Josephine L. Switz, wife of Robert E. Switz. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 7 of7 EXISTING HOUSE }\ \ 1 S 89 ‘5r 48" E 165.95 ! /V I ' U ___^ r ~ ^ •-^ *■ —- jo ^ j-j> T V ^ « \ 73* '■ EXIST HOUSE - 2665 Sf STEPS > 140 SF WALK « as SF DRIVE - 1200 SF LANOSC. - 3J5 SF \'i\ SCALE IN FEET m EXISTWC SPOT aeVATION. X(99&0)> PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION - ORECTKM SURFACE ORANAGE i'\ % 1 \ 266 CONC Wt WHI ^ i?U«LUs^-=>==-5r[;A lott g ”y*.lKgyLHpg ^r.-.vro,r.P'- m\mx> HARDCOVER 11424 SF X 25X ■ 2830 5> HC ALLWO mNt TOT^'- 4428 SF 0BBX)r(M.2»L0f)i}HMtf EAST 125.46 0-75 - 9200 SF 4 . . E>“ST ' FXiSTAlT. house■nOOST^ 3040 SF (14 8* LOT) HOOSt • 430 SF gnnp twfj VSfS* “ Si S " VS, E *MAWOUtt - »M-SF C - 1000 SF LANCSC. - 580 SF TOTAL - 2050 SF (22 3X) LOTS 14 ft 15. SHADYWOOO. HENN. CO. MN.i 20600 ST 0.47 AC PC § 17-117-23-21'0020 AOORESS a 1740 SHADYWOOO ROAD 1 l§ 8? — 04 ! Mi I yt o(MJ5*1fiC5F L CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2962 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 10,2004 TO: Robert and Joanne Switz 5930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 COPIES: T\TPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: March 8,2004 VOTE: 3 FOR 2 AGAINST Motion: To qiprove the lot area and hardcover variances as requested An approval resolution will be drafted for adoption at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for March 22,2004. A copy of that resolution will be mailed to you prior to the meeting date. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and {q>proval by the City Council. iiAiIttili MiNUi£dcir liuc ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. the OHVV'L, and a aide setback variance, in order to reconstruct their deck no closer to the side yard than the existing deck (2.5’ where 10 ’ is required). VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. M3.2962 ROBERT AND JOAN SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. Gundlach reported that the applicants had requested a lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is .47 acres in size when .50 acres is required and a 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. of hardcover from the 0-75* zone). Gundlach explained that this application was heard at the Council meeting of Febmary 9, 2004, during which the i^)plicants were directed to further reduce hardcover to 33%, or an additional 800 s.f.. The applicants have chosen not to reduce hardcover any further than 38.6% and request approval of the plan presented at the Feb. 9"* meeting. Mayor Peterson indicated that the revisited the property since February O"* and watched the traffic flow along County Road 19. After this examination, she felt there was legitimate hardship to justify and support the applicants request to warrant the 38.6% hardcover presented in their proposal to allow for adequate driveway and turn around apron. Sansevere questioned whether there was quantiflable hardship to justify the hardcover request. Gaffron explained that, within the paA five years, the City Council has said that total rebuilds must meet a higher standard than remodels. Rebuilds have been consistently held to 25% hardcover, or close to it, which has caused many applicants to significantly change their plans to meet this requirement. Gaffron noted that the hardcover variance, in this application, is related to the size of the home and driveway required to safely access the busy road. In recent years, he pointed out that the Plaiming Commission has attempted to quantify hardship based on limits imposed by the shape of a lot. Having taken the lot shape and location into consideration, staff still believes 33% hardcover is appropriate for this situation. He maintained that by varying from this position, the City Council would be inconsistent with what it has ruled in the past and could be setting precedent PAGE 5 of 23 •'A- f 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7.00 o’clock p.m. without adequate support, which in turn makes it impossible for staff to advise applicants in terms of variance requests. Mayor Peterson pointed out that the home meets the 15% structural coverage limitation as proposed. She believed the Planning Commission was appropriate in voting 6/0 that this was a reasonable request which allowed for sensible driveway and back up space. Gaffron reminded the Council that 15% is a limit, not a right, which in certain situations they should consider further reducing to 12*13% if necessary to meet hardcover requirements. On the other hand, Gaifiron suggested the City consider looking at making code changes based on how big a driveway is necessary in order to support homes on certain roads to be consistent Mayor Peterson stated that the City Council is generally pretty consistent White pointed out that, in this specific application, the lake proves to be the hardship. He indicated that the whole house must fit within this zone, which in^iacts the hardcover. White maintained that if the City does not consider this request, the poor situation which emsts currently will continue indefinitely. He agreed that the road also imposes safety restrictions and warrants additional hardcover. McMillan was cogniant of Gaffiron's statements and agreed that the City must adhere as closely to the code as possible when it comes to rebuilds. She found it difficult to justify 38% hardcover when staff had built in a hardcover credit to the driveway within their recommendation. McMillan reminded the Council that die City needs to adhere to the limitations put into place as it continues to redevelop. Murphy pointed out dial ihe difference between 33% and 38% is merely 800 s.f. Having examined the exhibits and the site, he found it difficult to determine what could be removed from the home or driveway to bring the hardcover to within 33%. Gundlach stated that more would have to be removed from a limited patio or driveway, since the applicants had maxed the house. PAGE 6 of 23 \ \ i f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Mr. Switz stated that the reality is that the precedent is already out there. He maintained that this is a unique property and that their proposed improvements will be significant, not only reducing the structural coverage to \S%, but also removing virtually all structure within the 0*7S‘ zone. He pointed out that they have attempted to work with staff to get a minimal driveway and apron, while maintaining ample space for die home. Switz indicated that hardships exist, as admitted by stafC and accepted by the Planning Commission 6/0 to warrant the amount of hardcover proposed in this application. He pointed out that the Planning Commission fought thru many of these same issues faced by the City Council and cam to their unanimous conclusion that this was reasonable. If the home was moved closer to the road to reduce the amount of driveway hardcover this would not make a better situation eidier. Switz maintained diat the City should take the magnitude of the proposed improvements into consideration along with all of the other factors, since die home will be in conformancy to all but the hardcover condition. He believed that this would be the most consistent conclusion the City could reach, given the odier trade-offs, especially since it is the preservation and protection of the lake which takes precedence to all else. Murphy questioned whedier die property would indeed be improving the 0-75’ zone situation significantly. Gundlach stated that a significant portion of the current home and deck falls within the 0-75’ zone. Murphy maintained that, since die applicants would be clearing out over 2,000 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, and that the variance request generally is impacting the driveway on the street side, he would side with White and Mayor Peterson. Murphy stated that based on the shape of the lot, and the fact that his biggest concern involves the lakeside, he would not wish to cause any safety problems on the streetside by imposing further limitations. Sansevere pointed out that, by Code, applicants do not get ’bonus points’ for removals within the 0-75’ setback zone. While he wished to give the applicants some leeway to sec this proposal to fruition, he asked if the City had a legal obligation to the contrary. Mrs. Switz indicated that during their first visits to the Planning Commission, diey were told by staff and the Commission that if they could get the structural cover down to 15%, they would be PAGE 7 of 23 MlNUTHSOKlMb ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. given adequate driveway. Gaf&on sated that the best that staff ever offers applicants is to present 15% structural cover and ask for a minimal driveway to accommodate it. He encouraged the Council to consider recommending new standards for driveway and parking, when safety is a key factor, as well as, the magnitude of removals in die 0*75’. Mayor Peterson disagreed with Sansevere that the City would be, in essence, granting ’bonus points’ for removals. She stated that she had based her recommendation on safety and the fact that this will be a far better situation dian what is there currently. She urged staff to craft a resolution that would not be seen as precedent setting and one that hits on the Council’s key points in this case. Sansevere asked if the resolution could be crafted to justify a hardship. Gaffron maintained that, once quantified, staff could support 15% structural cover and safe driveway access, however, he questioned whctiier the City might be opening itself up to people returning from past applications to ask for more. McMillan suggested that die City give consideration to increasing hardcover from 25% to 30%, if the reality is diat the City is continually bombarded by hardcover variance requests. Oaffron noted that if the City wishes to give credence to removals within the 0-75’ zone, their may be justification for upping the coverage within the 75-250* zone. Murphy acknowledged that, in this case, the applicants can’t be expected to safely back out onto County Road 19. Mayor Peterson moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. granting a lot area and hardcover variance for 1740 Shadywood Road per the Planning Commissioa rccommendatioii, revising the resolution to reflect the concepts of discussion amongst the Council this evening. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Sansevere and McMillan dissenting. PAGE 8 of 23 \ ------------- Date Application Received: 10-22-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10-22<o3 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 12-21-03 extended to 2-19-04 extended to 4-12-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 5,2004 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach]}:^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: i/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 AppUcation Summary: 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. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 7S-2S0 ’ zone when 38.8% cunently 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 approval 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 acres in size when O.SO 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 tecoimnendation 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 conformance. 3. Does the shape of the lot and the hardship demonstrated justify the magnitude of variance that was recommeiuled for approval? 4. Should the magnitude of hardcover variance be closer to 3,609 s.f or 32% as discussed in the Plaiming 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 Plaiming 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 ■ •I ■ i I Date Application Received: 12*17-03 Date Application Coniidered ai Complete: 12*17-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 2-15-04 extended to 4-15-04 request for council action Date: March 17,2004 Item No.: Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach,^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2973, Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit - Denial 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 List of Exhibits A - Denial Resolution B - Council Action Notice of 3-17-04 C - Minutes from 3-8-04 City Council Meeting D - Council Memo dated 3-5-04 E - Revised Retaining Wall Plan Application Sunmary: Applicant requests the following in conjunction with a previously approved project: 1. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5’ of the property line. Planning Commbsion Recommendation The Planning Commission instructed the applicant to work with staff on a plan which incorporates the comments contained in the memo from Ae City Engineer dated 1-13-04 for approval by the City Council. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request and approve the attached denial resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution denying the request for a conditional use permit for 4753 North Shore Drive. V,I A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-967 (B) (3) FILE #04-2973 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulation for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Minnetonka Custom Homes (hereinafter “the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter “the City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 6, BERQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, Hennepin county, Minnesota and that part of Lake Street as dedicated in BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, Hennepin County, which lies between the southerly extension of the east and west lines of Lot 4, Block 6, said BERQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK (hereinafter “the property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to permit a retaining wall and grading within 5 feet of a property boundary, requesting the following approvals: 1.Section 78-96*’ (B) (3): To allow a retaining wall and grading within 5 feet of the western property boundary. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation of the City staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: Page 1 of 2 1.The drainage can be contained on the western boundary of the property with the retaining walls being constructed at S foot setback. 2.The side entrance can be constructed safely, and within the Universal Building Code standards, with the retaining wall being constructed at S foot setback from the western property boundary. 3.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Conunission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4.As a result of the denial of the conditional use permit, the retaining wails shall be constructed in accordance with the plan attached as Exhibit B to the Council Memo dated March 5,2004. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 22"^ day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22"*^ day of March, 2004, by Barbara Peterson & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 IL CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: #04-2973 2750 Kelky Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: March 17,2004 TO: Minnetonka Custom Homes, Inc. COPIES: Steve Sexton 2950 Island View Drive Mound, MN SS364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: ........................................................................ DATE OF MEETING: March 8,2004 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To deny the request for a conditional use permit to allow the proposed, new retaining wall system on the west side of the home to be located 4 feet from the property line when 5 feet is required by Ordinance. The Council ^proves the plan of the new wall system, which is attached to this notice for your reference. A temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued without a legal agreement drawn up by your attorney and submitted to the City, which ensures that the new plan will be implemented and that the buyers are aware of the situatioa. A timeline for completion of the retaining wall corrections, an escrow for the estimated coats of the corrections, and permission to enter the premises to complete the corrections if you do not, should be included in the agreement. The City expects that the agreement be signed by you and the buyers. The City Council will approve a resolution for denial at the next regularly scheduled meeting which is tentatively scheduled at March 22, 2004. Your attendance is not required. If you desire certified copies of die official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. uaanyi /. MIN U1 Ul* THIS • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 10. #04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. Oundlach suted that the ^>plicant requests the following in conjunction with a previously approved project: A conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be corutructed within S’ of the property line. She explained that the City Engineer visited die site with the City Building Inspector and made specific recommendations which were incorporated as part of a Planning Commission recommendation; however, the applicant’s are still requesting a conditional use permit to allow the retaining walls to remain within S’ of the property line. Oundlach indicated that staff would recommend denial of the consistent with City Building Inspector Bruce Vang’s comments to allow a 4' setback for a retaining wall when S' is normally required. Murphy questioned whether allowing the extra foot for the aide entrance was a matter of safety. 3ob Piper and Steve Sexton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, indicated that they placed the safety railing inside the block retaining wall. Gaffron pointed out that the original plans the Planning Commission saw showed the entrance facing the street and not a side entrance. McMillan pointed out that there is a drainage problem that needs to be addressed and that is why the Engineer had suggested a S’ separation and construction of a drainage swale instead of retaining walls. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to deny the conditional use permit request to allow a retaining wall widrin S’ of the property boundary as the plans can be revised to eliminate approval of die conditional use permit, and direct staff to draft a denial resolution for the next regularly scheduled PAGE 11 of 23 ivAAi^ u 1 CO ur 1 nc ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. *^^^2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM R C^^mONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. Gaffron that the C explore ways tMjow die lot allow retention of mH^hen, staffs opinion that the^jeta • •• Gaffiron offered three options for c 1} Approve the plumbing in any other kitchen fiuilities, require s 2) Approve the plunibing in accessc facilities, and allow the kitchen sink to > i Gaffron ex9Btf d that the Council tabled this item on February 9, 2004 ajj^^frected staff to explore ways tdVj^ the kitchen to remain. Gaffron stated that the priiiu|flnsue of whedier to allow retention of msitchen, or even just the sink, will be allowed. H^^Rtained diat it has been staffs opinion that the^j^ee of the Idtchen is what functionidU^Perentiates a ‘guest house’ from an 'accessory buildn^fddi plumbing ’, and is what giyg^le guest house the ability to function as a dwelling. removing its supportive plumbing, reau Standard cl nant execution. 3) Table the application V^the Planning Gl ussion to make a recommendation regarding a potential code ame nt and clarification diafM dd clearly establish CUP standards for various levels of use, ba^ e applicants’ intended levc Bf use rather than on die extent of facilities provided. and require removal of kitchen sink and execution. ng CUP and require removal of all kitchen ly u a basin, not as a source of water, by Ga^on leminded tfafllouncil that the Code does little to distinguish be versus the perma^Rcaretaker facility. He noted that the differentiation or total use as^Phile distinguishing guest houses. MurphvM^sd how much tune and effort had been devoted to this particular issue. in pointed out that the Planning Commission has discussed this issue over the past 2- found reasonable use would be to allow plumbing for a baduoom for cleaning up, but not' ’residence. the occasional guest between minimal PAGE 12 of 23 !1 f N Date Applicatioa 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 Date: March 5,2004 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlachy^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2973, Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 2^ning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre minimum) 0.173 acres (7,550 s.f.) 50 feet List of Exhibits A - Memo dated 3-5-04 from Building Inspector Bruce Vang B - Revised Plan C - PC Action Notice 1-22-04 D - PC Memo and Exhibits of 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 constructed within 5’ of the property line. Planning Commission Recommendation This request was heard before the Planning Commission at their January 20,2004 meeting. The applicants were requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance and also a conditional use permit to allow retaining walls and fill xvithin 5 feet of the property line. The City Engineer visited the site with City Building Inspector Bruce 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 which 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 applicant ’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 r wall at a 4 fi)ot setback. City Building Inspector Bruce Vang has drafted a memo regarding this request and it is attached as Exhibit B. If ^e wall were moved to meet a S foot setback no planning actions would be required, however, the applicant feels the extra foot is needed to accommodate the side entry. Staff RccomueDdatioD 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 th^ 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 .'etaining 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. COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 f 990.9 M 993.2 K EXISTING HAtlOCO M $P2.0 — Concfflie Decking Shoreline Preservalh Surface (SLPA) 99>.2x N U7^:yy^ E ----- 99J.0**[ 49.70 proposed 985.3 X Total Hardcovor Total A/eo Percent of Coverogt B L^ DPl^t l^W -f88.6 M . (993) I /* I uTA^ *. «s EXISTING HARDCOVER 966.3 n ? 'pROPOSL BuHdings Orfye/Walk/Oock Wals Total Hordco¥ar Total Area Percent of Coverage - M MfOCMt HOU99 "/ HOUSPy PROPOSO) HAROCOYl 98t.4 X 9/9.2ix^^fr Decking Shoreline Preeervatior Surface (SLPA) %••• M 978,0. i^ymlP2i p o t I • (C8tP)FNr-'/^p(|<out iMTre«.S •8rp) „ , , f.n«. 977.2 X 976.9 x....|---------------- - -• iL — 'I__ J^Si riommo Total Hardcover Total Area Percent of Coverogt PROPOSED HAROCOVE 0 • e X mtU.. U/Ax-l. 1 — nS!.'^*tbock One __ -SH9A_go,^tlur . - A-------— .. - ...- \ o 9 y (CAP) ____ X 978.5 —----S74•rr^- 1 9^a Buildings Drive,fWalk Walls J Total Hardcover foiai Area Percent of Coverage J___LOT-----—4 • -1-?^^. ut CITY OF ORONO JJL SITE PLAN ^ 6RADII -----------50.11 ------- 938.0 Xl _»xvv_Ufli. __^ ----- •i—• ••• —• •• §•• — w 946.3 xl —1*4 □ APPROVED WITH REVISlOh □ DISAW BY nATP^ ^'/o c>*> N-'09*20 ‘J6” tr~~-----I-'-—f*t /• . ..- " 937.7 X — - -— 1 v: ................. 0 • c k 931.7 -I” LAKE MINNETONKA Weier Clmtfwi«f2CSf 04-tO-eJ Propas Propose Propas* BENCHh IBU*. £ wFwmrtr Date Appllcatioii RMcIved: 12/21/03 Date Application Coniidercd as Complete: 12/21/03 Initial <0>Day Review Period Expires: 2/19/04 60 Day Extension Notice 2/19/04 to: 4/18/04 a 2 ClTlrOFORavo REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 18, 2004 Item No.: ^ q Department Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2976 James & Judith Pieipont, 1801 West Farm Road - CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Structure - Resolution Adoption List of Exhibits A - Resolution (revised to reflect Council 3-2 vote on 3-8-04) B • Notice of Council Action of 3-8-04 Application Status: Council voted 3-2 on March 8 to approve the CUP for Plumbing in ana Accessory Structure subject to the standard covenants and subject to removal ofkitchen fixtures, excqjt that the basin/washstand may remain as long as water supply plumbing to it is removed. The attached resolution reflects the majority action of the Council on March 8. The resolution is presented for Council adoption. This item does not require fuilher discussion at this time; however, itwasnotplaced on the consent agenda in the event that Council members may wish to vote consistent with their March 8 votes. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. * "V .-wJ: i m d A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-303, SUBDIVISION (17) FILE #04-2976 WHEREAS, James W. Pieipont and Judith A. Pietpont, 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 described as; Attached “Exhibit A” (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal 2!oning Code Section 78-303, Subdivision (17) to allow plumbing including a toilet, bathroom sink and shower to' smain 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 apublic hearing on January20,2004, 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* nNDlNGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2976. The property is located in the LR-1A Zoniiig District, where 2 acres is the minimum lot area. The property is approximately 4 acres in gross area including wetlands. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application on Januaiy 20,20t and on a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of a CUP for plumbing in the accessory structure, based on the following findings; Page 1 of 6 } ' I I 4. 5. 6. 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 suflicient to allow the conditional use permit to be granted. The nonconformity of the building location is mitigated by the existing screening and adequate sqraration distances to neighboring homes. d.The CUP should be subject to the standard “Plmnbing in Accessory S tructure' conditions. e.The retention of the existing kitchen fixtures in the stmcture 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 the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds diat while removal ofkitchen fixtures is iqipropriate forthe intended use, retention of the antique kitchen sink basin/washstand without water supply plumbing would not be inconsistent with the intended use of the structure nor would it result in a use detrimental to the neighborhood. 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 diat 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 i d r' CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants aconditional 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 structure, per the site plan and building floor plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B arxl as annotated by City stafi^ subject to the following conditions: 1.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 and facilities fium the structure in question: - cooktop (no oven exists) - refngerator - water supply plumbing to the kitchen sink (sink basin and stand may remain in place without water supply plumbing: waste plumbing does not have to be removed) 2.The jqiplicants by executing this resolution agree and covenant that the property will be bound by the following conditions: Kitchen fixtures iiKluding refrigerator, stovc/rangp/cooktop, and water supply to the kitchen sink, shall not be reinstalled or installed in the accessory stmeture unless specific tqjproval to do so is granted by the City Council, and installation of such fixtures in the future without 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; C) The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained (site is not large enough to qualify); and D) The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Page 3 of S A J 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by conq>leting the above noted kitchen fixture removals wi^thetiinefiatneestablishedaboveandbyobtaininga final in^>ectionforsamewidiinoneyear of the date of Council approval, or this q>proval will expire on that date (March 22,2005). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constituteaviolationofthe Zoning Code, shall autoinaticallytemiinate 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 onbdialf ofthemselves, theirheirs, 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 this 22nd day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor k_ Property Ownerfs) Page 4 of 6 !' 1 yi STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of March, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal coiporation 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 .,2004by TinAi s. Vee, City Clerk of die City of Orono, aMinnesota municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on bdialf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 J r STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instnunent was acknowledged before me this James W. Pierpont, husband of Judith A. Pierpont. dayof .,2004 by Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this___dayof Judith A. Pierpont, wife of James W. Pierpont. .,2004by Notary Public P«B6of6 ifT 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: March 18, 2004 TO: James & Judith Pierponi 1801 We»t Farm Road Long Lake. MN S5356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit - Plumbing in Accessory Structure DATE OF MEETING: March 8, 2004 VOTE: 3 FOR 2 AGAINST Motion: Approve CUP for Plumbing in Accessory Structure, subject to: 1.The applicants shall, prior to the resolution taking full effect and within 90 days of the date of the resolution, remove the following existing kitchen fixtures and facilities from the structure in question: • cooktop (no oven exists) - refrigerator - water supply plumbing to the kitchen sink (sink basin and stand may remain in place without water supply plumbing; waste plumbing does not have to be removed) 2.The applicants shall executing the resolution agieeing and covenanting that the property will be bound by the following conditions: B) C) D) Kitchen fixtures including refrigerator, stove/range/cooktop, and water supply to the kitchen sink, shall not be reinstalled or installed in il.o 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 CUP is obtained (site is not large enough to qualify); L^d The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, March 22, 2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. While this will not be placed on the consent agenda due to the 3-2 vote, no discussiou is a:iticipated and the sole purpose of this being on the agenda is for Council to take formal action on the final wordmg of the Resolution. If you desire ccrtincd copies of lltc ofllcial Council minutes, they arc 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. i #04-2974 StODcbay Marketplace March 19.2004 Page 2 PloDolDg Commission Comments The majority position of the Planning Commission stems fiom a variety of concerns and opinions, including: a sense that we are being rushed into making this change; no compelling need to make the change; the CMP was just recently redone, a lot of thought went into it, why changejust to suit this developer... if a retail environment is created it must serve the needs of the neighborhood and provide amenities for the neighborhood; plans submitted to date fall short... concern that the development may end up as something other than that proposed; no comn utment fiom bank yet; if no bank, then retail?... once Highway 12 reroute is complete, perspective on this site may change. concern that re-guiding this property for retail may inhibit the ability of Long Lake to accomplish its downtown master plan... Please read the attached draft minutes for additional detail. Staff Recommendation As indicated in the March I letter to the applicants, staffbelieves that a primarily retail development would be appropriate for this site if it meets the outlined goals and parameters. Site plans reviewed to date have not met these conditions. Staff and the developer need clear direction as to whether the Con^rehensive Plan amendment has Coimcil support. If CouiKil confirms it will accept a CMP amendment to convert the site fiom office to retail if the parameters and goals of the March 1 letter can be met to the Council ’ s satisfaction, the developer then can proceed with further plan revisions and work toward an approvable plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Moticn to grant conceptual approval of the CMP amendment per the provisions of the March 1 letter. Next Steps: If Council grants conceptual approval, staff envisions the following next steps: 1 . Staff will, within the next 2-3 weeks, draft text for an amendment of the CMP that incorporates the specific goals and parameters under which retail uses will be allowed for this site. 2 . Once Planning Commission and Council have accepted the text, a formal Comp Plan Amendment applicatio*' to Met Council will be commenced. 3. An ordinance for rezoning the site to B-6 PUD incorporating the established parameters for development and allowed uses, will be drafted for PC and Council action. 4. In the meantime, applicant will continue to work with staff to draft a plan th>‘t meets the goals, parameters and conditions established in the March 1 letter. 1 ktti J ^ • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #04-2974 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 19, 2004 TO;John Trautz Reliance Development Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55402-1327 COPIES: Frank Dunbar Dunbar Development Corp. 5000 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 Vicki Van Dell Landform 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55403 TYPE OF APPLICATION:1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: March 15, 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1.On a vote of 6-1, Planning Commission recommended that the Comp Plan QSl be amended to convert from office to retail uses. 2.Planning Commission members informally (no vote taken) indicated that if the Comp Plan amendment is supported by Council, they are in complete agreement with the concepts expressed in the March 1 letter. j.Planning Commission members indicated that with a minor revision to make all “permitted uses with drive-thru’s’’ a conditional use, they were satisfied with the list of recommended allowed uses if the CMP amendment and rezoning goes forward. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, March 22, 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 Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3-15-04 (#3) 04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE”, NW QUADRANT HWY 12AVILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A, STONEBAY) COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION (6:25-6:40 P.M.) Chair Smith stated that this is solely a Comp Plan Amendment discussion. Mr. Trask and Mr. Johnson, the applicants, were present. Planning Director Gaffron explained that the meeting packet that Commission received didn’t include back sides of pages and there is a new packet in front of you containing the correct pages. Gaffron stated this is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment for a re-zoning of property at the NW comer of Highway 12 and Willow Drive. The applicant has been before the Commission a number of times in the last few months. It was reviewed at the February 17 meeting at which time the Commission concentrated on a list of acceptable uses for re-zoning the property (Exhibit G attached). The request was tabled and a joint work session with Long Lake Planning Commission was held March 3, 2004 where a discussion of current and pending activities along Highway 12 was held and discussed whether re-zoning this site might impact redevelopment efforts in Long Lake. After reviewing this project over the last few months staff concluded that the applicant needed some guidance that resulted in the March 1, 2004 letter to the applicant (Exhibit B). Page 6 of 41 d Based on the fact that that applicants have been advised to come up with a different site plan it is critical, fix)m a timing standpoint and for the applicant, that the Commission reach a conceptual conclusion on whether or not the Commission is ready to establish parameters and go ahead with the Comp Plan Amendment and a re-zoning. Formal action is not being sought at this time, but direction from the Commission is needed conceptually, that if the number of conditions you established can be met that the Commission is willing to make that commitment and that would be taken by staff to the City Council next Monday, March 22. The recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment must be made at this meeting in order to conform with the statutory 120-day review period, which ends April 15 (prior to the next commission meeting). /h Staff recommends that Planning Commission: 1. Discuss and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. 2. If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following: a) Review and confirm the list of allowed zon. jg uses you determined are appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the development goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. Gaffron stated that site plan issues discussion can be postponed to a future meeting. There were no public comments. Page 7 of 41 In regards to the March 1.2004 letter, Mabusth reiterated the Ccmmission’s continuing concerns about the lack of adequate parking felt i.. ccssary, the need to take advantage of providing a view of the pond with windows and everything facing “in” and how plans from the applicant never seem to incorporate the Commission’s concerns. Mabusth continued stating that the Commission has accepted the 60 foot Walgreen lot and the change to the southeast side. Gaffron confirmed that is correct for that lot, but for the balance of the site, city code would prevail. Chair Smith ask what is currently allowed on this site according t^ the current Comp Plan. Gaffron responded that the use is currently for professional offices with ancillary retail that would support the office use such as a coffee shop as an example. Gaffron continued stating when the ^rpdicant came to the city with primarily a retail plan with two thirds of the site being retail and that then determined the need for a Comp Plan Amendment. Walgreen’s is more than cne-third of the site. The bank would be considered office under current code. Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current plan? Gaffron responded no more frtan one-fourth can be retail. Chair Smith stated the question for the Commission is whether to deviate from what the Comp Plan calls for which is office and ancillary retail versus more retail and some office. Gaffron responded that is correct. Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighbor a Chair Smith always wanted to see it be more in-service and more related to die rest of the Stone Page 8 of 41 Bay development than is currently proposed. Chair Smith agrees that the March 1,2004 letter lays out criteria that meets her desires. Chair Smith asked the members if there is a compelling reason to move away from the Comp Plan or should they stay with what was put in the plan not that long ago. If the decision is not to move away from the current plan, then the city should wait until an applicant comes before the city with the current use as directed in the Comp Plan, A poll was taken of the members Smith: Interested in retail and services that would serve Stone Bay and the immediate community, and not in favor of a development that veers away from the Comp Plan, especially if feeling noshed. Fritzler: Initially, thinking this was a pretty good use and may be worth making a CMP change, but after meeting with the Long LaKe Planning Commission and some of the questions and thinking that came out of the meeting it became evident we aren ’t hearing anything from Walgreen ’s. Also didn’t think the idea of the bank is going to be realized. Rather than seeing the bank comer go to more retail, the idea of keeping the area more office type use and making the assumption that the residential development is going to flourish quickly it may be a better idea not to deviate from the current CMP with the future unknown. Once built, the developer is out of the community and the city and community has to live with what remains. If criteria could be set, then may be in favor, but not currently in favor. Bremer: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The Long Lake meeting was excellent and got a lot out of it, but she is interested in keeping the rural flavor of the city in tact, but it really is a city council decision to change the CMP. If the council decides to change the CMP, then the Page 9 of 41 lii.^______ 1 commission could give the council as much guidance as possible by having a list of uses that could be recommended. Zugschwest: Not in favor of amending the CMP. Rahn: Less in favor of amending the CMP than was in the beginning. If city is being rushed into making a decision, would be opposed to amending the CMP. Mabusth: Feels commission is being rushed. Why does it have to be all retail? What can’t one of the loi» be office use ~ given the right mix of use may be ii< favor of amending the Comp Plan. Berg: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The city just put the CMP together and to make a change we need to look at all the possibilities and what exactly we want to see for the city. Not in favor of amending the CMP: Berg, Fritzler, Smith, Rahn, Zugschwest, Bremer . In favor of amending the CMP: Jeanne Mabusth Mr. Trask stated they have reviewed Mr. Gafhon’s letter of March 1 and feel confident that the msyority of ^quests can be accomplished. He said that in talking with potential buyers of Stone Bay residential area a grocery store is exactly what they don ’t want They feel they have come back with retail uses that correspond with other retail use at that intersection. They feel it is a retail intersection. In talking about what serves the resident’s immediate needs, office space brings people from out of the area to this site. Mr. Trask feels the current site plan being worked on is looking at all the criteria, including having the site face “in”, and to try and find ways to incorporate pond aesthetics can be accomplished. In regards to signing tenants, can’t move forward to accomplish until the uses are decided. The neighborhood of Stone Bay does support concept and uses proposed at this site. Mr. Trask also felt they were at a positive place five months ago. Page 10 of 41 Chair Smith stated that the i^plicant has been extraordinarily patient with the commission over the last five months. When a Comp Plan is put in place, members feel being rushed may feel like years instead of months when considering "isking a fdrly large comprehensive change and apologized for not starting here. In regards to reviewing the list of approved uses (Exhibit G), Mabusth voiced a concern over approving item #21 “Retail food of all varieties and home supplies" that might include restaurants. Gafiron explained that restaurants would be covered under a CUP list. Retail foods would ^ply to Walgreens that will sell some retail foods. The question is at what level does that store become a grocery store and is there some limitation you would like to put on it. The Commission determined that #21 would stay on the list. Mabusth suggested a disclaimer to say they couldn’t have a drive up window. Gaflfion said that the Conditional Use list would be amended and say that any of the uses that are permitted retail and service business uses as well as B-6 permitted uses, if it’s a drive*through it’s a CUP. Commission recommends applicant goes before council, get an opinion, then come back to Planning Commission with a revised site plan, if necessary. Bremer stated, and the entire Commission agreed, that Exhibit G is the compilation of uses for the council to review with the CUP disclaimer addition. The Commission agreed that all points in the letter of March 1 clearly stated the Commission’s desires. Page 11 of 41 I No formal motion needed at this time. No formal minutes from the Long Lake joint meeting were taken, NEW BUSINESS 4. (#4) 04-2982 Clarycc B. & Lyle K. Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road, After-the-Fact Variances (7;10-7:15 P.M.) Claryce B. and Lyle K. Johnson, the Applicants, were present. Curtis explained that Claryce and Lyle Johnson are the property owners at 1398 Rest Point Road. The current use of the property is for rental and in the summer of 2003 did some interior re-modeling and constructed the grade level deck at that time. As they did not require permits for the interior improvements, the applicants believed a permit was not required for the deck. Tonight they are requesting and aftcr-thc-face hardcover variance for the 0’-75’ in the 75’ to 250’ zone and after-the fact lake setback variance for the deck. The hardcover level in the 0’-75’ zone has 1.14% hardcover, the 75’-250’ zone with the deck is 43.2% hardcover. Without the deck, the 75’-250’ zone was 41.3% and the 0’-75’ was zero The after-the-fact lakeside setback variance for the deck is located 70’ from the lake where 75’ is required. Planning staff recommended denial of the after-the-fact variances as no hardship has been identified to allow this 60 square feet of hardcover within the 0’-75’ zone and for the 114 square feet within the 7S'-2S0‘ zone or the five foot encroachment to the lake setback. Page 12 of 41 A I ■ 1 ComplUtlon of Approved U»es for OuUot A, Stonebay (March IS, 2004 Reviiion) Permitted Uiet A Retail and Service Buginesses - The following neighbortiood retail and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for the resiotuts in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Alts and school sl^)plies store. Banks and insurance companies. Barber and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, recorded music/video shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. Ganlen supplies, florist shop (but not home and garden equipment rental). Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply store. Jewelry shops and repair. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and repair store. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store, copy shop. Pipe and tobacco shops. Housewares, furniture, carpet store. Postal substation. Real estate sales. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. Sewing center and yardgoods. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Travel agencies. Variety store. Wearing ^arel store, shoe store. Cff-sale Liquor Store B. Permitted B-6 Uses: Ttie following uses as allowed in the B-6 District: 1. Offices (business and professional). 2. Banks and financial institutions. 3. Libraries. 4. Motels and hotels. j r Conditional Uiei 1.Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table, or cafete ia in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Class I Restaurants. 2.Restaurants (Class D). Fast-fi^od, convenience fbod, cofifee shop, drive-in, drive-throu^ or liquor store restaurants, which is a restaurant where amajority of cusunners order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises, regardless ofhow it is served, or a drive-through where most customers pick up food at a drive-up window for consumption on or off the premises; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. 3.The following uses >»hen such use induce^ a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libiaries. d. Motels and hotels. e. Any of the Permitted Retail and Service Business uses when such includes a drive- through facility. Accessory Uses 1. Signs. Signs, as regulated in the zoning code for the B-1 District 2. Tonporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on die premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. 3. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. 4. Fences. Fences, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 5.Incidentals. Anyincidentalrepairorprocessingnecessarytoconductapamitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. 6. Public Telephone Booths. 5 I i Applicition Date: December 17, 2003 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expiration (Site Plan dc PUD Rezoning): February IS, 2004 60-Day Extension Notification Faxed on 2-13-04, Extension to: April 15,2004 120 Day Review Expiration (Subdivision): April IS, 2004 D To: From: Date: Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffiron, Planning Director March 12,2004 ' Subject:#04-2974 “Stonebay Maiketplace ”, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Willow Drive - Continuation of Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: (CMP Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, Preliminary Subdivision) Current Status of Application: This item was reviewed at the February 17 meeting, at which time Planning Commission concentrated on establishing a list of acceptable uses for the property if it is rezoned. A summary of your conclusions is attached as Exhibit G. Planning Commission tabled this item pending a joint woik session with the Long Lake Planning Commission, which was held on March 3. At that work session, the commissions exchanged information about current and pending activities along the Highway 12 corridor, and discussed whether rezoning of this site might impact redevelopment efforts in Long Lake. Each commissioner in attendance can draw his/her own conclusions regarding that discussion. The time staff has spent reviewing this application has provided the opportunity to digest the potential impacts of tlie conversion from office to retail, and to clarify the key role this site needs to play in this mixed-use neighborhood if the site is reguided from office to retail. The role of this site became clear only as we worked through the site planning process with the applicants, and had a chance to reflect on the basis for the office guiding in the current CMP. It has become clear that the driving reason to consider re guiding this site from office to retail is to enable this site to benefit the surrounding neighborhood by providing uses and amenities that facilitate this area becoming a somewhat self-contained walkable mixed- use, mini-village. Staffbelieves the currently proposed site plan cannot, through minoi tweaks, enable the site to serve the role cJ.«c'ibed above. This resulted in staff s March 1 letter to the applicant (attached). Staff Recommendation: At this point, our expectation is that if the Comp Plan Amendment goes forward a significantly revised site plan should be presented by the applicant. To that end, staff would request that Planning Commission do the following at your March 1S meeting; 1.Discuss and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. 2.If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following: a) Review and confirm the list of allowed uses you determined are appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the development goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. Your recommendations will be forwarded to the City Counc il on March 22 for review and possible action. •04 2974 Stoncbay MirkclpUcc MifciilZ, 2004 Ptgt2 List of Exhibits A • March 4,2004 Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission and Council B • March 1,2004 Staff Letter to Applicant C • March 3, 2004 Letter from Applicant D • Revised Site Plan #17 E • March 2,2004 City Engineer Comments re Site Plan #17 F - February 17,2004 Staff Memo: Supplementary Comments G - Compilation of Appropriate Uses from February 17 Discussions H • February 13,2004 Staff Memo and Selected Exhibits I - Draft PC Minutes 2-17-04 Discussion Staffbelieves this site can be planned in such a way as to provide the types of uses and amenities needed to enhance die surrounding neighborhood as a walkable, somewhat self-contained, mixed-use mini-village. Staff supports the <..omp)! y.iensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to P-6 PUD. subject to the parameters and goals delineated in the March 1 letter to the applicant. Tnese concepts would be incorporated into the text of the CMP as requirements for development of the site. IfPlanning Conunission agrees with the comments and principles of the March 1 letter, there is no point in going ahead with a detailed review of the current site plan until a substantially revised plan is submitted. PlanningCommission should reach a conclusion or the Comp Plan Amendment before proceeding with it.5 site plan review. As noted at your February meeting, the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and can provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. Planning Commission identi fied a specific list of allov/able or unacceptable uses for the site in Febmary, and these will be incorporated into the Pi ID rezonj.ig for this site. The PUD approval for this site becomes the governing ordinance for thepropeuy, and shonM be carefully crafted to ensure that only ^propriate uses are allowed under appropriate condition.s. Finally, note that Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment at your March 15 meeting, in order to conform with the statutory 120-day review period, which ends April 15 (prior to your next meeting). M i04<2974 Stoncbay Marketplace March 12.2004 Page 3 Summary of Issues to Address Is there a set of parameters within which the Planning Commission would conclude that the Comp Plan amendment converting from office to retail uses, is appropriate? • Does the Planning Commission support the concept of the conversion to retail uses to provide the elements necessary to complete a self-contained, mixed-use neighborhood? If so, the Planning Commission could provide conceptual iqjproval of the Comp Plan amendment, subject to detailing a set of development parameters that would ensure the site is developed in a way that does provide the elements necessary complete a self-contained mixed-use neighborhood. - Does Planning Commission conclude that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropnate as presented, with the proposed conversion to primarily retail uses? If not. what aspects of it are inappropriate? What, if anything, might be changed to make it acceptable? - Does Planning Commission agree with the concepts and development parameters described in the March 1 letter? Should any of those concepts be modified, strergthened or changed? > Regarding the proposed rezoning to B6-PUD, in add! tion to the list of allowed permitted uses and conditional uses reviewed and i fined on February 18, are there any additional specific parameters that need to be addressed? Recommended Action Staff recommends that Planning Commission do the following at your March IS meeting: 1.Discuss and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. 2.If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following: a) Review and confirm the list of allowed uses you determined are appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the development goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. Your recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council on March 22 for review and possible action 1 4 MEMORANDUM To:Mayor Peterson and City Council Chair Smith and Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date:March 4,2004 Subject:Latest Information re: Stonebay Marketplace Attachments 1 - Staff letter to John Trautz dated March 1. including conceptual sketch 2 - Trautz response letter dated March 3.2004 3 - Revised Site Plan #17 (Most current applicant submittal) 4 • City Engineer comments dated March 2,2004 re Plan #17 As a result of two Planning Commission hearings, at least two work sessions and a number of discussions with the applicants, staff has concluded that the applicants have not been focusing adequately on the issues we feel are important to allow conversion of this site firora primarily office to primarily retail uses. Over the past 3 months we have seen many tweaks to the initial site plan, but virtually no changes in the intensity of use or the orientation of uses. It seemed appropriate to send a letter that makes clear exactly what we are thinking (Attachment 1). The response letter from Mr. Trauu (Attachment 2) is attached, as is the most recent site plan (Version 17) and the most recent comments from the City Engineer as to parking and circulation in that plan, On Ffebtuary 17 the Planning Commission tabled all elements of the application (Comp Plan Amendment - Rezoning* Subdivision - Commercial Site Plan Review) to its March 15 meeting, with the intent in the interim to meet with the Long Lake Planning Commission to discuss the topic of development along Highway 12 and hopefully gain a sense of whether Long Lake would see the conversion of this site to retail as a positive or negative impact on their ability to implement Long Lake’s downtown master plan. That meeting was held last night with a majority of each planning commission in attendance. It was a cordial meeting, and I think both commissions have a better understanding of each others intents and concerns regarding development. My sense is that a majority of the Long Lake people in attendance are concerned that implementation of their plan will be difficult and take some time to accomplish, and that any retail we do at the west end of town will not make it any easier for their plan to move forward. They seemed quite supportive of our actions to date in not allowing retail west of Willow. I will be asking the Planning Commission at its March 15 meeting to make a formal recommendation to the Council regaining the Comp Plan Amendment, and if the recommendation is in favor of the amendment, to confirm that the goals laid out in the March 1 letter to the applicant should be incorporated into language to be added to the Comp Plan for development of this specific site. I- .. V ■./ CITYoT ORONO Municipal Offices Strait Adtfraii: 2750 Kelley Pirfcwey Orano, MN 55356 Maillni Mimt. P.O Bot 66 Ctystel Bay. MN 55323 0066 March 1.2004 John Trautz Reliance Development Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower S27 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis. MN SS402-1327 Re: Stonebay Marketplace Dear Mr. Trautz: As we have worked with you toward a workable site plan for your Stonebay Marketplace proposal, there have been numerous iterations of the site layout in response to our comments. Although the changes have resulted in some significant improvements, they have fallen short of our expectations. This may be partly due to us not being clear or specific enough, or assertive enough, about our expectations, and partly due to the fact that you have chosen not to look beyond the initial concept plan to find the best solution for the site. If the outcome of the joint work session of the Planning Commission^, results inaiecommendationinfavorof amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow the reguiding of the site from office to retail, the next step is to provide a si te plan that makes the most of the opportunity provided by the amendment. The key to this is the quality of the site plan, as well as the mix of uses and the quality of the buildings and landscaping. If we look at this comer and the proposed retail uses from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan, the mix and layout of uses on this site need to first serve the neighborhood. They need to first be the best amenities we can provide to the neighborhood. By neighborhood we mean anyone within walking distance. This includes the office uses existing and planned along Kelley Parkway, the City facilities, the Orono Schools campus, the new Stonebay residential neighborhood, the Willow View subdivision, and the employees of industrial and retail uses near the site. Although we lotow that retail uses on this site must rely on a market area broader than the immediate neighborhood, retail uses are being considered in this location in large part because d^ey will serve the neighborhood. t^pbonc (9S2) 24M600 • Fax (9S2) 249<#jl« www.d.oronojnn.us m John Tiautz March 1.2004 Page 2 In order to best serve the neighborhood, we believe it is critical that the development proposal provide for convenient pedestrian-oriented access and food-oriented uses that take advantage of the pond area to provide an enjoyable setting for casual dining. Based on this perspective, and to provide clear direction, staff has developed a set of specific parameters for the development of this site for retail rather than office uses. We have considered yourconunents regarding the mix and types of uses proposed, as well as your concerns regarding site layout and amenities that are critical, from your perspective, to ensure a successful retail use of the site. We also desire a successful development, and to that end we have identified a numl of key elements for plarming this site that we believe ate critical to your gaining City acceptance of a proposal: 1. Focus on the Stormwater Pond as an Amenity. Treatment of the stormwater pond as an amenity rather than a necessary evil was one of the primary selling points for the overall Stonebay concept. To that end, a variety of features including sidewalks, trails, stone walls, an overlook, and substantial landscaping were incorporated into the pond design. The City clearly has an expectation that the non-residential uses either end of the pond will take advantage of this amenity. It has become clear that the degree to which the pondcan become an amenity relies to a great extent on the uses. The westerly portion of the site would work quite well for office uses, which would have windows and views overlooking the pond, and it would similarly work for a restaurant use. However, it appears that there are inherent difficulties with orienting retail uses to take full advantage of the pond, since such uses rely on parking adjacent to the front facade, vehicular access on all 4 sides, and a ‘back door* for secondary access. The interior divisions within the strip retail building you have been proposing so far, as well as the circulation for the drive>thru, seem to preclude any effective or meaningful orientation toward the pond. In addition, the focus to date has been toward providing a pond amenity at the southwest comer of the site, near Highway 12. We would suggest Aat such an amenity would be more appropriately locatednesrer Kelley Parkway at the northeast comer of the pond, farthest away from the traffic on Ifighway 12. The elements of design we believe are critical to an acceptable retail development orientation to the pond include: a) Omit all vehicular access between the building and the pond b) Move the amenity feature further from Highway 12. c) Provide and design for retail uses that will benefit from a pond orientation. John Trautz March 1.2004 Page 3 d) Retain the trail and pedestrian circulation aspects of the plan which you have provided to date. Ci ty staff would strongly support an office or fast-casual restaurant use overlooking the pond, assuming a site plan that incorporates adequate parking and circulation, Wewiil suppon retai 1 use at this location if it includes food-oriented uses for which the pondcan become an amenity and which can take advantage of proximity to the pond. 2. Development Orientation . Stonebay was approved with the expectation that the office uses would visually complement the Ston^ay residential development, especially since the primary access is from Kelley Parkway. This same expectation needs to be met if the site becomes primarily retail uses. Although there may be some negative impacts by orienting retail uses directly toward Kelley Parkway, as indicated in the letter from John Hassler, there are also significant benefits and advantages to an orientation not totally focused on HighwayI2. Your site plans to date have focused on Highway 12 as the orientation, and while the building designs have incorporated attractive features and landscaping on all sides, the site layout still presents itself as 'backing up* to Kelley Parkway. We think there is a middle ground that can orient this development more toward the center of the site, providing a more inviting appearance from Kelley Parkway while not having negative impacts to the ac^oining neighborhood, and not negatively impacting the viability of retail uses. The following are key elements of this concept: a) Reorientthe Walgreens entry to the southwest comer of the building. Establish Walgreens parking on the west and south sides of the building. The pharmacy drive- thru will then be along the east side of the building, with the delivery/trash area along the north facade. b) Absent an office use or fast-casual restaurant uses for Lot 1, turn the retail strip to a north-south orientation, backing up to the west end of the site, and design the north end units for food-oriented uses that would allow some views of the pond and make use of a plaza or outdoorseating area overlooking the pond. Omit any driving lane along the west side of the building. This orientation provides excellent retailer visibility from the l2/Willow intersection. The entry to the site from Kelley Parkway will allow forcustomers to see the entries to the Walgreens and the strip center from the Kelley Parkway entrance to the site, allowing them to make easy decisions about how to reach their intended destination within the site. John Trautz March 1,2004 Page 4 3. 4. 5. 6. c) The west facade of the retail strip needs to be attractively designed and landsci^d to minimize its appearance as the back side of a building. d) We understand that with this orientation, signago with faces perpendicular to Highway 12 will be critical for the strip center. A monument sign would be acceptable along 12. Signage for each use on the west wall of the retail strip would uul be auocplable. e) A drive-thru at the north end of the retail strip would be feasible. If this was a coffee shop, the proximity exists for pedestrian/customer access to a pond overlook, plaza, or outdoor seating area at the northwest come: of the strip retail building. Parking Layout and Capacity. To gain staff support, your site plan needs to incorporate adequate parking for the uses proposed on the site. Future uses that require parking in excess of that provided, are not likely to be approved. The parking plan also needs to incorporates island for trees and green space. With a strip retail building oriented north- south, parking between the strip retail and the Walgreens can be more flexibly used as daily parking needs fluctuate. With a site plan that meets the parameters set out in this letter, we are willing to consider the W algreens model that the peak need for Walgreens is 60 parking stalls; we are not willing to vary from the parking requirement for other users on this site, be they office (1 stall per200 net s.f. where nets90% of gross floor area),retail(l stall per ISOs.f.ofnet floor area) or restaurant (1 stall per 80 s.f. of net floor area). Green Space . The City’s goal is still to have 2S% of the site as green space. Given the Planning Commission* s neaiiy unanimous comments that the current plans do not provide adequate green space, as a minimum the required perimeter trails within the property should not be counted as part of the 25% requirement .Structural Coverage. Inline with the Planning Commission's strong sense that the current site plan is too intensely developed, note that the zoning code does limit any building site of less than 2.0 acres, whetherresidential or commercial, to 15% coverage by structures. Yourplanproposes3 individual sites,eachlessthan2 acres in area, and two of the three exceed the limit. Lot 1 is at 17.7%, Lot 2 is at 13.2%, and Lot 3 is at 22.4%. Overall, the site should be limited to no more than approximately24,100 s.f., but it currently is at just over 29,800 s.f., or 18.6%. This is an indication that the current site plan is over- ambitious. Market Analysis. You have told us that free-standing restaurant uses and fast-casual restaurant uses are unlikely to be attracted to this site because of the lack of rooftops. In assisting our consideration of the proposed conversion hrom office to retail uses, we request that you provide clear and valid market infomuition supporting your conclusions regarding restaurant uses. J John Trautz Much 1,2004 Pages 7.BuildingDetim andMueriala. We have been pleased with your efforts toward providing a high quality buildingdesign theme for the site. However, the lightcolor of the brick you have chosen is not acceptable and needs to be substantially darker. We would suggest a reu urick similvto that being used on the City offices and on the medical office buildings cunently under construction or in the approval process further west on Kelley Parkway. We have had Phil Culson of DSU sketch aconceptual site layout to help illustrate some of the parameters described above. We haven’t attempted to determine whether this plan strictly meets the City’s development standards such as green space, puking, structural coverage, etc. It is merely intended to show a site layout concept that follows the design puameters set out in this letter. We have shown an 8,SOO s.f. strip retail building because that appears to be the lugest building for which puking standuds could be met. We are excited about continuing to work with you toward an end product that meets City expectations and provides for a successful commercial development. Once the joint Planning Commission work session is concluded, if the response to the conversion to retail is positive, we should get together as soon as possible to work out site plan issues. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Mike Gaffron Planning Director cc:RonMoorse City Council Planning Commission I A * ^ I I'l*^ t does wj <. /'i •v' P-V :‘l it^'?^;' i •■’:■'■:*■;•■ • V* \ ^"=1 ,!t I i^;:' V K^*1 *: w />.r .‘V. ri'Mm^ //^V' .tJ*U U I dS^ »n •> tJ p ) J J 5:if" • • < .>»'r -^ r>« • \ V - r-\ \ c Reliance Development Company VIA COURIER March 3,2004 Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55323 Re: Stonebay Marketplace Ladies and Gentlemen: I am in receipt of the letter from Mike Gaffron dated March 1,2004 regarding the site plan for Stonebay Marketplace. Although this letter is not an exhaustive response to the letter, I felt it was important to get a partial response io you today before this evenings work session. Needless to say, we (the entire development team) are perplexed. After 5 months of discussions, 2 public hearings with the Planning Commission and many meetings and work sessions, we thought we were getting close to an acceptable site plan. The staff report for the February 17,2004 Planning Commission meeting recommended otir site plan but for "two specific areas of the current plan". The staff report made a suggestion about how to fix those specific areas, which we did. This current letter and associated plan dismisses most of our plan and basically requires us to begin all over again. Some of our immediate and specific thoughts are listed below: 1. The most recent site plan submitted by our development team to the City of Orono accomplishes the site plan goals we have heard consistently from die Planning Commission and city staff It has considerable landscaping (over 25% of the site plan area) and amenities (front comer feature and orientation to the pond). It has minimal traffic conflicts and it provides for significant pedestrian walkways. It has architecture that is well above the standards you will find in all communities in the metropolitan area. Reliance Development Company, LLP. 1000 Rand Tower S27 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis. MN 5S402-1327 Telephone (612) 338-1000 Facsimile (612) 338-8971 2. The site plan that was proposed in the letter is not marketable. In our meetings, both public and private, we have discussed the type of uses that are attracted to the site and vdiether or not they will be successful. Concern was expressed about vacancy. With this new proposed site plan, vacancy is almost assured. 3. The building orientation that is now proposed by city staff is dramatically different titan what has been on the table for some time. The specific feedback we received at the last Planning Commission meeting was rhfft our proposed building orienUtion was fine. In addition, Terry Dahlstrom, who is constructing the Stonebay housing development has sent a letter to the city requesting that the commercial buildings not be oriented toward the residential neighborhood to keep the light levels down, among other things. 4. The letter suggests a desire for more food oriented uses, particularly in the fast casual category. I couldn't agree more. Not only are the project economics improved, food uses add vitality to a retail development. The problem is that the demognq)hics don't support such a u.«e. The letter requests “valid market information" which I am happy to provide. We are hopeftil we can continue with our development of the Stonebay commercial area. To do so will require that marketplace conditions be considered as well as providing a pleasing shoppi^ environment. We would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to continue with our discussions. Sincerely, C. Frank Dunbar Steve Johnston Yield Van DeU J 1/1 Bonestroo Rdsene mrv Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Bonttfoo, llpMnc. Ami«rSli and AMocklae. Ina. !• an Affirmaliva AetiofdEqual Opportunity Employar and Cmployaa Ownad Principala: Otto 0 Bonaproo. P E. • Marvm L Sonrala. P E. • QIann R Cook. P E • Robart Q. Schun«ht. P E • Jarry A Bourdon. P E Sanior Conauttanta: Robart W Roaar^a. P E. • Joaaph C Andarlik. P E. • Richard E Tumar. P E • SuaanM. Ebarlin. C P.A. Aaaociata Principala; KaiCh A Gordon. P E. > Robai R. Pfaffarfa. P E • Rchard W Poatai. P E. • David 0. loakota. P E • Mark A Hanaon. P E • Miehaal T Rautmaim. P E • Tad K Fiad. P E • Karv^ath P Andaraon. P E • Mark R Rolfa. PE* David A Bonaairoo. M B A • Sdnay P Wdiainaon. PE. L S • Agnat M. Rir^. M B A. • Allan Rick Schmidt P E • Thomaa W. Pataraon. PE* Jamaa R. Maland. P E. • Milaa B Jar^aan. P E. • L Phiip Oraval HI. P.E * Owiial J Edgarlon. P E * lamaal Martir^z. PE* Thomas A. Sylko. P E • Shaldon J. Johnson • Oala K Qrovf. P E • Thomas A Rouahar. P E. • R^arf J. Otvary. P.E Offbaa: 8l Paul. 81 Ctoud. Rochasiar and Wdlmar. MN * MUwstAas. Wl * Chicago. A Wabaita: «rww bonastroo com MEMORANDUM To: Mike GafTron, Planning Director From; Shelly Johnsoi Date; March 2.2004 ’¥ — — — w "4^ Pe: Traffic Operations Review - File No. 04-3974 Stonebay Marketplace Pursuant to your correspondence of February 23.2004,1 have reviewed the revised site plan - 17 dated February 17,2004. Comments concerning the review are provided below. The area on the west side of the 10,000 SF office-retail building indicates one lane northbound next to the drive through lane. This means that the curb cut to Kelley Parkway must be exit only. I don’t have a problem with the curb cut being exit only, but the “British" style of driving on the left may cause some confusion of persons leaving the parking area in lot 1 . They could, possibly, mistake the drive thru for a through lane as it is located on the east side of the median and the northbound lane is on the west side of the median. Persons driving on the north side of that building, those not using the drive-thru, will have to exit the site. If they desired to circulate to the south side of the site, they would be required to exit to Kelly Parkway and use the east driveway. Their other option is to drive through the drive thru lane or go the wrong way on the west side of that island. While these numbers will not be high, this area is confusing and from the technical point of view, I can’t advise you that t is a good traffic operations scenario. The problems on this west end are created by the drive thru lane and possibly too much development on the site. The main access off Kelly Parkway doesn’t q)pear to have been improved since the last site plan. I am still concerned about traffic operations, alignment and 2Zn W9»t Highway 3$ •St. Paul, MN §S1 IS • SSI-SSS-SSCO • Fan: S51-SSS-1311 r widths. I do believe that the loading situation will work. I have attached a sketch of some minor improvements for consideration in this main entrance/exit area. • With regard to parking supply for the site, here is another way of calculating the potential parking supply required. This method uses square feet of gross leasable area. This method assumes gU of the space is leasable. Retail - 5 spaces per 1,000 SFLGA Bank - S spaces per 1,000 SFGLA Office - 5 spaces per 1,000 SFGLA The totals then become: Pharmacy = 14,820 x 5 per 1,000 SFGLA = 72 spaces Retail/Office = 10,000 x 5 per 1,000 SFGLA = SO spaces Bank = 5,000 x 5 per 1,000 SFGLA = 25 spaces The total requited paiking equals 147 spaces. This is less than the City required parking. The parking demand is based on average rates for a variety of retail and/or office type tenants. There are certain types of retail tenants that generate les parking than others. For example a retail store selling lamp shades/lighting fixtures could be expected to generate less paiking demand than a video store. If part of the retail on this site includes a coffee shop, than the demand may exceed 5 spaces per 1,000 SFGLA at certain tunes of the day or day of the week. The same holds true with small office tenants. Some types of ofGce users generate more demand than others. A review of the site plan indicates that we feel that the pharmacy/office-retail parcels on the south side of the site will have sufficient parking. Those uses contain a total of 117 spaces which includes the 10 employee spaces on the north side of the office-retail building. This is a ratio of 4.7 spaces per 1,000 SFGLA which is 7 spaces less than the suggested 5 spaces per 1,000 SFGLA. 1 think this area will be all right since pharmacy stores I have observed never seem to have a shortage of parking. The land use in the NE corner of the site presents an interesting quandary. The retail concept of 5,000 SF has 29 spaces of which 19 are in front and 10 are in back. The total satisfies a 5.0 paiking ratio but it can be expected that there will be tiroes when the front lot fills up. Depending on the retail user, this could happen frequently. The bank concept shows 10 spaces on the west side of the building and 11 spaces on the east side. This is a ratio of 4.2 spaces per 1,000 SFGLA. I am concerned that the paiking will be inadequate for bank demand purposes. If you have any questions concerning the above, please don’t hesitate to contact roe. cc : Tom Kellogg 2$9$ W99t Highway 2$ •St Paul, MN $S119 • $51-€$S ‘4$00 • Pan: 921-099-1911 J MEMORANDUM To:Planning Commission From:Mike Gaffron Date:February 17.2004 Subject: Supplementary Comments, #04-2974 - Reliance Dev. Corp. PUD As time was extremely short between last Wednesday evening ’s work session and the Friday deadlinefor getting your packets completed, the staff memo regarding application #04-2974 was somewhat rushed. I would like to offer ^e following additional comments in regards to the Stonebay Marketplace application. Much of this stems directly from comments received today from Phil Carlson and is intended to provide afocus for tonight’s review of the proposal. The Land Use Plan amendment should be handled first and separately. The Planning Commission (and City Council) have not to date objected generally to die land uses proposed (service retail; phamnacy, bank,coffee shop, dry cleaners, etc.) although individuals have expressed reservations about certain uses. But if the Land Use Plan is to be amended to allow Stonebay Marketplace or some similar retail development, these uses must be designed in an exceptional manner and several issues addressed. Since this an amendment to the Comp Plan, there should be some discussion of the overall intentandcharacter to be achieved with this amendment. It doesn't need to be a whole new chapter to the Comp Plan, but it should lay out the issues that are important. If Planning Commission concludes that the Comp Plan amendment is appropriate even if Reliance and Walgreen's go away, the City should establish specific criteria for development of the site, regardless of who the developer is. Regarding the current site plan, Planning Commission member corrunents at the February 11 work session included that the site is 'too intense’, needs to focus more on the pond as an amenity, should have smaller or fewer buildings, needs more connection to the Stonebay residential development, does not have enough gteen space, expressed concerns about parking needs and future uses, and expressed a wish to establish a list of appropriate and inappropriate uses for the site. The focus of the site toward the 12/Willow intersection was seen by some as the development ’turning its back on’ Kelley Parkway. These are all valid issues that need further discussion, and may ultimately be addressed as a set of parameters for reguiding/rezoning of the site. If Planning Commission wishes to take a step toward approval, it is staffs recommendation that an amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Allow service retail uses, such as a pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, and. similar neighborhood and community scale uses (uses can be further defined if you wish), with the following characteristics: The development plan shall incorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quality building materials and architectural detailing. J Jl #04*2974 Stoncbaj Markctpliia SuppIcnitnUry Commcnti 2-1744 Page! 2) No single use shall occupy more than 15,000 square feet of floor area, 3) There shall be generous, well-planned green space, landscaping, and buffering throughout the , entire site, exceeding the minimums in the Orono Code for similar developments. W 8) There shall be a clear, well-designed connection and orientation to the pond west of the site, such that patrons can see the pond from the development, pedestrians can easily walk to and around the pond, and adjacent uses will orient windows, outdoor seating areas, and other elements toward the pond. There shall be clear, well-designed sidewalk connections from the sidewalks and trails surrounding the site (on Kelley Parkway, Willow Drive, and Highway 12) to all points within the development, especially from access points that serve the residential development to the north. 6) Thescaleandtypeofuses.andthedesignofthesite.shallbesuchthatoveralltraffic intoand out of the site will not be more than under the previously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. The site plan shall be designedto provide clear andsafe traffic movements within the site for all internal movements: entrances, exits, parking areas, drive-through lanes, loading^service areas, and driveways. The overall site plan shall be designed such that the orientation of buildings is not mainly to Highway 12, but also creates a significant sense of place internally in the site. If ownership of the site is to be divided among two or more lots with more than one owner, provisions shall be made fcs adequate handling of access, parking, landscsqxng. maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions in a manner that can be guaranteed by the City. If Planning Commission recommends approval for the Land Use Plan amendment, with or without any of the above specific conditions attached, arecommendation for approval of the rezoning to B6-FUDcouldalso be made, assuming you are generally satisfied with the current plan. The other option is to not recommend approval for the rezoning until you have seen a plan witli which you are completely satisfied. •04-2974 Stoncbay Marfce^lMC SupplcmcnUry Commcntf M7-04 Pages It is suggested that aiecommendation regarding a lezoning should include development parameters that wi 11 become zoning requirements for the property! and include the following. Recommend approval of a rezoning to PUD for Stonebay Martetplacc, with the foUowing condtions: 3) 4) 5) Development on the site must follow the design for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all other site features illustrated on the submission for Stondwy Marketplace by Landforrofor Reliance Development, sheets x-xx, dated x-x-x. No deviation from these designs shall be allowed without approval of an amendment to the PUD by the Orono City Council, except for minor adjustments to be approved by City staff, at the discretion of the Development Review Committee. The orientation of the Walgrecn’s building and parking areas shall be changed to place the nriain entry in the southwest comer of the building. Green space within the site will increased as follows in the following locations: The connection and orientation to the pond west of the site will be changed to The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure ad^oate provision for access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditioiu, including .... All buildings and improvements shown on the submitted plans will be completed by x-x-x [date], and if not, the remainder of the site will be sodded [condition of all areas of the ate if left undeveloped]... I CompilatioD of Approved Uses for Outlot A, Stonebay (February 17,2004 PC Meeting) Permitted Uiei A. Retail and Service Businesses - The following neighborhood retail and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. U. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Arts and school supplies store. Banks and insurance companies. Barber and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, recorded music/video shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. Garden supplies, florist shop (but not home and garden equipment rental). Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply store. Jewelry shops and repair. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, tq)pliance sales and repair store. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store, copy shop. Pipe and tobacco shops. Housewares, furniture, carpet store. Postal substation. Real estate sales. Retail food of all varieties and home siqiplies.????????????? Sewing center and yardgoods. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Travel agencies. Variety store. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. Off-sale Liquor Store B. Permitted B-6 Uses: The following uses as allowed in the B-6 District: 1. Offices (business and professional). 2. Banks and financial institutions. 3. Libraries. 4. Motels and hotels. Coaditlonil Uiei 1.Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table, or cafeteria in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Class 1 Restaurants. 2.Restaurants (Class H). Fast-food, convenience food, coffee shop, drive-in, diive-throughor liquor store restaurants, which is a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prq;>ared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises, regardless ofhow it is served, or a drive-through where most customers pick up food at a drive-up window for consumption on oroff the premises; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquoror have live entertainment. 3.The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business aiKl professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Accessory Uses 1. 2. Signs. Signs, as regulated in the zoning code for the B-1 District. Tenqx>rary Buildings. Buildings tennporarily located forpurposesofconstructionon thepremises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. 3. 4. Landsciq>ing. Decorative landscape features. Fences. Fences, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 5.Incidentals. Any incidental tq>air or processing necessary to conduct apermitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of foe principal building. 6. Public Telephone Booths. r Application Dale: December 17,2003 Initial 60-Day Review Period Expiration (Site Plan & PUD Rezoning); February 15,2004 60-Day Extension Notincatlon Faxed on 2-13-04, Extension to: April IS, 2004 120 Day Review Expiration (Subdivision): April 15,2004 To;Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^^^^^^^ February 13,2004 #04-2974 “Stonebay Marketplace”. NW Quadrant Hwy 12AVillow Drive - Continuation of Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision Summary of Request Applicants propose a commercial retail/ofrice development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-1B (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. Per the most recent site plan submittal, the lot area/building footprints are as follows: Lot 1: 1.30 acres -10,000 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.87 acres - 3,000 s.f. bank or retail building Lot 3: 1.52 acres - 14,820 s.f. Walgreens retail/pharmacy building Property Owner: John Terrance Homes LLC Applicant/Developer: Reliance Development Company LLC • John Trautz Stair Recommendation: Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Staff supports the proposed mix of retail and office uses. Staff has been working with applicant regarding ongoing revisions to the site plan and circulation, and there are two specific areas of the current plan to which staff would recommend revisions. Planning Commission should attempt to reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment, review 'iny rezoning concerns or stipulations you wish to place on the PUD. and spend time reviewing the development aspects of the site, providing staff with any concerns to be addressed regarding building design and styling, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. ..Strike «04>2974 StoBCbay Marketplace Fcbroaiy 13,2t04 Page2or< List of Exhibits A • Revised Site Plans: Version 14 (North lot is retail) Version IS (North lot is bank) B - February 5.2004 Transmittal Letter from John Trautz C - February 2,2004 Letter from John Hassler of John Terrance Homes D • Notice of Planning Commission Action 1 •26-04 E - Notice of 60-Day Extension 2-13-04 F • Submittal • Hours of Operation, Number of Employees G • Lists of B-1 and B-6 Allowed Uses H - Memo and Exhibits of t-16-04 Status of Review Process This item was initially presented for Planni ng Commission review and a public hearing at the January 20 tegular PC meeting. The applicants have also made presentations to the Planning Commission on January 7 and February 11. Staff has met with the applicants on multiple occasions to discuss the site planning aspects of the proposal, most recently on February 2, including the City Engineers Tom Kellogg (general site engineering) and Shelly Johnson (traffic) as well as Planning Consultant Phil Carlson. From the perspective of site circulation and layout, the numerous revisions to date have resulted in a plan that is nearing acceptability for the proposed uses and sizes/shapes of buildings. However, Planning Conunission on January 20 expressed concerns about the fimdamental issue of revising the Comprehensive Plan to allow for retail as the primary use of Outlot A. rather than the current CMP guideplan status of retail only as ancillary to a primary office use of the site. To allow for additional discussion of this issue. Council members were invited to attend the February 11 work session. Three of the four facets of the application are subject to the 60-day review period established by statute. The review period expiration date has been extended (See Exhibit E) an additional 60 days to April U. 2004, based on the tabling by Planning Commission and the anticipated future meeting schedule. Planning Commission does need to reach a conclusion regarding a recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Conunercial Site Plan Review issues within a time frame that allows for Council action to approve or deny the proposal. A Jl i04«2^4 Stoncbay MarkctpUct February 13,2004 Page 3 of 6 Comp Plan Amendment The Comp Plan Amendment is subject to Met Council approval. Met Council procedures automatically subject the amendment to review and comment by adjoining municipalities, including LongLake. I would encourage Planning Commissioners to again read the Comp Plan amendment conrunents included in the January 16 memo which address the basis for this minor change, and consider whether this change significantly alters the intent of the City in terms of commercial development along Highway 12 as indicated in CMP Pages 3B-37 thru 3B-40 (Exhibit Fof that memo). Stafffeels itjs merely a minorchange, in that all of the properties between Willow Drive andOldCrystal Bay Road,save for this comer Outlet, will be developed for office uses as currently guided. Commercial Site Plan Review, Conformity to B-d Standards City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City's planning consultant, Phil Carison of DSU, Inc., have previously comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan, and many of their suggestions have been incorporated in revisions to the plan. Please direct your attention to Exhibits A-1 and A-2, the most current site plan versions provided for initial review at your February 11 work session. Staff would make the following comments regarding the current site plan (Versions 14 and IS): 1.We are in receipt of a letter of request from John Hassler of John Terrance Homes (developer of the residential portion of Stonebay) that the City qqi re-orient the storefronts and primary parking toward Kelley Parkway, as that will have negative impacts to the Stonebay residential development. Rather, they would prefer substantial landscaping facing Kelley Parkway, which is a strong element of the current site plans. 2.Staff has suggested that the Walgrsen's main entry be shifted to the southwest side of the building, to perhaps create a focus toward the center of the site rather than the Willow/12 intersection. The developer has indicated that Walgreens is adamant in orienting the entry to the signalized intersection. There are pro’s and con’s to a southwest orientation. Staffs goal wa.« to have the main vehicle ingress point to the site not be at the back of buildings. However, the addition of substantial landscaping, the re-positioning of interior driveway access locations, and the 4-sided high-quality design of the buildings should eliminate concerns that entry to the site is the ‘ugly’ side of the buildings. Additionally, it is clear that if Walgreens were to re-orient its entry to the southwest, it will require parking directly west of the building, which will cause significant traffic circulation issues directly at the Kelley Parkway access. As it is currently designed, incoming vehicles can proceed straight al.ead between the Walgreens and retail building without conflicts with parking stalls, and can alternatively turn left to go to the bank, or straight and to the right to the coffee shop drive-thru. MB...J *04*2974 stonebay Marketplace February 13,2004 Page 4 of 4 3. 5. 6. 7. The Walgrcen’s service area (trash enclosure. loading dock area, etc) on the west side of the building has been provided with beefed up screening as compared to earlier plans. Use of primarily coniferous trees in this area would allow for substantial winter screening. 4. The coffee shop drive-thru at the west end of the retail building still can be improved. Staff would recommend the following: Eliminate the inbound (southbound) lane at the west end of the site. Have the westerly Kelley Parkway access point as ‘out only*. Ingress from this location has little value to the overall site circulation. This will then leave approximately 12* of additional space in which the exit from the drive- thru can be extended to a 90-degree angle, allowing drive-thru traffic to exit north rather than south. It may also be necessary to reduce the length of the building by 1S‘-18‘ to accon^ilish this. However, staff is quite concerned about the current layout pointing drive- thru exiters into an oncoming lane at a 4S-degree angle. The removal of the southbound lane also will allow for additional green space and patio space at the west end of the building overlooking the pond area. In general, save for the above comments, site access and circulation has been refined to a point that staffis generally satisfied with the current plans. Pedestrian access has also been revised to provide for reasonable and safe access and circulation throughout the site. Minor refinements may yet occur with the suggested traffic circulation changes. Required Parking. The two current plans differ slightly in parking requirements: -Plan 14 (retail on north site) requires a total of 172 stalls per Orono code, and 146 are provided, a shortage of 26 stalls. •Plan IS (bank on north site) also requires a total of 172 stalls, but only 140 are provided. The plan reviewed by Planning Commission in January required 172 stalls and provided 167, a shortage of only S stalls. City Traffic Consultant Sheldon Johnson will be asked to comment on the need for the full complement of parking. iJghtinf. Signage. Planning Commission should review again the site signage plan (Sheets AS. 1 and SN-1 of the January 16 memo) and determine whether it needs further refinement. Also review the building signage as depicted on the elevation views and in Sheet C2.2. It would be staff s intent that a defined signagp criteria document be drafted to regulate ongoing signage on the site. 1 s •04-2974 StoncbayMarkctpUcc February 13.2004 PagcSor« Staff has enggnttarf to the appUcants that the Walgreens signage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing reader boards. The exterior parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2.1 . Applicant should be requested to describe the intent for lighting at building entrances, etc 8. Building Desim andMaterials Planning Conunission should carefully review the building design and style exhibits in the January 16 memo. Applicant has provided a board with building exterior material samples for review and approval, this will be available at the meeting. 9. T jindscaping. Please review the landscaping plans (Exhibits L2.1 and L7.1 from l-16memo,and new site plan exhibits). Staff has not had a chance to thoroughly review the latest revisions; the B-6 landscaping standards establish a percentage of the overall project value to define the minimum landscape value required. 10. Other topics of concern or interest Preliminary Piat The prc^x)sed plat would create three building lots, one for each proposed building, with each lot fronting on two roads. Access and other site functions will necessarily be shared between the three parcels, requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. This was discussed briefly at the February 11 work session. Staff is confident that cross easements and covenants will be establishedto ensure ongoingaccess and maintenance of the site. Piat iqiproval will include the establishmentofdrainage and utilityeascmcnts, payment of park fees and stormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment before proceeding with its site plan review. The rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and can provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. For instance, if Planning Commission wishes to define a specific list of allowable or unacceptable uses for the site, that is certainly an option. If you wish certain potential uses to be subject to conditions, that is an option. The PUD approval for this site can be defined very specifically to ensure that inappropriate uses do not occur. #04-2974 StOMbiy Marketplace February 13,3004 PageOofO Staff and applicants have spent a great deal of time refining the site circulation and layout. The current site plans are very nearly acceptable in terms of the currently proposed uses. The ancillary plans (lighting, landscaping, signage, etc.) have been subject to only minor change as the site plan has evolved. Siunnuiry of Issues to Address 1.Does Planning Commission conclude that the Comp Plan Amendment is appropriate as presented, with the proposed change to allow primarily retail uses? If not, what aspects of it are inappropriate? What, if anything, might be changed to make it acceptable? 2.Regarding the proposed rezoning to B6-PUD, are there any specific inclusions or exclusions Planning Commisssion would choose to apply in terms of allowable uses? Applicants have requested that allowable uses include those allowed in the B6 district plus retail uses allowed in B-1 (See Exhibit G). 3. Regarding the site plan review, please identify any concerns regarding each of the following topics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Site layout and orientation Traffic circulation Pedestrian circulation Building design, materi.ils, colors, etc Site signage, building signage lighting Landscaping Site amenities Any other issues of importanc'^ Optloiia for Action Given that staff has not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the fine details of the most recent plan versions, staff would prefer that the Planning Commission spend substantial time on the site plan review to identify any issues remaining, reach aconclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning issues, and again table to your March meeting for a final site plan review and recommendations. If you wish to act on the Comp Plan amendment to allow it to proceed to City Council and through the Met Council process, that would be an option. i AppUcadra Date: Dcctiiibar 17,2003 00*Day Rtvicw Expiradoo (Site Plaa k. PUD Rczoolog): February IS, 2004 120 Day Review Expiradoo (SubdivUton): April 15,2004 SjP^ To;Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffiron, Planning Director^ January 16,2004 #04-2974 “Stonebay Marketplace”, NW Quadrant Hwy 12AVillow Drive - Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision Summary of Reouest Applicants propose a commercial retail/office development on Outlet A of StoneBay. The propose require;^ an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CTMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from 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 .S3 acres -10,000 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres - 5,000 s.f bank building Lot 3 : 1.30 acres -14,490 s.f Walgreens retail/phannacy building Property Owner: John Terrance Homes LLC AppUcant/Develcper: Reliance Development Company LLC - John Trauez Plaaner/Enginecr: Landform Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. However, Staff recommends that after holding the public hearing and offering comments regarding the implication and site plan, that Planning Commission table 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. i04>2974 StMttey Markttplact Juuiy U, 2044 PtgilofC Ltatof Exhibiti A - Applicition B • Applicants Submittals: 1 •Narrative 2 • Elevation View Depictions 3 -Plan shecta: CA/ • ncbJAMT CLt - BxtstiHg CanibtonB CJ.2 • DtmoUtioH ntm ClI • PrMmimvy SU* nan C2.2 • Pratlmbuuy Slgnagt Ham C3.I • PrMmiitaiy Cnding, Drtimage 4 Enthm CutnlUmm C3.2 • Praposti DtwiHag* Anas C4.I • Frattmlmary UmUf Plan C5J • PnttmUuup PUt £2,1 • PrMmtHary LtgMng Ham L2.1 • PnUmUtarp Lamisea^mg PUm L7.I •LamiacapaDmUs AZI • tPatgtaams BiavaAams ELI - Offlea/EttaU ElavaUams EL2 - Bank EUvatlons A5.l-WalgnamsStgmaga SNl • SUa Maaaataat Sign Datatt C - MPG Letter to ^>pUcant 12-16-03 D • City Engineer Comments 12-31-03 E • Consulting Planner's Comments 1-13-03 F - CMP Excerpts G-PlatMap H • Property Owners list I i X m4>2974 StOMbiy Markctpitce Jaoutry 1(, 2004 P«gt3 of6 I. Comprehensive Pltn Amendment The 2000*2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) guides this property for Commercial Office uses, i.e. “...professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail lues accessory to the office use.” (CMP Part 3B, Page 3B*24). 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 Walgreens and the office/retail building would be characterized more accurately as neighborhood retail/service tises. The app.'icant requests an amendment of the CMP that would “allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD, based on the finding that 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 serve the neighborhood, and would allow development of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed.” The amendment would apply only to Outlot A of Stonebay. Please review the hi^ligbted areas in Exhibit F, excerpts from the CMP regarding guiding of this area. The City Council has informally reviewed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the context of its impact on development in Long Lake, in full knowledge of Orono’s suted intent to not take actions which will be counterproductive to Long Lake ’s efforts in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council’s general conclusion was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed will have minimal impact on Long Lake ’s ability to move forward with its Downtown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of neighborhood service/retail and office can provide the business locations, services and quality employment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 2000*2020 CMP. Additional factors which may come into play in terms of this proposed include: The other three quadrants of this intersection are devoted to retail uses; it is not much, of a lesq) to bring in the remaining quadrant as retail, especially with an office (bank) component The Long Lake Downtown Master Plan docs not at any location provide for the Walgreens model of a building set back from the street with parking in firont. The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streetside with parking in the rear. It is highly unlikely that Walgreens would locate in Long Lake ’s Downtown area. From a staff perspective, Walgreens is an amenity that would be welcomed by tte public in this area. .jiL i i r #04*2974 StoBtbty Marketplace Jaauaiy 16,2004 Fa(e4or6 Having service retail uses within walking distance of both StoneBay and our senior housing less than '/a mile east, provides a positive amenity. The location on Highway 12 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 traffic 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 regrades to surrounding roads required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals will still be applicable if the amendment is qiproved. Procedurally, this CMP Amendment requires rqiproval of the Metropolitan Council; however, it is expected this will be viewed as a minor amendment, will have no new or mqrlanned-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistvice by Met Council. A copy of the plan set has been provided to the City of Long Lake. No comments have been received as of this writing. n. PUD Rezonlng & Highway 12 Corridor Standards Permitted uses in the B-6 District include business and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels. Retail uses are 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 Section 78-1065, and was anticipated during the approval of the Stonebay plat B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site: Minimum Area. Minimum area for a rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor is S acres (variance required - the existing parcel is nominally 3.69 acres in area; however, the site was created in 2003 with the City’s full knowledge of its size and the intended commercial use. An area variance to allow rezoning of the site is at this point a mere technicality. 1 r M4-2974 StOBtbay MArketpUct iMuary 16,2004 PagtSofO Acceaa and circulation plan. 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 qyplicants 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 renew process moves forward. Trail links are provided as called for in the City’s plans and in the Stonebay approvals. Interior site circulation is a major concern which requires additional discussions between staffs ^plicants and consultants. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water must be available. They are. Coimection charges for the site were established at the time of the Stonebay PUD s^provals. Stormwater ManaaementThe code requires that a stonnwater management plan be submitted and be in compliance with City standards. All stormwater from the site will be directed to the regional pond immediately west of the site which was designed with edacity for development of this site. Building Design and Constmetion . This section addresses the exterior wall finishes, architectural compatibility of future additions and outbuildings, and prohibits temporary buildings. The proposal generally spears to be in compliance with the pertinent standards. Development Agreement . The ordinance requires that all rezonings within the Highway 12 Corridor are subject to a Development Agreement assuring compliance with the code requirements. Unique to this site is the intent to create multiple lots with individual ownerships, using shared infrastmeture. The ^)pUcant has suggested that separate Agreements be established for each of the three lots, which should be feasible but adds to the administrative complexity of the approval process. UI. PreUmlnary Plat The proposed plat would create three building lots, one for each proposed building, with each lot fronting on two roads. Access and other site functions will necessarily be shared between the three parcels, requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. Plat tqjproval will include the establishment of drainage and utility easements, payment of park fees and stormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. M4*2974 StPsAay Martetplan January Itf, 2004 Pa|c4 of 6 IV. Commercial Site Plan Review, Conformity to B-6 Standards City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson ofDSU, Inc., havebeen to comment on the enpneering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. Please carefully review their comments (Exhibits D & E) as well as the comments in the staff letter of December 16. Phil Carlson’s comments of January 15 are in complete alignment with staffs thinking. The site plan has a number of significant issues which sh^'ild be worked through at the staft/developcr/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a detailed site plan review. For that reason, a review of the site plan details has not been included with this memo. A public hearing has been scheduled for this proposal at your January 20 meeting. Planting Commission members are encouraged to use the limited allotted time after hearing firom the public, to identify for the benefit of staff and the developer any specific concerns you believe need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics you may wish to make general or specific comments on include: 1. Site orientations, relationship to Stonebay residential nei^borhood, relationship to 12AVillow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity 2. Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-thm’s 3. Building materials and building design 4. Pedestrian access and circulation 5. Signage, lifting, and landscaping 6. Other topics of concern or interest Staff Recommendation Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and die rezoning to B*6 PUD. Planning Commission could take action regarding these elements of the application at this time, or could table them so that die Commission takes action on all elements of the application at the February 17 meeting. 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 comprehensive review at your February 17 regular meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. remodeling permit; therefore, would not be needing the lot area and lot width variances as originally expected. The applicants wish to be given a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshore setback variance to allow the comer of the deck to encroach 4* into the average lakeshore setback zone. Gundlach pointed out that neighboring views would not be obstructed by the replacement of the deck, since the grade changes are dramatic. She suggested the Commission table the conditional use permit request to allow landscape restoration in the 0-7S' zone until more detailed plans can be submitted once weather permits for review and approval by the City Engineer. In order to meet hardcover restrictions for new construction, the Blount’s believed the design had become aesthetically unattractive and not worth the investment to build .lew construction. Although they would have preferred a front porch and first floor bedroom, Ms. Blount stated that they will remodel the existing cottage instead of build new. Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of certain elements of Application #04-2969, granting a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 4’ encroachment of the deck into the average lakeshore setback. In addition, tabling the conditional use permit for landscape restoration in the 0-7S’ zone until weather permits the applicant to submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INCn 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (postponed after Item #4) (#4) #04-2974 RELUNCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-7:43 P.M.) John Trautz, Reliance Development, and Steve Johnston, the Applicant’s Representatives, PAGE 2 of 25 4 k NONUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Tuesday. Febniary 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. were present. Oaffiron explained that the applicants propose a commercial letail/ofTice development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Commtinity Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with ruppoiting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process ftom RR-IB (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (lEghway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots as follows: Lot 1: 1.S3 acres • 10.000 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres • 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres -14.490 s.f. Walgreen’s retail/pharmacy building Gafiiron pointed out that, while staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the rezoning to B-6 PUD, and proposed mix of retail and office uses, staff has been working with the applicants regarding ongoing revisions to the site plan and circulation. He explained that there are two specific areas of the current plan which staff would reconunend revisions. Qa^n encouraged the Planning Commission to reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment, review any rezoning concerns or stipulations they wish to place on the PUD, and spend time reviewing the development aspects of the site, providing staff with any concerns to be addressed regarding building design and styling, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. In addition, based on comments received from Phil Carlson, the City’s Planning Consultant, Gaffton suggested the Commission handle the Land Use Plan amendment first and separately. Since this would be an amendment to the Comp Plan, Gaffron felt that some discussion of the overall intent and character to be achieved should be made. PAGE 3 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated that, if the Planning Commission wishes to take a step toward approval, it is staffs recommendation that an amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Allow service retail uses, such as a pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, and similar neighborhood and community scale uses (uses can be further defined if you wish), with the following characteristics: The development plan shall incorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quality building materials and architectural detailing. No single use shall occupy more than 15,000 square feet of floor area. There shall be generous, well-planned green space, landsciq)ing. and buffering throughout the entire site, exceeding the minimums in the Orono Code for similar developments. There shall be a clear, well-designed connection and orientation to the pond west of the site, such that patrons can see the pond from the development, pedestrians can easily walk to and around the pond, and adjacent uses will orient windows, outdoor seating areas, and other elements toward the pond. There shall be clear, well-designed sidewalk connections from the sidewalks and trails surrounding the site (on Kelley Parkway, Willow Drive, and Highway 12) to all points within the development, especially from access points that serve the residential development to the north. The scale and type of uses, and the design of the site, shall be such that PAGE 4 of 25 NUNUTES OFTHB ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Tuesday, Febniary 17,2034 6:00 o'clock pm overall traffic into and out of the site will not be more than under the previously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. The site plan shall be designed to provide clear and safe traffic movements within the site for all internal movements: entrances, exits, parking areas, drive-through lanes, loading/service areas, and driveways. 8)The overall site plan shall be designed such that the orientation of buildings is not mainly to Highway 12. but also creates a significant sense of place internally in the site. If ownership of the site is to be divided among two or more lots with more than one owner, provisions shall be made for adequate handling of access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions in a manner that can be guaranteed by the City. Fuithermoie, if the Planning Commission recommends approval for the Land Use Plan amendment, with or without any of the above specific conditions attached, a recommendadon for approval of the rezoning to B6-PUD could also be made, assuming the Commission is generally satisfied with the current plan. Gaffron pointed out that the other option would be to not recommend ^iproval for the rezoning until the Commission has seen a plan with which they are completely satisfied. It is suggested that a recommendation regarding a rezoning should include development parameters that will become zoning requirements for the property, and include the following: Recommend approval of a rezoning to PUD for Stonebay Muketplace, with the following conchtions: PAGE 5 of 25 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Development on the site must follow the design for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all other site features illustrated on the submission for Stonebay Marketplace by Landfomn for Reliance Development, sheets x-xx, dated x-x-x. No deviation from these designs shall be allowed without approval of an amendment to the PUD by the Orono City Council, except for minor adjustments to be approved by City staff, at the discretion of the Development Review Committee. The orientation of the Walgreen's building and parking areas shall be changed to place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building. Green space within the site will increase as follows in the following locations:.... The connection and orientation to the pond west of the site will be changed to .... The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure adequate provision for access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions, including..... All buildings and improvements shown on the submitted plans will be completed by x-x-x [date], and if not, the remainder of the site will be sodded [condition of all areas of the site if left undeveloped]... With regard to permitted uses in the B-6 District, Gaffron stated that these include business and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels. In addition, retail uses are 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 Section 78-106S, and was anticipated PAGE 6 of 25 1.. n j MINUTESOPTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock pm during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B*6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Since Sections 78*643 thru 78-793 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site, Oaffion suggested the Commission review the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses allowed in B-1 and B*6 zoning regulations. In terms of uses, Trautz questioned whether a PUD with B-1 zoning would be more appropriate to the site. While he believed S of the 6 underlying conditions as recommended by staff to be reasonable, Trautz found the requirement of Walgreen ’s to be reoriented to place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building a concern to this retailer. He asked for some flexibility on this point. Johnston distributed a revised site plan, version 17, since the work session the past week, which showed a decrease in impervious surface and an increase in green space to 26.5%. He pointed out that many sidewalks connect to the site and buildings and agreed that the only issue may be the Walgreen ’s orientation. Acting Chair Mabusth asked the Conunissioners how comfortable they were with approving the changes to the amendment without having final plans in hand. She was uncomfortable proceeding without final plans. Rahn concuned. Hawn stated that she was hesitant to proceed at all without comment by Long Lake. She maintained that early conversations with Long Lake had guided retail to the Long Lake area, not Willow, and that representatives of Long Lake had indicated to her that they would be interested in reviewing this proposal. Since the past Planning stance has been to cooperate with Long Lake and plan together the development of this corridor beginning with Long Lake, Hawn felt this to be premature without more official conversations with Long Lake. She suggested the Commission extend a formal invitation to the Long Lake Planning Commission to join them for a joint work session to discuss the proposal before PAGE 7 of 25 I i t MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. moving forward. Althou^ she was sympathetic to not delay the applicant, she was hesitant to proceed until a process had been begun with Long Lake. Although he could see that no formal approvals would be granted this evening, Johnston requested that the Commission provide them with direction to continue the process moving forward. He asked to be given the opportunity to address questions this evening and be provided feedback as to whether they were on the right track, rather than making a mistake which would cost the applicant an additional 30 days delay. While the Commission believed the underlying B-6 zoning appropriate, Gaffron suggested the Commission review the B-1 list of 30-3S specific uses and 8 conditional uses to see if they could be added to the acceptable uses list for this PUD. The Commission reviewed the B-1 uses omitting Laundromats, plumbing, electrical, heating, temporary sales- Christmas tree lots, and home and garden equipment rental from the list of accept^le uses. Under Conditional uses, items 1,2, 5,6, and 7 were removed, while item 8 - professional office and offices of a general nature was added to the list of acceptable uses. Within the list of accessory uses, item 1 was removed. No changes to the B-6 uses were suggested. Trautz requested that the Conditional use Class I restaurant use be added to the permitted uses section of the code for a regular use and place restrictive language upon what type of food service is provided. Gaffron stated that B-6 doesn't address Class II restaurants at all. which would include drive-thru fast food type restaurants. Hawn stated that she would not support the addition of another drive-thru restaurant, although she could endorse a restaurant that serves wine/beer. Gaffron stated that, if the Commission wished to restrict the type of restaurant uses they would or would not allow, the Commission would need to identify aspects of what they PAGE 8 of 2S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Tuesday. February 17,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. will and will not allow. Rahn staled that, cuirently, any restaurant with a drive-thru would have to be approved via a CUP. Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the PUD be written that any proposed change in restaurant use be subject to review by the City. Bremer proposed the coffee shop be viewed as drive-thru with incidental food use. She suggested food prep issues be the trigger to treat uses differently. Hawn questioned why the City just doesn't make the proposed Starbucks a drive-thru with a CUP which the City giants. Gaffron concurred, stating that all restaurant uses could be CUP, entitling the City to grant those they find more palatable than others. Trautz suggested the Starbucks apply for a CUP based on the fact that the food prep is not performed on site. With regard to the orientation of the Walgreen’s, Bremer stated that she liked the orientation as proposed. Rahn concurred, stating that he did not wish to create unneeded parking issues with the revised orientation. As proposed, parking was shoit 26 spaces on site and Rahn did not wish to see the situation worsen. Johnston stated that Walgreen’s has estimated, through their vast retailing experience, that they need 60 spaces for this size location. PAGE 9 of 25 aadiililiUtfiifliiriii i A minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Although Gaffron stated that he would need to ron the latest plan past the traffic planner for feedback, he did not feel the parking situation for the Walgreen's retailer to be a problem. He did point out, however, that the amount of parking depends on the specific use of any particular site. He pointed out that the City does not have the luxury of overflow parking at these sites. Rahn stated that he did not wish to create another parking scenario as the problem faced by Otten Brothers and the Karate studio where overlap of classes has wreaked havoc on the parking supply. Acting Chair Mabusth asked whether the structural cover was an issue. Gaffron stated that, although the proposal is over on strtxtural cover, the City has allowed up to 16*18% structural cover at other sites. He asked whether the Commission could allow this as a trade-off if it believes this to be a benefit to the community. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she, too, would prefer to wait to make a comp plan amendment until after the Commission had met with the Long Lake Planning Commission. Gaffron stated that they could invite the Commission to Orono's regular work session scheduled for March 3*^, 2004. Hawn stated that she felt version 17 was far better than what had previously been proposed by the applicant. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #04-2974, StoneBay Marketplace, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Willow Drive, a Proposed PAGE 10 of 2^ r » MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.tn. Commercial PUD Development, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision in order to invite the Long Lake Planning Commission to Join the Orono Planning Commission for a work session with the applicant to review the proposal on March 3,2004. VOTE: Ayes 5, NaysO. NEW BUSINESS (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (7:43-7:54 P.M.) Steve Bohl, representing the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that this is a proposed 2-lot residential le-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 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 buildabilily. 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 lotA>ack lot’ area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. Gaffron pointed out that the applicant has provided a grading plan and design for the PAGE 11 of 25 Cni Date Application Received: 01>21 *04 Date AppUcation Coatidered as Complete: 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 CtryoF <^ 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION OfiO.Vy Date: March 17, 2004 Item No Departmeat Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Agenda Section: Zoning Title: City Planner Item Description: , #04-2986 - JefFNute of Natural Environments Corp for Dennis & Shawn Vaillant, 847 Tonkawa Road - Conditional Use Permit & Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB, Single Family Lakcshorc Residential, 1 acre 1.4 acre (64^70 s.f.) List of Exhibits: A — Resolution per Plsuuiing Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 03-16-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 03-15-04 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A conditional use permit in order to replace a failing timber wall and wooden stair system with lower glacial boulder walls, vegetation, re-grading the slope and the installation of a granite stair system. 2. A hardcover variance to reduce the level of hardcover. The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover within the 0-75* zone from 4.5% to 4.2%. Planning Commission Recommendation On March 15, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 on the consent agenda to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. i A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282 & 78-1288 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282,78-1286 AND 78-1250 SUBDIVISION 1 F LE NO. 04-2986 WHEREAS, Dennis Vaillant and Shawn Vaillant, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 847 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 2, Auditors Subd. No. 217, lying Southeasterly of a line 30 feet Southeasterly of and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made ^plication to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and 78-1288 to allow a reduction in hardcover from 4.5% to 4.2% within the 0-75’ setback zone where 0% is nonnally allowed. WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1250 to allow grading within the 0-75* setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mirmesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2986. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district, which requires a minimum of 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) in lot area. Page 1 of 5 3. 4. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on March 15, 2004 and recommended approval of the hardcover variance and conditional use permit based on the following findings: a. City Code 78-1282 allows for the installation of stairs, lifts and landings in place of major topographic alterations on steep slopes. b. The proposed changes to the stair system and wall result in a reduction in hardcover from 4.5% to 4.2%. c. The proposed 4.2% hardcover is allowed pursuant to City Code 12- 1282. d. The existing wooden stairs and landings have a greater visual impact from the lake than the proposed stair system. e. The existing 8’ timber retaining wall will be replaced with a more stable grade and glacial boulder walls 3’ in height or less. f. The proposed glacial walls will be screened from the lake by vegetation for a more natural looking slope. g. The reconstruction of a wall 4 ’ or less in height and maintenance of a slope no greater than 2:1 is supported by the City’s Engineer, and is necessary to stabilize the slope and protect the slope from damage. h. The applicants have provided a restoration plan meeting the goals and intent of the Zoning Code and the Orono Community Management Plan. The City Council has considered this ^plication 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 die health, safety and welfare of the commuitity. 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 oiher danger to neighboring Page 2 of 5 1 i 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 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereoy grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78*282 to allow hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone consisting of 4.2%, and a conditional use permit for the construction of a new granite stair system, regarding of the slope and installatiou of low- glacial boulder walls subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plans submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and B. Any amendments to the site plans which ai'e not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Conunission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the 4.2% per the proposed plan and hard< over allowance sununary 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. 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 22,2005). 4. 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. 5. 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. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 22”^ day of Marcht 2004, ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(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 ofS r STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _______, 2004 by Linda S. Vce, 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 ,2004 , husband of Shawn Vaillant, husband and wife. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of .2004 , wife of Dennis Vaillant, husband and wife. Notary Public Page S of S i TZ ON layoMd I X X. EXHIBIT HARDCOVER SUMMARY 0-75’ ZONE 9 996^ " Glacial Boulder Walls -190 s.f. Granite Steps -160 s.f. Total = 350 s.f. - 350 s.f. / 8250 = 4.2% i. >1 •W&\ «^s % ^ 0Q6l n JS6 M MIf % / T fM'W-LlMv JHWS 1® I 6 ssss ffSi SnHnii in X \\ \v \ / / /•cS* 'SOc/OVd \ 1 EXHIBIT B s,tT rc^t. ’^C<AI£l^ V- 4 ’■’gjoOOpMCf ^'£M. &LACIAL f iaJa f ^ CcMf-rt > -ra ‘— -aa &LA<.!AL. UrJfikC' u^ TO! 0 ^ ^ ^ '•i\®0't ^LACtAL.3i ^(33 0^^,C7^3 G^ C^WALOeA uJALt 0* c 'i l 9:?^ <s«A/oir£ ,. 5T£^^ r juJ^iAL Ck ^ka LO^^ ha ^o sail £Ae_r:j^ — — — CLA^tAi C^e>»^C. UjA£,i S/L. ^eS" /n£Lf^£ V-^ OMtJ *f2.7. V . lL(./\ a/T* \ %= ; exHieiTB CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2986 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 16,2004 TO: JeffNute 7325 Pioneer Trail Loretto, MN 55328 COPIES:Shawn Valliant 847 Tonkawa Rd Long Lake, MN 5S3S6 TYPE OP REQUEST: Variance d Conditloaal Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: March IS, 2004 Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover variance and conditional use permit as proposed with the following stipulations: 1. The proposed walls will not exceed 3-feet in height and will be screened with vegetation. 2. Walls are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. 3. Heavy duty silt fence with steel t-posts must be installed and remain along Ae shoreline throughout die duration of die construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City CouDcll - Monday, March 22,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fixim the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. m ^etTC*FILEM4-2986 27 February 2004 Past 1 of 4 Date Application Rtetivad: 01-21-04 Date AppU:ation Coniidercd as Complete: 02>23*04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner February 27,2004 CONSENT 04-2986, Jeff Nute of Natural Environments Coip for Shawn Valliant, 847 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Conditional Use Permit - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, 1 acre 1.4 acre (64,870 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant is requesting the following: 1. A conditional use permit in order to replace a failing timber wall and wooden stair system with lower glacial boulder walls, vegetation, le-grading the slope and the installation of a granite stair system. 2. A hardcover variance is also necessary due to the change in the hardcover percentage proposed. The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover within the 0-7S* zone from 4.5% to 4.2%. ________________________ Sutff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: Approval of the application subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations, which are as follows: 1. The proposed walls will not exceed 3-feet in height and will be screened with vegetation. 2. Walls are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. 3. Heavy duty silt fence with steel t-posts must be installed and remain along the shoreline throughout the durahoa of the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established.____________________ Pertinent IZoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshorc hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet ot 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 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. 1 / i ’ • • . -fr • • • PILEi04-2M6 27 Ftbmary 2004 Page 2 of 4 See. 78-966. Land Alteration; Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to build, alter or repair any seawall, retaining wall or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. Sec. 78-1250. Conditional uses. Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in this chapter. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shoreland overlay district: 1. Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: a) The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; b) The visibility of structures and other fscilities as viewed from public waters is limited; c) The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and d) The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Sec. 78-1282. Steirways, lifts and landings. Stairways nnd lifts are the preferred alternative to miyor topographic alterations for achieving access tq> and down blufGi and steep slopes to shore areas. Sec. 78-1286. Topographic alterationa/grading and filling. (b.) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high v^ter level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. 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 die OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet aitd 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 pe*^:ent hardcover. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations E. Letter from City Engineer dated February 25,2004 F. Photos Q. Property Owners List H. Plat Map FILE#04-29ae 27 Ftbra«iy20M Pag* 3 of 4 Background The existing home at 847 Tonkawa Road was removed and a new residence is cuncntly under construction. In conjunction with the construction of the new residence, the homeowner is proposing to remove the existing, failing timber wall and wooden stair system and replace the wooden stair s)^tem with a durable and less visible granite stair system. Additionally, the homeowner is proposing to remove the 8 ’ existing timber wall with a re-graded slope and intermittent glacial boulder outcroppings and low boulder walls. These boulder walls and outcroppings are proposed to have significant vegetative screening which vnll reduce the visual appearance of the boulders and create a more natural looking slope from the lake. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 64,870 s.f (1.4 acre)150 ’ Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 8,250 s.f 0s.f (0%) 377 s.f* (4.5 %) Aeeountlngfor the stairs, landing and timber wall. 350 s.f (4.2 %) Aeeountlngfor the stairs, landing and timber wall. Hardcover Setback Variance City Code 12-1282 allows for the installation of stairs, lifts and landings in the place of major topogr£q;>hic alterations on steep slopes. The nature of the topography on this property ’s lake yard is very challenging, and a stair system is necessary for the homeowner to access the lake. The existing timber wall, stairs, and landings within the 0-75 ’ setback zone constitute 4.5% hardcover. The proposed stair system and re-grading of the slope to eliminate the timber wall and replace with short boulder walls will be a minor reduction in hardcover with a percentage of 4.2. Hardship Analysis In consld*rlng applications for variance, the Planning Com ilsslon shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on valua of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provlsloiu of the Zoning Code In btstanea where their stria enforcement would cause undue hardshio because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions wilt be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. 3 J m % FILEM4-29M 27 Fabruary 2004 Paga 4of4 Staff finds that a hardship exists due to the challenging lalceshore portion of the lot and the need for the hardcover (stairs), justifies granting the variance request for die minor reduction in hardcover. Conditional Use Permit Analysis A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site have been made, and are addressed by the following: The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; Steps have been taken to address possible soil erosion during and after construction. • Ihe visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed firam public waters is limited; Visibility of the steps and the walls will be minimized by vegetation plantings which will screen the proposed structures. • The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; Not applicable. • The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accoixunodate these watercraft; Not applicable. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the site and has provided staff with a recommendation (the letter is attached as Exhibit E). The following is a summary of Kellogg's comments: • The proposed wall will not exceed 3 ' in height and will be screened with vegetation. The wall construction is acceptable from an engineering standpoint provided the installation is in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. • Heavy duty silt fence with steel Uposts must be Installed along the shoreline Immediately to protect the exposed slope. The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the City Engineer's recommendations. I j % B<Hi»nrA CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# 0^"' Data Recalvad 2,! Amount Paid ^ItCO- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) . ^ —7^Phnnfl rhome^-7^ti v?9 -7^ov ^ Phone(work) 'f??. /______City ----ZlpJ* 5X3.?js. Name Uanr OWNEf^ dlfferen^an applicant) __________ Address ^ PhftnA (horned QG^*4~)4-!*)^SA. Date Property Acquired Phonafwork^ ) _ Crty Zip, (month/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use X $600.00 Land Alteration + Pemiit Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling > 501 cu. yd. or more V Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PiD • see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the>Fact Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $600.00 Vacation $600.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $600.00 Rezoniiig (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ___$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule’ #00•tf ^•86 • IlH J* • •!• air: • • •U]t • • Ufa ^ ir •nil • HI n. .fst of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin ance, Government Center, A-60w 300 South 6*'' >ne 612-348-5810). id by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for application if not included on required survey, ting and proposed contours) if land alterations n (grades). ude marital status) of all persons with an interest in include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current able (see staff for requirements). plication, please attach a separate list of any other if this application. lO COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY R SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS d drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be • «*(elllle ust sign this application. Please remember that above information has not been included. lat Land Use Application is complete. Date •lel ■ • • 1« vide all information required or requested by the dditional fees (staff time not covered by original fee Incurred in review of this application, and certifies nd correct to the best of hiSiHier knowledge. ______________Date /- g./> o y •UKle eVVil^ele 4 d agrees to this application and further authorized by City staff, consultants, agents, commission r purposes of investigation and verification of this Date ices 25 days before the Planning Comrrtissien Meeting, the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present nning Commission and CoundL If an applicant is unable to rrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place ils Ihe meeting. ’O in eX'A Natural E nvironments corporation 11 10 EvcRORKEN Lank north P lymouth. Minnesota B844t Suite 3f2 PHONE (763) 844-8002 FAX (763) 848-0204 ReCjuest for Permit Property Location Site Address - 847 Tonkawa Road Orono, Minnesota The permit requested is for land alteration to be done in the 0-75* zone. We have submitted pictures of existing lakeshore as reference to changes to be made. The existing wooden staircase and wooden retaining wall are deteriorating and will be removed. The proposed lakeshore changes are to provide for a natural, softened landscape which will blend in with the surroundings, provide for a safer access, and stabilize the lakeshore/hillside area to prevent erosion onto the lake bed. To replace the wooden staircase, granite steps with a hand rail will be installed. This will dramatically soften the hillside and will be more visually appealing. To replace the timber wall, a series of shorter glacial boulder walls will be constructed to hold the hill side and prevent erosion. Also, in random areas as noted on proposed plan, glacial boulder outcroppings will be installed to help prevent erosion. We feel glacial boulders, versus timbers, will blend very nicely with the shoreline and tivj rest of the lakeshore. The visual impact and erosion concerns are our main priorities in making these lakeshore changes. The plant material (Trees, shrubs, and perennials) will be placed in a manner so as to steer away from a structured, rhan made appearance. The plant material along with the hardwood mulch will be critical in the stabilization of the hillside. If any additional insight or information on this project is requested, you can reach me at 612-735-3336. Thanks for your consideration! Sincerely, Jeffrey 4^1.0 O: QaJ* * \ V ' > .. % » ilLT: 'W hsi^ I te^> KSCRPnOM: „ „ „ , • ------Thot port of Lol 2, Audilor* Subd No. 2r Iyw9 wggo^g) . pp SoultMMlarty of o Kn* 30 foot SoulhoMlorty of ond*4’'*^ • " roM with th« Nortfmestorly Hne of sold Lot Z COUNTY. SCALE IN FEET ^ - OQSTMC SPOT aEVATKM. ISEO SPOT EHVATOH - DftCCTION SURFACE DRAMAG!: w » !\v<*^ ^ PARTIAL ASBtML T SURVEY WAUscsTtPSI *^STONEWOOD D EVELOPmir oww ■•TO* iSpilb VAUANT RESIDENCE 847 TONKAWA ROAD Land Frauk It OardaraJIm Survoyor 6440 FLYWG aOUD DRIVE EDEN PRARE, ^1^ iSfi(c»nO\ ^LA^/AU au.^<iCL /cl ay AhJP /*‘i f p//?T /-t lyruR^ cSi>f\PP^ tco ^ > 3o-3fc“ GLACIAL CJot^u^OCKS •tsmr^ a Aft C.O'^ASC tS^^filfCO APPao\, 4*d"pr£’/= cQRAhUrC STCP$ (AAhJP-RAiL •r'o AAGg-r copC \ -n> aG ptTBRt'UfjeOyY \ C,LMf:S‘ CR.AVCL PLArC 'TAt^peo AT 2" Z^^r€A\yAL$ ■^- ............ 8 i N atural Environments Corporation 1 1 10 EvsRaRKKN Lank N orth PLYMOUTH, Minnesota 55441 suivm PHONE (763) 544-8002 Pax (763)548-0204 Construction Specifications: The glacial boulder walls will be constructed with boulders ranging in sizes from 24 to 36 inches in diameter. More stabitit/ is achieved by using larger boulders and installing each course of boulders with more setback, versus a “straight-stacked” method. The walls will be backfilled and compacted with a soil and day mixture, reason being, the mixture helps the boulders to settle and naturally lock together. Meticulous care is taken in pledng the boulders together and closing off the gaps. Also, by avoiding fabnc behind the wail, groundcover will be planted in the gaps to contribute to the stabilization of the boulders and the natural look of the wall. The granite steps will have a base of compacted gravel. The base will be excavated in virgin soil and approximately 10-12 inches of 3/4" gravel will be plate tamped every 2 inches to provide for maximum stability. The step treads will maintain a 12-15 inch width with the rough surface facing up for traction. A hand-rail meeting all applicable codes will be installed. Erosion Control Specifications: A silt fence will be installed at the top of the hillside and also on the shoreline to prevent any erosion from filtering into the lake. In areas around boulders and steps, plant material and shredded hardwood mulch will be installed. In open areas where equipment may have damaged the existing terrain, a Fulerra Erosion Contrci./Re-Vegetation Mat will be laid down. ^ v ' V-^ C; - pu<^iec* V- 4 ^ O o %£ /r /*5> ^^SBgjh^-4 '’‘^■^ iO w ’'JS C uak ^ ' <^^T3 ^L^dAL U-^/At, CLuSrt.R GLACIAL (tJAL CCu-STCff e< oKSlA'- TV/ ejAiirihJc, •nf'^au^u./' -T^ 0) 0^^. r?^^ C?^ (jwHCOC^ i*jUZ.^ ^tiAstire STE.PS r K^/AL HA^OPAiL - — >___ - * ^' • # OMiJ *=fZJ,'*i <lLA^:iAZ Oo*ALpeA CJA4C ^'tr . * *V ____ *•• ■ 4:r^joc-Vs u 'AR caa /7^ ^€^iPCajc6 JU-" ''T - ^^c-.4 ii'tWHMrOA* 2. 5«T-A V ^^c»ooe^j5v«a^ S VJCf<S€l C.4 * •A.'A^.,^' uJ/^^„ouJ y^kAL^A AfiotAfsJo ^l.Akjt^ A*Jo Coc^.t.otfv^j* /? '’ •r't r • V j^:- Li'*w- ^ V/^/L^AA/r ^^£SlO£^J^£ 6V*7 rohJl^AwA ISOAP \^iZoNo Al#v/ ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects RattiM. AndarVk $n4 Aiiedtiti. Int. If M AfrinMIlYt Acii«A/I«Ml e#Aartunily lariarar •fi« Ownti Rrinetpeti: Otio 0. iootitfoo. M. • Mifvln L Sofvcli« Rl. • Oifon R. Cook. RX. • Robert O. ScHunlchC. Rt • Jfrry A ■eurtfoA RI. • Mori A Momoe, RI. Sonlor ConiuliOfitiJ «oberl W. Rostnt. RI. • ioitph C rllk. RR • RUnorR f. Ibrntr. RR.. Suion M ewrfin C/A Aiieciate Rrinciofli; MiCh A. Oordon. Rt • Robffi t WtWtnt. RI • RicnorR w. Rosetr. RR • OArid o. loiteco. n • Mlcn«« T ■•uon^W Rt • TRd R R»t»R. RI • Rmnfm R AnRtrion. RR. • Mort R Rdfl. Rt • OoviR A Rontitrofli KARA • S.Rr>«y R iwHomiOA RR. LX • Apnoi M. Riar. US A • Ai#n R^Cfe IChmlRf. Rf . TAor*Oi W Rt<#f lOA. Rf. • Jsm€i R RR. • Wilei R Jor^itA RR • L Orovol m. RR • Otnitt J idgertoa RR • lirwoel M#rc«if l Rf • Tnomoi A SyffeO. Rf. • Shtidoo A jolviioA • Ojie A Orovt. RR. • Tftomji A. Rouihor ft • Rootre J Oevery ft omcei: Sc Roul. Sc. Cloud. Rochtiftr WHimpr mn • MHwfoiiet. Wi • Chtc^go A Febnury 25,2004 \MbiltP: tuwwPoAtllfOO com Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ottioir p. '"f ® ? 6 2B0< '"■'‘"‘O'lOfVo Re; 847 Tonkawa File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2986 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the plans and specifications for the proposed shoreline improvements at 847 Tonkawa. Tlie proposed improvements include replacing some deteriorating woodstqjs to the lake iir|rf the removal and replacement of a timber retaining wall. The wooden steps 'vill be replaced wiflt granite steps and boulders will replace the existing timber retaining wall. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: The proposed walls will not exceed 3-fect in height and will be screened with vegetation. The wall construction is acceptable from an engineering standpoint provided the installation is in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. Heavy duty silt fence with steel t-pcsls must be installed along the shoreline Immediately to protect the exposed slope. The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and remair. in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. If j'ou have any qi'cstions please call me at (651) 604-4R63 Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Oiono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651*636*460O • Fax: 651-636-13I1 • WY ^ Xi*' •' I f r •' • ■ ■ '1^1 f < . / '• \ II: t- %;K . rss ® - z~7 ’ mr.- ..- - ___ .-I • .» . .1— r- • .. .—-. ■4 •ik* • • • ^ «»«• w ^ • J-*' *4i i . . ./^. ^ :»■•, *'• \‘* S.’V - '# i' ; ' r. -tf, • |^'■.V N_1 V.X'S N'»rv 5- V /••» “•t r. X • ;v •• 1r ^ V *r ^. [TvN'rjx I'(. I*, ^ 1^ v«sdvr.r. r '■ ■■' * ■ • • T *i V.v5 % . «» 4 A.k ■A t % m a /V* '■>> ,y • X • • \ ra'‘$ >■ \W^wM « « 'l 1 • s • < ^ ^ 1 f •• V •* 3 n •^ ’ * ^ M < •« . • r 1 • ’ • ^ j ^4 ; 5/V^^ T>i-' < n!j ’ -c\ X \ •*' • N % • r •^ • • * . • _ --1, . . u j • *••.'*■; • i\ • / • * \r .V -i:.si ! ^ ' V V dtMlir^., ; Jife ••*^ I •• , *.A, s ±5t i t ' - • >. f u' •/I V. •' irVa 1 «.' •■ • '' J^'■<l .•ic^iVrjhr ______ # V vro.i>^ » :* - .^'.• y'**'!^ . .^. i.-i ,.;_f. ; . , .• ; < '* rnm^ X'' , ^Jr:r>^-. V U« ^ - '•V.v* •V. • • .»• / % S* - * * * ’•• % .v*V '• ■■' .' ■ •# 7 '■ , ■ . 'I•’»»' * • >. • V .rm.^ v '•• J? i-lSm kl ^^•1 Ss-cte I rf’I •"■'" ,v«f ' ■TFi **^- ■>*& ‘ ; ^ . -Vv4j [T vr'- ‘rt * • • 'V7-’’*»V ’^-.-/ -■^ 8* ^ jigggy B r ^ * 5^ ‘r^ • • #V' :tLLyJ.< 4 :•.'. ,4^'C m •s^TS^C’’'' «.T-7*r^. < ^yT;^?- hi t 4 ^v: ::: •# A'>- ' mm •i: iSiSSm'^:^ ,*M Ai wrr *:i, ». m ■m V..J-;-'h '^■•' ,,:f :. l>»: I* • * >^ts ’ .. . *>’ RUN DATE: 1/1 3R 0SII723MMI0 ROfAODR MOTONRAWARD IWNERNAMB TRATJMAUOAN •axpaver tddorateresajm IAME/AOOR TIOTONltAWARD LONOUUCEMM 55JS ]• Ml 1733110001 WjrADm toi TONKAWARD IWNeRNAME ORfOMUEAJWMU ■jyjqp^YRR DAVIORROMIIE JAME/ADOR tonkawa rd MME/ADOR 5jj; 31 ONI 172121(1010 >R0PAD0R 92i fAfclHWOt® R 3WNERNAM6 MARY JANE SAFAR FAXTAYER MARY JANE SAFa R MMEMDOR «25rARreHWOOORi UJNOLAKEMN 5S3 31 MII7232IMI9 rROTADOR MS TONKAWARD OWNERNAME AFRCHIEAMARR arrchicama RR 4S0HIGHCROFTIU) WAYZATAMN 5539 taxpayer name /aoor RUN DATE: lA 31 031172)140010 NORAODR 7IOTONRAWARD IWNBRNAM6 TRATJHAUOAN •axoa VBR TOOORATEROSAJHAUOAN IAMB/AOOR TMTONKAWARD UONOLAKEMN 55)30 )• Oil1723)10001 morADOR 101 tonkaward IWNRRNAME DRfOMUBRJWMUE *AXPAVER DAVID R fOMOE 4AME/ADOR ®0I TONKAWA RD tONOLAKEMN 53)30 31 011172)210010 •ROFADOR *25 RARTENWOOORD 3WNBRNAMB MARY JANE SAFAR FAXTAYER MARY JANE SAFAR R25PARTENWOODRD UONOLAKEMN 33130 31 OlliraMIOOl* PROFADDR 0*3 TONKAWARD OWNERNAMB AFRJCHIERMARICHIE taxpayer aprr:mib*marjchib 430HIOHCROFTRD WAYZATAMN 5S39I 'h HENNEPIN CXJUNTY PROPER PROPERTY OWN 4FORMAHON SYSTEM ,LIST •AGE: I II 0311721)40011 PROPADOR *5) PARTB4WOOOU OWNERNAME SHAIKHASWOUL taxpayer shaikh ASIM out ■33PARTENWOODLA tONOtAKEMN 33)30 nam&aoor M 031172)14001) fllOPADOR 075 PARTENWOOO LA OWNERNAME JPABK8ECHOOL TAXPAYER JOilNPAEUZADGTHKBECHOOL NAME/AOOR 075 PARTENWOOO LA LONGLAKEMN 53)36 )• 081172)310002 PROPADOR 025 TONKAWARD OWNERNAME )B MOORE A LB MOORE TAXPAYER JOHNS A UOURDBSB MOORE NAML/AOOR 4401 FREMONT AVBS MPLSMN 55400 30 001172)21000) PROPADOR 147 lONKAWA RD OWNERNAME DVAILLANTASVAILLANT TAXPAYER DENNIS VAILLANT NAMB/AOOR 847 TONKAWARD UONOLAKEMN 55)56 38 081172)210011 rXOPAOOR )8 AOORBSSUNASSIGNCO OWNERNAME MARY JANE SAFAR TAXPAYER MARY JANE SAFAR I 025 PARTENWOOO RD UONOLAKEMN 55)56 NAME7AI )• 081172)210011 PROPADOR 175 TONKAWARD OWNERNAME APRK:HIEAM ARICHIE TAXPAYER APRICHIERMARICHIE NAME7ADDR 430 HWMCROFT RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 38 081172)210000 FROPADOR 815 tonkaward OWNERNAME APRICHffiRMARICHIE A P RICHIE R M A RICHIE NAME/ADDR 430HKJHCROFTRD WAYZATAMN 33)91 ST^lSS^cS!nVTA»*VBR!E«VICBI»ARf^^ ' ' OfMYUNOWI^DOBANDBeUEP.^^^^ BY iiiiMitfn irfii HIT ••• Hennepin County , Taxpayer Services Departnig^^l^ -? .*/:»r-^. Parcel Information . ;^;4parc«l ID 0811723210003 Housa Mumbar 847 Straat Name TONKAWA RD k i i 1 Cof Date Application RKcWcd; 02-13-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02-23^4 60*Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 " "''PFT//VG City OP OftO/Vy REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 17,2004 ^3Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2988 - Sean A Leah Daly - After-the-Fact Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR>IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre Lot Area: 0.2 acre Lot Width: 55* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 03-16-04 C - PC Memo A Exhibits as of 03-15-04 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting the following: 1 . After-the-fact hardcover variance within the 75’-250’ zone to allow 58.2% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 52.2% was previously approved. 2. After-the-fact side yard setback variance in order to allow the newly constructed deck to remain at 4.2’ from the side lot line where 10 ’ is required and the home is setback 3.2’. 3. After-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 3.5’ into the average lakeshore setback with the newly constructed deck. 4. After-the-fact structural coverage variance to allow 21 .4% structural coverage where 1,500 s.f il 7 %) is allowed.___________________________________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On March 15,2004, Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the following: 1. Approval of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, and side setback variances, 2. Denial of the average lakeshore setback variance, 3. Removal of a non-conforming lake yard shed which was constructed without approvals by the previous owners. 4. The upper-level deck to be reconstructed so as to not increase structural coverage or hardcover levels on the property. Chair Smith was the opposing vote as she felt that additional removals were warranted, Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. ji J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282,78-330 SUBDIVISION B AND 78-1403 nLE NO. 04-2988 WHEREAS, Sean Daly and Leah Daly, husband and wife (hereinafter “the ^plicants”) are the owners of the property located at 605 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows; Lot IS, Block 6, Minnetonka Summit Park, except that part of said Lot lying south of a line drawn parallel line of said Lot southerly of the North line of said Lot, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282, to allow 420 s.f. (10.17%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone and 2,749 s.f. (58.2%) hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone; and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330, to allow a side setback for a deck of 4.2’ from the property line where 10’ is required and 3.2’ currently exists for the home; and WHEREAS, the applicants have made ^plication to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1403, to allow structural coverage of 1,894 s.f. (21.4%) where 1,500 s.f (17%) is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2988. Page 1 of6 I Mitaa 2. 3. 4. The property is located in the LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of 1 acre. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on March 15, 2004 and recommended conditional approval of variances baaed on the following findings: a. Per Resolution No. 2047, adopted in 1986, the property was permitted hardcover of 52.2% hardcover within the 75 ’>250 ’ zone and 2.5% hardcover within the 0>75 ’ zone. b. The applicants purchased the property with non-conforming hardcover consisting of decks and additional driveway within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone, and a shed within the 0-75 ’ setback zone, which items were apparently added since 1986 by a prior owner, without City approval. c. The applicants removed 142 s.f. of non-conforming hardcover within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone when they recently, without requesting the appropriate permits or iqiprov^s, reconstructed the existing decks A^ch were rotted and unsafe. d. The Planning Commi'<sion finds no hardship to justify allowing the newly the non-conforming shed to remain within the 0-75 ’ setback zone. e. Planning Commissio.i finds no hardship to justify allowing the portions of the newly »)nstructed deck which extend into the average lakeshore setback to remain. f. The side setback variance of 5.8 ’ is supported by the hardship of the location of the home which extends 6.8 ’ into the side yard setback and the new deck was constructed at the same side setback as the previous deck. g. There is no available property to purchase in order to make this lot more confonning. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, Page 2 of 6 I comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not iq}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 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 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-282, 78-330, and 78-1403 to allow hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone of 368 s.f. or 8.9%, hardcover within the 75’-250’ setback zone of 2,722 s.f. or 57.6%, structural coverage of 1,815 s.f. (20.5%), and a side setback variance of 5.8’ 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. Arty amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the 8.9% or 368 s.f.. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 2,722 s.f. or 57.6% per the plan and hardcover allowance siunmary 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 landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. Page 3 of 6 Vi f 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection for Permit No. P07145. 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 ^te of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 22,2005). 6. Violation of or non^mpliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution «hall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on bdialf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, sxiccessors 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 22"’* day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) Page 4 of6 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 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 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 5 of 6 1 State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of 2004 husband of Leah Daly, husband and wife. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of ___________, wife of Sean Daly, husband and wife. 3 2004 Notary Public Page 6 of6 J EXHIBIT A l CERTnCATE.OF SURVEY FOR SEAN DALY N LOT 15. BLOCK 6. MltETONKA SUMMIT PAI HCNNCPIN COUNTY. MMNESOTA ro A A T THE UPPER LEVEL DECK CAN BE RECONSTRUCTED SO AS NOT TO INCREASE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE OR HARDCOVER LEVELS ON THE PROPERTY ID BE kmcvcd ' (btOf-fM* OH LAKE MINNETONKA KORTK ARU Tkia IiiImN to BMO tlM SwoiBrlM «f !»• OlWcrIM ui lUitlL t*» locolUo mt ol> GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. INC. UM» Vlf i(«M»cvior«o>«oiUOOt4 -•a «M» •« M OMM» W MCI MM U IMUMO M { , i..: i > V.vV./? af)‘V V4 ca CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdley Parkwty PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 9S2.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04*2988 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 16,2004 TO: Sean Sl Leah Daly 60S Park Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST; Aftcr-thc-Fact Variances DATE OF MEETING: March 15,2004 Planning Commission recommended approval of the aiter-the*fact variances with the following stipulations: 1 . The shed located within the 0*75’ setback from the lake must be removed. 2. Portions of the deck which extend into the average lakeshore setback must be removed. 3. The upper level deck to be reconstructed such that it does not create additioiud structu^ coverage. VOTE:6 FOR 1 AGAINST >^licant*s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City CottBcU - Monday, March 22,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Plarmer, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. BcHiferrC'F1LBP04-298S 2Marc(i2004 Pegs 1 of 5 Date Application Received! 02*13^4 Date AppUcatioB Conildtrcd Complete 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 : 02^ To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Rx)n Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner M O' March 2,2004 04-2988, Sean & Leah Daly, 605 Park Lane, - After-the-fact variances - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre Lot Area: 0.2 acre (8,851 s.f) Application Summary: The i^plicants are requesting the following variances: 1. After-the-fact hardcover variance within the 75 ’-250’ zone to allow 58.2% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 52.2% was previously approved. 2. After-the-fact side yard setback variance in order to allow the newly constructed deck to remain at 4.2’ from the side lot line where 10’ is required and the home is setback 3.2’. 3. After-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 3.5 ’ into the average lakeshore setback with the newly constructed deck. 4. After-the-fact structural coverage variance to allow 21.4% structural coverage where 1,500 s.f. (17%) is allowed. Hardship: Staff does not find hardships to support the afier-tha-fact variances._______ St(^Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends denial of the aller-the- fact hardcover and structural coverage variance requests._______________________ Pertinent 2k>ning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-281. Setback regulations. (a) In any LR-1 A, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district the setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be 75 feet for all structures; except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lockbox not in excess of 20 sqxiare feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of die lot and requires a building permit from the city. (b) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications), except that this docs not apply to structures allowed in subsection (a) of this section. 1 •'X:* * -RLEM4-2968 2Marah2004 Ptg«2ors See 78-282. Lekeihorc hard cover and land alteration regulationi. In any LR-IA, 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 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. (Code 1984, § 10.22(2)) Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in an LR-IB district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Lm Am (•era) Ut Width (fleet}Front Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (feet) Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) \140 35 10 30 35 Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In nil 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, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Hennepin County Assessor Report E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgement Form G. Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat M^) J. Resolution No 2047 K. Additions and Final Hardcover from 1986 approval Background The applicants, Sean and Leah Daly, are the property owners at 605 Park Lane. The iq>plicants are requesting after-the-fact variances in order to allow newly constructed decks to remain, and allow re-construction of a 2"^ story deck. After purchasing the property the applicants removed the existing decks which were rotted, unsafe and not functionally efficient with the layout of the home as they existed they also removed sidewalk, and installed boulder walls in order to make t^ir property more functional. Not realizing that permits vnn required, the applicants replaced the decks. The applicants are also requesting to replace a 2"'^ story deck (36 s.f) on the lake side of the home. The applicants removed the old deck as the wood was rotted and unsafe. This 2"^ story deck would be constructed over the existing hardcover and structural coverage (landing & stairs) below and at the same size and location of the previous deck. FILEi04-2M8 2Mird( 2004 Pig* 3 0(5 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (lacre)140’ Actiud 8.85 Is.f. (0.2 acre)55’ LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Lakeshore 75’80* to the deck 61* to existing shed 80* to die deck 61’ to existing shed Rear 30’3’3’ North Side 10’3.2 ’ Home 4.2 ’ Deck 3.2* Home 4.2 ’ Deck Soudi Side 10’17.5’17.5’ Average Lakeshore For the Deck Deck encroaches 3’- 3.5’ into the average lakeshore setback Deck encroaches 3’- 3.5* into the average lakeshore setback Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 8,851 s.f. (0.2 acre)Allowed: 1,327.6 s.f. (15%)^ 1,500 s.l Existing: 1.894 s.f. (21.4%) Hardcover Zont Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover 1986 Approvals Proposed Hardcover 0-75 4,128 s.f 0s.f (0%) 420 s.f * (10.17%) 102.5 s.f (2.5%) 420 s.f. (10.17%) 75 - 250 1 4,723 s.f ^ ^ m a 1180.7 s.f ' (25%) • . • B • mm 2,749 s.f * (58.2%) 2,376 s.f (52.2%) 2,749 s.f. (58.2%) Side Yard Setback Variance The existing house is set back 3.2 ’ from the side property line where a 10’ setback is required. The deck, which was replaced, encroached equally into die side yard setback. The applicants, in rebuilding the deck, have maintained the setback at 4.2* from the side lot line v^ere 10’ is required. Hardcover Variance Variance approval for a garage addition in 1986 limited the 7S’-2S0’ zone to a total of S2.2Ye hardcover, and the 0-75’zone to 2.5% (sec Exhibit J). Since 1986, a shed, decks, driveway, and additional hardcover have been added to the property without City FILE«04-296a 2 March 2004 Page 4 of 5 (^proval. The ^iplicants have removed approximately 142 s.f. of hardcover from the 75’-250’ setback zone, including a paved sidewalk on the north side of the home. When die applica nts purchased the property it had a total hardcover level of 61.2%. Permits were not obtained in the reconstruction and removal of the decks, sidewalk, and other hardcover in order to accurately document the sejuare footage removed. Had a permit been applied for by the applicants; the property would have been reviewed the new, uipermitted, deck and hardcover ai^tions would have been noted and die building permit most likely would not have been granted widiout bringing die property back to the approved 1986 hardcover levels. Staff has included the Hennepin County Assessor’s report (Exhibit D) to illustrate the size configuration of the decks which were reconstruct^ by the applicants. Historically, in reviewing similar applications, staff has consistendy qiplied 0*75’ setback zone hardcover overages to the 75'•250* zones. This prop^ cunendy has 10.17S4 hardcover in die 0-75’ zone where none is allowed. Consequently, the 420 s.f of hardcover in die 0-75* zone be ^[iplied to the 7S'-2S0’ zone which brings die hardcover level for die 75'-250* zone from 58.2 % to 67%. The level of hardcover and die substandard setbacks are not uncommon in this neighborhood where mmII lots and lack of on-street padcing make the give and take between unnecessary hardcover and safe vehicle parking a constant tug-of-war. This may help to explain the unipproved 220 s.f gravel parking pad, the installation of which did not requite permits from the City, however, this additional hardcover is reviewed at the time of a permit ^;iplication and/or during a variance review. Aldiou^ the requests in this situation are not excessive, and although die hardcover reductions the ^iplicants have done to the property have resulted in a better situation than when they purchased the property, staff still finds that this is no justification to allow retention of hardcover thtt would not have been approved if legally requested. Average Lakcshorc Setbaek Variance The new deck is located 3.5* into the average lake setback. Aldiough the applicants reconstructed die new deck no forther toward the lake than the existing deck, the existing deck was constructed without City ^provals and cannot be legally replaced to this extent without a variance. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding die application. i -i \ I FILE«04-29aS 2 March 2004 PagaSofS spIrU Mitd InUnt eftkt Onno Zonbtg Coda. Staff finds that ttthn»gh the applicants replaced existing decks on their property and did not increase the size or the setbacks of these existing decks, the existing decks did not have City approval. However, due to the fact that size and location of the decks (wluch wen replaced) were not ^>proved by die City, there is no hardship for which to justify allowing bigger decks than were approved to remain. In addition, to base subsequent hardcover levels and approvals on unapproved decks would not be in keeping with the City’s practice. Therefore staff does not find that a tiardihip exists to allow the current level of hardcover on the property. Issnes for Conslderatton . ^ u Does die Panning Commission feel diat then is hardship in order to grant the aner-the- fimt side yard setback variance? Are dien any issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, and avenge lake setback variances. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Streot Addnas: 2750 Kelley Partcway Orono, MN 55356 y' Main: 652-249-4600 fax: eS2-249-46ie Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 65323-0066 Application# Date Received; ~j O^/ Amount Paid: Staff: Fee: 3c;c' Renewal: S300 After-the-fact 11.200 Double Fee This appHcatloit form must be completed In full. AppHcant will be notified within 15 days as application. Incomplete applications wlil not bo piaced on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site ^idress: LH Property IdentificaTfon Number (PIN):rroperly luwiuiiwoviwn ^■»ulllwwl y •!•/. ‘7/^*'m* (Attach legal description to application if not Included on the sunrey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): |^|0\ n Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: Cjl^Residentiar ‘ □ Other ------------------------------------------- Zoning District; __________ APPLICANT•*** interested party) Phone (home)r Address: //>n<=r ______________ Email: fJby^di P y\iv)r>6i.rrw\ Fax: ORMATION: (Complete legal nsT.es and mari^latal rA^ £^VjeoU f \ ~ Phone (work: a OWNER INFORMATION; (Completo legal names a.-.d marital status required for each Interested party) Name: ^ v ^-------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________Phone (work): ____________________Phone (home): Address: ___ Email:Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; Estimated Project Cost $ ^^QJQ Describe the request In detail (attach ad^rtional sheets If necessary):________________________ ________i iAavA^vM_______________• ___________________________ i m 1 -> REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: appKMtfon to*be pro^ submitted by the application deadline date in order for you* ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. ^ Completed Application Form Dr Completed Hardehip Documentation Form □ Certifi^ Propeitr Owner# Ust - owner# within ISO' of the subject property, labels and plat mao . g;e;:S2*nt Si^teMSoS^So'tSr^ltrSr^^^^^^ / X 17 for r6production. jC Completed hardoover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) W Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 1 f or 11 x 17' for reproductton. 2 P^®^s of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project • APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Dspst^ent, agm^pa^dlSoimlteSS(^"«me nrththa wShiaMMwJiertjIS SriSh this application and certifies that the intomwtlOT supplied is applicant recognizee that he/ahe is solely staff has no alternative but to reject It until It Is complete or to recommend the reoueet for denial of the request regardlaM of Its potential merit •«^omni«na me request for Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature:Date: Date; fA /V-<y OWNER'S ACKNOWLE06EMENT: purposes of lrivestigatlonan(^erificatli|m of this request Ownerts Signature: • n.*.- '2-X-iW Pwnerts Signmure: ■ ------- ----------- '"*? the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meet ng. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month Applicants mutt ba prasant at all tohtduled review mattings of the Planning Commlealon Md Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arranoemitntft tn awignrt to yeSr^i^**®"'"*'''® ®'"< *<'''■»* *>6 City Planner #295?.,;^ t r Desciiptioa of Reqocit We need an afler-the-fiict variance in order to keep the decks on our home that we replaced without a permit. This includes the street-side entrance and die lakeside deck. We feel diis is a reasonable request seeing that die decks were constructed within the Mme fi)o^)rint as the previous decks. We also would like to replace the second-stoiy deck as soon as the work is done inside our home. Hardship Docnmentation Form 1. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. We would not be able to enter or exit our home without die front and rear decks, therefore, a platform/landing and stain are needed. The drcVs that we replaced were rott^ and unsafe. 2. The endie lot is located in the 75-250 feet setback area and these decks existed when we purchased die home. 3. Because there were previously decks in die same location it keeps the diaracter the same. 4. Our hardship is not economic rather access to die home. N/A N/A 7. The use ofa deck is permitted. It is a long, narrow lot and we don*t have any odier options. We had old rotted decks and people in die area have already updated their decks. We need an area diat is raised tqi off the ground in order to have our pado foxniture and grilL The lakeside deck allows us to sit outside, eat, and enjoy being outdoors. 11. The newly constructed decks actually inqirove health and safety. 12. It is necessary to have a landing and stiurs for entrance into the home. M r?) --------.tJL- r EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM for ALL variance applications, aPfJ^o" will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City._____________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship ^u^*r?r“^p."s;!,sr.«^:rK «r r demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? ^ ____ This form has 12 points outUnlng the basis City staff uses to determine If a haidship exists and how the variance viriH affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points Hated below and answer them as cleariy as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The Information the City receives Is what is used In determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they rtf ate to the request (some may 1. "The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use If used under conditions altoved by the offldal controls.” 2.•The plight of the landowner Is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.* 3^ •q'he variance, if granted, will not.alter the essenfial character of the locality.* 4.•Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* ■It Oo r / 6. Page 2 of 3 *Unduo hardahip aiio indudea. but b not IlmKod to, inadequato acceas to direct sunlight for adar energy ayatema. Variancee ahall be granted for earth eheKered conatrucuon aa defined in MinneaotaStatutee. Section 116J.O0, Subd. 2. when In harmony with thie Chapter.” “The Board of Appeaia and Adjuatmenta or the Council may not permit as a 7' or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one>famnydweinngaeatwro^amilydweHing.” / vSJhaaid?ar3 la^located fleneraHy to other land or structures In the district in ^ *!*• variance will not In any way impair health, safety, gmtoi^ morals, or In any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Page 3 of3 12.■The granting of auch variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to sllsvlate demonstrable hardship or difnci'lty." Sit in cannot fullv be described in\he t:* Hardship Statement _ _ v. ^ ^ ^ ^ _.u .u Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described In the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if n.c«.nr): -QV p V b tionai sheets if. Q lAC(<^dl^ EXIDBITB Hardship Statement In order to get a better idea of what construction actually took place, I’ve included before and after pictures of the proper^. During the process of replacing ^e decks we actually reduced hardcover. The only difference between die lakeside deck and the previous deck is die elevation of tiie lower deck The old deck had two levels. The first part of the deck fytaqdfd from the house approximately 5 feet and then had stairs in the center, with no handrails, that dropped off on either side. The bwer deck extended another approximately S feet. The pre-existing deck was unsafe and was not functional. We took away 36 sq. ft of front walkway leading to fee garage. Wealso took a section of 40 sq.ft off of tiie lakeside deck that extended across past tiie bi^vtindow. We tiien had to add 12 sq. ft of stairs in order to align tiiem with the door for safety reasons. We removed 36 sq. ft ofdeck on the second story due to unsafe rotting wood. For safety reasons, we would like to put it bade on once the problem is taken care of inside tiie home. It is a safety hazard to have a sliding glass door feat does not lead to a deck We also removed 70 sq. ft of cement sidewalk tint was along the north side of the home. In addition, we would like to keep tiie gravel area on the aouth side of home in udiieh to park on. Since there is no available on tiie street, it is necessary to have that area so we don’t block traffic by having can sticking out into tiie street. /f /f •• *•' ' V V*• O :;i V*' 1jlK ^ 0 ■'•'i I CCRTFICATe OF SURVEY FOR SEAN DALY N LOT 15. aOCK B. MWNETOMCA SWMT PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MWNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA NORTH ARU iretE tnoilFiiCH CT WD>HB-= Lai 19 llatk •, WMCIom «MMT fi iS mtih n«t »t •»••• • ; dBMiM > _- MMA Ml MWIMtf Mllf%ig«f |fi|t fllBM ec* MM* S@i nils MMW TocliTjMf* 49 —9\h*4 .. -----"iMr^cMr* CD 00 r 4^ CERTHCATE OF SURVEY FOR SEAN DALY N LOT 15. BLOCK 6. MNNETONKA SUMMIT Pi hemncpm county . MWNESOTA CM5TM6 HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE .V SURVEY* LME LAKE MINNETONKA NORTH ARH Lot sfS^ '5 ^ MMUPTioi cr . iIm 4tmm •"< . . ’*** EXSTMHouse IHUII M IMI mwrn • t 4tnolM If** ifwli*^ •rI*II*1**^* •l•*•ll•*. i»f. BliM *r* fc***< *p** •• ••••» GRONBSRG k ASBOCUT K. INC . 7oc (iO Qea r I r I /' ^ •' n ' <■ r I n I (. II :v* i'I oryj''!..n..-,', ''id'-lLA L \ ( ' **••A / / !: * I . V' ! ir ‘ ^ f ^ I '. < i P'#' I • I : /■’■ t ,»’» I- ...,... . t ?w' . .CV m /•;lv » A'• . f -sV .* • •.' V w '•••''•►.'etJV'js .C.?* l-f'l'V.KjAZlK \ I ' **:4 f, . • * ‘ • * ' • I * . ^ • w* * I 4 ' ■ I - • ' ‘ ■ ' , t/i/' ;/ > r? ♦'» ’«i » » . 1 b'di 0 *- ,. . ./. u/ . /^) '■ - ”- __ - « • • ■ B t'l ,M...,*I’ ', m ', 1- /• , • J -t * /l • 1 .• m ► . !> 1!( '■ (- j . - ./•f __I; 1 hi i' f*< ' '^ ‘ r 1 # - — f • »*«•«# • Se>ms Ofur EXHIBITE I A/2- HAIU)COVEB jCALCULATION worksheet SETBACKZONEt (CmCLZ ONE) ^-7^ 75-2S0’ 2SO.SOO* ' 500*1000' EXISTING HARP COVER IN ZONE A. H oum Ungih SJ X X X hA, B. Oaraie • wm • • • C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk »06*V3 s E. Patio/Deck • ft2~wae.^AiwmY x ^-WWO lAMQlWgr « 2y- ftAVgg MAUL • • • • •• X X F. LandKapi Underlain ByPlaiUc OrFibrio X X X O. Oth« TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B X 100 PROPOSEP HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A. House ____________ X Unftti • •Width X X X B. Oinge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X £. Palio^eck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Pibric X X X Q. Other • •TOTAL HARDCOVER INZONB . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ ♦ B XtOO • J90 10-1*7 Q S.F. S.F. -SM£0 S.F.-V/«X> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F." S.F. S.F. S.F. V/Akt.5 S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. • S.F.*' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. /^\ IrK \ S.F. S.F. -A S.F. B % exhibit F I (we) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM "R\A/i(i of (gr)l Tburl^ [print name(t)] (print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed Improvement or proposed use of the property located at h05 also referred to as Land Use Application No,________. I (we) understand that In executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use r^uires Council approval. zli%l{)4 Date ^hi>Jo4 I (we)>. ilaihifitm lijS (K)l 7cu't i(LnP [print name(s)][print address] have proposed improvement or propos^ um (use of the property located I (we) understand that In executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Prope Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in tiie review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ■-SI . ••r.,* • / c-t-*';.. ,••• -oo 1 A ^ V 'V jKA St r:: •. VV V ,.; ' '» C ■ V‘k V| A. •. »|5 ■ s » •r »i: '.M t.y\' r-» -1 k ♦ jP*i* > <C l r;V :r I'b.:v. B{ '<<.sl];- - :<) Life-:- • i^ti ?-r:r.r.~^ I * ti *n .1.. V “y?.'j-1 ;V'.\r-. t ill. * -f__________ ^ • < k ... r. 'is^ -K ¥&'■p'^V Ii • f V X. ^v \ "5 aV; >1 i’) ^tZ " ■^]o <»*.-'^ '■■'■•’<'>4£t Ml t« i i I BITGX • > t ,i • • •• 1 ‘ *7^ ‘ !!f(* 4^4 ./ % miiniiiiii 11111 .A • *^ • ^ f ■ \ M-v*' ■.•.VTTrr!^ -■ : r_':o;i3 ^:j;:w33ir4iaiM ^•f J [ ^ - Si. ■f • ■ \r. .*'*^'**TV»*. - _L^w4 ; , y .. , V.7 :'^ fiUliflHiOiyii^»i? vW u I m F.BWw ^rm i<>• .*j 43 — -• • /f v ^1. ^ *■ \ < \. *0 - c '■VvV . '' v'--‘ A ’ */v SS-'5^r»j ___ ^a'XT- »W"-r \ ! / • K / ^ liMimHM^aiill' fi IBUilllBRfimmBBIIIPIIIJ.> «s: I iinr— 1 k iSai 3 ^/v.>^~ -MirKiii^^r^^ \ -«• • 7 •. - » .V^-:> V ■ X v< •?K, r»i y o i V »: RUN DAT 31 06II7234IOOOI PIDPAOOR 31 ADDRESS U4ASSIGNE0 OWNERNAME RICHARDRRUOD TAXPAYER RICHARDRRUOO NAMGMOOR WnPAMCtA LONOLAKEMN SS3» 31 06117234100a PROPADDR Ml PARK LA OWNERNAME SHANERRKRISTINEM ROOD TAXPAYER SMANERRKR1STIHBMRUDO nam &aoor mi park U lONGLAKEMN S51» Jg 0611730410013 rROPAOOR 364 fARK LA OWNERNAME HENNEPINPORFEITEO LAND YA3CPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAMEIADOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 35323 31 06II72344MI4 PROPADDR 630 PARKLA OWNERNAME RO ANDERSON AN LANOEISON TAXPAYER RJCKO ANDERSON A NAMWAM3R NANCY L ANDERSON 630 PARK U LONGLAKEMN 3S3S6 HENNEPIN *YWPglMA110N SYSTEM 3t 06117234100a PROPADOR 377 PARKLA OWNERNAME OWBELDUENOW TAXPAYER DENISE LOUENOW NAME/AOOR S77PARKLA LONGLAKEMN 3S3S6 31 0611723410047 PROPADOR 503 PARKLA OWNERNAME OMAR A STEWART L HANSEN TAXPAYER (XNARAS1EWARTLHANSEN NAMEIADOR 3*3 PARKLA LONOLAKEMN 33336 31 0611733410049 PROPADOR 60S PARKLA OWNERNAME SEAN DALY SEAN A LEAH DALY NAME/AOOR 603PARKLA LONOLAKEMN SS3S6 31 06II7234100M PROPADOR 394 PARKLA OWNERNAME SEASNBUROER SGOTT E A SHANNON N BURGER NAME/AOOR 594 PARKLA ORONOMN 33336 31 O6II7234IO0U fROPAOOR 314 PARKLA OWNERNAME HaMEPMfORFEnEOLANO taxpayer CItYOPORONO NAMEIAODR POBOX66 CRYSTALBAYMN 33323 t U31 06II72J4< PROPADOR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD l> OWNERNAME SVSWANTEKAPGSWANTBC TAXPAYER STEPHEN A PAHUOASWAKIEK 649 MINNETONKA HOLD LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 31 06II7334400I3 PROPADOR 3S ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME CEFLEMINOJRALPaEMING TA3IPAYER MMN A SHARON BaO NAME/AOOR UNDIVIDED 38 0611723440017 PROPADOR 607 PARKLA OWNERNAME RRUDDAKRUOD TAXPAYER RICHARD A KATHLEEN RUDD NAME/AOOR 407 PARK LA LONOLAKEMN 55356 TAWAYER S»VK» / OfMYK»OMOTOBANOBBUEf.^^^^_^./^ I I.-V: MCE: I KV il « ' . *. •. ♦ .! fv- ^nncpin / vv .. . ;^// < v^/‘ . : /*‘r- .^’'->1'> a:VV. ‘■ \’ , . m ssis*KCdJ^ \v il3#^ ‘ieo^ ^ilW^.ii" j i4H J r I .’•V . OF -.' V' ■^TOR'ONOv: City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -2017_ _ _ _ _ A BBSOLUTXOII 6RAMT1H6 A VARIABCB TO MOMXCIPAL ZOMXIIG CODE SECTIORS I0.22» SOBDXVXSIOII 2 AED 10.24f SUBDXVXSXOH 5 FXUS #1022 WBBRBAS# Charles A. Sctoiall (hereinafter "the applicant") is the oifner of the property located at 605 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows* Lot 15f Blodc 6, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County» Minnesota, except that part of said lot lying South of a line drawn parallel with and distant 55 feet Southerly of the North line of said lot; (hereinafter "the property"); and IfBBRBAS# the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.24, Subdiyisiw 5 (B) to allow construction of a side-loading attached garage which will be located 7.7 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot setback is normal ly required, and locate.d 3.5 feet from the street lot line where a 35 foot setback is normally required. Minnesotai HON, TBERBPORB, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1022 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3, The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 19, 1986, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings* e A) The proposed side-loading garage is potentially safer than the existing end-loading garage, a 1th' ugh this is a very low- traffic street. B) The proposed garage will provide a greater setback from the street than the existing garage. Page 1 of 6 L ... m V 5"!?’J?:"- v. •/.•/'■>'!.City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _2047 C) There is no other location on the property In which to construct a 2-car garage due to the required 10 foot separation between structures and the close proximity of the house to the south, which is only 0.5 feet from the lot line. D) The 2nd-story room over the garage is reasonable considering the small size of the lot, and is preferable to a horizontal expansion of the house which would create additional hardcover. B) The applicant has revised the entryway proposal to meet the well setback requirements. P) For safety purposes it is reasonable to allow the applicant to keep the entire existing paved parking apron in order to provide a backup area to avoid backing out into the street. G) No Other land is available for applicant to purchase in order to make his property more conforming. H) There is existing hardcover in the 0-75* and 75-250* setback which can be removed to partially offset the proposed additional hardcover. 5. The second story room over the garage is necessary to provide a useful second bedroom since the house currently'contains only one *****^®®®» which is a hardship to the applicant's reasonable use of the property, because it does not allow for additional family members or- temporary guests. existing basement rooms are not useful as bedrooms because the windows do not meet fire egress height standards. In order to change these windows it would require structural changes to the residetTce^ ^° * change in grades on the lakeshore side of the 7. The applicants request will result in a residence that is approximately 200 s.f. smaller in area and has less hardcover than the neighboring property to the north. Page 2 of 6 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2047 Wi 6. Revision of the roof line of the 'Existing house to create a usable second story above the existing house would result in additional encroachment on neighbor's sunlight due to a higher peak, and might also require a variance to maximum height restrictions, and second story structure over garage Is less of an encroachment on sunlight or open space* 9* Bxpanslon to create additional space outside the existing walls of the house Is limited by the hardship of the small lot slxe. The lot was created and existing house constructed prior to formal City sonlng controls* These conditions are unique to the property and do not generally apply to other developed lots In the LR-IB Zoning District. 96% of the developed lots In the LR-IB Zoning District exceed 0*20 acres In area. The subject lot contains 0.199 acres In area. These unique conditions were not created by the applicant. No additional land Is available for acquisition by the applicant to make the property more conforming. 10. The second story addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood but will be consistent with existing development In the neighborhood. The amount of sunlight, air, and open space In the neighborhood will not be adversely affected to any significant degree. The traffic conditions In the neighborhood will' not be adversely affected but actually may be Improved. 11. Because one of the general purposes of sideyard setback and height requirements In the Zoning Code is to maximise the amount of open space, air, and sunlight In a neighborhood. It Is appropriate to restrict the height of this garage addition, given the side setback variance allowed. 12. The City Council has considered this application Including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the appllceuit and comments by the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 13. 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 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. Page 3 of 6 r City of ORONO ,r-v;cfTv;-7^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2047_ _ _ _ _ OONCLOSIONSf ORDER RED C0NDZTZ0R8 Based upon the above findingsr the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to Increase hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback sone from 48.8% to 52.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of side-loading attached garage which will be located 7.7 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot setback is normally required, and located 3.5 feet from the lot line where a 35 foot setback is normally required, subject to the following conditionsi 1. This approval is granted only for the garage/upper room addition proposed at this time, with roof peak approximately 3 feet below the peak of the existing roof of the house, per Exhibit "A" attach'’". Extention of the garage/upper room peak height above that hei-. approved with this application is prohibited. 2. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of the* proposed additions, applicant shall remove the following items of existing hardcovert Front Sidewalk - 69s.f. Portion of Existing Driveway Pavement - 49 s.f. Plastic Under Rock Beds in Lakeshore Yard - 221 s.f. 3.The hardcover on the property is limited as follows: 0-75' setback zone: Hardcover may not exceed 102.5 s.f. or 2.5% 75-250' setback zone: Hardcover is limited to the following items: Bouse With Garage and Entryway (with short sidewalk) Driveway and Backup Apron Sidewalk Decks 1,450 s.f. 599 s.f. 217 s.f. 110 s.f. 2,376 S.f. or 52.2% Applicant is advised that any future development of the property whj nd mightwill create additional hardcover will not be approved, and approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting In no net increase of hardcover. Page 4 of 6 i ^ l .ijt* ’. ^,v.'v--si^>:>,^;i >-VClT.Y;,V;'v' loRpryoH City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 20H__ 4. Authorities granted by thle variance run with the property not with the applicant^ but are pensieeive only and nuet be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approvalf or this variance will expire on that date (September 22, 1967). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tnie v'>riance shall constitute a violation of the soning eode, shall automat: rsally terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of thi? resolution in the chain of title of the property. 1966 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of Sept nih, City 'OU juu- Mary c,£^tler, Mayor Timortby Adams, Ac; ‘ Page 5 of 6 La__diiiik,. RESOLUTION #2047 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) S8. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of before me a Notary Public withijx anil appeared Mami-vaj L ^ the personTil a 1 for said 1986 or said countyr personally 0«,y^ A. known to me to be person(s) describedin and who executed the foregoin? instrumentf and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. MICHAEL P. OAFFRON NOTMIV a«UO«MMNnOTA '• HB^NEPIN COUNTY % OOOMllHlMI Bvim 11.1KT NOTARX rOBUC j.0.^ u. /fey MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1986# before me a Notary Public within and for said County# personally appeared ____ ____ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 iukwii • ■' /Iffmlea fe*KH^<^V - • W.« •• •• • •• •• ^ • • • m^L 1, •’••••*•• • # t • ^ •• •* * * • t • =3,fc' t m* •mm^ •• • » • •««»# t1- . *.•• ••■•• I » <»•# • ••• •« »«••••»«•«•«• •• • • * • • •• • • • •••• • «« • • •••• •• •«•••»««•«»• H • ••«»••• ••••« •i • • • ^ • N ■^= •• • • • • • * • •• J f" i o » w H n X •• * *• - V ''■Mi ■ -■'r-1 '-'v- V* ^ ' ■*».* '.tV.*' LvAr.:.Jk O r in R2f^' • '■••i •"•.■' ■*! '• '.■; ^ ’ . . V • • 1, . V t.% 4 f »* - M ^ t J4ti. ;t . i ^J • • . ;• • -•■■ S^4St>M^. tis?' %m‘- wme mm !»Ri • . • -^ • . * ‘'iVj j':. 5. v>*4 '•‘*- v;‘«. '*.;• •’;5!i . ^'S'SC. ff -i' V ?•'IIi I •: :■Vi»(f^ 'i ii'J4'4^': ‘ V 1 !-A . - --Sw - ” "•*" r)ffV. »-j? ? .V .*# A* .^1 ■• ■}<- n'«r J-*V^ > / A* ■*,. -. » * • ft % >^•'! • •"• -V; v. t K \. ■ .,:' ■• • *',r •ji J COl IM/^„ DaU ApplicatiOB Rtceivcd: 02*1S^ Data Applicatioii Cootidcrcd at Conplata: 02-234M 60*Day Raviaw Period Expires: 04-24-04 ^ 2 2004 ^'•^ofghom REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 17.2004 Item No lU Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner ______ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2990 - Patrick A Loring Kaveney, 1444 Baldur Park Rd • Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, '/a acre (21,780 s.f.) Lot Area: 0.19 acre (8,600 s.f.) Lot Width: 47* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 03-16-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 03-15-04 AppHcaHon Summary: The applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances in order to construct a new residence at 1444 Baldur Paric Road. The application consists of the following: 1 . Lot area variance for a lot 0.19 acre in size where 0.5 acre is required. 2. Lot width variance for a lot 47* in width where 100* is required. 3. Hardcover variance for 2,330 s.f. (44.98%) of hardcover within the 75*-250* setback where 25% is normally allowed._______________________ __________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On March IS, 2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to reconunend approval of the lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances as requested. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. i A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282,78-350 SUBDIVISION B, AND SECTION 78-1288 SUBDIVISION B nLE NO. 04-2990 WHEREAS, Patrick Kaveney & Loring Kavency, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1444 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and 78-1288 to allow hardcover within the 75’-250’ setback zone of 44.98% or 2,330 s.f. where 25% is normally allowed. WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 Subdivision B to allow a lot width of 47’ where 100’ is normally required and a lot area of 8,600 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2990. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 21,780 s.f. (1/2 acre) and a minimum lot width of 100’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on March 15,2004 and reconunended approval of variances based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 1 ^ • a. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. b. The property is served with municipal sewer. A single family residence has existed on the property for many years. c. A new single family residence can be constructed on the property meeting all setbacks and requiring only a hardcover variance. d. Because the property is less than 10,000 s.f. in area it is allowed a 1,500 s.f. structural footprint absent other factors. Construction of a 1,500 s.f. home accounts for 29% of hardcover within the 75’-250 ’ setback zone. c. The applicants have proposed minimal driveway, walk, and deck in order to limit the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. f. The size of the proposed residence and magnitude of hardcover variance is consistent with other approved development in the neighborhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, 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 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 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 Page 2 of 5 riik asm r 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 and 78-1288 and 78- 350 Subdivision B to allow construction of a new single family residence and hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone of 2,330 s.f. or 44.98% where 25% is normally allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. Council q>proval is based on the site plan 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 Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the 0%. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 2,330 s.f. or 44.98% 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 hvdeover 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. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed before the footing inspection. 5. The lowest floor of the house shall be established no lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 932.5’ MSL. 6.Prior to building permit issuance, the ^plicant shall supply sufficient site elevations and grading and drainage information to satisfy the City Engineer that there will be no encroachment or filling of the floodplain and that all drainage shall be handled so far as to not cause drainage problems for this residence or the neighborhood. 7. 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 22,2005). Page 3 of S 8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned applicant 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 22"^ 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 ^s _ 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 5 r" .\f : T.’. 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 . 2004 . husband of Loring Kaveney. husband and wife. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of ^2004 . wife of Patrick Kaveney, husband and wife. Notary Public Page 5 of S T » EXHIBIT A MINNETONKA NORTH ARM 920> CONTOUR UNC- P ATRICK °KA v ¥ NE Y OF LOT 4. BLOCK 1, BALDUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PWOPOSEO aeVATIOMS ; 1) CoroQf • Tii#t 2} Top of foundation ■ 3) Boionont - Srmr. LEGAL OESwRiPTION OF PREMtSS:S . Lot 4. Block 1., BALOUR PARK 0 : dcnotfi iron morker ^905,3^: donotit oxitting spot tltvotion, moon sco level dotim rngi); denotes proposed spot elevotion. meon seo level dotifn .917...; denotes existing contour Tine, eon seo level «w. . Beorings shown ore b'osed upon on ossured dotun. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, and the proposed locotion of o propoied house thereon. It does not purport toshowon^_ot2jer^jngrovsrnenJ|2^i_lil£I£££llISIll£ GRONBSRG k ASSOCUTES^ DfC. C9BL1K son UM um S fUMS MHIUMOK UKUftiiiSSI tt-n-iHi Ihrtj eirtejleiw »r-n *■ (re«e»|«• e Wdme♦«!ipw- fitilA «d tul t \j^pm fd Lfff \0t49 tlM bvf «f Bi SliU if klnwiQU 1 Cwrbtri ynwCTrtP UcrfM <4^ isnr '-20* Date f • y OB-022 04-022 1 Ad emieit n cmroFORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2990 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 16,2004 TO: Patrick & Loring Kaveney 98S5 Bennett Place Eden Prairie, MN 55347 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: March 15,2004 Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width, lot area and hardcover variances as proposed. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, March 22,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of die official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Plaimer, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. «-2990 [MISSION ACTION irch 16) 2004 »t area and hardcover 10 pm I minutes, they are (Planning Commission. 952.249.4627. FILE»04-2990 6 March 2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Application Received: 02-18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02-2.1-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner (y March 8,2004 04-2990, Patrick & Loring Kaveney, 1444 Baldur Park Rd, -Variances - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Vi acre minimum Lot Area: 0.19 acre (8,600 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances in order to con rjuct a new residence at 1444 Baldur Park Road. The application consists of the following: 1. Lot area variance for a lot 0.19 acre in size where 0.5 acre is required. 2. Lot width variance for a lot 47’ in width where 100 ’ is required. 3. Hardcover variance for 2,330 s.f. (44.98%) of hardcover within the 75’-250 ’ setback where 25% is normally allowed.________________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends approval of the variances as requested.________________________________ ________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinauce Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-IA, 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 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 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or btiilding in an LR-IC district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Lot Area (acre) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet) Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 0.5 100 i 30 10 30 15 5 1 N 4 • » FILEMM-2990 • March 2004 Pig* 2 0^4 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 73 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 2S0 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 23 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 300 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. 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 13 percent of the lot area Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be sdlowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Letter from staff dated February 27, 2004 0. Letter from City Engineer dated March 9.2004 H. Property Owners List 1. Plat Map Background Patrick and Loiing Kaveney are the property owners of 1444 Baldur Paric Road. They are requesting lot area, lot width and hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family residence on their property. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100’ Actual 8.600 s.f (0.19 acre)47’ Setbacks:__________________________—» FILE#04-2990 8 March 2004 Pages 0(4 LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Lake 75 ’62’75* Rear 30’20.4’30’ East Side 10’11.1’10’ West Side 10’8.7’10’ Average Lakeshore The existing home is located behind the average iake setback. The new home is proposed behind the average lake setback. Structural Coveraee: Total Lot Area Tot d Structural Coverage 8,600 s.f (0.19 acre)Allowed: 1290 s.f (15 %) or 1,500 s.f* Proposed: 1,500 s.f (17 %) *Ptr City Coda 78-1405 Hardcover Calci ilations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3,420 s.f.0 s.f (0%) 386.5 s.f* (11%) Os.f (0 %) 75 - 250 5,180 s.f AAA* « . • 1,295 s.f. (25%) • • at « t 2,439 s.f* (47 %) 2330 s.f (44.98 %) Total hardcover of Lot (8,600 s.f.)‘ 27.1% Lot Area & Lot Width Variance The property is a lot of record and is non-conforming with respect to lot area and lot width. The applicants* request for a lot area and lot width variance in this instance is merely a form^ity. Hardcover Variance Due to the smatl size of this lot the 15% structural coverage allowed is less than 1,500 s.f., and the applicants are permitted by City Code 15% lot coverage by structures or 1,500 s.f. whichever is greater. The applicant is permitted a 1,500 s.f footprint However, due to the size of the lot and the area within the 75 ’-250* zone, this footprint accounts for 29% of hardcover within this zone. In order to service the property with a driveway, sidewalk and a conservatively-sized, grade-level deck, the applicant is FILBKM-IMO a March 2004 Pag#4of4 requesting a hardcover variance within the 75’-250’ zone for 44.98% where 25% is normally allowed. The adjacent homes have hardcover in the 75’- 250’ setback zone between 30%-50.4%, The applicants’ request does not seem to be out of line for this neighborhood. Hardship Statement . , , _ Applicants have completed the Hardcover Documentation Form attwhed as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. HArdihip Anilytii In eonsUiflng oppUcalionM for vortanco, tho Ftanntng Commiulon ihaU consider the effect of the proposed vartance upon the health, sofetp and weffare of the community, existing and anticjpated tr^ffle condkhni, tight and air, dangar offlra, rt$k to tha public tofatg, and tha offaa on yaiuasofptopay In tha aurrounding area Hanning Comnduion thatt eomldar racommonding approvai for vananeas pom tka Utarai provltloiu of tha Zoning Coda In butaneaa whara thair strict aitforcamant would causa undue hardship bacausa efctrcumstancas uniqua to tha IndMdualproparty under consideration, and shaU rocommond approvai onty whan it to damonatratad that such actions wtti ba In keeping with the spirit and huant of tha Orono Zoning Coda. Staff finite that due to the size of die lot foere is a hardship in order to grant the variances requested. The existing hardcover on the property is 11% in die 0-75’ zone and 47% within the 75*-250’ zone. The he applicants are reducing die overall and all of the will be met with the new residence. The proposed deck is minimal, only 121 s.f. and meets all of die setbacks. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with fois application? Staff Recommendation Plarming Staff recommends approval of die variances as requested. [3Rni • K1«l •■«!• •KVcTtli [•]t%UUzUzJ%•liAVl*• r«\»jr»r-r« L« ■ < I!• ■ •] M • •U*!* •j i r* r^«i ; •It •j«] r^T* • ■lld:.]«Bi«•l«llK-'f l« ivi [•WilZimtm] rl'JS'Sel^ liU «!• t«r«i p7^ • I«II:4« r-BxHrtrr Page 1 of3 ’"1 _rty in question cannot M put to a reasonable use If used under KTK 2. •Tlte pllqht of the tsndowner Is due to clrcuntstances -4>e>»A ^ «^g r:—- ----- 3. •The variance, If granted, will not alter the 4. conside^jns /i’*^ # 2i^ ^ J 5. 6. 9. 10. •S’ n-'l::*- . ; Page 2 of 3 11. Inadequate access to direct «nstructlon as defined In Knwote ^ •■rth ehelteieSt,,__«winea in Minnesota Statutea 7e •1 onoireredharmonythis Chapter." »wies. Secton 11 6J.O0, Subd. 2. when In • "The Board or Council maw napm*.» - one^'m^d»w|lln9 a« a two.4m»^rn,*. '«"P«r«y ute of . fi- The apeciat conditions to «»cl^^rty or Imm^^fflacgolllfri^rSe^^^^ Question are peculiar Is^o^S"'!^ 8®”erany to other land or structures in the district In 7* g-wK>. ,v 40 ffic. >, iTTh----:prr>pa^ ^ *"»>“ «nioyment ^^'oss! -a if !i Page 3 of 3 12.“The granting of such variance wiil not mereiy serve as a convenience to the applicant, but Is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* . TKio (/\n4- J op /✓ Q — QkSi^^d/Vl tf Kca^A ^ C^i^Sf d^Sfis>3 Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practicai difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliat ice with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): f COrlA a lloc/OS -fir- g>^ " 1 “T _ .1 1* A /T- / - ^ ^ -Af- ly^ t»vi‘irWU.f^ A/ g>n. >u^y/ Iq->t. rfU'P... r,Tvp U g. ^ A nnl/S^ V\ft^ gOLyr...ii5— Ai tCsys. ex •P^er' /v^ 5Twi _.Otc/gLrtsco>c ^-fisA.4~~ •g^onig . Rtf^^gy^wworg^. >MO-g/jA ' <?L [g^a r/* _C f\v :ths^jOruPC^rby C/fefajftw/ » -■jaa / ?'..Tisir-r & Jr d '-SriSi# % €\ Vii^) J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR PATRICK KAVENEY OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, BALDUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LAKEMinnetonka LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of PREMISES : Lot 4. Block 1, BALOUR PARK d«notot ironmorktr Booringo shown oro bottd upon on otsumed dotim. Thii turvoy intend! to ehow the boundaries of the obove described property, ond the locotion of on existing house and goroge thereon. It does not purport to show any other inrprovemsnts or encrcochments. m T NORTH ARM 9294 CONTOUR (O / .SURVEY LINE HOUSE ? IQ e mNO: HOMWAV ffo. GROMBESG k ASSOCIATES. QIC. ML1M 9«aiua IMSIK K Mn MI&mUlM IMUKKBa ISHTHUt I Mr or«t M lb Niv <■ njiN lr;a tab* U M JUU •( MtMHit II TBmr 01-ari <5sr-: i LiAKili MINNETONKA NORTH ARM •20^ CONTOUR * P AT R?C K ° KAVE N E OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, BALDUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED ELEVATIC3NS ; 1) Corogt - TJi# f . 2) Top of foundotloo ■ 5) Boicmont • Simr, Xui LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISE^ Lot 4, Block 1., BALDUR PARK 0 : denotes iron morker (908.3): denotes existing spot elevotion, mean sea level dotim [JTgSJ: denotes proposed spot elevation, meon sea level dotun .9^7...: denotes existing contour fine, eon sea level datim Bearings shown are based upon on ossimed dotixn. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, end the proposed locotlon of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport GBOMBSBG ft ASS0CUTS8, QIC coios eyoRUB iim 4iiiiiuvnc UKUCIR8S1 1 lw*|i dtll. M In W«n w nnt Ir« * «*r *Kt a,*- ad !■! 1« • % 04 M SuwfV wtm tht Invt •! le Side af Bnmte r-20* bA'h 04-022bet 1 GrofOee Ifleiioli lMm Rebr t27» 04-022 ^lerr t>' <^rr - 1 i' b /• \ »v^,. vvi »’*' i »•V •* #.y jmi iitii ^ 7^^ig£l * V ' •’ ^ Pi- e m. - »%-r ,j7jixis.r:,,r^T:^-X.»^ , UAJseat? •ULT-iAi"ITiw i^-SiC: .r\.rvr i iU^-*;^r<<C3£-C!«ar ZMJbK^. .JSwctritJL 4^rap<\.-v^liCt j^*5Bfcrj\Jc • Static.'&c Stfa5--.5^ --•fetL**^ “5 T-~jr .tr ■-*r ■sc*<«:z:3^^r>w_vi_y 'J '*1*^'^ •^^TO^^rr'x ^2:^ •* - ^ ' L, 'L>ir^ ■J : /' •• * * * »/ » ^ 4* f.. •.« i »■ : : . • •• 0(rtl6IT T5S « '••yi •u:ji i-f .•■' ■Kf.s:>/O 4 iMfWnHi !Hi i^MTirm.' 0eniB ir •'7 ■■ p jf ^•T*- ^ -* •# * .. * * ' . •. ••- .*• % jsysmrmj r.n SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) BXiSTINQ HARD«3QVEW IN ZQM A Houu _____________ HARDCeVE IE)R CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7»450'2S0-6(Xr SOO-1000* LMOtti e Oarigt C. OrivmMy 0. SIdawilk E PaUoAJMk F. Uuidaeapa Undarlain By Plastic 0. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House Lansih E Oarage C. OrNeway 0. Bidawalk E PmVolOKk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastfc 6. Retaining Walla KOth«* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A X a jog S.F. ^WhXh X a S.F.X * a 8.F. X a S.F. X la S.F.X a S.F X S.FXaS.F X V'a /z.S.F ^X la /S~Ci 8F Q wX m S.FXaS.FXmS.F. X m 8 F X s S.F. •S.F. A ♦ B SVaLe -“3Vdio . 8.F. 8XlOOit X S FWidth X a S FXsS.F X a SF. X m — S.F. SFXa X • 3 S.F.X a SF X j.S.FXaS.F X a SFXaSF.X a S.F X a S F X S.F O S.F. A ^ n -S.F. BV inn 4- Ofr 90 5! 1 HARDCOVER CAl,CUy^ON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (dRCLBONE) enaTINQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE K Hous« o-rr Langtti B. Garagt C. Orivaway 9. A X X wwm I X X <?.g. D. Sidmvalk E PaU a ffiicH X X 70 *vW^*oF. 4«nda iMpe X X X X X Q. Ratalning Want H.Othar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL ro OPE^ y ZONE ♦ B PftQPOaeP HAHPCQVER IN ZONE A Housa Lsngdi X X B. Garaga C. Orivawty X X 0. SWewalk E. Patlo/Oaek X X X X F. Landscape Undedain By Plastic X X X G. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP^JT^^EA IN ZONE s^./»o WMh B S'/ 2S0<600‘ xlOO m 600<d000* V. a O S P. 9C4.*4t0 S.F.^ S.F.® 8.F. ® ___S.F.^) ___8.F. /■/5 ys" a3*“ S'H Z. 8.P. A I go • 8.F. B^ .Irgs__ S.F. S.F. 8.F. 8.F. il2 __(2J. y / eO X100 » S.F. S.F.05? ,S.F. .8.F. .8.F. .S.F. '.S.F. .8.F. -S.F. ^ i • .8.F. _S.F.A -8F.B % a^rti&ir f CITY of ORONO Munlcipil OftlcM Strait Addmi: 2750 Kelley Ptrimay Orono, MN S53S6 Milllfli Addrasi: ' P.O. Box 66 Cryitil Bay, MN SS3230066 February 27,2004 Patrick it Loring Kaveney 98SS Bennett Place Eden Prairie, MN SS347 RE: 1444 Baldur Park File #04-2990 Your application was reviewed at the weekly Buiiding Sc Zoning staff meeting on February 25,2004. At that meeting it was determined that your property is located within in the 100- year floodplain of L4dcB Minnetonka. Therefore, the City will need the following additional inforntation in order to complete a review of your proposal: 1. Orading, drainagi and erosion control plans, 2. Engineered foundation plans, 3. Building plans shotting the lowest floor elevation one foot above the 100-year flood boundary (931.5 MSL) In addition to the above list, your survey shall be revised to include the following: 1. Esdsting and proposed elevation contours 2. 100-year floodplain elevation at 931.5 MSL If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by noon on March S, 2004 in order to remain on the March IS, 2004 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at 952.249.4627 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Melanie Cuida City Planner Tdepbona (9S2) 249-4600 • Vn (952) 249-4616 www.cLeruiBAa.ui 1/1 Bonestroo ffilRosene Anderlik & Associates Englnatrs & Architects ■onei cree« Rotcnt. Anderllft an# Assaclawt, inc« If #n AfPirfif#ll¥« ActtM/Ctual Op^tynlcy Unproyer md Imptoyte Oarne# Frlnclpalt: Otto G. Bontitre#. PM. • Mirvln L Sorvili. RI. • Oann I. Cook. PM. • toBtrt a SctMcm. PM • J9try K Bourdon. PM. • Mark A. Hinion. KC. Senior Confultenis: ffoBtft W. ffoione. P.M • Joseph C. Andedlk. PM • Kchard I. lUmer. Ff. # Susan M. fberSn. CAA. Aitocfeie Frinclpeir. Ktich A. Gordon, o.i. • BoetfC I. ororfene. Ff. # fichord w. Foster. PM. • Oavi# O. Lostioca. FC. • MiehMi T. loMcmann FI. # M ic Field. F.f. • Itnnetn F. Antfenon. PM. • Mart i. toiri. FC. • David A. Bonestroo. MJA. • Sidney F WManoon. FC. LS. • Acnes M. Binp. MJA. • Allan Bick SdwiidL FC • Thomas W Focerson. FC • ipnei I. MaiandL FC • MIei B. Jenitn. FC • L FtiiNip Gravol ill. FC. • Daniel X Idptrcon. FC • ismaei Maninei. FC • Thomas A Syfko. FC. • Sheldon J. iohrtion • Daft A. Grove. FC • Thomas A loushar. PM • PoOeri J. Oevery. FC Offlcet; St Faii. Sc Cloud. Pochesier and WHimar. siN • Milwiuiiet. Wi • Chicago. IL dMbilie: wwwOonestrooxom Match 9.2004 Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Re: 1444 Baldur Park Road File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2990 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the application for the new home construction at 1444 Baldur Park Road. We have die following coimnents with regards to engineering matters: • The plans should include topography and contours extending SO-feet beyond all lot lines. • Plans should include any existing storm sewer or culverts on the property or in Baldur Park Road adjacent to the property. • Silt fence should be heavy duty type with steel t-posts. All silt fence and erosion control shall be installed, inspected approved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (6S1) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636*1311 r ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) .‘Tft.y ^ of ^ f(iw ' (print name(^] [print address] have^wtew^thy lans^^ the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located —--n T - ji<L I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Probity Owner Date t I * UtZ- Uuf\5su-0r<— of MHO [print name(s)] (print address] haw^v^^^h^l^^for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that i (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Hot?Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use I Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. o.Qan 71 ’■J -I ‘ IIM DATE n/17/II MTCN SM PROr AODR TAHrAVER' NMI/AODR 5R M-117-2S M tlZS ^ ttm AOMEtS UNASStBliEO RE61NAU) A SRINOLER R A SRINOiER SPRIND FAHN MtR lURROUWS RO W DEER FARR MA fMDE PROF AODR OWCI NAHE TAXFAVER •NAME/ADDR SO M*117-2S A1 DiDZ •SAPP DIRCN LA E LIUEDUIST I S LXIJEDUIST ERIC J A SHELLY R LILJERUIST SARD DIRCH LA NAVZATA HN SS99I PROF ADOR OMNER NAHE •TAMFAVER NANE/AOOR 5D DD-1,17-23 A3 DMS •lAAD DALOUR PARK RD J T DUNSHORE A E A DUMSHORE JOSEPH A ELIZADETN OUNSnORB lAAt DALDUR PARK RO VAYZATA m 55991 PROF AODR DHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR SB M-117-29 AS AtM •951A NORTH SNORE OR KALEIDOSCOPE DESISN LLP KALEIDOSCOPE DESISN LLP 2M9A NODLE RO SHOREHOOO HN 55991 >R NAHE TAXPAYER HAHEyAOOR SO •D-lI7-2i AS DAIA •9A9A NORTH SNORE DR JOHN R JONES JOHN R JONES SAM NORTH SHORE OR MAYZATA HN 55991 OWER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TDTU MTCN ABA •••11 EPDi COMMn PROPtRfY INPORNATION SYSTIH PROPERTY OENERS LIST SO •0*117*29 SA ••59 ‘ •1A20 OAIDM PARK RD THE HELI ROTH TRUST KENT A LORI ROTN lAZe DALDUR PARK RD NAVZATA m S5S9X SO 00*117*29 A9 0M9 ^ OlAAO DALDUR PARK RD . J N A N R UNRENCE JAY N A NARL1S. R LAHRENCS 1A40 MLUUR PARR AD NAVZATA HN 55991 SA M*117*Z9 AS OOM^ AlASA DALDUR PARK RO J HIKKELSON A N lUXKELSON JKPPREV A NARSARET NIKKEISQN lASA DALDUR PARK RD NATZATA HN 55591 SO 0A*117-2S AS 0009 ^ •SSZA NMTN SNORE DR R E SNENSDN A V L SNENSON rodent E a VALERIE L ■3520 NORTH SNORE OR NAVZATA m 55991 so 00-117-25 AS lois < 0SA9A NORTH SNORE DR SAM NORTH SHORE DR NATZATA IN 55991 REPORT NO. PIASSAOX 11 SO M-1I7*» AS DO*! OSA70 DIRCN LA T H DERNARO A L K DERNARD THONAS H DERNARD SA7D DIRCN U NAVZATA HN 5BS91. •rct SO M-lir-ES AS ODM ✓ •lAAA DALOUR PARK RD FEDERAL NONE LOAN HURT CORF FEDERAL NONE LOAN NORT CORF Z20 S WO ST HPLS m 55A01 SO M-XIT-ES AS 0M7 •1A9Z DALDUR PAMC RO J D A H R NYRUIST. JOIM O 0 NAURECN R NVROIST 1A92 DALDUR PARK RO NAVZATA HN 55991 SA AA-llT-ZS AS. 0010 •9590 NORTH SHORE M mjert j ackernann A J ACKERNAM S5S0 NORTH SNORE DR NATZATA IM 55991 SO 00-U7-2S AS 0027 •SAM DIRCN LA 0 S A D K INAWALSDN IMWPRB* A DEDORAN INDVALSON SMO DIRCN U NAVZATA IM 55S91 * . . i.:' gKrtie^rr oi’in- ^3- f; H (• ;a >■•••’ ■•. ■...■•■ •j .,JU roi IM^ti Date Applkation Received: 02*18-04 Date AppUcation Considered as Complete: 02>234)4 60*Day Review Period Expires: 04-24-04 mar ^ 2 2004 CITVOFORO\o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 18,2004 Item No Departmeat Approval: Name: Melanie C'lrtis \JlC/ Title: City Planner______ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Dmeription: _____#04-2991 - Patrick & Cindy Fleming. 4760 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution 2U»ning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum Lot Area: 1.8 acres (78,408 s.f.) List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 03-16-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 03-1S-04 AppUcation Summary: The applicant is requesting a vaiiance to construct a 28' x 35’ garage closer to the road than the principal structure._________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On March IS, 2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the variance as requested stating that the garage must meet the required SO’ front yard setback. Vegetative screening is to be approved by staff. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. I f dtw -«• A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1435 FILE NO. 04-2991 WHEREAS, Patrick D. Fleming and Cindy L. Fleming, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4760 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: That part of the South 435.6 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23, West of the 5'*’ Principal Meridian, lying west of the east 931.0 feet thereof and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 58 minutes 30 seconds East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 152.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 214.43 feet; thence East 77.75 feet; thence North to the intersection with the North line of said Soutli 435.6 feet; and said line there ending. (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow a 28’ x 35 ’ detached garage to be constructed in front of the principal stmeture. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2991. 2.The property is located in the RR - IB, Single Family Rural Residential zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The applicants’ property is 1.8 acres in size. Page 1 of 6 T 3. 4. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on March IS, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance to permit an accessory structure to be located in front of a principal structure based on the following findings: a. The location of the house on the lot is setback much further than the required SO foot setback, limiting potential locations for accessory buildings. b. The locations of the creek bed, septic systems and existing driveway on the applicant’s property make it virtually impossible to construct an accessory structure without the requested variance. c. The garage can be constructed within the setbacks established by the zoning district, being SO feet from the front lot line and 30 feet from the side lot line. d. The existing and propo.sed screening will minimize any impacts from the roadway. 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 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 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 J I • CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78*1435 to allow a 28’ x 35 ’ detached garage to be constructed in front of the principal structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff on an £q>pFopriate amount of screening to be established along North Arm Drive. That screening shall include coniferous trees, shall be complete by the final inspection of the detached garage, and shall remain in perpetuity with the garage. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 22,2005). 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, 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 22"** day of March, 2004. Page 3 of6 ! 1 i 1 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(8) Page 4 of 6 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 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 Page S of 6 r 1 I ■. • i State of Minnesota ) )8S. County of Hennepin ) This instniment Mvas acknowledged before me diis by Patrick D. Fleming, husband of Cindy L. Fleming. day of ,2004 Notary Public State of Miimesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Cindy L. Fleming, wife of Patrick D. Fleming. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 L it I i CITY OF OROMO 27S0 KcUey Parkway PO Box 66 Cryatal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2991 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 16,2004 TO: Patrick & Cindy Fleming 4760 North Ann Drive Mound, MN SS364 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: VaritBCC DATE OF MEETING: March 15,2004 Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to allow construction of a 28’ X 3S ’ garage closer to the street than the principal structure. The garage must meet the 50’ front yard setback. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: city Council - Monday, March 22,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minuten, they are available from the City Recorder afrer review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner. Melanie Curtis at 9S2.249.4627. Mm , f- FILEIM4-2991 10 March 2004 Page 1 of 4 Data Application Received: 02*18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02-23-04 60-Day Review Period Espires: 04-24-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner March 10, 2004 04-2991, Patrick & Cindy Fleming, 4760 North Arm Drive, - Variance • public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum 1.8 acre (77,112 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting variances in order to construct a 28’ X 3S’ detached garage in front of their principal structure setback at 4S’ v^ere 20* is required.________________________________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends approval of the variance to constmct a detached garage in front of the principal building setback with the stipulation that the detached garage meet the required SO’ setback from the front property line. Pertinent 2k>ning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in any RR-IB district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum req uirements shal be observed: Loi Area (acres) Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjicent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 SO 30 Sec. 78-1435. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of section 78-3 05(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b); except that detached garages maybe located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turnaround is provided on the site. 2- L. nsifiv* F1LEM4-2991 10 March 2004 Page 2 of 4 See. 78-1436. Setbacke. j. i aaa Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1 *000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Lilt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing A Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Arial Photo E. Proposed Plans and Elevations F. Photos O. Property Owners List H. Plat Map Background , ^ ^ The applicants have applied for variances from tire requirement that a detached accessory structure meet the principal building setback, and a 5* variance from the front yard aetoack in order to construct a 980 s.f. detached garage. The applicants based their location for their garage on the following: • a creek bed runs die length ofthe center of the property, • the existing and future septic treatment areas are directly to the rear ofthe home, and • their home is set back 132* from the road. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 8.f. (2 acre)200’ Actual 77,112s.f. (1.8 acre)235’ lor TOC »r RR-IB Required Proposed Front (Street)50’ 45’ (Houu hut back J3S. T from tha ttroet) Rear 50’200’+ West Side 30’No change East Side 30’100’ — *mmttm 2 Structural Coverase: FlLGi04>2e91 10 March 2004 PiQ4 3 of4 Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 77,112 s.f. (1.8 acre)AUowed: 11,566 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,437 s.f. (3 %) Front Yard Setback Variance This property is L-shi^d and the wider portion is the soudi part of the lot along North Arm Drive. The applicants’ home is set back 132’ from the front property line, the home and driveway are situated on the eastern portion of the lot, the existing and future septic tanks are located on the flatter portion of the rear yard, and a creek bed runs from north to south on die property making locating a detached garage difficult. The applicant would also like to utilize the existing driveway for die garage. There is not sufficient space available to locate the garage behind the principal structure setback as the creek bed creates a valley of tm-level ground and the driveway would most likely have to cross the creek bed. The applicants have proposed additional screening along the proposed garage to screen the structure from North Ann Drive. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysb In eonsUtrlng appUeatlonsfer varianct, tht Planning Commission shall consider the ^ect ofite proposed variance upon the health, safety and warfare of tha community, existing and andclpatui tra/Jle conditions, U^t and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, end the affect on values ofproperty iu die sttrnandlng area. The Ptanntng Commlssbm shall eotisUar recommending approval for vertenets from the literal provisions of the Zoning Coda In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue kardshty because of circumstances unique to the IrulMduet property under eonsUerotlon, end shell recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that tuck aettons will be In keeping with tha spirit and Infant of tha Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that due to the conditions of the lot; the creek bed, the loc^on of the septic systems and existing driveway there are hardships to justify granting the variamce for the garage to be constructed closer to the front street setback than that of the principal building. However, staff did not find a hardship to encroach into the required 50 ’ front yard setback. The views from the road and the golf course to the south will be shielded by the additional trees the applicant is proposing. 3 IJ City of Orono Variance Application_____ Stn§t Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 UlM'irii Main: 652-249-4600 tec 062-249-4616 MsKlf}g Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN S532SO066 Application# I Date Received: Amount J Staff: Fee: yJtl'Mtri:, S600 Renewal: $300 After-the-facc $1.200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Appkant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Addreea: *41(^0 UoiLtH AiLtA . Property Identification Number (PIN): OC»in (Attach legal description to application if not included on the sunrey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): M-ot □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: tsCResidentlal □ Other___________________________ Zoning District: ___________ * ^PLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal nar:es and marital status required for each Interested party) urne: r> U. ._____________________________ Phone (home):_ Phone (work): ^1*43*/- IS‘0^ Address: a<lw»a. r>ig-______g!^g-oic>r. twNa <kxl>4.______ Email: FI2.iwr<uA A Hell «»jS.»ticwv\»6ov*^.._______Fax: . OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names sr.d marital status required for each interested party) Name: 4^a4ncJc u Ftlwtujr.. . Phone (home): Q<i-<4n2. __________Phone (work): LSi • 0/« /foz ._____________ Address: *-(lrnO rCoAAM f>w Email: ___________________________ Fax: . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ Do^ oao. Describe the request In detail (attach additional sheets If necessary): ________________________ vOcM-tA 4-u A G-a av A SS* ___________ OSi. -T^ v»*\i ^ac■^A^ A \3Afi■ Ao «vo Wah A •T'O . \l Art >»tOC<_ C> TUe F'/to.o-4- g»*F Pr/AjdiPAt- r u/»4t^rg •__________________________________________________________________________________________ # C» Q Q 1 f1 ih^ UlJ 1 csik>r,^ I • • • • I I * I # REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for voi* application to be processed. ' ^ Pre-Appllcatlon Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. a Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form N f Ar ^^Certifled Property Owners List - owners wfthin 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map Ust labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6“* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612 348-5910 ^ Original Cer^cate of Survey (signed by a Hcensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11* or 11** X 17* tor reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5* x 11“ or 11" X 17* for reproduction.WS ■ • ^ 9 § IWI ■ WwMWMWl I. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Applicant’s Signature; ( Applicant’s Signature: _____________Date: gMl-oM Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: purposes of investigatiec^nd verification of this request Owner's Signature: Owner’s Signature: V Date: Q. - Date: ^ #29 iSlliHilUbliilMi* Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Thit form I# ■ required tubmltU! for aLL variance applications. An application will not bo considered compiete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form Is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated In order for a variance to be granted. The l.ardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic snuatims are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? u ^ TNs form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justified. The Information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of titese hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.“The properly In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." tOtD'V T*U.A/JcSi ^^r>sc.*ttr^ 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." or4-«.W 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of tne locality." yjo.ll AriA»eH t4ew<A "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." v> Hi i>. j f *«\<U « 1 6. 7. 9. Page 2 of 3 ‘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 1 leJ.OO, Subd. 2, when In harmony with this Chapter." .. 1. •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the CourdI may not permit as a variance any use that is not penritted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affoctud person's land is located.* The Board or Coundl may permit as a variance the temporary use of one-farnHy dwelling as a two-family dwelling.* •The spedal conditions applying to the structure or tand In question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wWch^ald?arS Isli^ted 9«nerally to other land or structures In the district In 10. ^e granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and erdoyment ofa substantial property right of the applicant* ■ ——---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way Impair health, safety, Code " respect be contrary to the intent of tfie Zoning .• tr t. jj <••rv I /•t gjf,Si JtfUL. 4 Pages of 3 12.The granting of auch variance will not merely aerve aa a convenience to the appHcant, but is necesaary to alleviate demonatrable hardehip or difficulty.” tAA^ &WLW___W I J LA.a *H P»y.»M fWtJu 1X3 tfv £>^u /Uo-4- Hardahip Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, descnbethe unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property eonditiona preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): A Pct.ii^x-4- t-e P-t/f ___________ ,r2/At LO/ll Aid 7 Pjj^e^ P/0^r^^€rj Ai€^AJf nf^ -hUe /u-e.iAj j^i'n Alttt^f £r\Af<»e>#r iof* -VU-r i-^r^c uoi\V ^ A.tL*Jt^TX. 4‘S4/' I»3£><4> pi f,^ \-ljtrm JL ^ aC lUiH A/a-/. * p * ‘ /'»♦> • *.|-»;if *%'• ‘A e« •e • A I vv «' h »* T* *■■"’'■"'ftf' //•- 'ii>' C. ,«•• •Hi i r.: : = •->- ■....AMMaaiaii^Aii ,r 1 1/^7 ■ Q . ' f »• 1 V % i • .»• ». 5,^K--; ■'\*V •wm ■ * ^2 W: I? V .H ^ >:.‘ ’. -j • ’ ^^^mamiiSmSgS^ v •. H-r-- .;- • •• I ^ ■ ■ II' , ; 'SP , •■ .' i^/' ->. <i ir>- ;->«.• S H '■■ " ’';-w' £,■■'■■•»' *i,’> ■ 'A '' ••' 'l.-')^ •- '•.*■■ ' '■ ^ i-'-'■"-^..7 T;i.:v ,f . * ■ T jj. f '|ci^ ♦ SIDIi/REAR PCRSPtcnVE PATFLBViiNG <4760 (40RTH ARM DRIVE ORONO.MNSS3fr4 28* X 33' X ly-O* DETACHED CABLE GARAGE DURABIU ASSdCIAniS - P (1 i scale !/<»• - r <r ] y.^tvTtif a-s J I ■■‘j • # SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: l/r-T'O* PAT FLEMING 4760 NORTH ARM DRIVE ORON0.MNSS364 S'JclT'ET DETACHED CAMJ GARACtE , DURABILT ASSOdATES-f-Ql SCALE VARIES | SrtEETE A-3 5 -'' V ,{% >— *•' .Jk- ^ .c.' 1% J7 • •* • •—^4 V. '\ V • V .-V •4 rt :• ^ n,^. r ‘ .>,-y o ■' ‘ . .y|'' W' : ’ • . . i I iT-'* • X ..- ■-—;-'';!N- I r'^' ' '^ - ^ t I J I ■ ^ t , »• i=^: ■^‘"X::vv V#=sgsit?kx^‘^ f te 1^ ,,t;^K-n-.-, ■V- v- ^--|- ?! Il 'cm* IVV 1 ■•: '•■ V:>:v^SS 7 :t > ;V^• .i '•• T-. .••Jj-1* ^ Ni >:/ : V’-;\.v- • Vi,-' •' 1 ../ ^ iif«K V -L '* ■ ■ ^! ^i^aSyi'•' ‘ .vf■..V*' *’ * ' .' \* i^*S\v'c/Ik »’'' '•’ ••v^yl?L ithiV '-i ' i IB li^r: s-Ij i iP?'lKM r),L^ ►.^sJ:*V.-v 4 c»- m.-. '--.jVMflBlM *s'tSi'li • » . • • * . # • * • • '•• 4\ *- s 7^ \ - • »*- j • j, L;« ' s r- y. • s # , ^ fW 1^*• ^ » At ^ Y^Fi »‘ ' '% V4ir» . ,, ............... A ♦-. -\ y V I (we) Adjiccnt Property Ownen* Acknowledgement Form L _____of (^- &/. [print address][print name(8)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (sre) not asked to declsie approval or di8^>pioval of tiie property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighboi^s projc'^t or use requires Council approval Property Owner Date Property Owner • • • • A^A,g«»JW«ibA#*AAe •• ••••«• liilu I (we) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (print name(s)][print addrats] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^ki.\A^k,^ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ______of u/i . /-/A/ Q J [print'name(s)] [print address] i (we) N- IriUiJ have rgviewed the plans for the proposed Improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No._____• I (we) understand that In executing thb acknowledgemenL I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the Improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Ucs Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. f- ■=«! * • - V-: I • /. • T *•*§ 1 % • * MINM1B: I/SOB4 31 MIITaUNOO* ntOTAUOR 3JOHORTM SHOW DRW OWNER NAME KIUSTUNRIJN06EN TAXFAVn KIUSTIANR1JNDEB4 JJONOinM SHORE DRW MOUNDMN SS3M 3t MII7UUOOIO PROEAOOR 4T60 NORTHARM DRW OWNERNAMB rDHJSMWORCLFLEMINO TARRAYBR RATRICRRCIHOY PUMINO NAMB/ADOR 4760 NORTH arm dr W MOUNDMN SS3M 31 06IITi32300IS propaoor m OWNERNAMB LROUBTZKOWRCOUETZI^ TAXPAYER LAURA R CHRBTOPMER OUEIZKDW HAMWADOR 4730 north arm dr W ORONOMN SS344 ‘waStKSSsi^ 3t 04II7333300M rwrADOR M ADORESSWASSIOI® OWNBINAME POUBOHORCLPliMINO taxpayer PATRR*«CtlDYPtEMIHO NAME^ADOR 47*1 north arm DRW MOUNDMN S5JM 31 MII723230009 PROPADOR 4140 NORTH ARM DRW OWNERNAMB iRJHEDBERO TAXPAYER JOHMARlANlCSHEOBBRfl na ME/ADOR 4740 north arm DRW MOUNOMH 5SJ64 31 06II7232100II propaoor 3» NORTH SHORBDRW OWNER NAME AHNNYBIAKSTVEOT taxpayer anfihvblaicstveot NAME/AOOR 3» NORTH SH^DRW MOUNDMN SS3M 30 06II7212300IZ PROPADOR 4710 NORTH ARM DRW OWNERNAME BPORCIBRRKPORCIBR TAXPAYER ELLEN lOANPORCIER NAMB/ADDR 3I0R DAKOTA AVB 8 RTUMSPARKMN 55416 3a 06IIT232N0U propaoor 4730 NORTHARM DRW OWNERNAME R^AMESRKARWPH^N taxpayer RJAMESRKARENP HOFFMAN tlMiiE/AODR 4730 NORTH ARM DRW MOUNDMN 35364 31 0611723320003 PROPADOR OWNERNAME TAXPAYER LAKEVIBWOOIPOPMTKAINC NAME/ADDR 155 red OAK la MOUNDMN 55364 icami^TH»TTiBFAcnm«ratMTO^»wocw^ PAGE: I Wn •* T| 9 V yjt' ^%£: ' It ■ -A**—- IS nepin » ' ; • 7. ''y' - Ir! »‘*. • J • xt Hennepin ^Jakpayer Services Deipartnieh^v ’ ■;**>*• 1 9 7i») g R ALmOTA »9fta " <”> IK,t •M*<7W ft mm'V m3 V..•V* i* .•* ‘r,\ ► V •. V 'e^« ^ \ ••• ifiii .- ffUi >4DDA/ 1 i .» fff.HI i (fo; i V >:• ■w’S'i';ri. A. •<^5V ojnoTA ^ fi •• 09 VXUmB'Wr^49M9 8 s ■/- ^•v.7?;.;•• •vJ- '■•'•rs-: ■::/W ■ iM m ■M f* i.' »'v5-> .*•» . >• ■■ • * f->v - ■ V .* •. -.•fV;'..'*-, SSiP •i.-' , .•■.- ’i . I ^el/nfdrmatlqn :: __ Pi^ lb 061172323001b V Hoiii«:Nunib«r 4Vn VStifiSi Nam* HORtH ARM DR yV •p * ^ ••• •!«•/ ;^-■; aS ditt QR//.V. md State mad tOtiartties entf other source,. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION erst'Sir'll *'CCTIMQ umm 2004 Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis Zoning Title: City Planner Item Description: Sign Permit Request - 2765 Kelley Parkway Orono Professional Properties 1 -McCarthy Construction List of Exhibits: A. 2004 Sign Permit Application & Submitted Materials B. Sign Approval with Building Permit Request from June 2003 C. Resolution No. 4890 and Sheet El.l Exterior Elevations (Sign Elevations) D. Business District Sign Code Regulations — City Code Section 78-1468 Summary: McCarthy Construction has requested a sign permit for the dental office at 2765 Kelley Parkway to allow a larger sign than was previously approved. In November 2002 Council approved the Development Agreement which referred to sign plans indicating a two-faced monument sign 13'4” wide and 12 ’ high, with 68 s.f. of signage per face, each sign face being 8’ wide and 8’6” high. The plans submitted for the building permit in June 2003 indicated a sign 13’ wide but 12'8 ” high. Staff accepted this because the magnitude of the change was minor and the square footage of signage remained at 68 s.f. per face, 8’ wide and 8’6” high. The cunent signage request now has the sign 13’ wide but 13’8” high, more than 1-1/2 feet higher than originally approved. The faces are now 7’2” wide by 10 ’ high, or a total square footage of 71.25 s.f. per face. The added height is of greater concern to staff than the minor addition of square footage to the faces. One apparent reason for the added height is that the individual pillars were not built according to the plan; they are each slightly larger in girth, reducing the width available for signage to 7’2 ” rather than 8’. The added height proposed apparently makes up for this loss of width. A reason for the added height cited by the applicant is that the owners want the sign to be visible over the berm at the comer. The underside of the eaves of the building are at a height of 12 ’ above grade. The 13’8” height raises the top of the sign to a level about even with the top of the facia. 2765 Kelley Parkway - Siga March 18,2004 Page! f ^ Sumrairv November 2002 Approval Monument: 13’4 ” wide x 12* high = 160 s.f. per side Sign Face: 8’ wide x 8*6*’ high = 68 s.f. per face June 2003 Building Permit Staff Approval Monument: 13’ wide x 12*8 ” high » 165 s.f. per side Sign Face: 8’ wide x 8*6” high = 68 s.f. per face 2004 Sign Permit Application Monument: 13’ wide x I3’8” high » 178 s.f. per side Sign Face: 7.125 ’ wide x 10’ high - 71 s.f. per face Staff Recommendation The height of the sign is an issue because it sets the tone for all other signage along Kelley Parkway. Monument signs are by design intended to be low to the ground, as opposed to pylon signs which are by nature raised to a height for greater visibility. A monument at 12’ or 12’8” is already pushing the limit, in staffs opinion, especially for an office use. If this was retail, there would be a greater need for highly visible signage. The Development Agreenient provides that minor amendments to the approved plan may be referred to the Development Review Committee, which consists of the Plaiming Director, Public Services Director and the City Planner. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Options for Action 1. Indicate to the applicant that the sign may not exceed the 12’8” height improved with the building permit. 2. Refer this to the Development Review Committee for fuud action. 3. Refer this to Development Review Committee for a recommendation, with Council to take final action. 4. Advise applicant to make a formal request for PUD amendment, for Planning Commission and Council review. 5. Conclude that the sign dimensions as proposed on the sign permit tqiplication are acceptable. City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 2730 Kelley Pirkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 For Staff Uk Only Date Received 3-iS ’’OH Permit^* mg Approval: Zoning Approval Zoning District:(952)249-4600 ^ CITY OF ORONO- SIGN / GENERAL PER^T (All permits must be approved by the Building Official and the Zoning Department) Job Site/Owner Information Site Address: 1d.~7L^ l^gljey Par-kw^y Owner: Orono Mailing Address: _____ City, State, Zip: 0/^o.nc* "iSSSU Email: jcicbr >^ Home Phone: ^49-•iux.e (Or. .^) Work Phone: Fax: .}Contractor/Ap'plicant Information ' i.' ’ • ~ !■ ■ >.. Contractor/Applicant: MtCarh^xj State License it: Address: llU->0 brer\ ftb U Expiration Date: City, State, Zip: /VliNisie.Tof\K.c.- Contact Person: Business Phone: ^ >,>>7___________Contact Phone: Fax: /o^ o ____________Email: ___________ 1<U^J '^4'.:: ^^xj-FattnitTylpc & Sign Information.V~ -i y All work Is to be,dooe per UBC Estimated Cost S ‘Minimum permit fee “ S35.00 Work Intended: Sign Installation: V Sign Altcration/Face Change: ___ (Check One) Temporary Sign: (Flat Fee) ♦ w^r Sion H\: . « . io Sign Face Width: ^9(1. Total Square Footage: T L2.S '1. WvC^ Top of Sign to Grade: Distance from bottom of Plastic ^ Metal y4 Other: __Internal V Indirect Top of Sign to Grade: _[2,~b*' Distance from bottom of sign to grade: 4o \ Materials: Wood _ Illumination: External Other: Sign #2: Sign Face Length:Sign Face Width:Total Square Footage; Top of Sign to Grade: Materials: Wood Plastic Distance from bottom of sign to grade: Metal Other: lllumiiuition: External Internal Indirect Other *i4ffocAi additional shetts if necessary Please Note: A Miruiesota State Electrical Permit is required if electrical work is proposed. List Signs to be Removed (if any): Square Footage: ____________Number of Signs: TEMPORARY SIGNS: • No more than 4 temporary sign permits may be issued per calendar year for not more than 10 consecutive days (including weekends). • No single sign shall exceed 32 square feet. -over- iv- 1*. "? . ! JfibL, r All of the information below must be submitted in addition to the completed application form: Rf.ni irRED SUBMITTALS 1. Drawing of the proposed 8ign(s)t including all of the following: y Dimensions of Sign ✓ Message/Content of Proposed Sign(s) Structural Drawings (including footings) 2. Sketch (or survey) of the site, including all of the following: y North Direction & Scale Street Names Placement of Proposed Sign(s) ✓ Location of Structures on Amount of Existing Sign Inventory (Location the Lot (& Dimensions) Road Frontage & Size of Existing Signs) 78-1466(1) Ttmporary signs. . ^ ^ ^ a. There ihill be no more than fcur tempora/y business signs issued per calendar year, and for a period of not more than ten days per time Of of die durtfion of the event promoted by the sign message, whkheva is less The sign (including binners or ballooni). sign supporu or portable stand shall be removed from public vie v the end of the period Total area of the sign shall not exceed 32 square fret per surface (64 square feet totaj sig.iage allowed for two-sided portable sign). Advertising balloons are not subject to area restrictions but must meet all applicable federal and state standards b. There shall be no more than or.c temporary sign in any required yard area, and, if separate mulbple signs are proposed, the total area of the signs shall not exceed 32 square feet Temporary business signs require a building pmit from the city No such permit shall be issued by the city If a conditional uae pennit under section 78-1467(l)c has been issued to a residential property. No tempo ran' sign shall be allowed in rcsidoitial xoocs unless permitted u election or sale signs under this section. Multiienant buildings shall be considered as a single property for purposes of aUbaection (g) of this aectkm; and the uat of Ihe single temporary business sign by tenants on the property shall be the responsibility of the property owner or designated manager, who shall endorse in writing alt applications for sign permits. c. The owner or manager of the sign and tlie owner of the property shall be equally responsible for the proper location, maintenance and removal of the sign. All temporary signs shill be located on a property so that they do not impede wfety by obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. Sec. 78*1468. Signs (n B and 1 districts. Within the B and 1 districts, oameplaie signs and busineu signs are peimitfed subje^ to the following regulitkxis: (1) B-1, B-2 and B-4: size. Within the B-1, B-2 and B-4 districu, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot ^1 not exceed the sum of one square fbot for each from foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed SO square foet (2) B-3: size. Within the B-3 district, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square foet per front fbot of building, plus one square fbot per front (bot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surfoce shall exceed 100 square foet (3) I size. Within any 1 district, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square fret per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building No individual sign surfke shall exceed 100 square foet (4) B-l, B-2 and B-4 height Within the B-l, B-2 and B-4 districts, no sign shaU extend in height more thw two feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building, nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property tine, except that my sign over ten square foet may project two foet into any required yard area from the principal building. (5) B-3 and I: height. Within any B-3 or I district, no sign shall extend in height more than six foet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of my principal building. No sign shag be located closer than ten feet from any property line, except that any sign exceeding ten square foet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. (Code 1984. ( 1061(3)) Please Note: This is only an application for a pennit. Do not erect the sign until you have received the pennit A double fee will be charged for any sign erected prior to obtaining a permit Incomplete applications will not be processed. / hereby apply for a Sign Permit and I acknowledge that the information is complete and accurate; that the work will be done in conformance with the Ordinances and Codes of the City of Orono and with the State Building Code; that 1 understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in acc^pidaficTyith the approved plan. Applicant: Building Staff Approval: Zoning Staff Approval: Date: INflRNAUT lUUMINATED WITH VINYl OVERLAY — 13*-4 eSl/2" 36" Orono Professional e- Center Orono Dental Care 5" Kottemann Orthodontics Skin Care Doctors 5-5*Future Tenant Future Tenant Future Tenant 2765 Kelley Parkway -3M PLUM & WHITE COFY (PM5 2622) -TENANT PANEL6 REMOVABLE -INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED -VINYL OVERLAY -WHITE COPY iTOMIt OKONOPKOPCedlONAL cinr STATf I NAMt JT-OCieza fS RERjEKIfTT. U.E 1/2*«rcr AWN BVLOWtLL vnnm. or TMs PRAMN61 ><ueY 6«t vvr rEKM£«i<M R) B€ciM reoucncN or m w n«d doomemt. i acr£e ihM Air* sriof CATOKj. smjRO. couts k\: lc aww •.ata h rm coRwa A«p APnmo. m ck*a(>£j v ^5 c^awwo vtw mocicnoN HAa afAlffEC MLl «frxl M AK;.-»<AI ChAlU’tS. CUSTOMIftAPfAOVAL OATC tHiS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF schaimapi N »VIM J21 MiNMCSOUAVf. N. PO AOX JW ORONOCO. MN mAO PH0NCyS07.H7.3Ul tax / 507-H7-2Af7 1410 C. CUFF RD. auHNSviLte, MN y,j77 PHONi / vpa avAu-iM Fax / 9^2 4.2744 ‘>$ION ZllORIC.DATE O^itjiQA |[ REV, DATE C3>/J-»/C4 IfFONTS DSED: POOr.MAN \ & J 2C*I60N ^i)!? AOV^l CVrOi: KUi'v 'm i • « m -X-. .--A, 4 m {^va^lMTPtO wi w»»f Pern IT ©SlGfNACaE^ 1/4'. r-0‘ j 1 /S U. S. HICiHlUAT NO. 12 L COLUMN 5CHB7ULE MARK SIZE base plate O TSS hS hM a/4V4*»iD*-R* TYFf A ®T54w4>a/I» a/4"ktD*MO**ID* TY« A ®M2i40 TYP* S NQTg&i 1. MCSkim pm ANCHOHSOLTO AND LAYO/T. w***r-o* #. WM^nD8W*U.IWT'N«»MWU^»teg>gTPgTt€»We. *• * »* ; ayw 0«^ WQ/ *COMT Bonw^ «Mrw«liMlnlLeeni client ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER MATTSON/UACDOHAID INC. SIRUCTURAL CNCI aWMbMO' I'M j<:»c M>#3r«eoee Ka>< ORONO. MN FOUNDATION PLAN JiSLL 8241J0 9calc AS NOTED dwetodfay aOLS ditr no, dtl» Iwu^dlor OSAt&m RfASmi. Ilwiby 0««y MtMi pun ipadicttn or nptrt «M pnpMd Iv <M or ladir oiy dM wptnWoo aid tM I an I IMMESOm QZ71Z *4. 0 .«• rofessional Properties of Orono, Inc. 2765 Kelle}'.Pjir]ovay Permit Approval Addendum 6-2-03 Laadjcape Plan - ShaM L2.1 Dated lWl/02 (Revised 05/08/03): AddiSonal screening has been «lded SE of trash enclosure as required.1. 2.J^oars^sron "" S- > 3. ay and at least A --------O T wi Required species to include: a) Northern Red Oak b) Patmore Green Ash c) American Linden d) Sugar Maple Spacing of a. djove along Kelley Parkway to be 30-40-. Grading Plan - Sheet C3.I Dated 12/31/02 (RevUe 05/08/03) area. This berm ce purposes and shall be Exterior Elevations - Sheet A7.1 Dated 05A15/03 Revision 2 notshown; "bsentsuchapllIIfsi'^rgTBS'S^u “®‘*°^«B ’’planis Resolution No. 4890. ®*®»® »n undated Sheet EU as atJhed to Ar.hlteetur.1 Elentents - Sheet. A7.1 and A7.2 Dated OVOS/03 Revision 2 PercondiUons of purchase agreement, the foUowing special details shall be adhered to: “CMir shall be colored rock-face block. Columns shall be plaster-finished fiberglass. ufpurch.se Page 1 of 1 1. 2. 3. AfW 'hoUd\yyf\ Pcrry^l^ June 7oc^ 3'-0' ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER 27U 0 0 !r<5> 1 1 r -U-L 1 I T*n i;2'-6"L 0 SIC.NAGE 'A' 1/4" . r-0’ i CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. /> Q fn ^ a) City reserves the right to require revision to the tree species and tree locations proposed along the Kelley Parkway frontage to ensure their compatibility with the final Kelley Parkway streetscape plan yet to be approved by the City Council. b) The trash enclosure shall be further screened by vegetation to rrimlinize direct view of the opening by westbound Highway 12 traffic, subject to City staff approval. 5.Approval of floor plan and facade elevations for the Medical Office building per Sheets A1.1, El.l and El .2 by Shea Architects (undated). 6. 7. Approval of Signage Plan per Sheet El.l (undated). Approval of Lighting Plan per Sheet E2.1 dated 9/18/02, subject to limiting the height of light standards to 20* above grade and revising the location and number of luminaires to more uniformly light the parking areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings ofResolution No. 4680, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 3, subject to the following conditions: 1.General Development Plan Approval is granted subject to conditions established within Resolution 4860 and subject to the conditions established within the Plarmed Unit Development No. 3 Agreement and other pertinent documents. 2.Upon the final approval and execution of this resolution and the Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement, the City Council shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone the Property and the Adj acent Parcel from RR-IB S.ngle Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Hi^way Commercial District Plarmed Unit Development (B-6 PUD), and amending the Orono Zoning Code by adding language establishing Planned Unit Development No. 3 (PUD-3) to include the property and tne Adjacent Parcel. Page 4 of 7 M ©ErCND ©NORTH EAST ELEVATION i/a‘ = r-0 ‘ 6j0O0fArt^ Pcam Af<'tevALx |1 (o^. ©SIGNAGE 'A' 1/4' « r-0’DATE: 9*16-2002 M EXHIBIT D Sec. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. Within the B and I districts, nameplate signs and business signs arc permitted subject to the following regulations; B-1, B-2 andB‘4: size. Within the B-1. B-2 and B-4 districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed SO square feet. B-3: size. Within the B-3 distriat, the^regate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed thksiim of four square feet per front foot of ^ building, plus one square foot odr^nt foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sigiydliurfacAhall exceed 100 square feet. /; size. Within any I district, the a^^gate Muaf^ootage of sign space per ^ lot shall not exceed the sum of fourSquardKet per front foot of building, AJ Ar plus one square foot per front fooj^ofproperty not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall^cce<r^00 square feet. B-1, B-2 and B-4: height. Within the B-1, B-2 and B-4 districts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building, nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line; except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. (5) B-3 and I: height. Within any B-S'V I district, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet !n height ^v^e highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No^i^ shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line, excepLdun^y sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into thdyard aina from any building. (Code 1984, § 10.61(3)) M^l MJevie ust'L fN • ••^ ( REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ‘■'"'O'^ORo.Vo DATE: March 22,2004 ITEM NO.: /7 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Municipal Facilities Janitorial Services Contract The City has been using the Powerclean Company for cleaning services over the past several years, and we have been struggling with inconsistent and poor quality cleaning of the City facilities. We have discussed this situation with area cities and have previously been reluctant to change providers because none of the other cities were satisfied with their cleaning companies as it is difficult to find high quality firms to do this work. However, recently the cities of Long Lake, Mound, and several south lake cities have changed to utilize Coverall Cleaning Concepts and have been very satisfied with the quality of cleaning servi^ provided. We have received a proposal from Coverall for cleaning of the City facilities with a price guarantee until July 1,2005. The price is competitive with our current provider, and there are no budgetary impacts from changing providers. The staff recommendation is to terminate our cleaning services agreement with Powerclean Company, which requires a 30 day written notice, and to request Council ^proval of the cleaning services agreement firom Coverall Cleaning Concepts effective May 1,2004. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the cleaning services agreement from Coverall Cleaning Concepts effective May 1,2004. MtyUli i L Eg A N q c o N g" l-3; i ■1 City of Orono Attn: Gregory A. Gappa P.E. 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 CewoO Otoninfl ConoipM* Covafoll of ifw r«Mn ONw •OOe 34tf» Aironuo Sot^ SuWo M3 MoooWngtan. A4N 3542S p^. f952) 914-1010 St. Cloud: (32(9 2400330 Alt; (9S2) 914-1009 i "TIT February 18,2004 City of Orono Attn; Gregory A. Gappa P.E. 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Greg, Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present you with our maintenance service proposal, customized for your specific requirements. rliftntQ. We have achieved our recor' growth by solving the problems that cripple conventional janitorial services: / Security - Our owners are on site to prevent any security problems. ✓ Turnover - Because our Franchisees are owners they stay with their building longer than conventional contractors. / Cleaning Quality - Much of the cleaning, special services and extras are done by the owners themselves, so the quality is better. ✓ Supervision - The owners are small business people who intensively supervise the limited number of accounts they manage. At Coverall you are number one. Customer satisfaction is the reason for our success and forrns the foundation of o’lr company’s philosophy. Please spend a few minutes reviewing the enclosed material for a clear '“derstai^mg of company, its unique concept, and how you can have the best quality cleaning most reasonable price. Sincerely, Richard Baker Account Representative RB:sc Corral! CItonfng ConevpH* Coverall of Twin Cif 4% 0OC<^ 34fh Avtnut South, 5uH§ Bloomington, MN 55423 ph: (9S2j814-fOlO St. Cloud: (320) 240-0330 fax; (952) $14-1009 twwwoovor9H.com V The Problem: Lack of Professionalism in Commercial Cleaning Recurring problems in this industry include 1. Inconsistent service and untrained workers. 2. No supervision to ensure quality. 3. No contact person lor service requests. 4. Lack of management concern for customer satisfaction. 5. Account cancellations due to poor quality of labor. r*he Solution: The COVERALL Concept COVERALL has created a concept where hinhiy trained personnel, quality cleaning methods and dependable work schedules come together to form a successful commercial cleaning program that works. The COVERALL Resources COVERALL has invested in a comprehensive training program and an extensive support system. We have developed quality control systems, customer relation services and billing and collection services. We have provided volume purchasing power, discounted insurance coverage and a state-of-the-art equipment package. Commercial Cleaning Professionals Our franchise owners recognized the need for our resources, and they invested in their own commercial cleaning franchises. They wanted to learn the latest cleaning techniques, proper equipment usage and effective customer relations sk iis These self-motivated individua's are true cleaning professiona's The Growing Move to COVERALL Commercial Cleaning More than 7,000 industrious men and women have become COVERALL franchise owners. Together, they provide the highest quality commercial cleaning services to our ever 35,OOOcustomei ’ accounts. Small and large office bui dings, industrial complexes, medical facilities, oanks, department stores and corporate headquarters are among the many accounts we serve Their size ranges from just 1.000 to over one million square feet. Yet. they a'l possess one comnnon recuirement that COVERALL consistently prov des - the beet quality cleaning aervlee at the moat reasonable price. 1 4 \ 'it- %* n' /mportant facts about COVERALL services Insurance COVERALL franchise owners are insured with t $2,000,000 liability coverage as well as a $100,000 janitorial bond. Training COVERALL requires all franchise owners to use the same cleaning methods that have lead to our growth and success. To accomplish the consistency, franchise owners complete an intensive training program during which they master the latest cleaning techniques using state-of-the-art products and equipment. Quality Control Our Quality Assurance Department will perform periodic daytime inspections of your workplace. This practice helps maintain COVERALL'S high standards and encourages feedback from our customers. ■ Cleaning Schedules All cleaning operations are generally performed after business hours and OA weekends. However, we can also accommodate your daytime cleaning needs. All initial or special cleanings are arranged to meet your scheduling requirements. ■ Communications Phone Support: We work when you work • so we'll be available when you need us. Our COVERALL regional offices can assist you with any cleaning matters dur ing regular business hours. Paging System: Our franchise owners are accessible 24 hours a day via their beepers. This tool assures rapid response both in emergency situations or simply to make a special request. Log Books: You can also communicate questions or comments to your franchise owner via our log book. The owner checks the log book daily, and sign;, it after each cleaning. ■afii i *.• '• Ten Most Important Questions to ask before you select a Janitorial Service for your Business ■ Number of Years in Business How long has the company been in business? Ask for a client list. Look out for the ’Fly-by-Night" and "Mom & Pop" operations. ■ Training Are the service providers properly trained? Ask if they have received professional training and to what degree. Do they have a Certified Training Program for any specific areas such as Bloodborne Pathogen? ■ Company Insurance Does the company provide liability insurance, bonding and workers compensation insurarice? This could be a real problem if there is any damage to your facilities. Customer Support What type of customer support do th^ offer and are they able to assign o service contact for your company? Can they assign one customer servi representative for your company? one service Monthly Billing Is the company able to invoice once per mc.'.'.h for services performed? Avoid the small companies which require weekly or bi-monthly invoicing just to make their payroll. Tull Service and Modem Equipment Can the company provide expendable supplies, such as: paper towels, toilet tissue, toilet seat covers, hand soap, plastic trash liners, etc. and if so, are their prices competitive? ■ Security Is the company trustworthy enough to have keys and access to your building at night? Ask for list of customers to check their integrity and past history. ■ Attire and Company Identification Do the employees weai' the proper attire and identification tags? How do you identify if tne people in yot Sui ding are authorized to service your facii'^? ■ References Request a lis." of current customers that the company has provided service for at least twelve months. I v“- • • . / ';; COVERALL’S cleaning contract agreement The undersigned hereby accepts the proposal of COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC. to supply janitorial services for our premises described as follows: City of Oroio 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 with the following terms: 1. COVERALL’S service charge will be J24|3j02 per MONTH. Service will be provided in accordance with COVERALL’S work schedule attached hereto and an integral part of this agreement. (Price listed above does not include applicable local sales tax.) 2. COVERALL will perform all janito'.ial services specified in the attached work schedule in a good and worionan like manner consistent with industry standards. At no time and in no event shall COVERALL be responsible for the clean-iq} or disposal of hazardous materials belonging to Customer or its clients. In the event of non-performance by COVERALL, the customer shall first give verbal notification, followed by written notification to COVERALL. 3. All equipment and cleaning supplies will be furnished by COVERALL, with the exception of liners and toiletries, which can be provided at wholesale prices. 4. The price quoted above is good until June 1,2005 unless customer changes scope of thejob. 5. This contract may be cancelled with a thirty (30) day notice. In the event the customer cancels without a thirty (30) day prior notice, COVERALL shall be entitled to one month’s service charge. 6. In the event of default or. payment, customer agrees to pay such additional sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fees, all Court costs, end late fees of 1 '/a % per month. 7. Customer agrees not to hire any COVERALL or franchisee personnel for 18 months aher end of contract This agreement entered into and accepted on this '"ISL day of fAr _____, 2004 by: COVE Signed CUSTOMER Signed by. COVERALLOFTHE TWIN CITIES,INC. Service to commence U /\ Pair*/on On behalf of City of Orono Alta I 1 CLEANING- CONCEPTS Samole Customers - Pioneer Press - Old Home Foods - Kraus Anderson — AAA - Qierokee State Bank - Weight Watchers - ABF Freight Systems, Inc. - The Art Institute - General Electric Tyco Prudential Wells Fargo Ceridian Coip. TCF Banks i — Park Dental - Canadian Pacific Railway (15) - USF Holland - City Government Bldgs. (14) - Children’s World - Frito Lay - Catholic Charities These are some of our over 650 accounts. ■ • . CLEANING CONCEPTS TYPICAL FRANCHISE OWNERS Lany J. • 15 years experience as cleaning foreman. • Wanted his own company. Ruby T. 1(H years as franchisee with Coverall. Has done same city municipal building for 8 yean. RosaH. « Had 15 years cleaning experience. • Wanted to build her own business. • Wanted extra income to help pay for college-age children. JuanP. • Left day job to become full-time franchise owno’. • Specializes in carpet & floor care. • Has grown to one of largest franchisees. Shawn Y. Years of experience with both ofBce and retail cleaning. Shamsul M. • 10+ years e.xperience including foreman jobs with major cleaning companies. KenD. 10+ years experience with hospital, school and contract cleaning. i• -I J ASim. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE MTIIMHDIHmrV) THIS CERTIFICArB IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OP MFORMATION ONLY AND CDNFERS NO RIOHrS UPON THE CERTIPCATB HOLDER. THIS CERTIPICATE DOES NOT AMB«0. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE APPOROEO BY THE POUaEt BELOW. IN8UREH8 AFFORDING COVERAGE NAlCi MSURERA; P btImbm ZaBurano* Co. MSURS9B: Hfmmtmm Siir*^ Company/ MBURstc Th« Hartford 39098 INSURER 0: IN8URSIE: Mooucn Bsehanga Uhd«nfrlt«ra , Zao. 121 WMt MJm atXMt Canoasboxg PJl 15317 «iea*:724-745>1600 ru: 724-745-0224 :OV6RAOIt 1MK rauau Of MMNANCe USTCO KkOW HAVI aON issueo TO TMB Msumo NAMB) ABOVE FOR THE raUCY POUCOINOCA7B). WrrWITHSTANONO ANY NBOUMeMBNT, TWM OR OOfOmCM Of ANV CONTflACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH REBKCT TO WHKH THIS CER1 .-'ICATE MAY «IBIUeO OR MAY fIRTAIN. TNI MWRANd AffOROeO BY TNI fOUCRB OBBCRIBIO HCRBM « BUBJECT TO Aa THE TBtMS, eXCUWlONB ANO CONOmOM Of SUCH fOUCIia. AOaNMATI UMtrS IHOWN MAY HAVf Km RIOUCtO BY f AO CLANS. TTFlPyiNlUmNCl OfMIULUAMUTV COUHCnCIAL Q&tWL UAftUTY cuMMSiMoe firioccuw OOriAOOWtOATgUMITAmieailR: |wucy| ISSft rHux: POUCVNUMIEII LlliT8 ff- . CBP9665886 01/01/04 01/01/05 lAOH OCCUlWENCe wlWiwijitTUTdlgJocoMmm) y)g)P(Afiyom ) 4AOVMJU*>r aOCIULAOOfttOATl ^RQOUCrS • COIfW AOO IIbOOO bOOO 1100^000 115.000 slfOOO.OOO •2.000.000 •1.000.000 me Mm ALL QWMEO AUTOS •CHBXJLEO AUTOS HMOAinros N0NC\AA«0 AUTOS OGMMICD SSKM LAST (eA«GMM) iOOLY0UUflV .YSUUflV (P vmc MwS) ■~1 SWenYOAA4AO£ t) OAIIAQIUASIUTY ANY AUTO ALiTO ONLY • CA ACOOEKT OrmTHANJurSoHjr: EAACC X~1 OCCUR I •1,000,000 COMB MACK X RgTBNTION 110,000 C09665586 01/01/04 01/01/05 •1,000,000 VNRNMS eOMftMBATfON AND •MfLOVBRrUAMUTY ««SSSSgtS3BS^17477 12/31/03 12/31/04 USMTfi&ASoK OTHIR . Dlah.69029910 08/06/03 08/06/04 '--CRimONOfOfIRATIONSILOCATIOmiV'! ,USIB(CLUnON* AODEO BY IMOORtEMENT/lfBCIALfRO^ONS •.LEACHACOOevr EL OiaCAK • CA EMROYEE EL OOEAM • fOUCY UNIT •lOOOOO •100000 •500000 100,000 RTIFICATE HOLDER IVZDIHC :oRO as (2001/01) CANCELLATION •HOULO ANY Of TMB ABOVE OeSCWBBO fOUCCS H CANKLL0 BCrORE THE EXfRATVN OATETHmEOf.TMiaK/lNOMSUREEMU.eMOeAVORTOHAIL 30_ DATE VWTTEII NOT1CB TO T>a CERTtfICATt HOUICR NAMBO TO THE LEFT. »JTf AEURB TO DO BO INALL amOH NO OBUOATKM OR UABsm Of AMY KJNO UfON THE UMJREB. rra AKMTI OR TATIVIE ATTVI K bOK mob OhdMwrltTB Inc. •* M C ACORO CORPORATION 1SM • • it If City of Maple Giove »40l Fernbrook Latu. P.O. Box 1180, Maplt Grove. MN 5S311>818(I 612-194.6000 July 31,1997 ;'n' Ms. Lori Oagnon Administrative Assistant Coverall of the Twin Cities, Inc. 7831 GlenroyRoad Suite 211 Bloomington, MN SS439 pear Ms. Gagnon: The City of Maple Grove has contracted with Coverall to perform cleaning services for the past seven years. Our Coverall fiauchisee is Ruby Thompson. Ruby and her "team" have always done an outstanding job in the services they have provided for us. Mot only is the everyday cleaning done cfiBciently and completely, but special requests are handled promptly as well. Strict attention is paid to detail with unparalleled thoroughness. They go above and beyond our expectations and are always willing to do whatever it takes to get d» Job done. Ruby and her team take great pride in their woi^ and it shows in everything they do from the smallest task to the toughest cleaning «b. The City of Maple Grove highly recommends Coverall services I Alan A. Madsen City Administrator AAM:cjm “Serving Today, Shaping Tomorrow” AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Piiat^ M WtiycM Ptpar A Hopkins Public Works Department 11100 extfhior ‘Bhj(L . tons', 55343-3435 . <Pbmt: 622-939-1382 • fax: 612-939-2381 January 20,1999 Bob Schriver Coverall of the Tadn Cities 7831 Glenroy Rd. Suite 211 Bloomington, MN 55439 Dear Mr. Schriver: In January of 1997 the City of Hopkins entered into a contract ^th your organization to provide cleaning services for various city buildings. The franchisee that was provided by your organization Clean Worid Inc. has been the performing the cleaning duties since that date. The C.E.O. Leon Demyanov has been very receptive to any problems or concerns tbat have arisen since day one. Overall we have been completely satisfied with the service we have received from your organization. Sincerelv Norbert Kerber: Building & Equipment Supt C/4fii Opfortumey Employer mm i 27 August 2002 Richard Hopkins Covaraii of the Twin Cities 8009 34th Avenue Suite 865 Bioomington, MN 55425- Dear Richard: i want to take this opporfjnity to iet you know how much we appreciate the service that we receive from Coveraii. We have used your cieaning services for the past three years and are simpiy deiighted with both the cieaning services and-the franchise team CAndy A Nuri). Andy and Nurl are fabulousi We can't say enough nice things about them. They are courteous, on-time, pay a great deai of attention to their work, kind, r/veet and friendiy. in nVy opinion, they desen/e a ralsel We look forward to working with them In the years to come. I have no problem with rtcemmending your services to any business fortunate enough to hire Coverall and their franchise teams. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, Deb Harrington Princess of Power /dh 0«b Haningten •mail prinossieiniOdly.n« Oiract 6S1-503-7666 Studio 651-227-963S 651-2244848 10: !' 353 Ejst Ktlogg Boiitwd Saint Paul. Minnesota 55101-1411 I MnaJnlOdtyjwc aiBM *i rrr^r CO»»Mr« «*PFTING HAR ^ 2 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ DATE: March 22, 2004 ITEM NO: / ^ AMENDED Department Approval^ \j / Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Bid Award for Equipment Certificates Sate • Resolution The 2004 budgets for the General Fund and the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund include expenditures for public safety vehicle replacements and public works equipment and vehicle replacements. Because the City ’s property tax levy is at the levy limit, tiie source of a portion of funding for the equipment replacement was limited to either the use of fund reserves or the use of Equipment Certificates, whi.is a short term note. Because the City ’s General Fund and Equipment Outlay Fund reserves are at minimal levels, equipment certificates are being used to fund those expenditures. The City has requested bids from five local banks for a one-year equipment certificate note in the amount of $208,000. Since the bid deadline was set for Friday, March 19,2004 at 4:30 p.m., a bid tabulation and resolution to award the equipment certificate to the low bidder will be provided at the Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt Resolution #A Resolution Awarding the Sale of $208,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2004, accepting the bid proposal of Anchor Bank, N.A., Wayzata, to purchase the certificates bearing an inteiest rate of 1.50% per annum at a bid price of par plus accrued interest, if any, to be dated April 12,2004. Wort Con M i-t* BID TABULATION $208,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2004 City of Orono, MN Sale: March 22.2004 AWARD: Anchor Bank, N.A. NAME OF BIDDER RATE ANCHOR BANK, N.A. Wayzata, MN 1.50% STATE BANK OF LONG L AKE Long Lake, MN NO BID FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL Hamel, MN NO BID FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE LAKES NO BID Navarre, MN BANK OF MAPLE PLAIN Maple Plain, MN NO BID J L YEAR PRICE 2005 $208,000.00 1 t \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '‘''"""'II MEETi* i»mh ^ 2 2004 OF ORONO DA'TE: March 19. 2004 ITEM NO: /9 Department Approval: Name RonMoone Title City Administiator Administrator Reviewed:0 Agenda Section: City Adiniaiitraiof's Report Item Descript \>n: Payment Request Number 15* Navarre Fire Station The City has received one invoice for work related to the Navarre Fire Station. - BKV Group, for architectural services, in the amount of $1,383.24 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to iq)prove the request for payment in the amount of $1,383.24 to BKV Group, tobefunded from the Navarre Hre Stadon Construction Fund. f \BKV G R O »J P Archlltclurt Inttrior Design Er>gin«erin9 Boorman Kroot Vogtl Group Inc 222 North Stcond Str««t Minntopotii. MN 55401 612J393752 focvnulm: 611339.6212 www.bhvgroup.com lOE BillUig Croup 001 TotoU: Invoice Invoice Number: 21239 Invoice Date: February 25, 2004 Citv of Orono 2730 Kellcv Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 33323-0066 Attention: Mr. Ron Moorse RBCC.'V£d MAft 2004 cityofoho ^o Project: 1124.10 City ofOroiM —Fire Station ProfeMional Services Uirouah 2/23/2004 Bllllag Croup: Contract#: 001 Contract Amount: Percent Complete: Pec Eamed: Prior Pee BilUngi; SI 10.300.00 100.00% St 10.300.00 S109J9S.00 Current Pee Total:SUOS.OO Billing Croup Total: Billing Group: relmb SI.I03.00 Contract #: Reimbunables ----- BKV Group, Inc. ProJflCt: 1124.10 tnvoict: 21239 Februafv 23. 2004 Page 2 of2 \ / Ennnit Copy Paper 8 1/2 x 11 Delivery Service Expreu Mail Services Fax Mileage/Travel Postage Reimbursables Totals ChaiM 1S0.4S 27.20 7.06 4.00 7f 00 14.33 S278.24 Billing Group Total: Project Totals: Invoice Total *** S278.24 BUliag Summary Current £OfiC Tots Profcsiional Services Sl.lOS.OO $109,395.00 $110,500.01 Reimbursable Expenses:S278.24 $6,750.94 $7,029.11 Ouaide Services:S0.00 $11.40 $11.4( Cliier Service snd Fm:S0.0O $0.00 SO.OI Fintncc Charges:$0.00 $0.00 SO.Ot Taxes:$0.00 $0.00 $O.0( Total:$1,383.24 $116,157.34 $117.540 311 CniiMn,, McpT/NG WAR ^ 2 2004REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C»TV OF ORONO DATE: March 19. 2004 ITEM NO: 2.0 Department Approval: Name RouMoone TiUe City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Admiuittrator's Report Item Description: 800 MHZ Radios Navarre Fire Station Tony Roe, die Fire Administrative OIHcer for the Long Lake Hre Depaitmcnt, has coordinated the purchase of 800 MHZ radios for tlie Navarre Fire Station. The total cost of the radios was $40,075.68. Tliis included $35,879.44 for the radios and $4,196.24 for accessories such as microphones, chargers, headsets, etc. (Please see die attached invoices) Tony was successhd in obtaining a grant in the amount of $25,200.00 to fund the nuyority of die radio costs. The remaining costs are to be paid from the Navarre Fue Station Construction Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the payment of invoices related to the 800 mhz radios for the Navarre Fire Station in the amounts of $10,679.44 to the Metropolitan Radio Board, and $4,196.24 to Ancom Communications, Inc., to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction FVind j Mstropollten Radio Board MotropolHan Countiea Oovemment Center 2099 Univeraity Avenue 8t. Paul. MN 55104 (651) 6434395 and (651) 643-8394 FAX (651) 645-3246 March 10.2004 Invoice# cops0401 INVOICE City of Long Lake •1964 Park Avenue Post Office Box 606 Long Lake, MN 55356 Remaining balance for equipment after $25,200 COPS grant from the Metropolitan Radio Board (Total order of $35,879.44) $10,679.44 Total owed $10,679.44 Metropolitan Radio Board Sharing emargane/ Communication Aeroaa Agancy LInaa Metropolitan Counties Government Center 2099 Univeraity Avenue St. Paul. Minnesota 55104 Phone 651-643-8395 Fax651-64S-3246 Co?y PURCHASE ORDER Minnesota Metro Public Safety Communication System The followirg number must appear on all related correspondence, shipping papers, and Invoices: P.O. NUMBER: 2003*25 To: BobSchnese Motorola 11000 West 78*^ Street Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-942-3S52 Ship To: Asst. Chief Tony Roe Long Lake Fire Department 340 Willow Drive North Orono, MN 55356 952*292-6804 P.O. DATE REQUiSITIONER SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS December 30,2003 Bill Dean Best Way Eden Prairie, MN Net 30 QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL See Attached Description of Equipment See Attached Description of Equipment S23.495.44 12.384.00 SUBTOTAL SALES TAX SHIPPING & HANDLING OTHER TOTAL $35,879.44 1. Pieeae tend two oopiee oT your Invoico. 2. emw we order In accordence win Ihd prices, termt. ddivery method, and specIlcsSone Ketod Omwe. 3. Ploete noSly M Immodialety H you ere unaHe to thip es ■pecifled. 4. Send all correspondence to: BM Dean, Bioeutlve Director Melropolltai Radio Board, at above addreae =•. Vi y INVOICE V 4 i ■*•V." •.V,” COMMUNICATIONS INC INVOICE NUMBER: Invoice Dais: •’ •** .•* tV‘ ^ •• • *• 1800 EAST CUFF ROAD. SUITE 17A BURNSVILLE, MMNESOIA 55337 852-608-0033 FAX 952-808-0034 . PAGE: 26,2004 n 1 ■t- * • • • • > ^ J)TO: I long lake f«e DCPARTR«NT ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 340 WIU jOW DRIVE NORTH ORONO. MN 55356 . ^ ' V S v 0S2.47B24W •I . ^ • SNp To LONG lAKE f'RE DEPARTMENT ATTN; TONY ROE 450 VIRGINIA AVENUE ' LONGLAKE.MN 56356 952473^701 A ' \ r iA 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 . ^ » • . A ''■ .V. >• I .<* f • X •* • • ■ >' 4S» I SAlf'.P^ i . A^\y\ -4' Ml' .M /'J I t k ri I ui ichii* Iiuu .\'AOvJT. NMN6191B WPLN4111 NNTN4437 NTN8266 RMN40t8« BDN071m BON0676D H6040 40763G-02 SPEMER MICROPHONE 110V sue SMART CHARGER IMPRES NIMH 2000 MAH 1800 MIN is R BELT CUP KIT )CT8XSMPL&.m^*45D ‘JG£P. 8223 136X» 12325 657B4 1.080.00 986X)0 9912m 7928 22! f&H ADAPTER W/PTT SWITCH DAVID CLARK HEADSET DAVID CLA RK HEADSET ADAPTER - BODY SWITCH SHIPPMG & HANDUNG 4462 291.001 240.751 44B2 58200 48150 25.00 !2.. S'/’A'f" l-oA SUMotal Sfliee Tm 4.19624 Total Invoice Payment Received TOTAL 4.19624 M.19625? ;.>-V ■ v>: I A. J /A ; .'t, •• -vv * %.•v;. « V . I ‘ 4 •' •. . f . * K* •' 4 ‘ 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^^^^2 2004 city OP DATE: 3/22/04 ITEM NO: ORO/V o Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Partners in Prevention Coalition and the City of Orono__________________________ Exhibits: Memorandum of Understanding DISCUSSION: In 2003, the Orono, West Hennepin, and Medina Police Departments worked together on a short term cooperative drug project that identified major drug trafficking issues within our communities. Meetings with council members from all of the cities and the Orono School District attended a briefing concerning the project in August 2003. The police departments were directed to seek funding to continue a drug enforcement effort. Since then, the police chiefs in the above three cities approached Mound, Minnetrista, Wayzata, and the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office to see if they would be interested in joining the group and help in sharing the cost of the program. All agencies agree that there is a need for a combined enforcement effort, but funding is an issue. Hennepin County Sheriff Pat McGowan stated that he would be willing to assign a full-time investigator and supply the administrative support toward a joint drug task force for our area. The model that is teing considered is a self sufficient drug task force similar to the Southeast Hennepin Drug Task Force in Eden Prairie. This task force will require a cooperative agreement between the Cities and the Sheriff s Office, which is in progress at this time. As plans for the cooperative agreement move forward, start-up funding is needed to begin a task force. At the end of the 2003 project, forfeitures totaled $60,000 to be divided up between the three departments. Currently, Orono Police E)epartment has close to $40,000 in forfeiture funds, which must be used for drug enforcement efforts. Each city is proposing to use approximately $25,000 from forfeiture funding or other available funding and the $20,000 from last year’s forfeitures to get the program up and running. Most of the funds would be used to back fill the patrol officer position that is sent to work on the taskforce. Option 1: Each department, Orono, West Hennepin, and Medina would put an officer on the taskforce and back fill the position with a part-time officer working on a full time basis to fill shifts on the street. (Requires a budget adjustment for wages for part time officers for 2(X)4). With the County providing a full-time investigator, that would give us a four person taskforce. We have funding totaling $45,000 for this option. Option 2: Each depaitment, Orono, West Hennepin, and Medina would put an officer on the taskforce and back fill that position with either a part time officer working on a full time basis, or with a full time temporary officer. Currently there is a $100,000 federal grant opportunity through the Drug Free Communities Support Program through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Department of Justice. All of the community police departments and the community and school collaborative known as “Partners in Prevention" are required to sign a letter of intent in order to apply for the grant. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Partners in Prevention Coalition and The City of Orono provides that Orono act as the fiscal agent for the grant, that officers make presentations >at community forums and prevention trainings, provide $20,000 in funding for staff time to address access to drugs, and conduct alcohol compliance checks twice a year to establishments that sell alcohol in our community. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between the partners in Prevention Coalition and the City of Orono (Option 2 above). Motion to approve a 2004 budget adjustment to expend forfeiture funds to backfill one police officer position if necessary (Option 1). i //' ,fO v\O V <>>", \ ).■•■.vvff'- II CITY of ORONO MwOdpal Offices MP strati AMrtst: 2750 Kelley Pailwiy Orono, MN 55356 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Partners in Prevention Coalition and The City of Orono iiiiti tMnUi P.O. Bra 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323- As an active part.ier in the work of the coalition, the City of Orono. MN, fully supports the Partners in Prevention Coalition application to the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The City has been active in addressing the alcohol and drug abuse prevention needs of this community by working with the neighboring communities and school districts in joint programs aimed at reducing the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other illegal drugs by minors. Our police department conducts compliance checks on alcohol and tobacco license holders’ esublishments to assure they are not selling to minors. If an establishment fails compliance check, the Orono City Council takes serious actions against the license holder and the employee is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Orono Police Department worked with the Medina Police Department, West Hennepin Public Safety Department and Orono Schools in a cooperative drug project in 2003. Through this project we took over $800,000 worth of illegal drugs off the strecu of our communities. Our Police Departments work closely with the school distnets and the Partners in Prevention Coalition to establish programs for the kids dealing with the drug and alcohol issues in today’s society. The City of Orono agrees to contribute to the Partners in Prevention Coalition Drug-Free Community Support efforts by: 1) Taking a lead role in organizing the West Metro Drug Project to reduce access to illegal drugs in our community through the work of our Chief of Police and Officers. 2) Providing the following equipment, staff and services; a. Officers to present at community forums and prevention trainings ( Shouts.) b. $20,000 in funding to provide staff time to address access to drugs c. Conducting alcohol arid tobacco compliance checks twice per year to establishments that sell alcohol in our community (32 total) d. Police liaison offico’ working in the (3rono Schools (20 hrsVwk) e. Fiscal agent and accounting services for the OJJDP, Drug Free Communities Support Program. 3) Providing prevention education on the City web site at www oronopolice.ora Mayor Barbara Peterson City of Orono Date:_____________ Melanie DeLuca, Co-Director PARTNERS IN PREVENTION COALITION Date:___________ -_______ Carol Bergenstal, Co-Director PARTNERS IN PREVENTION Coalition Date:_______________________ lUepiNiie (952) 24M6M • Fax (952) 249-4616 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION aw I DATE: March 22.2004 ITEM NO: Dcpartmcot Approvil: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Name Ronald/J. Mootse Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT 1.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Gear West April Fools Race - 5 Kilometer Foot Race Start and finish at Holbrook Park, Long Lake. To cover Brown Road. Fox Street, Willow Drive and Grand Avenue. Parking for all runnem Will be at Gear West (1908 West Wayzata Boulevard). April 4,2004 8:20 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. 2.Applicant; Event: Location: Date: Time: Boyer Building Corp. 2004 Luxury Home Tour 2530 Fox Street June 11-13,18-20, and 25-27,2004 Noon - 7:00 p.m., Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1.David & Heidi Hust 45 Smith Avenue 2.Gayle Talbot 80 Luce Line Ridge COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to 2q>prove/deny the above listed licoises. i! r ■:; S' r o CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date luucd: Date of Event: Time: March 22.2004 April 4.2004 8:30 a.nt - 9:30 a.m. Name of Person(«) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Jarrod Sokoloski Gear West P.O. Box 188 Long Lake. MN SS3S6 Phone: 9S2-473-0377 Type of Event:April Fools Race • S Kilometer Foot Race Location of Event: Start and finish at Holbrook Park. Long Lake. To cover Brown Road. Fox Street. Willow Drive and Grand Avenue. Parking for all runners will be at Gear West (1908 West Wayzata Boulevard). The following documents arc required and on fiie at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Route of Race Event • Approval tnm Orono Police Department • Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • Event organizer to provide traffic control personnel to direct and assist runners at the following intersections: - Willow Drive ar.d Glendale - Willow Drive find Watertown Road - Willow Drive and Fox Street - Fox Street and County Road 146 County Road 146 and Watertown Road Any citizen helpers rt road crossings should be providec • ith a traffic control vest (available a: the Orono Police Department at no charge). Compliance with all conditions of the special event permit issued by the City of Long Lake. Runners are not to obstruct traffic. Final arrangements for traffic control will need to be addressed uid communicated to Sergeant Kuit Erickson at 9S2*249*4700 no later than March 24.2004. The special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. 2730 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Pbrae: 9S2*249*4600 / Fax: 9S2*249*4616/www.ci.otono.im.us i • Hi. r-CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT By acceptance of this special event permit, the permit holder, on behalf of any and all organizations and private persons, grants audtority to operate under the special event permit, agrees to, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono from all claims arising from said event. The permit holder, all organizations and private persons exercising authority under this permit, do waive and release all claims against the City of Orono, its officers or employees for any damage to person or property arising from the exercise of privileges granted by this permit and agrees to hold haimleu Ae City of Orono, its employees and officers from any such claim. The Orono Police Department and its officers are empowered to revoke this special event permit at any time for any safety concerns that are not immediately resolved by the permit holder or a representative of die permit holder. This revocation shall cause the immediate cancellation of the event originally auth^zed by this permit. Approved at City Council meeting on: March 22,2004 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2730 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 33323 Phone: 932-249-4600 / Fax: 932-249^16/www.cioronojnn.ta s CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date btued: Date of Eveot: Time: March 22,2004 June 1 M3.18-20, and 25-27,2004 Noon - 7:00 p.m., Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays Name of Pcnon(s) And/or Organlzatton Sponsoring this Event: LisaRixe Boyer Building Coip. 3435 County Road #101 Minnetonka, MN 5534S Phone: 952-47S-2097 Location of Event: 2530 Fox Street Type of Event:Luxury Home Tour The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Copy of Neighbor Notification • Approval fixnn Orono Building A Zoning Department • Approval firom Orono Police Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: I. Boyer Building Coq>. (BBC) shall post the Soudi side of Fox Street "No Parking - Police Order" for lOO yards east and 100 yar^ west of the display home. Signs may be purchased from the Orono Police Department or provided by the builder. Signs shall be posted at intervals of qyproximately SO foet (12 signs). 2. BBC will post any driveways on the Nordi side of Fox Street, within the 200 yard area u detailed in tiumhef 1, for 20 feet on both sides of any drive way with the same, "No Parking - Police Order" signs. This is to ensure free access to driveways by residents of dte area. It will also allow the Noith side of Fox Street to be used tor parking. 3. The private road to the eut of the show home, running Nordi from Fox Street shall be posted, "NO EVENT TRAFFIC - PRIVATE RD" at Fox Street and posted "No Parking - Police Order" for 200 feet North of Fox Street (4 signs). 4. The private road as detailed in #3 shall also be posted for 20 feet on both sides of the road at Fox Street "No Parking • Police Order." This it to ensure free acceu to die road by its residents. 3. The builder will send a letter to aU residena of Fox Street between Old Crystal Bay RD and Willow DR and the City of Orono, that lists the dates and time of die showings and provide the name and phone number for a live person, not voice mail, representing the BBC, diat will be able to resolve any problems occurring becauK of this showing. 6. Any event related debris will be cleaned up at die end of each day 7. AO signs fiir the event will be removed at the end of the event 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Cryifel Bay, MN 55323 *V40 4KAO / Pmw* ^ / mmnar 0*4 rerrewn mw tw CITY OF ORONO Q..r .‘v. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 8. By acceptance ofthitipecial event pcnnit, the pennit holder, oobehalfofiny and all orgBDintioiuud private pasont, fnntt auihonQr to operate uodCT the apecial event permit, afreet to, indemnify and bold tiatmiiMa the City ofOrono from aD gtatma ariaing from aaid event The permit holder, all organirationa and private p^raona excrciaing authority under thia permit, do waive and teleaac all claima against the City of Orono, ita ollicera or em|HoyM> fiv any damage to person or property ariaing ftmn the exerdae of privilegea granted by thie permit aad agreee to hold hetmlraa the City of Orono, ita employeet and officers from any such claim. 9. The Orono Police Department and its officera are empowered to revoke this apecial event permit at any time fr>r any aafrty concema that are not immediately resolved by the permit holder or a representttive of the permit holder. This revocatumahall cause the inunedime cancellation ofthe event originally authofiaed by this permit ApprovedntCHyCtMiBcflMcetiiigon: Mvch22,2004 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorae, City Administrator 2730 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Boa 66, Cryaad Bay, MN 53323 ««4A f ^AA I ••••••• ••• f •I £ KENNEL LICENSE APPUCATION Effective January 1, 200^ to December 31,200^ Ownen^^^ Property Address:\A^ C")>C'rTr\r^ Qnclude city ud zip) Mailing Address (if different);__________ Phone: ftiome)UT")U VcA\\ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:_^^ (over 6 moaihs of age) V,rxW7\r^c>r' (work) PrincipslBreed: _______\ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:\\i xx ^ctn O. \c\f^'(C^CV C. Dogs notmaUy kept: V inside X kennel structure COMMERCIAL 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/exercise areas are:____^ide outside__both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as Specified OQ fonn; the undersigned Acknowledges that a kennel license is pennissive only 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 to undersigned agrees to abide by to requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant \a\s\c)2i DateV I fnr Cirj list OnN Kennel inspected by Recommends: App CCk_^Date / V Denial Owper;_ Aggr- KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200^ to December 31, 200;^'*Pei63 OQ; 9nyJ ^ ^ Property Address:----go—Lk 3cm -L\v\^ ft.tQCi£. 0/7z/^rt Mailing Address (if different):. (include city and zip) Phone: (home) <^7L 5^4 2- (work) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee; $25.00 (payment must accompany application) MaximumNo. of dogs to be kept at one time: 3 (over 6 months of age) " ----------------- Principal Breed:___«= ^ fesr i> tn Purpose for more than 2 dogs: ^ Dogs normaUy kept: u/inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 Oliayment 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/exercise areas ace:.inside___^outside both The undersized hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as i|5p^iS-ls•’i; ““of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any spLui condiuons imposed by the City CouLca as part of any kennel license approval. ^ ^ Date For City Use Only Kennel inspectet Recomminds: Appcdval ~v^ Denial Dare ‘S tgaUtiM adUMMOIl CITY OF ORONO Chtck Number EniployM Nam« Pay Ptrlod 053932 053934 053933 053935 053936 053937 053938 053939 053940 053941 053942 093943 053944 053945 053946 053947 053946 053949 053950 053951 053952 053953 053954 053955 053956 053957 053956 053959 053960 053961 053962 053963 053964 003285 003257 003256 003259 003260 003261 003262 003263 003264 003265 003266 003267 003268 003269 003270 003271 003272 003273 003274 003275 003276 003277 003278 003279 003280 003281 DODGE. RACHEL M. VOID LESKINEN. DENISE M. situs. BARBARA G ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZIEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W. DAY. SUSAN J. DEMBOUSKl. JAYC. ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T. MAOSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R. RU88ETH. KYLE M TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE. ANTHONY A. PHARO. CHRISTOPHER M. GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMAN. LYLE E. VANG. BRUCE L GREGORY. JAMES D. HANSEN. STEVEN OBRIEN. RANDY L. PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J. SKREEN. DALE S. ROSS. JOHN A STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD MOORSE. RONALD J. VEE. LINDAS KUEHN. THOMAS M. OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K. ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZIEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W. BUDIG. STACIE M. CORNtCK. JAMES L FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R JOHNSON. JEFFREY MCNICHOLS. DAVID L SCMOENHOFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. LEE. JOSEPH P BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A CURTIS. MELANIE GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A OUNDLACH. JANICE J. OMAN. LYLE E DEBAERE. DONALD L. HANSEN. STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT 0. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 B 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 B B 6 03/16M 1:35 PM Paoa 1 check register Clwck Amount SI .042.63 10.00 $93322 $454 21 $400.58 $9515 $1,431.35 $57609 $1.54910 $1,598.36 $1.609 82 $1.508 20 $718.11 $522 48 $2,127.51 $582.82 $1.244 62 $379.25 $1,370.49 $1,391 26 $770.95 $1,428.50 $549.87 $64.72 $1,323.53 $986.75 $368.57 $471.40 $766.31 $1,141.21 $1.079 03 $103.33 $1,343.17 $2.336 49 $1.266 69 $1,328.20 $1,161 81 $1.092 32 $1.135 00 $830 00 $20.00 $83232 $1.326 68 $1,376.50 $2.047 95 $1,532.12 $1.100 00 $1.51467 $900.00 $659.67 $1,022.84 $1,058.38 $125 00 $1.81050 $1.155 07 $1.400 00 $1,397.35 $775.00 $1.060 84 COP^»rff MPFTING HAR 2 2 2004 CITY OF ORONO Chack Data Chack Status 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 Void 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 Outstanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 Outstanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 Outstanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUUnding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding 3/17/2004 OuUtanding I i CITY OF ORONO ch«ck ragittor 03/1604 1:35 PM P«9 o2 Ch«ek Pay Chack Chack Mumbf Employ—Haw PaHod Amount J11003252 OBRIEN, RANOYL 6 5500.00 3/17/2004 Outstanding 003253 PALMEa GREGORY A.6 $350.00 3/17/2004 Outstanding 003214 RATH8UN. BARRY X 6 5200.00 561,260.97 3/17/2004 Outstanding CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 03/17/04 11:43 AM Peg# 1 MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Pfli Ceeli Paid dhkB 077}59 3/17/2004 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES O 101-21701 Federal Withholding $8,641.67 FEDERAL W/H 0 101-21703RIGA Tax Withholding $4,336 29 RCA & MEDICARE W/H 0 101-21703 Total FICA Tax Withholding FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES K336 29 SI 7.314.25 RCA & MEOCR CITY SHARE 0 101-21705 Other Retififnent Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-467 1751.62 $751.62 PaM ChMI 0779S1 3/17/2004 LAW ENPORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 0101-21707 Union Dues $618 26 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $61826 paid&hUb 6I7SSS' V1!^/2o64 mn child support rarcTR 0101-21712 Other Deductions $0.00 Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $0.00 PaidChk# 0779S3 3/17/2004 MNDEPT OP REVENUE 0101-21702 Slala Withholding $3,67566 Total MNDEPT OP REVENUE Paid (ihU ofV^ $3,67566 3/17/2004 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM 0101-21718 Post Emptoymant Health $243.59 Total MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $243.59 Paid ChMI 0770S5 3/17/2004 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 0101-21706 Other Retiiement $1,677.00 0101-21705 Other Retirement $9.86 Total NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $1,886.86 Pald fihy 6VV966 ^t^i}SO04 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 0101-21706 Other Retirement $2,979.68 Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2,979.68 >ak[ 6r»y 077(M> 3/17/2664 piieu^ employes '^rement 0101-21704 PERA 0 101-21704 PERA Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $6,701.58 $5,234.17 $11,935.75 Paid ChkB 077968 3/17/2004 UNITED WAY G 101-21708 United Way Total UNITEOWAY $70.00 $70.00 ISIN SCTFPaid ChWI offUb i/l7/2004 Wl 0101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTP $184.62 $184.62 10100 PrtmaryCash $39,660.31 Fund Summary 101 GE^eRAL FUND 10100 PrtmaryCash $39,660.31 $39,660.31 DEFERRED COMP-302030 UNION DUES M.Car1soni001416a32 STATE TAX W/H post retirement USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRAi2343 MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON a 0002756896 r CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 03/1M412:45 PM Pagel MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chk# 077970 3/22/2004 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER E 101-42400>437 Training & DavalopmanI Total 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER $60 00 Oman $60 00 Eng Wood Use Educetion Paid Chkt 077071 3/22/2004 A.J. OALLAOHER S CO OF MN, INC E 601-49400-370 Insuiance Agent of Record $60.00 27745 Insurance Agent of Record E 101-41900-370 Insurance Agent of Record $550.00 27745 Insurance Agent of Record E 101-42110-370 Insurance Agent of Record $910 00 27745 Insurance Agent of Record E 602-49450-370 Insurance Agent of Record $185 00 27745 Insurance Agent of Record E 613-49630-370 InsuraiKO Agent of Record $75.00 27745 Insurance Agent of Record Total AJ. OALLAOHER A CO OF MN. INC $1,500.00 Paid ChM» 077972 302/2004 ACCLAIM BENEFITS E 101-41900-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges S136.S0 341476 COBRA Adm-2/2004 E 101-41900-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges SI 00.00 341477 FSAAdm-2/2004 ToUl ACCLAIM BENEFITS $236.50 Paid Chk# 077973 302/2004 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC E 425-46945-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories S4.196.24 38060 CoRwnunlcalion Equip Total ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC $4.196 24 ^ald 0779^4 3/22A2004 ANDERSON. KRISTI E 101-41300-319 OUwr Profattlonal Satvioat $205.00 3/8/04 CC Minutes • 3/8/04 Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $20500 Paid dhk# 07>^75 3/22/^004 APACHE GROUP E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Orounds Maint Supplies $228.45 63077 C-FoUTowela E 101-42110-223 BMgASroundt Maint. Suppliaa $228.45 83077 C-FoMTowala Total APACHE GROUP $456.90 Paid ChW 077976 3/22/2004 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-201 Office supplies S114.00 6013-376206 Coffee - CH E 101-42110-201 Office supplies S114.00 6013-376207 CofTPe- PO E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $58.40 6013-376208 Coffee- PW Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $266.40 Paid ChK« 077977 3/22/2004 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS E 602-49450-240 SmaU Toola and Minor Equip S423.34 11337 US Direct Pay Module E 601-49400-240 Smalt Tools and Minor Equip S423 34 11337 U6 Direct Pay Module Total BANYON DATA SYSTEMS $846.68 PM Chki 677678 3/22/2004 BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC E 101-45200-404 Rapaira/Maint-BldgaKJrounda $83.01 1307115 Solid Waste • Bedervfood E 101-45200-404 Rapairs/Maint-Bidgs/Grounds $69 33 1307214 Solid Waste-Summt E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds S262.16 1307420 Solid Waste-CH E 613-49630-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds S29.S8 1307461 Solid Waste-GC Totel BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC $444 38 PaidChld^ 077^9 BKV GROUP E 425-46945-304 Enginaaring-Conaulting SI.383.24 21259 Nav Fire Station Total BKV GROUP $1.363 24 E 101-42110-201 Omce supplies ToUl BLOCK AND COMPANY, INC $1936 12267530 Doc Holder $19.36 CITY OF ORONO 03n«04 12;4SPM Paga2 *Check Detail Register<§) MARCH 2004 E 101-43280-304 Enginoering-Conautting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-RMainer E 101-43280-304 Enginaering-Consulting E101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 802-40450-304 Engineering-Consulting Q 002-16500 Fbced Asset-Const in progress E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting O 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 402-48037-304 Engineering-Consulting 0 602-16500 Fbced Asset-Const In progress 0 602-16500 Fbced Asset-Const in progress E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 601-49400-304 Engineering-Consulting Total B0NESTR00R08ENE8AS80C Check Amt OSENEAASidC. $64.50 106132 Msmvell Eststes Plat 03-2964 S100.00 106132 Council Mtga Jan 2004 5129.00 106132 547 Tonkawa Plat 04-2786 59900 106132 Ravlaw 3345 Crystal Bay Bldg P 512900 106132 Profassional Prop Plat 04-2984 5215.19 106132 Birch Lana Plan Prap 525800 106132 3220 Walartown Rd Plat 04-2971 $256.00 106132 Stubbs Bay Rd PM 04-2968 553322 106132 North Short Dr Plat 03-2973 $828 21 106132 Stonabay MartMplaca 04-2974 $650 60 106132 Stonabay Part 02-2789 $129.00 106132 3607 Shoreline Dr Piet 03-2923 5297.00 106132 Assist Pubic Works w/LS Inven 599.00 106133 NLL Seeer Ext - John Meksy 5632.50 106134 Lee Carlson BsOfled Trail $99 00 106135 Old LL Rd Swr Ext 1/04 $42300 106136 Fox St Bridge Repiece $310.50 106137 Phillips Sen Swr Jan 2004 $5.61450 106138 Homestead Rd San S\er 01/04 $8900 106139 Annual Bridge Insp $97000 106232 Orono VA 8 ERP Jsn 2004 112.12842 Paid ChMI 077982 3«M004 BROWNELLS. INC E 101-42110-228 Training Supplies Total BROWNELLS. INC $46 36 3068163 Cleaning Supplies $46.36 Paid ChUH 6^9^3 3/^2/2004 BUDGET PRINTINO E 101-42110-201 Office supplies 552.46 30345 Signs E 101-42110-322 Postage 510 86 30351 Shipping Charges E 101-42110-201 Office supplies 521813 30445 Paper - P8P Manuals E 101-42110-201 Office supplies 528.49 30446 10 Cards E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $4.64 30455 Name Plats E 101-42110-201 Office supplies 563.90 30464 Builness Cards Total BUDGET PRINTINO 5378.48 i^aldChMI 677984 3/22/2004 CENTER POINT ENERGY •oc E 425-48945-361 Oas 8 Electric $2,597.90 539004644400 Oat Servica - Nav Fira Const Total CENTER POINT ENERGY • QC $2.597 90 Paid Chidr 077685 3/22/2004 CITYVIEW PLUMBINO 8 HEATING O 601-20200 Accounts Payable $2.145 31 24315 Total CITYVIEW PLUMBING a HEATING Furnace Repair - Nvr Water $2.14531 Pad ChMI 077966 3/22/2004 COMMERCIAL FIXTURES. INC E 425-48945-520 Buddings and Structures $4.488.98 6495 Total COMMERCtAL FIXTURES. INC $4,488 98 OCA-WIRE 6nLY Storage Cabinet. Lateral F8e Pad Chki 077987 3/22/2004 O 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts Total OCA-WIRE ONLY $351.72 3/17/04 Spending Accounts • 3/17/04 $351.72 ir3rTT^TJi,T.T:^WTC!iI3n5775ir"TJ52?5IS5r E 602-494S0-437 Tralnins A Ocvtlopmant E 602-49450-437 Training A Otvelopnwit 5146.48 MI04 520.31 3W04 MlMg« - Sewwr School Maata • Saiver School CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register®I MARCH 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total OEBAERE.DON 1166.79 Paid^hK# ' 3/^004 DELTA DENTAL 0 101-21709 Dental Insuranct 0 101*19998 Non*Employaa Haaltti Ina G 101 -15998 Non-Employee Health Ins Total DELTA DENTAL $1,457.10 37220072 ($170.10) 37220072 ($156.40) 37220072 $1,130.60 Dental Ins-4/2004 A^McNaOy Adj Bottanbarg lira/d Chk* 077990 3/22/2004 DEX MEOIQ EAST LLC E 613-49030-340 General Advertiting $597.16 19455511000 Directory Advertising Total DEX MEDIQ EAST LLC $597.16 Paid Chk« 077991 3/22/2004 EARL P. ANDERSON S ASSOC. E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Matarials/Suppty $769 57 58212 Posts. Signs Total EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC.$769.57 Paid CMdP 077992 3/22/2004 ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS Eeoi-49400-404 Rapaifi/Maiat-Bldgt/Orounds Total ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS $2.950 00 041196 S2.9S0.00 Ceiling Fans • Nav Water E 101-43000-226 Clothing & personal equipment $70.21 1006650351 Uniforms E 613-49830-226 Clothing & personal equipment $5.75 1006650351 Uniforms E 602-49450-226Clothing A personal equipment $35.10 1006850351 Uniforms E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $49 52 1006850351 Shop To\mI s E 601-49400-226Clothing A persons! equipment $11.70 1006650351 Unifbnns E 602-49450-226Clothing A personal equipment $33.63 1006856977 Uniforms E 101-43000-226Clothing A personal equipmant $67 22 1006656977 UnHbrma E 613-49630-226 Clothing A parsonal equipmant 15.75 1006856977 Uniforms E 601-49400-226Clothing A personal equipment $11.21 1006656977 Uniforms Total QEK8ERVICES 6290 09 6/22/2004Paid CHk# C77094 E 101-43000-222 Vehide Equipment & Parts Total CARTS DIESEL SERVICE INC. Paid dhkli 0W909 i/22/2004 G06d, STEPHANY E101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses E 101-42110-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses Total GOOD, STEPHANY CARTS DIESEL SERVICE INC. $705.56 82753 DOT Inspections $705.56 $84.16 3/17/04 $102.03 3/17/04 $156.82 3/17/04 Meetings Gifts to CMaen Ass^ Meetings $343 01 Paid 677996 355/2004 GOPHER STATE ONE.CALL E 602-49450-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 601 -49400-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges __ Total GOPHER STATE ONE-CAU Paid CKUb SffW 3555604 hach chemical co. E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products __ Total HACH CHEMICAL CO. $55 78 4020634 $55.77 4020634 Locates - 2/2004 Locates-2/2004 $111.55 $62 20 3766600 Test KiU $62.20 Paid Chkd brroll 3/22/2004 HENN COUNTY TREAURER / E 101-43000-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 101 -43000-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges ___ Total HENN COUNTY TREAURER/ f aid Chki 6>79ii 3/22)^004 HENNEPIN COUNTY INyOR fECH DPT $25.00 2004-17 $25 00 2004-32 Mailing List • Big Island Malting List • Big Island $50.00 M r CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 03/19A)41^45PM Page 4 , f ’ MARCH 2004 Checli Amt Invoice Commenl E 101-41000-320 Other Communicationt E 101-42110-414 EDP/CommunIcations Equip Rent Total HENNEPINCOUNTYINFORTECHDPT S76.06 24027170 11.541.89 24C28025 Data Bate Aooets 2/2004 Radio Leaae • 2/2004 $1,610.05 Paid Chki 0780M 3/22/20O4 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-PROP TAXES E 651-49010441 LIcentea S Texet $39 71 3/5XM Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-PROP TAXES PaidbhU bfaooi PIN 3411823440034 Rydell $39.71 3/22/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR 8RV E 101-41000-201 Omoe auppilea $83.14 1/13/04 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR 8RV Microhche 03, Hard Copy 04 $83.14 PaldChIdl 078002 3/22/2004 E101-41600-300 Jafi Charges Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL $407.25 351 Rm A Board-1/2004 $497.25 PaldehUI 07UU S«72004 hinshaw 4 C ulbertson E 101-43280-307 Legal-Contulting F 101-41600-307 Legal4:ontultfng E 101-41600-307 Legai^^ontuitiog E 101-41600-307 LegaLContuiting E101-41600-307 Legal-ContulUng E 101-41600-307 Lagal-Contulting E101-41600-305 Legal-ReCainer _ Total HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON $1.560 64 $102 00 $84.54 $309.00 $39.00 $619.00 $1,300.00 10368723 10368724 10368724 10368724 10368724 10368725 10368726 Appllcatlont Jan 2004 Nelson/CaitaonA/acated Oak PI M4J May Swr Eaaamem Orono/Henr>esty Land Exchartge Revleer 120Day Rule 2003 Ordinanoa 4 Resolutions Council Mtgs Jan 2004 $4,214.18 Paid Chki 076004 3/22/2004 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE E 613-49630-404 Rapairs/Maint-Bidgs/Orounda $61.46 2/27/04 Total HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE $61.46 Mat Service - 01-02/2004 PaldChU 6?U6S 3/22/2004 HYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY O 602-16500 Fixed Aaaet-Corwt in progress $6.749.00 26043 Total HYDRO METERINO TECHNOLOGY Itron Metar Sytlem 4 INTB $6,749.00 .W RESOURCES E 234.4S68O-307 Ugal.ContuWng Total miEORA REALTY RESOURCES $1.500 00 5606 Uurton Proparty $1,500.00 4 Paid Chti# 07i0d7 3/22/2004 IT4)ATAINRECT E 813-40630-340 Gerwral Advaitisino Total IT4>ATA DIRECT $214.00 73620-3 Advertiting $214.00 Paid Chid* 07SO0S 3/22/2004 KOBHNEH*S AMOCO E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parte & Aooaasoriae Total KOEHNEirS AMOCO $29.90 46427 Wipor Blades $29.90 PaidChh# 076009 mSVM LEAGUE OP MN CITIES E 101-41110-437 Training S Oovatopmanl Total LEAGUE OP MN CITIES $240 00 14)00019973 New Elected • McMilan $240.00 PaidChMP 07S010 3/22/2004 LMCIT • BERKLEY • PO BOX E 703-49960-361 Genefal LiabiRy Ine Total LMCIT-BERKLEY-POBOX $18,546.00 15343 Comp Munic Cov Pymnl i2 $16,546.00 Paid ChK* 07S011 3/220004 LON<^ uki, CITY OP E 425-48 946-590 Automoliva Equipment $15,804.33 2003 WUKw Station Trfc - Pinal 11. J A CITY OF ORONO 03/1tt0412:45 PM Pa0«a *Check Detail Register® MARCH 2004 Chsck Amt Invoice Commut Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 234 DONATED PARK 311 1007 IMPROVEMENT BOND 312 1900 HRA REPUNDINO BOND FUND 313 1900 IMPROVEMENT BOND 314 2000IMPROVB4ENT BOND 313 2003 PUB FAC REV BOND 316 2003 Sewer ReAisd Bond 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID 8T CON8TUCT 423 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 001 WATER OPERAT1NO FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 631 STORM WATER UTIUTY OP FUND 703 INSURANCE FUND 10100 Primary Cash $30,191.49 $1.500 00 $267.50 $730.00 $201 25 $343.00 $1,000.00 $402.50 $2,476.07 $26,666.63 $11,613.29 $32,593.26 $1,763.70 $39.71 $16,346.00 $130,376.42 Si£r^ 1 .* » •INFOBMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING coiiwrii mfeting MAR ^ 2004 Clir 0»= ORONO OF si % % ^Of ^ 2 2004 C^TyoFORC^o March 18,2004 Dear Bederwood Park Neighbodiood Residents; The City of Orono has received a request from the Orono Baseball Association for increased usage of the baseball field at Bederwood Park. This baseball field is currently limited to use for only two nights per week by the Orono Baseball Association. The Orono City Council has scheduled a neighborhood informational meeting for 7:00 p.m. at the Monday, April 12^ Council meeting to solicit public input on this issue Representatives from the Orono Baseball Association will present their request for increased usage of the Bederwood Park baseball field to the City Council for consideration at this meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact us at 952-249-4600 should you have any questions. Written comments may also be submitted to the City prior to the Council meeting for inclusion in the Council agenda packet. Sincerely } GregGappa Director of Public Services LLMCC too LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIV'E • RO. BOX 385 • SPRING PARK. MN 55384^385 • 952. 471-7125 • FAX 952. 471-9151 DCTPHAVEN CXCELSIOIV MOCKNOCNCE LON6LAKI LOI?rrTO MEDINA MNNETONKA BEACH ^MINNETinSTA OBONO ST. BONtfACIUS SHOREWOOO SPRING PARK TONKA BAV VICTORIA WOODLAND February 20,2004 beceiveo ^ 5 2m CITYOFORoa/o City of Orono POBox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 oRtENwooo Dear Mayor, City Council and City Administrator: The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission recently extended an offer to the LMCD to videotape their monthly meetings similarly to taping the city council meetings. The LMCD has representatives from most of the cities we represent and the management of the lake effects all of the cities in terms of management of zebra mussels and other transmittal issues. The LMCC believes cablecasting the LMCD meetings would be a service to the cities as well as to individual residents. The LMCC did invite Greg Nybeck, Executive Director of the LMCD, to the January LMCC meeting to di%uss the possibility and to find out if the LMCD might be interested in having their meetings televised. Some of the LMCC cities have expressed an interest in having the LMCD meetings taped. The Commission has extended the offer to tape the LMCD meetings and would encourage the cities to communicate with the LMCD if you agree that televising these meetings would be of service to your residents. If you have any suggestions or comments please contact die IMCC. Sincerely, Sally Koenecke Administrator 0 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2(X>4 6:00 o’cltKk p.m. Mar ’"^ing Ctry ^ ^ 2004 Oh- 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 Fritzicr, and Liz Hawn; Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach. and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Chair Sandra Smith. CommissioncT Stephanie Zugschwert, and City Council liaison Bob Sansevere were absent. Acting Chair Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA *(#l) #04-2981 JEFF MARTfNEAU, 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES rritzier moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2981, approval of a hardcover variance to reduce the hardcover within the 0-75* setback zone by 52 s.f. for the residence at 2565 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#2) #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (6:07-6:15 P.M.) Gretchc*n Blount, the applicant, was prc*sent. Gundlach explained that the applicants have decidc*d to apply for a simple interior rcnnodeling permit; therefore, would not be needing the lot area and lot width variances as originally expcctcxl. The applicants wish to be given a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshore setback variance to allow' the comer of the deck to encroach 4’ into the average lakeshore setback zone. Gundlach pointed out that neighboring views would not be obstructed by the replacement of the deck, since the grade changes arc dramatic. She suggestexi the Commission table the conditional use pennit request to allow landscape restoration in the 0-75' zone until more detailed plans can be submitted once weather permits for review and approval by the City Engineer. In order to meet hardcovcT rcxitrictions for new construction, the Blount’s believed the design had become aesthetically unattractive and not worth the in\ cstmcnt to build new construction. Although they would have preferred a front porch and first flwr bednH>ni, Ms. Blount stated that they will remodel the existing cottage instead of build new. PAGE I of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#2) #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of a deck replacement in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone for Application #04-2969, granting a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshorc* setback variance to allow a 4’ encroachment of the deck into the average lakeshore setback. In addition, tabling the conditional u.se permit for landscape restoration in the 0-75 ’ zone until weather permits the applicant to submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (postponed after item #4) (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-7:43 P.M.) John Trautz, Reliance Development, and Steve Johnston, the Applicant’s Representatives, were present. Gaffron explained that the applicants propose a commercial retail/ofTicc development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an oITice use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from 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,(X)0 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acre's • 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acre's - 14,490 s.f. Walgreen ’s retail pharmacy building Gaffron pointed out that, while staff supports the Comprehensi^'e Plan Amendment, the re/oning to B-6 PUD, and propo.sed mix of retail and otTice use's, stalThas been working with the applicants regarding ongoing rexisions to the site plan and circulation. He explained that there are two specific areas of the current plan which staff would recommend revisions. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment, review any re/oning concerns or stipulations they wish to place on the PUD. and spend time reviewing the development aspects of the site, providing .staff with any concerns to be addressc'd regarding building design and styling, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. PAGE 2 ofl9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) In addition, based on comments received from Phil Corlson, the City's Planning Consultant, Gaffn>n suggested the Commission handle the Land Use Plan amendment first and separately. Since this would be an amendment to the Comp Plan, GatTron felt that some discussion of the overall intent and character to be achieved should be made. Gaffron indicated that, if the Planning Commission wishes to take a step toward approval, it is stafTs recommendation that an amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Allow service retail uses, such as a pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, and similar neighborhood and community scale uses (uses can be further defined if you wish), with the following characteristics: The development plan shall incorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quality building materials and architectural detailing. 2) 3) No single use shall occupy more than 15,000 square feet of floor area. There shall be generous, well-planned green space, landscaping, and buffering throughout the entire site, exceeding the minimums in the Orono Code for similar developments. Then; shall be a clear, well-designed connection and orientation to the pond west of the site, such that patrons can see the pond from the development, pedestrians ean easily walk to and around the pond, and adjacent uses will orient windows, outdoor seating areas, and other elements toward the pond. There shall be clear, well-designed sidewalk connections from the sidewalks and trails surrounding the site (on Kelley Parkway, Willow Drive, and Highway 12) to all points within the development, especially from access points that serve the residential development to the north. The scale and type of uses, and the design of the site, shall be such that overall tralllc into and out of the site will not be more than under the previously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. PAGE 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) The site plan shall be designed to provide clear and safe traffic movements within the site for all internal movements: entrances, exits, parking areas, drive-through lanes, loading/service areas, and driveways. 8)The overall site plan shall be designed such that the orientation of buildings is not mainly to Highway 12, but also creates a significant sense of place internally in the site. If ownership of the site is to be divided among two or more lots with more than one owner, provisions shall be made for adequate handling of access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions in a manner that can be guaranteed by the City. Furthermore, if the Planning Commission recommends approval for the Land Use Plan amendment, with or without any of the above specific conditions attached, a recommendation for approval of the re/oning to B6-PUD could also be made, assuming the Commission is generally satisfied with the current plan. Gaffron pointed out that the other option would be to not reaimmend approval for the rezoning until the Commission has seen a plan with which they arc completely satisfied. It is suggested that a recommendation regarding a rezoning should include development parameters that will become zoning requirements for the property, and include the following: Recommend approval of a rezoning to PUD for Stonebay Marketplace, with the following conditions: Development on the site must follow the design for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all other site features illustrated on the submission for Stonebay Marketplace by Landform for Reliance Development, sheets x-xx, dated x-x-x. No deviation from these designs shall be allowed without approval of an amendment to the PUD by the Orono City Council, except for minor adjustments to be approved by City staff, at the discretion of the Dev elopment Review Committee. The orientation of the Walgreen's building and parking areas shall be changed to place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building. 1 PAGE 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. <#4> #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) 3) Green space within the site will increase as follows in the following locations:.... 4) The connection and orientation to the pond west of the site will be changed to.... The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure adequate provision for access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions, including ..... All buildings and improvements shown on the submitted plans will be completed by x-x-x [date], and if not, the remainder of the site will be sodded [condition of all areas of the site if left undeveloped]... With regard to permitted uses in the B-6 District, Gaffron stated that these include business and professional offices; banks and ftnancial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels. In addition, retail uses arc allowed in B'6 only via the PUD development process. Re/oning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the “Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area” of zoning code Section 78-I06S, and was anticipated during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Since Sections 78-643 thru 78-793 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site, Gaftron suggested the Commission review the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses allowed in B-I and B-6 zoning regulations. In terms of uses, Trautz questioned whether a PUD with B-I zoning would be more appropriate to the site. While he believed 5 of the 6 underlying conditions as recommended by staff to be reasonable, Truut/ found the requirement of Walgrecn's to be reoriented to place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building a concern to this retailer. He asked for some flexibility on this piiint. Johnston distributed a revised site plan, version 17, since the work session the past week, which showed a decrease in impervious surface and an increase in green space to 26.5%. He pointed out that many sidewalks connect to the site and buildinj^ and agreed that the only issue may be the Walgrecn's orientation. Acting Chair Mabusth asked the Commissioners how comfortable they were with approving the changes to the amendment without having final plans in hand. She was uncomfortable pntcceding without final plans. PAGE 5 of 19 i ((V4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPME.^ T COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Rahn concurred. Hawn stated that she was hesitant to proceed at all without comment by Long Lake. She maintained that early conversations with Long Lake had guided retail to the Long Lake area, not Willow, and that representatives of Long Lake had indicated to her that they would be interested in reviewing this proposal. Since the past Planning stance has been to cooperate with Long Lake and plan together the development of this corridor beginning with Long Lake, Hawn felt this to be premature without mcM*** <>ft-cial conversations with Long Lake. She suggested the Commission extend a formal invitation to the Long Lake Planning Commission to join them for a joint work session to discuss the proposal before moving forward. Although she was sympathetic to not delay the applicant, she was hesitant to proceed until a process had been begun with Long Lake. Although he could see that no formal approvals would be granted this evening, Johnston requested that the Commission provide them with direction to continue the process moving forward. He asked to be given the opportunity to address questions this evening and be provided feedback as to whether they were on the right track, rather than making a mistake which would cost the applicant an additional 30 days delay. While the Commission believed the underlying B-6 zoning appropriate, Gaflron suggested the Commission review the B-l list of 30-35 specific uses and 8 conditional uses to see if they could be added to the acceptable uses list for this PUD. The Commission reviewed the B-l uses omitting Laundromats, plumbing, electrical, heating, temporary sales- Christmas tree lots, and home and garden equipment rental from the list of acceptable uses. Under Conditional uses, items 1,2, S, 6, and 7 were removed, while item 8 - professional office and offices of a general nature was added to the list of acceptable uses. Within the list of accessory uses, item I was removed. No changes to the B-6 uses were suggested. Trautz requested that the Conditional use Class 1 restaurant use be added to the permitted uses section of the code for a regular use and place restrictive language upon what type of food service is provided. GatTron stated that B-6 doesn't address Class II restaurants at all, which would include drive-thru fast food type restaurants. Hawn stated that she would not support the addition of another drive-thru restaurant, although she could endorse a restaurant that ser\cs wine/beer. PAGE 6 of 19 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#4) MM<2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Gafiron staled that, if the Commission wished to restrict the type of restaurant uses they would or would not allow, the Commission would need to identify aspects of what they will and will not allow. Rahn stated that, currently, any restaurant with a drive-thru would have to be approved via a CUP. Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the PUD be written that any proposed change in restaurant use be subject to review by the City. Bremer proposed the coffee shop be viewed as drive-thru with incidental food use. She suggested food prep issues be the trigger to treat uses differently. Hawn questioned why the City just doesn’t make the proposed coffee shop a drive-thru with a CUP which the City grants. Gafiron concurred, stating that all restaurant uses could be CLIP, entitling the City to grant those they find more palatable than others. Trautz suggested the coffee shop apply for a CUP based on the faet that the food prep is not performed on site. With regard to the orientation of the Walgreen ’s, Bremer stated that she liked the orientation as proposed. Rahn eoneurred, slating that he did not wish to create unneeded parking issues with the revised orientation. As proposed, parking was short 26 spaces on site and Rahn did not wish to see the situation worsen. Johnston stated that Walgreen ’s has estimated, through their vast retailing experience, that they need 60 spaces for this size location. Although Gafiron stated that he would need to run the latest plan past the tralTlc plaimcr for feedback, he did not feel the parking situation for the Walgreen ’s retailer to be a problem. He did point out, however, that the amount of parking depends on the specific use of any particular site. He pointed out that the City does not have the luxury of overflow parking at these sites. PAGE 7 of 19 {4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tue^y, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Rahn stated that he did not wish to create another parking scenario as the problem faced by Otten Brothers and the Karate studio where overlap of classes has wreaked havoc on the parking supply. Acting Chair Mabusth asked whether the structural cover was an issue. Gafhon stated that, although the proposal is over on structural cover, the City has allowed up to 16-18% structural cover at other sites. He asked whether the Commission Could allow this as a trade-off if it believes this to be a benefit to the community. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she, too, would prefer to wait to make a comp plan amendment until aRer the Commission had met with the Long Lake Planning Commission. Gaffron stated that they could invite the Commission to Orono’s regular work session scheduled for March 3"^, 2004. Hawn stated that she felt version 17 was far better than what had previously been proposed by the applicant. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #04-2974, StoncBay Marketplace, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Wiilow Drive, a Proposed Commercial PUD Development, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision in order to invite the Long Lake Planning Commission to Join the Orono Planning Commission for a work session with the applicant to review the proposal on March 3,2004. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (7:43-7:54 P.M.) Steve Bohl, representing the Applicant, was present. Gaflron explained that 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 Seim Orono Addition, creating Lot I (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlet A PAGE 8 of 19 ■ !r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3) IH04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - Conlinucd) (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 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 arc 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. Gaflron pointed out that the applicant has provided a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, Mhich require a number of variances. The plan also indicates proposed house locations and elevations. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and suggested the incorporation of vegetative buffers adjacent to cither side of the creek for stormwater treatment. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer also indicated that 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. Finally, Kellogg has indicated that the culvert should be an arch RCP to allow this reduction in height. Gaffron reviewed the summary of issues for discussion as follows: I. Width variance for Lot 1 • hardship is site topography. 2.Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75* of OHW depending on final driveway width, will be 3% - 5% of 0-7S* 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 1 ? 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? Gaffron indicated that staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to: PAGE 9 of 19 i A\ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT-Continued) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Granting of a hardcover variance for the driveway crtx'k crossing. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot I. Requirement of 35' vegetative buffer/easement along both sides of the creek. 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. Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee. Subject to the area southeast of the creek within Lot I with slopes of 1 8% or greater being deemc'd as non-buildable. Final plat approval shall not be grantc*d until MCWD pennits have been approvc*d. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she felt it was important to point out to the applicants that this is the only access that will be allowed over the crc*ek for a driveway crossing. Gatlhon stated that staff wuuld draU covenants to reflect that sentiment. Although this would be Icfl to the City Council to decide. Acting Chair Mabusth statc*d that she believed it would be unfair to ask the applicants for additional park dedication fc*cs. Hawn concurred. There were no public comments. Bohl stated that the applicants were comfortable with the nonbuildable designations. Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2971, Hickory Fine Homes request for a lot line rearrangement and preliminary plat subject to: 1. Granting of a hardcover variance for the driveway creek crossing. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 1. Requirement of 35* vegetative buffer/easement along both sides of the creek. 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 provbkms deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommodate drainage from the east Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1 i I PAGE 10 of 19 MFNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - Continued) 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 permit: have been approved. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (7:54-8:05 P.M.) James and Jean Echtenkamp, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron statc*d that the applicant requests CUP approval for filling within 75* of the lake to avoid construction of a retaining wall at the 75' setback line adjacent to the driveway. Briefly, this property was granted hardcover variances in 2002 for a rebuild. The basis to allow the hardcover excesses was primarily related to the peninsula shape of the lot, leaving about 1 .5 acres of the 2-acre lot in the 0-75' /one; and the placement of house and driveway which allows for an unusually substantial area of lawn in the runotf tlow path for infiltration. In order to avoid filling in the 0-75' /one to accommodate the driveway, the applicant was approved for a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. Now that the house is completed and final grades established, applicant has concerns about the necessary height of the retaining wall. From statTs perspective, safety is the primary factor which suggests that eliminating the wall may be appropriate. The wall as approved was right at the edge of the driveway, with an immediate drop of 2.5', then a I: I downslope for another 3-4', with gradual slope after that. The driveway functionally is about 6' above original grade at this point, and ftlling/grading would have stopped at the 75' setback line. This immediate grade change in an area that will have pedestrian traffic, children playing, etc. is less than ideal. The visual impacts of the wall would be primarily as it is view ed from the lagoon. Grading the slope and vegetating it would provide a softer and more natural view from the lagoon than a 64' long, 2'-6" high wall. The driveway itself will not be very visible from the lagoon regardlcnis of whether the wall is built. Applicant has suggested that creating a slope from the driveway (elev. 942') to the existing grade (934') would eliminate 64' of retaining wall, or approximately 50-60 s.f of hardcover, which would allow for a better situation in terms of runoff. The trade-off is that rainfall that would have fallen on a relatively flat lawn surface at the base of the wall, will now fall on a slope and be somewhat more prone to run ofi'than soak in during certain storm events. It's probably an even trade. PAGE II of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#5) «I04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) City code requires finish grades to be 3:1 or flatter in a situation such as this. Therefore, the 8' total drop translates to a 24* wide slope. The driveway is about 79* Irom the shoreline, so the toe of the fill area will be approximately 55* from the shoreline, and the filled area will be about 80* in length. Total fill needed to do this is estimated by slatTat approximately 250 cubic yards of material The fill will cover approximately 1900 s.f.; about 2/3 of this in the 0-75* zone. Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval of a variance and CUP to allow the fill as proposed in the 0*75* zone, to allow for elimination of the previously approved retaining wall, based on the plan increasing safety of the site, reducing the negative visual impacts of a wall at the 75* setback, and resulting in maintenance of an equivalent level of stormwater treatment, subject to: 1 . Final grade of slope to be established at 3:1 ; and 2. Establishment of a 5-1 0* wide unmowed vegetated bufler (raingarden) for infiltration at the ba.se of the slope. Jean Eehtenkamp stated that the originally propo.sed retaining wall would liH^k far more unnatural than a gradual slope. James Eehtenkamp agreed, stating that the wall was, not only unsafe, but also the runoff would be handled better with a natural amenity. There were no public comments. Hawn suggested they incorporate a small swale or bump into the slope to slow runofl'. She felt this to be a better solution that the retaining wall. Mr. Eehtenkamp stated that he w ould incorporate a small fiirrow at the midpoint with possible plantings subject to stall'approval. Frit/Ier urged the applicant to stay abreast of the amount of fill added to the site in order to avoid any misconceptions as to the approved amounts and the potential of having to remove fill at a later date. Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04*2983, approval of a variance and CUP to allow the fill as proposed in the 0-75* zone, to allow for the elimination of the previously approved retaining wall, based on the plan increasing safety of the site, reducing the negative visual impacts of a wall at the 75* setback, and resulting in maintenance of an equivalent level of stormwater treatment, subject to: I. Final grade of slope to be established at 3:1; and PAGE 12 of 19 1 J Pat* < I* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#5) #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Continued) 2. Establishment of a 5-10* wide unmowed vegetated buffer (raingarden) for infiltration at the base of the slope. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, (follows item #7) (#7) #04-2985 TOM CULLUM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE (8:05 - 8:18 P.M.) Tom Cullum, the Applicant, was present. Gaflron explained that the applicant requests variance approval for filling of a small portion of a City-protected wetland located mostly within applicant's property but partially within the neighboring property. The till is intended to allow for the establislunent of woody vegetation along the western property boundary. The 2,135 s.f fill area will convert approximately 10% of the existing wetland from a shallow open water wetland to a wetland with saturated soils. Because the project will also involve excavation of adjacent upland to create new wetland (requiring a CUP), the project is being treated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as a No Loss situation, and as a wetland restoration based on reducing the impacts of wetland excavation that occurred in the 19SU's The property contains a small wetland which was modified in the I950's (based on airphoto evidence) by dredging to make it deeper. The wetland since that time has generally had the characteristics of an open water pond. A residence has existed on the property since 1963, undergoing numerous remodels and additions since its original construction. As a result of legal vegetation removals by the neighboring property owner to the west, GatTron stated that the applicant ’s view over the pond area has changed, and now he views the neighboring residence rather than a wooded area. Because the far shore of the pond is on the neighboring property, applicant is proposing till in a portion of the pond just inside his property boundary' to create a ‘‘berm", which will aUow the establishment of wooded vegetation to regain siime of the w cKxled character of the lot and provide a buffer to the neighboring property. It may be somewhat ironic that the neighbor may have removed the vegetation to gain a view of the pond, and the current proposal would tend to negate the impacts of that activity With passage of the WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the resptmsible LiKal Government Unit (LGU) for administering the WCA PAGE 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#7) #04-2985 TOM CULLUM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE - Continued) regulations. These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of wetland alteration activities which arc seen as positive rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts when they are unavoidable. The WCA regulations also provide standards and opportunities for wetland restoration, where prior human activity has changed or degraded a wetland and it is possible to bring it back to nearer its original conditions. On the other hand, Gaffron indicated that Orono’s ordinances have never been specifically revised to accommodate the WCA regulations; the Zoning Code still simply prohibits filling within a wetland (requiring a variance and showing of a hardship) and requires a conditional use permit for land alterations in, or within 26' of, a wetland. The Zoning Code provides virtually no specific standards for when a wetland alteration should be allowed, and in the Shoreland section merely suggests a list of factors to be considered; however, the City’s Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in Section 5 “Wetlands Manugemenf’docs establish a detailed management approach to maintaining or improving the City’s wetland resources. Gaffron pointed out that the applicant initially contacted staff regarding this project a year ago, and has engaged a variety of professionals to design a project that would meet the WCA guidelines for a wetland restoration, No-Loss status. The MCWD as the designated LGU for Orono has approved the project with certain conditions. This application was directed by staff to John Smyth, Water Resource Specialist with Boncstroo & Associates, the City’s engineering and environmental consultants. His favorable comments reflect that the project will result in an overall improvement to the wetland. He notes that the additional wetland to be created will meet the WCA replacement guidelines. He also notes that this project could in fact be considered as a restoration, and he recommends approval conditioned on 1) that the City receive a copy of the executc*d buffer preservation declaration required by the MCWD. and 2) that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Staff is satisfied that the basic considerations regarding the functions and values of this wetland have been taken into consideration by the variety of reviewers of this proposal, all of whom have recommended or granted approval. Staff recommends approval of the variance and CUP to allow the wetland alteration project including filling of a portion of the wetland and excavation within 26' of the wetland, per the plan approved by the MCWD and subjcx't to the conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions us recommended by the City wetlands consultant: PAGE 14 of 19 rI J I > Jlta MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#7) #04-2985 TOM CULLUM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE - ConUnued) 1) 2) that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration requirt*d by the MCWD, and that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Staff would further recommend that the applicant be required to execute the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD-rcquirc‘d buffers. Mr. Cullum staled that the original pond was a spring fed pond which was dredged and excavated in the l9S0’s and has dried up to some degree since; therefore, requiring him to circulate the water within the basin. Rahn stated that he was satisfied that the applicant had gone to great lengths to achieve his goal. T re were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #84-2985, granting approval of the variance and CUP to allow the wetland alteration project including filling of a portion of the wetland and excavation within 26* of the wetland, per the plan approved by the MCWD and subject to the conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions as recommended by the City wetlands consultant: 1) that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration required by the MCWD, and 2) that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Staff would further recommend that the applicant be required to execute the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD* required buffers. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, (8:18-8:40 P.M.) Bob Ritter, Applicant’s representative, was present. Gundiach stated that the applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36,000 square foot medical office bu«' <ng. In November of 2002, Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. received approval for : dental otTice 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 PAGE 15 or 19 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) 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. Gundlach explained that 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. Number of Parking Stalls. Required = I per 200 s.f. of floor area (Net = 36,000 s.f. - I0®/o = 32,400 s.f. /200 = 162 stalls required) Total stalls required = 162 Total stalls proposed = 1 57 (5 are proof of parking) To meet the 20’ required yard at Highway 12, mentioned abt>ve, 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. S 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. Gundlach noted that the applicant submitted a Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plan for review by the City Engineer, along 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 cast. The City Engineer has reviewed all plans as they relate the storm water and finds them to be acceptable. While the applicants have submitted a landscape plan, 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: PAGE 16 of 19 • • • « MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW -CoBtiaiicd) • An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained, • The trash receptacle shall be screened, • 11 treec 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 V2 times the value of the landscaping. Gundlach stated that 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 rev iew 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 '/i 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 c. A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to I V2 limes the value of the landscaping. Ritter questionc*d why this property requires a 20’ separation from the parking lot to Highway 12; whereas, their adjoining property was recently approved at IS’. Gatlron indicated that IS’ was adequate and the 20’ requirement would be eliminated trom the application. Rahn asked if the architectural features on the roof could exceed the 30’ height requirement. PAGE 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) GafTron stated that the features were allowed and added to the aesthetics of the building. He pointed out that it would be hard to have a pitched roofline and meet the 30' height requirement. Acting Chair Mabusth asked what sort of offices would house in this building. Ritter stated that it seems the demand will be medical, and periiaps include a 24 hour urgent care center, as well as, general office. Gaffix)n stated that the Fire Marshall would review the plans. Fritzler asked if the building materials would be similar to the Phase I building. Ritter stated that they proposed red brick and stone look fiberboard. Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2984 a Commercial Site Plan review on behalf of Berkshire Properties, subject to submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents and revised landscape plan 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 'A 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. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#8) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 26,2004 AND FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Gaffiron stated that, on February 9,2004, the Swit^ application was tabled for further hardcover reductions. The Pierpont application was also tabled and the Dayton application was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PAGE 18 of 19 1 i • • • % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#9) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Long Lake Planning Commission will be invited to attend the Work Session of March 3,2004. (#10) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20, 2004 Bremer moved, Actiag Chair Mabusth seconded, to Approve the Planning Commistion MeeHhg Minutes of January 20,20CH as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23,2004, and MARCH 0,2004. February 23 - Rahn March 8 - Fritzler ADJOURNMENT Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 8:53 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:S3 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 19 of 19 I