The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-26-2004 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 26, 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 items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CAl.L APR 2 6 2004 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend CITY OF CHONG RECOGNITION 2. Elizabeth Hawn - Planning Commission - Resolution 3. Sandra Smith - Planning Commission - Resolution 4. Stephanie Zug.sclnvcrt - Planning Commission - Resolution FIRE CHIEFS’ REPORT APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 5. Regular Council Meeting of Ai ‘1 12, 2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jim l.eslie, Rcpre.scntative LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson PUBLIC COMMENTS - (I.imil 5 Minutes Per Person) 7. 8. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 6. //04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road North - Final Plat ~ Resolution W04-2993 Cliris Valerius and Pliil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road - Conditional Use Pennit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances #/04-2977 Mike Keaveny on behalf of Richard M. Keaveny Rev. Tarst, 3425 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Pennit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances - Resolution //04-2999 George and Marilyn Milcusnic, 3243 Casco Circle -- Variances Resolution WO4-3000 VV'ay/ata Country Club. 200 Wayzata Boulevard -- Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Site Plan Review - Resolution 11. #04-3001 Steven and Marcia Tiffany, 1325 Rest Point Lane - Variances - Resolution 12. #04-3002 G & L Land Investment, l.LC., 740 North Ann Drive - Variances 13. #04-3005 Sign Ordinance Amendment, Section 78-1466 - C>rdinance 14. #04 2997 City of Orono - Big Island Access - Variances/Conditional Use Pennit - Resolution * 9. • 10. * 15. Accessory Structuie Retention Agreement - 25 Orono Orehard Road North M AYOR/C OUMTL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 16. Orono Woods Non-profit Substitution 17. MHFA Refund 18. Credit Card Policy CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 19. LICENSES Special Event Penoits * 20 BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2004 04/26 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/29 - Higliway 12 Workshop (Public Officials), Thursday, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.. The Church of St. George in Long Lake 05/01 05/03 05/05 05/06 05/06 05/08 05/10 05/17 05/20 05/21 05/22 05/24 05/28 05/29 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. - Highway 12 Workshop (Businesses), Thursday, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.. The Church of St. George in Long Lake Council Work Session, To be rescheduled 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) - Highway 12 Workshop (Residents), Thursday, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.. The Church of St. George in Long Lake - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, Noon - 3:00 p.m. -• Leaf and Gra.ss Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, Noon - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. -HOLIDAY, Observance of Memorial Day 06/02 - 06/04 - 06/05 - 06/07 - 06/10- 06/14 - 06/21 06/28 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, Noon - 3 00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a m.-3:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council Liaison - Mayor Peterson) Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Plaiuiing Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Lili McAfiUan) Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. i IVlKKTiNt; D ate tZ CoiiNc:iL □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Public A ttendance 2h 0^ Please eillouttiie ineokmation requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAMP (please print)ADDKKSS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR Nl'MBER I. M(aC \\"ZSCff J..-S 2. Xliyv-UC^^LC___n ArJ r>i 1 »^lr LL -riiH 1 i J / tv ^ b ^ /c^ Hi LwV^CjLkXlLiRc____(jftKfrJA ildJiAkju^^7 Vv L v^/) 7.A'V// /%..,/ /-</v 1 '8. VMiiTc:. r*>trKjEn>ur*'Uj p.0.t*>ifv>ec> 1 vT 9. ViVi i-lA. ) It). pL'''-C y coccci 2 > V 3 II.IcrLv____ * / Dv f 12. At A -f' r r, .^^TYa^/D IX 14. 15. W:\iUUMnuuaiite np|ian~«il gsgujJSi^it 4!i*a4an«t itliniirt^MitiitlmiTilrii rriii imlinUi ri niiih DATE: April 22,2004 ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COlIMril MPPTING APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF OnONO Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Recognition of Planning Commission Members-Resoiutions Attached are resolutions recognizing Sandra Smith, Elizabeth Hawn, and Stephanie Zugschwert for their dedicated service to the City of Orono as members of the Planning Commission. Sandra Smith and Elizabeth Hawn have each served the maximum of three full terms on the Planning Commission, and have also each served as Chair of the Commission. Stephanie Zugschwert has served a partial term on the Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolutions recognizing Sandra Smith, Elizabeth Hawn, and Stephanie Zugschwert for their dedicated service on the Plaiming Commission. i J A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SANDRA SMITH FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Sandra Smith ha.*' ser\ cd this community with distinction during her eleven years as a member of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, she provided outstanding leadership to the Commission as Chair from February 9,1998 to April !, 1999, and again from May 28, 2002 to March 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, her years of service have been marked by exemplary dedication to the best interests of the community; and WHEREAS, she has earned the admiration and high regard of those with whom she has worked; and WHEREAS, the performance of her duties and responsibilities as a member of the Planning Commission has been characterized by excellent and constructive contributions to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Orono docs hereby express its sincere appreciation and thanks to Sandra Smith for her distinguished scr\'icc to the community and does also highly commend her for the manner in which she has carried out her duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council extends to her best wishes for continued success in her future endeavors. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of April, 2004. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Ma>w {^ I A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ELIZABETH HAWN FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Elizabeth Hawn has served this community with distinction during her nine years as a member of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, she provided outstanding leadership to the Commission as Chair from April 1,1999 to May 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, her years of service have been marked by exemplary dedication to the best interests of the community; and WHEREAS, she has earned the admiration and high regard of those with whom she has worked; and WHEREAS, the performance of her duties and responsibilities as a member of the Planning Commission has been characterized by excellent and constructive contributions to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Orono docs hereby express its sincere appreciation and thanks to Elizabeth Hawn for her distinguished service to the community and docs also highly commend her for the manner in which she has carried out her duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council extends to her best wishes for continued success in her future endeavors. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, .Mayor ihfitiiftitfiri r A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO STEPHANIE ZUGSCHWERT FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Stcplianic Zugschwcrt has s> 'ncd tliis community with distinction as a member of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, her scr\ ice has been marked by exemplary dedication to the best interests of the community; and WHEREAS, she has earned the admiration and high regard of those with whom she has worked; and WHEREAS, the perfonnance of her duties and responsibilities as a member of the Planning Commission has been characterized by excellent and constructive contributions to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOI.VED THAT the City Council ofthc City of Orono docs hereby express its sincere appreciation and thanks to Stephanie Zugschwcrt for her distinguished service to the community and docs also highly commend her for the manner in which she has carried out her duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council extends to her best w ishes for continued success in her future endeavors. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of April, 2004. A1 ri-ST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ('f J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________CITY OF QHC.\-n APR 2 6 2004 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Jim White; Council members Lili McMillan, Jim Murphy and Bob Sansevere; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Ser\ ices Director Greg Gappa and Recorder Glenda D. Spiotta. Mayor Barbara Peterson was absent. Acting Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend The following items were included in the Consent Agenda: #3,5, 7, 8,9,10.! 1,12, 13,14, 15, 16, 17,18,19,21,22, and 23. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2. Orono Baseball Association Request for Expanded Use of Bederwood Park City Administrator Ron Moorse introduced the Request from the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) to expand its use of the Bederu ood Park baseball field from two ev enings per week to five evenings per week and on Saturday after 8:00 a.m. for youth baseball activities. He explained that after the completion of the new Lee Carlson ballfield complex on Co. Rd. 6 in 1994, the OBA usage of the Bederwood Park field was reduced to two nights per week and has remained at this level since then. Mr. Moorse advised that OBA representatives were in attendance to present their expanded field usage request. Acting Mayor White invited OBA representatives to come forw ard and address this matter. Thomas Palmquist, OBA Treasurer, introduced himself and described the OBA youth baseball program that currently involves about 550 youth, ages 5-15 years over a three month season from about April lO"’ to July 15'*'. Mr. Palmquist presented the OB.A request for expanded field usage at Bederwood Fields to be used up to six (6) days per week. On Monday through Friday, the hours of use would be between 5 p.m. to sunset. On Saturdays, field use w ould occur after 8:00 a.m. Mr. Palmquist referred to the discussion of the request held recently at the Orono Park Commission when the Orono Park Commission voted in favor of allow ing expanded Bederw ood Park field usage up to six (6) days per week, as requested by OBA. He explained that OBA is making this request due to the limited availability of playing facilities, primarily at the younger aged ball player in the Coach/Pitch and Pitching Machine levels. Further, OBA has experienced increased participant numbers and program success, and believes that the Little League expcnence is being constrained due to lack of facilities, limiting adequate availability for practices and game settings that Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. CITY OF OHCJ.*vr^ APR 2 6 2094 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date w ith the following members present: Acting Mayor Jim White; Council members Lili McMillan, Jim Murphy and Bob Sansevere; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa and Recorder Glenda D. Spiotta. Mayor Barbara Peterson was absent. Acting Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend The following items were included in the Consent Agenda: #3, 5, 7, 8,9,10,11, 12,13, 14, 15,16, 17,18,19,21,22, and 23. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2. Orono Baseball Association Request for Expanded Use of Bederwood Park City Administrator Ron Moorse introduced the Request from the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) to expand its use of the Bcderv;ood Park baseball field from two evenings per week to five evenings per week and on Saturday after 8:00 a.m. for youth baseball activities. He explained that after the completion of the new Lee Carlson ballfield complex on Co. Rd. 6 in 1994, the OBA usage of the Bederwood Park field was reduced to two nights per week and has remained at this level since then. Mr. Moorse advised that OBA representatives were in attendance to present their expanded field usage request. Acting Mayor White invited OBA representatives to come forward and address this matter. Thomas Palmquist, OBA Treasurer, introduced himself and described the OBA youth baseball program that currently involves about 550 youth, ages 5-15 years over a three month season from about April lO"’ to July 15'*’. Mr. Palmquist presented the OBA request for expanded field usage at Bederwood Fields to be used up to six (6) days per week. On .Monday through Friday, the hours of use would be between 5 p m. to sunset. On Saturdays, field use would occur after 8:00 a.m. Mr. Palmquist referred to the discussion of the request held recently at the Orono Park Commission when the Orono Park Commission voted in favor of allowing expanded Bederwood Park field usage up to six (6) days per week, as requested by OBA. He explained that OBA is making this request due to the limited availability of playing facilities, primarily at the younger aged ball player in the Coach/Pitch and Pitching Machine levels. Further, OBA has experienced increased participant numbers and program success, and believes that the Little League experience is being constrained due to lack of facilities, limiting adequate availability for practices and game settings that Page I oI20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (2. ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIA TION REQUEST FOR EXPANDED USE OF BEDERWOOD PARK, continued) ultimately go to develop player skills, as well as friendship time for kids with their peers, honing life- skills, coordination, learning the rules of fair play, winning with pride and losing with dignity. Mr. Palmquist described recent OB A contributions of $325,000 for construction of a new baseball field adjacent to the Lee Carlson ball fields. This field is ideally suited for a 12 to 14-15 year old player as the baseline and pitchcr/home plate lengths are longer. He indicated that the Bederwood Field is ideally suited for younger players at the Coach-Pitch and Pitching Machine levels. Mr. Palmquist explained that pursuant to an agreement with city staff, OBA agreed to construct a new pitchers mound, including pitching rubber, add new bases and home plate, and place additional ag lime on the infield areas. The value of these improvements is in excess of S1,000 with all labor and material furnished by OBA. He reiterated OBA’s dedication to teaching baseball to youth and creating fun and rewarding experiences for them. On behalf of the OBA, Mr. Palmquist expressed appreciation for the relationship with the City, School District and the community and requested the City Council support the OBA request. Mr. Palmquist acknowledged that there were a number of people present who would be willing to speak in favor of the OBA expanding field usage request and to answer any questions. Sanseverc stated that he personally had no objection to the request but wanted to know if any neighborhood residents had objections to the request. Steven Cox, 3700 Bayside Road, expressed his support for increased usage of Bederwood Park but commented that more vegetation screening or visual blocks be considered by the City especially directly by the parking lot and in the sound path of the games as sound does travel great distances across the open area. He explained that with expanded summer activities and with the Luce Line trail as a launch point for the winter snowmobiling use Bederwood Park becomes a heavily used area. Acting Mayor White acknowledged that Parks Commissioners Deb Ilalvorson and Pat Wolfe were present and invited their comments. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that there were not really any objections from the Parks Commission for expanded ballfield use at Bedenvood Park. The Parks Commission is in support of more active use of Orono’s parks as outlined in sections from the Comprehensive Plan that he cited into the record. Murphy asked Gappa and Moorse if they were aware of the issue brought up by Mr. Cox and if there is the ability to do some screening on tliat parking lot or for OBA to look at it and see if they could help. McMillan added that the Parks Commission could possibly work with this issue. Acting Mayor White pointed out that this is the first time the Council is hearing about the issue and suggested staff can give some advice on addressing screening options. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (2. ORONO BASEBALL ASSOC!A TION REQUEST FOR EXPANDED USE OF BEDERWOOD PARK, continued) Sansevere asked Gappa for some ideas on what can be done reasonably. Gappa responded that screening of the parking lot may be possible but a lot of concerns over the years are directly related to snowmobiling noise on the trail which w'ould involve the Mimiesota Department of Natural Resources. Gappa stated the City could look at parking lot screening. Mr. Palmquist commented that screening the parking lot probably would not address neighbors ’ concerns because during game or practice settings their activities are on the field and not involving the parking lot. He stated that the snowmobiling use with its noise concerns is another issue. Murphy suggested that the city take some time this summer to see if something could be done to mitigate some of the noise concerns for this winter. Murphy asked Mr. Cox if this approach was reasonable; Mr. Cox agreed. McMillan asked Mr. Palmquist how long the OBA would expect to use the Bederwood Park field on Saturdays for play or practice. The OBA President responded that Saturday practices do not begin until about 9:00 a.m. due to damp field conditions and at Carlson fields the start time is normally 9:00 a.m. to about 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. McMillan questioned the OBA President about the use of the current concession stand. He replied that though there is a concession stand that has not been used for years, he recently inspected it, finding the concession stand to have broken doors and needing repair. There is no plan to use it. McMillan expressed her concern about litter and trash on the site. Sansevere commented that his experience with sporis organizations involves the parents in the post game/practice clean up. He was interested in know .ng if any other neighbors had any objection to the request and what might be the objection. Murphy asked if the city has received any mail or letters subsequent to the city’s mailed meeting notice to residents closest to Bederwood Park. Gappa reported that twenty resident letters were mailed, no phone calls were received and one letter in support with the concern about parking lot clean-up concerns was received. He stated that the city is often at the parking lot trying to clean it up as it gets a lot of use. Sansevere stated that whether or not the City Council approves the OBA request it does not stop any group from using the Bederwood Park field before or aucr OBA field use. This field is open for use and it makes sense for the city to provide sufficient field use for OBA. As a concession to the neighbors. Sansevere asked the OBA if Saturday field use could begin at 9:00 am. instead of the proposed 8:00 a m. The OBA President indicated that they would have no problem w ith a 9:00 a m. Saturday start time. Further, he offered to provide the City with their summer schedule for forty-four (44) teams from age 5-15 years. He advised that this season increased 35 more participants than last year which added 2.5 more teams. He explained tliat OBA knows how to inform their participants on Page 3 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (2. ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATIONREQVEST FOR EXPANDED USE OF BEDERWOOD PARK, continued) how to take care of the grounds and that OBA games generally start at 6:30 p.m. and that there is an OBA rule that no inning can begin aOer 8:30 p.m. Sansevere moved, seconded by Murphy, to approve the increased level of use of Bedenvood Park ball field for Monday through Friday from 5:00 p.m. to dusk in accordance with OBA provision to not begin an inning after 8:30 p.m. and for Saturday use commencing at 9:00 a.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. Regular Council Meeting of March 22,2004 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of March 22,2004 as presented. VOTE^ Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe, Representative Representative Wolfe provided his remarks during the discussion of the OBA request for expanded use of the Bederw ood Park ball field. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens, Representative Acting Mayor White welcomed Mr. Jurgens as a newly appointed Planning Commissioner. Mr. Jurgens reported briefly on the Planning Commission meeting, noting several items had been tabled including the Big Island variance. He stated that he was available for questions and, when asked by Murphy about how things w'cre going with his Planning Commission experience, he responded that he was excited about it. PUBLIC COMMENTS Acting Mayor White invited comments from the public. There were no comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPME.NT CORP., HWY 12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A, STONEBAY) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - TEXT DRAFT Gaffron explained that at the April 5, 2004 City Council meeting conceptual approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reflect the conditions in the .March 1, 2004 letter was granted. He presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment text and explained that the amendment will ’oc forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review and acceptance, as w ell as to adjacent Cities for comment as required by the Metropolitan Council if the text language is accepted by the City Council. Page 4 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. U04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., HWY12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOTA, STONEBAY) - COMPREHENSIVE PL 4N AMENDMENT- TEXT DRAFT, continued) • Mr. John Trautz, Reliance Development Co., applicant, indicated that he had two specific comments to make about the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment text changes. First, he asked for a change to a parameter for retail use developed and maintained on the property that w'ould require remaining buildings to have no individual tenant space greater than 5,000 s.f. except for food- oriented uses w'hich may occupy a space greater than 5,000 s.f. He asked for an increase from 5,000 s.f. to 7,000 s.f. explaining that 5,000 s.f. is limiting as there seems to be certain retail space categories of 1200 s.f., 3000 s f., 6,000 - 7000 s.f. and above that, particularly in the long temi (at 10 yrs. or beyond). Sansevere asked if the staff had an issue with increasing the square footage parameter to 7,000 s.f. Gaffron asked if Mr. Carlson could provide an example of what specific uses correspond to the 5.000 s.f. to 7,000 s.f. areas and pointed out that increasing to 7,000 s.f. would mean that just over Vi of one proposed building would be in one use. Mr. Trautz responded that Kinko’s and video stores use about 5,000 to 7,000 s.f. Sansevere asked if the square footage increase is proposed to not limit tenants’ choices. Mr. Trautz agreed and expects the need may not happen for ten (10) years. Murphy asked how difficult would it be if in the second turn of tenants a tenant requested to go to 7.000 s.f. from 5,000 s.f. rather than granting an open end at this point in time. Gaffron responded that it would involve an amendment to the PUT), with Planning Commission and Council review, or it could be set up now as a Conditional Use and acknowledging it now as a future option. As a consideration. Attorney Barrett interjected that the Community Management Plan would also need to be changed in confonnance with that approval process. Gaffron pointed out that increases in the square footage may affect other factors, such as fewer uses in a building, different parking lot needs at different times of day for certain uses, though he stated that ‘.le was not necessarily committed to 5.000 s.f. McMillan asked for consideration of what the city’s objective is for setting square footage parameters and whether this may be micromanaging the site. She reiterated that the community docs not want a ‘big box’ or large retail building; however, what is the structural co\erage, black-top parking lot constraints. McMillan encouraged looking at the site from ihc outside regardless whatever store fit into the buildings. Gaffron responded that it needs to ensure that a mix v . uses to serve the neighborhood are represented in the Comprehensive Plan, and there is likelihood of more uses if there are smaller square foot limits. But, he continued, on the other hand it could limit a neighborhood use that is desired, too. Page 5 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. HH'Y 12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OVTLOTA, STONEBAY)- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - TEXT DRAFT, continued) Acting Mayor White commented that empty retail space may result if a tenant can’t be found to fit the 5,000 s.f. space. He pointed out that maybe mor; flexibility would offer more tenants to the developer and White expressed his support. Mr. Steve Johnston, Landform Engineering Co., inteijected that the size consideration i.s an issue for PUD by amendment but not the Community Management Plan. He also noted that the time frame for PUD amendment is 60 days and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedure with other intergovernmental review takes far longer and tenants may be lost in the meantime. Mr.Trautz presented his second proposed change to the Draft Text on building orientation. He stated that all three buildings are not proposed to face the center of the site and may not fit the Draft Text. Gaffron offered to consider a language change to better preserve the more critical language that guards buildings directly facing Hwy 12. Sansevcrc suggested language that buildings on the site shall be oriented in a manner that focuses store fronts and store entrances away from Hwy 12. Mr. Trautz advised that their proposal does have one building facing Hwy 12, one that will face to the center and Walgreens is rotated with the front door at the center. Gaffron reiterated that the goal of this parameter was not to place such a focus on Hwy 12 that it would feel like one was entering from the rear when coming from the neighborhood, as opposed to having some store entrances visible from the neighborhood. Sanseverc suggested that perhaps the language could refer to a ‘majority’ of the buildings rather than ‘all’ buildings on site. Acting .Mayor While offered to delete the phrase “... in a manner that focuses storefronts and store entrances towards the center of the site rather than strictly toward Hwy 12...” as a solution. McMillan commented that the goal is to make the site look good from all sides, much like an island concept as it needs to look good from Hwy 12, too. She aclmow ledged that it was a difficult challenge for the site. Mr. Trautz agreed that all four building sides arc visible to the public and there are things that can be done w ith architecture and with plantings so it doesn’t feel like the back of a building. How ever, he stated that there w ill always be a back to a building but hopefully their site renderings show treatments to improve the back view s. Murphy urged the Council to remember that the focus of the discussion is to consider changes in the Community Management Plan and that there arc key phrases such as “locally owned business” from Which may be diverted at this site. He expressed that there needs to be special care given to try to Page 6 of 20 T ^ MW' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. U04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., HWY12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOTA, STONER A Y) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - TEXT DRAFT, continued) guide as much as can be on that comer. Murphy pointed out that the parameter requiring a pharmacy/convenience store should not be interpreted to mean a pharmacy or a convenience store, as he would not support a convenience store without a pharmacy. To meet that intent, Gaffron asked if the Draft Text language should be changed by deleting reference to a convenience store. Murphy stressed that it was important to agree that phamiacy/convenience store be interpreted as one word. McMillan questioned why this sentence is in the Draft Text as she would rather use pharmacy/convenience store as an example not as a ‘must be’. She asked what was the purpose of being this specific except for the fact that the Reliance Development Corp. proposal includes this type of retail use. McMillan repeated her interest in determining what is trying to be accomplished with the Draft Text language. Murphy responded that his assumption has been all the way through this process that the anchor for this comer would be a pharmacy not just a retail building. He asked if others agreed with this assumption and, if the Draft Text did not have the ‘pharmacy/convcnience store’ language, how would there be any assurance that the anchor will be a pharmacy. McMillan replied that it is the businesses that come and leave but the buildings remain. Murphy continued that future changes can be accommodated through the plan review process; he was more concerned about the first tenants on the site. Acting Mayor White stated that he understands both points of view but he will not support the Draft Text amendment without the pharmacy language, w hile acknow ledging the challenges of micromanaging tenant uses. However, he would not want a gas/convenience store on the site. Sansevere agreed that the whole impetus for the site development has been to provide a pharmacy on the site. He interpreted the Draft Text language to mean “a pharmacy w ith a convenience store” and not “or a convenvience store”. Sansevere asked staff if there was any issues changing language from 5,000 s.f to 7,000 s.f for the maximum individual tenant spaces except for food-oriented uses now or at a later date. Gaffron responded that by permitting a larger s.f space, a building may have only one tenant in most of the building, limiting the options for varieties of tenants. Ultimately, he summarized, it w ould open the buildings to a wider range of tenant options which may be good. Page 7 of20 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. U04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., HW\ 12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOTA, STONEBAY) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - TEXT DRAFT, continued) Sansevere stated he did not have any problem with that situation and asked Mr. Trautz what was the price point for square footage. Mr. Trautz responded the price point was in the low 20 ’s. Acting Mayor White referred to Drafl Text language regarding the fact that Orono ‘will coordinate’ its commercial development planning related to Hwy 12 with the City of Long Lake. He suggested that this language be changed to reflect that fact that Orono ‘will seek ’ to coordinate with Long Lake. Also, there was language Acting Mayor White referred to that stated “to prevent the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono" and he suggested that it be changed ‘‘to limit....’’ He expressed his frustration with the lack of coordination efforts recently from Long Lake. Sansevere concurred that Long Lake has not coordinated development with Orono while Orono has been courteous in including Long Lake in Orono’s planning. McMillan indicated her support of the proposed language changes from Acting Mayor White. Sansevere moved, seconded by Murphy, to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Text for Outlot A, Stonebay, (Applicant: Reliance Development Corp., Hwy l2/\Villow Drive) as amended with the following language: a. Increase to 7,000 s.f. from 5,000 s.f. the individual tenant space in the remaining buildings except for food-oriented uses which may occupy a space greater than 7,000 s.f. b. Revise the statement re: building orientation on the site: Building on the site shall be oriented to accomplish (deleted language) the goal of providing an inviting vehicular and pedestrian entry from Kelley Parkway without creating negative visual impacts for the Stonebay residential development. c. Revise the statement re: Orono coordination with Long Lake: Orono will *seek to coordinate ’ its commercial development planning related to Hwy 12 area w ith the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown area, and ‘to limit’ the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. and, to direct staff to proceed with an application to ^let Council for approval. Murphy advised that he recently traveled Hwy 12 easterly from Orono to the eastern part of the Twin Cities and observed many malls along the route with their tenants. He encouraged Mr. Trautz to get the best tenants for Orono as possible and Mr. Trautz stated they will do their best to accomplish that objective. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *5. #04-2982 LYLE AND CLARYCE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5143. Murphy moved, Sanseverc seconded, to adopt RESOLTUION NO. 5143 granting after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code, Section 78-1288 to allow hardcover within the 0-75’ zone of 60 s.f. or 1.14% and in the 75’-250’zone of 2,356 s.f. or 43.2% for the construction of a grade- level deck for Lyle Johnson and Claiy ce Johnson at 1398 Rest Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION, 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY Sansevere moved. White seconded, to table application #04-2984 requesting commercial site plan approval for Planned Unit Development No. 4 for Orono Professional Center II for Berkshire Properties at 2745 Kelley Parkway. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. *7. #04-2989 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 5144. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5144 granting preliminary approval of a Class 111 Subdivision for properly located at 1100 Townline Road for Christopher Diesen, 1100 Townline Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *8. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5145. Murphy moved, seconded by Sansevere, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5145 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code, Sections 78-350 (B), 78-1279 (6), 78-282, and 78-1288, for Ronald Potas and Roberts Potas, 2190 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. *9. #04-2995 JYLAND HOMES, 1070 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5146. Murphy moved, seconded by Sansevere, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5146 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code, Sections 78-305 and 78-1112 for Jyland Distinctive Homes, Inc., represented by Robert A. Carlson, owner of property located at 1070 West Ferndale Road. VOTE: AYES 4, Nays 0. *10. #04-2996 JYLAND HOMES, 1070 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - STREET VACATION - RESOLUTION NO. 5147. Murphy moved, seconded by Sansevere, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5147 vacating unimproved portions of an unnamed road right-of-way w ilhin the plat of ’'North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka," in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 9 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. *11. 2004 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSES (RENEWALS) - RESOLUTIONS NO. 5148 - 5157. Murphy moved, seconded by Sansevere, to adopt RESOLUTIONS NO. 5148 through 5157 directing staff to issue joint use dock license to Big Island, Inc., Forest Arms HA, Carlson/Nelson/Gage, Bohns Point/North Shore Homeowners, Fox Hill HA, Walters Port Maintenance and Improvement Association, Victoria Estates, Kelly Cove HA, Pheasant Lawn HA, and Big Island Vets Camp subject to conditions noted herein for the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31,2004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nay 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Acting Mayor White reported that he called the DNR to discuss the situation of buckthorn removal and subsequent appearance of having cleaned out a lot of vegetation. He received an email explaining that there often is a public reaction that clear-cutting has occurred when only buckthorn has been removed. Moorse confirmed a meeting is set for Thursday, 4/15/04 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. Sansevered asked if policy-makers were planning to be present in order to make decisions. Moorse outlined some of the meeting attendees, including Martha Reger, MnDNR and Xcel’s Project Manager. Acting Mayor White suggested inviting Hennepin County Commissioner Linda Koblick to get the County involved, too. Murphy reiterated his major concern is not the removal of buckthorn but what they were told by the tree trimmers, who indicated that there was to be removal of buckthorn and sumac. With those removed, Murphy commented that didn’t leave much vegetation and that the tree trimmers knocked down several silver maples which were not under the power lines and did not need to be removed. Murphy asked to see the vegetation removal plan to know who is managing the effort and what will happen along the trail if care is not taken to monitor the vegetation removal activity. He reported that the tree trimmers were tilling the soil along stretches of the Luce Line in Way/ata and that had been stopped by the intervention of Dick Schmitt of the MnDNR. Aeting Mayor White suggested that Thursday’s meeting would be a good opportunity to discuss the issue of vegetative screening at Bederwood Park along the MnDNR trail. Sansevere inquired of Mr. Johnston, Landform Engineering Co. regarding when the next phase of Stonebay is scheduled, how many units need to be sold before the next phase begins, and how long for final build-out at Stonebay. Mr. Johnston responded that the plan is for tltree years to be at final build-out. However, realistically they have lost one-half (1/2) year due to a variety of delays and now the development is attempting to catch-up to the sales plan. Mr. Johnston indicated currently there are 20 lot-holds of 100 lots, and Page 10 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAVOR/COVNCIL REPORT, continued) described sales/flnance sequencing issues that affect the construction progress. He reported that there are actually 3-4 actual purchase agreements at present. Murphy asked what is the plan for building paint colors and if there is any plan to have more variation in building color than what is on site now. Mr. Johnston explained that the model home is painted and that there are five (5) or six (6) color schemes though all are relatively in the same color tone range with no great distinction. Acting Mayor White reported that the Fire Station Dedication was a great event and attended by some of the Council .Members. He advised that communities from all around Lake Minnetonka were in attendance at the Dedication and he was proud of the city and all of the people who helped make it happen. McMillan mentioned that the City should salute the three retiring Planning Commissioners. Moorsc advised that Resolutions of Recognition for the retiring Planning Commissioners will be brought to either the next or a future City Council meeting for adoption. The schedule will depend on the availability of the Planning Commissioners. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT *12. ACCEPT QUOTATION FOR PARK MOWING SERVICES Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the quotation from Shaughnessy Lawn Service, Orono, Minnesota for the 2004 season for park mowing services in the amount of $16,000. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *13. LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR PAUL ODE - RESOLUTION NO. 5158. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5158 denying the Paul Ode Application for On-Sale Liquor License at 3425 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR(S) Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to appoint Jeanne Mabusth as Planning Commission Chair, and to appoint Dave Rahn and Cynthia Bremer as Vice-Chairs. VOTE: .Ayes 4, Nays 0. *15. REAPPOINTMENT OF PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL COMMISSION member Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to reappoint Pat Wolfe to a three-year term on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission, expiring on December 31,2006. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 11 of 20 MnsrUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. *16. REQUEST APPROVAL TO PURCHASE 2004 SQUAD CARS Muphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment for three (3), 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Police Squad Cars, to Superior Ford, set-up of the new cars and the liquidation of the old squad cars through competitive bidding. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *17. REQUEST APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE, TEST, AND HIRE PART-TIME POLICE OFFICER Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to advertise for, test candidates, and extend an offer to hire to an eligible candidate for the position of a fully P.O. S. T. licensed peace officer who will work part-time hours. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *18. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve disposal of unclaimed property by silent auction at the Medina City Hall, and to discard of unsold items. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the use of excess funds in the Joint Fire Station Construction Fund to fund the $63,810.20 overage in the Long Lake Fire Department 2003 budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, 3"“ SERIES Acting Mayor While introduced the proposed ordinance that would place a moratorium on all development applications for subdivisions with densities of 2 units per acre or greater until a study of development standards for medium-density residential development is conducted. Moorse indicated that at the City Council Work Session last Thursday, April 8, 2004, it was agreed that there was a need to strengthen Orono ’s zoning regulations in a number of areas, including medium density residential in areas guided by the Comprehensive Plan update. In discussions of the City Council ’s vision with the Comprehensive Plan change there was concurrence that stronger regulations were needed to achieve that vision. Moorse staled it was discussed then to consider placing a moratorium to allow for lime to research and look at examples of other city’s regulations and to allow for more City Council discussion of its vision for those areas, and to take regulation recommendations through the Planning Commission;City Council process. He e.xplained that a moratorium will provide the time necessary to complete a stud> process. Acting Mayor White asked if the City will need the assistance of a consultant to guide the study or can it be done with current staff. Moorse replied that some techmeal assistance from planning consultant(s) during the process will be utilized. Page 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, SERIES, continued) Murphy asked about the proposed time-frame for the moratorium. Moorse responded that the goal was to complete the study within six (6) months or sooner if possible as this would be a high priority to accomplish but acknowledged that it does not take long to use 3-4 of those months with the planning review process itself. Attorney Barrett and Moorse clarified that the proposed ordinance language indicates that the moratorium would expire in one year and can be repealed earlier if the City Council so decides. Acting Mayor White asked for public comments on this matter. Mr. Charles James expressed his disappointment with the process for discussion of a moratorium as he had received no prior notice of this topic being on the City Council’s April 12, 2004 Agenda. He identified himself as part of the family who owns property across Higliway 12 from the Orono High School and that their business developed the award-winning facility for the best 100,000 s.f. shopping center with the Chanhassen Bycrly’s. Further, he expressed frustration with prior city contacts compared to his experiences elsewhere that were much more collaborative and his view that the moratorium would basically involve only their family’s property and one site by the water tower. Mr. James indicated that this is their first residential development and that their goal is to develop the lowest residential density proposal. He explained that he contacted many residential developers who would contact the City regarding housing development proposals and received conflicting impressions about affordable housing in Orono. Mr. James stated that he received a telephone call notifying him of this Agenda topic at S:4S p.m. on April 12, 2004 and indicated his the concern that the proposed moratorium would basically involve only their property. Mr. James advised that they have narrowed their .search for developers proposing the lowest residential density. Also, their development is relying on the availability of fill material from the Hwy 12 improvement project this summer which will mean a reduced development cost ,o the project. He stated that he does not think the property is a good spot for residential development but that is what the City is guiding the site for. He questioned the need for a moratorium when the site will be a PUD for twenty acres with one applicant. Further, he repeated that he felt they had been run rough-shed over by the city and has never experienced a collaborative process with Orono as he has in other locations. Mr. Steve Johnston advised that Mr. James contacted Landform Engineering to perform a wetland delineation of the site about one year ag. He has had infomial discussions with Gaffron. \Vlien Mr. James came to the conclusion that he wanted to sell the property outright, Landform Engineering connected Mr. James with Brenshall Homes and they are ready to meet with the City next week for a pre-application meeting. Mr. Johnston stated that he received a phone call from Moorse at about 5:10 p.m. providing notification about the proposed moratorium agenda item. He continued by describing their proposed Sketch Plan that docs meet current Guide Plan requirements, that it is a reasonable use of the site for what the market w ill bear. Without a moratorium, they arc looking at the soonest the project would be through the city and watershed review process will be March, 2005 if they were Page 13 of 20 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COlWCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, SERIES, continued) able to begin with the pre-application meeting next week. With up to a year moratorium, it puts the project at a 2006 construction commencement and precludes the ability to get the Hwy 12 road project fill to raise their site. Mr. Johnston explained that if the fill is not available to the site, it means that no basements could be constructed on the site due to the high groundwater table. Mr. Johnston questioned what would be accomplished with a study ahead of an application that could not be accomplished through the PUD process. He requested that the moratorium not be enacted but to allow the PUD application to occur beginning with the pre-application meeting next week and scheduling the Sketch Plan review with the Planning Commission. It was his suggestion to conduct a parallel process involving research being conducted while the PUD process is progressing. Mr. Tom Stokes, Brenshall Development, 2200 Shadywood Road, Orono, acknowledged that they have been in conversation with Mr. James for six (6) or seven (7) months. He explained that he has built and developed in Orono and the western Twin Cities area for about 20 years. He laid out a description of the proposed housing for this subject site which will be an affordable housing product for Orono, ranging from $350,000 - $500,000 per single family home. Sanseverc commented that the Metropolitan Council definition of affordable housing is under $200,000 and not the ranges proposed by Brenshall Homes. Mr. Stokes replied that affordable, new construction housing for this western part of the Twin Cities and in Orono is at the ranges they are proposing and are at these lower ranges because of the availability of the Hwy 12 export material. He stated that constructing a single family home product in Orono under $750,000 is only possible because of the Hwy 12 road project fill that can be used on the site. Mr. Stokes stated Brenshall Homes with LaGran Homes were prepared to come to the City with a great product that is needed in the Orono community. Murphy questioned how long has it been known that there was something in the works for this project site. Gaffron replied that he had talked to Mr. James over two years ago about this site. Mr. James cited the example of downtown Minneapolis at Riverfront with supposedly affordable housing prices and that he heard conflicting information from other housing developers about Orono’s interest in truly affordable homes w ith higher densities. Murphy responded that he was more concerned about the timing of a moratorium related to whether the city was aware that something was in the works and not the definition of affordable housing. GafTron stated that the city has known from last year that Mr. James was trying to market the property and that they have had numerous conversations. In the past month he was aware that it was getting towards the proposal stage Page 14 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7;00 o ’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, J*® SERIES, continued) Murphy asked if it was fair to say that one of the reasons for the proposed moratorium was this pending proposal. GaHron explained that the City Council ’s vision for Stonebay has had a substantial impact in terms its appearance versus the City Council ’s expectations for the housing product there. It drove the discussion about the reality of 6 units/acrc and whether this is what should be guided elsewhere in Orono. He further explained that the Stonebay project being the first such project in Orono has led to more awareness of the realities of higher density developments, including potential 2-4 units/acre development at Mr. James’ property and in the area of the Long Lake Fire Station on Willow Drive. Gaffron concluded that there are no existing Orono ordinance standards for this t>'pe of residential site development. Attorney Barrett pointed out that since 1975 frequently moratoria are exercised by City Council ’s facing development about which they are uncertain or do not have zoning controls in place and are aware of pending applications. Murphy expressed his view that a moratorium should be in place for less than six (6) months. He commented that he did not think that the City Council and Planning Commission were of one voice on the vision of affordable housing or what affordable housing or density means in Orono. In the interest of being fair, Murphy suggested the possibility of following a parallel path with an informal process that would allow the pending application review process to bring forth ideas from James/Brenshall/LaGran that would benefit the development of regulatory standards. Attorney Barrett advised that the moratorium statute prevents imposing a moratorium once a Preliminary Subdivision has been granted. With the consent of the developers and with the disclosures the City has made to the developers, it might be possible to consider a dual track if the City Council desires to do so. Attorney Barrett stated that the City could do that consistent with the City’s moratorium authority without waiving it and may be a helpful process. Sansevere asked for clarification from Mr. James regarding if Mr. James thinks a fast one is being pulled on him. Mr. Johnston denied that he thought that charaeterization was correct but could only speak for himself, though he reiterated that they had only been aware of the moratorium agenda topic for about 3 hours and had not come with any unified voice. Sansevere pointed out the City Council had only been aware of the possibility since last Thursday’s work session and asked for clarification from Moorse and Gaffron if the topic had only recently occurred to them or had it been under discussion for some time. He asked them to provide a satisfactory reason for the apparent short amount of time to consider imposing a moratorium. Page 15 of 20 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7;00 o’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, SERIES, continued) Moorsc explained that Gafiron’s prior explanation was accurate in that over the last month or so as staff and Council informally discussed development issues, it became more clear that there were major concerns about implementing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan related to the areas guided to higher density residential development. Those informal discussions came together over the past month into a more focused concern, which also coincided with the occurrence of developer discussions in the same time frame. Moorse continued that the City may not be in a position to deal with such a development when the City is unclear at the City Council or Planning Commission level about the vision for development, the densities the City is looking for, or the affordability issue. Sansevere asked Mr. Johnston if the Hwy 12 fill material could be placed on the property under a moratorium. Mr. Johnston indicated, in his experience with most cities, that would involve getting pemiission for these quantities of dirt from the watershed and MnDNR, questions of whether there is mining involved and about stockpiling problems. Gaffron clarified that the Orono process involves a Conditional Use Pemiit application for greater than 500 cu. yds.of fill taking two months to process, and also includes a watershed application. Acting Mayor White summarized the public comments, listing their concents about lack of meeting notification and collaboration, that the moratorium would not gain them more than the traditional PUD process would provide, that the delay would translate into higher costs for fill if the Ilw y 12 road project material was not available at a later date, that Brcnshall should be allowed be make application as they have intended with no moratorium imposed and, finally, issues of affordability in Orono. Acting Mayor White asked Moorse and Gaffron to comment on w hat is gained by the moratorium, but continued by stating that he believes that by zoning the James’ site for high density the property ow ner has received a financial w indfall though acknow ledging that the City probably did not collaborate w ith the property ow ner at the time of rezoning. He commented that the City has a pending development application and defended the City’s need to respond quickly. Acting Mayor White expressed his hope that the study can be accomplished as soon as possible and may not interfere with the coordination of the Ilwy 12 fill. He acknowledged the impact of seeing Stonebay under construction and w ondering if that is really w hat is the City’s vision. He also agreed w ith the developer’s comments about the difficulty of providing affordable new construction in Orono. Acting Mayor White concluded that he supports imposing the moratorium and supports the staff in their development of more regulatory controls, if needed, to provide more clarity for development. Moorsc pointed out that there will be opportunities for collaboration during the moratorium process and offered to look at any good solutions proposed by Brenshall Homes as part of the study process. Also, he stated that bringing in a Sketch Plan prior to the Council going through the study process could involve a lot of time in itself. Moorse observ ed that the clarity expected from the study process Page 16 of 20 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, 3^** SERIES, continued) should improve and shorten the application process rather than having a Sketch Plan preceding the moratorium and its study. McMillan echoed Acting Mayor White’s comments about the Stonebay development creating a lot of issues as it is being built out. She concluded that the City does not have a grasp of the higher density issue and its effects, and recommended that the moratorium be imposed but for only six months. Murphy expressed his position that the City does need time to conduct a research study, re-group itself and develop a ‘pecking order’ with staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. He concurred that six months should be the maximum amount of time of a moratorium. Murphy described the impact of seeing Stonebay under construction and asked if this is really the anticipated result the City envisioned. He asked the developers present if it was w orth it, in the interest of collaboration, to run a dual process while the City takes time for the study. Mr. Johnston responded favoiably because it may help the developers shape things a little more but the developers could also step back fully, allow the City time to conduct the study, and respond when it is completed. He explained that their plan is for 3.9 units/acre, detached, single family homes that arc not affordable according to Metropolitan Council price ranges, and have followed the process to the letter by bringing in the Sketch Plan next week. He further advised that for their project to meet Metropolitan Council affordability price ranges and for a reasonable rate of return for Mr. James and a reasonable sale price, the project had to be desigtied for 12-14 units/acre. He obscr\'cd that he did not think this density would be approved in Orono. Mr. Johnston concluded by stating that they would appreciate the City’s feed-back but that he has a concern that regardless of what they design there will be difficulties for the City Council in relation to higher density sites. Acting Mayor White and Sansev ere responded saying they relate to the higher density sites from personal experience. Sanscvcrc stated that he is supportive of staff and w ill continue to be, but emphasized that a collaborative process could stream-line things for the developer particularly if the staff takes this time to determine what is best for the City, as w ell as beneficial to the developer, thereby avoiding a long, drawn-out process. Gaffron agreed that there is a benefit to the collaborative process with the developers submitting plans for the City to react to; this may force the City to keep moving forward. Murphy reiterated his position in favor of taking time under a moratorium to force the City to look at what the process has been and to improve it. Mr. Stokes expressed his interest in bringing the right product into Orono that meets the community’s needs. He predicted that, to the extent of working with staff through a collaborative process, it may shorten the time period needed to receive their approvals after the moratorium and that they would be willing to work with staff and with Mr. James ’ approval. Page 17 0120 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (20. STUD Y REGARDING DE VELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, SERIES, continued) Mr. James’ interjected that he did not intend to be aggressive with his comments but is just trying to work with the City and to move on. He thought Orono wanted affordable housing but experienced a circular decision-making loop that was frustrating. Mr. James obseiA cd that the decision to build a water tower in Orono results in high water connection fees that impact development costs and affordability issues. Sansevere cautioned Mr. James to not refer to their proposal as providing affordable housing as its much greater price range may offend the affordable housing groups who consider affordable price ranges as being $180,000/190,000. Mr. James responded that higher price ranges are a result of current development practices requiring a development to be fully completed before move-ins, rather than allowing move-ins with phased completion, like historically done in Richfield. MN. Acting Mayor White mentioned that studies have shown that developers know how to build affordable housing but many buyers do not want them. Murphy invited Mr. James, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Johnston to attend more City Council meetings and expressed his disappointment with the City’s inability to manage the process of decision-making between the City Council, Planning Commission and staff. He viewed imposing the moratorium as a way to improve the process and invited them to work together with the City. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to authorize a study of development standards for medium-density residential development, and to adopt Ordinance No. 6,3'^'’ Series, an interim ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, to establish a moratorium for a maximum of six (6) months prohibiting the granting of Preiiminary Subdivision approval. Zoning (CUPA'ariance) approval. Rezoning, or PUD approval within the moratorium area as defined herein. VOTE: Aves 4, Navs 0. *21. HIRING OF SEASONAL STAFF FOR THE ORONO GOLF COURSE Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve a seasonal employee pay range of $7.90 to $8.60 per hour for the 2004 season, and to hire the following seasonal emplovees at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PER.A ruies: LIST OF SEASONAL GOLD COURSE F\IP1 OVF ES Employee Dan Oas Gary Peickert John Stork 2004 Hourly Wane Rate $8.60 $8.38 $848 > Page 18 of 20 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. f (*22, LICENSES, conHnued) 6 Applicant: Chuck Plain Event: Wedding and Live Music for 120 Guests Location: 3227 Casco Circle Date: Saturday, August 28,2004 Time: 2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. TOBACCO LICENSE 7. Rick ’s Market Von Paul Marlin (new owner/applicant) 3333 Shoreline Drive Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the above listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. i *23. BILLS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nay 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved. Acting Mayor White seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of April 12,2004 at 8:S5 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James White, Acting Mayor Page 20 of 20 04-2968 s -I 25 Orono Orchard Rd ^04-3001 04-29971 04-2997 'L AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 26,2004.7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items tie considered to be routine items to be enscted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of tlie Agenda items are available tn the Public racket - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. qq| jMpn ri J»PPTIf\Jp ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF CRC v.mu RECOGNITION 2. Elizabeth Hawn - Plarming Commission - Resolution 3. Sandra Smith > Planning Commission - Resolution 4. Stephanie Zugschwert - Plaoning Commission - Resolution HRE CHIEFS* REPORT APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 5. Regular Council Meeting of April 12,2C04 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debori Halvorson, RepresentaUve PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jim Leslie. Representative LMCO RF:P0RT- Debora Halvorson PUBLIC CO.MMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • 6. #04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road North - Final Plat - Resolution 7. #04-2993 Chrrs Valerius and Phil Fisk. 2377 Shadywood Road - Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances 8. #04-2977 Mike Keaveny on behalf of Richard M. Keaveny Rev. Trust, 3425 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances - Resolution • 9. #04-2999 George and Marilyn Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle - Variances - Resolution • 10 #04-3000 Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard-Conditional Use Pciirat and Commercial Site Plan Review • Resolution • 11. #04-3001 Steven and Marcia Tiffany, 1325 Rest Point Lane-Variances-Resolution 12. #04-3002 G & L Land Investment, LI>C., 740 North Arm Drive - Variances 13. #04-3005 Sign Ordinance Amendment, Section 78-1466 - Ordinance 14. #04-2997 City of Orono - B;g Island Access - Varianccs/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution • 15. Accessory Structure Retention Agreement - 25 Orono Orchard Road North MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PirBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 26.2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. Orono Woods Non-profit Substitution 17. MHFARcfui.d 18. Credit Card Policy CITY ATTORNEY S REPORT 19. LICENSES Special Event Permits • 20. BILLS UPCOMLNG ISSLTS AND EVENTS 2m 04/26 - Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. 04/29 - Highway 12 Workshop (Public Officials), Thursday, 7 :00 p.m.-9:00 pm, The Church of St. George in Long Lake 05/01 - Spring Cleanup Day. Saturday, 8:00 i-m. - 2 00 p m. 05/03 - Park Commission Meclmg, 7.15 p.m. ('Council Liaison - Jim Whin) 05/05 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p m. 05/06 - Highway 12 Workshop (Businesses). Thursday, 7:00 p.m -9 00 pm.. The Church of St George In APR 2 6 20u4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Xpnl%^^004' (pItem No Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis fAi/ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2968 - Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, 440 Stubbs Bay Rd - Final Plat - Resolution RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2-acre minimum 448,107 s.f. (10.287 acres) 320 ’ Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: List of Exhibits: A. Final Resolution for adoption B. Final Plat drawings C. Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 5126 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting final approval for a 2-lot subdivision in the RR-IB zoning district. The plat is a front lot, back lot configuration and the meets all of the district and back lot requirements.__________________________________________ The applicants have completed or have agreed to complete all requirements for final plat approval. We anticipate mylars will be available for signature at the April 26“* meeting. A copy of the final plat drawing is attached. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF STUBBS ADDITION FILE #04-2968 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal coiporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter “City Council*') has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by Custom Structures Ltd (hereinafter the “applicant”) for subdivision of property located at 440 Stubbs Bay R(\ad and legally described as follows: The South 10 acres of the Southwest 'A of the Northeast 'A of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, on March 8'", 2004 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5126 granting Preliminary Plat Approval for the proposed development of a two-lot plat' for single family residential purposes; and WHEREAS, the Developer has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City including: 1, Completion of all platting requirements of Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 5126. 2. Dedication on the plat of perimeter Drainage and Utility Easements as required in Resolution No. 5126. 3. Designation and dedication on the plat of wetlands subject to City and other agency jurisdiction, and granting of the standard Flowagc and Conscr\ ation Easement over said wetlands. Page 1 of 3 L. 4. Submittal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approving the grading and stormwater management plan for development of the Property. 5. Payment to the City of Park Dedication Fee, Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, final plat review fees and legal review and filing fees as identified within Resolution No. 5126. 6. Provision to the City of a title opinion for the Property and certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. 7. Execution of a developer’s agreement and provision of a letter of credit covering the storm water ponding improvements. 8. Submittal of any grading plan revisions that may be required by the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 5 126, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby approve the plat of STUBBS ADDITION, Hermepin County, Miimesota subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Clerk shall release the plat documents for filing only upon certification by the City Attorney, Planning Director and City Engineer that all requirements of the platting regulations have been satisfied. 2. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before October 26,2004 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants pertinent thereto. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the conditions of this Resolution have not been met or the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 26* day of April 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 3 n STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26*^ day of April 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 3 of3 STUBBS ADDITION KNOW ALL MtN 0Y THESC PRESENTS: Thol Custom Structures. Ltd., o Ninnesolo company, fee owner of the fottQwing described property lituoted in the County of Hennepm. State of Minnesota, to wit: The South 10 ocres of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeost 1/4 of Section 32. Township 119. Ronge 23, Hennepin County. Minnesota. Hove coused the tome to be surveyed ond ptolted ot STUQBS ADDITION ond do hereby donote ond dedicate to the public for public use forever the Rood and the droinoge and utility eosements os shown on this plot. i.« witness whereof soid Custom Structures. Ltd., o Minnesota compony. hove coused these presents to be signed by its proper officer, this_____doy of_____________, 20 . Signed. Lone W. Moore ____________________ Lone W. Moore, President state Of ^ COUNTY or Th# foregoing Instrument woi ecLnowtedgfid before rne this doy of. lone W. Moore. President, of Custom Structures. Ltd, on behoif of the compony Notory Public, My Commission Evpires. County. I hereby certify Ihol I hove surveyed ond plotted the property described on this plot os STUBBS ADO'TlON, that this plot is a correct representation of said survey, thol o!l distonces ore correctly shown on the plot in feel ond hundredths of o fool; thol oil monuments hove been correctly plo:ed in the ground ot shown; Ihot the outside bo mdory lines ore correctly dcsignoted on the plot, ond Ihot there ore no wetlands os defined in MS 505 02. Subd. 1 to be designated on the plot Kufl M Kisch, Licensed Lond Surveyor Minneioto License No 2396B state of MINNESOTA COUNTY Of HENNEPIN The foregoing surveyor's cerlificott wOi ecKhpwfedged before rni this __ day of . 20 by Kyft M Kisch, LiCthled Lond Surveyor. Nolory Public. Hennepin County. Minnesoto My Commission expires ORONO. MINNESOTA This plot of STUBBS ADDITION wos approved ond occepted by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota ot o regular meeting thereof, held this doy of , 20 If opplicoble, the written comments end recommcndot>ons of the Commissioner of Tronsportotion and the County Highway Engineer hove been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period hos eiopsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, os provided by Minnesoto Stotutes. Section 505.03. Subd 2. OTY COUNOL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Moyor Monoger TAXPAn.R SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Hennepin County. Minnesoto I hereby certify thot loses poyoble in 20. on this plot. Doted this doy of _ ond prior years hove been paid for lond described _________20_____. Polrick H. O’Connor. Hennepin County Auditor Deputy SURVEY DIVISION. Hennepin County. Minnesoto Pursuont to Minnesota Stotuto Sec.3039 565 (^969). this plot hos been approved this ______ doy of ______________ 20___ Willtom P. Brown. Hennepm County Surveyor COUNTY RECORDER. Hernepm County. Minnesoto I hereby certify thol the within plot of STUBBS ADDITION wos filed for record m thii office, this ■— day of . 20___, ot _____ o’clock m. Michoel H. Cunniff, RegistrOT of Titles Deputy ROC ESDBD y RLK - KuuJiisto. Ltd. SHEET 1 or 2 SHEETS . Z_' ► \hu < ?? Zli on *t).N {.lU S>!S il! ^ 0 ...3 o Ctf 48 Hours boforo dlgg^ GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TvWi CHtoo A tm 851-454-0002 MN. To« fr— 1-800-252-1166 mmc 1K1UM0 ONOVUMl AT ttlS 10* - 4* CU ft AOGOCCATC SURF ACC ft* CL ft ACCACCATC SURFACC 8TA, 0^12 TO 8TA. 3483 8TA. 3483 TO 8TA. 8402 GRADING NOTES - NOUS ftM IflCAinilD■ - NOUS Moi s s eupw - ML OMBM S S M ICB—OMT «1M IMOT - ML OCMM MB BUM B B M AOOBBUMi BIN MBOf BOI - V1K mm BiML Npy s pmwBPi - ML OBBBI conia. WMUn MUiT s MIMAlDiBaO V BOOED wr - ML CONTROL NOTES S4ML B ACOONDMO ID BBOT UTt m M OAtD 9 ftC COBtnON CD LEGEND ■ ML OBBWBP ABB BMU. NAB A MMtfUU OF 4 BPOOft aACm BNVT FBI ftBKBl ^BD y JN A^ B^DBB lOy • MMOt BMu. m mam rwa «. fm«w baad m BBBBLF AT A NAB OF f IBB FBI AOK AM AND Bim BTTBB ON A nUBfT BB canoB wsasst IH-B4- NABNUm EXionwo — — - FBnUBN BIAU. - NC OBBN B —T^*" B mvf 10 NB MCA FW AN MRS FOB SJ OOBNUaBI MAU FOiON HI MACl AND BDUUBDB rAID B VMt «»^t0 AT AODf FOI AOB, D B FtACD AS OMCNB or NC - Aa oc SSd ? BA fS^JS A l lACN ON a OEBLOFD SOBOUHO MNLI "’“ys’;;m NC MON BABN iSBI or eBUMt PRACOCD BUU B M •war MABUIMHT FNA6«a NAMUAL^B NFCA B NB OTIC VAM OPnPMM SLTfONi SOL SOBNS V ' MOf BOMSCM NMLOS H MO.M ■UflAB &£Ft .JMk OMsmi ----------or--------- --------or--------- MABBB EAlDi CANM fLABD &B MAAD OB ■/ SB NAN ■ o D G> » « i ^ j t t < Ia IB t^ftt ft440 4^00 »4D0 -FlID RAMBT •OBOBBBS FBB TO B BD M BMM fBBBO« ^:rSI CATTCOA t 3 CNOMM COATOOL iLAWitt («AC: 3M»| 4*14 ” OBM& iACkfHOO mm mamm contxa . •iMAir (SFU. JM») •r > IT ca .. SfAFUt BACn r-r »CDfD r I r A If* 4.9M HOOOCM ffAitit AT r-or BACMC OMVC moouBI BtlM AND r«a mxk. FOiT-A' lA^BM •4NN tVOB 0«0» *T«t BN TWmi PON? ‘V m CMUB 0<Af CMC AM MOT MOUM *« IMS. QRD-18 ViTTriyv 0i1O« 0401 ^:St ^U9CAT iC3N map 'JaftsS.B>a NOT 10 WCMi CL yjfomt i ■KCflON SM tBMMMO tIR ^ rdOOu 1 A 1UJ X CD P ^ • §8 yV' /VU»UL OUJ i-ii « T -r-, j 1#WrH»*«T W>VT iMOJ llU«««M«tt(«. UtO. Boundary / Topographic Survey .'' CUSTOM STRUCTURES / \ tm/mrnU •< »• »/• •» V/*»« —miwii II ll«. U> w—^ Owa» MmmM o' Stubbs Bay Road L \ ..rs-rr / • • •* •/• •! •« lA fctito*M. W#^ itiL u *>»«N»ai •< Ita «/• •« t A toM** ML »— •» C«lM» ttWMWMf ^'’u5 •SHTu. ® ... • MM > ^ - ---- -- — »Jm55Mii«*C •f mm----------------------------jMlIAal / mm mmrmmtt «A *««>«> M. / > ttH Ul IMwiHi CM4& W«—ia, ^ ___!l_ ! 51 I "f8§i" J:n , ___i»n|l :• •;:• !j! f *: •l!i i- «*i I I• ..........., *»„.••••• • f «.IMM »M «l »• mA Iftie MTM •< IM 1/4 •« IM MrtiMMi lA twIMi ML *rT~r» l*A Omm U • • • a r#f efc.la ..i ! f~:: V V ^M^rvMfV 09€MAOJ ^ \mt* T^rsa \ .MatT*v] I V* ^.^tawMaMt mmm a« la# taaMaaal «/• a> Marta* n. fa< 1-V J >_ 1355 2?--______r sar2yjo-g- - V sr-si syKT* ■;£jircrrr^’“r IjNf'i ATT*"'' *• •••• ••» • • • «.*»• %•• • • •» Pi i'i ■! H' <' * > I » r "SI ii I 'i' j ~ t~............................................ '•-‘**^‘- -*• * - ' • •/•-• ‘ >■»■___«■ « ,«.................................................................................J.I TVsC-l-i . ----------* ' ' ' • •• ' '------■------------------------- / A f. . / • • • • ...............^....... mmt^riarm • •M« • •fM lairtMH taraar a« Ma ftt !/• a«xrri’SJsrEj;i.'r:*^v I MMtMMt MNW a« mm VarfMaai t/« / * « mm to.Maaai »/• *a*U»* A »a—•»» -» / % mil M>iM ti «»«*«• Caa><ir ' f ^ ‘A' .••.;:t: r.r ,\ %• %• « %. •« « ,'*• LOCATION MAP , 4« MQ1 « mCMki . NaMaaai aaraar a< *»a laatnaaii V« P r laMMaat </• Na<«M M. W^aa*laaMaaat </* ***«< •mm U. Naw^.1 / Ff«>Pi#rrY ocscKiPTiON ; (M a»■ * a* C* I. NN) ai la «Ma »M» 9MaM «M »aa«MM a» Ni iM. mm ?!« •■»» *• artM P Ma taaMaaM »/• •• »N MarMaaM »/• «« fati^i » ta»>A% »•». taafa U MaMwaw Caartu iMaaMia l^NOTES-'r • V - t A tm M tfmmmif H 4JLM m H <r MW I AMW MMN a«N Ih MMw N m Mm NM •• **« ***• »t —? • ■ .............• T'-*/*, • M MMrt H m * SCAC LEGiMO • a aoi mamMD i nu« ® •« asafi-iic — P • n4«i CMt KC1«» ♦ • tJKwc mmmm mu —•— • *«CI P • MIMAVI «nuai AMI rntaam waam RASrSOf aCA#dMQ3 \ ' ■; 'v Ina MaMMa •« Ma tMMv Ma aaaA AM V« a* Ma mmtmmtt *A jMlIaa M, Wm» Utk A mm tl rtaoMrti C«art» Mwaasia L mamma M Aa» A«ruir« BCMCMMANK «.n^iSL.* ^1 <P/«r Ca Mm la aaf X AaiMM Maaa M Aa« MaalaA Af Mil -A mmAM l VIA M M AatMM OAMaaiMa Aa <aaa m mi^mwm •mm rnrnmmmm M mm tMM »M CM M M «a am aM MiAAAA MalM IM •l im m $m§nm »f taM rMMt M> a> »a •aiMMai a>M maim awAA OSl teaa «M4C IM 0IM M) s w <§f 1 i is83s OsS3 inPw« W|a 01 g U (S §• CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C 1 2 b A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH FILE NO. 04-2968 WHEREAS, Lane Moore of Custom Structures (hereinafter the “subdivider”) on December 11, 2003, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: The South 10 acres of the Southwest Vi of the Northeast 14 of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Mijinesota (hereinafter ‘‘the property ”); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. aitd the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20, 2004, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on February 9, 2004, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividcr noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR — IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains approximately 10.287 acres of land of which 5.04 acres is delineated wetland. 3.The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot area requirement of the RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District each meeting a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. 4.The proposed subdivision to create residential lots of two acres in area or larger conforms to the provision of the RR-IB Zoning District and the Page 1 of 7 GITYofORONO 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 ^ ^ Rural Residential guiding as established in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. a. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 meets the minimum 200’ width requirement as established by the RR-IB, One Family Rural P esidential Zoning District. b. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 was created as a Back Lot and meeting the Back Lot Standards established by Section 78-1370 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires dimensional standards of 150% of the minimum Zoning District Standards. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served with private w'pIIs. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing house and four outbuildings all of which must be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into separate ownership or prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served off the proposed Outlet A with no direct driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road North. All existing driveway access from Lot 1 shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. The westerly 33 feet of proposed Lot 1 shall be dedicated as Stubbs Bay Road North public road right-of-way. The City of Orono will require dedication of a 7 foot wide trail easement beyond the 33 foot east half right of way of Stubbs Bay Road North to accommodate a future trail as identified on the County Bicycle System Plan and the Orono Open Space and Trail Plan. The developer shall grant to the City standard Drainage ana Utility Easements along lot lines. Primary and alternate on-site septic sites have been identified for proposed Lots 1 and 2. Page 2 of 7 I, CITY of ORONOm\iAWtX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C> ■'___ a.The primary septic site for proposed Lot 1 shall be the most southerly septic location and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 8, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Lane Moore of Custom Stnictiires at 440 Stubbs Bay Road North per preliminary plat drawings by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka, Minnesota., dated January 8, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Both proposed Lots I and 2 shall be served off the proposed Outlet A with no direct driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road North. Access easements shall be provided over Outlet A for proposed Lots 1 and 2. 2. The private driveway in Outlet A shall be privately maintained per tlie appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the subdivider. The subdivider shall create a homeowners association for each ownership and maintenance. 3. Both proposed Lot 1 and 2 have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each lot. 4. For proposed Lot 1, the primary septic site shall be the most southerly site and the alternate site shall be the most northerly site as indicated on the plans dated January 19, 2004 due to the proximity to proposed Pond 1. a.All identified primary and alternate sew'age treatment system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off by the subdivider prior to any land alterations, and such fencing shall remain in place until such time that each lot is developed. b.Subdivider shall develop covenants for each Lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternate sites. Subdivider shall include language alerting future property owners of the need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Page 3 of 7 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 ^ ^ 6 5. The existing house, outbuildings, and driveway shall be removed prior to sale of Lots 1 and 2 into separate ownership or prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 1 or 2. 6. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee for proposed Lot 2, Block 1. 7. The subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee as established by City Ordinance. The subdivision is subject to dedication of standard Drainage & Utility Easements along lot lines. 8. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved a stormwater management plan for ^e property. 9. Lowest floor elevations for structures on proposed Lots I and 2 shall be 974.0’. 10. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year oftlie date of City Council approval, March 8, 2005. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. 11. Subdivider shall grant Flowage and Conservation Easements over tlie wetlands in Lots 1 and 2. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows; 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1” = 200’. Drawings to include; a Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by RLK Kuusisto Ltd of Minnetonka, Minnesota, dated January 19,2004. Page 4 of 7 SN g : : L Co^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL :5^B8BO NO.5 T- fi. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5’ along the internal lot lines. c. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over drainaof ways as noted in this Resolution. d. Designation of Outlot A to serve as a private roadway. e. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c. Signed and executed Developer ’s Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements, and construction of stonnwater and drainage facilities, etc as necessary. d. Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetlands in Lots 1 and 2. e. Drainage Easements to be taken over drainage way and detention areas witliin plat. f. Completed private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for pnmary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers available for review. 3. Fees to be paid:Total due: $17,648.00* Page 5 of 7 ii-tJi'afMiiii i: ] CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5 1 2,6NO. a. Final plat fee » $250.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivison and associated documents = $280.00 c. *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor’s report has been filed with City. d. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee = $ 17,118 [(4.0 acres @ $2,700/acre) + (2.34 acres @ 2,700/acre)] 4.A copy of all necessary permits approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held dxis 8*'’ day of March 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 6 of7 J m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. & ^ ^ - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8"’ day of March, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. KB«71B,ANOCR?OM •••Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this /J_ 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. aMM Notary Public U {, RACHEL DODGE > NOTARY PUBUC • ■ OTA . MyCotnmttjonEipcij j_, 1. Page? of? ; r Date Applicatton Received: 2-18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2-18-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 4-18-04 extended to 6-17-04 ^tPFTING APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF CRG.\0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: April 22,2004 Item No.: *7 Department Approval: Name: Janice GundlachJb Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-2993, Christine Valerius & Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - I, Retail Sales Business District (20,000 s.f. minimum) 0.24 acres (10.350 s.f.) 90 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation (Motion #2) B - PC Action Notice dated 4-21-04 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 4-14-04 and 3-11-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to conven the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakcry/restauront: 1 . Commercial Site Plan Review in order to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to the existing building and to convert it from a residential use to a commerc.al use. 2. Parking setback variance to allow a drive through lane and parkmg spaces to be located within the required 30’ rear yard and within the required 20’ front yard. 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24’ when 35’ is required a.nd 24’ feet cutrently exists. 4. Hardcovet variance to permit 56% hardcover in the 500’-1000’ zone when 35% is normally allowed. 5. Conditional use permit in order to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission discussed this application at their .March 15, 2004 and April 19, 2004 meetings. Much of the discussion centered around whether the applicant should be granted the variances needed to incorporate a drive-through facility for the proposed use. After review of several drive-through design plans the Commission ultimately approved the alternative site plan, which didn’t include a drive-through. The votes on the April 19* meeting were as follows: L,^ Motion 1: Denial of the plan which incorporates a drive-through facility as the site cannot support the requested drive-through, which creates the need for approval of unnecessary front yard parking setback and hardcover variances. VOTE:FOR AGAINST The 3 dissenting commissioners, Berg, Bremer, and Jurgens II, felt because the site could functionally work with a drive-through one should be permitted because the naffic concerns were minor and the intensely developed nature of the site is consistent with that of the Navarre neighborhood. Motion 2: Approval of the alternate plan consistent with the following staff recommendation: Approval of the plan without a drive-througli, which includes approval of a conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, with the stipulation that the 3-season porch be removed in an effort to reduce the non-conforming side street building setback requirement. Also, adding that the applicant has the option to incorporate the 3-season porch on the conforming side of the building where a deck is proposed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution, which approves Motion U2 and the alternative plan without a drive-through. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting commercial site plan approval including a rear yard parking setback variance, a north side setback variance, and a conditional use permit for 2377 Shadywood Road, or. Direct staff to draft a resolution approving the plan that includes a drive-throu^ for approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting. I I ir A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CLASS I RESTAURANTAND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH ASSOCIATED VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-642,78-646 (D) (E), & 78-644 WHEREAS, Christine Valerius and Philip Fisk, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 2377 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval with associated variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-642, 78-646 (D) (E), and 78-644 in order to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant including approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a Class I restaurant, a building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24’ when 35’ is required and 24’ feet currently exists in order to construct an addition to the existing building, and a parking setback variance to allow parking spaces to be loeated within the required 30’ rear yard. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-2993. The property is located m the B - 1 , Retail Sales Business District, which requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. The applicant’s property is approximately 10,350 square feet in area. Page 1 of 6 1 3. 4. The Plaiming Commission reviewed this application at a public hearings held on March 15, 2004 and April 19, 2004 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and commercial site plan review with associated variances based on the following findings: a. The existing building is non-conforming at a north side setback of 24 feet. The applicant’s proposed addition will not increase that non- conforming 24’ setback. b.The existing 3-scason porch, which is non-conforming at a setback of 15 ’ when 35 ’ is required on the north side setback, will be leniovcd or moved to a c<^nforming location in an effort to reduce non- confomiitics. c. On-site parking could not be provided without a rear yard parking setback variance due to the location of the existing building, the required building and parking setbacks, and the small area of the lot. d. In order to meet parking requirements for a Class 1 restaurant the applicant has the rights to use the City-owned parking facility in the rear of property. c. The applicant’s property was reduced in size when the Cit^ owned parking facility was constructed. f. The applicant’s proposal meets structural coverage and hardcover requirements. g. The exterior finishes proposed, consisting of white chilton stone and a tanish-browTi hardyboard plank siding, were acceptable for the u.se proposed. The City Council has considered this application including the findings imd recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval with associated variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 5.The City Council finds that Uie conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval with associated variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighbormg 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. CONCLLSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Rased upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval with associated variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-642, 78-646 (D) (E), and 78-644 in order to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakcry/rcstaurant including approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a Class 1 restaurant, a building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24 ’ when 35' is required and 24 ’ feet currently exists in order to construct an addition to the existing building, and a parking setback variance to allow parking spaces to he located within the required 30’ rear yard, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan and building designs submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which arc not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Hardcover in the 500’-1000’ zone shall not increase above 35%. Hardcover in the 500’-1000’ zone shall be limited to 3,623 s.f or 35% per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-282 and 78-1288 (B). Attached Exhibit A shows the approved hardcover allowance of 3,436 s.f for the 500’ 1000’ zone. The applicant is hereby advised that any increases of hardcover over 187 s.f will require variance approval and will not likely be approved witliout concurrent reductions in hardcover. 3.Applicant shall not install plastic or fabric liner material for decorative landscape beds on the property as they are not permeable and act as non-hardcover surfaces. Page 3 of 6 iLmLi r 4.Required removal of the 85 s.f shed and 118 s.f 3-season porch located in the north side yard, shall be completed by the footing inspection for either the proposed addition or deck, whichever occurs first. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a Ouilding permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (April 26,2005). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.The undersigned applicants have toad, 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 26'" day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor 4 Property Owncr(s) 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. Nolar)' Public Page 5 of 6 p e State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____________, husband of______________. day of ,2004 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of I lennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____________, wife of______________. day of .2004 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 .A-f iii* T i.*w • I •- %. L"4T'<r*'» j«r. .. MU«,.»- .». . • irtfy • ' Xj.’. . t\ ‘ • »•• Y Ml >•• I •V*. • *» - ••t» « «. ..M <■ mmm^ » CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE. OF LAVIGDON PARK ■HENNEPIN COUNTY, (950.6) O K) O) •••• ^ *. .... (957 qfi 3^ ~i=ao3j]T}(/)(/)'U13m^X n\ —• Ci Vfc.og(>,wQ)aoajss.§> Bo <d3 6® o 12. ’'- ^ - X — • 2< CDT3 T O “3 ^0 I2«> I O o )W(q «{|(q O o 2'Q.o'o)5fi ,2"ois‘^Io Q “''■oi^?TLo ‘e>9 ■Cojo'^l ■u'^oS^cNmv 0"^«k ^OOW»O q .WO tj''< o O fl> 9 -Tl 3 “ 9 _ t*> 3 M b. = o oo 00 y> Vt T* 7) g- I <t> u>9:n> 3 ..•••- 1 0° ^ ^ o ^WCSttRLY LWC or ICfOlCTN < g 5L miiJTY 5TAIf An HCMWAY S ^ CT. rC 3 OD 2?07 ifi 3 3 > 73 < COUNTY STAIC AO HCMVlfAY-5. ^ O HO. 19, PLAT SO O S. O < • WtST LWC or lOT S. moCK 3; ■••••.TOWSTE or LANCOON PAW At CmWCNTLV tTA.<CO t OCCUTCO W (6 9 fD (0 3 9 ~o 3 O O:t o 5 H > i * CITY OF ORONO 27S0 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING nLE: 04-2993 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21,2004 TO:Chris Valerius & Phil Fisk 5488 Tonkawood Road Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Associated Variances DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2004 PlanniDg Commission recommended as follows: Motion 1: Denial of the plan which incorporates a drive-through facility as the site cannot support the requested drive-through, which creates the need for approval of unnecessary front yard parking setback and hardcover variances. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Motion 2: Approval of the alternate plan consistent with the following staff recommendation: Approval of the plan without a drive-through, which includes approval of a conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, with the stipulation that the 3-scason porch be removed in an effort to reduce the non-confonning side street building setback requirement. Also, adding that the applicant has the option to incorporate a 3-season porch on the confomting site of the building where a deck is proposed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review amd approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. \ i H0A-199J April 13,2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Applicatioa Received: 2-18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2-18-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 4-1S-04 extended to 6-17-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City PlanneiL^^ Date:April 14,2004 Subject:04-2993, Christine Valerius & Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, - Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover & Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Extension Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 1, Retail Sales Business District 0.24 acres (10,350 s.f.) 90 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant: 1. Commercial Site Plan Review in order to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to the existing home and to convert it from a residential use to a commercial use. 2. Parking setback variance to allow a drive through lane and parking spaces to be located within the required 30’ rear yard and within the required 20’ front yard. 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24’ when 35 ’ is required and 24’ feet currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to permit 56% hzirdcovcr in the 500’-1000’ zone when 35% is normally allowed. 5. Conditional use permit in order to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant. Stoiff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application as the site cannot support the requested drive through which also c..ates the need for approval of an imnecessary front yard parking variance and hardcover variance. Staff would support approval of the alternate plan that doesn’t include a drive through stipulating that the 3- season porch be removed in an effort to reduce non-conformities. Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Site Plan and Asso'.iaied Hardcover CalculatioriS Alternate Site Plan and Associated Hardcover Calculations. Proposed Elevations • Aerial Photograph of Propeity Memo to Applicant Regarding Follow up Issues dated 3-26-04 Notice of Planning Commission A 'rion dated 3-17-04 i ^ » isi j 1111 i HI iiii ilil I ii I lill a I ( W4-2993 April 13,2004 Page 2 of 4 Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-642. Permit application. All applications for a building permit in any B-1 retail sales business district shall be reviewed by the council zmd may be referred to the planning commission for review. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Front yar^. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 15 feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet. (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit: (3) Restaxuant (class I), in which food is served to customers while seated at coimter or table, or cr'’..cria. 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. Background This application was originally heard before the Planning Commission at the March 15, 2004 meeting. The applicant presented three plans, all with drive-through facilities, one of which was passed out at the meeting. Staffs recommendation was for the applicant to work on a plan that doesn ’t incorporate a drive through, which is presented as Ae alternate plan in this report. The applicant still is pursuing a drive-through and has presented a plan that has been reviewed by an engineer per staffs recommendation (see Exhibit D). The details of both plans are discussed below. The applicant also met with Building Official Lyle Oman to discuss the issues of converting the residential use to commercial. No issues, other than the handicap ramp, were factors to be considered when approving the specifics of the site plan. The applicant also met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which is not requiring any on-site mitigation for storm water. Site Details of Drive-Through Plan NEGATIVES The same safety and functionality issues still exist with this plan, although at a lesser extent than the previous plans. The exit for the drive-through aisle remains very close to the intersection of Lyric and the City owned parking lot ’s drive aisle (15’). Under this plan the applicant is proposing 2 parking stalls, which are forced to back into traffic when leaving the site. I . il 1 I i T .1 I 1 1 1 i 1 . ! I i! M)4-2993 April 13.2004 Page 3 of 4 Because the drive-through aisle is brought around the front of the lot, an additional variance is required. A front yard parking setback variance is needed to al.ow the drive- through aisle to be within 10 ’ of the front property line. Under Zoning Ordinance regulations, a 20 ’ unobstructed front yard is normally required. Lastly, a hardcover variance is also required under this plan. Attached are the proposed hardcover calculations, amounting to nearly 56% when 35% is normally permitted in the 500 ’-1000 ’ zone. POSITIVES From the applicants’ standpoint, a functional drive-through facility can be utilized on the site. Staff is satisfied that the layout of the drive-through will work, as far as vehicle maneuvering, and that curb and gutter are proposed to control drainage on the site. The applicant has also proposed to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effo.t to gain some of the rear yard back from the City owned parking lot. HARDSHIPS The Planiting Commission should weigh the positives and the negatives of the plan and determine if hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested variances. It is staffs opinion that no hardships exist and that variances should not be granted on the basis of accommodating a drive-through facility. Drive-through facilities should be permitted only if the site can support them. Site Details of Non-Drive-Through Plan NEGATIVES From staffs perspective a negative of this plan is the 3 parking stalls that will be forced to back into traffic when leaving the site, however it is difficult to design it any other way. To meet parking requirements the applicant has rights to use the main City owned lot. Elevations showing proposed exterior finishes have also been provided. The applicant is proposing white chilton stone and hardy board plank siding. Hardy board plank siding is not spccifica'ly allowed under the B-1 standards, therefore the Plaruiing Commission should discuss if they want to permit it using their ability to permit exterior finishes which are not specifically noted in the Ordinance. Lastly, the applicant would like to keep the 3-season porch if a drive-through is not approved. Staff feels it would be best for the site if it is eliminated because it adds to the excessive non-conformity of the side street building setback when coupled with allowing the building addition. It should be noted however, that hardcover and structural coverage requirements can be met allowing the porch remain. POSITIVES Staff feels the overall site layout achieves the goals of a property zoned B-1. The proposal needs approval of a building setback variance to Lyric Avenue and a parking setback variance for the rear yard, which the Planning Commission at the March meeting agreed with in concept. The applicant has incorporated a walk-up vvindow and a sidewalk where patrons can park their vehicle and access the walk uj* window. The . > I > 1 » «1 t i I \ r ’ I ' f I * II ;l luli!!, F N04-2993 Ar>rill3,2004 Page 4 of4 applicant is also proposing to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effort to gain some of the yard back, which in staffs view is a good way to control what is happening on the site and gains more non-hardcover areas. HARDSHIPS This plan requires approval of a rear yard parking setback variance and a side street building setback variance. Staff feels there are valid hardships to approve these variances for the following reasons: • The applicant’s property was reduced when the City owned parking lot was constructed, whereby the drive aisle of the City owned lot makes it virtually impossible to construct parking stalls that do not back into traffic. • The existing building is non-conforming and the addition doesn’t increase that non conformity. The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel these are valid hardships to warrant variance approval. building Design Proposed elevations are included in the packet and color renderings will be available at the meeting. The applicant is proposing to brick the entire front of the facade with white chilton stone and extend the stone along the bottom on the two sides and rear. Two different patterns of hardy board plank siding are proposed for the rest of the facade finish. The color will be a tanish-brown to complimenl the white stone. The applicant has proposed a pitched roof on the addition to run opposite the roof line of the existing house. The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel this design is appropriate for a commercial building. Issues for Consideration 1. Can the site support a drive-through? 2. Should variances be granted merely to serve a drive-through? 3. Is the addition acceptable? Is the roof-line? 4. Are the exterior finishes acceptable? 5. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the on-site parking stalls exiting into traffic? 6. Arc there any other issues associated with this application? Staff Recommendation Denial of the proposal that includes a drive-through facility as no valid hardships were presented. Approval of the plan without a drive-through, which includes approval of a conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, with the stipulation that the 3-season porch be removed in an effort to reduce the non conforming side street building setback requirement. 111 I * • 4 r A.4 I ^ ■w d it, ¥ *1^14 lx i • ^ * CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS lot 5. BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF L^^DON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (OC1.4) c«oss cur , ‘t4 CONCRUE l6?^ (960J] (960fi) TPtV- TV I9M.5) .(MOJ) a \ Ixisting W*^HOUSER' |2377 (960 ...CflOSS aiT r\^ H COMCWTC ^ V f^i)Wt9Um.T IK Of CfXJMfY STATf a E) IICMWAY** NO. 19, PLAT 50 ..........................# I P*?-., i(*rsT iM. or lot 3. BLOW ^ ' .......... nr LA»ICOOM l-AljK J AS OJWtt-HILY 5IAKUI * OCO«0 V -11^ ^ «*• V 1»)U... ••< • CERTIFICATE. OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALER'IUS N LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LAWGDON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARK (950.6) O 04 •O <7) ................................. ............ ............^ .....................• • WtSTEfllY UC OF KHCPN COUHIY STAIE MD MOMWAT ** Na 19. PUT SO mCST lie OF uOT 5. BLOW J AS CUWEHUY srAKOI k 0CO«0 •> 'r 0VltPm6 SCT0A6KS r- • • 'V • - •* ».i.. 4^ V ' <4 »•>* CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \FOR CHRIS VALERIUS ■QWNSTE OF LAHGDONIN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNS c. ur u/w HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARK o CNs .••• r»w€sr Ltc or I or 5. block x * 'lOWNSITC Of LAMCOON PARK is WWttNTlY SFAKIO A OCCUPTD mwM semACKS / , r - • • • # #• 0 » ♦% C///f/X UMUttiS HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S' 75-250* 250-500' EXISTINC HAJIDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lengih X X X B. -€««se- C. Driveway C/ry <^y/f<r/<ug X X D. Sidvwalk ca./(o. /9 r/^fUJiJ\.K X X E. Palio/Oeck X X F. Ltndscope Underlain ByPlascic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ ♦ B PROPOSEn HATmeO VER IN ZONE A. House Length. 32. 3 B. Oarage C. Drivesvay AA£A D. Sidewalk f ro0t"S E. -PfHio/Deck VO ^3S X ZV F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAi Hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A______________♦ B Width xIOO - Width Zo • o SOO-fOOO’ 92V S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7ePrr S.F. ______S.F. /2/ SF. ______S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. /*9/€ SF /O. 3SQ S.F. 5- / % 9 07 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 27 So 9~J o S.F. S.F. 2 3 Z 9< S.F. S.F. 2f‘<p S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ xlOO - S‘7CV SF. /O. TSa S.F. SS-. % A B A B i .I. I I cTeAAy-*'^c V • •% '. • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY'.FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LAHGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOT; >% - •‘ (961.4) CHO^S CUT X . /w cONaTnCy^^ % *• ' t J w, •:•-•• »-*» O K) C7) j nfui ac — •■■••• «5T tWE Of lOT S. BlOa< A LT€KK/AT^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS ; IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LA^GDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA % .CRO$S CXJJ \ . V ‘ (901.4)^9 I* (858.6) ((108) T9603) <«T9., .......... iMoa) (999.^ :g® !>•* IJ377 ^ -w AV 7.** v« (»M^) (900 AV^’—.,..CT05S CUT y _N coNocrc \ \ H . [95a.l) WCSY{W.Y IfC or HDiCPN COUKTY STATt Al^ MSHWAY*-*^ NO. 19, PLAt SO Se BtfILOfMO STOCKS » uS^"pA^ At CUNKMILV tTAIOD » OCCUCumniLY STARD w • «»- •>« •» •#i . >• •%» >-• <v- »%••• •» r*. 4^ •• - te.. - ?c:*- sum-' !»-«>•- - S.'rrr # I *• 4 V. «s ^" ^ # CERTIFICATE Of SURVEY\fOR CHRIS VALERIUS o K>; 0)1 I V» .1 /• ‘ I .•..... Kb" ^NO. 19, PLAT SO ...••• wist Li€ Of U>IA *:®2J ^I ^’••-rewusnt of lamcoom pam . J AS CUWeNILY StAMU) * KOrtP '■•**----------- rAAKlliKi UrtH*i ""Jh t ■ / SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' y EXISIING HAHJtCOVER IN ZONE A. House HARDC^v/r C/^C^ti^ATffoN WORKSHEET */ /3^0*t / / Unglh X X X B. JT/Vf 5 X C. Drivfwiy C/ry tor X X D. Sidewalk Co.Afi. x __________________ X E. Potio/Deck X X p. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSKl) HAWnCOVER IN ZONE A. House Unglh 32. 3 X X X B’. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk (' X X 90 t ^ 3SO X X E. Patio/Dcck ^AMfi F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric X X X X X G* Other TOTAL hAllDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B « t 75-250’250-500' Width XlOO Width 20 . X 100 - ^O-IOOQ’3 92J/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5*5 S.F. '7S>e S.F. ___ S.F. /2- / S.F. ____ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A jg^ JSa S.F. B yp. sf % 9 S.F. ^96 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9^ ^ S F. ___ S.F. tPO SF. S.F. zrrs: SF. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. 1SS€ S.F. S.F. % 3SC A B 29. WC5T elevation r - • e- -%#*•- • -•/• .v.vjy. •• > ^ «•• • •• • .» >• -v^ .*.•..* - • ..• •.. £ •I iiSt • • •••• 41* • • • • i rtf»aM^«i\■ HiiSJtt: ©EIKST ELEVATION I Chris Valerius and Phil Fis East and West Elevation 5cairl/<-s I* (T Onwinhto OMr Apia 4. 70(H OrMMiBr |iff«nv Oav»H ThowTAnn ©^^^mTH ELcwroN XSODTII LIXVATION - Chfis Valerius and I’hil Fisk North and South Hevation Urjwini ►hi<iA»r. Oj* ApHt4.J0lH • . ' V., V ■ ■■ifl ^'«?rT«v •>• V.- -i Vs*^ '•n^ \ * ■i-.-;«iif’=*^ , ■ •. ..■.■:.:i‘ . •,. ■ • •• • • •>•*..'•*'* / v 'V':':..’l ♦■• / "• » '“• " ‘ * : r- J •• n . V. *v - • V * *• .. '■ i•**' ,. ■ • • •.*.•••• V.- > • %* «.»* •• •« • • •. ^r. ' •. ’ iV/•. v*-.^ •. ^« / •• .s \..f.: /.* ‘ .N.-.M •::*\ .f / : '• .>V ‘ . ; • .>>•* :: ..« • k •V tT i#lF ri" m ^*V ’; y- l5#i \V- .•:•• ' 'SX ^ •r.x-.. ' fc i’ Vr-^ vv» Buv . •. i te.« ’^iW k - CirVAc M *** ♦ ^ * r r •A W» .■-J'-'-VT' . ;• ••. '1-: •> ■• •#* |f#i rJl ^ 0^ ■f.. "»-.5 ^ /rf ^ fC 1 ''i r*A ■“'■J .« /•>* • r-w , , V- .*• • -. . »• . . , k 4 • - • • V • * ' » i ’ *• ” i. J > ^ •' - ■•>; '>•' ,1 • -...j .*::-Vi.v.-?.'’ '.<'A-;i‘'*-; <tj •., - ■ I 'A i . \ * -J. j ? ,V S’ • v" J ‘/■•i: 'i- r . tk fc.1. -iifcnrii EXHIBIT E Memorandum Date: To: From: RE: March 26.2004 Christine Valerius & Philip Fisk Janice Gundlach, City Planner^’ 2377 Shadywood Road ~ CUP and Commercial Site Plan Review This memo is intended to follow up on our meeting of V/ednesday, March 24*". Below is a bulleted list of the issues that need to be resolved prior to the April IQ'” Planning Commission meeting; • Meet with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if on-site stormwater treatment would be required. Staff would like to again stress our position that the site cannot support a drive-through facility. If you decide to continue with a drive-through plan have your surveyor and/or engineer confirm turning radiuses for the drive-through lane and its overall functionality. Any plan incorporating a drive-through will have to be confirmed by an engineer prior to the Planning Commission’s review of it. Also, be advised that your most current drive- through plan would require a hardcover variance and a front yard parking variance In addition to the variances already applied for. Submit more detailed plans by an architect for your proposed addition. A color rendering showing all existing and proposed building materials would be most helpful. Staff has also Indicated that some kind of pitched roof element should be included with the new plans. Examine the issue of extending the grassed rear yard in an effort to gain more of your rear yard back from the existing drive isle of the parking lot. This would help to somewhat improve the safety issues of car traffic at the rear of your site. Consider a paved 5' sidewalk against the rear of your proposed addition to allow pedestrians using the on-site parking spaces to more easily access the front door and to prevent the possibility of cars bumping into your building when entering the parking spaces. • Set up a meeting with Lyle, our Building Official to ensure there are no major site Issues involved with the conversion of residential st'ucture to commercial. Submit a revised survey which details all sidewalks, retaining walls, curbs, and which areas will be grassed and/or landscaped and which areas will be paved. I’d also like to reiterate that the Planning Commission at their March meeting indicated they would support the building setback variance, the CUP request for a coffec/bakery use, and a rear yard parking setback variance. Please submit all revisions by April 12"' at 12:00 NOON in order to be heard at the April IS”' meeting. Thanks and please call with questions. II a t / ‘i ‘ iB I I I ii 1 i ' ; • I ; ! i I I; .. j II ! 1 Sn' EXHIBIT F CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 04-2993 2750 Ketley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: March 17,2004 TO: Christine Valerius COPIES: 5488 Tonkawood Road Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit, Commcrci. I Site Plan Review, Duildii^&_P:^rkini^- - DATE OF MEETING; March 15,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table. The revised plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment and the applicant shall work with staff on the following issues to be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting: 1 . Proposed exterior wall finishes of the new addition, 2. Review by the Fire Marshall, 3. Turning radiuses on the lay out of the drive-through lane, 4. An alternative walk-up window as opposed to a drive-through, and 5. Estimated traffic covmts on Shadywood Road. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, April 19, 2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plarming Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. 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 February 18, 2004 ;md the 60-day review period would end on April 18, 2004. However, because your application was tabled by the Plarming Commission to the April 18*** 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 June 17, 2004. I i ; ^ '1'[ iUi.it i 1 i t 1 I I.I i i . 1; 11 n .! 11 .1 i.v» iiirtiiaiiitTii firiitflift'tiliidiilftiM «04 2993 March 15,2004 Page I ofS Date Application Received: 2>18-04 Date Applicutiun Considered as Complete; 2-18-04 60-Day Review Period F.xpircs: 4-18-04 lo:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, City Planner Diiic:March 11,2004 Subject:04-2993, Christine Valerius, 2377 Shadywood Road, - Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking & Building Setback Variances. Conditional Use Permit - Ptibhc I ieai ing /oiling nistrici: Lot Area: Lot VVitItli: B --1, Ret.iil Sales Business District 0 24 acres (10,350 s.f.) 90 Icet Applh ation Sumnuuy: Applicant requests the following in order to convert the existing resilience into a coffee shop/bakery/rcstaurant: 1. Commercial Site Plan Review in order to obtain a building pcimit to construct an addition to the existing home and to convert it from a residential use to a commercial use. 2. Parking setback variance to allow a drive tlirough lane and parking spaces to be located within the required 30’ yard 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24’ wlien 35* is required and 24’ feet currently exists. 4. C’oiidilional use permit in order to operate a coffee .shop/bakcry/restaurant Sfii// Rrcoinnieiulalion: Staff recommends denial of the application as the site cannot support the requested drive through which also creates the need for approval of an unnecess.iry parking variance. I'citincnt Zoning Ordinanre .Seetinns Sec 78-612. Peimit apphc.rtion. All applications fora building permit in any B-l retail *\lcs business district shall be reviewed by the council .uul may be referted to the planning commission for review. (Code 1984. § 10.40(2)) Sec. 78-64(). Area, height, lot width, setb.ick requirements and design requiremerds. (c) l-'nmlyanLs I he minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards ’Die minimum re;u yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R ilistrict shall be 15 feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet. F II *04-2993 March 15,2004 Page 2 of S (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street fiom an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit; (3) Restaurant (class I), in which food is served to customers 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. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Pre ApplicationA^ariance & General Land Use Application Exhibit B -• Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit D - Memo from the City to the Applicant dated 2-17-04 Exhibit E - Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Proposed Floor Plan Exhibit G - Proposed Elevations of Building Addition Exhibit H - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit I - Site Plan Illustrating Required Building Setbacks Exhibit J - Site Plan Illustrating Required Yards/Parking Setbacks Exhibit K - City Engineer Comments dated 3-9-04 Exhibit L - Applicant’s Alternative Plan Exhibit M - Applicant’s Parking Analysis Exhibit N - Photographs Exhibit O - Topography Map Exhibit P - Property Owner’s List Exhibit Q - Plat Map Background The applicant is proposing to convert the existing residence located at 2377 Shadywood Road to a coffee shop with bakery and restaurant type uses. The current residence is a non-conforming use as the property is zoned B - 1, Retail Sales District. The applicants proposed use, although conditional, is a conforming use of the B - 1 district. As noted in Exhibit C, the applicant is an experienced business owner that has operated coffee shops in the Cities of Long Lake and Mound. The applicant is proposing several improvements to allow her to conduct business at this site, the major ones being conversion of a residential home into a commercial business (requiring a building permit), a 20 ’ x 32 ’ (640 s.f.) addition to the existing structure (requiring a building permit), and a drive-through facility. The other improvements proposed arc landscaping, removal of the existing, non-conforming shed and screened porch, the addition of a grade level deck (requiring a building permit), construction of parking stalls and interior changes to accommodate a commercial business (requiring a #04-2993 March 15,2004 Page 3 Of 5 building permit). As noted, many of these improvements require a building permit which in turn requires a commercial site plan review. The purpose of a commercial site plan review is to allow the City to complete a comprehensive review of the site in an effort to bring it closer to conformance. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth B-1 Lot Area Lot Width Required 20,000 s.f. (0.46 acres)100’ Actual 10,350 s.f. (0.24 acres)90’ Building Setbacks - See Attached Exhibit 1 B-1 Required Existing Proposed Front (Shadywood RD)35’38’38’ NO CHANGE Rear (City-owned Parking Lot)35’55’35’ North Side (Lyric Ave)35’15’24 ’ South Side (B - 1 propoerty)15’29’27’ - Addition 17’-Deck Required Yards (Parking Setbacks) - Sec Attached Exhibit J B-1 Required Existing Proposed Front (Shadywood RD)20’ 105’ - city owned parking lot (allowed) 74 ’ - sidewalk Rear (City-owned Parking Lot)30’ 0’ - city owned parking lot (allowed) 0’ - parking stalls 9’ - drive-through lane North Side (Lyric Ave)10’-40 ’ - sidewalk (not shown on survey) 2’ - drive-through lane South Side (B - 1 propoerty)NONE -45’ - sidewalk (not shown on sur\ey) 7’ - drive-through lane Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10,350 s.f. (0.24 acres)Allowed: 1,553 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 1,453 s.f. (14%) W04-2993 March 15, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone 500- 1000 Total Area Zone 10,350 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 3,623 s.f. (35%) Existing Hardcover 1,916 s f* (18.5%) Proposed Hardcover 3,281 s.f (32%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The applicant proposing a building addition to follow the same setback on the north side of the lot (along Lyric Avenue) as the existing structure. The existing structure is non-conforming at this setback with a setback of 24 ’ when 35’ is required. lo extend this line of the building, a side street setback variance is required. The existing shed and screened porch, also within the required yards, will be removed bringing this side of the lot somewhat more towards conformance. Required Yard/Parking Setback Variance The applicant has proposed a drive tlvough and parking stalls in the rear of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires an unobstructed rear yard of 30 feet. I'his includes all pavement for parking, drive isles, and sidewalks. With the applicant’s proposal a rear and north side yard/parking variance is required to accomplish the drivc-tlirough and parking stalls shown on the submitted survey. Required Parking Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1516 requires 1 parking stall per 80 square feet of public floor area for restaurant uses. The applicant has submitted a preliminary floor plan which shows approximately 525 square feet of public floor area resulting in 7 required parking stalls. The applicant has provided 4 on-site stalls, and this site is also eligible to utilize the City owned parking lot in tlic rear. Therefore, staff is comfortable witli the number of spaces provided, but remains concerned with the location of them, which is discussed in the memo dated 3-9-04 by City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and attached as Exhibit K. Conditional IJ.se Permit Analysis The applicant is proposing a coffee shop with a bakery and restaurant. This is classified as a Class 1 restaurant under the B - I conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance Ihe Class 1 distinction doesn’t specifically address additional requirements but the proposed use must comply with the general conditional use permit standards dealing with the health, safety and general welfare of the community or neighborhood. It is staffs opinion that creating a drivc-thiough on this property poses significant safety issues for drivers using the City owned parking lot. The Planning Commission should discuss if additional conditions should be icquiied in conjunction with the restaurant use. Ihe applicant has preliminarily indicated to stafTthat is will be a deli style food service Hardship & Conclusions The applicant has completed a Hardship Documentation l-’orm, which is attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. ^04-2993 March IS. 2004 Page 5 of S Staff finds few hardships to warrant approval of the requesting building and parking setback variances. A drive-through is not an automatic allowed use, but rather a use that is allowed should the site be large enough and configured such that a drive-through could be accommodated under the official controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i e. within setbacks). Therefore, staff would not recommend approval of variances merely to accommodate a drive-through facility. Staff also finds that a variance should not be granted to allow parking stalls to be located up to the property line in the rear yard when 30’ setback should be required. The location of these stalls forces customers to either cross traffic entering the stalls or backing into traffic leaving the stalls. This is due to a drive aisle serving the City owned parking lot located in behind the applicant ’s property. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit K. He concludes that the site “does not lend itself to a drive through operation’’. Staff does find that sonic hardships may exist due to the restrictive building setbacks and that part of the applicant ’s property was taken to improve the City owned parking lot. which lessens the amount of buildable area on the lot. However, a building addition of the same size proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there may not be enough room to acconunodate parking. Staff w'ould recommend that the applicant explore a site plan that doesn’t include a drive-through and variance requests could be entertained at that point. Alternative Plan The applicant has included an alternative plan with a drive-through coming off of Lyric Avenue and existing at the rear of the lot onto the drive isle of the City owned parking lot. Staff feels that the same issues exist as far as conflicts, safety and setbacks are concerned as the proposed plan. Staff originally encouraged tlie applicant that if a drive- tlirough is a must, to keep it off of the Lyric Avenue side of the lot in an effort to eliminate intersection safety issues at Lyric Avenue and Shadywood Road. Unfortunately, neither plan achieves the safety or functionality standards the City should expect with a drive-through facility. Issues for Consideration 1. Can the property support a drive-through? 2. Does the Plamiing Commission feel there is a valid hardship to waiTant approval of the side setback variance to construct the requested addition? 3. Should the applicant consider the same use but without a drive-through? Could a safer parking stall arrangement be implemented? 4. Does the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be associated with approval of the proposed coffee shop/bakery/rcstaurant use? Or, is the use proposed reasonable but the site plan should be revised? 5. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Denial of the plan as proposed. The applicant should consider revising her site plan to not include a drive-tlirough, and revise the parking stall arrangem''nt so that customers arc not cc .flicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking lot. City of Orono Variance Application street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Application # 0 V" Z- Date Received; Main: S 52-249-4600 fax; 952-249-4616 Mailirtg Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Amount Paid: SfLof) * Staff : Fee; S600 Renewal: S3O0 Atter-the-fact: $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Appiicant will be noticed withm 15 days as to the status of the appiicstion. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address:dy.Aj}CiD(i }2.cL Property Identification Number (PIN): I 1 I “Tz, WOO Q___________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) ^ Date Property Acquired (month/year): '7- o <\ □ Yes, 1 own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential ^ □ 0*Jier ____________________________ Zoning District: _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na.~es and marital s/.atus required for each interested party) Name:CKri*i>’K<ve. VcLi-^/gL^*^S Phone (home): Unt- I T Phone (work); Address: ' /Ld _____________ Email: ____rv\g\*> ^ r rO Fax; 0^)11-^- •2^72--(-)“)■*- CcVv-i OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal na.Ties e.'d marital status required for each interested party) Name: ___________ Phone (home): Address: ___ Email; _ Phone (work); Fax; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ______________ h REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for vour application to be processed. ^ ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat mao List, 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 Certificate of Survev fsianed bv a lirpn^pH cll^v/pwn^^ / Caovernment Center, A-603 300 South 6^ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ^ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 1 r or 11" X17" for reproduction. ny o o x or ^ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11" yy or 11 X 17" for reproduction. k 7 a m ^ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" x 17"1 □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so the staff has no alternative^t^ reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request re^rdfess of ltsj)otential merit. nimena me request for Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature:Date: Date: ^ i<zl OWNER'S ACKNOWLECeEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. wiemoers for Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature:Date: Date: Mee ing. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month SSSrlo?r if'"»n’L‘’n,meetings of the Planning Lm^sslon aTd hfvli a ' applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to a^Tgn'Ji t^u"r and advise «te crPlanner #• '•/VT-i. f *.>ir •*'iv ' ■ 1 Application# r^Ct- ~S Date Received 2 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION. . / D / Site Address ______,^7/ S /6d. Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /~7 /1 ~7i^i QO^j APPLICANT Name C hri \la M Philip fn~<^k Phone fhome)t|f-77- 9 Phone(work) .^^7 , -! Address jf\ A City yV] Zip__s;53itdL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________ Phone (home). Address Phone (work) _City ______Zip. Date Prqoenty Acquired (month/year) I (do)(^6bjT9t)'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 ‘2^__$600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS X $600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees). ______$600.00 Vacation ' Uicfu^^ /7 _______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule* f ,7 s ,.. t j \ ' • * • .•** *"* •. ii m’ji'- • e I r ’Hardship documentation 2377 Shadywood Road I. ‘^Thc property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls” This property is zoned B-1 yet up until this point has always been a residential home. In order for it to be converted to a business use, changes need to be made to make it accessible and meet codes. 2. **The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner ” This is correct. When the city created the municipal parking lot they took part of the property that belonged to this homeowner. In doing that, the lot was made smaller. 3. **The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality ” Absolutely not. Our intention all along is to keep the integrity of the property. We love the look the old home will create for our new business. From the county road, the building will look like a quaint little home. From the rear, it will be easily accessible for customers and very inviting. 4. ^‘Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter ” This property has always been a home. This is the perfect opportunity to add another viable business to the city of Navarre. This property, in order to house a business, needs accessibility. S. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate acess to direct sunlight for solar systems ......N/A 6. **The board of Appeals and Adjustments or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located.”.....N/A I ^ ;Kjm^ Hardship statement: We feel that with our ideas and the city ’s support, we can make this business into a great place for families. We are already adjacent to a beautiful park. We sec this as a place that people can go that is “family friendly ”. We want to help beautify the community of Navarre. We need the variance because the existing structure is in the setback area. As a business, we need to have convenient parking. There needs to be access for handicap. The drive-up and close parking spaces are a great way to do this. At our current coffee shop, we have a drive up. (We are closing due to County Rd 15 realignment.) We have at least 10-15 customers that use the drive up everyday because they are physically challenged. In addition, parents with children in car seats, arc extremely grateful for the convenience. /• r ' *1 .• f L L n Urn - y ’I 4 #» U * * ' # Proposed improvements for: 2377 Shadywood Road Orono, MN This property is currently zoned B-1. Our plan is to open a coffee-shop/Bakery/restaurant with a drive-up window. We need a CUP to do this. 1. Remove all overgrown shrubs in tlie front of the property. Replace tliese with smaller bushes and some larger shade trees in tlie front center yard. 2. Add on a 20 X 32.3 addition to the rear of the stnicture. Tliis area will be the kitchen and entry to the restaurant. The existing living room will be the dining area with access to the outside deck. Ihe existing kitchen will be part of the new kitchen. 3. Remove the tlircc season porch and the shed from the north side of the structure. The current setback is 16.9 ’. By retiioving these two areas, we increase the setback to 26.7’. Wc will still need a variance since we understand the side yard setback is 35 ’. 4. Add on a 12 ’ X 24.9 ’ deck to the south side of the structure for outdoor dining in nice weather. 5. Enlarge existing rest room to conform to handicap access. 6. Add a drive up window to rear of building. 7. Currently there arc Uu’ec parallel paiking spaces in tlie rear. We would increase this to four spaces and they would face inward. We would also utilize the rear municipal parking lot adjacent to tlic property. Wc have already been assessed for this parking lot. 8. Add plantings and shrubs around the parking area and drivc-up area to separate them. 9. Plant flowers and slirubs around entire lot to increase the curb appeal. After running a coffee shop in Long l>ake for 6 years, (Lake Country Coffee), and one in Mound for 19 years, 1 can honestly say we have tlie experience to do this right. We are excited to bring a new business to Orono and know that many of our customers in Mound and Long I^e will follow us there. We need the drive-up to make this succe.ssful. 0 •• A .* •I c .') ^4/ < • J I hardcover limits which those zones are subject to are 0%, 25%. 30% and 35% respectively. Any of the above requirements which your plan cannot meet will be required to undergo the variance process. To receive a variance a hardship must be demonstrated. Personal and economic considerations are not valid hardships. There are no guarantees with the variance process. As already mentioned, a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit are required in order to add on to the building and to operate a restaurant. Please bear in mind that the conditional use permit process is required to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of the community are not affected. The variance process, commercial site plan review, and conditional use permit al! require Planning Commission and City Council approval. The Planning Commission meets the 3"* Monday of every month and the City Council meets the 2'^ and 4 “’ Mondays of every month. Page 2 of2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA oCM KiO) ••••.PROSS CUT •i GONCRCTC «■'*•*■* WESTCM.Y Lie OT ........ COUNTY STATE AO HOMWAY--’ Na 1». PLAT 40 J ....... WEST t*« or LOT 9. NLOCK X‘‘lament or AS cuMCNar stamo u occupco LEVeu ptAAJ PRXVE UP WXNOOM CONC«JETt. &TOOP AD91'^C>^^ 50iT K ELEVAT fONl I 1=1 !nt tzl fi:1d /t'l ’- \ n\ M r ■'# . E/15T ELEvATIO/sl tr' *■ - '; • .'15T' CHRIS VALLRJUe. ^'* •^«"-1-','E :nrtrr3r\ST LAC T AmD WtiCl' ^LLVA‘11 ON'S •• * I I I .^••• *!..• I I 1 I ai SI I I :l J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LANGDOM PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOT/^ 5CALE’ r»3o' 8^0° WEST LNC or lOT s, aocK Jt ^ONNSn Of LANCOON PAW<AS oumnnr staku * occupco f H dnt C shaoyvimd ') 5 36' WAR'5^' fun ffmf^iW anml K' ’' r' ft] ^.V'-rf'W>-a.f»><v^».V*>*#:»‘»ft-^WCP CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5. BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SCALE TsSO’(961.4) .CROSS cur . « CONCRCTt p« J (9S8 6) (9604] (96^ ;(960J) (957.9] .• • #2377 1^.9)' 'saw^(959.6) (960. 96W • •west lm: or tor 9. aocK x TOMNStU OF UNOXM PARK AS CURRtNItY STAKIO * OCOU (9M.I) WSTCRIY Lie OF HE76CPW COUNTY STATE AO HCHWAY NO. 19. PLAT 50 ..CROSS CUT M CONCRETE iREaOllEEP PAIL1HK& SEf&im 2P /MtER-'OIE SIDE TO REAIL- 30' b M parcel '• NOME m Bonestroo Rosene 1 Wa Wi Anderlik & Associates Bonctiroo. Rotene. Anderlik tna Astociktes. inc. Is «n Affirrr^iitiyt ActiQn/Cqu^I Opportunity employer And Employee Owned Rrincipeltr Olio G Bonettroo Pi • M<«rvin L So'v^M. PE. • Glrr>n R Cooii Pi • Pobeu G Schun>cM Pi • jfrry A Bourdon P£ • A M^mon. P£ Senior Contultnnft RoOen W Roiene PI • Joiepi' C Anderfifc. P| • Richjvd C Tur»>*r Pf • Sui.'tn M for'l«o CPA Engineers & Architects Aiiocote nrincipi*lf ke'fi* A. Cordon PE • RoOe^f R PIcIfer'e PE • R<cr»Prd Ur Eoiier P£ • Oaimci O LosKOti* PC • M fp^el T Rxulrr^nn PE • TiPO < Field PE • kcnnetn P Anderjon P| • M^rk R Ro'll PI • Dj*vid A Bcneirroo VB A • S'rt/'ey P W li.Amion PI lS • Agnei M Ring MBA • Ait^n R<r» Sc^»n^,dt P| • ThomAI W Peierion P| . J^i^ei R Meiiind P£ • Mi'ei B Jenjen P| • l Pniii.p G'r»»rei pi PC • Opn>ei J Edge^ion Pf • itn^ee'Mjirtinoi P£ • Thorrjtt A Syffco PC • Si^eidon j Jonnion • OAif A G/Ove P| • Tnorr^i A RovJ»r’;‘r P| • f7o!)eif j Oevrry PE Officei ‘ St PPui. Sf Cloud RocPcjier .vid WiUmAf MW • Milwaukee Wi • Cn.c.kgo u. M^otlie wDonekUOO corvi March 9. 2004 Ms. Janice Gandlach Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 2377 Shady^'ood Road File No. 139*04-000 Plat No. 04-2993 Dear Janice; We have reviewed the plans (piimaty and alternate) for the proposed improvements to 2377 Shadywood Road. The proposed improvements include converting an existing residential home into a rcstaurant/coffec shop use. The alternate plan shows a drive through along the Lyric Avenue side while the primary plan shows a drive through along the municipal parking lot side. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The site docs not lend itself to a drive through operation. The property is located at the intersection of C.R. 19 and L>tic Avenue. The drive through shown on the alternate plan is too close to the intersection to function safely without causing driver conflicts with vehicles on Lyric Avenue. • The drive through entrance off the municipal parking lot shown on the primary plan is located too close to Lyric Avenue. Vehicles entering the municipal lot will need to turn immediately in front of traffic exiting the parking lot cau.sing problems both in the lot and on Lyric Avenue. In addition, the proposed sidewalk location from the proposed building will cause vchiclc.'pedestnan conflicts as pedestrians cross the drive through lane. • Drainage calculations should be provided identifying pre and post improvement flows. Post improvement flows off site shall not exceed existing conditions. • When final plans are complete we will prepare an estimated cost for site improvements. Pnor to work slatting on site the applicant will need to provide a financial guarantee for 150% of the estimated site improvement cost. The financial guarantee should be in the form of cash or a letter of credit and will be retained until all site improvements are complete and accepted by the c:ty. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN SSifi • 6SI-636-46Q0 • Fax: 651*636*1311 r ALTERNATE PLAN CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRIS VALERIUS LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK • HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA CROSS CUT . /In CONCRtlEy^ (8586) • ••• ........... (*W.9) ... O' ...... 61?? <'• t WCSTtRlV l»C Of «lt€PH COUNTY STATE AO MtCMWAY—' NO. 19, PLAT 50 8CST itc Of LOT a. aOCK 1 -Tcnweiie or lahumn park AS cuRRom.r stakeo * ocoupco 9- r Alternative plan; On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Ff bmary 23,24 & 25*, I did a .arvey to see what kind of traflBc actually uses Lyric avenue during the morning hours. Our current coffee shop does the most business between the hours of 6am and 9 am. Any hours after that are usually stragglers.. .no lines of customers. I had the surveyor do an alternate plan to show another way of doing the drive-up at our new cofSee shop. This is what my research found; From the hours of 6-9am there was an average of only 19 cars that came in through Lyric avenue or 6 cars an hour. From the hours of 6-9am there was an average of only 32 cars that exited through Lyric avenue or about 10 cars per hour. Of those. 22 were simply leaving the neighborhood. I was tr^ng to drtermine if possibly a drive thru that entered off of Lyric and exited into the parking lot might work better. Actually, if you look at the alternate survey, it would allow us more greenspace and look better aesthetically. Another thing I learned was that the majority of the parking lot users that are all-day users, park in the far no^west wmer. With the exception of the workers at the gas station that use the parking lot directly behind the narrows, (4 spaces) and three other park-n-riders that actually get picked up, everyone else parks in areas not normally used by retail customers. r / SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) existin g H ardcover in zone A. Home /lcr€i^A-re C//A/S t//C€Atuj . Z-ZS^o*f HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHE^ET 250-500- Length X X X B. ■giiigi C. Driveway C/TY AjmitJA^C lOT X X D. Sidewalk CC.Ad /9 X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZOfJV. A. House Length 32. 3 X X B. Oarage X X C. Driveway TrA/.£J ‘ /Z D. Sidewalk X X X X £. PctM/Deck ZY 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 Width xlOO Width >og-iooo’, 92 Y S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 95 S.F. 7ee s.F. ______s.F. JZf SF _______S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /9/g S.F. /0.3S0 S.F. JS. St % Bo 7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. So S.F. B 98 S F. S.F. S.F. ZBB SF s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. J^S9 sj. A B XlOO ^ A0.3SC SF ----------% A B rt^-VJ ‘^0 . » ■.. M. ■' ■ ■ M l< fc »>• -’ -v; date-but by d'vinct In from Lyric m ) In from Narrows In from DVIncIs ww In from nborbood out to neighborh out by narrows Ipark-business |parK-n-ride [out to lyric 4+1 1 I Ihf Wf UK -M++f-fH 4+fr /+f+ 1+^/" nil A [school drop off /f /)\ 4^>i>i>MWiifciRiiiiFt>aii nA dale- In from Lyric in from Narrows In from DVincIs In from nbortiood out by (fvinci out to nelQ hbofh hH+ >' out by narrows /I irk-business m- m I 44tT4fft' I >arK-n-ride 44fl' out lo lyric hv\r i+it Wt M- 4W- , TnT Htt- 37 school drop off 1? \r I I Hi % m •ijtktfikji ____ f -4-VH- I r-l~4 wvi Z U19MUIM«JS i!«m<USM(! /lEVJ OK AJ ’PLKANIS PROPEiar from CH V- OWNED PAP-V^i;'iCi U>f :> (2,^ PAAi^-<^ " PG>PMu ' J-V+Vis^^ » A/AT/VkJ< *<. VIEW Of AOAAC^KTT PJU)PE0V to 1HE soi^H- zcioep E>-l li" MS- ( ; -i ' ... \ • V '^ : RUN DATE: 1/21/2004 38 1711723430023 PROPADDR 3414 UVINOSTON AVK OWNER NAME CARL E BORO 111 AC 0 UORQ T/U(PAVER O'W. 8 BORO III A CAREN BORO N/U48/AODK 3414 LIVINGSTON AVI: WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723430064 PROPADDR 3443 UVINOSTONAVE OWNER NAME DH.NN1S 1. IIEGER T/OCPAYBR DENNIS LIIEOER NAME/ADDR 3443 LIVINGSTON AVB WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723430078 PROPADDR 3422 LYRICAVE OWNER NAME DANIEL E SWANSON DANIH. E SWANSON NAMUADDR 3422 lyric AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723430081 HROPADOR 3408 LYRIC AVE OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED I AND TAXPAYER CnVOFORONO N/5MIVADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 38 1711723430084 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS IJNASSIGNEO OWNER N/5ME IIENNE.I’IN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CHYOFORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 I7II723430099 PROP ADOR 3400 SHOREUNi: DR OWNER NAME DAI41S30KNS0N T/LXPAYER CTJOHNSONAB A JOHNSON NAME/ADDR I6II0 9TH AVI.N PIYMOIIIHMN 55447 HENNEPIN COUNTY SYSTEM 38 1711723430062 PROPADDR 3433 LIVINGSTON AVI: OWNER NAME PAUL THATCHER TAXPAYER PAULRTIIA3CHER NAME/ADDR 3433 UVINOSTON AVE WAYZATAMN 55191 38 I7II723430076 PROP ADDR 3444 LYRIC AVE OWNER NA.ME F L&S EMITTELSl AI.DT TAXPAYER MRA4RS FRANK LMHTI LSTAEDT NAME/ADDR 3444 LYRIC AVE WAYZATAMN 553',M 38 17117234300/9 PROPADDR 3408 LYRIC AVE OWNER NAME lll-.NNI.PIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/ADDR P 0130X66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 1711723430082 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESSUNASSIGNFD OWNER NAME lOWNOF OHONO TAXPAYER CHYOIORONO NAMI/ADDR I’D BOX 66 CRVS1ALUAYMN 55323 38 I7U 723430085 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEDEDLAND TAXPAYER Cl lY OF ORONO N/5ME/ADDR P O BOX 66 CRYSTAI-BAVMN 55323 38 17117234)0142 PROP ADOR 3440 SHORELINE DK OWNER N/LME RICHARD W HI iXlMQUIST TAJCPAYER RICTURDWBljOOMgUlsr NAME/ADDR 3331SHORFUNE DR CO BOX 121 NAVARRE MN 55192 PROPADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR II 1711723430063 3435 I IVINCiSION AVE D V A 1: N BRUCE DI-NNIS V A EVELYN N BRUCE 3435 UVINOSTON AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1711721430077 PROPADDR 34)8 LYRIC AVE OWNER NAME LG M MUDIOW TAXPAYER I- MARIE HUD lOW NAMI/ADDH 3438oYRlCAV WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723430080 PROPADDR '408 LYRK:AVE OWNER NAM3; HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CHY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR P 0130X66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 171172341008) PROP ADOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIUNF.D OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORET 13 I D I AND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAMF7ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 1711723430098 PROPADDR 3416 SMORI.UNEDR OWNER NAME (iERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP TAXPAYl R GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP NAME/ADDR C/O COURT MACFARLANC 1107 HAZariNE BLVD *SJ3 CHASKAMN 55318 38 I7II723430I54 PROPADDR 340$ LIVINGSTONAV OWNER NAME SHERYL A BEIL A DAV. J HELL TAXPAYER DAVID A SHERYL 111 NAME/ADDR 540$ UVINOSTON AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 PAGE: I f, 1-' M VJ -‘•A✓V/ t-. ./• ;• $ V -A ^ j' 'A*: 'f ‘ . r* •** \ 4 •* .' i ' V • / e-j ’ : f/ ■ '1[j V. - 1 .-■> RUHO/OE-. mmCM 38 nU721440005 PROP ADDR 38 ADORhSS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME 70WNOFORONO TAXPAYER CfTYOPORONO NAME/ADDR PO CRYSTALUAYMN 55323 31 I7II723440008 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNI D OWNER NAME HENNEPtN FORI Ell hO l>NI) TAXPAYER CmrOFORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 31 1711723440060 PROP ADDR 3324 NAVARRE LA OWNERNAME AMY DEAR* CURTIS SMITH TAXPAYER CURTIS ROBERT SMTOI NAME/AODR 3)24 NAVARRE lA WAY/A1AMN 55)91 31 1711723440065 PROP ADDR 2328 OLIVE AVE OWNER NAME J T JACOBSON A L D JACOBSON TAXPAYER JTJACODSONALDJAamsON NAME/ADDR 2J28 olive AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723440074 PROP ADDR 2324 SHADYWOOl) Rl) OWNIJINAI40 MARTIN TSARENPA TAXPAYER MARTIN TSARENPA NAME/ADDR 1101 ElMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 53364 » 171172)440077 PROP ADDR 3326 NAVARRE IA OWNER NAMR PAULAORK COMPANY TAJtPAYER PAUL AORE COMPANY NAME/ADDR C/O JOHN B PFAEI son LAKE AVI: WHi:.. BEAR LAKE MN 55110 HENNEPrN CX)UNTY PROPERTY INFORMAl ION SYS I I.M proi *i;rt Y OWNERS Lisr 38 1711723440006 PROP ADDR 2 380 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME PAULAGRECOMPANY TAXPAYI'.R PAUL AGRF. COMPANY NAMI7ADDR C/0 JOHN B PFAIT 5011 lAKf. AVH WHITF. BEAK lAKE MN 5MI0 38 1711723440009 PROP ADDR 2377 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMF. MARCELS DHTRICH TAXPAYER MARCEL DITTRICH NAME/ADDR 433 5THSTW 8201 WAtXJNIAMN 55387 38 1711723440063 PROP ADDR 2344 OLIVE AVE OWNER NAME VALERIE T CUYKENDAIX TAXPAYLR VALERIE TCOYKENDALl. NAME/ADDR 2344 OLIVE AVE WAY2ATAMN 55391 38 1711723440066 PROP ADDR 2311 OLIVE AVE OWNERNAME PATRICKWSULUVAN TAXPAYER PAIRICKW SULUVAN NAMPyADDR 231IOUVL AVF, WAYZATAMN 53)91 38 171172)440075 PROP ADDR 2336 SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME J A B ERICSON TAXPAYER JOHN C* BARBARA E ERICSON NAME/ADDR l62f>SHADYWOt)DRD WAYZATAMN 53)91 38 1711723440078 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEU OWNERNAME PAUL AGRF. COMPANY TA3CPAYER PAUL AGRE COMPANY NAME/ADDR CA) lOIIN B PFAFF 5011 I7UCEAVE WHIIE BEAR LAKE MN SSI 10 31 17117234-J007 PROP ADDR 2364 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME PAUL AGRE COMPANY TAXPAYER PAUL AGRE COMPANY NAMIVADOR CTO JOHN B PFAFF 5011 I>KFAVF Will IT. BEAR I.AXI-MN 5SII0 3* 1711723440015 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/ADDR P 01)0X66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 31 1711723440064 PKOPAUUR 2338 OLIVE AVE OWNERNAME PAULMACKINNEY TAXPAYER PAUL 3 MACKINNh Y NAMUADDR 2338 OLIVE AVE WAYZATAMN 55)91 38 171172344007) PROP ADDR 7314 SHADYWCXJDRD OWNERNAME SRAKMORKRIO TAXPAYER S7 FY EN R 8k KAREN MOKKRID NAME/ADDR 2314 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 171172)440076 PROP ADDR 2)36 SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME JOHNC* BARBARA E ERJCSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON NAME/ADDR 1620 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 171172)440079 PROP ADDR 2)41 SHADYWOOD KD OWNERNAME LOUISE A GANGEIDOFF TA3CPAYER IXJUISfi A GANGF.UIOFF NAME/ADDR 2341 SHADYW(X)D RD WAYZATAMN 55391 PAGE< 2 1 RUHDATE: I/21/20M 31 1711723440080 PROTADOR 31 ADORUSS UNASSIONEO OWNER NAME TOWNOFORONO TAXTAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL HAY MN 5S3J3 38 1711723440094 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONEI) OWNER NAME LAFAYETIP. RJIXJH HOMEOWNERS taxpayer UFAYETFE RlDuB HOMEOWNERS NAME/AODR POBOX4I MINNETONKA UEACH MN 55361 38 I7ll77’i40l0t PROP ADDR 3360 SiiOREUNE DR OWNER NAME LEROY DAVID KOEHNI-N TAXPAYER LEROY KOEIINEN NAMli/ADDR 3360 SHORELINE DR POBOX8 NAVARRI MN 55392 38 2011723110024 PROP ADDR 3333 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME MOT COMPANY TAXPAYER SUPER VALU STORES INC NAME/AODR CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLSMN 53440 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION .SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: 3 38 1711723440084 PROP ADDR 3350 OLIVE AYE OWNF.RNAME GARY L WILL TA3(PAYER GARY WILL NAME/ADDR 2350 olive aye WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723440099 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME CITYOFORONO TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/ADDR PO “ CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 1711723440102 PROP ADDR 2385 SHADYWOODRIJ OWNER NAME S H SCHMIDT AS J SCHMIDT TAXPAYER STEPHEN H SCHMIDT NAME/ADDR 2986 HIGHLAND BLVD MOUND MN 55364 38 2011723120034 PROP ADDR 3423 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME R M KEAVENY FAMILY LTD PTNRP TAXPAYER RICHARDMKEAVENY NAME/ADDR REV UVINO TRUST I340SIIWYNOS VOUNO AMERICA MN 55397 38 I7II723440085 PROP ADDR 3340 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME VOYAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC TAXPAYER VOYAOEUR SERVICE CENn;RS INC NAME/ADDR POBOX65 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 I7II72344OI0O PROP ADDR 3387 SHOREIJNE OR OWNER NAME DONALD F MCCARVILLE ET AL DONALD MCCARVILLE NAME/ADDR 6449 WARNER RD MOUND MN 55364 38 I7M 723440I06 PROP ADDR 2)08 SIIAOYWOOORI3 OWNER NAME PHYlllS HENDERSON TAXPAYER PHYIXIS HENDERSON NAME/ADDR PO BOX 817 WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE PACIS REPRESENI'ED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION A'! IT APPP^RSTIOS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMEKf, TOTH^EST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. Hennepin •T/ ' t:* * .* ,«••■• v-.v.y':,-’• - ,>* V ' Hennepin County ■ Taxpayer Services Department * . / I €Parcel Information r l«4Bl ID 1711723440009 .• '* * *- - , - . t louse Number 2377 ‘V* 1 ^r^)iame 8NADYWOODi;^|- This*Is not a fegally rathrd^ map. It rapraaanta a compilation and data from Oty, County, and State road authorities and other aourcea! ^>' iiritMeinililii Date Application Received: 12-17-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-17-03 60-Dny Review Period Expires: 2-15-04 extended to 4-15-04 extended to 6-14-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MPFTING APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF GRO.'O Date: April 22.2004 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: //04-2977, Michael Keaveny. 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Pemiit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Variances Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 1, Retail Sales Business District (20,000 s.f. minimum) 1.58 acres (68,897 s.f.) 529 Feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B Minutes from 4-19-04 Planning Commiss’on Meeting C ~ PC Action Notice dated 4-21-04 D - PC Memo and Exhibits of 4-16-04 Application Summary: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use pennit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan re\ icw in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78 642 any application for a commercial building pcmiit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant ha.s requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review m order to obtain a building pemnt to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a Class II restaurant (with liquor). 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what runcntly c.xists. 4) Stniclural co\erage variance *o allow 16% slmctural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a vanance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage up 20% or more in tlic past. 5) Sign variance to allow tlie existing sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance to remain in its existing non-conforming location. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, with a unanimous 7-0 vote, recommended denial of the application, in its entirety due to the Class II restaurant request. The Planning Commission felt a review of the commercial site plan and associated variances would be invalid at this time due to the affects the proposed use would have on the site. Should the applicant choose to submit application for a Class I restaurant, the commercial site plan and variances review would occur at that time. Staff Recommendation Uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Staff would also recommend that the applicant be given guidance on whether a Class I restaurant would be appropriate due to the proximity of the site to the residential neighborhood. The applicant should be advised that a Planning Commission review for a Class I restaurant, commercial site plan review and associated variances would still be required. Effects of Denial on Future Applications Zoning Code Section 78*125 states that “No application for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of the order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission.” The denial effectively ends the current application #04-2977. If applicant chooses to make a new application for a use without a Class II restaurant, but requesting some of the same site plan variances, the Planning Commission could waive the 6-month delay. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution denying the request for a CUP approval for a Class II restaurant, commercial site plan review and associated variances. r 1 EXHIBIT A A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-644 (4), 78-642, 78-282, "8-1288 (B), 78-1403, AND 78-1467 (3) FILE #04-2977 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal coiporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 ct. scq. and 462 ct. scq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Michael Keaveny on behalf of Richard M Keaveny Rev. Tru.st (hereinafter “the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter “the City”) and legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2. Block 2, KEAVENY ADDIIION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hcmiepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter “the property”); and \MIER£AS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use pennit, commercial site plan review and associated variances in order to operate a Class II restaurant and to construct a new entrance foyer expanding the current building footprint, requesting the following approvals; 1. 2. Section 78-644 (4): CUP to operate a Class II restaurant (w'ith liquor). Section 78-642: Commercial site plan approval for a building permit to allow construction of a new entrance foyer, expanding the current building footprint, and interior remodeling to construct a restaurant. 3.Section 78-282 and 78-1288 (B): Variance to permit 90% hardcover within 1000 ’ of Lake Minnetonka when 25% hardcover is permitted in the Page 1 of 4 r 75’-250 ’ zone, 30% in the 250 ’-500 ’ zone and 35% in the 500 ’-l000 ’ zone. 4. Section 78-1403; Variance to pennit 16% Lot Coverage by Structures when 15% is normally permitted. 5. Section 78-1467 (3): Variance to permit an existing sign to be located 2 ’ outside the properly boundary. 6. Section 78-1516: Variance to parking stall requirement where City Ordinance would teclinically require 147 stalls and only 104 stalls are proposed. 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, Miimesota hereby denies the requested conditional use permit, commercial site plan review and associated variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is in close proximity to the residential neighborhood to the south. The entrance and parking area for the proposed use directly abuts the adjacent residential neighborhood. 2. The potential for increased levels of noise, traffic, activity, public disturbances, litter, damage to property, and calls to police that can accompany a site which serves liquor, have a high potential to be disruptive to the immediately adjacent residential neighborhood. 3. The City Council on March 22, 2004 denied a liquor license for the proposed Class II restaurant. 4. The granting of the requested variances would be contrary to the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-123 with which the ^plicant must first comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: Page 2 of 4 a. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls if the proposed variances were not granted. b. The plight of the landowner was created by the landowner, in that the need for parking variances is directly related to the proposed use of the site. c. Granting of commercial site plan approval and associated variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient reasonable hardships or practical difficulties acceptable to the City Council. d. The conditions of the Zoning Code limits imposed and existing on this property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which this property is located. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit, commercial site plan review and associated variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 26 “’ day of April. 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this II"' day of August, 2003, 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 4 of 4 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. #3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW) CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC FEARING (7:15- 8:00 p.m.) Mike Keaveny, applicant, representing Richard M. Keaveny, was present. Gundlach reported the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Pcmiit to operate a Class II restaurant (with liquor) and a number of variances in conjunction with the required Commercial Site Plan review. This application was brouglit to the Planning Commission at its January, 2004 meeting whore it was tabled so the applicant could work with staff on a number of issues related to the site plan, including parking, loading areas, signage, lighting, the amount of green space required along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, and also, general landscaping. A hardcover variance is also one component that is somewhat inevitable due to the non-confonning conditions. Since January, 2004 the application has been on hold pending a public hearing for a liquor license. iTie liquor license was denied on March 22, 2004 by the City Council due to a number of issues, including the liquor license applicant and the pio.ximity to the adjacent residential n .'ghborhood. She advised that the restaurant operator has indicated that a new partner of his w ill be applying for a liquor license and that is the reason for the continuation of the proposal at the Planning Commission. As stated at the January, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Gundlach reiterated the Planning ' -.Commission’s role in reviewing this site as it pertains to alcohol is not whether alcohol is appropriate •C ’ Page 2 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. or not (as this is a City Council matter) but rather what particular issues are appropriate and how the site if affected if liquor is served or not. She referred to the January 20,2004 Planning Commission minutes and March 22, 2004 City Council Minutes were attached to the staff report for reference. Gundlach stated staff s opinion is that the City Council will not approve a liquor license for a restaurant regardless who applies for it due to proximity to a residential neighborhood to the south. Gundlach recommended denial of the CUP request and associated commercial site plan with variances primarily based on two factors: 1) City Council will not approve a liquor license for a restaurant on the site as it is too clo.se to a residential neighborhood, 2) operation of a Class II restaurant on the site may not be able to handle the additional levels of noise, traffic and activity. However, she stated it was vitally important to discuss what uses will be appropriate for this site taking into consideration the exiting lay-out and adjacent residential neighborhood. Several variance approvals are inevitable because of the existing non-conforming conditions She referred to the B-1 , Retail Sales Business District standards attached to the staff report that will aid in the discussion. Gundlach noted the existing townhouse development to the south was an allowed use due to the location and its proximity to the business district. In conclusion, Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss the items highlighted on the staff report as well as the Issues for Consideration section. Also, she notes the neighborhood comments received by the City were in the Planning Commission agenda packet and represented in Page 3 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. the March 22,2004 City Council meeting minutes. She suggested comments pertain to the use of the property. The Chair asked if Mr. Keaveny wished to add any comments for the record. Mr. Keaveny stated that Gundlach had been very helpful in getting through all the various aspects of the application. His one remaining major question related to what can be allowed as a use for the building, noting that his lower level renter has been vacant since June, 2003 representing a large lack of income for their family. Kaeveny explained he did not have a desire to have alcohol on the site but a restaurant tenant chose to request it. He repeated his interest in finding out w hat he can actually put in the building to make it a viable place. Chair Mabusth clarified that Mr. Keaveny w as interested in knowing if a Type II restaurant can be added to the existing bowling alley use. She asked the applicant to describe what type of license is held by the bowling alley eurrently. Mr. Keaveny responded the license held for over 55 years by the bowling alley is for 3.2 beer and set ups. He explained the prospective tenant, Mr. Ode, wanted a full liquor license in order to control the amount of alcohol consumed there. Mr. Keaveny added that Mr. Ode may still be interested in a beer/wine license. He repeated his question if a restaurant is a viable thing to put with the bowling alley. ' Chair Mabusth asked the comments from the public on the Keaveny application. Page 4 of 1 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.rn. Mr. Thomas H. Goodman, with the firm of Segal, Brough, Bruckner, Duffy and Foster, representing Charles Nadler, Austin Evans and a number of neighbors, some who were in attendance. He stated he reviewed the application, spoke briefly with staff and the city attorney and looked at Orono’s Zoning Code. In addition to the issues presented by City staff, Mr. Goodman stated that he had other issues to for consideration. Mr. Goodman proceeded to outline his points, beginning with the point that the application assumes a liquor license that has been denied by the City Council. He commented that the application should be denied because, as applied for, it can not be granted. Secondly, Mr. Goodman pointed out the bowling alley is a non-conforming use and is not permitted in the B-1 District. According to the January 20,2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes, he reviewed a statement by Mr. Ode representing the operation to have a common entrance and to have the restaurant function with the bowling alley. Mr. Goodman expressed that this situation is the opposite of what the City intends with its Zoning Code, meaning that the City has legislated against more bowling alleys. To enable the bowling alley to be more viable or more profitable is not wha the intent of conditional uses and, Mr. Goodman continued, this is the opposite of what should be done with conditional uses. Further, he stated that conditional uses should actually ‘die ’ so that a conforming use will replace it. He emphasized his belief that bowling alleys are illegal in the context of the Orono Zoning Code. Thirdly, Mr. Goodman explained the proposal for an integrated use with a common entrance, as a modernization of the bowling alley is illegal as it is an expansion of a non-conforming use, which is Page S of 11 t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. In conclusion, Mr. Goodman emphasized it was not the Planning Commission’s job to sec how to make the proposal work as the B-l District calls out what uses arc pcmiittcd and not to expand non conforming uses as per the law. Mr. Goodman repealed his recommendation to deny the application if it can not be granted and asked if there were any questions for him. Chair Mabusth replied there were none and asked for other public comments at this time. Sylvia Bertagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, advised that she had a petition that neighbors had signed opposing the application. She reported she walked from the bowling alley parking lot to her garage comer and. measuring it by steps, found it only 50 fl. in distance which she considered to be very clo.se. Also, she commented that she recently heard that Rick’s grocery store may become a Lund ’s, and if so, what would the reaction be to an expanded bowling alley/restaurant use across tlie street. Ms. Bertagnoli relayed her speculation about the improvements really being a bowling alley. Also, she noted that her property taxes arc rising which she accepted but not if her property is next door to a bar. Lastly, she expressed her concern tor children ’s street safety with traffic increases, especially with most of the traffic using the Kelly Avenue drivewav. Richard Edwards, 2480 Carman St., relayed that he sees the bowling p'lcy from his house’s back door. In tlic past he reported having trouble with the bowling alley. Mr. Edw.irds stated that bands playing at the Narrow's till late at night requires them to keep thc'i window's closed due to the loud Page ■/ of 11 »_j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. noise. Further, he mentioned that motorcyclists patrons also create noise for the neighborhood. He expressed his concern that more neighborhood noise will be created if the application is approved. Cliristine Hardten, 2515 Kelly Avenue, expressed her concern for the adaitional traffic associated with the application in addition to what is associated with the Narrows, at a hazardous turn onto Kelly Avenue, and the continuing trash problem witli cans and bottles. She did not think parking is a hardship. She explained that delivery trucks are a current noise issue, especially from tl’e near-by townhomes, as well as the band and choppers noise, all which would worsen with an expanded bowling alley/restaurant business. Ms. Hardten repeated her viewpoint that more traffic and trash is not what their neighborhood wants. Chair Mabusth referenced the staff report and directed the Planning Commission’s attention to the Issues for Consideration. Chair Mabusth reported that she attended the March 22,2004 City Council meeting as the Planning Commission representative and advised that the City Council had a iist of reasons and negative impacts on the neighborhood when denying the liquor license for Mr. Ode . She reiterated that it is the Plamiing Commission responsibility to consider a Class II restaurant to be added to the existing favility. Chair M.abiisth asked Mr. Keaveny if he understood the Council’s action. Mr. Keaveny repeated his earlier statements saying he had no problem without the restaurant liquor license. Berg inquired if Mr. Keaveny would keep the bowling alley there and did he understand that there likely would not be a Class II restaurant. la <4 MINin'fiS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Mr. Keaveny replied tlie bowling alley would stay there. Berg expressed her viewpoint that a Class II restaurant would not be approved for there and that there were other uses there, and look a lot different, too. She mentioned there could be less gravel and black-top and improved landscape on the site. If there is going to be bowling alley there, Berg stated she wants to have the upper area fixed up as welt including the landscaping. She recommended that if Mr. Keaveny undertakes improvements, she would expect a ‘soHer’ look to the site with improved landscaping. Mr. Keaveny replied that green spaces, a new retaining wall, striping of the parking lot and building upgrades had been pail of the proposal with Mr. Ode. Berg repeated her position to oppose a liquor license and restaurant but did not oppose continuation of the bowling alley use. Bremer asked Berg if she thought that same about a 3.2 beer license. Berg did not answer as it is not the role of the Planning Commission to decide. Mr. Keaveny asked Berg if she thought a restaurant without a liquor license was a good use. Berg replied that she did not think of a bowling alley with a destination restaurant but rather had a snack bar instead. Mr. Keavny indicated he has received expressed interest in the last nine months for league bowling. Page 9 of 11 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN'NING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Berg restated her opposition is not to the bowling alley but with the other use intensification and other issues with greenspace, parking, upkeep and site appearance. Mr. Keavny commented his whole intent was to get the whole site fixed up acknowledging that it has been a while since it was well-cared for. In the past year he has attempted to get busy with improvements. Chair Mabusth inquired if any other Planning Commission members had any comments. Bremer asked if the Planning Commission should review the parking and hardcover issues, Chair Mabusth commented that hardcover remains the same at 90% as the application proposed paving over existing gravel, which is still consider hardcover. ' ructure is being added with the new entry way, going up from 15% to 16%. She noted the application does not quite meet the parking code requirements so a variance is needed. Chair Mabusth acknow'ledged that going over any of these issues applies only if this is a application that will be approved. She concluded that w ithout the liquor license there is no point in going over the specific planning issues. Mr. Keavny acknowledged he received a list from staff listing the conforming uses applicable to his site and has heard so many comments from the neighbors and would like to hear their suggestions. .. IL Page 10 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Chair Mabusth continued that Mr. Keavny does have friendly neighbors who would be happy to work him to have the bowling alley come back but definitely oppose the liquor license. Mr. Keavny stated he understood they have major issues with other license establislunents but that this should not necessarily be tlirown into his issue, and that there should be a way to deal with the Narrows. Having heard from her neighbors, Berg indicated the major issue is that Nuvaire does not need another restaurant with liquor. Mr. Keavny stated he has heard this, too. Berg concluded that she also would like an upgrade of the building itself and a tenant that is less traffic intense, with no Class II restaurant. Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to deny Application #04-2977, Michael Kaevny on behalf of Richard M. Keavny Rev. Trust, 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit and associated Commercial Site Plan Review with Variances for hardcover, structural coverage and signs for a restaurant with liquor (Class II) based on the negative impact of the operation opening up onto adjacent residential properties, the additional traffic and activity concerns, that it is an issue of public health, safety and welfare, and includes the staffs findings of fact. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Page 11 of 11 Wr m;:S EXHIBIT C CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 ZONING FILE: 04-2977 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: April 21 ,2004 TO; Michael J. Keaveny COPIES: Paul Ode 13425 Highway 5 5040 Enchanted Rd Young America, MN 55397 Mound. MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Class II Restaurant. Commercial Site Plan Review w7 Associated Variances DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: To deny the request, in its entirety, to operate a Class II restaurant due to the potential for increased levels of noise, traffic and parking. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. EXHIBIT D File M4-2977 April 16, 2004 Page 1 of 8 Date Application Received: 12-17<03 Date Appiication Considered as Compietc: 12*17-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 2-1S-04 extended to 4-15-04 extended to 6-14-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Janice Gundlach, City Plarmei;^ April 16,2004 Subject:04-2977, Michael Keavcny, 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review with Variances - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Continuation Zoning District: Lot Area: Frontage: B-1, Retail Sales Business District 1.58 acres (68,897 s.f.) 529 feet Application Summary: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application Tor a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the buildini; and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a Class II restaurant (with liquor). 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past * 5) Sign variance to allow the existing sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance to main in its existing non-conforming location.* ♦Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Site Plan Including Parking Layout Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice dated 1-22-04 Exhibit C - Staff Report from January PC Meeting dated 1-16-04 Exhibit D - Minutes from 1/20/04 Planning Commission Meeting mat File #04-2977 April 16, 2004 Page 2 of 8 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I - Exhibit J - - Council Memo dated 3-16-04 RE: Request for Liquor License - Council Minutes from 3-22-04 Meeting RE: Liquor License - Memo to Applicants RE: Staff Concerns dated 4-12-04 - 60-Day Extension Letters B - 1, General Business District Standards Public Hearing Notice to Neighbor’s within 350 ’ Background This application was originally heard at the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting several neighbors voiced concerns regarding the application and their written comments can be found in the Staff Report attached as Exhibit C. Many of the concerns related to the proposed liquor license which was applied for by the proposed restaurant owner, Paul Ode. The continued review of this application should be conducted with the understanding that a liquor license will be applied for in conjunction with the uses, however the City Council ultimately determines whether a liquor license will be granted through a separate public hearing. An initial request by Mr. Paul Ode for a liquor license was denied by the City Council on March 22,2004 (see attached minutes. Exhibit F). Currently, Paul Ode has inalcatcd that a new partner will apply for a liquor license, which will require another public hearing by the City Council. The City Council’s previous denial was based on false information provided on the application by Mr. Paul Ode. The denial was also based on the site’s proximity to a residential neighborhood and liquor having a greater potential for more noise, public disturbances, litter, damage to property and calls to police. The Planning Commission, at the January 20'*’ meeting, moved that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff to draft plans finalizing a number of issues. The application did not go back to the Planning Commission, until now, because of the uncertainty that centered on approval of the liquor license. Although stciff is fairly certain that the Council will not approve a 'iquor license, the applicants wish to continue review of their project. Below is a lis» f items the Planning Commission requested further review of at the January 20'*’ meeting: • revised parking plan incorporating a 10 ’ green space yard along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, • analysis of the current parking demands and the required parking of the entire site, • revised plans depicting areas of loading, • specific signage proposed, • current and proposed lighting locations, and • a landscape plan This report will focus on the issues above and specifically the effects of a restaurant with liquor and without liquor. The Plaining Commission should review the issues and give the applicant guidance on what the Planning Commission and ultimately tlie Council might see as appropriate uses for this site. File m-2911 April 16. 2004 Pige3 of 8 Parking Plan The applicant has submitted a revised parking plan which incorporates 10’ green yards along Shoreline Drive (in front of the gravel parking lot) and Kelly Avenue. The revised parking la> out of the upper gravel lot contains 32 stalls. From staffs perspective the plan is functional and is configured to yield the most spaces. In consideration of the parking analysis which is discussed later in this report, staff would recommend that the 10’ green space proposed along Shoreline Drive in front of the gravel parking lot be extended ftirther west. This would result in green space in between the two site accesses off Shoreline Drive of approximately 140’ in length and 10’ in width in addition to tlie 110 ’ foot long green space shown on the revised parking layout. Implementation of both these green spaces would yield approximately 3,000 square feet (4% of the entire site) of ncn- hardcover areas which are currently hardcover. The total number of parking stalls provided on this plan is 104 (97 if the 7 parallel parking spaces are converted to green space). This parking plan is drawn to scale and all spaces and drive aisles conform to City standards. All spaces are 90 degree, 9’ x 20’ f.paces with the exception of six, 45 degree spaces. The parking analysis section of this report will focus on parking demand and how many stalls should be required. The Planning Commission should discuss the new proposed parking layout and determine the amount of green space that should be required. The applicant should also be questioned on his willingness to create the 10 ’ green yard along Shoreline Drive west of the existing gravel lot (where the 7 parallel parking stalls currently are proposed). Parking Analysis Staff, along with the applicant, reviewed the site to determine the current and proposed uses and the amount of parking those uses demand, ‘i i.j City then determined how many spaces would be required in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and also the emount of spaces required in accordance with two separate published parking studies. The reason the City reviewed these parking studies was to determine how the City’s requirements compare to what may be considered adequate parking and because the parking studies gave more detailed parking ratios. Tlie following is list of the uses and their square footages, and the amount of parking required: USES Retail: Champion Auto - 6,912 s.f. Post Office - 200 s.f. Liquor Store - 1,368 s.f. Bowling Alley - 10 lanes at 5,225 s.f. Proposed Restaurant - 1,890 s.f. Lounge (known as The Crib) - 535 s.f. aaMMittil File M4-2977 April 16.2004 Page 4 of 8 PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING ORDINANCE Retail: 1/150 s.f. * 56 spaces Restaurant: 1/80 s.f. = 24 spaces Lounge: 1/80 s.f. = 7 spaces Bowling Alley: 6 spaces/land = 60 spaces TOTAL = 147 required spaces 1992 STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE PARKING CONSULTANTS COUNCIL Retail: Auto Parts Store (Champion): 2.5/1000 s.f = 17 Post Office: 3.3/1000 s.f - 1 Liquor Store: 4/1000 s.f = 5 Restaurant (family w/liquor): 12/1000 s.f *= 23 Lounge (bar): 20/1000 s.f = 11 Bowling Alley: .33/persons in permitted capacity ® 43 TOTAL - 100 required spaces 1991 STUDY COND UCTED BY THE A MERIC AN PLANNING ASSOCIA TION Retail: Auto Parts Store (Champion); 3.3/1000 s.f = 23 Liquor Store: 1/400 s.f “ 3 6.5/1000 s.f = 9 3 + 1/300 s.f = 8 Post Office. 1/500 s.f = 1 4/lOOOs.f = 1 Lounge (bar); 10/1000 s.f = 5 1/50 s.f = 11 Bowling Alley: 2/alley = 20 3/alley = 30 4/alley = 40 5/alley "50 6/alley = 60 Average = 40 Restaurant: 1/150 s.f = 13 1/100 s.f = 19 14/1,000 s.f = 26 2/100 s.f = 38 1/every 4 seats = 12 4 + 1/every 3 seats = 20 TOTAL = 100 required spaces Average = 7 Average = 1 Average = 8 Average = 21 After conducting this study staff discovered that the parking required by Section 78-1516 of the Zomng Ordinance is much more than the parking required by the two studies. The studies indicate that 100 stalls may be adequate to serve all the existing and proposed uses on site. However, coupled with a restaurant that serves liquor and a bowling alley that serves liquor there is a chance that with liquor comes increased activity beyond the Cities control, which could mean a greater demand for more parking, however this carmot be quantified. « ^ File #04-2977 April 16.2004 Page 5 of 8 The Planning Commission should discuss how many stalls are required and if the information gathered from the parking studies is sufficient to grant a parking variance. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether a restaurant with liquor has the potential to create a greater parking demand, thus making it more difficult to justify a parking variance. Loading Areas The applicant has depicted areas for loading on the revised site plan, attached as Exhibit A. The loading area for tlte upper retail uses is shov.-n on the eastern side of the building. The applicant has stated tha^ senri-truck trailers do not frequent the site and the area depicted on the plan will support the size trucks that deliver to the upper retail uses. The loading area for the uses occupying the lower section of the building would be at the western end accessed from the lower parking lot. This area of the building is currently used as a storage facility rind will support the deliveries that are anticipated for the restaurant. The applicant has also «?tcted tliat semi-trucks will not be delivering to uses occupying the lower part of tlie building and that there is adequate maneuveiing room. Finally, the applicant has stated tliat deliveries will be conducted during off-peak times so as not to create parking problems. The applicant would also agree to specific delivery times in an effort to not disturb the residential properties to the south. Planning Department staff would recommend that, in conjunction with a site plan approval and conditional use permit for approval for the restaurant, delivery times be limited beyond what the noise ordinance states (weekdays 7am-10pm, weekends 8am- 8pm). The Planning Commission should discuss the loading plan and determine what is reasonable. Signage The applicant has proposed to keep all the existing signage which consists of wall signs for the retail uses and the sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. The applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue and one above the stairway access from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot. An illustration showing the proposed signs is in the attached Staff Report from the Januar> meeting. The signs proposed meet all requirements established ’.inder Section 78-1468 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applic‘>nt will be required to obtain a sign permit for the new sign proposed at the corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The sign must be located 10’ from all property boundaries and not within the sight triangle. The applicant is also proposing to keep the existing sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. This sign is located approximately 2' outside the property boundary. Planning Department staff would recommend that this sign be moved out of the right-of-way and re-located 10’ from the property boundary to comply with Section 78-1468. However, File <#04-2977 April 16, 2004 Page 6 of8 due to the existing retaining wall system this may not be possible. Planning Commission should discuss a variance approval to allow the sign to remain in its current location or recommend that it be moved to a location that complies with Section 78-1468. Lighting The applicant has proposed to keep the existing Pvo lights located in the parking lot in the rear of the building. The applicant has proposed new Mghting consisting of the following; • downward facing lights under the canopy proposed at the rear of the building so as to illuminate the sidewalk only, and • downward facing lights at the top of the proposed stairway access from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot in an effort to illuminate the stairway. The applicant will be required to obtain an electrical permit from the state for installation of rew lighting. City staff will require, at the time of building permit, fixture diagrams be submitted to ensure that the lighting is downward facing. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed lighting and determine if it is appropriate. Landscape Plan The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. He has indicated his willingness to implement landscaping into the required green spaces and has indicated to staff that planters will be installed along Shoreline Drive. The Planning Commission should discuss if they would like to see a specific landscaping plan showing plant types and locations or if the conversion tc grass is sufficient Variances Required That applicant is requesting approval of several variances in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. The information regarding the hardcover and structural coverage variances can be found in the January Staff Report in addition to the information provided in this report. The Planning Commission should discuss approval of these variances and specifically address the effects of them in relation to a restaurant serving liquor. Coaditional Use P/ermit The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a Class 11 restaurant. A Class II restaurant is a conditional use. As part of the conditional use File M4-2977 April 16, 2004 Page 7 of 8 permit review a coimnercial site plan review is conducted in an effort to review the entire site plan and determine what, and if any, negative impacts may result in approval of that use. This becomes a key issue with this application because a Class II, or a restaurant with liquor, is proposed. The Planning Commission should review this site plan with the understanding of the increased le'. -Is of noise, activity and traffic that come with a liquor use. Staff has met wiJx the applicants to discuss these issues. The applicants have indicated that a restaurant, coupled with the bowling alley is the best possibility for success in the lower portion of the building. Thr ee options for these uses in the lower portion of the building are; 1. A restaurant with liquor and a bowling alley with liquor. 2. A restaurant without liquor and a bowling alley with liquor. 3. A restaurant without liquor and a bowling alley without liquor. TliS applicants are proposing option number one. Planning Department staff feels that because of the potential negative impacts of liquor and the oroximity to the residential neighborhood, options 2 and 3 would be most viable. Staft would support option 2 only if there was no connection of the re.«taurant and bowling alley. Staff feels this issue is non-negotiable due to the City’s inac'lity to regulate liquor between the uses. If the applicants insist that the connection is important for the success of both uses, then liquor would have to be eliminated completely. Staff has met with the applicants regarding tliese issues, "’ll jf which were indicated in a memo attached as Exhibit G. The Planning Conmission should determine whether a restaurant is appropriate for the iite considering parking, access, green \s. hardcover, impacts on adjacent properties etc. If the Planning Commission believes the site is appropriate for a restaurant, then the effects of liquor vs. no liquor should be weighed as they relate to the CUP and overall site plan approval. If the Planning Commission determines a restaurant is not appropriate then the Commission may want to consider what uses may be appropriate given the existing site layout (the B-1 standards are attached as Exhibit I). 2. Issues for Consideration 1. Should the applicant be required to ext'*nd the green yard along Shoreline Drive and eliminate the 7 parallel stalls? Do the benefits of the greer pace outweigh the need for those 7 stalls? Are 104 (97 without the parallel spaces) parking stalls adequate for a restaurant with liquor? Without liquor? Although no new hardcover is proposed (the gravel parking lot is considered hardcover already), docs the paving of the gravel lot have a negative impact on the area? Should the applicant be required to not let it develop? Is the Planning Commission okay with added structure over existing hardcover? This requires a structural coverage variance to go &om 13% to 4. m File W)4-2977 April 16.2004 Page 8 of8 l6»/o7 5. 6. 7. 8. Should the non-conforming sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance receive a variance to stay in that location? Do the retaining wails and large right-of- way create hardships to allow it to remain? Is a restaurant with liquor appropriate? Or, does it have the potential for too many negative impacts to the su' ounding neighborhood? Would the Planning Commission approve a CUP for a restaurant without liquor? Are there any other issues with this application‘s Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends denial of the request for a CUP and associated commercial site plan review with variances for a restaurant with liquor (Class II). Staff would recommend that the applicant entertain a restaurant use without liquor (Class I) and that the Planning Commission discuss what would be appropriate under that use. s\rt EXJlIItIT A «r».T “tbNcl’Jtf, ui3'.. fOTEfiTIAiL 10 (OMVtiCr <^ CONC. CURB ^HCeM \ /-■■■ ,iij............ MO. lf)H tOTAL PAp.K.|lJ«l 61AU,"J PfcOv/iPED ROAD ________ ’^gccwy LEVEL parking liddiUit i»AUC 1-STORY STONE NO. 3420 'm,i .APP.H#'MAfE T? LOt^H>N Ofk»«*9fc»j3 51^,4 3 o A —■ ItH. -vrr LL5 QueiT^ . - 0G6----- ^^^o-,er •U.2, -----06^----- -----9W- - \ s has '\. fJtvO PtTMNlM€| VJAcLU ---i'^?y> 1° ~2 ■ ,''' AHKk 0 0» ^-VnoVIRTT UNR ^ 3U5TlM^ irt- iMPDltWlfX^ Sl&A 4 •44/1 • ••.T EXHIBIT B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 04-2977 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 22.2004 TO; Michael K. Keaveny 13425 Highway 5 Young America, MN 55397 COPIES:Paul Ode 5040 Enchanted Road Mound, MN 55364 TYPE APPy CATIjON:_ i^oitditipna|_Use Pcrnrit &_Commerc_ial_Site_P^^ Review DATE OF MEETING: January 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Mabusth, seconded by Commissioner Ralm to table the application. Tlie applicant was instructed to work with staff to complete a parking analysis of the entire site to determine the amount of parking needed to accommodate the entire building. The plan should locate upper and lower parking lot loading areas, specific signage and lighting locations, and establishment of a 10’ green space yard along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The applicant shall also work with staff to develop a landscape plan dealing with tlie retaining wall area separating the upper and lower parking lot areas and the staircase. The applicant shall also determine how the restaurant will be vented. VOTE;FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for; Planning Commission - Tuesday, February 17, 2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you detire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. 1 File «04-2977 Jnnuary 20. 2004 Page 1 of 11 ICp Date Application Received: 12>17*03 Date Application Considered as Coini'lftr; 12-17-03 60-Day Review Period Expires; 2-15-04 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach. City Plamieij!^ Date:January 16,2004 Subject:04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review - Conditional Use Pemtit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Frontage: B-1, Retail Sales Business District 1.58 acres (68,897 s.f.) 529 feet Application Summary: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building pennit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with tliis application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for Structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.* ♦Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review. List of Exhibit.s Exhibit A - Application Exhibit F Applicant ’s Narrative Exhibit C - Existing & Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Description of Signage and Lighting Proposal Exhibit E - Existing Signage on Building Exhibit F - Proposed New Signage i..'' t' JL File m-19rj January 20,2004 Page 2 of 11 Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exliibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P ■ Exhibit Q Exhibit R - South Side Elevation Showing Proposed Entryways and Awnings ■ Floor Plan of Proposed Eastern Entry way Floor Plan of Proposed Western Entryway Floor Plan of Proposed Restaurant - Proposed New Stairway System - Hardcover Analysis - Parking Plan - Aerial Photograph with Topography - Photograplis - Bus Re-Location Plan - Property Owners List - Plat Map Background The applicant’s intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staff in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time tliat restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation. Planning Department staff met with the building owner, Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee. Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed improvements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating tlie required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant. The property is located at 3425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET B-1 Required Existing Proposed Front (street)35 ’57.5’57.5’ Rear (R-District)35 ’80 ’76’ East Side (street)35 ’123’123’ Right Side (B District)15’0’0’ . 1 File «04-2977 January 20,2004 Page 3 of 11 Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 68,897 s.f (1.58 acres)Allowed; 10,335 s.f (15%) Proposed: 11,032 s.f (16%) Hardcover Calculations Staff did not require tliat the applicant submit the haidcover calculations in zones. Rather, the applicant had a hardcover analysis completed of the entire property as the building is approxiniately 1,0C0 ’ from Lake Minnetonka, although the soutlrwest corner of the property is approximately 200 ’ from the lagoon that extends north of the main water body. Staff concluded tliat an analysis of the entire propcily was appropriate as the majority of conunercial properties do not meet the hardcover requirements, whether figured in zones or not. Hardcover on the property consists of the following (see attached Exhibit L for more detailed infonnation): Total Area of Property Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 68,897 s.f 24,114 s.f (35% assuming entire property is in the 500- 100 ’ zone) 62,106 s.f* (90%) 62,106 s.f (90%) NO CHANGES PROPOSED Hardcover Analysis Because the applicant is proposing site improvements associated with the commercial site plan review a hardcover analysis is required. As stated above, the hardcover was figured for the entire site rather than zones due to the commercial nature of the property and tlte amount of hardcover that currently exists. The proposal doesn ’t include any new hardcover. The major changes that should be noted are the entryways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along the southern boundary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between tire retaining walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot (see Exhibit 04). The proposed hardcover breakdown is as follows (see attached Exhibit L): BUILDING 11,032 s.f LOWER LEVEL GARAGE 2,671 s.f BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA 33,376 s.f CONCRETE WALLS 2,811 s.f GRAVEL PARKING AREA 11.391 s.f RETAINING WALLS 825 s.f TOTAL 90% HARDSHIP The nature of this particular property is retail establishments at the front of the building r File 0O4-2977 January 20, 2004 Page 4 of 11 and entertainment oriented businesses (Isfavarre Lanes/Tlie Crib/Troposed Restaurant) at the rear of the building. The grade changes betv,’een the rear and front of the building are quite drastic and cause the need for retaining walls. Parking also needs to be accommodated at the front and rear further lessening potential areas for green space, all of which are hardships which have caused the existing 90% ’ -dcover percentage. The existing gravel parking area in the northeast comer of the site is the site of an old gas station and has been the subject of past actions by tlie Pollution Control Agency in order to clean tlie site. Tltose actions have since been ciosed and there are no current environmental issues associated with the gravel area. Tliis brings the potential for added green space. The applicant has proposed a parking plan for the lot, however, no islands liave been incorporated into the layout and it doesn’t meet the required setbacks. The Planning Conunission should discuss with the applicant his willingness to pave, stripe, increase the green space, and/or curb and gutter this proposed parking lot. The grassed area along tire southern border should remain grassed and the area between tlie two retaining walls could be better maintained and further vegetated witli shrubs. Staff doesn’t see any other opportunities for further hardcover removals witliout having severe parking impacts. Structural Coverage Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15% maximum structural coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites stmctural coverage is two entryways and an awning as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern entryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50 ’ x 12 ’) and tlie western entryway is proposed at 36 square feet (6 ’ x 6 ’). The proposed awning will extend along the soutli elevation of tlie building to cover the current sidewalk. The stnictural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be includec in tlie building square footage when they are 2’ or less in widtli. The awnings proposed are 4 ’ in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square feet of structural coverage (2’ of awning x 97.5’). This is a total of 928.5 square feet (1% of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16% where the existing percentage is 15%. HARDSHIP It isn’t out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20% or 30% for commercial properties. For example, the Service 800 building on Highway 12 had a structural coverage variance to allow 26.1% The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow for any exceptions for commercial properties however, commercial properties are not seen as critical as residential properties with relation to the 15% maximum. The reasonableness of commercial properties having to meet this requirement, the impacts of the proposed entrances, and &e benefits and/or disadvantages of the entrances should be discussed in Filf M4-2977 January 20,2004 Page S of 11 determining whether a variance should be considered for this proposal. Parking A. Location. Section 78-1511 "Setbacks for Parking” and Section 78-646 "Area, heiglit, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements” limit locations for parking. The following table outlines required, existing and proposed parking on the site: Yard Front (Shoreline Drive) Side (Kelly Avenue) Side (B-l Property) Rear (Residential Property)_______ Required Parking Setback 20 ’ 10’ 0’ 10’ Proposed Gravel Lot 0’ 5’ 190’ Existing Lower Lot 150’ 85’ 3’ Existing Front Lot 0’ 123’ 0 ’ (shared) 80’10’167’ The applicant’s property has street frontages on the north and east sides, abuts another B- 1 zoned property to the west, and abuts a residential neighoorhood to the south. The table above shows tliat some of the required setbacks arc not met. either with existing parking or proposed parking. The front parking lot provides parking for the retail businesses which occupy the front of the bulling. Currently, a shared parking arrangement with tlie businesses to the west is happening in this front lot. It should be noted that this proposal will not place any cars closer to the residentiaily zoned properties. The Plarming Commission should consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet tlie required setbacks of 20 ’ to Shoreline Drive and 10’ to Kelly Avenue. The 20 ’ required front yard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for NavaiTC. The number of parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. B. Required Number of Par king Stalls Restaurant Use:1,890 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f = 24 spaces Bowling Alley Use:10 lanes @ 6 spaces/lane » 60 spaces Lounge (w/in bowling alley);535 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. «7 spaces Total Required Parking = 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces = 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76,9’ x 20 ’ spaces) As proposed, the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking required by Section 78- 1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that vdth the existing need for parking and the proposed restaurant use, these 84 spaces will be adequate if not excessive. 1 File #>04-2977 January 20,2004 Page 6 of 11 These numbers do not take into account the 15 parking stalls tliat exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building. The upper level businesses are primarily retail uses. As.suming a net floor area of about 8,000 s.f. for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall per 150 s.f is about 53 stalls, as compared to the 30 that exist. Because the businesses that occupy the front of the building have prime-time day business hours, a shared parking an-angement would provide adequate overflow parking, should it ever be needed. However, during times when all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday afternoons), parking could be short by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. As discussed earlier in this section the gravel paiking area doesn’t meet the required setbacks and if the required setbacks are enforced the number of stalls will be reduced. If a 20 ’ setback to Shoreline Drive and a 10 ’ setback to Kelly Avenue are enforced, approximately 11 spaces could be lost. The Planning Conunission should discuss with tlie applicant the amount of parking that is currently available and whether it is adequate and also how he expects tins to change with the proposed restaurant use. Lot Surfacing Section 78-1515 (B) states tliat “all of the area intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways for four or more vehicles shall be surfaced with material to control dust and drainage." The applicant isn’t proposing to pave the upper gravel lot at this time. Due to its necessity in providing parking for the restaurant, and the need to control the number of stalls, staff would recommend that the lot be paved and striped if this commercial site plan is approved. Surface Water Management Plan The applicant has not provided a full drainage plan but has provided drainage arrows, contours, and elevations for the gravel parking area. Tltere is a wide right-of-way along Kelly Avenue which takes a lot of drainage from the gravel parking area as well as at least lialf of the lower parking lot. Tlie western half of the parking lot drains southwest towards a wetland and eventually into the lagoon area of Lake Minnetonka. No hazardous wastes threaten the integrity of the runoff, other than the normal heavy materials which vehicles excrete, and no vehicles are proposed to be stored outdoors on the site The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and finds it to be acceptable. The City’s Public Services Director has recommended that the existing gravel lot be paved and provided with curb and gutter. The Plamiing Commission should consider whether this should be required. Road and Pedestrian Access Exterior site access. Tliis property has one access to Shoreline Drive, and one access from Kelly Avenue. The access ftom Kelly Avenue will be the primary access for Navarre Lanes/The Crib and the restaurant. The main access for the businesses that occupy the front of the building is the access which is directly off Shoreline Drive. 1 File ^04-2977 January 20,2004 Page 7 of 11 Pedestrian access. Sidewalks currently exist along the front of the property providing pedestrian connections to the properties east and west in tlte Navaixe area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair system which connects the top gravel parking ai'ea to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A proposed new stairway system is shown in Exhibit K. Proposed at the top of the staircase is a small sign with minor lights providing a safe pedestrian comtection from tlie upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bowling alley, and restaurant entiances. Signage The subject property is allowed 529 s.f of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468: “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.” The frontage is 315’ along Shoreline Drive and 214 ’ along Kelly Avenue, allowing the property 529 s.f. of signage. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f.. Tlic existing and proposed signage on the property is as follows (see Exhibit E & F); Bumper-to-Bumper (wall sign)32 s f Champion Auto (wall sign)48 s.f. Champion Auto (wall sign)32 s.f. Post Office (wall sign)32 s.f Liquor Store (wall sign - Shoreline Drive side) ;3l s.f Liquor Store (wall sign - Kelly Avenue side) 33 s.f Bowl & The Crib (post sign - Kelly Avenue right-of-way) 33 s.f TOTAL EXISTING SIGNAGE 341 sf. Proposed sign at top of stairway 24 s.f Proposed sign at corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue 24 s.f TOTAL PROPOSED SIGNAGE 48 s.f. SIGNAGE ALLOWED BY ORDINACE 529 sf TOTAL SIGNAGE 389 S.F. The applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the top of tire proposed staircase and one at the northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue (see Exhibit F), and no changes to the existing signs (see Exhibit E). The sign at the top of the staircase is proposed at approximately 24 square feet. The % rile W4-2977 January 20,2004 Page 8 of 11 applicant is proposing two light poles (discussed in the lighting section of this report) with the sign connecting them. Tlie sign meets the requirements of Section 78*1468, but the specific design of the sign and how it will tie into the lighting poles should be discussed with tlie applicant. The incorporation of stone planters and iron railings, as proposed, seems appropriate. The applicant is also proposing a sign, 6’ x 4 ’ w/a planter box and poles, at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. Tlie location of the sign may need to be revised should the proposed layout of the existing gravel lot change. This sign will be a multi tenant sign listing ilie businesses that occupy the front of tlie building. This sign meets the requirements of Section 78-1468 and will be subject to 10 ’ setback. In addition, staff would recommend the following: - The sign be re-oriented to be perpendicular to Shoreline Drive - Tlie sign be monument style (no poles) Lastly, an existing pole sign for NavaiTC Lanes/The Crib is located in the right-of-way along Kelly Avenue. This sign is in need of repair and cui-rently isn’t illuminated. The applicant has expressed his willingness to work with the Planning Commission and City Council towards a signage plan that would be functional and visually appealing. The Planning Commission should consider elimination of this sign and allowing a larger sign at tlie northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building. A new directional sign, possibly 3’ x 3’ could be placed at tlie Kelly Avenue entrance, out of tlie right-of-way. The Zoning Ordinance would limit the size of all new signs to 50 s.f Currently, 389 s.f. of signage is proposed when 529 s.f is allowed, leaving the applicant 140 s.f to work with. Staff would not recommend that the Planning Commission encourage tlie applicant to max-out his allowable signage, but there is room to allow for a larger sign at the northeast corner of the site and a small directional sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance. Landscaping Plan The applicant has not provided a landscape plan. The eastern and northern property boundaries abut right-of-way and the western boundary abuts another B-1 zoned properly, not providing any opportunities for additional landscaping. The southern property boundary has a tree line and fence which provides screening to the residential property to the south. The Plamiing Commission should discuss whether this existing vegetation is adequate for screening (see Exhibit 05). There are also three other potential areas for landscaping: 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot (see Exhibit 04), 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and, 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast comer of the lot. The Planning Commission should discuss requiring implementation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20 ’/10 ’ green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This r . I I *. IV* s File M4-2977 Jsinuary 20, 2004 Page9ofll area has been functionally a “no-man’s land” and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of landscaped space that, at least, approaches City Code Standards. Lighting Tlie applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting (Exhibit D). Tlte lighting for the current lower parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not recommend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts residcntially zoned property. The applicant has also proposed lighting under tlie proposed awning in an effort to illuminate the sidewalk. Staff finds no issues regarding these lights, however, the bulbs must not be exposed and the illumination shall not overlap onto the residential property to the south. Building Quality and Materials Attached Exloibit G1 & G2 show the exterior appearances of the proposed entrances and Exhibits Ol, 02, & 03 shows the current exterior facade. The applicant has not indicated tlie e.xterior materials proposed for these entrances. City Code Section 78-645 requires that the exterior building materials must be face brick, natural stone, specially designed pre-cast concrete units, factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, or other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be pennitted. The Planning Commission should discuss what materials are appropriate for the proposed entrances. Staff would recommend that the color scheme and materials match the existing fa9ade and that the roof of the entrances be shingled. Bus Shelter Re-Location The City’s Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f easement be granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D’vinci’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast corner of the applicants site. A 10’ x 10’ easement in tlie northeast corner of the site is proposed in Exhibit Pl-9. The City Council has authorized re-iocation of the shelter. The Plamiing Commission should determine whether lliis should be included with approval of the commercial site plan review, and how this will impact tlie applicant’s signage or parking plan. Conditional Use Permit City Code Section 78-644 requires a conditional use permit for any B-1 district to operate a Class I or Class II restaurant. The notable distinction between a Class I and Class II restaurant, in this case, is the ability to serve liquor. The proposed restaurant will serve liquor and is therefore considered a Class II restaurant. The Zoning Ordineuicc doesn ’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community. There was one neighborhood inquiry into what was being proposed, but no negative comments regsurling the restaurant. Staff would d File N04-2977 Jenunry 20,2004 Page 10 of 11 recommend that the Planning Commission consider “Hours of Operation” conditions, keeping in mind tliat the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. The applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle to be used in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. It must be setback 10* from the south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened. Issues for Discussion 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropiiate? How many paridng stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? 2. Should the City require that tlie existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for ? building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located adjacent to :he building rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours of Operation” be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are appropriate? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Deparunent staff recommends the following: 1) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the Planning Coimnission's recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed. d) c) Flit M)4.2977 January 20.2004 Page 11 of II The building materials match the existing south facing fa9ade and tlie roofs be shingled. If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the nortlieast corner of the site, tlie existing pole siyle sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected m its place. All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto tlie residential property to the south. The sign proposed at tlie corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument style ratlier tlian pylon ityle (no poles) and not higher than 8’. The applicant shall have the corners of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10’ setback. The sign is also limited to 50 s.f Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover when 35% is noniially allowed, stipulating the following: a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast corner of the lot, b) The landscaping between tlie retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary. Approval of a structural coverage varicuice allowing 16% structural coverage in order for the proposed entrances and awning to be constructed. Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. The applicant grants an easement consistent with Exhibit PI to allow re-location of tlie bus shelter. 1 EXHIBIT A Application # 'Z.^“7y Date Received /Z///~^^3 Amount Paid LOP 9\!) CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . . ^ Site Address i533^/ Type of Application to be Filed M-e^ ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) «—/y?*"'2»3 » x. 663^___________ APPLICANT Mick*t/K. Phone Oicme) Name^ft/^/to A^4«»eKi/ 'ftusrte^ Phone (work) qra-- Vya-- YV// thuV £~ ' _______ City Zip S‘S‘^t'1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) y^/»g. ._______ Name K(cJi4 mj> A/» i(eo,VAhi^£ty. Trugr" - Phone (work)______________ _ Address«g~ L. Zip Date Property Acquired ? ________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/ycar) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ______S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______ 5250.00 Guest House/Gucst Apartments 5250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg X 5325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______5250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and ftlling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakcshore PRTi/PID - see Fee Schedule 5150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Facl Fee - Double Current Application pee OTHER APPLICATIONS X 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______ 5300.00 Vacation ______$250.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule liitai REQUIRED SUB>nTTALS 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance 4. ✓ A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sun^eyor) - refer to handout for survey 5. 6. information. Attach legal description to application if not included on reguired—suonev. .Afei Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the 8, 9, ----------- ^ ---------------------------------/ vYiiu Oil UUCIC / property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). — Construction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. submitted.) » r » The Applicmt and P'opeity Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Staff: _______________________ Da{g APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonine Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or musual expenses meurred in review of this application, and cettifics that the information supplied IS true and concct to the best of his/her knowledge. —Sate OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultanu, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date jiinA App'ic.a.__n.u.' have all .ubniitUls into the Cij- offices Z5 day, before the flennin, Cemn«..i<„ Meetings m held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all Ichid ulJ "'"r ““i***”** ** ComnuMion and Council. If an a^Iicant is unable *^to attend 1 #2977 kk...,. EXHIBIT B Request for Conditional Use Permit My request, at this time, is to replace the current entry way to the Navarre Bowling Lanes and to remodel the two neighboring current garage/storage areas to accommodate a ‘Tizza Factory” restatirant. A new stairway and partial retaining wall would be constructed to replace the old one, but also to make the access to the lower level more inviting and safer. I would like the new entryway to serve both the bowling lanes and the restaurant. That would save on heating and cooling costs but also make both places more inviting and open. I would like to add an awning to cover the current sidewalk and enclose the entrance to the lanes and add some recessed lighting to illuminate the sidewalk. There would be a need for a trash receptacle area and the drawings show where we would like to place it. The area would be fenced ofifwith a wooden fence to match the current fence along the south property line. The current lightiiig has been in place for quite a while. It seems adequate. Some lights may need repair, which will be handled at this time. With the new stairway and signs I would like to install some lights on top of the sign poles to direct people down the stairway and add any necessary lights for safe operation of the stairway. I would like to add a sign/planter in the northeast corner of the property with some lighting. The signs would be on poles in the planter and the lights would be shining down or up onto the signs, as required. I have included drawings for reference. My intentions for the property are to have a nice well-maintained attractive building that the City of Orono and I can be proud of and my lessee’s can have a great place to operate their businesses. In the future I would like to consider black topping the gravel lot and to repair or replace the current wall. Mfichael J. Keaveny _____ Property Trustee ^ €\ 4 CO. oituminous exhibit c fiNTIUNCE C0NC.^prr7 00 ---------------------------------o CONC. CURD 315.32 Nfty*4a‘50"E •niCiniAY EXCEPTION TO TRACT B ENTRANCE OPEN oea fJ O i •/,...*i....^)iuiHAce UTomr ZASviEtm ^ V i®! •i.... ' 196 51 H 315.02 M /........................315.>^7 P......... • • N69*2r55"E P&M 0» oi •UPPER ;«p I.KVBL Pa RKINC ►Aimr CONC. Pb 2-STOBY SI0NB«rg;« NO. 04.6 g.Jga o ^ 00.0 * -•-ss- oo n----------V \ \ «T1«TY 1.5^ ^ U5 V DEEDS. P^CEJi*. DOC.o -p ___------------------------------------HP -Q|wa -----------------------TP '.easement 'OB INCRES3 k EGRESS____ i ? ..................A........................................ I LOWER level • Lubus ^ ^ ^ •I0.40 Jugi* DOM* «OI 6*^1 Iii-r-. afs-" " I-STORY STONE , — NO. 3425 IW»™“ CJ •r uu* in ^S- „0F0SED^Om»Y.--f3q-. ■■t' T ■" Xv,-i® ___L -P—- ” \ ----C<I— _ ----------^^^^ —I i;—■ d-:L L-*zr ...it; Parking .^4. mam CA30.tH« :* ,-----------------... fit 66 CRASS . LS NO. l37Qgx n- OPEN "■ ------------------—315.17 M XTT hicji board fence sar43’39"w M ^ m ^ ^ n DETAIL NO SCAUS S8r43*50"W P LEGEND 0 MR • PP DENOTES IRON PIPE POUND DENOTES NAIL FOUND. DENOTES UCHT POLE. DENOTES CATCH BASIN. DENOTES water VALVE. DENOTES CAS METER. DENOTES HRE HYDRANT. DENOTES MAN HOLE. DENOTES POWER POLE. da SS \ 3 r.S>^-«s V- exhibit D Ve cu>'ri‘^T-Ly Ull^tc^ t^f^l ih^CAy ^/^e- ^7^ /<^/>^ y'.Mnai>e.hn^ as, M[^et> et>. 7^ /fi^h'h up . 'T^-d OJti^'^Cni^ y<^d X- ji(C-C. ^y/o f'fiSflhC^ Sav*\>^ ^/oJ?€^^ v4® '4^'C. s/tt^AS r/1 S^d. jp^j/d5 u>0ulii2^ bt^ usci^ rAt^ V^'*^ s/^aj^ /^/ /y/l/7>t^ /^^«X^2. v6 ff74WVZ4i/yy J]2 u?o<4,l^ Uk-c, '4e> rf^c,luc^< 73e>ilibrAf (mi^9 ^Uui^€^, S^ftA A"/- )/^-^ 'i^p ii'A- V^t. dusi^-^yyie*^ ^ p^-esAx^f^*^ lAJoUl^ uko )ih^ v4) pu4~ p- pli.n-l^f^ ^tCpjpt/^j M V^e puovHAeasT o6nr*i^i^ o'P ^^,r^u£jL /o-b. P(-atU. yc.’Uir >h cPHu^ft^s /kc r^nesT: •. —s " r/’~\J1 , • ' y--^/ ' '/ V^ 1 IkiA JL^ ^®/VJp/l€ kCA\/60Y ^'•'^3‘oU a Cc.>:4. ?*^ri < ‘'Y^p M DRAINAGE I# k UTIUTY EASfcMEhlT--j' 0> V-”--.............................................................."*860.51 . CAl^Y^-6;0 .^x-^ n t n jti t I > ihi tfni ■“ SlCN JICN _z sq. rr. 2280X4.8 $SIGN * I • DRAINAGE k UTIUTY. >' -V“TASEMENT m O o ile s w ^ H W • • ♦ *1/ I DRAWACE k UTIUTY EAS EMEST...............• • ‘A *» . \ ______________4 ** >e ASEMENT fOR INGRESS & EGRESS .1______ .1 1^'s (TO O S cb I • ■ -^’^SPrj»■■ /; .V I* f'- ,vI•^ •.. !• ? V >* 4 7 »* * ** j ■■ .•> * •-•.J r ,v.-, .V h- O ou cyc- v^^' y^<*y s A# CO : ac:b - p? .I s • 'l*.■a cb •• • « I #tOdu;s. .! u /'^V ' ,,rrr>^c'* *X •* ‘ 4 :*. :\ '• u: A 1^' t A *. • .--^ i-j /' • *\^ V? •j* Z) nl _—fr f^fr^L 8 cn CD CD CVJIo T> • • ^ ^ ■ "i• • .,*r I’/r \ w .( '“• ;• ' y .v,.^ .. f ; •■; jrv: ■f 0 /• /( I %. EXHIBIT J •• • • CD in OJ cnr- KT OJin CD Lu § 3C <C CO CO» • •■ i . ro * CD • CD C\i Itl; s j / r-vi ■•.t*, • \s: T. ' , ;-'U k' H h-4n NNs ■* *T f ♦ • • • •/')} r .#•;. .V V ‘V. J < _. • q H j8U<il^R'A. .U^r»»T t>0‘4». Mie 'lop. 3:'m mo/fwii -io l)HctuuRll «-p 3 oy ^ rtbooe- aKounfc l<l'-fQ,, j>Jr^ ^ pur s/<f^ <*.»**• _ J u: Q urptR Lt\f^ Sb» #• • «• ■»•• •• <■?*'! ' ? r.) *^1«..V 0.' <*£» »sJ^*l 0 0^ % EXHIBIT L \f\f il 'A V, C. E. C oulter Sc A ssociates , Inc . 'A n !) V LAUD SURVEYORS Professionally Licensed In Minnesota and Wisconsin JOHN COULTER PETERSON 1000 East 146th Street. Suite 216. Burnsvilie. MN 5S337-46S6 (952)953-3639 / FAX (952) 953-3971 High Rite Co*>ttruction Cofiftructlon Layout Platting Lot Surveys ALTA Survey! Section Subdivision Topographic Mapping Shopping Centers HARDCOVER & SIGNAGE CALCULATION WORKSHEET A) BUILDING 11,032 SQUARE FEET B) LOWER LEVEL GARAGE 2,671 SQUARE FEET C) BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA = 33,376 SQUARE FEET D) CONCRETE WALKS 2,811 SQUARE FEET E) GRAVEL PARKING AREA 11,391 SQUARE FEET FI RETAINING WALLSICHC 82.9 SQUARE FEET TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 62,106 SQUARE FEET PARCEL CONTAINS 68,897 SQUARE FEET. PARCEL HARDCOVER IS 90% OF TOTAL PARCEL SQUARE FOOTAGE G) COMBINED EXISTING SIGNAGE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING CONTAIN 308 SQUARE FEET. H) THE EXISTING SIGN AT THE EASTERLY ENTRANCE ON KELLY AVENUE CONTAINS 33 SQUARE FEET. I hereby certify that the above Hardcover Calcaladoas and existing Signage Calculations arc true and accurate. natedt (X( 1^103 JolCn Coulter Peterson innesota Land Surveyor License No. 13792 CEC PROJECT NO. 12,057 FILE 3-6-8IA 12/15/03 Flle.'worddpl/keavenyl.doc ✓ .s '• /u u :l >• i i • / ^ vi ‘ m rgifcT^rjfir » • I I % EXHIBIT M NO. 4> in IG KO.XD *^V:i • .* • ' ■ ■ /t- 5 'TTT.T T * >.r“ • • • ^ I*.-*,. • *-"T^• • ■-T*" - *7 • \'•V • ■ i-S.v-11,Ite-i, -I <n. -■•. »*: ?• • *'f i; • I ♦ ' I '»• < •■'’■' ^ r ^ Ti iS^i^T >/ r«* .v ’ M r-. *» V: • • '., ,*ri \ " t •* *• •• ■ ' %:■"!■'■’■i-;’•i-‘ V ‘•-7 v* >'■■ .>•;»• 4 •. .. • • r .. V?.-V* ;a-. : » ^; •** j-4'V;'*V r i - ^ :;n • ••• ■* • t . y?. t •m \ •> I- .‘'•' - • ;•> V. •■'•fi. ( i'H * i ?©r::^i' / 4'-.-y ri-’--BI ■■'• />W-7 /'■; ■■. **'*■*‘if'* -».. •• • ,. - »v* *' -7 »*■. iiTV' j' -’r** *v** * ? v. . . . 4 * < ‘ 5 • ' C-. V . ‘ (ft? V. ..*^*v: V7» .>• ■ ••V/.N.tV*"?^’-' im v:'7 S'^''''.i; s '• \»k.*- V''-.'' ■■• ^/- ■ •.*\v'7«' «*■! /T-' .'■',, .-.t. 71. .; r r‘r\u : ;fc m 3ii Ie'^. - ’ • , . • ■ ■ ■■ V'- - '-Ti- -.A ' ■jippl J^l' A '-y| ? '' ■' ^' "' ' '*■*• 'r^' • « ; IX 7'- ,> 1 f-.-.^ t r ■ y»Wl\U i ^ • '• ' '♦ ^ .*#^u ^mm^rt BL,A‘*^I ■ *•..-IQ. >^-**-^;, •Vj-’^“".' , .•'. .• • .j i 'I jsc* 1 1.; v.:„'vSi.ilSiai^• •» » <^* t ‘ 4«r r ■iiflB':■ ♦ 1.- *.- t’*X miW'' #v «•W-. it ... « • -*-tj": • — ••;V. # • • * * iTK jrW' -iw .... •v.* v. -. • •'• .••’•••.■ ‘ ■ ..vv:'■■-/.r-* •. • • Av.#v. >•'^;v& ■••• -W': m N*iw v.it ‘ •• 1 V-.' -w V5C>?WTO .4*1 <^wa Mlr r' • f :;^ f r ;’r‘i“.*>'''''^ - '1 •■; i -rMm cBn••-• • ^ : s •; . . • f f . . ..• • •^ii • '>M ; ^■MP^ » • • •' A j I -H ^'-»V*> * *■*».', 4 -^ »• *^' ^^^1^ vmc!?;.'wy«wi rT5»^, ,‘ f ^ i;' #» - • ,<.V ,-.. 4-.,.> ■,!••.! • :*.I,:.V. v"*" . ;: v’ ■'• » ■ •. n X *» \v-tJ I ’.^ , i'..•!■»■.’’';■ V■■••.' .»•:•• :&•[m I* • H K.' > \ *' *.•• •Y* * * • V'\*y ’ ’ • V V' j 2Zj o VJC • • I, * . >'H *SRlP^ i ^33 j ■ jiii<fciii^>i*ia> i| j<i*V*/* • PC "v mnnniiBai h \1 if .lia fjy... «••• •••"#lp .• o. i ■'*1 c;r?>«<2^ ir*« _ »•r ■ * ** ‘ ^ r'^.’^r-'^.. • T"1-5- *?->■ • • j W • ' * ^ , #. **v.• * t*.^. . . %k3*'> w ,_• *• ^ *.V^ -0 • » • * v';i*Vv%v-.Vi •*»■.•:• • *"V.'h''' ' ’ 1 • • V : ^ :s rv: j :' f J'4\ rv;a^/• i * #,, • /:. • t‘ >in^ \ I •> •tt'- I ff j [hWi V j’‘**l|li .. lui, •?••'• . '•II,* •• ;•. ■’' '’ii.-i • -f- • ■MALL ■•• -^-' i‘ .' >! '« ' , ., . - >•1:* ■ ;. • fl 1M Vi S m f /' \ ! • T'"- . ^ • « »,.• > ____ ' *T ' r *^ yis V*a . I* - '* " • r ,-V. ir/ici 4* \: »*:*L exhibit p, CRJ£ 960 959.0 050 „ X4''0U5 ^ptLTtU.I duc / / 957.3 \ \ \ \ - r I. EXfflBIT B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 27,2003 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Cappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Navarre Crosswalk and Bus Shelter Project There is an existing County Road IS crosswalk located nearD’vinci’s restaurant, and an existing bus shelter located on the south side of County Road 15 west of the Keaveny building. The bus shelter is not located in a desirable area as it is isolated in a poorly lighted area with woods a.nd a steep slope directly behind it. The crosswalk is also not located near the center of the business district as it is too far west. A crosswalk location closer to the center of the business district would be a more convenient location and would provide better access to the businesses Also, the crosswalk is located in the middle of the block which is not the most desirable area from a driver expectation viewpoint. Crosswalks are normally located at street intersections and this is where motorists expect to see them. The City parking lot behind the buildings, on the north side of the road, is used as a Park and Ride lot for commuters catching the eastbound buses in the morning. The crosswalk is in a poor location and is not used by many of the commuters because it is located in the opposite direction from the bus stop as people exit tlie parking lot. Many people just cross Shoreline Drive at the parking lot exit and head toward the bus shelter. The location of the existing crosswalk and the bus shelter have been a concern for number of years. We have met with Hennepin County Highway department personnel to discuss this situation. Hennepin County personnel were favorable to the concept of moving the crosswalk to the west side of the Kelly Avenue/Shoreline Drive intersection provided the bus shelter is also moved to this area. Without moving the bus shelter, it is not worthwhile to move the crosswalk. The County wiil install larger crosswalk signs for the new crosswalk location. We discussed to idea of having a “push button ” system to turn on a Hashing yellow light when a pedestrian is crossing Shoreline Drive. The consensus was that this could create a false sense of safety as the pedestrians may assume the traffic has red light a.nd will stop. There is clearly not enough pedestrian traffic to meet a traffic signal wanant for this crosswalk. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT R The Police department has contacted Metro Transit about moving the bus shelter, and they arc willing to work with the City on moving the shelter. The shelter will be moved to the far northeast comer of the Keaveny property, and this will require obtaining an easement from the property owner. The size of the easement is dependant on the exact location of the property comer. This location will have minimal impact on the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: cnv Lot BWJ smlu^ exhibit Pi) y-U/iMX ftetcst .i w 0U^ 5HELief^ « « m 19 ». *» .‘1,,^ ^ L.*- '^h ■ ■ ■ •>% 0.v4CrT;>. '>• W* . -H - 4.^ . hjM/MLM c^uinv 1-^ C MSfU/KUIc N V < *' •*. u -v-' .S . • •.^ • • % *t V. . • • '* % . * . ’ . • * * * ^ , r * *• ••! *•! \ • n ^ . 4^ • ^ *• . . ' . . / • , A ; •» . • • • • • **• '• •.-••♦ •• • ■ ■ .y *. *• ‘ •'•V.*...’ ^ t. • . ’ . 4 V, '••* • ^ . •!**• . . • i » • . -If* » . « I » ' ^ ... ' • f 4* • . • * •: .tf *.'• • -^ ' L ■ j ’ -j. * * ‘ • T: • • . '. •» Ai . Jm, JB . ». (iUS EXHIBIT R * * » . ' * * \ fXl5llAl6 X-U'M.W fHOf^SEO . »* V / - K ■} rh- i « 1 ••r .’I \ X : % • J i\V N \ V ■ y.,«=. '•.■:v'< " ! ■ , . - ■ V ■- V _;•_ . t"'/ ■#■/' '• “-A^- ♦.# ^ ' I'-i > ) ‘ ’■^1' ■ I. \ - .*.* ». A t * *r.‘- \ '■ \ 'J 7//X# jl 'X . V ’//// X '< '■ •''• /. ":j>zs \ V i “rt \ . s\ 400 400 800 Feet pROfOJtlO * f 4 t•>* ' .«* %r I • 1 i...*• >.* • !-i>' • r> ___4JIWil I — ---- o o I \IIII!I I I?.<moxo ' n: • ' 11 /h i. - • > '■'* ■ ■ .<■ r ,• \ I ( i' ■ I . , ] I : i i I • ;• i •.“ *‘\V L..4 fNW.AKttf. rA !? .F>.\51IM6 y uwj / .'TIAELtCfc. py.(5'iu»'. y- (.{/A,!.*-. ps./.rYir4#> \ >^- W AL‘<:. t' il/yfOS f p \ ' Bus Mi*!.*®- -^ ‘ ^ ..Ia X* r- W^ c ^^ ^ uLtJbi^ Ji :vtruj^ j ► ^ % .4.1 V V,S' > ; ••y 5f\ELltR K! :• It '.^<1 ! / t ■/ ■4 ‘f -■'iarisa f "■-■pi" *1* > - , V5: ‘ ’ ^ it, ■ ■ , .’■ ■ ■ -^ ■jifcl;i S6O; Kttp> 3445 Shoreline Drive P.O. Box 5C Novarre, MN 55392 (612) 471.8832 \ >rvr.:. i champion autostoms w EXHIBIT R9 •v'o »,t,, •> 2940 N. Rice Sfreef LiJtle Conodo, MN 55113 (612) 482-1786 ^rp«n t? «r»Kh. tfoull win wttn cnompien Auto Stores' /a/ '^/2g^ / es / /V\ fVvU-'-C^ L» (C»' Cl.ci V^V <Srt=^ u3 A S. ^ e o •s'T’ rq i\:rrLA-v C i?e_;A-'w'os£r O.u-^TTc'vv <5~rV^ ^ "l^fc-^-uTT-c. r;; kcO ,::?A^/<!/.c>^/TO , v.. , "IX C • T'rva”-T/2.V . OC -^O Sr^v (-b o -f=yz.“ /:<=.<- O-L rV^ .\ \ . / (4^o/Od, A j (2-i-L -b '72- ■'pV2.cr^^^v \ I o /O "T^-a.. <:^CV7V-^- ■\ /*b 1------------- . =^vaoe^ /r^4i: C-Crvvwr v x:-- i / Y-'cr^y ' , ^ ^ ''_ /! c-^y^‘-'^ V-Jr,.-i&'5» ACe.O '4 C/G-^/ O r aJ Xiv o We ore locally owned, serving Your Aulo, RV, Booting ond Snowmobile Needs Since 1956 mm ■». —r T^& Cc qcv.or*—. i *^ I U^ fC^C^ /f.uZ^'T^*^ OiOA^ O-C^ ^2-*^ ■ J o ^ C^<^7~~^^'^ C2^ / L«^ / c—<^ ) ■3^M. >7 T7?£ , ^«t-J'^5 c/^ S./ «ay ^ ----- ^ ^ ' CT'.-) /^nl/r' A^<sr77Z>^ ^/!>.-rs;c4'aJ<^ Vf*^ > '/ s> '^oc.c, -o<^0\; 5* ^;jT^£7co 'c ^u ::fc?z5^^^ f)/Z£T^ ^ f------ JS — \ ’ - ;g^K /^ s '^ -•-x-^<G- C ‘13 c; r T"- * vanETSMEir:; RUN DATE V2D01 31 nil72M300tJ PROP ADOR 3« ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN rORFETTED LAND TAXPAYER CnV OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 crystal BAY MN SJ3I3 38 17U72343W86 PROPADOk 34S3 LYRIC AYE OWNERNAME GARY A MANSBEROER TA3IPAYBR GARY A HANSDERGER NAME/ADDR 3465 LYRIC AYE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I7II723430089 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME LC SCOTT A J E SCOTT LYLE C 4 JOYCE E SCOTT NAME/ADDR 3508 BANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN 55391 38 I7II723430094 PROPADDR 3472 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME LCSCOTTAJESCOTT 1*^^^(P^YER LYLE C a jo YCE E SCO TT NAME/ACDR 2508 BANTAS POINT la MWNETONKA MN 55391 38 1711723430099 PROPADDR 3400 SrOREUNE DR OWNERNAME DALES JOHNSON TAXPAYER CTJOIINSON ABA JOHNSON NAME/ADDR lOHOOTHAVGN PLYMOUTH MN 35447 38 1711723440009 PROP ADOR nn shadywood rd OWNERNAME MARCELS DITTIUCII TAXPAYER MARCEL OITTIUCH NAME/ADDR 4313THSTW 8201 WACONIAMN 55387 HENNEPIN COUN IT PROP'—n/ INFORMA I ION SYS I tM PROPERTY C RSLIST )8 ITI1723430084 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTALDAYMN SS3J3 38 1711713430087 PROPADDR 3473 LYRICAVh OWNERNAME TCAJM FLYNN ■r AVDA yeR TOM C A iULlE M FLYNN WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711713430090 PROP ADDR 3499 LYRIC AVE OWNERNAME MARKWCCHMIO TAXPAYER MARK W SCHMID NAME/ADDR 3499 LYRIC AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711713430095 PROP ADDR 3468 SIIOREUNE DR OWNER NAME L BF.NZEL A D DENZEL TRSTE TAXPAYER SANORA HOIAIAN NAME/ADOR 1468 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711713430142 PROP ADOR 3440 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME RICHARDWBLOOMQUIST TAXPAYER RICHARD W DLOOMQUIST NAME/ADDR 3333 SHOREUNE DR POBOXI2I NAVARRE MN 55392 18 111 1721440099 PROPADDR' IB ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME CITY OF ORONO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 35323 PAGE: I 38 I7II72343Q08S PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CI3Y OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POUOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 I7II723430088 PROPADDR 3477 LYRIC AVE OWNERNAME L C SCOTT * J E SCOTT TAXPAYER LYLE C A JOYCE E SCOTT NAME/ADOR 2508 BANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN 55391 38 1711723430093 PROP ADDR 3480 SHOREUNE DR OWNERNAME LCSCOTTAJESCOTT TAXPAYER LYLE C 4 JOYCE E SCOTT NAME/ADDR 2508 BANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN 55391 38 1711721430098 PROPADDR 3416 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP TAXPAYER GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP NAME/ADDR C/O COURT MACFARLANE 1107 HAZELTINEBLVD1535 CHASKAMN 55316 38 I7II723430ISS PROP ADDR 3496 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME T H A M K FRAHM TAXPAYER THOMAS H FRAHM NAME/ADOR 3105 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I7II72344OI0O PROPADDR 3182 SHOREUNE DR OWNER NAME DONALD F MCCARVILLE ET AL TAXPAYER DONALD MCCARVILLE NAME/ADDR 6649 WARNER RD MOUND MN 55364 9 q o r RUNUA1I: IMVMIJ lltNNlil'INCOUN rV I'KOI'l-KIY INIOUMAIION .SVSil-M PKOPHRTY OWNERS MST I'AUU: 2 }| I7II72J440I0I PROP ADM 3M0 SHORFiJNEUft OWNER NAME LEROY DAVID KOEIINEN TAXPAVKH UUMIVKOWININ NAME/ADOR SHORELINE UK POBOX8 NAVARRE MN 35392 :l 1711721440102 PROPAODR 2.US SHAOYWOODRO OWNER NAME S H SOIMIDTA S J'SCMMIDr I'AXI'AYI H •*! 111'MIiN II M'llMllir NAME/ADDR 2986 HKJIILANO OLVO MOUND MN 35364 38 201172)110013 PROPAODR 244) SIIADYWOOO HD OWNER NAME 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE I'AXPAYliK LSI NATI. HANK OF NAVAKKI! NAME/ADDR CO ROAD IS A CO ROAD 19 NAVARRE MN 53192 31 2011721110024 PROPAODR 3311 SHORELINEDR OWNER NAME MOT COMPANY TARPAVER SUPERVALU STORES INC NAMB/ADM CORIKIRATI! TAX Dlil'F PO BOX 990 MPU5MN SS440 31 2011723110032 PROPAODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME DAVID JDEUNEY TAXPAYER DAVID JDEUNEY NAMli/ADUM 4*00 CASAMITA HI) EXCFllXIORMN 53)31 38 201177)120027 PROP ADDR 2474 CARMAN ST OWNER NAME WARD E EDWARDS TAXPAYER WARD E EDWARDS NAMt/ADOR 2474 CARMAN ST WAVZATAMN 3339) ^4L nV 'T 38 201172)120021 )8 20117311200)1 38 301172)120034 PROPADOR 2480 CARMAN ST PROPADOR 346) SHORELINE OR PROPADOR 3423 SIIOREUNR DR /c'T'’ OWNER NAME R A EDWARDS A1 EDWARDS OWNERNAME ALECK0OVERSON OWNIiR NAMH R M KFAVENY FAMILY LTD PTNRP TAXPAYER RICHARD * JOHANNA EDWARDS TAXPAYER ALECK 3 OVERSON TAXPAYPR RICHARD MKEAVLNY • 7» • L* • NAME/ADDR 2410 CARMAN ST NAME/ADDR 3623 ALVARADO U NAME/ADDR REV LIVING TRUST * WAY/ATAMN 33391 PLYMOUTH MN 33446 I340S HWY NO ) YOUNG AMFRICAMN 53397 i( \ 18 201172)120041 3t 70II773I200M 38 20li;23l20052 PROP ADDR » ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME CITYOFORONO PROP ADDR 7497 KEUY AYE PROP ADDR 2499 KELLY AVE OWNERNAME AUSTINHEVANS OVPNERNAMF SYLVIA DERTACNOLI TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR CITY Of ORONO iM)X06 CRYSTAL DAY MN TAXPAYER NAMI7ADOR 3332J AUSTIN H EVANS 2497 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 33331 TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SYLVIA A DERTACNOU 2499 KEaV AVE EXCELLSIORMN 33331 •‘si..I JS 2011723120033 PROPAODR 2301 KELLY AVE OWNERNAME TIMOTHY ITHOELE TAXPAYER TTMOTHYJ THOELE NAME/ADDR JSOI KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 533JI 3S 2011723120034 PROPAODR 2303 KELLY AVE OWNERNAME HIKEUENABKWARD TAXPAYER MICHAEL J KELLEN 3303 KELLY AVE EXCEI^KIRMN 53)31 NAME/ADOR 38 2011723120033 PROPAODR 38 ADDRESSUNASSIC.NFD OWNER NAME KELLY COVE IIMOWNRS ASNA3RONO TAXPAYER KELLY COVE IIMOWNRS ASNrtJRONO NAME/ADOR 2497 KEU.Y AVE EXCELSIOR MN 33311 31 201172)12006) PROPADOR 2307 KtlXYAVK OWNER NAMH BRADLEY A HOY I TAXPAV8R CONTINENTAL PROP CRP INC NAME/ADOR 8RADUVAHOVT 233 LAKE ST E WAYZATAMN 3)391 RUNUAfE:** ''WJ llbNNkPtN COUNI V HKOPI:*'' '^ INbOKMA l lUN 61 .•> I EM PROPERTY O' SUSP I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TTI^E^ OFMYKNOWl£DOEANDBEUEF.^^^^^^_,,.^^ 'Z7//,X./y/c // t', .4 ^ Tk ^ ^ • •• V3 • • \ ' ■v%;) -M f4« 1 UUibtMM A 0^ (27) (U) “i rr4fl, -B> aa ao s «!!8 J (4fJ (42) m ao * » ^ » t/W/VGSrOA/ I ao I 90 I JD I ao I riT ■A ^ .A i . . 8 99 f'Ir. 99 k*-9?00 )7>o; 50 ’ 00 90 (7) 00 re; 50 3,? • i 4 a SI f2" (l??i 99 g 12*" -•2* J9 U 14 (16) Ok < 99 50 (17) rtfl; 17 90 fj 90 . :• i ' «)4m V ) <9 (45) 90 Wf o5 a (44) 99 * 9 ,2 ao 90aa ^ I § ni .T'tr. t w, 0 I I. ao «i 42 1 ao I « I a» LYRIC AVE I M I 00 I rsr 59 «• •» 5'" so 50 f2 r7o; 5P 50 '«2«n 50 50 <« «,2 f69; 50 90 <n .o2 /6S; 40 50 «> 0 2 #• • 50 i ^141> • • 4 50 50 VI ir65; 50 50 5. 50 5C 1 50 4 *r vj »o .-I .! ,i -5 is! .5,W i I^.j: 50 V JO 90 • 90 1.•n SI fO *o Si - 17 •1 Si • f# > •* 2 St «» 20 - 5;i 2f* m a,2 9 •r. « w 23 5 :4 2 25 5 ^ 2 2 (71)r72;f7JJ f74;f75i (76)(77) ,r79; (80) #• • • • •• • 4 |4745 00 50 00 50 50 50 50 90 s: . 50 90 1 50 . *2(m 90 • • • 2f JO V 22W 2J 2sf>=5 jf-s 2 I ao I JO I ao 90 OREyNBBR 9# ' ~a«« VI (101 f 2J •» f- too; 90 f •A roo; fos;123 ^5 J i 2^2 2tS V (94) (95) , J., 7t42; «n «2 fflj; •n j2 50 . 2 St JO •ri ► 2i;^ 50 •> 28 2L 50 /. 27 T99; f29 f25 o ^'q. = «^ao5«s"~aJxa<-«Saa aa ao • ^95; . ‘n«j| -jfS9; ~ ' (99) ^ L1 a, L il •i—l--^** I -i« —(HeSAH-NO^'5,-PtATee) tKH ---------------------37J-35----------------- LII ! EXHIBIT D MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Commission has the ability to exercise some judgment here, in addition, to satisfying the code without setting a precedent. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the City Council will be giver, the opportunity to hear the applicant’s rationale, she believed the Commission would be retniss in approving the application. Rahn moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2976, James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, approving the lot line rearrangement, subject to staffs recommendation that the applicant execute the standard ‘use limitation’ covenants, and the conversion from a ‘guest house’ to ‘accessory building with plumbing’ status requires the removal of kitchen facilities including the sink and cooktop, and associated plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hannaford dissenting. Hannaford deferred to his earlier comments. (#16) #04-2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KE AVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:53 P.M.-12;20 A.M.) Mike Keaveny, the Applicant, and Paul Ode, the potential restaurant lessee, were present. Gundlach explained that the applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following; 1 ) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.* *Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review PAGE 40 of 53 I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Gundlach continued that the applicant’s intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staff in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation, Planning Department staff met with the building owner, Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee, Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed improvements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which v'ould require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant. The preperty is located at 3425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono. While the proposal doesn’t include any new hardcover, the major changes that should be noted are the entryways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along the southern boundary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot. Gundlach pointed out that Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15% maximum structural coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural coverage is two entryways and an awning. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern entryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50’ x 12’) and the western entryway is proposed at 36 square feet (6’ x 6’). The proposed awning will extend along the south elevation of the building to cover the current sidewalk. The structural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be included in the building square footage when they are 2’ or less in width. The awnings proposed are 4’ in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square feet of structural coverage (2’ of awning x 97.5’). This is a total of 928.5 square feet (1% of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16% where the existing percentage is 15%. Gundlach indicated that it isn’t out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20% or 30% for commercial properties. Gundlach encouraged the Planning Commission to consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet the required setbacks of 20’ to Shoreline Drive and 10’ to Kelly Avenue in an PAGE 41 of 53 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) effort to increase green space on the site. The 20 ’ required front yard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. The number of parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a greaver yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. Required Number of Parking Stalls. Restaurant Use:1,890 s.f @ 1 space/80 s.f = 24 spaces Bowling Alley Use:10 lanes @ 6 spaces/lane = 60 spaces Lounge (w/in bowling alley):535 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. = 7 spaces Total Required Parking = 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces *= 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76, 9’ x 20 ’ spaces) As proposed, Gundlach noted that the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking required by Section 78-1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that with the existing demand for parking, coupled with the proposed restaurant use, a shared parking arrangement of these 84 spaces would oe adequate if not excessive. On the other hand, Gundlach explained these numbers do not take into account the 15 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building. Assuming a net floor area of about 8,000 s.f. for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall per 150 s.f. is about 53 stalls, as compared to the 30 stalls that exist. Because the upper level businesses are primarily retail uses that occupy the front of the building and offer prime-time day hours, a shared parking arrangement would provide adequate overflow parking between the restaurant and retail uses, should it ever be needed. However, it should be noted that during times when all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday afternoons), parking could be short by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. The parking required by the zoning ordinance should be discussed against the actual need of parking on site. With regard to pedestrian access, Gundlach stated that sidewalks currently exist along the front of the property providing pedestrian corrections to the properties cast and west in the Navaae area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair system which connects the top gravel parking area to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A new stairway system is proposed with a small sign and minor lights at the top of the staircase providing a safe pedestrian connection from PAGE 42 of 53 k f M MI * MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection * ■ be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bowling alley, and restaurant entrances. Gundlach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City Code standards, Section 78-1468. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f. The applicants proposed signage meets all the city code requirements. While the applicant has not provided a landscape plan, Gundlach pointed out that there are three potential areas for lan^caping: 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and, 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast comer of the lot. She recommended the Planning Commission discuss requiring implementation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on the property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20710’ green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This area has been functionally a “no-man’s land” and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that, approaches City Code Standards. With regard to lighting, Gundlach stated that the applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting. The lighting for the current lower parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not recommend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts residentially zoned property. In addition, the City’s Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. casement be granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D’Vinci’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast comer of the applicant’s site. A 10’ x 10’ easement in the northeast comer of the site is proposed. While the City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission determine whether this should be included with approval of the commercial site plan review, and how this will impact the applicant’s signage or parking plan. While the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed PAGE 43 of 53 •'.F-W % I im wmiaiMiiwMiiai w i's MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider “Hours of Operation” conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in conjunction with the proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10’ from the south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened. Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Planning Commission: 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a fonnal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? 2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours of Operation" be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are appropriate? PAGE 44 of 53 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? In conclusion, Gundlach stated that the Planning Department staff recommends the following: b) c) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed. The building materials match the existing south facing fa9ade and the roofs be shingled. If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast comer of the site, the existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place. All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the residential property to the south. The sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument style rather than pylon style (no poles) and not higher than 8’. The applicant shall have the comers of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10’ setbr.ck. The sign is also limited to 50 s.f. d) e) Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover when 35% is normally allowed, stipulating the following: a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast comer of the lot, b) The landscaping between the retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boimdary. Approval of a stractural coverage variance allowing 16% stmctural coverage in order for the proposed entrances and awning to be constructed. Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. The applicant grants an easement to allow re-location of the bus shelter to a lO’XlO’ northeast comer of the site. Mr. Keaveny stated that the bowling alley has been closed since summer and this new proposal allows the applicant to incorporate die current bowling alley with a restaurant and lounge. PAGE 4S of 53 r MINTITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.tn. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 342S SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, the nearest neighbor to the south of the bowling alley, voiced numerous concerns: 1) As Kelly Avenue is a residential street, he found the additional traffic worrisome within a residential neighborhood. 2) The fact that the restaurant and lounge would have a liquor license was a concern, especially since the neighborhood is kept up at night from the commotion at the Narrows currently. 3) He questioned whether there was adequate space for restaurant use and the parking to accompany it. 4) The City carmot ensure how long the Pizza Factory will remain, and the City would lose control of what type of restaurant or lounge occupies this space in the future by allowing this today to go forward. 5) The traffic exiting onto County Road 15 would make a dangerous situation and intersection worse. 6) Evans cautioned that re-location of the bus shelter at the junction of Kelly Avenue and County Road 15 would be far more dangerous than where it is cunently. Encouraging pedestrians to cross 2-4 lanes of traffic between cars stacked up for the light would be hazardous. 7) ^^f■hat would the impact be to Lake Minnetonka from this additional development merely 200 ’ from the lake. Might people try to snowmobile or obtain boat access to the restaurant. 8) 68% of the little proposed landscaping at all is located primarily in the rear where few see it. In fact, no landscape plan has been provided. Reminded of the Navarre Town Meeting a year ago, during which residents asked for additional landscaping along County Road 15 in Navane. 9) The proposed parking facilities are incomplete and inadequate. While 53 spaces are required, contrary to zoning regulations, the proposal offers a mere 30 spaces for a 75 seat restaurant. The additional xrse requires 91 total spaces, short 7 in the proposal, with no setbacks or grcenspace provided. 10) This approval would increase the use of the lot to 16,000 s.f. of retail space, which required by zoning should assume 1 ’ of lot area per 4’ of retail space. Evans maintained that by approving this request the City will continue to perpetuate an unacceptable planning state of affairs for Navarre. 11) In the Navarre Town Meeting several points were echoed by the residents. Since Navarre is considered Orono’s town center, why not make it more like Wa>'zata or Excelsior with additional landscaping, street lighting, and updating facades of the businesses in the area. Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to give serious consideration to denial of this applicant’s request and recommend the owner address alternative uses for the site. He PAGE 46 of 53 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Bcrtagnoli interjected that the Navarre area provides family restaurants via Culvers, the coffee shop, and D’Vinci’s. Fritzler asked if the upper lot would be paved. Keaveny stated that this could be done. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that any approval would include upgrades and asked how the City would deal with the applicant’s desire to upgrade and renovate the site. Keaveny indicated that he would wish to add retaining walls, plus additional green space along Shoreline Drive. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the City Engineer had seen the proposed parking plan. Gundlach stated that the City Engineer felt the plan was adequate with paving and striping. Keaveny reiterated that the retaining walls would be repaired, more green space could be provided, and the brick work would be repaired and matched to the front of the building. Bremer asked what the proposed hours of operation would be. Ode stated that, generally, the hours would run until midnight or bar time of 1:00 AM. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the City doles out liquor licenses. GafTron stated that the City has the ability to dole out 7 licenses in the Orono area; however, to date has only one. He indicated that Mr. Ode was currently going through the review process of obtaining a liquor license. Gaffron stated that, since the application is a CUP and backs up to residential neighborhood, the Commission can put reasonable standards on the application. While she was sympathetic to the traffic concerns on Kelly Avenue, Bremer was also concerned about the proposed re-location of the bus shelter at Kelly and County Road 15, closer to the dangerous intersection. GafTron stated that the police department has been looking into moving the crossw alk, and felt this location might be a safer alternative for the shelter. He indicated that, new discussion of this subject this evening, had caused him to think twice about moving the crosswalk to Kelly Avenue. PAGE 48 of 53 J ___ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, Jamoary 20, 2004 6:00 o’clockp.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Kcaveny mentioned that he’d suggested to the metro transit autliority they actually pull into the park and ride to pick up and drop off on Shoreline Drive to avoid having pedestrians cross traffic. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she agreed with the neighbor’s comments that the City needs to take this opportunity to get the upgrades in Navarre as the opportunities present themselves. The rest of the Commission concurred. Gundlach indicated that they are uncertain exactly how much square footage of retail ex.sts in the building until doing hirther examination. She pointed out that the site would lose an additional 10 spaces if the City requires 10’ and 20’green space yards along Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive respectively. Gaffron cautioned the Commission from allowing too little green space, as had occurred on the Snyder ’s site which required only 10’ setbacks. Gundlach agreed that little opportunity presents itself, reiterating that the establishment of yards will cost the loss of 10 spaces; whereas, this plan provides 40 stalls. Rahn stated that it was difficult to gauge what the balance between parking and green space might be with the lack of a landscape plan. He noted that he would like to see more green space, and ac’icnowledged that the plan requires additional parking. With regard to the issues for discussion, item 2, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she believed the existing upper gravel parking area should be paved and striped. Hannaford pointed out that the access to the bowling alley has always been oft of Kelly Avenue, Ward asked if the proposed size of the striping on the top lot would match the stall size below. Gundlach stated that the stalls are the same size on the top or bottom of the lots. She added that signage would be addei on the upper lot near the stair to direct patrons down the steps to the restaurant. Gaffron suggested that the applicants make it more inviting for people to park above and use the covered stairwell versus parking below. He asked what type of screening was proposed near the trash enclosure near the south end. PAGE 49 of 53 — MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEl 'ALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Keaveny indicated that the receptacle was proposed for the southeast comer and would be fenced. Gaffron believed the applicants could find a better location for the trash receptacle, further away from the access and neighborhood. Keaveny stated that he would propose placing a monument sign and planter box directing people on Shoreline Dr. to the Pizza Factory and bowling alley off Kelly Avenue. Gundlach pointed out that the sign located in the right-of-way of Kelly Avenue would be removed it: conjunction with a new sign to be erected in the northeast comer of the lot. Smaller directional signs would be placed below to mark the access. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to talk to the Public Works department about the proposed location of the signage and monument sign as they might interfere with sight lines. Gundlach noted that tlie lighting plan would include illumination for the stairwell and staff would reconrunend that all lights be shielded and directed downward elsewhere on site. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would support a monument sign at the northeast comer of Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive versus a pole sign. Fritzler pointed out that a pole light would interfere less with sight lines at the comer. Keaveny agreed that a pole sign with a planter and signs on it would be less obtrusive. Gaffron acknowledged that a monument sign would have the potential to cause problems, In reference to the ‘hours of operation’, Biemer questioned whether delivery would be envisioned in the plan. While he anticipated it could be planned for at a later date, Ode was unsure at this time whether delivery times would be an option. He indicated that his preferred hours of operation would be noon - i :00 A.M. Acting Chair Mabusth maintairied that there were many other open issues as well, including resolution of the bus shelter location. Fritzler acknowledged that patrons may decide to use Kelly Avenue to cut over the County PAGE 50 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA2WING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Road 19 versus trying to access Shoreline Drive to reach County Road 19. He maintained that Kelly Avenue was not designed to handle a lot of traffic. Bremer asked if the proximity to Lake Minnetonka was a concern. Fritzler stated that he could envision people trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to access the restaurant via boat or snowmobile. Rahn asked how the City would be able to deal with the additional noise levels once the license has been issued. He noted that this is the same type of issues faced by residents living near AI & Alma’s and admitted it is a conditional use which is allowed. He believed more thought needed to be devoted to the consideration of hours of operation. Fritzler stated that it is difficult to regulate how loud the use is, since the violations follow the individual and not the facility. Gaffron indicated that the negative impacts can be reduced with a CUP. If it is allowed, the City can place certain limitations upon it up front, and then have to live with their decision. Keaveny reminded the Commission that it is not their intent to attract the same audience as that of the Narrows Saloon. Gaffron asked if bowling would be available durin •* other hours than the restaurant. Ode stated that the two operations would have separate entrances and closed off from one another. Bremer referenced the old adage, 'in for a penny, in for a pound*, referring to the fact that if the City wishes to improve the site it must also be willing to accept what comes with it. Evans asked what provision for parking of delivery trucks and what procedures would be followed in the proposal. Keaveny stated that he had referenced where the delivery trucks would be allowed in his proposal. Evans pointed out that the lane provided for delivery trucks should be revised, since the plan also identifies these as parking spots as well. Keaveny mentioned that the loading area could be in the back near the storage to the west. PAGE 51 of 53 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out were accurate. Rahn stated that the plan doesn’t reflect what’s precisely required for parking and landscaping to determine whether these are adequate and requested further information. Evans noted that staff has merely estimated a reduction of 11 spaces to allow for green space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces above for a total of 147 spaces is what is required by zoning ordinance. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that a further detailed study would need to be provided to determine specific amounts, which would enable the Commission to base its judgment. While not uncommon for commercial property, Gundlach recognized that a parking variance may be required, especially, in light of the differences in the hours of operation of all the individual businesses on site. Although a parking variance might be found acceptable now, Evans encouraged the Commission to consider what the future use of this site might be. For instance, if used as retail the site might require even more additional parking. He maintained that, when he and his neighbors purchased their homes, there was simply a bowling alley with limited use which resided at this location, he never would have imagined a full liquor licensed restaurant use would move in next door. As the next door neighbor most affected, Bertagnoli asked where the venting for the restaurant would be. Keaveny stated that he would work with the franchisee and the City on the ventilation and air conditioning placement. Ode reiterated that, in order to be successful bowling alleys need this combination of services; restaurant, liquor license, and bowling alley. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application #04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit., subject to receiving a complete site plan, parking plan and analysis of needs, locate loading areas, type of lighting, signage locations, minimum green space of 10’ along both avenues, landscaping plan, staircase repeir, type of exterior materials and elevations, proposed improvements to the structure, and exhaust fan location. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 52 of 53 asttiisiai r f I i EXHIBIT E REQUEST FOR COXJNCIL ACTION dr ^^04 DATE: Marcff ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report ^em Description: Paul Ode Applicaftion for an Oa-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 on-sale liquor license application requires a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the application. Order of Business T A e following is the suggested order of business for this item; 1. presentation by staff 2. presentation by the applicant 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 proi.ction of the public health, safety ^d welfare. The City ’s review of the application has address^ this concern in two ways. One is through a background investigation of the applicant for the liquo. 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 recornmending denial of the liquor license. A memo from the Police Chief regarding the recommendation is attached. •^e key issue in the review of the impacts on the area properties of granting the on . ’'nuor license is the proximity to, and orientation of the entrance and parking toward, the ac r 1.1 low- density residential development Please see the attached map showing the relkonship of the b'dldiag and parking to the adjacent neighbodiood. The speees proposed for the on-sale liquor Ucense include the “Crib"- a smaU existi^ lounge adj ac^ to and connected with the bowling alley, and a neWPizaa Factoiy” «Saucant to be loc^d in the adjacent, currently vacant space, and which will also be connected to the bowling alley, ^e “Crib”has had a non-intoxicating malt liquor (3.2) license and a set-up license m the past. The building entrance for these uses faces south, as does the parking area, which is adjacent to low- density, residential development. A restaurant with liquor requires a conditional use permit. This memo docs not adihcM the conditional use permit for a class II restaurant, but only addresses the impacts of an on-sale liquor establishment at this location, regardless of whether a restaurant is opened at this location. Impacts and Compatibility The bovding alley is a use that, in itself, can produce a level of traffic, noise, ai^ activity that is Mt adjacent to low-density residential development The addition of on-sale liquor to this equation creates a new level of potential impacts and concerns. On-sale liquor brings the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential development. I • Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending denial of the on-sale liquor Ucense application based on the denial recommendation from the PoUce Chief, and based on the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential development. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the Paul Ode application for an on-sale Uquor Ucense at 3425 Shoreline Drive. I Miiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiii I J r i". a small existing lounge oiy” restaurant to be located d to the bowling alley. The ip license in the past. The L, which is adjacent to low- nemo docs not address the impacts of an on-sale liquor ened at this location. noise, and activity that is not on-sale liquor to tks equation ^uor brings the potential for compatible with low-density ication based on the denial or increased noise, traffic and y residential development. ^uor license at 3425 Shoreline •-< MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. EXHIBIT F (3. WEST FARM HOMESTEAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING, continued) project ends at the homeowner’s property line where tliere will be a curb stop and a shutoff, like you have on your water system, and that is what your assessment covers. From that point, the homeowner’s responsibility is to hire a plumber to install a line from the property line to the home, dig and sink a grinder pump, a can system of typically a two-foot diameter tub usually, and finally some electrical work of wiring to the pump will need to be done. Installed prices typically are somewhere in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. The homeowner is then responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the grinder pump from this point forward. Mayor Peterson closed the public assessment hearing at 7:25 p.m. White moved, Murphy seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 5132 adopting the proposed assessment roll for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitar' Sewer Project. VOTE: Ayes 4; Nays 0. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 5133 accepting the quotation from Red Pederson Utilities, Hopidns Minnesota in the amount of S34,914.50 for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ODE AT 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE (NAVARRE LANES) Mayor Peterson asked how many of tire audience members were from the Navarre area. A large number of tlie audience was f-om Navarre. Mayor Peterson tlien stated she would like to see all of them at the dedicatio) >f the new fire department on Saturday, March 27, 2004. Mayor Peterson asked if the Affidavit of Publication had been satisfied. The Recorder responded affirmatively. Moorse explained the purpose of the public hearing stating Mr. Paul Ode has applied for an oil-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 application requires a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the application. The suggested Order of Business is: 1. presentation by staff 2. presentation by the applicant PAGE 4 of 23 V L iy. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES c ntinued) 3. open the public hearing 4. receive questions and comments from the public 5. close tlie public hearing 6. Council deliberation 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 tlirougli a background investigation of the applicant 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 result of the investigation, the Police Department is recommending denial of the liquor license. A memo from the Police Chief regarding the recommendation was attached in the Council packet. 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. Moorse showed the Council maps made part of the public record showing the relationship of the building and parking lot to the adjacent neighborhood. The bowling alley is a use that, in itself, can produce a level of traffic, noise, and activity that is not ideal adjacent to low-density residential development. The additic.i of on-sale liquor to this equation creates a new level of potential impacts and concerns. On-sale liquor brings the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential development. Staff is recommending denial of the on-sale liquor application 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 development. Attorney Tom Barrett stated that, in addition to staffs recommendations, that the City ordinances, Section 34.68 make it unlawful to make a false statement or willful omission on any application form and that the consequence of that is an automatic refusal of any application for license. Chief Gcod and Sergeant Erickson were asked by Council to give them background on their investigation. Chief Good read their memo of March 19,2004 regarding results of the investigation into the public record. PAGE 5 of 23 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4, ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) Mr. Paul Norman Ode, 5040 Janet Road, Mound, MN. stated he had a few statements to make. He continued by saying when he picked up his application for the license he reviewed it in the office witli City Clerk Lin Vee. Then he left to fill it out and returned to tlie City and the City Clerk with questions and at that time she informed Ode that this was the first time Orono had processed an appl’tation for this type of liquor license. He stated she took the application and stated tliat if there were any questions the City would get back to liim. He said tliat he didn’t tiiink traffic related reviews were to be reviewed in the application because he knew it would be reviewed and didn’t think he had concealed tliat fact. In regard to late items, he stated he provided them as quickly as they could be received and provided to tlie City. The moment he was aware that they wanted bank information he requested it immediately within a day or two but at least ten days or so before the hearing. He got a confinnation from the insurance company that the insurance information would be provided but they were not able to send the Certificate of Insurance, but they had all the confirmations in tlie papeiwork. Mr. Ode feels he got off on the wrong foot from day one. He continued that he feels tlie location is an opportunity to make some changes and said the bowling alley hasn’t changed for 50 years and has functioned as a “set-ups” liquor establishment. Ke wants to improve the property by adding a restaurant and offer liquor to the patrons. Mr. Ode asked what the City would permit in this location. He also stated he can step down as license holder, but would like to see the project go on cind feels it would be a successful project and serve the community well. It is a very small lounge and bowling alley. It is expected that the area would hold 45 people between the restaurant and providing seats in the bowling area. He would like the site to be a community unit where families can come and enjoy something to eat and a game and a cocktail. Attorney Bai-rett again stated that the purpose of the public hearing this evening is the application for the liquor license and the Council should make a record tonight in regard to the application and does not necessarily involve the question of the restaurant or other things that may be separately addressed with the Planning Commission. Sansevere stated to Mr. Ode he was confused because when he came before the Council before the first of the year or thereabouts, he told the Council he had to have a 3.2 liquor license to open by January 1,2004 because of deadlines. Because of the urgency, the Council did something unprecedented by acting on it in a work session because he absolutely had to have the 3.2 license and the site is still r.ot open. Sansevere added that now he is coming to Council requesting a full liquor license and does not understand what the motivation was in asking for a 3.2 and then coming back for a full license. Sansevere asked if this was a way to receive a little and then push for the full license and why the establishment isn’t open? PAGE 6 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) Mr. Ode explained tliat it was due to the timing of when the license actually came and the work that was being done. Because of the otlier factors involved he wasn’t able to open until around February totally missing the bowling leagues and any opportunity to participate in that area. Sansevere asked Mr. Ode why the urgency. Mr. Ode indicated he thought that if he could get open before the first of January it would be an opportunity to move forward at that time, but there was no way to get it done. He continued by saying the information that he discovered and found later relative to what was necessary to have a successful bowling alley indicated that a full liquor license would be necessary. Mayor Peterson indicated that legal counsel has stated that this is strictly for a liquor license public hearing, and opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Sansevere asked Chief Good if there is a lot of room for ’’gray area” on the application-if a person has been convicted is it clear you have been convicted and if you have been arrested is it clear you have been anested regardless of the traffic arrest or any type of arrest. Chief Good responded that she does not know how she could make it any clearer. Phyllis O’Malley, 2740 Kelly Avenue, resident of 45 years, moved to Navarre from Long Island, NY because of the tranquil, free from major industry, good education for children, safety, low or no crime and reasonable traffic. Except for the number of residences increasing and level of traffic everything else has pretty much remained the same. She stated that she believes that Navarre is a bedroom community. Mrs. O’Malley believes the full liquor license and restaurant will generate more traffic and noise and a possibility that because Kelly Avenue is a shortcut from County Road 15 to Count;, Road 19, tliat it will be a safety issue for children due to increased traffic and speed. David Hardin, 2515 Kelly Avenue, resident of 10 years, is against the rcstaurant/bar because of the exit onto Kelly, a residential street, and the resulting traffic issues and significant noise. When you drive into Orono and see the beautiful Navarre sign and drive into tliis restaurant and see the Caution Children sign and then the bar sign right next to each othci sets a bad image for Navarre and Orono. He stated that another bar/restaurant already exists and Navane doesn’t need another so close to the lake, close to other homes with entrance and exit difficulty, and with parking inadequate for what if proposed. Jim and Sue Schmidt, 2585 Kelly Avenue, resident since 1948, stated that since the Narrows bar opened there has been a huge increase in the amount of trash. Her husband just picked up 12 cans of beer on the side of the road on Kelly Avenue. They don’t hear the noise PAGE 7 of 23 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7;00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ODE-NAVARRE LANES continued) because they are located up on the hill, but the exit and entrance onto Kelly Avenue will be used as a shortcut to County Road 1 5 and that is an added safety concern. Evonne Paige, 3493 Crystal Place, said within a 2-3 mile radius, there are five liquor establishments - two in Navarre and three in Spring Park. Spring Park was all liquor establisliments when she was growing up wmch was good for Spring Park in the summer. Now people use establishments all year round. For policing and for residents of all ages, she does not think we need another liquor establishment. Chi-istin Hardin, 251 5 Kelly Avenue, has a safety concern for her two small children and that since the Narrows has opened the traffic situation has gotten to be so had that she had to call the police department to do a traffic study on Kelly Avenue. In one week there were 4.000 cars and she believes another bar will increase traffic and cause safety concerns. Sherry Volkmar, 2640 Kelly Avenue, resident of 12 years, stated the Narrows bar/restaurant has caused motorcycle noise at 1-2 a.m., trash, and speeding has gotten excessive. Sylvia Bertagnoli, 2449 Kelly Avenue rose to speak. Mayor Peterson stated that her letter of March 14, 2004 would become a part of the public record. Mrs. Bertagnoli called over 100 people and can document 98 pcop.a she talked to and put the summation in the March 14 letter and all but two people arc extremely opposed, tluee businesses are undecided and three businesses are in favor of the project. She also stated there would be a lot of people at this meeting except for spring break with children and people wintering in warm weather. Mrs. Bertagnoli had a long conversation with Rick Bloomberg, Rick’s Super Value and his question was why do we need to have a bar. She asked the Council to ask Mr. Ode if he has applied for a pizza factory franchise as he said he was going to do and if that was a Minnesota or California fr^mchise. Rick Edwards, 2480 Carmen Street, resident since 1955, and is 400 feet away from the bowling alley. Mr. Edwards believes one saloon in town is enough. In the winter time residents put up witla the snowmobiles and they will find a way to cross your property, music, traffic, drunken dri'ung. He also has counted 30 motorcycles in front of the Narrows at one time and Harley Davidson motorcycles are noisy. Sometimes they have to close their windows at night because of the music from the Narrows - they open their doors when it gets hot inside. He continued saying his neighbor who lives on the corner of County Road 15 and Carmen Street is selling his house because of the traffic and the safety concerns for family. Ward Edwards, 2474 Carmen Street, stated they built their home in 1990. He agrees w-ith everything many of the people have already said. There is considerable noise from the .PAGE 8 of 23 > MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.n. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) NdiTows and with windows open in the sumnier, there is no choice but to listen to niotorcyc'e noise and drunken driving. Charles Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, a resident since 1987 and located 351 feet from the property in question didn’t receive notice because notices go out to people within 350 feet. What troubles Mr. Nadler is the left turn off of County Road 15 onto Kelly with a hidden intersection corning out of the bowling alley and it is easy to get hit at that intersection. In addition Mr. Nadle- is concerned about the increased traffic. Austin Evans, 2907 Kelly Avenue stated that a lot of people spoke tonight plus 97% of others are opposed to this liquor license as cited by Ms. Bertagnoli. Mr. Evan reiterated parts of his letter of March 18.2004. Mr. Evan’s letter of March 18, 2004 and his attorney’s letter of March 22, 2004 become a permanent part v,r the public record. There will be an increase in traffic, hardcover and parking. He is requesting the Council to partner with staff by denying application. He stated that the front door of the establishment will be as near to his front door as the space between second base to home base. Cars will be able to park as close to his house as the pitcher's mound is to home base and is concerned about the shutting of car do^rs and the loud, shouted goodbyes at 1:30 in the morning. He asked Council to denv .ne apclication. Mike Kellen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, resident over 20 years agrees with all residents that have previously spoken and requests the Council deny the application because of the background of the applicant and safety issues. Mi’<ce Keaveny represented the property owner which is his family. Mr. Keaveny grew up in his father’s pharmacy 44 years ago and the family has owned the building since 1965. The Scherver family has run the bowling alley and in June 2004 they are planning to close the place. Mr. Ode is interested in operating the bowling alley and between Mr. Keaveny ai.d Mr. Ode thought a restaurant and bowling alley would be a nice addition to the community for a family entertainment center. Mr. Ode thought it would be a good idea to offer someone an alcoholic beverage when they have their dinner. It is something 85% of all bowling alleys offer their clientele. It was not their intention to set anything up to be like the Narrows. It is designed to be a family entertainment center. Setups are offercu now and there is no control over how much alcohol a patron consumes. If a full liquor license was instituted it would be easier to control consumption. Mr. Keaveny is interested in improving the looks of the neighborhood by fixing up this site. His father was ill for a long time and is no longer alive so it was difficult to keep up the site previously. Brad Hoyt, 2507 Kelly Avenue, a resident of 25 years. Mr. Hoyt stated he owns three Harleys rmd understands the noise can be very bad and the propensity to rev the engine increases logarithmically with the total amount of beers one h^ had. He stated they can’t PAGE 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) open windows in their home beca’ e of the band music bouncing off glass in the windows. Mr. Hoyt thanked Mayor Peterson for speaking with him over the weekend and apologized for disturbing her solitude. He doesn’t believe this site is viable because of the intersection of County Road 15, the exit and entrance to the site and speeding down Kelly Avenue. He would like to know what the vision is for this building and the area. This building in question is a blight and the non-conforming use of the basement is no longer going to be in operation and is an opportiinity to see what else can happen on the property going forward. Mr. Hoyt suggests that if the ordinances need to be changed, change tliein. You just can’t grant variances without a hardship. There is no hardship here. Mr. Hoyt also stated he was tire one person that called on the CUP after receiving the public notice. Also he stated there is a gravel driveway and the parking lot has never been improved. Mr. Hoyt said he is a real estate developer and suggested adopting a moratorium to study what needs to be placed at Uris site. There are now multi-million dollar homes in the immediate area of this site and attractive retail should be placed at this site and in the immediate area to serve the residents. Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Murphy thanked everyone that appeared tonight and stated that Council needs to restrict their discussion to the application before them tonight. To Mr. Ode he said that he always seems to say it is someone else’s problem and he is not prepared to support the application. The police department has put in long hours of work on this application, but his denial is not solely based on the applicant, b; all the other pieces the staff and community have stated here tonight. Sansevere indicated he supports tire residents in the neighborhood most closely associated with the project location in opposition. He quoted Mrs. O’Malley when she said Orono considers its residents first above projects and that is what tliis meeting is about. The public spoke out 13 to I (owner of building Keaveney in support) in opposition to the liquor application and one ol the people that spoke had talked to 90 people in opposition by petition. Mr. Ode also submitted a letter dated March 17,2004 from the Bowling Proprietors Association of Minnesota stating that a high percentage of bowling alleys now have liquor licenses, but Sansevere doesn’t believe a large number of those establishments open up into a residential area. He also asked legal counsel what the Council can do to stop arry future liquor licenses at this site and wants to move to rescind tire 3-2 liquor license currently in place based on the police report. Attorney Barrett said in respect to the first question the council’s authority under state law provides that it may issue a liquor license within that language which is permissive. He PAGE 10 of 23 n MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) stated he has advised Council that they have the right to determine that other health and safety impacts may occur and that it’s on that basis that the staff report talks about that there are impacts on the neighborhood and the traffic and would be a basis on which the Council could deny. With respect to the larger question on the use of the property, he has not recently heard a developer like Mr. Hoyt offer a moratorium, but at some point the City may wish to take a look at how that area is zoned and how it zones its liquor license applications. There is not currently a lot of zoning dealing with liquor licenses and the Council may wish to consider that. Finally, in regards to the 3.2 liquor license currently in place at this site, under state law at this time, it requires an independent hearing examiner be appointed and if the Council made a resolution for staff to prepare a Complaint or an effort to withdraw the 3.2 liquor license than it would be a requirement that the City identify and hire an independent hearing examiner, have a hearing in front of the examiner, and have a report come back to the City Council under which it could make a decision. Sanseverc stated to Mr. Ode and Mr. Keavney that he w'ould have no problem with the bowling alley opening with a pizza factory or any kind of pizza. He continued by inquiring if the City has a requirement to prevent a liquor license being utilized at that site in the future. Attorney Barrett stated he is not sure he knows the history of the setup liquor license and can’t advise Council on tliat question at this time. White stated home is where the heart is and the community is where the home is and it is not surprising that all these people turned out this evening. He stated he couldn’t think of a worse location to have a liquor license. He is opposed and agrees with the residents. White also said he is concerned about the application process indicating the City is very tough with residents that have a small amount of hardcover and we find out when we measure that the whole thing is a parking lot. We make them remove that hardcover. When an applicant comes in and signs a liquor license application and it is submitted to the Police Department and the application has obvious errors and falsehoods, then the City has a real problem. White would support getting a hearing examiner to look at this whole issue. We are tough on honesty. He is opposed to this application. Mayor Peterson indicated she is opposed to this application for a liquor license not only for the health, safety and welfare issues that have been brought up this evening but also because a full liquor license is not an appropriate use for that location. She stated she and Mr. Keavney are schoolmates and she bowled as a teenager at this bowling alley back in 1965 PAGE 11 of 23 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING-PAUL ODE-NAVARRE LANES continued) when that was probably an appropriate use for this building when traffic and resident counts were low. Today she agrees with Mr. Hoyt that maybe something else needs to be placed at this site. She has an issue with the way the NavaiTC area has developed. There are many more families there than in 1965 and she can appreciate what Mr. Keavney’s father had there at the time - it was a viable establishment. Moorse stated that if the motion were for denial he would suggest directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and bring it back to the next meeting. Sansevere moved and White seconded a motion directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and bring it back to the next meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Murphy moved and White seconded a resolution to engage a hearing examiner to open Mr. Ode’s 3.2 liquor license. Attorney Barrett is in agreement with the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. A break was taken from 8:30 to 8:47 p.m. API IVAL OF MINUTES *S. Regular Coth^il Meeting of March 8, 2004 Murphy moved, SansevcS^£condcd, to approve the Minutes of M: VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 8, 2C04, as presented. PARK COMMISSION COMMEN Pauline Bouchard had left the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMME^ Jeanne Mabusth stated she was present t^nswer any que^Council may have. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *6. «2587 KRIS R^D ON BEHALF OF RICHARD RUDD, 4575 WAYZATA BOULEVAR^^XTENSION OF EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVA^RESOLUTION NO. 5134 MuijT^moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5134 extending the efUffive period of fmal plat approval to July 31,2006 for Richard Rudd and Kris Rudd r the property located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 12 of 23 EXHIBIT G Memorandum Date:April 12, 2004 To:Mike Keaveny Paul Ode From:Janice Gundlach, City Planner RE:Restaurant With or Without Liquor This memorandum is intended to confirm our meeting on April 14. 2004 at 10:30am. The primary reason for this meeting is to have a joint understanding about your application, and for City staff to advise you on that application. The following is a list of issues that you must be aware of when applying for a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with or without liquor: • In order to continue the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant you must decide whether you arc applying for a restaurant with liquor (Class II) or a restaurant without liquor (Class 1). The effects of a Class 11 verses Class I restaurant differ and City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council need to be aware of this when reviewing the site plan. • The City Council, at its March 22, 2004 meeting, was clear that it will not support liquor of any kind with a proposed restaurant. I’ve attached those meeting minutes for your review. If you propose a restaurant with liquor (Class II), City staff very firmly believes the application would be denied. • If you propose a restaurant without liquor (Class I) it cannot be attached to the bowling alby while the bowling alley/Thc Crib has a liquor license (3.2% or setup) in effect. Otherwise, the only access to the restaurant can be through an exterior door. This issue is not negotiable due to the City's inability to control liquor moving between the bowling alley/Thc Crib and a restaurant that has an interior connection. • The following are all additional components that need to be approved in conjunction with approval of a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant: o Approval of a Commercial Site Plan Review o Approval of a Hardcover Variance o Approval of a Structural Coverage Variance o Approval of Parking Variances (to ^ of stalls and possibly setbacks to property lines) • The property is currently far out of compliance with zoning requirements. Ba.sed on the Council ’s concerns regarding the impacts on the residential neighborhood of expanding the intensity of the use on the site, the Planning Commission and Council may find that the site is already at or beyond its full capacity. Plarming Department staff will work through the application to assist in a plan that gets as close as it can to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, which ultimately determines whether approval for tire restaurant use will be granted. If you have any questions regarding this information, please bring them to the meeting scheduled for April 14, 2004 at 10:30am. The City’s goal for this meeting is for all parties involved to be clear on the application that is proposed and to provide you with realistic expectations for the outcome. We look forward to meeting with you. EXHIBIT H o o •'V-, s -1 . . t CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 February 5,2004 Michael K. Keaveny 13425 Highway 5 Young America, MN 55397 RE: 60-day Review Period Extension Project ##04-2977 Dear Mr. Keaveny; State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on December 17, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on February 15, 2004. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission at the January 20,2004 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day review period ends. Therefore, the 60- day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to April 15, 2004. Your application is scheduled to be heard at the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you and please call me at (952) 249-4623 should you have further questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Janice Gundlach City Planner lUcphone (952) 249-4600 • fax (952) 249-4616 wirwxLoeoaiuaiim \ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 April 12, 2004 To: City of Orono Planning Commission, Regarding my conditional use permit# 04-2977,1 would like to extend the sixty-day review for an additional sixty days. Thank you, Michael J. Keaveny 3425 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 A EXraBIT I See. 78-643. Permitted uses. Within any B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the council: ii Retail and service businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for residents in the suiTOunding neighborhood; a. Arts and school supplies store. b. Banks and insurance companies. c. d. e. f. g- •• J n. o. P- q* r. Barbershops and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, record shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drugstore merchandise. Dry cleaning and laundry pickup stations, including incidental pressing and repair. Garden supplies, florist shop. i. Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. k. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. 1. Jewelry shops and repair. m. Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and repair stores. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store. Pet shop. s. Pipe and tobacco shops. t. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, carpet store. u. V. Postal substation. Real estate sales. w. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. X. Sewing center and yard goods. y. Sporting goods store. z. Tailor shops. aa. Temporary sales, such as Christmas tree lots. bb. Travel bureau. cc. Variety store. dd. Wearing apparel store, shoestore. ee. Off-sale liquor store. ff. Home and garden equipment rental. (2) Municipal buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. (Code 1984, § 10.40(3); Ord. No. 152 2nd series, § 1,10-28-1996) See. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit: (1) Garages for the servicing and repair of automobiles, provided repair frmetions are totally enclosed in a building. (2) Motor fuel stations subject to the provisions set forth in section 78-1373. (3) Restaurant (class I), in which food is served to customers 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 mM live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. Restaurant (class II), i.e., a fast food, convenience, drive-in, or liquor store restaurant, which is a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food to be consumed at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another B or I district and is in the same ownership as the land in the B or I district and subject to those conditions as set forth in article X. division S, of this chapter and such other conditions as found necessary by the council. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines and buildings, such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antetwas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Day nurseries, provided not less than SO square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. Professiotral office and offices of a general nature. ; j > L.r vmitoiiliWfliitflfii r I t^Jt Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (a) Area. In any B-1 district, the minimuni lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. Lot width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. Front yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimtim rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be IS feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shali be ten feet. (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. (f) Fencing. Wherever a B-1 retail sales business district abuts an R district, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50 percent opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. (g) Building design and construction In addition to other restrictions of this chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be; Face brick; b. c. Natural stone; Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted in subsections (g)(l)a- -c of this section; or e.Other materials as may be approved by the council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed afrer the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 1 (3) No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. (h) Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer before submission to the planning commission and council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff, whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must be in compliance with the surface water management plan and shall be consistent witli other applicable regulations or provisions of this Code and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by tlte drainage. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. r h / f / 1: EXHIBIT J CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing which was tabled on January 20, 2004 regarding application #04-2977, Richard M. Keaveny’s request for a commercial site plan review, conditional use permit to operate a restaurant (Class II), a hardcover variance and a structural coverage variance for 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive. The public hearing will take place: Monday, April 19,2004 Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway Meeting begins at 6:00pm This item is currently scheduled as Item 2 on the meeting agenda and is expected to be heard early in the evening. All persons wishing to be heard should appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director ) . e,I iJi h. i > ^ >^ ill I iiu 1 rTiMiiiiiiiifnWiiiia II III Haaaiiitibai RpP 26 04 OltSOp Uaeenla Ford 952-442-61 IS P-2 ^ui^ent-e- Auti,or)z-e. 'M'tf Coui^ciy^ ‘4' ^Jie. acnen^ dcntff'f^eriut^ i4,s^ r^gu^^T' ^oy-z9r?3 (4jl4^»uyb /y^Y buT jr capino ^~h a -/ffnifk^. i:. _v* %' Date Application Received: 03-08-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03-28-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 05-25-04 MFETING APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF CRONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: April 21,2004 Item No ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner_______ Zoning Item Description: #04-2999 - George & Marilyn Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-1 C, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, '/j acre Lot Area: 15,741 s.f. (0.36 acre) List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 04-20-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 04-19-04 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to rebuild their 483 s.f. deck which is rotted and to add a screened porch beneath the new deck. The application consists of the following: Hardcover variance of 30% where 25% is normally allowed and 30%* currently exists. * after the exclusion offabric and plastic landscape liners______________________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On April 29, 2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the hardcover variance for hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone of 30% where 25% is normally allowed and an average lakeshore setback variance for replacement of their existing deck and construction of a screen porch beneath the new deck. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. i 2. 3. 4. 5. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires a minimum lot area of 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre). The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on April 19, 2004 and recommended approval of variances based cn the following findings: a. Due to the topography of the lots the lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be unaffected by the deck and screen porch. b. Due to the topography, views from the lake of the deck and screen porch will be minimal. c. The proposal will not have a negative impact on light, air or open space in the neighborhood. d. A hardcover vi..iance in the 75’-250’ zone is supported by tbe following hardship: i. The existing deck is rotted and needs to be replaced for safety purposes. ii. Hardcover is proposed to be reduced on the property from the current level in the 75’-250’ zone of 31.05% to 30%. There is no additional hardcover that can be reasonably removed. 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 convcnienct to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\ e 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 2 of 5 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 78-1279 Subdivision 6 and 78-1288 Subdivision B to allow the reconstruction of an existing deck with screen porch beneath in front of the average lakeshore setback and to allow the hardcover level within the 75 ’-250’ setback up to 30% subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and aimotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in confomiity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the level of 4.86%. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 3,403.5 s.f. or 30% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their penneability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by the footing inspection. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but arc 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 (April 26,2005). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of tliis resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26*'’ day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Properly Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COLFNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26* day of April, 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 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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instmment was acknowledged before me this__day of ,2004 by George E. Mileusnic, husband of Marilyn K. Mileusnic. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Marilyn K. Mileusnic, wife of George E. Mileusnic. day of ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ----------- ‘‘.It ^ X, "<r% \13 \ tyl IS, piik, alto til Uk Uadi includUit ilw vacaicd hiflrMy. lying bccwcta iIm ftool <m caiictly lias of mI4 lot aid tho iharoof LakoMiMloakatMdbchMtalJit ooclIttflyandMulbaly Unieoofaojd Lm 13 extended ioMidkkBrfiOft,iod being pM of OooiMMl Lot d, 9aciM 20i Toofrtiip 117, Raogc 23. lad xlio indicated oo plat of laid Spnog Paik, accardiof to *e meofdad plal teooC Hcnoipia County. M ^e¥ifer/D BAd- C3» WOCM STAMB PLACED BiAMiNGSON ASaUMCD QATUM 0 •iMONMOM SBT anopoaco INPORAIATK3N _________ISTRjOOMGUEV 2jiU - WAf C l«iflCMaiC.V iMPLACS _________3ARAGC aXX)R eUEV. _________*CP 9LOCK ELEV. BA8CMB4TELEV ORAJNAOC ooQ oacxiar elsv rcoaot • PROPoae) ELEV »io«anrT’ai \ XhomoBGumsuBssim IMC ^ MrcoiiAiai ^OSO BOOK-PAGE SB - ICAU J#/TT ^ .ZflP? CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-2999 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 20,2004 TO: George & Marilyn Mileusnic 3243 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances as requested in oider to reconstruct the existing lakeside deck and construct a screen porch beneath that deck. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm __________ If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiuiing Commission minutes, they are __rpvipw ATiH annroval bv the Planning Coniniissi it you cesire ccniiicu copies ui luc i ^ - available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. •r V;-. £iari F’LE #04-2999 13 April 2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Application Received; 03-08-04 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 03-25-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 05-25-04 To;Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner April 13. 2004 04-2999, George & Marilyn Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC, Single Family Lakcsliorc Residential, '/t acre minimum 0.361 acre (15.741 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to rebuild their 483 s.f. deck which is rotted and to add a screened porch beneath the new deck. The application consists of the following; Hardcover variance of 31.05 % where 25% is normally allowed and 31.05% currently exists. Staff Rccommeiulation: Planning department staff recommends approval of the variance as requested with the following stipulations: V Removal of all fabric and plastic in landscape beds. Hardship: The deck as it currently exists constitutes hardcover in excess of 25%. there is a hardship to allow the applicants a variance to rchudd their existing deck. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. l ist ofKxhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Fonn C. Survey/Site Plan D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations E. Photos F. Property Owners List G. Plat Map I 1 >- iiijiiritriiifii n FILE m>4-299d 13 April 2004 Page 2 of 4 Background George and Marilyn Mileusnic own the property at 3243 Casco Circle. The existing deck is rotted and the applicants feel that for safety reasons it should be replaced. The applicants would also like to screen in the area beneath the deck for a screen porch. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780s.f (0.5 acre)100’ Actual 15,840 s.f (0.36 acre)60 ’ Setbacks: Structural Coveraae: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Rear 30’1 ’ - Garage No change North Side 10’12’-Deck No change South Side 10’14.5’-Deck No change Lakeshore 75’110’No change Average Lakeshore Not affected Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15,840 s.f. (0.36 acre)Allowed: 2,376 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,386 s.f. (15.1%) L A Hardcover Calculations: FILE «C4-2999 13 April 2004 Pagri 3 0^ 4 Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0- 75 4.5G0 s.f.0 s.f (0%) 219 s.f.* (4.86 %) Allowed: stairs to lakcshore 219 s.f. (4.86 %) Allowed: stairs to takeshore 75 - 250 11,340 S.f.2,835 s.f. (25%) 3,403.5 s.f (30 %) 3,403.5 s.f. (30 %) * After e.\clusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance for the 75’-250 ’ setback zone. The hardcover variance is required in order to replace their existing lakeside deck as it is rotted and they feel it is unsafe. VVIiiie replacing this deck the applicants arc also requesting a permit to constnict a screened porch under the structure of the deck. The reconstruction of the deck with the addition of the proposed screen porch would not increase hardcover or structural coverage as it currently exists. Average Lakeshore Setback The proposed deck will meet the average lakeshore setback from the neighboring deck setbacks. With the applicants’ proposal to screen in the area beneath the porcli the average setback would be measured from the neighboring houses rather than the decks, causing the deck/porch to be ahead of the average setback slightly. However, due to the topography of the lots and the setback from Lake Minnetonka, this slight encroachment into the average setback is virtually undetectable from the neighboring properties. Please refer to photos 2 through 5 for illustrations of the neighboring lake views. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis III coiisidcriitg applicalioits for variance, the Planniiif; Commisuon shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the cominnnity, existing and anticipated trajftc conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Coiuinission shall consider recoinincnding approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that because the deck is exists currently and the applicants have merely asked to replace it in kind, there is a hardship to justify the variance. The applicants are requesting a variance in order to maintain the square footage that currently exists and to be able to repair their rotted deck. FILE W4-299g 13Apnl 2004 Page 4 of 4 Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested provided the applicants remove all plastic and fabric liners in landscape beds. City of Orono ^ Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkwav Orono. MN 55356 Main; 952-243^6:0 fax: 952-24S-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-C066 Application # 0 ^ Date Received; \0^ Amount Paid;t (cDO- r/i Staff ; l\/l g-UM->i >> Fee:S600 Rene ’A3l: $300 ____________ After-tne-fa^t! 51.200 Double Fee ' This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of trie application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 0 4 'S 4 n .0^ y-( -S r c♦ . sProperty Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): -7 //> % □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: 0 Residential ' □ Outer ____________________________________ Zoning District: l(L\ i,____________ APPLICA^^T INFORMATION: (Complete legal nar.es and marital status required for each interested party) Name: t^ ^ nl>\e a VAt «>,._________ Phone (home): c- Phone (work): V ir^ - Address: o 4 ^ Crt sees 5A i<r\ ■ --s ?><~i 1 Email: Cl.n.l/usyttr- r^.> fT\c IrIVi . crfrl_____________ Fax: _____________________ N. ' OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names c.*d marital status required for each interested party) Name: AIa _____1 |\’il ___________________________________ Phone (horhe)O V^-^;> - Phone (work): 7^ • -V/'"/c Address: C7«’sco A r^'cl t_______ Email: u'.^iiic t II C ^(T>>i. Or. i?( Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______ ___ }"\Ck t \ S *-* <-‘-lfC(- -----tici—- f . A*. -=VC ,1 k-ft Mat <••rrhh(i~; -fAr: v V\ r%. nj<- ^-(1 f |n. cii v Ccncrtfi^ /tprifi’ n lo |0<>>1r*rOh\ c\{C^, ^ ____________ y n ■ r 0 u ^v. A >• vy •< \ fT,*4 •4 r t \ # L * « *»•I irf* • • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*'’ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one coov 8 5" x 11" or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11"or11"x 17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT ’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide alt information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred In review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so the Lnlal M to poSal 'o’ Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: o Date: Date: OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Date: 2lll^ Date: r . . /•’ •/ V\ ' t V • \ \ • ^ i •.* 'i t '• -y Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to tnc City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardshifis. 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? This 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 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 relate to the request (some may not apply); f. 2. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.’ rXy'ck. .vpx ’ Ci\d ^ rice6 ctai ^i\( To Lv-n r\ I A q r* <3vpnH. Covnec*rvn.':i 'n rhvPC-t v Cod f "The plight of the^landowner is due to circum^ances unique to his property not cre^d by the landowner." . / A/ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' rilc c-k’. r ai»HV\ dCcArf fVLvL-^ Mnt #-• Af c \C H V f J liinvx rxyid Ei^om^"^^nsiderations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 1,' i4____________________________________________ ...c/-. ts U, /a o,<' ^-------- 6. 8. 11. ’ • * f • * # t • • •• * . 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 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________ •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that Is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone wh^e the affected person's land is located.” 7. ”The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a jon^-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” •The special conditions applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” -Jk—KbiaiOViY'__V Xii\L\ (TVadrrl •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in whjch said land is located.” *Thft nrantinn of tho anniirtafinn le _________i* _____••The granting of the application is necessary fer the preservation and eTijoyment of a substantial property rig^t of the applicant.' (_r-r>.^cO |bt of tl it? r ir’* I 4 __ -xi—^ O^c r*' Thalia \ P.m (-/yW \^ c'onp r,M r.M r OV- •The granting of the proposed variance will net in anysuay impai- _ , . , - ly impair health, safety. Code respect be centrary to the intent of the Zoning HA j-;- • : .'v i. i /I'i . :0 .V. w • Y • ni:}‘ Page 3 of 3 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely sen/e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." " \ A/ v A a — ’ ■ ^ Ar*rct <(> U|(^<V LC-t rr>i r_i i <ry\jjA V ) rio -i t (1( riv ^ V VctO»-^U. £lLl C ort f-J Hardship Statement ... u »w 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 necessary): r, Ud |S,8|Hiatfiik,aiMaltiiwltQ4iiicliidiagiiitvtMie4W|kwty,|yintkctWMoCbtftoiilorMil«lyliKoriiidlolaidlhi ikart •rUfca litaMiMU. Md UtwMo Urn oortbifly and iouUMfly U bh ofMid Lot IS miciwkil lo Mid ItkcdM^oBi Wag pmofOooiiOMMHLitd,8ociiMiMLTowMidp II7,K*nc2l,aadiloouidkaicdooi>ipUloliiidS^diPiit,icfidii^io J Y / Pe^r^ n* ^lOOO 8TAM£ PlACiO ■MMG80N QATVIM 2f0j • Rif7ni9Ji^fWstL 0 •<m>iMOllSCT 3«0F08C0 MFORMATION ________1ST RjOQfl BXV 000.0 ■ fXtSr SL£V • • mOH liCM. MPIACC ___3A#UCC fLOCM KLSV ___T3P 9LOCH CLEV lOOatl • POOroSED CLEV XOO • oorf A NKM £UEV (iWauiWTWB \ /I ^CkOglSl aoon-PAGC SB - scan UAKUCO Vli^K UAlAJULAilUl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) lyivuibcs PATSnWG HAimCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lmgth D. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk at > :r % f. Laoascape _____ Uoderlaio ______ By Plastic ______ C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7- / 9 A _______________________ ■■■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk U ■ " ^ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic a. Other _ total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A "2-7^___ X X X X X X X X •X X X X B B X X X X X X X X X X X X 75-250'250-500*500-1000' S.F. Width B ruidM li h S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. 2/f S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. A X100 - X100 - j:j<roO S.F. B ^■^6 % % S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SI. SI. S.F. S.F. S.F. z SI. 279 xlOO -6^Z S.F. A SJ. B S .•i. i 0C-D /^HARDCX)VER CALCULATk^ W WORKSHE SETBACK ZONE: (dRCLE ONE) 0-75* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Home ^3,6 % 250-500'500-1000' WMiti ?■ 1 X X X 3 /?£ic/r ^ fTc^r T __ B. Gauge ^ ^ x __ C. Drivewxy _______tV oo_r^ f4 -20 D. Sidewalk /Z E. Patio/Deck F. Laadscape/^^45 - Uodeiiaiii (2^^ By Plastic |2 v.'7 799' lu^i O. Other 4/ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA W ZONE A • C- A _________ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __________ Lenfiii B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck P. Laiufacape Underlra By Plastic f G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ X X X X X X X 4- B B X X X X X X X X X X X X B / IJ^4A WiAh xIOO xioo xlOO “ 10^0,Z S.F. '/5. ~ S.F. SJ. S.F. ^8 0 c/>4D S.F. SJ. S.F. .SJ. S.F. ^7 .S.F. 46___SJF. je^SJ. /<? /.SP. 4!S.F. "3 ^ 2! r S.F. A22222121 S.F. B ____________V* 1 !.n s- ~y. .S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. SR. SJ.sr. ■k S.F. SR. A SJ. B % f 'i *N. >' y. \/\ jS^' X../ t « t.> •J * • ij . 'I'K'ir- * ■* //- I # •V.* f / rwiiini * .%* ^v. •>^> S^>- •r ‘ T ? i ■•" in^^^:.: " u. WJfL-J:' ■ 'BW/ ! \ ^ « .• ^ * i ■ ^ a Ur^IIwbSIW^^ ,.IM^ -f* %N *. ».^»* ^S5;g>.♦4-:• • . '3'C •r •’.Aft.'" .'* * .•, *. • •* •vW'..’ V- . •'.‘ir .* • . ••• V, * * • I .« * % . r4^*v • * j’ .-«. -i u>.-t< -V-/It 11/)}d/l. %'iZ rM;t: mi mM yXi r^;,--ec* •: ■ • •*V* V »i ». • * ■«. t IV - ■*- J • • • i gsissi* 4v^ Vv, '^•'T’l V ' . x^^^Pnme polwr ^fff- 2. \. ^ \ » ••*. I . . • V/ V* . • '. i ? / • >•-' ■'i'.H^. .V ;. ^ •,/ ■''■-tV.. V.“’ ■■;. ■ ;. // ...^' -,L.- rg»r • (^. i- ^ i* fjl1pii^,!v4:‘'-‘|'ik's -}£^' ■ ../J .••«.'ii., *' ^ ■*P^irni i mtat.'t iV; . .' ’ '• 1 y''%- h-if'y ■ 11'Cl-II* i: Wifir .<i-.WV'' •■■ s- ■■> • . "•. • •' ■ ‘T ^ • ^ • • • •V ‘ > ‘,! ’' •, >• ... .• ^xt-/45::.' • >vr %' :*m k ^ - *"» -y . "• ->'vt 'V-O •% .V<^' '•«? ft«eLv. - ff^* r‘‘* . • •• r* I fJj ^ ■ ^ 'i 0 {' 'itfi »■..» - '.• #*5 .'^ .f • )>J' ^-*;?jr^,-^y-', , • • 5‘ •/.-'■'i- '. -s*/ ■Vm: / ' -'•' V \(*». . •-MW. ^ " (l* ' \ * L‘. ::<••. '^.•v& SA^ W ’ • • •>\ ~ 1 * • .. v^-Vs '•’4 '•■'•Vir3'. i-3 I m A^4^ V UK .V :.^j 'awarj la,,./'*^ I nm .4 - ‘ ''t. *1 ' , • # ' y ' • . • . '• ■ -n' ■ ■• * %•%.' * ■ ^v. A. , < \’\V^V H'.. ’ ^ V. ■ * -*• r ^ 7 K’ ’ ^ V“'" ^ % j m mm Wm m m ^jyj'y-^AH wr- X ^... V .T> ' ^i v • - 0 'I • ✓ •y: vtl* ^- t--c v;a-» . >• ♦• - V '^.r r.' ^ *v- >■ KA?- F) Mkl P'i^'"'n-. 7.. V*’’ ^. i. 1> N f jii RUN DATE iVNQQD* 31 2011723430008 PROPADDR 3249 CASCO CIR OWNER NAME ROLUESSEETAL TAXPAYER ROBERT LUESSE NAME/AODR 3M9 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011721430013 PROP ADDR 3217 CASCO CIR OWNERNAME JULIAN HOOK A PEGGY R HOOK TAXPAYER JULIAN A PEGGY HOOK NAME/ADOR 15250 WAYZATABLVD *107 WAYZATAMN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYS1T.M PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 2011723430009 PROPADDR 3247 CASCO CIR OWNER NAME KURT CARLSON A WIFE TAXPAYER KURT A LUCILLE CARLSON NAME/ADDR 3247 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723430010 PROPADDR 3243 CASCO CIR OWNER NAME GEORGE E/MARILYN K MILEUSNIC TAXPAYER GEORGE E MILEUSNIC NAME/ADDR 3243 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 2011723430031 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESSUNASSIONED OWNER NAME THE CASCO CO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO PARKS NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 2011723430050 PROPADDR 3241 CASCO CIR OWNERNAME KTA P A KENNEUCK KEVIN T/PATRJCIA A KENNEFICK NAME/ADDR 3241 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY TIIATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND •mUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE~_lf_^l BY *, , ■ S PAGE: I II * w O') Sf ? O'o'vgr ' V M ‘ \\ V \ur-* '_\v^ \\\i VtvN*\-Sc o 3^^-A t US< Vi t-_VX~c\ C ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I ()UO\''‘l ‘,y; J •* - -(uWti giPrrv^ of ' Jijrint riame(^) ‘ ‘ [print address] t™* have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at iLyu r.(c W also referred to as Land Use Application No. M 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 M/A c>*/ Date Property Owner Date • ***•*•*#•** a* *•«***•**••*••* Aft fHi«tHiftA***ee**e********ee*«v^*****«eee«ee*«~»^«*eee* I (we) K'aA^NtSricic of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans fpr the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at v. jt! ! K*SC n(\fC^lso referred to as Lard Use Application No.M . 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. V- A j/ Property Owner \ Date 7 /fz/o^ tl/t it jQ*C Property Owner 0 Date /a/'V If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. J >■< '• • ** Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Parcel Information t.. i arcel ID 2011723430010 . : House Number3243 v-t‘ V w '•4 * V^,.-4V < Thts’ianolal^fyiiconMmap. nripreiaftia^fcohv^latk^af^l^^ ^ N.m. CASW? PifiSt; and daXa <^, County, and State mad autfioftW— end otier eotocO. * imiiaii^ii'yitiniMtiiiiri Dale Application Received: 3*16*04 Date Application Coniidered at Compicte; 3-16-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 5-15-04 APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF OHOwO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date; April 21. 2004 Item No.: | ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlact\^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3000, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture/Preservation on behalf of Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard - CUP Amendment - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR- in. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 8 Total Parcels (including one in Wayzata) Total Acreage = ~155 acres within Orono Approximately 1000 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation D - PC Action Notice 4-21-04 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 4-15-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests an amendment to the original conditional use permit and subsequently a site plan review to allow two minor additions to the existing building, all in conjunction with a complete renovation of the main structure. Planning Commission Recommendation On Consent, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plans as submitted with a unanimous 7-0 vote. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution amending the conditional use permit for Wayzata Country Club located at 200 Wayzata Boulevard. 5. 6. a. The two additions expand the current footprint. b. The additions meet all required setbacks. c. The facade design of the two additions will match the existing fa9ade of the club house structure. 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 conditional use permit amendment on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this ^oning district; that granting the conditional use permit amendment would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a lire 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 a conditional use permit amendment to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 418 to allow construction of two minor additions to the existing building all in conjunction with a complete renovation of the main structure, subject to the following conditions 1.Council approval is biased on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 2 of 5 ll 2.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 conditional use permit amendment will expire on that date (April 26,2005). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.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 26*’’ day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 T f e 5, i 1] 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 or 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 4 of 5 State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of ,2004 signing of behalf of Wayzata Country Club. Notary Public I Page S of S r' EXHIBIT A ■ Parcel 1 m t > * .-.Troct 1; Tract 2: f All br the following described Tracts: Ml of Lots 59 »nd i/2*^of^the°Northi^the easterly line of the West 1/2 ^ Section 1. Township. 117. Rons® ^ 27 which abandoned road tor’s Subdivision Number l8»l from sepuraUed l-ots 59 ond 3* ^ ci.hdivislon Nutubcf l6*J lying Lots 60 and 6'». said cast line of Lot 59. said between the southerly -p^ ^he easterly line of the Auditor’s Subdivision . which line is 33 feet Town Rood os now loid “nd t ^ ^ following northeasterly ^ _ „t the southeost corner of the described liner. Township ll8 North. Range 23Southwest Quarter of Section 3 .•Southwest Quarter ?rt'to"t^e *’°^"\°!;t'’?Tro5thLst:rit"ir°ect!on doscrlted; to Trunk Hlgh-oy N|- 12 "tkore rrllnfti'nl! aU In on fUa "rrtccoTii:\"h=Tmc°='c°r the BegUter or Beads In and for soid County. tot 65. 6uattor's Subdivision r/the hfguter of Deeds In «id tor s.ld County. ■£i*ise^ I ^ 1 rr»ct- 3; .» Lot Gl, Auditor's Subdivision Number. iM, Hennepin County',’ Minncsotn, except iJint part of the south 175 feet tliereof lying cast of tlie west 51 Icct ond lying .west of the east 280 feet of sold lot and except the south I50 feet of the east 280 feet thcreor, according to the plat thereof'on file or of record in the Orrice of the Hegister of Deeds in and for’said County. • , •|. • . V.. • • •' >* Except that port whicli lies within a distance of I^IO feet on eoch side of the following described line: From a point on the north ' line of Section 6. Township. 117:North, Range 22 West, distant 670.02 east of the northwest corner thereof, run southeasterly at an angle of 28 degrees ll*.mlnutes 12. seconds with said north section line for 585«92 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run northwesterly on the lost obove described course for 30*93 feet; thence deflect to the left on a . 3 degrees 00 minute curve (delta*angle 62 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds) for 2079*12 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 883*31 feet: thence deflect to the right on a.2 degrees 00 minute curve (delta onglo 3^ degrees.4l minutes 10 seconds) for 173^*31 feet; thence deflect to the right on o 2 degree minute 16.59 second curve (delta angle*37 degrees 30 minutes) for 1329*19 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 50.2 feet; thence deflect to the riglit on a 4 degree 30 minute curve (delta angle 38 degrees 57 minutes) for 865.56 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 465.05 feet and there terminating. • • • r! i *. •« t Also except Uiat part of Tract 2 described obove adjoining and southerly nnd westerly of the last obove described strip; . *• t *• : Also except that part of Troct 2 described above lying northeasterly of u line run parallel with and distant l40 feet* northeasterly of the first above described line which lies > westerly of Line A described below: • tig? Af ' ..V •Prom a point on the first above described line distant 151*52 feet southeasterly of its point of termination run northeasterly at an angle of 82 degrees 17 minutes 5d seconds with, the said * line (when measured from northwest to northeast) for 274.76 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 32 degrees 23 minutes ,.01 seconds for 107.5 feet to the point of beginoing of Line A to be described; thence deflect to the right at on angle of 90 degrees and run southerly to an intersection with the southe.'ly .'jboundary of Trunk Highway. No. 12 as now located and traveled; thftnce run southwesterly to o point distant 170 feet northeasterly (measured at right angles) of a point on the first above described line distant 288.09 feet southeasterly of Its point of terminotion; thence run southeasterly parallel with eaid. line for 950 feet (when measured'along said line): thence run southeasterly to a point distant l40 feet northeasterly (measured ot right angles) of a point on said liNb distant 1330.61 feet southeasterly of its point of ^rmination. and there terminating; .i .• *• ft .• a.: 4 1. ■ . also except' thot part of Tracks 2 and 3 described above lying northerly of o line run parallel 'with and distant l40 feet northerly of the first above described line which lies southerly and easterly of Line B described below: 2. ¥ .. ••. / ; I • •Liifto C; • i Beslnnlng at o point on Line C described below distant 200 feet southeasterly of its point of terhinatlon; thence run southwesterly at right angles with said Line C fpr 50 feet; thence run southeasterly to o point distant 80 feet southwesterly (measured'ot right angles) of a point on said Line C distant 3^0 feet southeasterly of its point of termination; thence run southwesterly to a point distant 300 feet northwesterly (measured at right angles) of a poir^ on the first, ^bove described line distant 3199.50. feet sou^Aesterly of its point of beginning; thence run southwestern to a point dis tant 350 feet northwesterly (measuv^ at right angles):of a.point on said line diatont 3429,58 feet aouthwesterl/'of its point of beginning; thence run southwesterly .to a point distant I60 feet northwesterly (neosured'at right angles) of a point on said line distant 3749.58 feet southwesterly of its point of beginning; thence run westerly porallel with sold line for 1450 feet (when measured olong said line); thence run northwesterly to q point distant l40 feet northeasterly (measured ot right ongles) of a point on sold line distant 5399.58 feet southwesterly of its •point of beginning and there terminating. Beginning at a point on the first obove described line distant 24o4.81 feet southwesterly of its point of beginning; thence run northwesterly.at on angle of 45 degrees 50 minutes 08 seconds with said line (when measured from southwest to northwest) for 1120.35 feet and thence terminating; also except that part of Tract 3 described above lying southeasterly of a line run parallel, with and distant l40 feet southeasterly of the’first above described line which lies northwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 120 feet southeasterly of Line. 0 described below: . 2 ^ • • Line D: • •• Line E: e » • Proa a point on the first above described line distant 2300 feet westerly of Its point of beginning, run southeasterly at right angles with said line for.24 feet to the point of beginning of Line 0 to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle . of 90 degrees for.l45 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 1 degrees 00 ainute curve (delta angle 5 degree 25 minute's 12 seconds) for 542 feet and there terminating; Also except that part of Tract 3 described above adjoining*and southeasterly of the last above described strip which lies northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 8, Block 2, Wayzata Highlands distant 155 feet north of the southwest corner thereof; thence run southwesterly to a point distant 120 feet southeasterly (measured at right angles) of a point on Line D described obove distant 200 feet southwesterly of its point of beginning and there terminating; also except that part of Tract 1 described above lying northwesterly of a line run parallel with and distent l40 feet northwesterly of the first above described line which lies southerly of Line E described below: Beginning at o point on Line C described above distant 200 feet southeasterly of its point of termination; thence run • northeasterly at right ongles with said Line C for 50 feet; thence run easterly to a point distant 80 feet northeasterly (measured at right angles) of point on said Line C distont 700 feet southeasterly of its point of terminotion; thence run easterly to a point disteuit 164 feet northwesterly (meosured at right angles) of a point on the first above describe line distant 2330 feet westerly of its point of beginning; thence run northeasterly parollel with said line for I5OO feet end there terminating: w Also except that part of Tract 3 which lies Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 12 os described in Deed Doc. No. 1026364, Files of the Registrar of Titles; • • I *•2: fHSSO* ■% • • • rjircel 4: .* »•• 5: ; . Priccel 6 • • Lot ;63* Auditor’s Subdivision Number 184, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plot thereof on file or of record the office of the Register-.of Deeds, in and for sold County. Tlie West 1/2 of the Southeast puarter of Section 36, Tovmshlp' 118, Range 23t except that part of the North 33 feet thereof described os follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of Cost along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 400 feet to the point of beginning of the property being described: thence continuing on a bearing Cast along said North line to point distant 33Q feet West of the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 8 degrees 29 minutes West to the South line of said North. 33 feet; thence on a bearing of West w’v along said South line to its intersection with a line drawn South 18 degrees*33 minutes Cast from the point of beginning: thence> ' North 18 degrees 33 minutes West to the point of beginning. /:• •f :i I That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township II8, Range 23, lying southwesterly of the County Road. ' . . . f Parcel 1, 2, 3 and 4 being registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No.- 763896. The West I30 feet of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision Number 184, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that port thereof lying Southeasterly of the Southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway No. .12 as shown by that certain Final Certificate filed June 8, 1973 I fis Document No. 1073214 in favor of the State of Minnesota, also except that part thereof embraced within Fairway Hills Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or.of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. Being registered land os evidenced by Certificate of Title No. ..763894. Outlet B, Fairway Hills Addition, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Hennepin County,. Minnesota. t • Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 763899. . S (_j> Pdrcel 7;,That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of . Section 36. Township II8. Range 23» lying South and East of.the plat Herrick Circle, now replatted and known as SUMMIT STATION, and lying North and East of the center line of the South Minneapolis and Watertown Road also called Wpyzata and Long Lake Road. ; porcel 8:Outlots A ond B, Hauser Lauer WCC Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 9s That part of Government Lot 2, Section 136, Township II8, Range ;23. described os follows: Beginning at the Soutl;.ast corner of ' said Government Lot 2; thence North along the East line of said Government Lot 2. a distance of 663 feet; thence West parallel with the South line of sold Government Lot 2, a distance of ^30 feet: thence Southwesterly t'o point on the South line of said •Government Lot 2. a distance of 550 feet West of the point'of beginning: thence East olong sold South line to the point of ‘beginning. Porcel 10: • <\ * ■ J• . That part of Government Lot 2, Section 36, Township II8. Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Government- Lot 2; thence North along the West line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of I50 feet: thence East parallel with the South line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 350 feet: thence Southeasterly to a point on the South line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 400 feet East of the point of beginning; thence West along said South line -to the point of beginning. SURVEY CERTIFICATION ■ X, Paul A. Johnson, a licensed land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota, do hereby certify to Wayzata. Country Club. National Consumer .Cooperative Bank, and Title Insurance Company of Minnesota that this survey.was ' prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that the property and easement descriptions were taken from Title insurance Company of Minnesota's commitment to insure. Application No. U 645531 C dated November I9, 199I; that this survey was made on the ground and is a true and accurate representation of said real property: that said survey correctly shows the location of all buildings, major structures and major improvements on said described property: that there are no recorded or visible encroachments onto adjoining properties, streets or alleys by any of said buildings, structures or improvements except as shown thereon; that there are no visible rights-of-way or easements on said described property except as shown on said survey; and that there are no party walls or visible encroachments on said described property by buildings, structures or other' improvements situated on adjoining property, except as shown of said plat or -survey. Dated Tliis 19th day of December, 1991 ' a McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Payl A. Johnaon, Land Surveyor Minnesota Lie. No. 10938 c-u v: fti wMua ■MdlMU t. r*- CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 04-3000 27S0 ICftllcv Pttrkwsy P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: AprU 21, 2004 TO: Miller Dunwiddie Architects COPIES: Attn: Michael J. Bjornberg, AIA 123 North Third Street Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1657 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Commercial D ______________________ DATE OF MEETING: April 19.2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: To approve the plans as submitted. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. J 4^04.3000 April 19,2004 Page 1 of 3 Date Application Received: 3-16*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 3-16-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 5-15-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Plannec^^ Date:April 15,2004 Subject:#04-3000, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture/Preservation on behalf of Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Commercial Site Plan Review, Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR- IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 8 Total Parcels (including one in Wayzata) Total Acreage = ~165 acres with ~155 acres within Orono Approximately 1000 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests an amendment to the original conditiotul use permit and subsequently a site plan review to allow two minor additions to the existing building, all in conjunction with a complete renovation of the main structure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plans as submitted, Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-418. Conditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit; (4) Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private nonprofit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of these uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an R district, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit C - Site Plans and Roof Plan Exhibit D - Floor Plans Exhibit E - Elevations Exhibit F - Aerial Photographs Showing Additions and Property Boundaries Exhibit O - Property Owner’s List Exhibit H — Plat Map 1 LI; i I ! I I ^ I i I i / * 1^04.3000 April 19.2004 Page 3 of 3 Structural Coverage p ->o i /i This property is not subject to structural coverage requirements per Section 78-1403 as the property is in excess of 1.99 acres. Hardcover Calculations j • i. i. This property is also not subject to hardcover requirements as it is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Because additions to the existing building are proposed, the existing conditional use permit must be amended to reflect those changes. During the conditional use permit process the site is reviewed to ensure the additions meet setbacks, structural coverage and hardcover as well as parking requirements. This site is unique in that the existing building exists on two parcels, one in Orono and one in Wayzata. When the outer perimeter boundaries of all the parcels arc considered for setback purposes, the addition is well within setback. Also, because of the acreage of the propert'/ and because of its location relative to the Shoreland Overlay District, the site isn’t subject to those requirements. And lastly, because the site is club member only, parking v on’t need to increase with the square footage of the building. The existing parking is within the required setbacks and exists almost entirely within the Wayzata City limits. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control The City Engineer has reviewed the plans received thus far and has determined there are no major issues relative to reviewing the site plan. A more detailed engineering review will be conducted at the time of building permit where erosion control measures will be required. The City ’s biggest concern when grading is conducted on the property is that the property maintains its own drainage. Because the area that grading is proposed is so minimal when compared to the total area of the site, and because no other property owner will be affected by the proposed grading, staff and the City Engineer had found the plans submitted to be sufficient. Building Design The materials and fa9ade design proposed will match that of the existing structuie. The Zoning Ordinance doesn ’t specifically note materials required for conditional uses in residential zoning districts. Thus, Planning Department staff finds the proposed oxlerior elevations adequate. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the Planning Commission satisfied viith the level of detail provided? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the plans as submitted, which consists of approval of a conditional use permit amendment and commercial site plan review. i I >i I ,t I ! 5 V f. 34 i 5 U s il t ti'-Sl■SI ......... f- EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCATION , Site Address pWoL . -------------------------------------- Type of Applifiation to be Fil^d G-UP ___________________— Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 2.S-44>002.S . oiH/Tr^^r/^-oofet^ 36> -II8-Z3-4S-6CPI . Name mc«LEPi» POKj^lftPI^ _ Phone (home)___________________Phor.e(wurk), (p\^* ------- Address \7A City ----------Zip — OWNER (if different than Mpllcant) Name lAi. tlZ-Z-ityC^kXA-rrul C Lt^fV Phone (horn ^3 • PhonePhone (home) Address 2u0 Date Property Acquired I (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 ___Phone (wo.k) City iJdifimA Zip ^SJf/ t<^XC * (month/year) ^ $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/P ID - 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 Vacaticr With Subdivision $600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule"' ii ulmi .ii'h 1i ii ill i’li i 3II ill i ii i.!i i 111.! » » i: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 • Completed Application Form. 2. ■ '/ Describe request In detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels a^ plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepirl County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6®' Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612»348-59ir >) . ■■ . Certificate of Survey (slgrigdJjyja.Ijcens.ed' surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information; Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. /VfA-. P^^raphic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations \ involve changes in elevation (grades). • • 7. List of the legal narnes (include marital status) of all persons, with an interest In the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ' ' —v:*".. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY SUBMITTPn°r9f ^ SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to besuDmitteci.) The Applbant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has no^ been included. fngc?'aenL?stl! Application ,s complete. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE information required or requested by the Zoning Admmistrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee ^f^^sua expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature___Date H OWNER'S SIGNATURE aPP''“'ion and further authorized “t!"' PaVs«\n'nves“'an? «.« ,ch«luled ,evl« rritho PlarrntrSa tal .ched^^^^ ®3ch month. Applicants must be present ' Y- X an L il li I t f I O, I 1 A ^ • r i CityofOrono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-461C Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only: City Planner. 'Jajk.c e Iac Ay Meeting Date/Time: PC Date: 3/V/^V What is the purpose of a pre-appUcation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 2^0 uJgt\7^i-O. ■_______________________________ Property Identification Nurnber"(PIN):- ~ Zoning District:____________Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; □ Res. Access. Use □ Institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bldg □ Comm / Indust Use □ PRD / PID □ Land Alteration Site Plan Review □ Other: CXAP rr-f OTHERHNFORMATION^HERHNFORMATION: ^ ,01 ,9 yJ/KtfJ Srfe n /bij/ •Please note: Your application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Imj^ •_________•Applicant Signature:Date : .3/5/^ 4 iir\ f \ ^ I i I ii. .iiiriitrii'Y 1 L. EXHIBIT B Project Narrative In April 2003, Wayzata Country Club Initiated the Master Planning process for the clubhouse renovation & expansion. The Master Planning process was based or. the Strategic Planning Report, completed in January 2002. The Strategic Planning Report indicated concern about specific areas; the neeo ror increased casual dining space, the condition of the locker rooms, the lack of speed in food service and Inconsistency of food quality, the building infrastructure and various circulation Issues. As the master Planning effort progressed, further issues were identified and explored - ballroom circulation bottleneck, the exterior deck area, inefficient building senrice/delivory. lack of storage space, ADA concerns and the roof condition. New Construction New construction occurs In response to needs for Improved servico/delivery, neeos tor increased casual dining, and increased bar/lounge areas. The most significant addition occurs on the East side of the building and Is a 3 story addition which reonents the delivery dock, adds an enclosed stair, elevator, storage areas, relocated employee areas and attic mechanical space. The other now construction increases the casual dining area from a current seating layout of 44 to 88 seats and the bar seating increases from 26 seats to 45 seats. Formal Dining is reduced from 90 seats to 70 seats. Major Roifiodellng The areas of significant remodeling have addressed concerns in Ih.e kitchen, the i^Ker rooms, the existing rest rooms and exiting. The kitchen is currently over-crowded and the equipment is nearing the end of its use. The kitclion remodeling would be best Implemented while the facility operations are at a minimum. The remodeling ctiort is oxtonsiv0 • The locker rooms have been reviewed and reoriented. The remodeled locker provide an efficient layout of lockers and wet areas. Also part of this effort will be redesign of the mechanical and electrical systems serving these areas, to gain additional ceiling height. This effort is also extensive and best implemented while unoccupied. The bar/lounge area was studied to relieve a couple key issues - the general layout and circulation issues with the existing stair, and the views into the bar from the central corridor. . The existing exiting has been reviewed and the following changes are proposed; a now enclosed exit stair on the East side serving sorvicc/delivety. employee entry, and ballroom egress, a now ADA elevator connecting the second level Administration area with the lower two levels, and enhancement of the existing stair connecting the Main level with the Lower Level serving the Pro Shop, and Locker Rooms. Ti.o two sets of public rest rooms on the Main Level have been redesigned ♦n meet ADA requirements. Roof The existing roof is in poor condition and has inadequate flashing for water protection. The roof has numerous pieces of mechanical equipment and penetrations that need to be addressed. The current wood shakes are showing signs of deterioration and inadequate fastening. } .. I Ml y 1 1 il .4 i I. i! . 1 tl • We plan to modify the existing roof layout and construction. This would allow for elimination of the current 'bathtub' flat area that exists and provide a potential mechanical attic area. The attic mechanical area would provide an area for equipment that is sheltered, easily maintained and accessible. Mechanical Systems Several modifications to the mechanical systems are planned to serve the existing facility and to accommodate the proposed alterations and additions. These include replacing several air handling systems, such as; the kitchen makeup unit, the units serving the locker rooms, repladng the kitchen exhaust system, and extending the fire protection system, replacing the larger chiller and chilled water pumping/piping system, removing the fan coil units and piping system, and providing a new energy efficient direct digital control (DDC) temperature control system. Electrical Systems Power distribution will need to be modified and extended in remodeled areas and building additions. New receptacles, equipment services and motor power distribution will be added to accommodate remodeled areas and building additions. The existing telephone, sound, and fire alarm systems will be modified and extended to accommodate remodeled areas and building additions. The electrical utility pad-mounted tra.isformer and pad-mounted generator will be moved to accommodate the Casual Dining addition. A relocated electrical utility transformer will be located on the site to re-feed the electrical building senrice. A new natural gas generator will be located on site to serve the emergency electrical power distribution. Site Work The existing parking area accommodates approximately 270 parking spaces. The estimated future need is 234 spaces. The proposed remodeling and addition will not have a need for Increased p king. The Country Club is a member based use, not an open commercial use. The project does not project an increase in membership. The new service/delivery area will eliminate a substantial amount of paved roadway, which will be converted to green space and plantings. n XT! i l! I I .Vi 'h ■■•*.e K I // iJibaaiSBi f 'I arv«ii fUTi tarn MIIMU HmA u* •»* SIAItWt l-fO»^n} UM DRAFT EVS 1.1 .V *;7S&SR.^'JUR?«MOI «mift nxwt OM • »ai ir ; I kmL a »» " r ■MC AVU/—* / < Iigi!!fiMCpO#»• 4 I i • •»» « - Jlltl^ t fkl mmtra '•• • »ir puMiaroNt vtva aMSICM PAIH R»<^rX01MQ Aait4M.TfM«M( ^2is •OU10II linAMNQWiUfl . rppcfv^ ouRiL nr. TMMFTM. .......... . ...iv.••.» *.'•■ ■ •<•• ' ••■' • • •' • ' \ -• • • / i!?55Sn . "■••^-----■• ' v'-'ey '■ "■'--------- ■1..1 r -■ H'-.-' V .!'' . \ IMMlOATAtlfTMa ^ ■CMANTTfSTHM AWMA9 . • ----------------- ---- :-i> y y '-12^ .-jirt- j O f Urn/.- 7.^/''?- :i:f/W I Vn -.; -7 .' . /•WOt I /1 rrr*. ■■ ■■ • J - ■- >- • • » ill. ! . I fttJMowf cjonwD T=------------*•- WriATA COUMTWV out MlflAN LOOl 21 V-.., V* M %• t'. > i ' IWi .1 kr*m &i\ ov^’ .x.»'■’ o c’■'j =te ■ •.* t.. CO►-H H D >.k * jjPWoS<wcc<| . •\ . i Mlitti M&\jO «4W rT.r..;r.. I ” .% E wat^ata CtHATtW uut M U A>H H t*l <:J a?? msicM CM»f lArtMUl mtiL'tt Motion roMMiHjcnoM ««.•_____»« A300 - ■^rr-—.—,-. e:.- -tss 5. :«?'i-■ j-,. ' .1 'j. 'i’’ /^'■' "3*^ «• %’ ■•*'' •: ':mm -~** ifW vDr rKj lufr rr‘r h ' rl ** SS i^f ^1 k> < "a ■ ■ U\^ Ur''yf ' ,i^C- » ** ^ •;’ ' •■■* / 4 'V; I^-.' A f, 'y SMH V ‘i ' * ^.'.> >■'HPry-^?.‘■■ -jy ./.> --<s^ I -AV;u4inj^|^ ^i *^45'»v ^ wD|S|B^H ^ .-n'> -^-..rr- ;r<>j^^ • ^WBBS^^.!^' ;.v • ^-/r.^\> As v_** i *‘ ¥®P^I^54^ •>!•• ......-'-‘:j^.- r ,'^■•'■•*^S^^It^Biiis Wi Vali^ j **.' f ,V‘ f r K f>!\' V c >^ . .>.1 V 1 I^v . ?ri< ;• rf- • t-^J ,y/y( v^y? / i Hk^'fMlkk.^*<^ W ' A* 4. > X -iiiW S3»f «?N^ mX m ;^<’A\ VC- : 6h':‘V" m4 r?-;,1€<'!^?^:a • t ■. -•.* V’^*J4 . 4 i }‘ .. '-,y•^r*4J wi-;» / kZx ^s*»- V -•AlP!,^l JP'Wl ■ fl V ■Mm '*^"(LU»DXTC1/ 99 0111721110002 •BOP ADDR 163 WAYMTA ULVD W 3WNERNAME WAYZATA PARTNERS LTD PTORSHP TAXPAYER GLASER HNANCIAL GROUP INC '4AM0ADDR ATIN KIM JOHNSON 1 2I77YOUNOMANAVK STPAULMN 5JII6 99 OIII7212I0002 HOPADOR 99 ADDRESS PENDING bWNERNAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLOD taxpayer WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 4AM&AODR POBOXI5I WAYZATAMN 5M9I M 3611123310011 mOP ADDR 240 WAKEFIELD RO SAME/ADOR 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD WAYZATA MN 55191 3B 16IU211100I0 PROP ADDR 20 MVRTLEWOODRD OWNER NAME VERENAL PEARSON taxpayer VERENAL PEARSON NAME/ADOR 20MYRTLEWOOOROAD WAYZATAMN 55J9I 38 3611823140001 ntOPADOR 1« ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB taxpay er WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAME/ADDR PO box 151 f----- WAYZATAMN SS39I WAYZATAMN 55391 36118213400 I^OPAOOR 38 38 ADDRESS UNASStCNCO OWNOLNAMB SUMMIT STATION MMOWNRS ASSOC JAWRYBR STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC ATTN ROBERT MADOOCKS TREAS ISO OLD LONG LAK£RD HI NNI PIN COUNTY PROPER'^' 'NFORMAllON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWl LIST rAuc: I 99 0111723110023 PROP ADDR 121 WESTWOOD LAS OWNER NAME STONEWOODDESKiN BUILDUC TAXPAYER STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD LLC NAME/AODR 4420STONEUNEDR SPRING PARK MN 55384 99 01 11721320002 PROP ADDR 231 WAYZATA DLVDW OWNER NAMF. J E MATTESON A M C MATTESON TAXPAYER JAMES E MATTESON NAME/ADDR 10 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 36II823JI00I2 PROP ADDR 250 WAKEFIEIDRD OWNER NAME PAULBASZUCKJ taxpayer PAULBASZUCKJ NAME/AODR 250 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1611823)30013 PROP ADDR 15 MVRTLEWOODRD OWNER NAME DARRELTHIEL TAXPAYFJl DARRELTHIEL NAME/ADDR I5MYRTIEWOODRD WAYZATAMN 55391 18 3611873)40002 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB navie /ador BOX I SI WAYZATAMN 55)91 SI 3611873340011 PROP ADDR 480 OLD LONG LAKE RO OWNERNAME M4CLEIEUNE TAXPAYER MICHAEL LLEJEUNE NAME/AOOR 410 OIJJ LONG LAKE RD WAYZATAMN 55391 If ^ /I if ir %:• 99 0III22JI20OOI PROP ADDR 200 WAYZATA IlLVD W OWNERNAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAME/ADOR BOX 151 WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823310006 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME STATE OF MINN TAXPAYER DNR RE *L ESTATE MCMT NAME/AODR ATTN Dh-^'E CURTIN 500UFAYETTERD ST PAUL MN S5IS5 38 3611823330009 PROP ADDR 10 MVRTLEWOODRD OWNERNAME J E MATTESON A M C MATTESON JAMES A MARY MATTESON NAME/ADDR 10 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 18 36n82)))OOM PROP ADDR 25 MVRTLEWOODRD OWNER NAME SCOTT R A SARAH R LUSE TAXPAYER SCOTT R A SARAH R LOSE NAME/ADDR 25 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 WAYZATAMN 55)91 3611823)400 PROP ADDR 38)8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC NAME/AOOR ATTN ROBERT MADDOCKS TREAS 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD )l 1611121)40012 PROP ADDR 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD OWNER NAME PEDER F ENGEBRET30N ET AL TAXPAYER PEDER St UNOA ENGEBRETSON NAME/AOOR 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATAMN 55391 •V *■: \\ / * «iV > . It ii'iiifciiymi ■--RUN DATE: ySf2QM ___ M 36II82J3400I3 ftOfADOR «i0 OLD lONO LAKE RO ^4nNAME M NORMAN KAFSTADETAL ^AVER M NORMAN NAfSTAD 4AM&AOOR 12139 ST ANDREWS ST rancho MIRAfiBCA 92270 3S 361IIU4I00I0 ^ADOR 109 CHEVYaiASEDR WNOt NAME HEARNOLOVETAL rAXTAYER H E ARNOLDY 4AMNADOR 109 CHEW CHASt OR *....... WAYZATAMN 33WI ^ 38 MIlIJMIOOIJ •C^DOR 115 CHEVY CHASE DR IWNOtNAME AMVSCHUETT noVAVER AMYSCIWETT 4AM&AD0R • • 5 CHEVY CHASE UR •- WAYZATAMN 35WI -— 38 MIIM14IOOIA NtC»AODR HI CHEVY CHASE DR nWNeRNAME UOUISUOBF.IUIAUSEK LOUIS D OBERMAUSER JR NAMEIAOOR 121 chevy CHASE UR WAYZATAMN 55191 38 3611823410047 liorADOR 217 NORTHQATK Rl) OWNIRNAME G STUART ACKMAN I TAL 0 STUART ACKMAN NAME/AOOR 1614513THAVHN PLYMOUTH MN 5544/ 38 16III234I0OSI ifl^AOOR »0 NORTHOAnRO OWNIRNAMB nwseeagssee r^YBl HENRYACiAlLSEH I^AOP* IMNORTWIATERD WAYZATAMN 55191 HFNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM property OWNERS LIST PACIi: 7 JR 16II82JJ4IK)I4 PROP /VDOR 450 OIJl LONG LAKE RD OWNER NAME ROHERT F MAUOOCKS TRUSTEE taxpayer ROBERT FMADOOCKS NAME/ABDR 450 01^0 LONG 1AKE RD WAYZATAMN 55391 3i( 3611871410011 PROPADOR 111 CHEVY CHASE DR OWNER NAME THOMAS LCURRY ETAL ■|y^yp^Yi;|^ 7HOMAS LCURRY NAMFMUDR 111 CHEW CHASE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823410014 PROP ADDR 117 CHEW CHASE UR OWNP.RN/VMC ALAN J A CAROL K ARTHUR TAXPAYER ALAN J* CAROL K ARTHUR name /aodr 117 chew chase or WAYZATAMN 55391 38 36IIB234I0035 PROP AUDR 114 CHEW CHASE DR OWNER NAME CALANOGUTHIRUST TAXPAYER CHARI Orre A IANG«(nH NAMEVAUDR • M CHEW CHASE OR WAYZATAMN 55191 38 16II8714I004I PROPADOR 225 NORTHGATF RD OWNER NAME EU/AUETHVEUE WEBB TRUST TAXPAYER El J/.ABETH WEBB NAME/AODR 22* NORTHOATE RU WAV/ATAMN 55191 38 16II8U4I0051 PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME NORTHOATE TWO HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER NORTHOATE 3WOMOMEOWNER.S name /aoor unknown r V ■ IS jrinB/M40()i5 PROP ADDR 440 01.U LONG lAKE RD OWNER NAME WILUAM D 1AR.SON TAXPAYER WIUJAM D lARSON NAME/ADDR PO BOX 20087 OLOOMINUTUN MN S3420 18 3611821410012 PROP ADDR 113 CHEW CHASE DR OWNER NAME J DJAMSA A M N JAMSA TAXPAYER JONATHAN A MARTHA JAMSA NAME/AODR IliaiEVVCHASEDR WAYZATAMN 55191 38 36IIB214I00I5 PROP ADDR 119 CHEW CHASE DR OWNER NAME T W FORSTER A B J FORSTER TAXPAYER THOMAS FORSTER NAME/ADDR 119 CHEVY CHASE DR WAY/JITAMN 55191 36 3611823410016 PROP ADDR 116 CHEVY CHASE DR OWNER NAME R i MCCARTHY F.T At. TRSTFS TAXPAYER iOYCE E MCCAR1HY TRUST NAME/ADDR 116 CHEW CHASE DR WAYZATAMN 55191 38 3611821410049 PROP ADDR 23 J NORTHOAT E RD OWNER NAME CAROL F* PAUL W REESE IR TAXPAYER PAULWREESE JR NAME/AOOR CAROL FRJEHI RO REESE 233 NORTHOATE HI) WAYZATAMN 55191 38 16II8214IOOS4 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK5NED OWNER NAME NORTHOATE TWO HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER NORTHOATE TWO HOMEOWNERS NAMF7ADUR ADDRESS UNKNOWN ' ' *.• • • •Z 5*.. r I WJNDATE-.H j« 36mn«oooi TOPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNl:!) IWNERNAMR WAYZATA COUNTRY Cl IH» taxpayer WAYZAI a country cnm <ame /addr po box I si WAYZATA MN 5SWI 38 36M8114«K)05 •ro PADDR 8S HiRNDALERDN 3WNGRNAME TONYCHERMAKA ANNLCHtRMAK ?S!?yS1 TONYCIIERMAKAANNhClIPRMAK MME/ADOR 83 FERNDALE rd n ^ WAYZATA MN 3JJ91 j« 36II82M<OOOB •ROPAODR 90 fERNDALlir.KM.N 3WNERNAME XBSCIIERER*OMSCHERER taxpayer K B AG M SCHERER YAME/ADOR ^ FERNDALE GREEN ORONOMN SM9I 38 361I8214800M FROP AlXm S5 FERNDALE llREtN OWNER NAME WA* POMUIJJJiR WIIT-IAM A MUELLF.R MAME/ADDR SSFERNDALEOREm WAYZATA MN SJ39I 31 3AIII714400IR FROPADDR J« ADDRESS UNASSICINED OWNER NAME NORTIIOATE TWO HOMTOWNI RS TAXPAYER NORTIIOATE TWO HOMI OWNI .HS name /addr unknown 38 3611123440024 ffU)f AUOR M FERNDALE OREHN OWMm NAME JOHN L A ROXANNE J POWERS TAXPAYER JOHN LA ROXANNE J POWERS NAMR/AOOR FERNDAU GREEN WAYZATA MN 35JVI HUNNUIMN NFORMATION SYSTEM ••AOe: S 38 3611821410001 PROP ADDK 200 WAYZATA DI-VD W OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNIKY CTiJIl TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY (TTJll NAMI7ADUR PO BOX 151 WAYZATA MN 55)91 38 3611823440006 PROPADDR 75 FERNDALE RD N OWNER NAME Ri BRINKMAN ACIIBRINKMAN TAXPAYI.R RORY J BRINKMAN NAME/AUDK 93 FERNDAU: RD N WAYZATA MN 55)91 38 361182)440009 PROPADDR 100 FERNDAU'OREEN OWNER NAME RDUUPR ft UK UUER TAXPAYER RONAU) I AUER ft DEBRA K LAUbR NAMIZADDR lOOFfcKNDALEGRFFN WAYZATA MN 55)91 38 3611821440016 PROP ADDR 205 NORTIIOATE RD OWNER NAME: JOAN I ARNOl.l) TAXPAYER X)AN 1. ARNOLD NAMI7ADDR 205 NORnKiAfT: RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 361182)440021 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME TLftNUAPERRE TAXPAYER TlMODlYLft NANCY JLAPERKF. NAME/ADDR 65 FERNDAU; (iRFEN WAYZATA MN 55391 31 36II82J4400I5 PROPADDR 75 rt«NDAIJ£ORttN OWNER NAME J D HA VICE ft J HA VICE TAXPAYER JONATHAN DA JENNIFER llAYKSi NAME/ADDR 93 FERNDALE OREEH WAYZATA MN 55391 • . * PROP Aonw OWNFRNAMH TAXPAYER NAMF7ADUR 3g 16nHJ1440004 38 address UNASSICNED STATE OF MINN ONRHCM-ESTAU-MCMT ATTN DEBBIF. GURTTN 500 LAI AYLTTE RD ST PAUL MN 5M55 JB 3611823440007 PROPAODH 70 FERNDALLGRF-EN OWNER NAME WSTEINKRAUS A U MCMlU>N TAXPAYER WALTER J Sfl lNKKAUS AND NAME/ADDR BARBARA MCMILIAN 70 FERNDALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 55)91 18 3611823440010 PROPADDR 95 FERNDALEGREFJT OWNIXNAME JOHNAIRFNJ-HARNErr 7AXPAYLK JQIfN IIAKNHTT NAMF7ADUR 93 FERNDALE ORPTN WAYZATA MN 55)91 38 3611823440017 PROP ADDR 211 NORTNOATE RD OWNIXNAME NORMA R ft EDMUND JPIIQIJ^ JR TAXPAYER NORMA R ft LDMUNDl PlltLPSJR NAME/ADDR 211 NORTHGATE RD WAYZATA MN 55191 38 3611823440021 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNIX NAME WA3TZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA (XIUNIRY CLUB NAME/ADDR BOX 151 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 1611821440026 PROPADDR 65 F6RNDALEGREEN OWNER NAME TLANJLAPERRE TAXPAYER TIMOTHY LA NANCY JIAPERRF NAME/ADDR 65 FERNDALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 55191 1 ^ '' ’ • > ■■ ^- • r <.' • ^ t- ... RUNIMTC;W20M »v\.. 1 *♦ • «'«» - HFNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY fNFORMATION SYSTEM " property OWNERS LIST PAOE:« OtTie lllitWEWNOOUNry TAM-AVER SERVICES DEPA10MQn'..TO'niB OOT , • OFMyKNOWlEDOBANDBEUEE^^^j._^,,^j^ ^r 9J r r .•TT* dj ■ -If r' Date Application Received: 03*17-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03<2S-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: OS-25-04 APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF ORO/VO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date; April 21, 2004 Item No (( Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner_____ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3001 - Steven & Marcia Tiffany, 1325 Rest Point Ln - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IB, Single Family Lakesbore Residential, 1 acre .035 acre 75’ List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 04-20-04 C - PC Memo & Exhibits of04-l9-04 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting variances for lot area, lot width, and side street setback from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new single family residence on a lot 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre) in area where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required, 75’ in width where 140’ is required and setback 29’ from the alley where 35’ is required. _______ Planning Commission Recommendation On April 19,2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the lot width, lot area and side street setback variances. The approval for the side street setback variance was revised by the Planning Commission to allow a 20’ setback from the side street. The decreased setback will allow for a more centrally located home and will assist in the creation of drainage swales around the proposed house. Additionally the side street is a platted alley right-of-way and is serving as a driveway for a single residence. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. rr • A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-330 SUBDIVISION B FILE NO. 04-3001 WHEREAS, Steven K. TifTany and Marcia L. Tiffany, husband and wife (hereinaOer “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1325 Rest Point Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 74, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “propeny"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 Subdivision B for lot area, lot width and side setback variances to allow construction of a single family residence on the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3001. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires a minimum lot area of 1 acre and minimum lot width of 140 ’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on April 19, 2004 and recommended approval of variances based on the following findings: a. The property has 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre) in lot area and 75 ’ of lot width. b. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. Page 1 of 5 ■lUh J c. The property is served with municipal sewer. d. The property is similar in size to many of the lots in this neighborhood. c. The required side street setback is from an alley right-of-way which is serving as a private drive for one residence. Allowing a new residence to be located within 20 ’ of the alley will allow the house to be centrally located on the lot. f. The proposal meets lot coverage and hardcover rcquiremcniS. 4. 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. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to presetA'e 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 a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 Subdivision B to allow lot width, lot area and side street setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 2 of 5 r 2. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 3,856 s.f. or 25% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the 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 pennissive 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 (April 26, 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26“’ day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 I niMli f. 'I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN iKThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26 day of April, 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. Vcc, City Clerk 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'* 1 » r L STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of by Steven K. Tiffany, husband of Marcia L. Tiffany. .,2004 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of by Marcia L, Tiffany, wife of Steven K. Tiffany. ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 1 . 9ZS.UtFr ^/A4 ti 7 J6.% !<fo’ Sol tf Atty, eXWK ^'•Z Une * dtnohs fer/<//Vi^ f'*»nd dt/^tes frtfareJ £/*t/dt^oyi o DertoUs Sef iron fits 19/<>Z. • Dtno^ts Fotmcf Confdut PARCEL DESCRlFriON: Ul 74, TONKA vmw GARDENS, Heiiiiepin County, MiODHOtA. *' )TN,v V / iiXItTIElCATlQtl •m^ C. ■*• «» •••« 554 'ot^a.viCuJ ,(UUdiiA£. m— Z'lBH [oa-------WHenne/iin 5?4f» 4 /Ihrcim. /S2S f?£sr pa/Air l/IMT 0re9f6 i /yi/^r%. - 8nrf /ihre/ts \/1 63 OurUi Sf: «.«»• Ma^fArnt/i, 3tA/ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 04-3001 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 20,2004 TO: Steven & Marcia Tiffany 3257 14"* Avenue South #4 Minneapolis, MN 55407 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2004 Planoing CommissioD recommended as follows: Approval of the lot area, lot width and street side setback variances as submitted, allowing up to a 20’ setback from the alley right-of-way. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plamiing Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. i.r. V. • A r FILE #04-3001 13 April 2004 Page 1 of 3 Date Application Received: 03-17-04 Dale Application Coniidered at Complete: 03-25-04 60-Day Review Period Eapiret : 05-25-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner April 19,2004 04-3001, Steven & Marcia Tiffany, 1325 Rest Point Ln, -Variances - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre minimum 0.35 acre (15,425 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants arc requesting variances for lot area, lot width, and side street setback from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new single family residence on a lot 15,425 s.f (0.35 acre) in area where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required. 75’ in width where 140* is required and setback 29* from the alley where 35’ is required. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested __________________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections 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. (b) Lot Area (acre) Lot Width (feet) From Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (feet) Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 1 140 35 10 1 30 35 List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Sitc Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Site Photos G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map I. Letter from City Engineer dated 04-13-04 I ____ FILE «04.3001 13 April 20C4 Page 2 of 3 Background Steve and Marcia Tiffany are the property owners of 1325 Rest Point Lane and have proposed a single family residence for this undeveloped lot. In order to build a new home on the property lot area and lot width variances are required. This lot has been assessed for municipal sewer service. The applicants have proposed to construct a geodesic dome which wilt meet all the district requirements with the exception of the required 35 ’ setback from the alley right-of-way. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: ■ f\' 1 LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140’ Actual 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre)75 ’ Setbacks: LR-IB Required Proposed Front 35 ’35 ’ Rear 35 ’35 ’+ NE Side 10’10’ SW Side (alley)35 ’29’ Structural Coveraec: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15,425 s.f (0.35 acre)Allowed: 2,314 s.f (15%) Proposed: 1018 s.f (6.6%) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75 - 250 15,425 s.f 3,856 s.f (25%) 2300 s.f (14.9%) FILE #04-3001 13 Apfll 2004 Page 3 of 3 Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants are requesting a 6’ variance from the required side street setback of 35 ’. The side street setback is due to a plaited alley right-of-way along the southwest property line which serves merely as a private driveway for the properly owner to the northwest. This alley is paved and a wooden retaining wall blocks the alley from through traffic from North Shore Drive. The existence of this alley right-of-way causes a greater setback requirement for the applicants’ property. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis in considering applications/or variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values ofproperty in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances fivm the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. This property has very challenging topography, and with the setbacks there is only a long, thin buildable area. Staff finds that then is a hardship to justify granting a street setback variance for the applicants’ propertv. Hardcover and structural coverage are considerably under the allowed limits, and the fact that this lot was assessed for sewer makes the lot width and lot area variances a formality in this situation. As can be seen from the plat map, the lot size is similar to that of many other developed lots in the neighborhood. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. City of Orono Variance Application 9«fh0>r A street Address ’ 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Application # 'JiJ - ( Date Received; 0^ 1^0*-^ Amount Pa d; jj t r0Q.(A^ Staff: I HI Fee: S600 Renewal: S300 After-the-fact: $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Applcant will be notified within IS days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: « . ^ . Site Address: ^eST «fef»iT Ljn>\^ Property Identification Number (PIN): OT- //? -23 - 32 - 009^ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): // -C>3 □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential JS Other VqCanT ______________ Zoning District: LK" 1 ^___________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: /Complete legal narss and marital status required for each interested party).aAName: ’TiPrOt^y , Aforc/q , Mangled Phone (home): 6/Z • 7Zh _________Phone (work): sn^e Address: /ji^ Aur S Minm^dpc/lsS5'H-0'7______ Email; hef" __________________Fax: *7/^ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names £*.d marital status required for each interested party) Name: ________ Phone (home): Address: ___ Email: Phone (work): Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ lZC>,c^o Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary); aA^ tlptr- ciAg. la<A£. oAtd. i^O'^UHdie , /HSiSUi cL tHAXtd. cut o.t/. Z. ^ ^i<tt jUAie A' h' XmXo' * 4^Lc yaAAi( Xb’ U r. :U :%I 4 / t W. • I . .jT n f • *• •I* • .J i 0 ♦ • • . • • • • «• • • • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for vour application to be processed. ' □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A-603 300 South 6"’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one coov 8 5 ” x 11” or ir X 17"for reproduction. ' ' Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x11" or 11" X 17 for reproduction. k/ ^ 11 Sketches or plans of floor and elevation viev/s (provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" x 17 ”) Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Planninn Depar^ent. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the originai fee payment) and/or ransultant expenses incurred in rev,evv of this application and certifies that L informatL supplied is far that he/she Is solely k. for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the reauest tor denial of the request regardless of its potential merit request for ( Applicant's Signature: ^"7^ Applicant’s Signature:Date: 3 0^ Date: J ' I OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request ^ Members for Owner’s Signature: Owner’s Signature:Date: Date: ■Sno"' ralmTclmiS'L'? ^5 days before the Planning CommissionMeet ng. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month ass^n^d ,oTu«r“^"'^“^ "’p applicln.^lrd ad"vL" to^SrpTanner li .^■>511' o u-«j|La iiilimfifii Page 1 of 3 A HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. _____ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations 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? This 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 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 relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. 2. 3. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* &U4 <r>Ui cuchjp tsU4-1^0' -U^J>._______________ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." , "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.* "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." AVA__________________________________^------------- J± (T% . -A. ^0^)? I iil I « • # 5. 7. 8 9. • 10, 11. • • • Page 2 of 3 •Undue hardship afso includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2 when in harmony with this Chapter." _j>huAZ a. •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person s land is located • ^ ______ “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a dwelling as 8 two-family dwelling." The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar prOTerty or immediately adjoining property." —X <Muf ^ tAa/ ^he granting of the proposed variance will not In any way impair health safety comfort, morals, or m any other respect be contraoi to th^e intent of me lort^g /v ‘*\ i"! ‘ ' rf i 1 ' T# f • f • I ^ - . • ' • > ' •■' '7i i’f *7!V-1 f Page 3 of 3 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." 44^ tftMyt /xjLid«__________________^___________________ Hardship Statement 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 n0C6ssdry) t 4Xoi/ti\J/2haU <H>CyL ^QjUiAt/L 4^ ^ M/CiA /j* jUtu2d4M M:, '£/iT/f/c/ir£^oFSi//W£yt $0) ,V cf’*' • H^; .6?' exrti«»»T 61 \»JA • #/• N# v: ■'• jf> % • ^5«r//i^ a^s4ime</ Denotes Stf //v^ --RLS i9/^Z. Otno'tes Found /ton Area. /^, S//7 «y^- O.SS(,/lc. 't^ mm ►ARCEL DESCRIPTION; >t 74, TONKAVIKW GARDENS, Heniicpin County, innesota. N U ///u' ^ t*5n ,<b ^6 rF.RTlFlCATIQN I hereby cfMfy t^ot Ihii ewfvty. plon or r«port «ot prepored by me or u^der my direct iupwrtetoft OAd Ihot I om a duty Reqielered Lend Surveyor under U«e loot of l^e Stute of Mu'neeolo. avion C. A^ren• UN Re^. Mo. 19152 OATI For- f ^larc/d Tyfftn^ /3ZS ffesf Po,-n^ lane Orano, 4/^ _______ W^30'\^3- Barf^ Ahrens Pk tfr/- '“^TWl 83 Qmi SA ¥ZA-387 ‘ Mthfo medt'/ M^srsuS'hit MO rev. o■tsL1 1 1 OATt OAtt J Z-Z8-2*^ e^ ft V-. >3 ■■;• .'. '£/iT/f/C/ir£r Si//iV£y^ 4- 5®^ ^ j9‘ r, : &■: Ckssu^ned O Dtttofts J«/ />^/» /9/^^ • Dtnohs pound Iron Area. » /S, S/l l ‘>’' PARCEL DESCRIPTION X)t 74, TONKAVIEW GARDENS, Hennepin County, piinaesota. Ai \ rPRTtnCATIQM I h«rety ctrltfy t^ol tMf »u<vff. pion or report •oi preportd by me «r uAder my dWect super A»*o'' ond Ihot I om o duty Re^titored Lend S^vcyo^ w/'der the le«t of the Stute of Uinneseta Mn-ir- '/^iT t •.Win i Oorlort C. Ahrens UN Re«. No t4l62 OATI Sitift. f/Harc/cL /3Z5 Ses/ Petn^ JLmc Otone t T-7 f^ I « 4>AH// ^/. y^-5^y | / Mihh friedf} AI a /srs//s^RTUT n C / »■- ■♦ '■ 1, ,. tA Q ({^ S f'v,•* .' *•• .-* ‘r*. I *v I • t *• • pv; .:^2j /o' 1325 f^ETT FCtNT LANC . SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXI8TIMQ HARDCOVgR IN ZONE A. House______________ BWIBIT’g' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 0-75'75-250 • \250-800*500-1000^ Length Width X X 3 B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X SE 2; P. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X c 8 S G. Retaining Wails H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _^_ _ _ _ B IS, M 25*X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE » A. House It A-e: , Id' y Tt(u ‘Ht) Uenflth Widtft 10 IQ X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X ZO / 12,0 30 D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X 8 IZO F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Z300 * B tTMZi' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B O % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. :/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. < • . i • • • •* • r w ‘i \ ft i.-% I •* S.F. S.F. XlOO S.F. A S.F. 8 % » i ^ ^ . •-/ - HARDCOVER ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover”) such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris earned into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental Impact on the quality of water in the lake. The Intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages: Hardcover includes: • 0-75 0% 75-250* 25% 250-500* 30% 500-1000* 35% ^ Roofs, v' Sidewalks, ^ Paved or gravel driveways, ^ Patios & decks (includes slatted decks), Tops of retaining walls & rock walls, v' Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric, or ^ Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75*. 75-250', etc.) the calculation is for. 2. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. m 4. Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. \N ■ m Mfci1]frpr9»£a»j» •'-... .•. j'tAi : *^•-.'sA 'W4^ '•• . . ' '•.*» - C -V^ —•-' 4 *^1,.* r.' H ,j •.'* ;.n. ,. ,»»4 “•'« '«'■ P"iO i mMm phDfpm'%.. V . C*' c\*K j /5i!v.3Ci, ■>■,?. U 'iv-'- '' %:! / Si V ‘P pi t 'IP ‘ > ' c -'. '/ ' r * • •h ‘$9l___ fH 1-^ i 'li r;->v --- •* >/v-4 i,j^: ^z . '.X' •-•* ^ * .......................................»• ‘ •-•itJi>ttf}Wy'''^>re»ti>.}«>.A‘>t».«.'>v».tfy.'Wi»ri^i II m ^I tfn‘Vii 1 1 1 '’r.A'.'' ■'•■•*• ””-»»*H ^ y. • ----------------------------------------------------■-^ •/-. 1 , •* '1'’*^ f • w v\ ... /:*• ‘ -.. V/,...'/ I. ; \ . '1 «1,' I H ‘ yi" ' 'm ;•*?. '' /\»' f • . * V I..-|H/V ‘.V‘jp "-nrw. AM^/ Wkis^m— m y^- / ^ 'It • ' * h:1 . a ■ '■'*' -Jf- -^* ‘#5 j .«• *■•.' • .• •. >< • * A * *•» u •V > •,'x^>w;;' •• *••»•'P'^^.o..' ■ . ■'• ' Ml ..<I»W^S^it2> :\ f r , .‘*^ -' '^^ • - •«- 7 *'X ^ . . . J r \ . \ % ^.. • ''* ii. •- '. < • • •>. • Li •• 'Vi ' ' •■ ’- /' ^ .'s'v'’: 'i / . •■■•V> - / •'• y' ••• ^1111 . * ‘ N-f • FV*'-S V' 4.V • A* * 11.’ >1 •' • yy. • k'T ,, £. • . .. / i • • ■>M> KlWr-mf* .>J;' J, il ■» ••■ • ii .**•. •*•** *" * . <. i ' . ' • • pKtm+v ■tc tru^ «i5+: .;^- JL r RUNDATE;y«0» J8 07tni3320002 •ROPADDR 1340 REST POINT LA 3WNERNAME JHHOUTMANAKIHOUTMAN rAWAYER 1HHOUTMANAK3HOUTMAN UME/ADDR 1340 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 31 0711723320034 •ROP AOOR 1365 REST POINT RD )WNER NAME THOMAS NICHOI^S BERSCHEIO TAXPAYER THOMAS NICHOU4S BERSCHEIO 4AMETADDR >365 REST POINT RD MOUND MN SS364 38 07II7233200S2 •ROPADDR 1315 RESTPOINTLA DWNER NAME K J GROVER ASK GROVER l^^^yp^YER KEVIN J GROVER AND 4AMBTADDR SUSAN KOROVER 1315 REST POINT LA MINNETRISTAMN 55364 38 0711723320056 PROPADDR 4685 NORTH SHORE DR DWNER NAME HOIXY 3 A RICHARD R SCHAAD holly j a RICHARD R SCHAAD NAME/ADDR 4685 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 5S364 38 0711723320061 PROPADDR 1371 RESTPOINTLA OWNER NAME KENNETH W A RENEE G ECiGERl y^^^^y^YER KENNETH W A RLNEE G EOGERT NAME/ADUR 1371 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 0711723320025 PROP ADDR 4625 TONKAVIEW tJL OWNER NAME RICHARD O A JUl.lF A ROF.I.OFS TAXPAYER RICHARD G A JULIE A ROEIOES NAME/ADDR 4625 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 53364 38 07M723320026 PROP ADDR 4629 TONKAVIEW LA OWNER NAME 3 R AORAIIAMSON/D AI3RAHAMSON TAXPAYER JAMES R A DAWN ABRAHAMSON NAMI/ADDR <629 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 53364 38 0711723320038 PROP ADDR 1373 REST POINT RD OWNER NAME J II HOUTMAN A K J HOUTMAN *iy^y(py^YER JAMES H HOUTMAN NAME/ADDR 1340 REST POINT ORONOMN 53364 38 0711723370050 PROPADDR 4680 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME DENNIS A MEYER TAXPAYER DENNIS A MEYER NAME/ADDR <680 NORTH SHORE DR MOI/NDMN 55364 38 0711723320053 PROPADDR 1325 REST POINT LA OWNER NAME S TIFFANY A M TIFFANY TAXPAYER STEVE A MARCIA TIFFANY NAME/ADDR <685 NORTH SHORE DR mound MN 55364 38 0711723370054 PROPADDR 1345 RESTPOINTLA OWNER NAME JOSHUA DURAN TAXPAYER JOSHUA URAN NAME/ADDR 1345 RESTPOINT lA MOUND MN 55364 38 0711723320058 PROPADDR 4703 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME AHATKRASCHER TAXPAYER ANDREW H A TRACY K RASCHER NAME/ADDR 4705 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN S5364 38 0711723320059 PROP ADDR 4695 NORTII SHORE OR OWNER NAME STEPHENC A JOANNOA WARD TAXPAYER STEPHENC WARD NAME/ADDR 4695 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTWS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTUE HENNEPIN COUN TY TAXPAYER SERVia-S DEPARTMP4T, TP THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. J ' RVDATE PACE; I 6. J ( 1\ i/:;- ' - \ 4 U. f ■VTv . /■ V i(we ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(t)] [print address] have reviewed the ptlans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also r^erred to as Land Use Application No. ^ 30^^ • t i (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to dedare 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. Pro^rty Owner Property Owner Date K nimiemiiiii ikiiiiH^ieaifaiiwAaiiaiii& I (we) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM QotJ of Vj<0 - ^ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locatedhave reviewed the plans ror me proposed improvement or proposed use or me property lo at I ? ^ini also referred to as Land Use Application No. 6^ ~ / . 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 Property Owner Date »*w***#*a#a**********#*aa**a*aaaa*a**eaeeeaeaeee*eaeea«eeaeaaeeae #«•»«**«# •«*«*«• I (we)s}d^\ud [/roy] have reviewed th at 11^ [print name(s)l [print address] ted the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located nf'/tti also referred lo 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 (he proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 1 J' -v\-I"-'/ Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ; • I ■ f /' I Hf'nnepin .1' Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department *N 6 (201 "TONKAV. (*6i GARDENS \ \ ■.(37) ^At Parcel InformaUon |p«reel ID 07117233200S3 ' -M "^ouso Humber 1325 ,. • '< V ;' Stmet Name RSSt f'f ' t; ‘" TTite la not a legaSy ncorOad map. It repramrits k con^latloti of iritormtioh ' "and data from Oty. County, and Stata road auttwttm and^othar sources.-^y: f Li ^ 1 Bonestroo l^osene Anderlik & 1 vll Associates Engineers & Architects eyhii?i4- J- April 13. 2004 Bonttfroo. floitnt. Andcrilli Aitocintts. tnc. Ii nn Affirmniivt Actlon/Eau«f OpportuAiry Employer und Employ** Own*d Prineip*t| Otio G Bonestroo PE • M*#vm L Sorv*l* PC • Glenn W Cook PC • Robert G Schunicni PC • Jerry A Bourdon *C • Murk A Henson. PC Senior Consultentt; Robert W Rosene. PC • Joseph C Andefipfc PC • Richero C Turner PC • Susen M Cberim C PA Aiioclet* Principelf ’ Keith A Gordon. PC • Robert ft Pielfene. PC • Richerd w roster PC • Oevid O Loskot# PC • Micheei T ReotmAn. PC • Ted K r.eid P| • Kenneth P Anderson PC • Merk R Rotfs PC • Oev»d A Bonest'oo MBA • Sidney P WiPiemson. PC , L S • Agnes M Mtng MBA* Attpn R«ck Scrvmdt. PC • Tnomes W Peterson PI • Jemes R Meiend. PC • Miiet 6 Jensen PC • L Phtiitp Grevei lit. PC • Oen*ei j Cdgerion PC • ismeei Menme/. PC • Tnomei A Sylko. PC • Sheldon J Johnson • Oei* A Grove PC • Thornes A Rousner PC • Robert J Orvery P{ Offices St Peui. St Cloud Rochesier end Wi'imer MN • M«lw*ukee Wi • Chicego iL MAbsil* WWW bonestroo com Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 SCCSIViJo I* < Rc-1325 Rest Poirt T.ane File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-3001 Dear .Melanie; We have reviewed the application for the new home construction at 1325 Rest Point Lane. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: Tile gi .iding plan should incorporate side yard swales to convey sionn water southerly along both sides of the home. The swales should be constructed so water is not discharged onto the neighboring properties east and west of the site. An erosion control plan should be incorporated into the grading plan. Silt fence should be heavy duty type with steel t-posts. All silt fence and erosion control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gapp.i, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ‘ 65I-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II Date Application Received: 3-17-04 Date Application Conildered as Complete: 3-17-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 5-16-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COlis«r*i| APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF OHO/vO Date; April 22, 2004 Item No.: /i^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agendu Section: 7,or*’ng Item Description: W04-3002, G & L Land Investment, LLC., 740 North Arm Drive - Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IB, Oik Family I.akcshore Residential District (I acre minimum) 0.81 acres (35,400 s.f) 153’ at Shoreline; 134’ at 75’ .Setback List of Exhibits A - I’C Action Notice dated 4-21-04 B - PC Memo and Exhibits of 4-15-04 Application Summary: Applicant requests a variance to allow an existing non-conforming accessory structure, referred to as a boathouse, to remain on the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of tlic principal structure. Phimiiiig Cuiiiiiiis.sioti Rccuniinciidation I he Planning Commission voted unanimously on a vote of 7-0 to recommend that the boathouse be removed as the applicant provided no valid hardships to justify the granting of a variance. I he Planning Commission also indicated that staff was to work with the applicants m investigating the removal of the boathouse and its effect on the existing conditions of the slope. Stuff Rcconinicndation Staff has met with the applicaiils on site to discuss options for retaining the slope once the boathouse is removed. 1 he applicants have agreed to remove tlie bo.itlumsc if a total slope icstoiat'o.a project can be conducted in the 0-75’ zone, as the slope is currently severely degraded Staff has agreed to this option, which includes the following details; • The City will locate the sewer line existing at the shore and stake its location, • An erosion control fence will be installed by the applicants 5’ off the staked location, • Applicants will demolish the boathouse at the time of demolition of the existing house, • Applicant ’s will amend their request to include a CUP request for land alteration aj^d will submit a bank restoration/proteclion plan which likely will include retaining walls, n • Staff recommends that any hardcover necessary for slope stabilization, such as retaining walls and a stairway system, will not count against the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75 ’- 250 ’ zone, • The two trees currently within the 0-75 ’ zone, at the very top of the slope and 75 ’ line, can be removed as long as tree replacement is included in the restoration plan due to their vulnerability during the construction process, • The revised application will be referred back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, • The applicants will grant an easement to the City for sewer maintenance purposes, and • The applicants can submit for building permit for the new residence while the slope restoration project is in its review stages, as all other Zoning Ordinance requirements can be met. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. However, the Council should indicate if they are in agieement with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove the boathouse, so that staff can continue to work with the applicant ’s on a suitable restoration plan and ultimately an amended application for a conditional use permit to conduct lai.d alterations in the 0-75 ’ zone. CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 04-3002 p!a Box 66 ’*“*^*^*^ NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 2004 TO: G & L Land Investment, LLC. COPIES: 8659 Great Waters Alcove Eden Prairie, MN 55347 type OF APPLICATION_____Yari^_ce _______________________________ DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the following staff recommendation: Denial of the application as the applicants have presented no valid hardships to allow the boathouse to remain. The Planning Conunission encouraged an investigation by an engineer of the effects of removing the boathouse prior to City Council review. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City work with the applicant on a suitable plan which gives the City an easement to access the sewer for maintenance purposes and gives the applicant assurance that the existing slope won’t fail as a result of removal of the boathouse. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, April 26,2004; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. A04-3002 April 19, 2004 Page 1 of S Date Application Received: 3-17*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 3-17-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 5-16-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^^ Date:April 15,2004 Subject:#04-3002, G & L Land Investment, LLC, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) 0.81 acres (35,400 s.f.) 153’ at Shoreline; 134’ at 75’ Setback Application Summary: Applicant requests a variance to allow an existing non- conforming accessory structure, known as a boathouse, to remain on the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of the principal structure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application as the applicants have presented no valid hardships to allow the boathouse to remain. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-72. Lots of record, (exempts the property from a lot area or width variance) (b) A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in an R district, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single-family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met; (1) In R districts of one acre or less and with public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without council approval if the area meeisurements and width of that lot are within 80 percent of the requirements of this chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 78-281. Setback regulations, (a) In any LR-IA, 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 X r «^04-300Z April 19.2004 Page 2 of 5 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of the 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 does not apply to structures allowed in subsection (a) of this section. 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. Sec. 78-1281. Water-oriented accessory structures. The only water-oriented accessory structure allowed to be located nearer the ordinary high water level than the normal structure setback as specified in this article shall be a lockbox no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. Such a structure requires a building permit from the city. Sec. 78-1432. Time of construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Floor Plans & Elevations Exhibit F - Photographs Exhibit G - Sewer Easement Diagram Exhibit H - Neighbor Comments Exhibit I - Property Owners List Exhibit J - Plat Map Background Planning Department staff had initial conversations with the realtor regarding the non- conforming nature of the boathouse at the time the property was for sale. It has been re iterated to the realtor that any rebuild of the lot would require elimination of all non conformities, including the boathouse. Planning Department staff then met wnth the current applicants to again indicate that the boathouse would have to be removed at the time the lot was rebuilt. The applicants were advised how a variance review would be conducted specifically relating to the boathouse so that the applicants could submit a complete application. ■. i >•' ll fc i i I Ii M04-3002 April 19, 2004 Page 3 of S LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Ares/Width (a lot area and lot width variance is not required per Section 78-72 noted above due to the property meeting the 80% area requirement of 34,848 s.f. where 35,400 s.f. exists and meeting the 80% width requirement of 112 s.f. where 134’-153’ exists.) LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 35,400 s.f. (0.81 acres)153’ at Shoreline 134’ at 75’ Setback Setbacks LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear (road)30 ’100’(house) 10’ (garage)114’ Left Side 10’ 72’ (house) 10’ (detached garage) 100’ (boathouse) 35 ’ 100’ (boathouse) •detached garage to be removed Right Side 10’ 2’ (house) 5’ (shed @ lake) 19’ (boathouse) 10’ 19’(boathouse) shed @ lake to be removed Lakeshore 75’140’113’ Average Lakeshore 104’ (house) 98’ (grade level decks) 140’113’ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 35,400 s.f. (0.81 acres)Allowed: 5,310 s.f (15%) Proposed: 3,490 s.f (10%) Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 11,100 s.f 0s.f (0%) 2,050 s.f* (19%) 530 s.f (4.7%) ii ,4i i i 'i I'r. it 'll > i a 1 i , ii i ill 1 i #04-3002 April 19,2004 Page 4 of S 75 - 250 250 - 500 5,350 s.f. 2,900 s.f. 5,350 s.f. (25 “/o) 870 s.f. (30»/y 7,580 s.f.* (35%) 1,000 s.f.* (33%) 5,255 s.f. (24.6%) 865 s.f. (29.9%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Non-Conforming Accessory Structure (Boathouse) The applicants arc proposing to keep the non-conforming 2-lcveI boathouse located 10’ from the 929.4 elevation. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit any structures within the 0-75’ zone. Further, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit any hardcover within the 0-75’ zone unless it is an access to the lake, a 32 s.f. landing, or a lock-box meeting specific standards. The boathouse, acting as structure and hardcover within the 0-75’ zone, does not meet the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing house, detached garage and small shed located near the lake as well as removal of the patio and deck attached to the boathouse. In the City’s view the lot is being rebuilt and is therefore subject to all standards within the Zoning Ordinance. This requires removal of the non-conforming boathouse which contributes to excess structure and hardcover within the 0-75’ zone. It should be noted, that the applicants have contributed the hardcover associated with the boathouse to the 75’-250’ zone and still fall within the allotted 25% hardcover for that zone. Also, the 530 s.f. boathouse was also figured into the structural coverage requirement putting the lot at 10% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that no hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested variance. Although in good shape, the boathouse is clearly non-conforming. Staff and, under most circumstances, the Planning Commission have consistently recommended removal of any non-conformity at the time the lot is rebuilt. In the City ’s view, this is the only opportunity for non-coirformitics to be eliminated. This structure has no historical value nor does it architecturally nudeh the proposed house. ••’I i* .h I A,♦ ’ I ««i I, :♦ M04.3002 April 19.2004 Pages of 5 Arguments to be Disputed Topography - Some may consider the topography a hardship due to the steep slope. This is disputed by the fact that a defined access pathway from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope has existed for many years. This access is due to the City’s Public Works need to access the City sewer line which runs along the shore past the boathouse (see Easement Discussion below). The applicant does have the ability to construct a detached building on the top of the slope and use this access to move things from the detached building to the shore. Also, a lock-box meeting Zoning Ordinance standards would be permitted. Damage to Sewer Line - The applicants may argue that there is potential to damage the sewer line with demolition of the structure. It is staffs opinion that this should not weigh in on the Planning Commission determination of hardship. The structure can be removed, without heavy machinery if required, and any damage to the sewer line would be the applicants’ responsibility. Access Easement - The applicants may feel a fair compromise would be to allow the boathouse to remain in exchange for an official easement to access the sewer. Staff would again argue that this should not weigh in on any determination of hardship. The access around the north side of the lot originated many years ago in order for a previous owner to access the lake with a golf cart, most likely before the sewer was installed. Since installation of sewer the City has used this access for maintenance purposes (without an casement). Until this time the City was not aware that an easement didn’t exist. Regardless of this application the City should pursue this easement. Easement for Sewer Maintenance After initial meetings with the realtor and current applicants it came to the City’s attention that an easement does not exist for access to the sewer. Planning Department staff then spoke with the Public Works department and concluded that this access to the sewer is required for maintenance purposes. The sewer line runs along the shoreline, and because of the steep slopes that exist on properties to the south, the Public Works department has indicated that it is one of the only places to access the shore in the immediate area. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this easement should be pursued and if the applicants are agreeable to it. Issues for Consideration 1. Do any hardships exist to warrant approval of the variance? 2. Does this stmeture have any negative impacts when viewed from the lake? 3. Should the City formally pursue an easement per Exhibit G? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Denial of the requested variance. The Planning Commission should indicate if the easement along the shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in conjunction with a building permit to construct a new home. EXHIBITACity of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532S^066 Application # ^ Date Received: Amount Paid: Staff: JAN/Ce Fee:S600 Renewal: S300 After-the-fact: $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: *7 H o KJ a r •^U ^ f Property Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: lij Residential □ Other •_________________________ Zoning District: ___________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) anie: fl-^ L a-voV r»hone (home): C(*\^ *=1t»a _______ Address: 8(!> S'R C^C'etu V A-tcoug. Email: _____________ . Phone (work): (g s-a.'^ *=\o{p - Pra.if-1^ rv\ tsj g ’S'aK? Fax; rciia.'^ RO(g - m <\_______ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names sr.d marital status required for each interested party) Name: ________ ^cx-wia,.. ols ou U ou ^__________________________________________ Phone (home): _______________________ Address: ____________________________ Email: ______________________ Phone (work): Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ___________ <xll Qt.,jT ry w 5^\A-u q Wo V\Vo L y\ rv • k j^hJL '4 Iill4 JLS t uiiiMjia REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for vc application to be processed. ' ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance ^ ..... ouu oouin D- csireei, Minneapolis, telephone 6i2-34fl.fiQ in ^ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting'll die requirements listed within this packet, Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11 X17" for reproduction.II A I # lui icspiuuuuuun. Topographic Yui^'^^*' calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). nr M" V ^7” tnr ^ ' 9 P posed elevstions. Provide one copy 8.5or 11" X 17" for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8 5"x11"or11"x 17") □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * X 11" APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The ^licant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Plannino Depar^ent, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, th^ Applicant’s Signature: 0 t -----------------w*uc. -------Date: Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Imrv°Zo' and further authorizes reasonableentry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verifiration of this request. Owner's Signature: Owner’s Signature: eriTiration of thi Date: Date: >v MeS‘ '"1° “'® Planning Commission SclntTmunt ^ °f each month.CmrnHi be present at a I scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and have an authorized'mnrp'^»ntSiJo a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to assigned to projlrt ..r/ % »K:(lJ \iJ« •h., V 1 > ^ V \ 4 ^i a i 4 < I « I a i i n ,1 m City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaIHrjg Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only: City Planner: Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 Meeting Date/Time: PC Date; '/ /yj^eY/ What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? ~ " Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: yW Ay^/Y\ Property Identification Number (PIN): Zoning District: LA-/ & Size of Property: S. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; □ Res. Access. Use □ Institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bidg g^Comm / Indu^ Use DPRO/PID, □ Land Alteration □ Comm Site Plan Review pvOther: HD OJlOtAJ • - * prtnfAp_____________________ _____ ______ , bY aJ:>ph'cAjh'^). .Hyi/(.rhJ rY Qy\ n/j bdoj-hdosc jp ftm/pjh lA)}?nAi A. g iptbUilri <HVP il W. Possi'dld^ ~ OTHER INFORMATION: Please note: Your applicatiop-will NOT-bqaccepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed^Clty staffs Applicant Signature:Date : 2-/6-0 */ A flO IH!' i -.'i f?. ii I EXHIBIT B Page I 01*3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered vaiid 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? This 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 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 relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.*The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." 2."The plight of the landowner Is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3.“The variance, If granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." *T*r*u..^ . Vio qjV V\ou «;,a^ V\gL *» \|A. \ r>g-a-*V-row ._____ 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." V. I! 5. 7. 8. 9. Page 2 of3 "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct, sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” "The special conditions applying to the p'ructure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." —\&—<*- oi*4.y, \\wa-. «___Vv i k ___________Vs n\i < g g o w________ ^ H W I Li " ) 4. ■Tta cindfnV/o which said land is located." gL,Uo SJ4L . AjOcfs^\ vVlo 10. *The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a 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 the Zoning TrvLft- • i > u. I ii i i 111111' j »1 hi « :i •.Ilf*: •>. I r Jii i i i _-- Page 2 of3 Inadequate access to direct granted for earth sheltered ^ 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in luncil may not permit as a pter for property in the zone a the temporary use of a and in question are peculiar m Vs . ~t Iv.g- L- Q Vv 4-Uj I) t iy ’ structures in the^istrict in ^Vvo 12. Page 3 of 3 "The granting of such variance wiil not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." ________^ ^ & .--------------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardship Statement 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 necessary): .ljiO-JJ *^L. t ■ ^ \ ^ UJV ^ W^iC. "TO O tATT S-U.d^ *T'Vgw ^ f ^ »t —U.f*A CaU*€.f** jyyVaiv'. •Tb r<-jLiAg.^ <8, a s- . preservation and enjoyment my way impair health, safely, 7 to the intent of the Zoning I \ \i‘t lUliil Kxjiiorr c CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ClnAr Hagberg of lot 4, Auditors Subdivision Ho. 362 Nennepin County. Mlnnosoti JO*e^P*,r./V9A»««0 • 9f*$0, 000 f ##ro *i ♦ t /M.sy*• m*, fj.a, X r/00 *t h.'t Tt.7^InT », r, 00m *s f *1 Vr. «^00tr, j»40, rAAMl tfl. 9 % r \ii fi.i'j .;; U3X ee CRYSrAl BAY. HIM 55323 MSP*'®® #1346 I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of tot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Mo. 362, according to existing ionueentatton for said Auditor's Subdivision, and of all existing buildings, hardcover, and a proposed storage garage thereon. It does not purport to show any otner improvements or »*ncroachments. COFFIN & GRONBFRG. kUiiiiaiii'>iii i. fc. NO. VZ7SS ' Engineers,.land Surveyors, Planners long Lake, Minnesota j i l \hi rll V: ■ s Scaje: pate b: 1- , 30* g-p-BB ; • Iron Marler *I * r ial. iiii. iiiii r HAROCOVCR CALCS. UAROt 15, 0« REV 3/16/04 area maxjc exisinc proposed ,0-75 11100 SF 0 KXimUTI) / \ ./; V nOATH M 5'iosr BOAIH - 530Sf ^0 - 100^ »0TAL - 530ST/ 4 7X PATD - 200ST STA« - 250SF DOCK - 80SF CR 0«IVE-850Sr ^ TOTAL- 2050ST/1BX III / '!I:fl^i]y '/ /' y*, Z\^ N 75-250 21400 ST 6350 SF 75B0 SF/34.9X (eOXLOT>^ / rSTEP - B5SF y I / ^ WW.K - aOSF Ny 1 ' inj , DRIVE - 1600SF \ ' \ K TOTAL - 4725SF/2i1* I ^ Lx I + 0-75 HC TOTAL - 5755 SF/ 24fiX^' ^ " . A* > 9* 250 + 2900 SF 870 SF 1000 SF/330* OHVE “ 865 SF/ 29.9X PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR-969.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION =969.0 LOV/EST FLOOR-960.0 N . I\ w ^ V* s-.vTf.ljS'”'"" y'tlENCHMAt^ TOP WELL ELEV - 968.3 ■ EXKTNC SPOT ElEVAIlON. X(9SB.O) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ■ OIRECnON SURFACE DRAINAGE I So I : •• 1V.' • y 4- j‘1U.I4I. i‘ 1-1 ■ “'• DESCRIPTION: LOT 4. AUDITORS SUQD. 362 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. ADDRESS 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE 4. • . • . • i V (iulJiial'i i • t I • • • •• •• I • » • • • • • n I \ .‘f •• • r. ? •« ... j , •. . • • • • • % • •* 9 ^ • f ^ ••••#. •••-«. •%* • • ?--i•••..•........V ‘ . >.•• . i •• • • jVf^ — * • *. u .* . . » • ■ . . •’ ^ •• I • 1-------------:—- >* ;. Oft? .4 ^•0 •jl* ■ • T • *• ^ . I BBin r':-: egrr: .'-i. .', / ■ . . I •• .♦ . ii«i ■ ■PI ■ - ^ ,II ‘ ; m M m 1 ^ “ liJEE •■• • • ■ »■:•.«• r. ■ pTi k • • •\-i' o ■ ; itpi. i?:.. ■ O' . ’ t ! I __ liirji ::l 'I i * • 1 VI iMIii I'-.-o. i f f'i? • .•:• I <‘k <J/ > I ^ I'-' f \ \ • f - I# lit * 1 VI . . V->4 ••»• i____ j Pj ^— * i- ' •'I • *vhi__I'Sr Sfer-*-* L»m?*san 6l»* Ut. . *1 i. ^ > \ C 5!f f. • •• 1 •M5-JV ♦ . 1 • • • ’• • ...• • • , # ’• ■*—^i:in iJ 0-..—(]•■ .: <•. D-1\3 t. 1 f 5 ' . .y- ' ? • *i v •* ^ ■ • O i • . I c. . 3 •1•• v; • ^-w . . i\ jf •• ...--• . .S--? • /.'I* • 'c ' * •' .'.*, f. !- •■'- ■ • •. '■ r!-.-*iv.!-" • • .' • • A*.- j • ■% *. • •/ “*"■■• \ J ,*r/• r ; ■M -|!A *? I 2 1iy i I i .1 n 4 . C \ tnV.;l' .».• ((') \*.•.-• •• •-.* f •*• •j'.••* I k'» *• •.f •-;J •» • . V. **•- i . i • T- —Q ■> -1 • I -1 I iA ' ■ e ■ * j •i.; ••• . t' !V V'.. ■/•:.■■■.•• /:'•••••• v. i ..■ iS V.*- /■ 7X*. ' • ' ‘I t "‘••i •i V. ^ li l > I i I m '•t. "‘J ^ » Mifti • ■ *.• —_ '■■fr.'i —c V T ^ • •;/ . ✓-'A ^'5.'fi'5':*V>MG^SBSC .V-, Ssar® >. > ^ 7 -,'f. 'r *3^ » »s T r:M ®&.'Tilili . : 'i^^*ilTl # • . «-*•*• 0i^ *>». . .4* 'O' 4«- 4 •» r? •lir 1 <•■ 'f'.- :; I ■■:^-‘WF^ f H . -f ;:.'., ■ ,> -1 v<. ■ —- • ti. Id W. A* ^ ' i ^• y .1 /. -V ,*^-it' \^ :H(4ax A' 'ij 'I I i tmmmi • .' .X v > -. *1^ mp.f. *.V .*. V •' '. >vmiiit 2'’ ■-■v’!--‘^i-S:' ^■••' •'•/;%;•';:.•<:• yAWm• •::?;-‘.-X'; • ^ - ' • J _.• V 'fc iV V’-!' -A' - • i- T . ' **j t m i • - - k .•» ^ * ~u ♦ '<'? ■: • • / .V •'* •.'.‘••A *;'»-•■ •» . ' •\' *.- .' <•'. v'Vv-.-x^ r-::,v-.Q ■■ :: :-. •■ i! i!-;- ■■.k'•»;'■■ .if;K X'm-^0'M Bm4I - _ . ... i „ ,-A |- . ;#• tak. ?fx!-i •*■ Vrr.*?i; »• ^- .. •' . ■ ,^■ •/ • • f '*'. *•1' V ■ • . ' « 6 ..V-* .; v • O-r- - - ' lO. •• vf-i > /'■ '• ■^v. ^ 1 . ■• ; • ■■‘■■■il.- .• •• • • ' ’ ‘ r V Y V*> "* •-. .* , •• • . *. • K '. • '•X': ,';i*'‘ iV-** -- . • •»• *• ■ •»*'+?■' -' ■' •'■ .. I'/ ■•> i '., '• V’\ IKS'? tm ’0 > *. •..., 11 \ • r * ••**• •• • • • >• '■'>A I A '->• ^ ^ m.: m.' r»., . r I . : 1-^ , U <*• '!•, ,, .y ,**. * • '. • »•! - »• •HI iHi%>/ . irv#• r « ► ►«>►' & . i»T VJj^' of .A - tS, 4 'nVfV.v: ‘ '• ■'v. M' — - • 5V... '. A*-.-I* .'V:i:v* .-^.'v V • > i *! .'•*] ' * *V i^-^? 1.’.;.., •tfi,-;- • 5*.:v .'►w:; ■ • V- « « ,;v-‘>'.v' i-v/'.'.' ',if.-;' •■••*. te-,£y.' t i {1 ; . * * ' * / • . ■■ • r^' im !:vv «K '** iIU -'" •'■^^ '•■ • ~ ' ■ ■■ - •■•' • *• ■- • j,, A - t ^".w" ’'•4"^' ‘ • 4 ”•: 'T: V ;y • ■ i» *t*-*'^*‘ ••« i *. * *• ■''■^^>:\: y.l ^rV.-^uVTlVr** .. V- .IS-* ' • ► . •’ •. \ ' ^ ,vW® i'/'M-'A*/te *• 4*•V>> iIE.fi:m# . r • .¥MWOi * , »• .*• . f- r r>;>‘ 'mjM MB -mm .1 i^ l - » • ' ,-..'V J #Vvw«' ••' •• • « •J* • • i,,V‘«*w^■»ax r Hi HARDCOVER CALCS. MARCH 15 04 REV 3/16/04 AREA MAXiC EXISTING PROPOSED 0-75 11100 ST 0 AVfp^)i»//Are loL^spfJ Of EA5E Aif^A/T - Mur HA^f^veiA. If op. SEvJEp. MAIMJENAAJ6E P0P-P£«ES OML-'{ J EXinniTG OOATH - 530ST BOJTM - 5^ SHED • loosr total « 5X)Sf/ 4.7X PATIO - 700SF STAIR « 250ST DOCK - BO ST CR DRIVE-BSOST TOTAL- 2O5O5F/10X < y/ -Nf.75-250 21400 Sf 6550 Sf 7560 SF/34.W HCXJSr - 2035SF (8 0XL0T>y/. / DECK - 125SP A ' ! a'' rSTEP » 65SF ^ yf I I I A^/ DW^E leoosf \ \ ^ TOTAL - 4;25sr/22.1* ^ • 4 0-75 HC PoTAL - 5255 ST/ 7i.tX j 250 4 2900 Sr 870 SF 1000 SF/53.0X JINL - B63 ST/ 29.9X - ~'r/\ LOWEST FLOOR*=960.O PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR-9fi9.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION -96^8 \ VA <S%- ........................................... -----------X ^ ^ XK' DESCRiPTION; lot 4. AUDITORS SUBO. 362 HCNNEPt.: COU'iTY. MN. ADDRESS 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE __. ■ a I . UiiU: I Hilt • - — >f lii it i.iii. tnt By: EXECUTIVE AVIATION B52 952 0275;Apr-ia*04 16:28;Page l/i EXHIBIT H April 12,2004 CilyofOrouo Attentioi: Janis Gurdlach 2750 Kelley Pkwy OronoMN RE; 04-3002 Zonmg Commissioners My wife and 1 live at 710 North Arm Dr. the house to the North of 740 North Arm Dr. We do not object to keeping die boat house down by the lake. -The boathouse has been diere a long time the new owner not looking for excessive variances. It would seem reasonable to allow them to keep the boadiousc. Thank you, . iCirk Gtieson t • • • ' .V-*. 'j . *f » - • * ^ '•V ,v'•, r - a »V•*: • .. -.J.n ,'***^f * t • • • » •il H i «. * iVJMOATE: M I •3S 0611723320003 ff>KorAOOR 40$ NORTH ARM OK OWNERNAME LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC i^IAXPAVER LAICEVIEWOOLFOFMTKAINC na ME/ADDR ISSRBDOAKIA MOUNDMN 55364 t*! 38 06II723430005 rROTADDR 710 NORTH ARM DR ownbrmamb kaottesonaskdickmausen KAOTTESONRSICDICKHAUSEN Hiame/ador north arm dr MOUNDMN 55364 HEWiNco^fiyjf 38 06II72141UOO) PROr ADOR TOO NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME GREGORYM HAUTY TAXPAYER GREGORY M HARTY NAME/ADDR TOO NORTH ARM DR MOUNDMN 38 0611721430006 PROP ADDR 740 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME E O ECNAR HAOBERG ET AL WA£ taxpayer ^ ® HAGDERO name /aodr t40 no arm dr MOUNDMN $5364 INFORMATION SYSTEM ^LIST 3B O6H723B3OO04 PROP ADDR 706 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME JDZIEBARTHACZIEBARTH TAXPAYER JEEFD&CARAZIEBARTH NAME/ADDR 706 NORTH ARM DR MOUNDMN $3164 38 0611723430007 PROP ADDR 750 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME WILUAM LSCHMITT TAXPAYER W L SCUM ITT NAME/ADDR 750NARMDR MOUNDMN 55354 r.-- V*- ^PROfADDR ^OWNERNAME Ttmcpayer ”name /aodr 31 06U72343000I 760 NORTH aRMDR WALFRJD LARSON ETAL WILLIAM SCHMITT 730 NORTH ARM DR MOUNDMN 55364 OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY T<VXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT^ THE BBT OFhfY KNOWLEtXiE ANDBEIJEF.^^^^ ^ 7'^'f BY PAGE: I f) i ^ r EXHIBIT! 'nnepin Taxpayer;Servic^:»e|^rtm VS /* / nWCTA / ■ ■‘'vrx-' >. .*.: ■ ... .. i•^^^, V;: . . i •lb •'•••.■.- I.-VI ••■»# • j’».’ '•*.'. I. * .y» f -r ’ ■< .. . V- i . ••• y - VT-^ C*? ■* **•'' ’> - ■1 ^I5t» • ••*1 .1 - V ■ -mmm. ' • • ’Jsv.y;- • ■ • : .V .f:;; ■ i fto; A • ' ' * •»*. • A. - >v V..v|; ___________________‘ *'*'•••. \ ITA ■ .' » A - '* < .«*.t • A* .;. “ 7 ,^^ • . •*. / (7B) ^Jl •* .-.'u,te grf;' 7}/s ta tmm Liin COUMrii MPFn’ING APR 2 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date: April 21, 2004 Item No ^3 Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis k A C/ Title: City Planner ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #04-3005 - City of Orono - Ordinance List of Exhibits: A - Ordinance per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Memo & Exhibits of 04-15-04 Summary of Changes: 1. Definitions for pylon and monument signs have been added. 2. Language regarding the signs allowed within Business and Industrial Districts has been amended. ___________________________________________ Please review the attached memo dated April 15,2004 and the Exhibits. The proposed amendment addresses some immediate concerns, with a more comprehensive amendment intended to be presented later this year. Planning Commission Recommendation On April 19,2004, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendments. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. 1 ORDINANCE NO___, THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1466 AND SECTION 78-1568 REGARDING SIGNS Tlic City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows: (10) Pylon Sien. A sign supported by a post or posts so that the sign and supports are finished to grade by encasinu the posts in a material consistent with the sien and where the base width dinicnsion is a minimum of 10% up to and including 50% of the greatest width of the sign. (11) Monument Sien.s. One monument sign, limited to two (2) faces is allowed per frontage per nronertv. with a maximum of two (2). Tlic areas of sign base, the supporti ng background structure, and the sign copy shall be combined fo r detennining the total soiiare footage and the height of the monument sign. a. b. c. d. The total allowable square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet per side. The base atid supporting material shall constitute at least 25 percent of the to tal square footage. The base width dimension is 50% or more of the greatest width of the sign. The sign copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 inches e. above ground level. TItc sign copy area shall be completely enclosed within the monument materials. No portion of the sign o r sign structure shall exceed 10 feet above ground level. f.The monument sign base shall be constmeted of materials similar in appearance to those of the principal stnicturc and shall consist of brick, natural stone, stucco, textured cast stone, or integrally colored concrete masonry units I he structure surrounding th e face of the sign from the base to the top of the sign mu .st be solid, continuous, and consist of the base materials or complementary g materials that match the appearance and color of the principal building. The 200 square feet of ground area around the base of the monument sign shall be landscaped with shrubs or perennials, The following drawing is included for illustrative purposes: The fitnekm language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 1 of 2 Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78*1468 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. Within the B and I districts, nameplate signs, wall and monument siens-and business-s igns are permitted subject to the following regulations: Section 3: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 26*'’ day of April, 2004 by a vote of __ayes and ____nays. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2004. The strick en language is deleted; the underlined, language is inserted. Page 2 of2 A + B = maximum 100 s.f. per face (including sign copy & base*) A = sign copy, where 75% of A + B is the maximum allowed sign copy B = base* (where 25% of A + B is the minimum provided base*) *The sign base (B) must be constructed of materials consisting of brick, natural stone, stucco or materials consist with the principal structure so long as the exterior wall finishes of the principal structure meet the requirements of Section 78-646(g)(l). i 4 '■.'■if ■l S'. r FILE#04-3005 Apn! 15. 2004 Page 1 of 1 To:Chair Mabutsh and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Curtis, City Planner April 15,2004 Subject:#04-3005, Code Revision, City Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468 ________________________________- p ublic hearing _______ Summary: Definitions for pylon and monument signs have been added. Language regarding the signs allowed within Business and Industrial Districts has been amended.____________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections 78-1466: Signs as accessory use 78-IS68: Signs in B and I Districts List of Exhibits A. Proposed Ordinance B. Existing City Codes 78-1466 and 78-1468 Background As the Highway 12 corridor is developir.'g more rapidly than the planned update of the current sign ordinance, the proposed amendment is an interim solution, or tool, for the City to use when faced with the inevitable upcoming monument sign proposals. At the last Planning Commission work session the Planning Commission discussed amending the Sign regulations (78-1466). Out of that work session it was determined that the code sections regarding sign regulations do not address the monument signs which are becoming more increasingly proposed by developers, businesses and sign contractors. This proposed amendment will allow the City to provide developers with the City’s standards for monument type signs and provide for a smoother permit approval process. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed amendment? Staff Recommendation Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached 2Loning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. ORDINANCE NO___, THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECnON 78-1466 AND SECTION 78-1568 Rf:GARDING SIGNS Ilic City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows: (9) Pylon Sign. A sign supported by a post or posts so that the sign and ■supports are finished to uradc by encasing the posts in a material consistent with the sign and where the base width dimension is a minimum of 10% up to and incluclinti 50% of the urcatest width of the siun. (10) Monument Siy.ns One monument sien. limited to two (2) faces is allowed per frontage nor property, with a maximum of two (2). The areas of sign base, the supporting bjckcround structure, and the sign et^nv shall he combined for determininu the total smiare fLH)lat’e and the height of the monument siun. a* The total allowable square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet per side. The base and supporting material .shall constitute at least 25 percent of the total square footauc. b. The ba.s e width dimension is 50°'b or more of the ureatest width of the sign. c. The sittn copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 inches above >^routul level. d. The sien copy area shall be completely enclosed within the monument materials. e. No portion of the siun or siun structure shall exceed 10 feet above urouiul level. f. The monument sign b.isc shall be constructed of mnteri.ils similar in appearance to those of the principal structure and shall consist of brick, nauir.il .sionc. stucco, textured cast stone, or inteurallv colored concrete masonry units. The structure surroundii'.e the face of the siun from the base it) the top ol the siun nuist be solid, continuou.s. and consist of the base materials or complement.iry materials that match the appearance and color of the principal buildintv g. The 200 square feet of uround area .iround the base of the monument sign shall be landscaped with bs_orj>crerini.ils^ The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 1 of 2 I Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 7b-1468 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. Within the B and I districts, nameplate signs, wall and monument siens-Mtd businese signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: Section 3: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this vote of___ayes and____nays. day of j 2004 by a Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of ,2004. The stfiekew language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 2 of2 DIVISION 4. SIGNS Sec. 78-1466. Signs as accessory use, Signs are a permitted accessory use in all districts subject to the following regulations: f 0 • On right-of-way. Private signs arc prohibited within the public right-of- way or easements, except that the council may grant a conditional use permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the right-of-way under their jurisdiction for a specified time not to exceed 90 days. No conditional use permit for such a sign shall be issued by the council if a conditional use permit or temporary sign permit had been issued in the previous 24 months to that property. (2) Flashing. Illuminated flashing signs shall not be permined in any district. Beams. Illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays of light shall not be permitted in any district. Sales signs. For purpose of selling, renting or leasing property, a sign not in excess of ten square feet per surface may be placed within the front yard of such property to be sold or leased. Such signs shall not be less than 15 feet from the right-of-way line unless flat against the structure. For the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of six or more dwelling units, one sign not to exceed 48 square feet; a commercial area of three acres or more, or an industrial area of ten acres or more, one sign not to exceed 96 feet of advertising surface, may be erected upon the project site. Such sign shall not remain after 90 percent of the project is developed. Existing signs. Signs existing on September 14, 1967, which do not conform to the regulations are a nonconforming use. Traffic interference. No sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape or color, would interfere in any way with the proper functioning or purpose of a traffic sign or signal. Building wall signs. Signs shall not be painted directly on the outside wall of the building. Signs shall not be painted on a fence, rocks or similar structure or feature in any district. Paper and similar signs shall not be pennanenily attached directly to a building wall by an adhesive or similar means (temporary use of such signs is permitted per standards set forth in subsection (8) of this section). Signs shall be considered as a structure or fastened to another structure. Temporary signs. a. b. There shall be no more than four temporary business signs issued per calendar year, and for a period of not more than ten days per time or of the duration of the event promoted by the sign message, whichever is less. The sign (including banners or balloons), sign supports or portable stand shall be removed from public view at the end of the period. Total area of the sign shall not exceed 32 square feet per surface (64 square feet total signage allowed for two-sided portable sign). Advertising balloons are not subject to area restrictions but must meet all applicable federal and state standards. There shall be no more than one temporary sign in any required yard area, and, if separate multiple signs are proposed, the total area of the signs shall not exceed 32 square feet. Temporary business signs require a building permit from the city. No such permit shall be issued by the city if a conditional use permit under section 78-1467(I)c has been issued to a residential property. No temporary sign shall be allowed in residential zones unless permitted as election or sale signs under this section. Multitenant buildings shall be considered as a single property for purposes of subsection (8) of this section; and the use of the 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 all applications for sign permits. The owner or manager of the sign and the owner of the property shall be equally responsible for the proper location, maintenance and removal of the sign. All temporary signs shall be located on a property so that they do not impede safety by obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. (9) Election signs. Election signs are permitted on private property in any district, provided such signs are removed within 30 days following the election as related to the signs. No election sign shall be permitted in any R district sooner than two months preceding the election relating to the sign. (Code 1984, § 10.61(1); Ord. No. 97 2nd series, §§ 2,3,8-26-1991) See. 78-1467. Signs in R districts. Within R districts, the following signs are permitted: (1) Nameplates. a. One nameplate sign for each dwelling, and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. b. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. c. One nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by conditional permit other than residential, and such sign shall not exceed 12 square feet in area per surface. (2) Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures and integrated architectural features on nonresidential buildings may be illuminated by floodlights provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of- way or adjacent residential district. (3) Setbacks. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be set back at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the average grade level. Signs may be illuminated, but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect. (4) Home occupations. One nameplate sign containing name and address but not to contain business name or type of business, and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per surface, nor contain more than two surfaces. (Code 1984, § 10.61(2); Ord. No. 221 2nd senes, § 5,9-23-2002) See. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. Within the B and I districts, nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: (1) li-1, B-2 and B-4: size. Within the B-1, D-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 50 square feet. (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 feet per front fool of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. (3) I: size. Within any 1 district, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. (4) //-/, B-2 and 8-4: 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 prof)erty line; except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. (5) 8-3 and /. height. Within any B-3 or 1 district, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No sign shall be located clo.scr than ten feet from any property line, except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. (Code 1984, § 10.61(3)) Dale Application Received: 2-23-04 Dale Application Coniidercd ai Complete: 2-23-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 4-23-04 collar'll ^^crjlNG APH 2 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl FY OF OHONO Dale: April 23, 2004 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P.Gaffron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1^04-2997 City of Orono - Access Between Lots 38 & 39, Morse Island Park (120-140 Big Island) - CUP and Variance for Wetland Alteration - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4-22-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 4-16-04 Application Summary: As a result of numerous requests from property owners on Big Island, and as a result of the previously used adjacent access road being converted to lawn by its owner, the City is requesting a variance and a conditional use pcmiit to allow the filling of a small portion of wetland and floodplain to allow constmetion ofa new driveway for vehicular access from tlic lakcshore to the interior platted road system. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval ofthe variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26' ofthe wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment ofa Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland, and subject to MCWD pennit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. This City ’s application to the Mituiehaha Creek Watershed District was re\ iewed by the MCWD Board on April 22. MCWD granted approval as presented. Staff Recommendation Staff concui's with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and recommends approval per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the necessary variances and CUP for the proposed wetland alteration to improve tlic Big Island access between Lots 38 and 39, Morse Island Park. r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1112, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTIONS 78-1113/14(2b) FILE NO. 04-2997 WHEREAS, the City of Orono Public Works Department (hereinafter "the applicant") has made application to the City ofOrono (hcrcinafler “the City”) for vaiianccs to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1112andaConditional Use Pennit per Section 78-1113/14(2b)toallow filling and grading within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetoirka, within and within 26’ of a wetland, and within the flood plain adjacent to Lake Minnetonka, to allow for the improvement of a pedestrian and limited vehicular access driveway within the public dedicated riglit-of-way located between Lots 38 and 39, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter “the right-of-way”); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City ofOrono Zoning mid Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public Iicaring on March 15,2004, and again on Anril 19,2004 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW,TIIEREFORE, BE IT KESOLVEDbytheCityCouncilofOrono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File //04-2997. 2. The right-of-way is located in the RS Seasonal Recreation Zoning District. 3.Tlie Planning Commission review ed the application for variances and a conditional use pennit at public hearings held on Mai eh 15 and Apnl 19,2001 and recommended approval by a vote ol 7-0 based 'Ml the following findings and hardships; The proposed access driv eway will be 10’ in width anil 1 SO' in length, and w ill provide a walkablc access point, with limited vehicular accessability, for the north halfofthe island. This access will replace the access drive that was formerly used on the north side of the page I of 6 wetland. That access was on private property, and the owner recently conv erted it to lawn area. The City has long held that the City has an obligation to provide reasonable access to the interior roads on the island for die needs of the few inland properties which do not abut the lakeshore, and for the occasional serv'ice or emergency vehicles which may need to access the island. B) A small wetland lies within the 90'wide dedicated riglit-of-way conidoi. Tlie wetland in question is approximately 1/8 acre in area and is not on the City ’s 1974 wetland inventory, and therefore is not defined as a “City-protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnchalia Creek Watershed District administers on the City ’s behalf. C) The project is being proposed under the WCA “de minimus’’ rules because it involves less than 400 s. f. of wetland area being filled. Tlicrcfore, the amount of fill and the impact of that fill is so minor as to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s.f at the SE comer of the wetland. The proposed driveway fill will be no clo.ser than 6' from the property line to the south. This complies with City requirements that do not allow filling within 5’ of a lot line. D) Tlie filling will impact u I2eubicyard area of flood plain. An equivalent volume will be excavated adjacent to the N W comer of the floodplain area within the right-of-way as equal mitigation. E) The driveway will constitute fillingof25 cubic yiuds of gravel in the 0-75'zone, requiring aCUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% impervious surface in the 0-75' zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by limiting the width of the driveway to 10'. F) Ilus application was prepared by Public Ser\ ices Director Greg Gappa with the assistance of John Sm>ih, Water Resource Specialist with Boncstroo & Associates, the City ’s engineenng luid environmental consultants, llie appropnatc applications arc being made to the MCWD. MCWD approval shall be required bcfiorc the project may commence. 4. The City Council finds that the hardships and special conditions supporting approval of the variances and CUP include the following: Page 2 of 6 5. 6. 7. The property was platted as right of way in order to provide access to inland roads and properties on the island, such access being necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Strict adherence to the ordinances would proliibit use of the property for its intended purpose. Tlie right of way platted to the lakeshorc is a unique circumstance to the Island and was created in 1887 for the public benefit by prior owners of the suiTounding property, and is not a circumstance created by the City. Construction ofaroadway 10'in width within the 90'wide corridor will not alter Ute essential character of the locality and wil 1 replace a similar access road which existed nearby on private property for many decades. The cstablislimcnt of a suitable roadway is a substantial property right inherent in platted right-of-ways. Denial of llie variances and CUP would deny the public of this right. llic Ctty Council finds that the rc-cstablislimcnt of a pedestrian and vehicular access at tlic riglit-of- way in question is necessary to balance the City ’s goal of providing only the minimum necessary public services to the island, with the inherent need for access for inland properties, for emergency services, and for occasional service vehicles. llie City Council has considered tliis application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances and conditional use pennit 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 vanances and conditional use pcnnit would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert)-, w ould not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a detnonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary topresers’c a substantial properly right of the applicants and the public; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 i #• % »\ . s \ ( ^ % CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1112 and a Conditional Use Pennit per Section 78- 1113/14(2b) to allow filling and grading within 75’ofthe shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, within and within 26* of a wetland, and within the flood plain adjacent to Lake Minnetonka, to allow for the improvement of a pedestrian and limited veliicular access driveway witliin the public dedicated riglit-of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. Council approval is based on the site and grading plan submitted by the applicant, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the plan which are not in conformity with the approved plan will be at the discretion of City staff and may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Applicant shall establish a Conservation and Flowagc Easement over the wetland. Applicant shall obtain all required MCWD pennit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. 4. Applicant and applicants agents shall comply with all pennit requirements of the various agencies having jurisdiction over this wetland. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a land alteration pemiit from the City prior to commencing the project. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are pennissi VC only and must be exercised by obtaining a land alteration pennit for the project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (April 26,2005). 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 temiinate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, heteby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 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_______ Linda S. Vec, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instniment was executed on behalf of the City. .,2004 by Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ________________for the City of Orono. day of .,2004 by Notary Public Page 6 of 6 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #04-2997 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 22. 2004 TO: Greg Gappa Public Services Director COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / CUP DATE OF MEETING: April 19. 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion to recommend approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26' of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flowagc Easement over the wetland, and subject to MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confinned as: City Council - Monday, April 26, 2004 7:00 p.m. 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 February 23,2004 and the 60-day review period would end on April 23, 2004. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 15,2004, 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 June 22, 2004. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Plaiuiing Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. i Date Application Received! 2>23>04 Date Application Coniidercd at Complete: 2-23-04 60-Day Review Period Expires; 4-23-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director April 16.2004 #04-2997 City of Orono - Access Between Lots 38 «Sc 39, Morse Island Park (120-140 Big Island) - CUP and Variance for Wetland Alteration - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits: A - PC Draft Minutes 3-15-04 B - Notice of PC Action 3-22-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 3-12-04 Application Summary: As a result of numerous requests from property owners on Big Island, and as a result of the previously used adjacent access road bejng converted to lawn by its owner, the City is requesting a variance and a conditional use permit to allow the filling of a small portion of wetland and fto^plam to allow construction of a new driveway for vcliicular access fixjm tire lakeshore to the interior platted road system. Current Status: This item was tabled on March 15 because Public Services Director Greg Gappa was not present. Planning Commission recommended that this not be brought back until staff meets with the residents of Big Island and can present a comprehensive plan for establishing/upgrading all three potential access points. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed wctla.nd alterations absent tire suggested meeting with residents. The Council has indicated no intent at this time to address furtlicr access issues or proceed toward opening a third access point. Background In March of2003, the Council invited a group of Big Island residents to a work session to discuss the access issue. At that meeting, the consensus of the residents, and ofthe Council, was that the access lane that was closed by Mr. Uran should be replaced on the adjacent City right-of-way lane. Since that time, the Council has authorized a wetland delineation and a feasibility study in preparat-on for construction of the access. These have been completed. The only step remaining is the CUP for filling in the 0-75 lakeshore zone. Most recently, the Council discussed this issue at its April 8,2004 work session. Tire Council confirmed its support for the access lane. The Council also indicated its intention to limit the number of access lanes open on Big Island to the minimum number necessary to provide minimally adequate access. Minimizing the number of access lanes will minimize the amount and impacts of motor vehicle usage on the Island. #04*2997 Big lilind Access April 16,2004 Pige2 At the PC’s March 15 meeting, a variety of conflicting opinions were expressed by various owners of property on Big Island. Wliile staff docs not object to eventual consideration of a third access point, that access point would require substantial excavation within 75' of the shoreline, and would result in even greater pressures to allow tree removal in right-of-ways to create easy, direct travel routes through the island. This would require substantial public discussion, has no support from tire Council currently, has no funding support, and would have the potential to create a signi hcant change in the character of the island. The current proposal is to merely replace on public right-of-way the long-established access that was recently eliminated from the adjacent private property. The proposed wetland and floodplain impacts are minimal. While the abutting neiglrbors may not approve of the proposal, tlie City recognizes an obligation to re-establish tins access, and is going about it in what staff believes is the least impact method given the limited options. Staff Recommendation Please review the meino and exhibits of March 12. Staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26' of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland, and subject to MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. ________ A (#13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, STREET VACATION-Continued) 2. The vacated property shall be legally combined with the adjoining three tax parcels; (02-117-23 43 0002, 02-117-23 43 0004, 02-117-23 43 0006) Mabusth moved and Rahn seconded to approve Application #04-2996, Bob Carlson, Jyland Homes, 1070 West Ferndale Road, requesting a vacation of an un-named road right-of-way created in the North Shore Cottage Acres. This approval is subject to the applicant granting general utility easements over any of the utility company’s lines and need to confirm easements and also vacated property shall be legally combined with the adjoining three platted parcels. VOTE: Ayes: 7; Nays 0. 14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES (10:48-11:25 P.M.) Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, was not present. Mike Gaffron reported in his absence. Gaffron explained the application request and indicated that Greg Gappa, Public Services Director was unable to be present at the meeting. He asked that the conunission please review Exhibit C, the memo from Mr. Gappa, which explains the need for this project and the characteristics of the project. Gaffron noted that the wetland in question is not on the City’s 1974 wetland inventory, and therefore is not defined as a “City-protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District administers on the City’s behalf. The City has chosen to make the applications for variance and CUP although it could be argued that this wetland does not fall strictly under the City’s ordinances. The project is being proposed under the WCA "de minimus” rules because it involves less than 400 s.f. of wetland area being filled. This means that the amount of fill and the impact of that fill is so minor as to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s.f. at the SE comer of the wetland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has slightly relocated the proposed driveway fill so tliat there will be no filling closer than 6’ from the property line to the south. This complies with City requirements that do not allow filling within 5' of a lot line. The filling will impact a 12 cubic yard area of flood plain. An equivalent volume will be excavated adjacent to the NW’ comer of the floodplain area within the right-of-way as equal mitigation. The proposed driveway will be 10' in width and 180' in length, and will provide a driveable access point for the nortlt half of the island. This access will replace the access drive that was Page 40 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (ftU. //04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Continucd) formerly used on the north side of the wetland. That access was on private property, and the owner recently converted it to lawn area The City has long held that the City has an obligation to provide reasonable access to the interior roads on the island for the occasional service vehicle, and for the needs of the few inland properties that do not abut the lakeshorc. The driveway will constitute filling of 25 cubic yards of giavel in the 0-75' zone, requiring a CUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% iinpcivious surface in the o-75 ‘ zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by limiting the width of the driveway to 10'. With passage of the WCA, the Mimichaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administenng the WCA regulations. These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain tyjics 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 appropriate applications arc being made to the MCWD. MCWD approval shall be required before the project may conuncncc. Gaffron noted that this application w-as prepared by Public Services Director Greg Gappa with the assistance of Jolin Smyth, Water Resource Specialist with Boncstroo & Associates, the City’s engineering and environmental consultants. Because wetland alterations are not allowed by Oroiio Code except by vanance, the activity is required to be justified via the demonstration of a haidsliip. The commission was asked to review the hardship statements within the application packet. The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardship that supports tliis variance request, llie locations of the few access points to the island were platted a century ago, before motorized vehicles were common. Ihc access points generally were platted at low points in the topography, for obvious reasons. This is one of the only potential acce.ss points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to provide access to inland lot owners. Access caiuiot be provided without work in the 0-75' zone. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26’ of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establisluncnt of a Conservation and Flowagc Easement over the wetland, and subject to MCWD pemiit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. Page 41 of 48 F MIKUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Continued) Chair Smitli asked for clarification on that the property owner was reclaiming liis private property tliat had been used for public access. Gaffron responded affinnatively. Gaffron further stated this property owner suffered the public ’s use of his property for many years. Chair Smith confirmed that there is access elsewhere, but doesn’t provide for access to this pait of the island and that is why this is needed. Gaffron stated that tliese access points were dedicated in plats 100 years ago and generally they are at the low points in the topography so that people could drive their horse and buggy up to Uie low point at tlie bluffs and that is probably why this one is located at the low point here. For whatever reasons it has become a wetland. We don’t know if it has always been a wetland. It is not on the city ’s protected wetland list or map. Because of the wetland delineation process, however, the area is wetland. Public member Sheryl Uran, 120 and 140 Big Island, owns property on either side of the wetland. She thought wetlands were “sacred cows". She spoke to the MCWD and they say a wetland can't be filled unless there is no other viable alternative and every alternative should be exhausted before a wetland is filled in. She said her property has been surveyed three times in the last four years for this particular road and the stakes have been moved every single time. To her knowledge, the other roads have not been surveyed. So the wetland has always been looked at and not the other accesses. One inland property owner has asked for access. She spoke to Greg Gappa and he stated he has no plans to do anything for the roads. It is the furthest point away for any of the inland properties. There are other access roads that can be used. For example, the road by Gabriel Jabbour ’s property is partially paved and goes to all the inland lots. The one that is on either side of Bruntjen’s property has never been looked at as viable where rush and small trees arc the only thing standing in the way of access. Chair Smith inquired what other accesses have been given consideration. Gaffron responded that the city has considered two other potentially viable access points: 1. West side next to Jabbour ’s property, which is used by everybody on the island 2. Downliill from Bruntjen’s property Gaffron then stated there are other properties that need to get access and they have potential of going in on the west end, coming around the side of the large wetland. There are trees in the right-of-way and the city has told people not to cut trees in the right-of-way. Some of the right- of-ways arc located next to wetlands and the city normally doesn’t like trees being cut next to wetlands. Staff believes people should develop on the island in ways that do not require they Page 42 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (H14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIAiNCES-Continued) have constant and total use of right-of-ways. From a safety perspective there is a need for access. Gaffron noted he believes the city should potentially be developing tliree access points on the island and named tliem on the map. However, it should be noted that the city doesn’t have the dollars to develop them all at the same time so they are proceeding to improve one access at a time. This one has gotten started at the request of more than one neighbor and letters are in the packets applauding the city for trying to get something useful. Gaffron agiees with having more accesses, but the city is limited to what they can afford in a time frame that works. Public member David Lovelace, 220 Big Island explained tlie access situation on the island and admitted he started the whole access issue and wants all three access sites developed. At the Bay Place location the lake levels comes up various years that makes access difficult. Mr. Lovelace stated he would bear the cost of the gravel with his neighbors. Public member Jolm Uran, 120/140 Big Island who has lived on the island for 30 years asked Lovelace where he is building his house on that property and how close would it be to the access? Lovelace’s preference is to have his dock access near to where he will have his cabin or house. He has a covenant restriction with the owner that he purchased the land from. Uran asked Gaffron why the city would fill a wetland at this point to provide access when you have two other places to provide access. He suggested the whole island be surveyed. Lovelace stated he is not asking to fill the wetland. Public member Valerie Walsh, 180 Big Island is located five properties down from property access and didn’t receive any public hearing notice. Gaffron stated notices are required to go to residences within 350’. She wants all three accesses developed. Public member Dorothy Parsons agrees wiUi Ms. Walsh. She stated her son carried 20 sheets of plywood up to her home because they don’t have road access. She also said the alley next to Parson’s home is not accessible. A septic system needs to go in and they need access to the back of the property. Chair Smith suggested this item be tabled and suggested that Greg Gappa meet with all island homeowners to come up with an access plan. She also appreciates homeowners are interested in helping out financially and with letting tlte commission know' what access points would be desirable to them. Public member Parson asked what the city needs from them. Chair Smith responded that having all of tonight s participants make sure they sign in on the attendance form and note that tliey are Dig Island residents so that Greg knows who was here tonight. Page 43 of 48 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (14. #/04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Cootinued) Smith moved and Mabustb seconded to table Application #04-2997, City of Orono, for a CUP to provide vehicular access from the lakeshore to the interior platted road system bet>veen lots 38 and 39 at Morse Island Park on Big Island. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0. SKETCH PLANS 15. #04-2987 HASHEM BUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET SKETCH PLAN. Gundlach reported tliat the applicant was not present and tlie commission temporarily put tliis item on hold and moved to tire next item. 16. #04-2988 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN The representative, Henry Lazniarz, and his builder, Tom Goodrum, were present. Gaffron explained this is a sketch plan for a proposed 7-lot residential plat or PRD of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek. Five concept plans have been presented for consideration. Each proposal includes development of a private cul-de-sac road accessing from Brown Road South, plus extensions to serve various outlying or back lots. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site is wooded and contains an existing single-family residence constructed in the 1920's. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Plarming Coimnission and Council during the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The owners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts, have taken legal action to have their existing casement declared as usable for acce.ss to the property. The City Attorney is still reviewing documentation provided to him, but his initial conclusion is that the 40' easement does in fact provide the applicant with the right to create a road to serve multiple lots over that easement. Henry Lazniarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres. He apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this. Gaffron reviewed the points in the staff memo relating to the property. Tom Goodrum handed out colored r.’nderings of the five concept plans. Gaffron noted that applicants have provided the commission with a number of concept plans and most of them could be done in a planned residential development with a standard plat. The Page 44 of 48 #04-2997 March 12,2004 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Variance & CUP Applications B - Sui'vey / Site Plan / Grading Plan (Revised Plan Submitted 3-12-04) C - Public Services Director Memo 2-18-04 D - Hardcover Calculations E - MCWD Application and Exhibits F - Plat Map G -1974 Orono Wetland Inventory Map H - MCWD Wetland bwentory Map & Hydrology Summary I - Property Owners List J - Code Excerpts Pertinent to Wetland Alterations K - Orono SWMP Excerpts: Section 5, Wetlands Management L • Letters from interested parties Background Please review Exhibit C, the memo from Public Services Director Greg Gappa, which explains the need for this project and the characteristics of the project. Tlie wetland in question is not on the City’s 1974 wetland inventory, and tlierefore is not defined as a "City- protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Wetland Consei'vation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District administers on the City’s behalf Tire City has chosen to make the applications for variance and CUP although it could be argued that this wetland does not fall strictly under the City’s ordinances. The project is being proposed under the WCA “de minimus" rules because it involves less than 400 s.f ofwetland area being filled. This means that the amount of fill and the impact ofthat fill is so minor as to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s.f at the SE comer ofthe wetland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has sliglitly relocated the proposed driveway fill so tliat tlicre will be no fillmgcloser than 6 ’ from the property line to the south. This complies with City requirements that do not allow filling within 5' of a lot line. Tlic filling will impact a 12 cubic yard area of flood plain. An equivalent volume will be excavated adjacent to the NW comer of the floodplain area within the right-of-way as equal mitigation. The proposed driveway will be 10' in width and 180' in length, and will provide a driveable access point for the north half of tlie island. P.iis access will replace the access dnve that was fomrerly used on the north side of the wetland. Tliat access was on private property, and the owner recently converted it to lawn area. ITte City has long held that the City has an obligation to provide reasonable access to the interior roads on the island for the occaf . mal service vehicle, and for the needs ofthe few inland properties which do not abut the lakeshorc. #04-2997 March 12,2004 Pages The drivev/ay will constitute filling of 25 cubic yards of gravel in the 0-75' zone, requiring a CUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% impervious surface in the o-75' zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by limiting the width o f the driveway to 10'. With passage of the WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) foradministeringthe WCAregulations. Tlrese regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of wetland alteration activities which are seen as positive rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of iregative impacts when they are unavoidable. MCWD Approval Required The appropriate applications are being made to tlieMCWD. MCWD approval shall be required befiore the project may commence. City Consultant Review Tliis application was prepared by Public Services Director Greg Gappa with the assistance of John Smyth, Water Resource Specialist with Bonestroo & Associates, the City ’s engineering and environmental consultants. Hardship Statement Because wetland alterations are not allowed by Orono Code except by variance, the activity is required to be justified via the demonstration of a hardship. Please review the hardship statements within the application packet. The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardsliip that supports this variance request. The locations of the few access points to the island were platted a century ago, before motorized vehicles were common. The access points generally were platted at low points in the topography, for obvious reasons. This is one of the only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to provide access to inland lot owners. Access cannot be provided without work in the 0-75' zone. Issues for Consideration 1. ''jc there any aspects of this project that will be detrimental to the neighborhood? X..Is Planning Commission satisfied that the project is appropriate? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? , M4-2997 March 12,2004 Page 4 Staff Recomraendatioa Staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway coiMtmction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26' of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0'75' setback zone per the revised plan, subj ect to establishment of a Conservation and Flowagc Easement ovei- tlie wetland, and subject to MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. • i 0 City of Orono Variance Appiication A' Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parlovsy Orono. MN SS3S6 £ b L>f Main: 952-24946C0 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532:-;066 Application # ~7 Date Received: Amount Paid: _ Staff: ______ Fee: S600 Renewal; S300 After-the-fact; $1,200 Double Peg This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: , . t \ Site Address: Lr/kf, \c?cAi(\ HQ Property Identification Number (PIN): >yj A. ^ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) ^ — _ A Mk • f ^ A i § \ i 1 m \ a ^ g * *Date Property Acquired (month/year): \ 0 □ Yes, I own the adja9entparcels. Present use of property: □ Residential (Z^Du-ier \Ja cr-i Zoning District: S>g.qpohn\ C.ri/^\OAgi\ ' • ®PL1CANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal narres and marital status required foreach interested party) jme: C'i\>y Oroy\a • G'rVr:. Gr-jCh/i i fhomeV. * ^ =>none (home): Address Email: ^ p _____________________________ one (work): <^S'2r 4^6 00 \^.CJ.brJx ^ tviia ____ trictPCirU ^ c\ 4 O rrjn o, tVin. LI S' 'Fax: q S I- ^ -4* 614 OWNER INFORMATION; (Complete legal names ar.d marital status required for each Interested party) Name: C i \ v ()\ ro'AO '■ p r<Vi KA oc ^v yo____________________ Phone (home): * - phone (work); S Z 2-4 4^0 Address: P,0, ISoX 44 fcgty (WU S S 3» 2.3 Email: Ylrv, co»^7?'J5t C\ 0<~Gko.xV\\\Ms^ ^Fax: >• 4-&U. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ !T, 0 C Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): (5 f aj4_c\lJLV5_J Poori \n CiV^v^______________________________________^___________________, mb\vw».n Vivs Wc\\lmS d V_ S uuv~f<4r g.’(n T 'rr'^yw l<. . KAr? 1<: Mi\nU/fM lO-IUe 0^15' If (xWevJfiT^ cnAv ^ P^^OjCCt tv f^A/cxr-\a(\ r.9 \c.g. \n *fV«. 0^1 • .V -C . f.-”" . fir* i-..—f- f..1 .•"a i k 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date In order foryo application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*'* Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11 "or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet).. Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11* x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the pnU-X * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, t' staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request ' denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature: 5) (7r».on/>v. A fCawn^pate: T-” ‘ 0 4 Applicant's Signature: Cy inT ^ ^ tt"Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of Investigation ^d verificatiop^^^is request. ________Date: ^ Date: Owner’s Signature: Pwner’s Signature: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. r r * • V • .! s; ■*' \■ * r' - ,/ K Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on a.ny meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship ce demonstrated In order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the properly as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations 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? This 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 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 cf these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. “The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowedly the official controls." . \ t-i \ \ r i 1n\r torppeoxy \u^V\\ 0\ y/<x^ ^n^rrXl\Ao'c^(^rok!' Trj H'rA By ' 2. M Si 01 -tW\r p ropery STvcVt ptArp o se s The plight of the landovvner Is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.? v rL\<jV\\ rj-f \/aV.c.rUcr9 \s a Un 1 ^Me c.irt-c<m.rrgif^rf tr> ^roy/\/^/p4rTrwgr'tVT o rr:.PST i/i p ro N-cr 3."The variance, if granted, will net alter the essential character of the locality." f r>A0A'T4 r*'^\ on r? ^ ^0 l4/\ o \ t /ill A e h.4^-V\A ^ uyiU tTtl'tc 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue ha.'dship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ___________________________________________________________ _______________________ O TT”C% ‘i 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Page 2 of 2 "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 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vananM any use_^at is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land Is located " Jvlib ________________ •The Board or Council may permit as a variance the tempora.-v use of a o^^-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” Coy^\\\c.y^ pUi^gJ fv MAV/ijMP |?n:» * >./ - y . JhlehtSd'iand iflo rated.-'' ‘”="''=' n.?r.>dJCToVfnT4ln<- fl-'s pr-nliu A ..... n P S t' "\ ':V d'-'' ■^■--■'5 •fr fcux:P c" / '•i'l'.***./) Ch <7 0 III ■ Page 3 of 3 12.“The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* Yg 4V>e L( W'j i:c>^ p\ VV/;I pr/-\b U«: Hardship Statement 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 necessary): .•r, > • /r ..-L a.. *•. f •. t w • •• : /1 *. I ■j 1^ I, % CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# -2.CrQ'7 Date Received ■2-2'9yCt-r Amount Paid__________ PROPERTY LOCATION, , , , ---------............................... IU' l'=V d S-^Ij L'VS Srte Address Rl<-, TsUwl Darsr Type of Application to bo Filed CMp 6 T>ll\cg; Q' /-> Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) X-l A_______________________ Ic APPLICANT ctr Or.mf-Gr'i Phone (homej_____________—-------> -r-.— ------—rc-^-> Address P /?. 6/tx L-f> \3i6>’Y City-----LaJ^---------^ •* VL3. ira Ga\) p<a________. PhflrnefworK) 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) f ix y r? ■/* \L/:‘}r\ ivAoprS^Name if. < r^v^sV>\^Av City -------ZipJiSi^ Date F^opei^ Acquired P\^ i'U<lA v r..h'e k^lacerirpas FEES - CONDITiONAL USE PERMITS - Phone fwork^^^iL L-_. - - V9 (month/year)f) i \JL>/>\. $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ' $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ___Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/P ID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ’ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $600.00 Vacation ‘$600.00 Easement Vacation ‘ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision " $600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ • A - - ^ ^ _J ^ ^ A." $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2 $100.00 Appeals "* Other - see Fee Schedule # 1^/i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and m .p may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center. A-603 300 South S"* Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ____Attach legal description to application if not included cn required survey. ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). , List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appllcant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan. If applicable (see staff for requirements). _____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff wiil require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: ______________________Date 4. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. % OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for puj;pQifes of investigation and verification of Uiis request. ^ ^ Owner's signature ------------------- Date=^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each montn. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized sgent attend in ycur oiace and adviseZoning Office of this chgggg^r to the meeting. \ \ \r /\ m j / ^ / /r fy / / / y y no’ACCESS ROAD / •T (T-FOtn, cm< mACH f ABne to postsW1H Minmi 3 HP TOgo^jnEMSu:) PCK post MW WONOfKAMCNT OCOTUTU KPWR ^*oS o5a?w •• or PAMOC AM PASTOi AT 2* MlOtVALS *yACHINC ftJCS i*-ir ocrw (PUIS •• PUP) mCNCH MUST OC COMPAC1CD OYuo<T coupMOrr pskm to PLACOtfNT or STCCL POSTS. t • # • 14* iMNMUkl POST CMtCOMCMT lOfNE nxcD icmoo (this ohaa) is the stanoako sht MSTALLATION MCTHOO. NCAVY-OUTY (OtO-lS) OP mo (fSO-IC) «LT FONX »ISTAULAT)0N ICTHODS SHOIAO K UKD SW APPSOMO OP OPCCTCO BY THE CITY. :hine : suced silt fence SCALE — 8" CL 5 AGG. BASE - GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE / / / / / 3."42 - - _____ / / PUMM MIIKSATION 12 ^JDST 30.24' EOCE OF K ^0 Sa.T FENCE \ N \\ \ ^ N N PROPOSCO 21 s so. N A/i£AS VOLUMES cuMUurrvs volumes Cubic Ycrdw Cubic Kirdr STA770N cur rSLL CUT mi CUT nu. T400 3 36 0.60 0.19 o.os 0.19 0.05 14-01.68 2.15 1.04 0.20 0.09 0.36 0.13 14-04.04 2.37 0.92 0.21 0.06 0.59 019 14-06.40 2.36 0.43 0.26 0.14 O.OS 0.33 14-10 1.50 1.65 0.70 0.38 1.55 0.71 14-20 2.27 0.40 J 0.74 0.17 Z29 58 14-30 1.74 0.52 0.63 1 0.23 X92 1.11 14-40 1.65 0.71 0.52 0.37 3.44 1.48 14-50 1.16 1.31 0.85 0.29 4.29 1.77 14-60 3,43 0.24 2.47 0.04 6.76 1.61 14-70 9.91 000 2.20 0.20 6.96 2.01 14-60 2.00 1.07 0.46 0.06 9.44 2.07 14-83 6.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 207 SCO wcn^a nu^ I. FT. TA \ |\ \ \ IFUOdfr 5WN FHX 12 p \ I / \ \' \ \ EDGE or LAKE 929.4 CONTOUR (PLATTED) SeoM M fMl i 16**1 1 ^ l« '!»ii * 4^ ^ W S in ?;» £ IN ^ s ti^ <u= « |S« i I Sc tnae<< .5 C5 2 1 £ ^ ? 940------ i _ A t___^93%_____^2.00% ,_J - —■^• 920 DA7W ELEV 9iaoo o 4^ 1 1 M i 1 1 ; ! 1 cJ 1 1 s 1a ! 1 0.00% _ .L-. 1 1 1 ■ ■"■ 1 1 mrnm 1• 1»1 ________1i. J.1 1\ 1 1 1 i _i ••1i••• 1 f i S o i s 2 r^. —‘ o OI 3 S + 2 3 S »n|8, «>S «o 3 0'S ®*3 ° -|s “! 3 3 8 :- iw tnj3 a -k. 51 3 sjs S S o ^ 3o» ^ a s » 5? 2 3 ° s S S i § a § s OI®* ^issaia!. O-t-OO 0-4-20 O-t-40 0-4-60 O-I-BO 14-00 1 + 20 1+40 1+60 1+60 Wi iJiSj Ifixl !i I O oO § 8 Si s««i« Wi r»«t C5 1 o February 18,2004 To: Orono City Coimcil and Planning Coimnission From: Greg Gappa, Director of Public Services Subject: Big Isleuid Lake Access “C” Road Lake access C is located on the northeast side of Big Island and is a 90’ wide platted City Right of Way with flat topography and is currently vindeveloped Almost the entire width of the access is a Type 1 wetland that was formed by an ice ridge that impouitds surface water drainage. This area usually contains water during spring the spring snow melt or veiy wet periods. For many years access to the island in this area was on private land adjacent to the north of the access, the property owner has now blocked this access read. Since the dry land access area on private property is not available, there is no longer a good access point for the properties on the northern area of the island. The only other access lanes D and H that have suitable topography for reasonable access are located fvuther south on the island. In 2000, the City granted approval for the property owner of 220 Big Island, a landlocked parcel, to have a seasonal dock on access C. Information on this approval is attached. The property owners on the northern area of the island are concerned about access, and we have had discussions and several site visits to the island with property owners to view optio:rs for better access to the island. An option for consideration is the construction of an access read on lake access C that would restore access comparable to the historical access that was located on private land. Attached is a plan showing a 10’ wide crushed rock access road on the southern edge of access D. The plan shows a road extending from the lakeshore to an existing access path on the Lawn Avenue Right of Way. Construction of the entire 180’ of road would require about 60 Cubic Yards of rock. The proposed plan is to place the crushed rock cn top of geotextile fabric placed directly on the existing ground. This should be adequate considering the low level of usage for this road and will minimize the amount of excavation required. There will be a small amount of excavation required to remove the ice ridge near the lakeshore. Construction of the road across the wetland will require about 300 s, f of wetland impact. Mirmesota Rules provide for a “de minimis” exception for impacting less than 40C s.f. of wetland in the shoreland area. To obtain the de minimis exception a permit application has to be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for approval by the Board of Managers. Construction of this road will require a Conditional Use Permit from the City for grading and filling more than 10 c.y. in the 0 ’ to 75' setback zone. Approximately 25 C.Y. of crushed rock will be placed in the 0 to 75’ setback zone. A variance will also be required for 750 s.f or 12®/o of impervious surface in the 0 ’ to 75* hardcover zone in which no impei-vious surfaces are allowed. Page 2 of 2 r j HARDCQYER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK20NE: (CIRCLEONE) fOW 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' D STINQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________S.F. Length Width X X s a SF. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. __ X __ X o S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk E. Patio/DecK X X S5 S.F. S.F. X X 0m S5 S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X a S 3 S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Retaining Wails S.F. H. Other •OTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. S.F. A OTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Z' ^ r*^ ^ • *___ S.F. B A 6 B 0 / X 100 =u PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House X s:_ S.F. Length Width X a S.F. X 8 S.F.• .A- iB Garaoe X M S.F. C. Drivewav "7 5*« 16 a ISO S.F. X mm _S.F. D Sidewalk • X 8 S.F.4 •X mm S.F.. . • • 1 A 1 E Palio/Deck ___X s S.F. •• ] • •v^*' J X a S.F. F landscaoe X S.F. • S • •' / / •• V^•e •Underlain X 8 S.F. Rv Plastic X m S.F."t rt G Rptalnlna X 8 S.F. I . ^ Walls •• H. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m ISO S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE B jflQQ 6^ ^'0 ._____S.F.B 6 imiai____% COMBINED JOINT NOTIFICATION FORM - WATER RESOURCE APPLICATION appi Use this form to notify/apply to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). their engineering consultants, the DNR. and the Hennepin Conservation District of a proposed watcr/wctland project or work which may fall within their jurisdiction. These agencies should advise you of their jurisdiction or permit requirements within 10 days. Fill out this foim completely and mail acopy, with plan, maps. etc... to the MCWD, 18202 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391 Keep a copy for your records. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK ____________ , Applicant's Name (Last, First. MI.) (^oiQptx . f^rea cCi^ _________ Address (Street. RFD, rfo.x #, City, State, Zip) PQ fiC. / , MlA/j ^5 32 Phone No. 2^9 - t/6oa 2. Location of proposed project (Attach drawing w/du ections to site); COUNTY ^ QTRSECnON(s) SliCTION(s) TOV|^SOT(s) PROJECT ADDRESS; CITY: Orof\0 RANGES)Lot, Block, Subdivision Acres, VOLUME OF FILL OR EXCAVATION (Cubic yirds)7777zC^Y^-T .......................................... .........OR Square Feet. ^ P(oci/,#£«r«v ih/V I OF PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR: (Check all that ap'plyV 3. LENGTH OF SHORE AFFECTED (in feet): AREA FILLED OR EXCAVATED IS 4. TYPE OF PE □ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN K1 Fl.OOriPI .AIN ALTl'-RA nON □storm SEWER OU17ALLS □ice ridge removal □bridge & CULVERT CROSSINGS IORELINE IMPROVEMENT prpfi AP SANDBLANKET BETAININaWALL QweTI-AND AL'IERATION □ EXCAVATION PREDOn<G) a.G WILDLIFE bO NAVIG.ATION dO BIOENGINEERING OTHER (DESCRIBE) I a. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: (Licensed Contractor, Engineer, etc...) Include name, iddress &. phone number. A;.';Aw..y TC J Si fk^l MA/ 5. PROJECT PURPOSE (why is this project needed • what benefits will it provide?) 6. ALTERNATIVES (describe any otltcr sites or methods that could be used to achieve the puqposc of your project while avoiding or minlmiting water/welland impacts Attach additional sheets, if needed. 7. DATES; Proposed start of activity; (Identify any completed work on attached drawing) Projxiscd completion: 8, NAMES Sc ApORESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach list if more)sj AMES Sc /ADDRESSES OF ADJOl 9 PERMITS HAVE BEEN RFCEIVTD (R) OR APPLIED FOR (A) FROM:_____DNR COLmY CITY_____MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AKNEf CORPS OF ENGR I hereby notify the iccipicnls of this form of the project propoicd herein and request I be advised of any pcnnlts or other dclenrunatloni coaceminp this project that I must obtain. 1 understand tliat proceeding with work before all required auUiorizations arc obtained nuy be subject to Eccleral. State and/or local administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties. IJ5^yturc of rernon rroposing Project or Agent Date 1 } applb INSTRUCTIONS • PLEASE READ CAREFULLY A copy of this form, with copies of all plans, drawings, etc... should be sent to each agency indicated below. Please check the appropriate spaces below to show everywhere you are sending this form. Remember to keep a copy for your records. i k r r \ r\ The LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (LGU) city, county o^warer n^nagement organization JSu The SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT HENNEPIN SWCD___CARVER SWCD MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR) Regional Office US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE) at: Dept, of the Army, Cotps of Engineers, St Paul District - ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth St East. St. Paul, MN 55101-163 S llatClThe above agencies may provide a copy of your completed form to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). MPCA water quality issues may apply to your proposed project. AJIXENTION (From USDAl; Any activity including drainage, dredging, filling, leveling or other manipulations, including maintenance, may affect a landuser's eligibility for USDA benefits under the 1985 Food Security Act as amended. Check with your local USDA office to request and complete Form AD-1026 prior to initiating activity. ° IMPORTANT; Some agencies, including the Corps of Engineers and the MDNR accept this form as a permit application form. If you wish this form to constitute an application to the Corps and/or MDNR for any necessary permits for your projects please carefully read the following information and sign where indicated. Application is hereby made for a permit to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activity or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Signatti^t^of Applicant " v 1-\-o Date Signature of Agent Date Note: The application must be signed by the person who desired to undertake the proposed activity (Applicant) or it ntuy be signed by a duly authorize agent if the infonnation requested below is provided. Agent’s Name dc Title; ^ Agent's Address: ^^ Agent's Telephone; ((#57) ______ 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the Jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing document knowing same to contain any false, fictidous, ot fraudulent (tatement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. MinnoGoln Wetland Conccrvalion Act Application for Ceilificate of No Loss or Exemption* APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION Oret Gttpoa. City of Orono Name(s) of Applicant PQ Box 66 Street Address ■Qrano. MN City, State, Zip Code (9 S2M49-46QQ _____(_ LOU:Mtnnehahi Creek "Watershed District Project Location; 1/4____1/4_____S23 Tt 17NR23W UTM Coordinates; X____ Y County Namc/Number. Hennepin g Minor Watershed Name/Number._ Sire of entire wetland:0.12 acre acres Wetland type; Circular 39 I____; NWIPEMA Telephone (Day)(Evening) Check one: El < 50%, Q 50% - 80%, or Q > 80% Check one: f~1 Agricultural land KlNon-ag. land PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project.Currently accesses to Big Island as well as internal roads ore not contained within plated easements or city owned property. This project will provide a public road for foot traffic and vehicles (typically during Ice conditions) to access this island and help eliminate crossing on private property. (uoch additional pages if needed) Timetable: project will begin on 03/____/04 (mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 05/____/Q4 J The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one): Q No Loss Determlnatioa (attach plans) 13 Exemption # De minimis (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note; Applicant is responsible for submittins the proof necessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed.) Description of Exemption Claimed: Project impacts less then 400 square feet of wetland. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining, excavating, or filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above; appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to event sedimenution of the water, the drain, excavation, or fill will not block fish passage; and the drain, excavation, or fill 'ctivity will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements; including best .nanagement practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 103H. BV^SiL.Fo'’Ti-'^^A_Exeinpllon_2(AppJbr_Certir_No_Loss) Psge I of 3 (April 2003) ^»* miv. This approval It not effecHvt until tht signatures below are complete. No work should begin unHlthe 30-day appeal window has lapsed, or, in the event of an appeal, until the appeal has been finalized. FOR LGU USE ONLY A.)LGU has received adequate documentation for claim of No-Loss or Exemption, and approves this certificate as outlined above. (LGU Official Signature)(Date) This certificate expires.(Date) > If this certificate applies to 8420.0122. Subp. 1 or Subp. 2B. then Item B below shall be completed and signed by the LGU. ^ If not. the LGU shall write *Not Applicable" in signature block below and the certificate is complete. • • ,, • B.)LOy has received evidence of recording of Declaration of Restrictions alnd Covenants for Impacted Wetland Under Agriculwril Exemption (BWSR Form B): (County where recorded) '(Date recorded)(Doi^ment# assigned by recorder) • (LGU Official Signature)* i'(Date) to THS WCA., Penmufmnlocal. aulM!„cUsmcle,ma, e« rtguirtd. Chtek mih Iht cppmprMt authonHet be/or, ccmmencln, work in or near welloniit. The Combined Proiee Application form can be used for this purpose^ ^ NoUce of the above decision must be mailed to the following parUcs within 10 working days of the decision: 1. Landowner/Applicant 2. Members of the Technical Evaluation Panel 3. Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable) 4. Department of Natural Resources Regional Office 5. DNR Wetlands Coordinator Q Ecological Services Section SOO Lafayette Road, Box 2S St. Paul, MN 55155 6. Corps of Engineers Project Manager (3 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District A.TTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 7. Members of the public who have requested to receive notice. 8W5RJPonn»WCA_Exemption_2(App_fbr_Certif_No_Louj Page 3 of 3 I April 2003) ivP 22- /'7- .JO,.*».¥•\ul»!St!joi 00 §js!41 - COI • • so JO JO JJ Jp to so at fOOlif 2 w:- M7' *2 3|-<s> a207« !> -------------- • 0^ -w ws •^5? VJT ’Z^ '. '•»-li2r?Tr'^'.’''‘'i >vV.>j ir-/'* V‘* ^''i- *» Ji V r^'TS v>i]r i;-'--ri> V;*.vr V '•,>: r.,'„ .T^ -- •/. ♦• r*... .• •.: -aTt-v o. ••: v.•♦ •m. “AX ^mf;i ■■m 7 ^ I V « * \\ •m \\y •y* 1 ri; .'A"*'A-L\•V /:» rAVr V \ • % fe>«1 V»/JCor.SfC>^^ M.Nv 0%*\ :.'t ■-•■ f'W V*-‘*V,1' S'7'. V'*' V » |SbjjUA.''l'^« ' •*' «' :(• iCa i.A\ •V .».• m ;;::r-xi?-; S mmm !•?• r • I •*•!•.*• 1 9^t.ri §^i ^la^ai^ ' ------------iJ»T| C' « ••. -. *?-. ■' Bii;i ' v?9P t :- ^4. •Ti ■^v..[j^ . I'r... •• DGjb9 l5(^ iilP : *1' •*♦*•*••. ED04lSM i^r;-'^^lass^Hm mmrnmm S^ -ii i • 5.-: • ;'j:.: J •;:f':':.‘-'i».J mmmi -I-: ipssw?!®® f .ficvA*..'/: \y.fi\fi-!pij.:^.^-.ii:.< ffiSFiC i SpsfeS'S^iiil •.fj i Wetland Community and Hydrology Summary City Of Orono Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland ID SubwaUtshed D-*llir-23-22 010 D-117-23-22-012 Wetland She (acres) 026 __WrtlqndType_____ CirciiiarJ9Comtdin PEMB Plant Community I D-118 23-25 006 : Long Lake C»eek PLMC Type 3 Shallow Marsh 1 i I CM 16-23 25 04 2 Long Lake Creek 1.3 PEMB. PFOIA. PUBGx Type 2. Type 1. Type 5 Fresh (V/et) Meadow. Floodplain Forest, Shallow, Open Water Communiljes O-Ha-23-23-043 Long Lake Crock 0.5 PEMA Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 0118-23 25 0*4 Long lake Creek 028 PEMA Typel Seasonally Flooded Basin U 118 23-25 045 Long Lake Creek 021 PEMA Typci Seasonally Flooded Basin Oepresslonal Isolaled Oepressional ( is^ated . . Oepressional Isolaled Oepressional Isolated • t • » «■» * • «i • • > • M • • • • • Oepressional Isolated i i Oepressional isorated Depression^i^aied* -ft •• •••« •m • m • ^ *• •• • t^ft*** Thursday, January 23, 2003 ir mm - RUHOAT *4 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP"'*'’ 'NFORMATION SYSTUM PROPERTY 1 LIST 3B 3JH7IJUOOOI PROP ADOR 7^0 BIG ISLAND OWNERNAMB HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST TAXPAYER SUBURBAN HENN REO PK DUJT NAME/ADDR U6I3 CTY RD 9 PLYMOUTH MM 55441 38 J3U7I3J70002 PROPADDR UOBIOISUND OWNERNAMB I MARGARETSCHEFTEL I MARGARET SCHEFTEL NAME/ADDR BOX 176 EXCELSIOR MN 553JI 38 73M7317300IB PROPADDR 120 BIG ISLAND OWNER NAME J D URAN 4 I D URAN TAXPAYER -lOHN D 'IRAN NAME/ADOR 19 CENTER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 2311723230019 PROPADDR IIW BIG ISLAND OWNERNAMB DUANE BEHNWO TAXPAYER DUANE 8EHNINO NAMWADDR 9117 NORMAN RIDGE CIR BLOOMINOTONMN 55437 38 2311723230020 PROP ADDR 160 BIO ISLAND OWNERNAMB DUANEBEHNINO y^yp^YER DUANE BEHNINO NAME/ADDR 9117 NORMAN RJOCE CIR BLOOMINOTONMN 354’..' 38 2311723230021 PROPADDR 220 BIO ISLAND OWNER NAME 0 LLOVELACE« A LOVELACE TA30*AYER DAVID A SANDRA LOVELACE NAME/ADOR 15331 excelsior BLVO MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 2311723230029 NAME/ADDR >70 BIO ISLAND BOX 183 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 2311723230030 PROPADDR 150BIOCLAND OWNERNAMB CLAWFUUEMARKTRUSTEES TAXPAYER WILLIAM A CAYLYNN UUEM ARK NAME/ADDR • WAYZATAMN 55447 38 231172)730031 PROPADDR 140 BIO ISLAND OWNER NAME JOHN 4 CHERYL LS URAN TAXPAYER JOHN D A CHERYL SCOTT URAN NAME/ADOR 19 CENTER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55)31 P8M8. . • ZONING REGULATIONS 4 78-1286 (4) Stairways, lifts ar.d lar^dLngs may be ei ther constructed above the ground on pests or pilings or placed into the ground, pro vided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil ero sion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings most be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the sur face of the public water, assuming sum mer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practi cal. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimen sional and performance standards of sub sections (1)—C5) of this section are com pleted in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and land ings regardless of whether such improve ments are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. § 1(10.56(16XF)), 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1283. Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construc tion of sewage treatment systems, roads, drive ways, St. .ictures or other improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to al low the city t'. evaluate possible soil erosion impacts development of visibility from public waters btfore such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be at tached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of struc tures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assummg summer, leaf-on vegetation. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. § U10.56(1(=KG)), 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1234. Height of structures. No structure within the Shcrelar.d Overlay District shall exceed the height limitations set forth in the standards for the underlying zoning district. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, 5 1110.56(16)CH)). 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-12S5. Vegetation alterations. (a) No live tre^ within 75 feet of the shoreline or within the bluff impact zone with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the groundl may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff, provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff arc planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the council. Removal cf trees that are dead shall not require a permit, but such trees must be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. (b) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees cf any size is allowed to provide a ViCw to the water from, the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement t." permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that tl\e screening of strtictuiea, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. 5 1(10.56(16X1)), 2-24- 1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 7, 7-11-1994) Sec. 7S-12S6. Topographic a’terations/grad- ing and filling. (a) Grading and filling and excavations neces sary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do Supp. No. 1 CD7S;191 I7S-1236 ORONO CITY CODE not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of struc tures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards ot this article. (b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water 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 cf this chapter. (c) Public and private roads, driveways, park ing areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed witliin 76 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the fallowing considerations! (1) Such improvements shall be designed to taka advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screen ing from view from public waters. (2) All roads and parldng areas shall be de signed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction, (d) Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways, a land alteration permit wiU be required as follows! (1) For movQxncnt of one through 500 cubic yards of material any>- here within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. (2) For movemeut of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay Distnet, conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. (e) The following considerations and condi tions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, varian'-cs and subdivi sion approvals: (1) Grading or filling in any type 2. 3, 4,5. 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following func tional qualities of tlie wetland: a. Sediment and pollutant trapping aind retention; b. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce ilood damage; c. Fish and wildlife habitat; d. Recreational use; e. Shoreline or bank stabilization; and f. Noteworthincss, including special qualities, such as historic signif- cance, critical habitat for endan gered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation roust also include a deter mination of whether the wetland alter ation hoing proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by other local state or federal agencies including but not lim ited to watershed districts, state depart ment of natural resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Alterations must be designed and con ducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is ex posed for the shortest time possible. (3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as pos sible. (4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any sur face water feature must be used. (51 Altered areas must be stabilized to accept able erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the 4^ 6upi>. No. 1 CD78;192 r ZONING REGULATIONS i 75-1238 local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unsta ble slope. (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (9) Any alterations bolow the ordinary high, water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Mirui. Stat. § 103G.245. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, includ ing associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is per mitted if the finished elope does not ex ceed three feet horizontal to one foot ver tical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the ripiLp above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. Ariprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969. (0 Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, arc prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations below the elevation or the ordinary high water level arc subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agencies with concur rent juxisdicticn. (Old. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(I6XJ)), 2-24- 1992, Ovd. No. 127 2nd series, § 8,7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd aeries, § 2, 4-4-1998] Sec. 73-1287. Stormwater management. The following general and specific standards shall apply in addition to those standards found in article VTII of this chapter and section 82-222: (1) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. (2) A development must be planned and con ducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities and erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) When development density, topographic features, and so*?, and vegetation condi tions are not sufficient to adequately han dle stormwater runoff using natiiral fea tures and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities, such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways and ponds may be used. Pref erence must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltra tion rather tham buried pipes and manmade materials end facilities. (4) When constructed facilities are used to perform water management, documenta tion must be provided by a registered professional ci^ engineer that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation district. (5) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skim ming of surface debris before discharge. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § l(10.56xL6)(K)>, 2-24- 1992) See. 78-12S8. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover cr impervious surface shall be placed, located cr ccnstructed witlin 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake cr tri‘:\ ■" ^y. except for stairways, lifts, landings and loci,- a regulated elsewhere in this Code. Supp. No. I CD76:193 5. Wetlands Management ^5.1 General As described in Section 3, the formation of the landscape in Orono has resuited in the creation of many wetlands. The City recognizes a variety of functions and values provided by its wetlands, including: Acting as part of the natural surface water mane *:,ement system • maintenance of water quality • flood attenuation • erosion end sedimentation reduction Providing habitat for a variety wildlife ❖ Preserving open spaces and natural landscapes »t» Contributing to an enhanced overall quality of life Orono's leaders formally recognized these values in the 1960's and adopted the City's first comprehensive wetland protection ordinance in 1970. Based on various water quality/quantity studies that suppor+ed the 1974SWMP. Orono adopted additional ordinances in 1975. whicti prohibited filling or draining wetlands, and required a 26-foot setback from a wetland boundary to any construction or grading activity This section of the SWMP describes the City's multi-faceted resource management approach to maintaining or improving the City's wetland resources. Stemming from the goals and policies of both MCWD a nd Orono. the following process serves as the backbone of Orono's wetland management plan: Discussion of Impacts to wetland resources (Section 5.2) ❖ Inventory wetlands likely to be affected by runoff (Section 5.3) •> Assessment of wetland functions and values (Section 5.3) *> Determination of □ runoff susceptibility rating (Section 5.3) Develop protection strategies to minimize im.pact (Section 5.4) classify wetlands by required level of protection , volume and rote control (quantity) to manage bounce • phosphorous limits to maintain or improve v^ater-quality • buffer stnp standards for quantity and quality Plan for enhancement or restoration of wetla ids (Section 5.5) • Identify candidate wetlands • create an improvement plan for each aty of Orono r. r "<^5,3 Inven ’tory and Assessment of Wetlands 5,3.1 Wetland Inventory As stated earlier, the City's objective is to protect, enhance, end/or reatora VA/et1ands that may be directly affected by runoff as development and redevelopment occurs. Therefore, only those wetlands located within 20 feet of a proposed or existing stormwater outlet pipe were inventoried and mapped as port of the SWMP. This inventory also served os the base of informof on for development of other parts of the wetland manage.nnent plan. The wetlands inventoried for this SWMP ore listed in Appendix I and are shown on the SWMP System Mop. 5.3.2 Stormwater Susceptibility Assessment The Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands was the source material for rating a wetland's susceptibility to runoff. Potential impacts associated with storm ond meltwater runoff include fluctuation In water levels (bounce) within the wetland, the duration of inundation at the varying bounce elevations and the quality of the water being directed to the wetland. A given * wetland's susceptibility to runoff is dependent on the wetland type and the chorocterlstics and quality of its plont community. As on example, o sedge meadow, which likes o particular hydrologic regime is much more susceptible than a floodplain forest, which depends on fluctuating levels of water ossocloted with secsonol flooding Also a wet imeadow with d variety of grasses and flowers is more sensitive than one dominated by reed canary grass. The runoff susceptibility retina for each of the evaluated wetlands Is indicated by coior-coding cn the system map. The ratings described In the guidance document ore •I* Highly Susceptible Moderately Susceptible <• Slightly Susceptible •:* LeostSusceptlble. Further discussion on susceptibility and associated wetiend communitv descriptions, modified from the Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands is presented in Appendix H. Each susceptibility rating category describes different wetland typos, Including plant communities and hydrology. O'tyofOrono m mi ip 1 I f 5.3.3 Functional ’Assessment Orono's 1980 Community Management Plon articulated the general basis for wetland protection, but lacked a functional assessment of the values attributable to each of its protected wetlands. Such an assessment was needed to be able to develop protection orenhoncement strateaies for Individual wetlands. The New Hampshire Method, slightly modified for conditions in Orono wo« ' jsed for the functional assessment of wetlonds. The Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) was also modified, and used in conjunctior with the New Hampshire Method. The intent of combining these methods WC3S to ollow for city staff to assist in future assessments of wetlands. The New Hampshire Method is designed to be "user friendly" and is specifically set up so that non-sdentists can fill out the method. MnRAM i« a technical method that needs to be filled out by a v/etland scientist. It ' was necessary to include MnRAM because the New Hampshire Method does not adequately address floral diversity, (an important factor with i regard to runoff protection and buffer strips). The New Hampshire Method allows for a comparison between wetia within a project boundary. It Is one c; the few methods that gives an actual number ranking. This allows for comparison of functional values The method addresses up to 14 functional values of wetlands, which are listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Fu nctional Values Under the New Hampshire Method ‘____Ecological integrity Visual/aestnetic quality Nutrient attenuation Of these 14 functional values, the City chose the following three for assessment of the wetlands icJentified for the SWMP; V Ecological Integrity determines the degree of human influence. V ^'^jdlife Habitat assesses the overdl suitability of a wetland for wildlife typically associated with wetlands. V Visual /Aesthetic Quality ranks the wetland's scenic beauty Furtctonal value Indices for each wetland are presented in Append?- including the MnRAM rating of a wetland's floral dlversity/integrity. OfyofOfono m * MCWD Assessment As of the opproval date of thisSWMP, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was in the process of completing o function and value assessment of wetlands in the District. It is anticipated that that project will be completed and a final report will be published in the near future. The City of Orono will refer to MCWD’s data for the following considerations: 1. Source of data for wetlands not inventoried for Orono SWMP 2. Cross-reference with Orono SWMP data 3. Gain perspective on tne wetland management strategies set forth in the Orono SWMP 5.‘i.‘4 Non-lnventoried Wetlands Understanding the value of on inventory and evaluation of all wetland resources, the Oty will take the following general approach to achieving a complete data set for remoiriing werlands: *:• Inventory and assess wetlands os cost-sharing opportunities become available •I* Incorporate data from similar projects by other agencies, notcbly the MCWD wetland assessment project Require data from any land disturbing ac^vlty near a wetland The last of these will happen when there is development of lend near any wetlands that hove not been accounted for in a previous effort. When a preliminary plot is received by the City, proximity to wetlands will be among the review items. If a nearby wetland has not been accounted for, the developer of t'ne land will be required to have a .unoff susceptibility evaluation completed qnd submitted to the City. The developer may request that the evaluation be done by the City, In which cose a fee will be ossessed. By requiring this, the plot opproval process will take into account the quality and sensitivity of a given wetland, os well as add that wetlard to the City's database, ^5.4 Wetland Protection The goal of this management strategy is to maintain or enhance the ecological integrity of wclands in the City during site development. Give the variability of the type and quality of the wetland communities, a tvo step wetland protection process has been developed. Wet,ends subject runoff must initially be classified as to the level of protection required. Fror there, an appropriate protection strategy can be planned for each wetland. aty or Orono ___ Vi InfoffTnation needsd to form o wstland strategy for each wetland will be derived from one or all of these sources: 1. Wetland inventory ond assessment completed as part of this SWMP 2. Wetland inventory and assessment completed by MCWD 3. Non-inventoried wetland procedures detailed in Section 5.3,4 5.4.1 Protection Classification Orono s wetland protection classifications ore based on a wetland's susceptibility to impact from runoff (see Section 5,3.2). Because the runoff susceptibility rating can be used as an indicator for the overall quolit/ of most wetland types, it can also serve as the basis for determining the level of protection to be afforded to o given wetland. in some cases, wetlands with a "utilize* classificatian can actually be enhanced when used for runoff management, by raising water levels or by excavating. In other situations, restoration of Protect II or Protect lil wetlands may provide treatment for downstream waterbodies end improve the habitat and aesthetics of the subject wetland. Table S.2 Wetland Protection Classifications Protection Classification Protect I Susceptibility Rating Highly Susceptible Protect II I Protert III Moderately Suscepbble Description Highly suscepbble to both quantity and quality impacts from runoff; have the highest degree of protecton. Moderately suscepbb'e to quanbty and quality Impacts; proteebon is less stringent than Protect I, provides protection to maintain their characterisbes Utilize Slightly Susceotible Least Suscepbble Less stringent proteebon than Protect n wetlands; maintenance of characteristics is desirable Webands are significantly degraded (e.g., culbvated or canary grass monotype) or lack wetiand characteristics; net typically impacted by runoff; no quanbty and only limited quality treatment of runoff is required 5.4.2 Protection Strategies Existing federal and state regulations address potential impact to the of wetlands from placement of fill material. In concert with MCWD, the City also intends to protect the overoll ecologicc! integrity of Its wetiand communities. The protection sWegies in Table 5.3 were developed to address potential impact to the type, character, and quality of a wetland community, from runoff. The Protection Strategy f< each wetiand is based on its Protection aossificotion. Ofy of Orono Considering that runoff reaches a wetland both from a storm sewer and from adjacent uplands, the following three issues will be managed to minlrmize impact from runoff: Bounce - deals with the volume of stormwoter input, in terms of the cnange in water levels and the duration of that change. Ponds will be designed to manage bounce associated with runoff from storm sewers. Based a runoff event with a ICXD-year recurrence interval. •*.* Phosphorous (P) - addresses the amount of phosphorous being delivered to a given wetland via runoff from storm sewers. Buffer - addresses both the quality and quontity/rate of runoff entering a wetland as surface flow from adjacent uplands. Protect!'>n Classification Protection Strategy Bounce: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions 1 Protect I i- P‘: Umit loadings to predeveiopmenC loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) j Buffer: 50 feet wide Protect II Bounce: Maintain bounce at or below existing condibcns plus 0.5 foot P: Umit loadings to predevelopment loadings times 2 (0.28 Lbs/Ac/Yr) Buffer: 35 feet wide Protect III { Bounce: Maintain bounce at or below existing condibons plus 1.0 foot P: Umit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb) 1 Buffer: 25 feet wide • 1 1 utilize i n ^ ____ j Bounce: No quantity requirement | P: Umit concentration to 225 ppb Buffer: 15 feet wide ♦ - The City of Orono has taken a somewhat different approach to the sizing and location requirements for wetland buffers, for a couple of reasons: 1. It is generally known that, ossur. all things equal, a la-ger waterbody has a greater assimilative capacity than a small wetlorid, re. some given amount of phosphorous can be more easily ‘absorbed' by a 14 acre marsh than by a 0 8 cere fen. 2. A given wetland's runoff susceptibility rating .Is a good Indicator of it' overall quality in terms of its functions and values. Sensitive communities wrih a diverse assemblage of plants, provide scarce . and/or high quality habitat (rerr,ember. Protection Classifications arc tied tr runoff susceptibility). CtY of Orono €T t Buffers } -0 % m It Should be noted at the outset of any discusson on buffers, that this ^quirement is not the some as a ‘setback' requirement. In fact, the ginning pc^nt for a setback requirement may octuolly be the Duffer ’s in Table 5.3, along with other buffer guidelines discussed below, with Implementation of this SWMP. the City will include these requirements and guidelines in an appropriate ordinance. Q w»«nn?' vegetotion surrounding combing f! °! IL®®'-“ °ny„ '. consisT or trees, grasses, shrubs, flowers, or onv om inohon, as long os it Is the vegetation (or enhoncement oO ‘I .at is in place and well established before any grading activit.es begin ' An I inHic-fi u. ________ \ 1 An undisturbed buffer can reduce impact to a wetland by: Keepng soil stabilized to minimize erosion Filtering nutrients and sediments from overland runoff V Slowing and/or retaining overland runoff *:• Providing habitat adjacent to wetlands During construction, a buffer is an area in which the^e will be no vehic-p construct,omaterial. After construction, these guidelines should be followed: No mowing, fertilizing, or other maintenance • mcnogement of native or natural vegetation is OK V No placement of lawn clippings, leaves, etc • limited brushpiles may be OK. check with Cih/* •> No sheds or recreational features <• No trarnpling or paths, except cs diowed, check with Cih/ • paths should be pordlel to the wetland edge • access to wetland should be meandered •boishpiies rr.oy serve os habitat for W!Ci,fe if done property P 5.5 Wetland Restoration /Enhancements Four wetland complexes have been identified as high pfonty restoration/ enhoncen^nt sites. Additional wetlands will likely ^ idenf.lL d ° na ^ SStenhT'°^fc .^e woS H*c/- M ^ con come trom a vereV of sourcesdiscussed further in Section 7.7.4. sources. atyofOmno 1 A summary of each of the wetland restoratlon/enhancerr.ent sites folic Enough information was collected to begin the process of applying for grants. The cost shown in the tobies below are approximate and may i modified if additional information becomes available, or for cost increases. 5.5.1 Wetland PC-L-31 Approximate Site Size; 10 acres Township _ 116N Range 23 W Section _ 31 Watershed Nome: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 City Watershed Name; Painter Creek General Description of Site This wetland is iocated in the upstream portion of tbe Painter Creek watershed. A tributary of Painter Creek bisects the wetland. McCuiley Road is locoted at the south end of the wetland. Approximately 83 percent of the wetland is a wet moodow and 15 percent is a lowland hordwcod swamp. The wet meadow is dominated by reed ccnon/ gro with patches of willow located in the middle. The lowland hardwood swamp is dominoted by willow and cottonwood. The Painter Creek tributary has been ditched through the wetland. A lateral ditch connects with the Pointer Creek tributary. These ditches have partially drained the wetland and contributed to the degraded condition of the basin. Restoration Objectives and Proposed Construction This site is high profile due to its location adjacent to the Luce Line Trail and within land publicly owned by the City. The goals for wetland restoration will include the following: • Control runoff rotes to Painter Creek • Restore native diversity of wetland vegetation, including wet meadc and emergent marsh plant communities • Enhance the wildlife and aesthete viewing of the wetand for tho public using the Luce Une Trail . • Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corridor Steps In the proposed wetland restoration include the folio //ing: 1. Construct a series of low berms across the ditch to elim.inate the scope and effect of the ditch. OtjrofOrono 3. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses end forbs. Table 5,4 Project Cost for Wetland PC-L-31 I Approximate Cost ! Meetings Permits Restoration ; Complete site design including draft plan and final construction documents Meetings with Gty staff and surrounding landowners Obtain necessary permits Complete two prescribed bums and spot herbicide treatment to control exotics Seed with wet meadow mix Construction of low berms across ditch S 1,300 $ 2,COO S 3,0C30 $ 15,000 S 30,000 5.5.2 Wetland PC-M-31 Approximate Site Size: 13.5 acres Township —__Range _ 23 W s^rtinn ___^ Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 City Watershed Name: Painter Creek General Description of Site upsteom portion of the Pointet Creek Rood IS ocoted at the north ervd of the wetland. The wehand contains the following communiTes and species; /n " cattail, lake sedge, water plantain ■ Gicnt • 20 % shrub swamp - willow The Pointer Crook tributorY been ditched ttirough the wenond A aterd dheh connects with the Pointer Oeek tributoiy along re fcii degraded condi5on of the bosh. conmDjted to th OtyofOrono Restoration Objectives and Construction Proposed This site is high profile due to its location adjacent to the Luce Line Trail and within land publicly owned by the City. The goals for wetland restoration will include the following; • Control runoff rates to Painter Creek • Restore native diversity of wetland vegetation, including wet meadow and emergent marsh plant communities • Enhance the wildlife and aesthetic viewing of the wetland for the public using the Luce Line Trail • Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corridor Steps in the proposed wetfand restoration include the following: 1. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland site to aid in cor trolling the reed canary gross and cattail. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary gross. 2. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses end forbs in the wet meadow. 3. Construct a control structure at the outlet of the wetland. Table 5.5 Project Cost For PC-M-31 Tasks • Description Approximate j Cost j Surveys 1 Field and topographic survey of site £ 2.0C0 . I oesion • Complete site design including draft plan and rmal ' ^ ; construction documents s 4,000 : ' Meetinas ' with Oty staff and surroundmq ^ ! landowners S 1,300 . Permits , Obtain necessary permits S 2,000 } . Complete 2 prescribed burns and spot herbicide 1 1 treatment to control exobes j 1 wet meadow mix ! ! Construction of cont'*ol structure 5 3,000 i 1 S 7,500 j S 15,000 ! 1 Approximate Project Cost $ 34,800 5.5.3 Wetland LL-C-26 Approximate Site Size: 14.5 acres Township __118N Range 23 W Section 26 Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Wotershod #: 20 City Watershed Name; Long Lake (DNR 834W)' OfyoTOiWP r f # General Descrip tion of Site This wetland is located in the Long Lake watershed just upstream of Long Lake. This location provides an exceiient opportunit/ for water qualitv treatment. It has a ditch that is approximately 10 feet wide through its center. Water flows through, the ditch rather than across the entire wetlond, creating a condition in which the wetland serves a limited nutrient function. This wetland is not under Oh/ ownership. The topographic relief of the wetland would confine the limits of the project to the wetland. Tne wetland is a shallow marsh/wet meadow dominated by reed canary grass and cattail. Restoration Objectives and Construction Proposed ■ Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a control structure at the outlet (may require a berm upstream, dependent on driveway elev.). • Provide water quality treatment for Long Lake, • Enhance the wildlife and aesthetic functional values of the wetland . • Restore the plant community along the fringes of the wetland. Table 5.6 Project Cost for Wetland LL-G-26 Components Description Approximate Cost Surveys Field and topographic survey of site S 2,000 Design • Complete site design Including draft plan end final construction documents S 5,000 > Permits i Obtain necessary permits ; s 2 000 1 Meetings Meetings with City staff and surrounding landowners $ 1,300 1 Land and Legal Purchase of easements around wetland or access to control structure $ 9,300 Restoration Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot herbicide treatment to control exotics Seed and/or plant fringe areas Construction of control structure 5 3,000 $ 7,500 $20,000 1 Approximate Project Cost $ 50.100 dtyororano La •f Steps in the proposed wetland restoration Include the following: ■ 1. Construct a control structure at the outlet. 2. Complete two controlled burns of the wetland site to aid in controlling the reed canary grass and cattail and increase the nutrient uptake of the wetland with new growth of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary grass. 3. Seed and/or emerging plants along the fringe. 5.5.4 Wetland S8-E-31 Approximate Wetland Size: 65 acres (Restoration ate - 35 acres) Township , 118N & 117N Ronge 23 W Section 31 & 3 Watershed Name; Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 City Watershed Name; Stubbs Bay <DNR 140P) General Description of Site This wetland is located In the lower portion of the Stubbs Bay watershed just upstream of Stubbs Bay ard south of the Luce Line Trail. This location provides an excellent opportunity for water quality treatment and enhanced aesthetics and wildlife habitat for users of the Luce Line Trail. It currently has a main ditch with two laterals that have partially drained the wet meadow portion ‘of the wetland. Water flows through the ditch rather than across the entire wetland, creating a condition in wNch the wetland serves a limited nutrient removal function, The portion of the wotlond that should be conadered for restoration is a 35-acre wet meadow corhmunity that is predominantly reed canary grass. There are currently Isolated portions of higher quality sedge meadow that contain lakebank sedge, blue joint grass, joe pyeweed, and boneset. A tamarack swamp is located in the northwest portion of the wetlcnd at a higher elevation (approximately 833 - 836) than the wet meadow (833), Raising water levels to restore the wet meadow would need to be limited to the 833 elevation to protect the tamarack swamp from inurxjation. Permanent inundcrtion in tamarack swamps can cause mortality. The wetland area is not under public ownership and one driveway crosses the wetiand to gain access to a house that is located between the Luc© Lihe Trail and the wetland. atyofOrvno c.ri ■ L... Restoration Objectives and Construction Proposed ■ * Provide water quality treatment for Stubbs Boy * ErThance wildlife and aesthetic functional values * Restore the wetland plant communit/ within the reed canary grass portion of wetland * Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a series of ditch blocks and a berm with a control structure. Steps In the proposed wetland restoration include the following: 1 . Construct a berm ord outlet control structure. 2. Complete two controlled burns of the wetland site to aid in controlling the reed canary grass ard increase the nutrient uptake of the wetland with new growth of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary gross. 3. Seed selected portions of the wetland with wetland grass and forbs. Table 5.7 Project Cost for Wetland SB-E-31 Components ! Description 1 Approximate Cost Surveys Field and topographic survey of site $ 3,000 • Design Complete site design including draft plan and final construction documents $ 9,000 Pe’rmits j Obtain necessary permits $ 2,500 i CXyorOnno i 1----------------------------i------------=--------------:----------------------------' "............... ! ; Purchase of easements around wetland or access to i Land and Legal • control strudure. Easements should already exist • along public road for access to control structure.$ l,SO0 ir Restoration Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot herbicide treatment to control erodes Seed and/or plant fringe areas Construction berm, ditch blocks and control structure $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 35,000 Approximate Project Cost $ 64,800 f RECEIVED MAR 3 2004 CITY OF ORONO y y ./ TT^J / vy .. /Z-* f^rU:^LM2U^ , ,;z^w£-v_^ JC/ aT) ^ y _<//.. rt;Z^ df dl.c^«&-ci-d*y ^ , j ,f j Pi d. i2-£xJ-<2dJ«y ,-<5-<^-a''*<-^t ^-yz.>C^ .C^ H y' vt^^yC* ^^AjL a yA^P,2^r>tAiJ. 1 'iC‘iA'd/tA:P ityir^ d. <c^T«<L., - KJ'Al . y'yZ^y^AA^^^^^ ayU. ,Z^^'-y^ id XAc> ^Jc z^-c^ ^ ^2-^ y vt-^. />U<^ yi^ j^ry’'2/^^tc^P^A y?^- AA^ } y^^iAy>A^‘y77. /jyx)ty-£^ ,Ap Ae/yzt,^ P--ty yAyi^^^y*-* yAi~d.i,.'t^ vU-^taP ci ^o-^’tA*. rjyi^, y"* P^ryiA -P<P^ y-yiyi>t^^ AA^ ^y*AA^ 3P<niy V-^- . I U^yty dtry?^ ^ y>c^tf^Lj. .-^I^ cyy^f ^ ‘ ^ 1^Z<Ay £2^^i^'>tJe^"' ■ / <£xt-^2-«^ . _____ ^ ^ ./3/ ^33d* y^/ij. • <yy^,f-rT7u^y' ...J r i- . • .•* *• • • • • • • \ 9 •• • • • *** • I • • • •• • •• ’ r* •* • • • • I^CELJSlbR . * . X .. . . • • • * • ‘i., . • .* . ••• • • » • .*• •• •. *. I* • : • I *. • ’ • • .< r BmvBo IMS• ■BTTU«0.11 .aooa . S ESQUICENTENNI A.U .1 A . RHCElvgoi; * .‘•N- • ■ • • • •; .• • • I .'i •* . . . r »* • V* ' ^ r ■ • •' f'i ' ''I i’-v/ • ••.. ■;•••..•.•••••••'• ..v .-y. • y . ...■•• - .•■ •'•• ... .* , . •.•.’■■ ■•. ■■ -v Saturday ,Aucustl6,'2t)03.. Su>bAY,A ugust 17,2003’. Old -Fashioned For EvERYONTa'v •/ .• •.<•••.•••■ .• •••.>■ ■■■■'■. ''V •'.•.■••. . '’*■ (tompllmopts of, Tonka Prtntlng.CdiT^oady ‘ • . •... •-• • V, • •• f rece -jved y 2W: Monday March 8, 2004 CITY OF OROA/0 To: City of Orono Planning Commission Members 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 From: Robert Floyd 960 West Femdale Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 Dear Planning Commission Members, 1 am writing as an Orono resident and lakeshore owner to ask that some very specific questions please be answered and addressed on the official record of your Planning Commission meeting for variance request and conditional use permit # 04-2997 being requested by the City of Orono for property located on Big Island. I am sure that all lakeshore owners will want to know many of the following questions in order to evaluate what is and is not reasonable and allowable in fill situations near the lake and wetlands. This is an ideal opportunity to provide many answers since all of these are issues that must be considered for this application. Exactly what, in detail, is the hardship or hardships being claimed by the City of Orono for these requests and work? Also, exactly what criteria and reasoning is being used by the Planning Commission and City Council to decide if the hardship is valid and sufficient for such a request, whether this work is necessary, is the optimal solution and preferable to all other alternate solutions, and whether these requests will be granted? I visited the City offices and discussed ^04-2997 with Mr. Gaffron in detail. He was very helpful, but caimot answer all of these questions as these decisions are yours and not his. I have been told that there are alternate existing public access sites in a number of other locations on Big Island and that many properties also have direct access from Lake Minnetonka itself. A number of properties have steep P.l hills and various other topography which limits vehicular access to some lots. Also it was explained that the various paths between the other existing available alternate public access sites on the Island and this eastern portion are difficult because of low lying land, steep hills, and marshes. Is the desire to access all portions of property, especially with vehicles, and difficulty in using currently existing access options and paths a sufficient hardship to justify this work and the granting of these requests? Exactly who is using or reasonably going to be using this improved access and for what purposes to justify this requested work and variance and conditional use permit? How is the Planning Commission defining what is and is not adequate access in this situation? For this particular portion of Big Island? How many access sites arc needed to service Big Island and what is the criteria and reasoning being used to determine these questions? Exactly what criteria is being used to determine if the existing interior paths from the alternate access sites to this area are sufficient or not? Normally the City and City staff are extremely stringent in forbidding any such work within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka and/or within any protected wetland. How is this work different from similar work frequently desired and proposed by private lakeshorc and wetland property owners? Exactly what mitigation is being proposed and/or required regarding this work? What criteria is being used to evaluate this mitigation, especially how much mitigation is necessary? What is the exact timing sequence of the corresponding mitigation and permit work being pioposcd (what happens first, fill or mitigation, second,etc.)? What grading is being requested, and what is the claimed hardship that requires grading, and what criteria is being used to evaluate and decide this grading portion of die requests? How steep is acceptible, etc.? What alternate methods of dealing with the various claimed hardships have been explored and why are those not being pursued rather than these requested actions? Since the City and City staff have chosen to vehemently prevent exactly similar work by private property owners, I request that these questions be addressed in detail to clarify how and under what circumstances such work is acceptible and necessary. This will help provide some basis for equal application and enforcement of the relevent mles and requirements. Thank you I I 4 for your cooperation in clarifmg this for all property owners knowledge, potential plans, and future reference. Sincerely, Robert Floyd P.3 APR 2 6 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date: April 21, 2004 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Michael & Deborah Benedict - 25 Orono Orchard Road Exhibit: Right of Entry Agreement Summary: Michael & Deborah Benedict own the property at 25 Orono Orchard Road. In 2002. the Benedicts received a variance in order to construct a detached garage on their property which is located slightly in front of the principal structure. The Benedicts w'ould like to remove their existing home and construct a new residence on their property. As the garage is a new structure, and with the variance is confonning, the Benedicts would like to be allowed to let it remain. Technically, our code would require a variance for this, however, staff would prefer in situations such as this where the accessory building is currently confonning to have an administrative alternative. Staff feels tliat a variance is an inappropriate method to allow the accessory building to remain, since the situation only calls for a temporary variance while a new principal building is under construction. Staff is currently drafting an ordinance which would provide an option for an administrative agreement in situations such as this. The agreement would provide for a confonning accessory structure to remain on a property in the period between demolition and new home construction and also will provide authority for the City to remove the garage should the house constniction not commence within an established time frame and have those costs assessed back to the applicant. The Benedicts would like to utilize such an agreement as they wish to begin demolition of their existing home by the end of May. Staff Recommendation Authorize the execution of an agreement that would allow the garage to remain at 25 Orono Orchard Road. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Accept or amend the attached agreement. Exhibit A 4870 Ltf{fU^D'«ierip 11 on Still 1 f, ne;Vior th. Rtno t.^23? "vtj t S=i •! ?fA ^**® Soulhwatl 1/4 of the SouthweatSi^t «""•• »! «••« -«>« «!>•6lh Principol Marldlan. lyJng North of tha South 400.00 feat, thereof ond^ %Southar.ly^..of;^jtha,canter I Ina of Orono Orehord ?2S**** EXCEPT That part of tha Vaat 50 faat of the South l!*4c Southwaat 1/4 of““ ■ ** ‘ " *o.f the-Southt h i ?«f' J??rf yL ?f fthereof, Hennepth -Countv.'^llldnWoifl Abatract. Page 5 of 6 h eCARIHOt M ASMCO ^V. - »»0 « WflVD M) SCALB LEGEND arr^ O SAHHAFf UMM£ 9 HATWllAMMOa o 0 fONDI me SKffOWttWN (MMM) ciicmic jcoimTC • mani ■« w“®" 26 OnONO ircharo road ciTT or OROItO MiimtaoT* inn BonBKT \ jk ^ * *^ ** LiflOl Dticrlpllon A„ ih.i k.ri .f .H. >:!> Stetlpn 35, lowt! will BpgInnInQ tj Pfinelpol H.r dlP«. ^Juihwt.l 1/4 •! lh« S.ulhft /4: th.ne. E«‘ iUMt W..I . ................... S.is kf*'"*: 'J*'-* 2" i « 5 dHr*** W..I • •» 5.55 choint t« Ih* ['^® y„i ||n« • dl«l®«ej <ih Pfli>VlP«l M«rldl««. !»<", •fi:! ,1 OroM Or«ll«r,iWJVVf « « u.l »t IM. I.IM NoMtl »f fhirttt, MI«.n*i»« • Abalrtfll* 00 —— -' — ----------------- o rr^ LOUCKS [ASSpCIATI' rvDMvo arftift f AilUMCf BXMBn MGOwpllc Agreement for Removal of Accessory Structures Right-of-Entry THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 26"’ day of April, 2004, by Michael & Deborah Benedict, husband and wife, (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono, a Miniicsola municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for demolition of the principal residence stnicture on the property located at 25 Orono Orchard Road within the City of Orono, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, such property legally described as: Exhibit A attached (licrcinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicants arc the owners of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property contains a principal residence structure and a conforming accessory strucUire shown on the survey attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are aware that according to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Suction 78-1432, once the principal structure has been removed the confomiing accessory structurc(s) will no longer be conforming, as they will no longer be accessory to an existing principal structure; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to require removal of all accessory structures at the time of removal of the principal structure, because such accessory structures may become a public nuisance due to lack of on-site property control and management; and WHEREAS, the Applicants intend to, upon demolition of the principal structure, irnnicdiatcly replace the principal structure on the site with a new principal structure in a location such that the existing accessory structurc(s) will remain conforming. WHEREAS, the City intends to allow the accessory structures to remain on the Subject Property during construction of the new principal residence structure with the expectation that said accessory buildings will again become confonuing as soon as construction of the new principal residence is completed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Applicants may retain the existing accessory structure(s), subject to the following conditions: A) Applicants agree to obtain a building permit for construction of the replacement residence within 60 days of demolition; to begin construction on the new residence within 120 days of demolition; and to complete all exterior work within 1 year of building permit issuance and interior work within 2 years of building permit issuance. B) In the event that any activity desciibed in item A has not been accomplished within the defined timeframe, the Applicants shall remove the accessory structures at the Applicants ’ expense, or the Applicants shall apply for an extension of this Agreement. C) If one of the item A events occurs and the Applicants fail to perform their removal obligations per item B, the Applicants hereby agree as follows; 1 . The City may enter upon the property and remove the accessory building(s). 2. The City may assess the costs of removal to the property. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. 4. Fee owners of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Agreement and to its tenns, as shown by their signatures upon this document. 5. Applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of the temis of this agreement. r. CITV OF ORONO: By: Its Mayor By: Its City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument .vas acknowledged before me this ________________________. 20___, b> _______________________ day of and , the and of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public 3 APPLICANT(S): By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________________________. 20 ___. by____________________ day of and , husband and wife, as their free act and deed. Notary Public FEE OWNER(S): By:___________ By:, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) S PATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tliis ________________________. 20 ___. by_____________________ day of and , husband and wife, as their free act and deed. Notary Public r DATE: April 22,2004 ITEM NO; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COl jijyjQ APR 2 6 2004 CITV OF OHO;vo Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Substitution of Sole Member of Owner of Orono Woods Senior Housing Development-Resolution Orono Senior Housing, LLC is the owner of the Orono Woods senior housing development at the comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road North. Orono Senior Housing, LLC has a single member, which is the J.A. Wedum Foundation. The LLC is seeking to replace the J.A. Wedum Foundation with Volunteers of America, Minnesota as the single member of the LLC. They are requesting approval of the transfer of ownership interest from the J. A. Wedum Foundation to Volunteers of America, Minnesota. Attached is a letter from Frank Dunbar describing this transfer and explaining why the transfer is being requested. The substitution of the single member of the LLC requires amendments to financial documents, which must be signed by the City. A resolution authorizing the substitution of owner, and authorizing the Mayor and City clerk to sign the required documents, is attached for Council consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the substitution of owner, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the required documents. I t r RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBSTITUTION OF SOLE MEMBER OF OWNER OF SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Orono has issued its Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Orono Woods Apartment Project), Series 2001 A, Series 200 IB and Series 2001C (the “Bonds ”) to provide financing for a senior housing facility (the “Project”) presently owned by Orono Senior Housing LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Borrower”) whose sole member is J.A. Wedum Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Wedum”); and WHEREAS, Wedum has requested that this Council approve the transfer of its interest in the Borrower to Volunteers of America in Minnesota, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Volunteers of America”) and the execution of First Supplement to Indenture of Trust and a First Amendment to Loan Agreement in order to effect the substitution of Volunteers of America for Wedum as the sole member of the Borrower; WHEREAS, this City has received infonnation regarding the reputation and financial condition of Volunteers of America and has been advised by Faegre & Benson LLP, as bond counsel, that it is prepared to render an opinion that the substitution will not adversely affect the tax exempt status of interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to this Council fonns of the First Supplement to Indenture of Trust and First Amendment to Loan Agreement, supplementing and amending the Indenture of Trust and Loan Agreement originally executed by the City in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono that the substitution of Volunteers of America for Wedman as sole member of the Borrower is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute and deliver the First Supplement to Indenture of Trust and First Amendment to Loan Agreement, together with such other documents as may be necessary to effect the transaction contemplated thereby. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council this 26*'’ day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of 1 Ad I L Dunbar Development Corporation April 22,2004 Mr. Ron Moorsc City of Orono Mailing Address: Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Office address below Re: Orono Woods Senior Housing Dear Ron: Pursuant to your request, this letter is intended to describe the transfer of interest from the J.A. Wedum Foundation to Volunteers of America, Minnesota on the Orono Woods Senior Housing Development. As you recall, Orono Serior Housing, LLC is the owner of tlte development and it’s single member is the J.A. Weaum Foundation. The action we are undertaking is to replace the single member of the LLC to Volunteers of America, Minnesota. Orono Senior Housing, LLC will remain the owner of the development. All contracts are with Orono Senior Housing, LLC. It’s our intent to make the transaction as seamless as possible. Great Lakes Management will continue to be the Property Manager. Dunbar Development Corporation will continue to be the Asset Manager. Both organizations are under contract with Orono Senior Housing, LLC. The J.A. Wedum Foundation Board has requested the change as a result of refocusing their mission. Volunteers of America, Miimesota has established a mission to obtain and construct Senior Housing that is in their program area. Orono Woods would achieve this objective for the Volunteers of America Minnesota. Their organization brings a much stronger financial statement to the transaction and a long-term ownership commitment for the development. Mr. Michael Weber, the president, will be with me at the City Council meeting to provide Counsel and Staff with a brief description of their long history of service in Minnesota. It’s my understanding that the action being requested is consent by City Council to replace the member of Orono Senior Housing, LLC from J.A. Wedum Foundation to Volunteers of America, Minnesota. This would be accompanied with the First Supplement to Indenture of Trust and First .Amendment to Loan Agreement. In addition, we need the consent of the C-Bond holder. That consent has been secured. All parties have been working with their respective counsels in 5000 Glcnwood Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422-5146 (763)377-7090 FAX (763) 377-7089 anempt to finalize the transaction on April 2T**, pending approval of the transaction by the City Council. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, • •,./ // // - Frank C. Dunbar President CC: Michael Weber DATE: April 22,2004 ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cot APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF ORONO Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorsc Tlile City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MIIFA) Refund Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Several years ago, the City received $131,000 in grants from the MHFA, the Met Council, and CDBG to provide the financial assistance necessary to make several townhomes affordable to first-time homebuyers. The MHFA provided $32,000 to the City. At the completion of the program, $8,400.00 of the MHFA grant remained unused because it was not a sufficient amount to make an additional townhomc affordable. This amount needs to be refunded to the Ml IFA. who will make it available for another affordable housing project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve tlic refund of $8,400 of unused grant funds to the MHFA. *^FF''‘iNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ CITY OF OROivo DATE: April 26,2004 ITEM NO: !g Administrator Reviewed:Department Approv^ ^ j Name Tom Kuchri / 0**^ — • M ^ m M Title Finance Director lY/^^ Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Credit Card Policy Attachments: Proposed Credit Card Policy There have recently been requests from the Police Department for the City to obtjiin a credit card. The main purpose of the card would be for the police to more quickly obtain background information on individuals when needed, as this is generally done over the Internet, and the companies providing the information require the use of a credit card for billing/collection purposes. The infonnation provided would then be sent directlj' to the police, providing direct control of the information. There will be only a minimal number of cards issued, and the primary use of the card(s) will be for those situations where a credit card is required to be used by the vendor. Minnesota Statutes provide that the City Council may authorize the use of credit cards by employees otherwise authorized to make a purchase on behalf of the City. The statute further stipulates that any purchase by credit card not approved by the City Council is personallx- liable for the amount of the purchase, and that any purchases by credit card must otherwise comply with all statutes, rules, or City policy applicable to City purchases. Tlie attached proposed Credit Card Policy is designed to pro\ ide for the use of credit cards, but within a veiy limited number of situations, as we discussed. The profx>sed pol icy also addresses the state statute requirements, and City policies and procedures. COUNCIL ACTION REQUE.STED: Approval and adoption of the Credit Card Policy, as presented. ^o*d Ptrfto Merno Council Actiofi JO(M4 radii Card Pi>lic> wpd CITY OF ORONO CREDIl CARD USE POLICY Adopted April 26,2004 The City credit card is intended for purchases needed for City operations. Use of the credit cards would provide elTiciencies, such as: • Less time required at the point of sale witli retailers • Purchases may be made over the Internet, resulting in lower costs. • 'fhe total number of checks witten is reduced. The Finance Director will determine which pcr.sonnel will be a.ssigned credit cards. Credit cards will be issued only when it is clear that they will create elTiciencies in the normal purchasing process. Each card issued will bear the name of the City of Orono and the individual card holder. The employee whose name is on the card is the only one authorized to use that card. The City credit card (not a personal card) should be used for City business requiring the use of a credit card. It is the responsibility of the individual cardholder to: 1 . Insure that all City purchasing procedures are followed, including guidelines with respect to quotations and bids. 2. Ensure that the card is u.sed only for legitimate City business expenditures in accordance with the cardholder's job duties. 3. Ensure that no one else uses the card. 4. Maintain all supporting documentation associated with credit card purchases (receipts, confirmations, purchase orders, etc.) with expenditures properly coded and approved by the department. 5. Contact the Finance Department (or the Credit card company during off hours) immediately, if the card is lost or stolen. 6. Any personal charges made inadvertently must be reimbursed to the City at the time the docunientation is submitted to the Finance Department. Credit limits will be established by the Finance Director for each cardholder on an individual basis and will be programmed into the card. Cash withdrawals will not be allowed with the cards. The employee shall be personally responsible financially for any improper or unauthori/ed use of the credit card, as .specified in Minnesota Statutes 471.382. The Finance Department will administer the issuance of cards and compliance w ith the aK>ve policies and procedures. Policy violations will result in the cancellation of an individual card. Intentional or negligent misuse of a City credit card will subject tlie employee to disciplinar> action, up to and including dismissal, and/or garnishment of w ages if necessary to recover City funds. Cards mu.st be returned to the City at the time of .separation. i rnMMni t^pPTING APR 2 6 2004REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: April 23, 2004 ITEM NO: jCj Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Coimcil Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Gear West Ski & Bike Run/Bike/Run Orono School Grounds and Surrounding Area as designated on map Sunday, May 23, 2004 7:00 a.m. -11:30 a.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approvc/deny the above listed licenses. V CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Dale of Event: Time: Apnl 26. 2004 May 23. 2004 7:00 a.m. -11:30 a.m. Name of Pcrson(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Jarrod Sokolowski Gear West 1908 West Wayzata Boulevard P.O. Box 188 Long Lake. MN 55356 Phone: 952-473-0093 / Type of Event : Run/Bikc/Run Location of Event: Orono School Grounds & Surrounding Areas The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Route of Race Event • Approval from Orono Police Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • Notification and'or approval of event must be made to the Oiono Schools, City of Medina and Hennepin Count)' Department of Transportation • Event organizer to provide traffic control personnel at the following intersections: - County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road at start of the race and on return of racers - Old Cr>stal Bay Road and Kelley Parkway County Road 6 and County Road 201 - County Road 6 and Hunter Drive • All traffic control personnel should be provided with a traffic control vest • Participants to run against traffic, and bike with traffic • Signs from Warning Lights or equivalent, warning of “heavy pedestrian traf fic ahead - next 4 miles" or wlutever is commercially available (signs to be placed lor eastbound traffic at County Road 6 and Jamestown Road and for westbound traffic at County Road 6 and Hollander Road) • By acceptance of this special event nemiit, the pennit holder, on behalf of any and all organizations and private persons, grants authority to operate under the special event pennit, agiees to. indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono from all claims arising from said event I he permit holder, all organizations and private persons exercising authority under this pemut. do wane and release all claims against the City of Orono. its officers or employees for any damage to person or property arising fiom the exercise of privileges granted by this permit and agrees to hold hannless the 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 arc not immediately resolved by the permit holder or a lepreseniaiivc of the permit holder This revocation shall cause the inunedialc cancellation of the event originally authorized by this permit. Approved at City Council meeting on; Apnl 26,2004 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorsc, City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616/w^’w.ci.orono.ran us j CITY OF ORONO check register Co* •kir'ii *#rrTING APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF CHQNO 04/14/04 11:09 AM Page 1 Check Pay Number Employee Name Period 054003 DODGE. RACHEL M 8 054004 LESKINEN. DENISE M 8 054005 SILUS. BARBARA O 8 054006 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 8 054007 BOBZIEN. SUEA 8 054008 BORIS. SCOTT W 8 054009 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C 8 054010 ERICKSON. KURT R 8 054011 FARNIOK. CORREY L 8 054012 FISCHENICH. DAN T 8 054013 MADSON. ADRIENNE M 8 054014 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L 8 054015 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 8 054016 PERSELL. WILLIAM R 8 054017 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 8 054018 TOMCZYK. MARK W 8 054019 WITTKE. ANTHONY A 8 054020 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. 8 054021 MEYER. WILLIAM C 8 054022 OMAN. LYLE E 8 054023 VANG. BRUCE L 8 054024 GREGORY. JAMES D 8 054025 HANSEN. STEVEN 8 054026 OBRIEN. RANDY L 8 054027 PALMER. GREGORY A 8 054028 RATHBUN. BARRY J 6 054029 SKREEN. DALES 8 054030 ABRAHAMSON.FREDW. 8 054031 JENSEN. ROONEY W 8 054032 ROSS. JOHN A 8 054033 SMYTH, KATHERINE R 8 054034 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 8 003316 MOORSE. RONALD J 0 003317 VEE. LINDAS 8 003318 KUEHN. THOMAS M 8 003319 OLSON. RONALD J 8 003320 PETTIT. SANDRA K 8 003321 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 8 003322 BOBZIEN. SUE A 8 003323 BORIS. SCOTT W 8 003324 BUOIG. STACIE M 8 003325 CORNtCK. JAMES L 8 003326 DAY. SUSAN J 8 003327 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K 8 003328 GOOD. STEPHANY R 8 003329 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 8 003330 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L 8 003331 RUSSETH. KYLE M 8 003332 SCH0ENH -'*:F, JOHN B 8 003333 TOMCHECi\. LAWRENCE f 8 003334 LEE . JOSEPH P 8 003335 PHARO. CHRISTOPHER M 8 003336 BOLTERMAN MATTHEW A 8 003337 CURTIS. MELANIE 8 003338 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P 8 003339 GAPPA. GREGORY A 8 003340 GUNDLACH JANICE J 8 003341 OMAN. LYLE E 8 0U3342 OEBAERE. DONALD L 8 Check Check Amount Date Check Status $1.042 63 4/14/2004 Outstanding $887 98 4/14/2004 Outstanding $512 21 4/14/2004 Outstanding $380 35 4/14/2004 Outstanding $47 02 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,431 35 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.553 74 4/t 4/2004 Outstanding $1,57966 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.604 49 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.508 20 4/14/2004 Outstanding $621 42 4/14/2004 Outstanding $591 82 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,691 05 4/14/2004 Outstanding $819 69 4/14/2004 Outstanding $379 25 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.370 49 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,399 23 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,428 50 4/14/2004 Outstanding $549 87 4/t4/2004 Outstanding $64 72 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.323 53 4/14/2004 Outstanding $758 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $366 44 4/14/2004 Outstanding $450.38 4/14/2004 Outstanding $909 16 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,120.71 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1 .070 35 4/14/2004 Outstanding $168 40 4/14/2004 Outstanding $208 99 4/14/2004 Outstanding $150 71 4/14/2004 Outstanding $99 54 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,343 17 4/14/2004 Outstanding $2.336 49 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.266 69 4/14.'2004 Outstanding $1,328 20 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.161 81 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,118 38 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.135 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $830 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $20 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $832 32 4/14/7004 Outstanding $1.564 23 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,092 59 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,604 39 4/14/2004 Outstanding $2,049 45 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1,532 12 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.100 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.269 40 4/14/2U04 Outstanding $1.514 67 4/14/2004 Outstanding $900 00 4/t4/2004 Outstanding $315 19 4/14/2004 Outstanding $845 01 4/14/2004 Outstanding $35 23 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1 .058 36 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1 25 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.810 50 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.155 07 4/14/2004 Outstanding $1.400 00 4/14/7004 Outstanding $1,184 25 4/14/2004 Outstanding CITY OF ORONO check register 04/14/04 11:09 AM Page 2 CtMCk Pay Check Check Number Employee Name Period Amount Date Check Status 003343 HANSEN. STEVEN 8 $77500 4/14/2004 Outstanding 003344 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G 8 $1,252 53 4/14/2004 Outstanding 003345 OBRIEN. RANDY L 8 $500 00 4/14/2004 Outstanding 003346 PALMER. GREGORY A.8 $350 00 4/14/2004 Outstandin^i 003347 RATHBUN. BARRY J 8 $200 00 $61,094 93 4/14/2004 Outstandr.g rm--«< »■ • CITY OF ORONO 04/23/04 11:41 AM Page 1 *Check Detail Registei^ APRIL 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Caah PaidChk# 078161 4/14/2004 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 0 101-21701 Federal Withholding $8.683 72 O 101-21703 FICA Tax Wrttiholdmg $4,352 59 0 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding K352 59 ToUl FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $1 7^388 90 >aidChk# 078162 4/14/2004 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $751.62 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 4S7 $75162 ^id Chk« 078163 4/14/2004 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 0 101-21707 Union Dues ___$0 00 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE ^ 00 Paid^k# 078164 4/14/2004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 0 101-21702 State Withholding Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3 673 04 $3.67304 Paid 6hk# 078165 4/14/2004 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM O 101-21718 Post Employment Health $252 99 Total MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $252 99 Paid Chk« 078166 4/14/2004 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION O 101 -21705 Other Retirement $1.877 00 0 101-21705 Other Retirement ___ Total NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $1,931 06 TOdXhBr078167 4/14/2004 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 0 101-21705 Other Retirement __^.979 M Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2 979 66 PaidChk# 0/8168 4/14/2004 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 0 101-21704 PERA $6.705 97 0 101-21704 PERA Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11.913 28 Paid CUkM 078169 4/14/2004 UNITED WAY 0 101*21708 United Way Total UNITED WAY $70 00 $70 00 PaidChkd 078170 4/14/2004 WISCONSIN SCTF 0 101*21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTF $184 62 $184 62 10100 PrImaryCash $39.145 19 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 PnmaryCash $39,145 19 $39 145 19 FEDERAL W/H FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE DEFERRED COMP-302030 UNION DUES STATE TAX W/H post retirement USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRA #2343 MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON # 0002756898 r CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 04/23A)4 11 36 AM Page 1 APRIL 2004 Chech Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash PaktChK# 077859 4/26/2004 YELLOW BOOK USA E 613-49830-340 General Advertising Total YELLOW BOOK USA (W5JB4) Void ($65 84) Void Check 77859 Paid Chki 078159 4/14/2004 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 101-41900-322 Postage $540 64 Newsletter Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $540 M Postage - City Newsletter Paid Chk# 078t60 4/14/2004 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 651-49910-322 Postage $104 77 Septic E 101-41900-322 Postage $104 77 Septic Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $209 5^ Postage - 2004 Septic Postage - 2004 Septic Paid Chk# 078171 4/26/2004 A-1 RENTAL E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total A-1 RENTAL JI55 73^ 10777 $55 73 Power Rake Paid Chk# 078172 4/26/2004 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS E 101-41900-413 Office Equipment Rental $1.939 32 020629267 Total ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS Copier Lease 4/15-5/15/04 $1,939 32 Paid Chk# 078173 4/26/2004 ANCHOR PAPER E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total ANCHOR PAPER _ _$585 66 151439201 Copy Paper $585 66 Paid Chk# 078174 4/26/2004 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $52 13 6013-385524 E 101-41900-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $52 13 6013-385526 E 101-41900-403 Reparrs/Maint-Misc Equip __ $52 13 6013-385527 Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $15^ Filter Replacment Filter Replacment Filter Replacment Paid Chk# 078175 4/26/2004 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $88 84 303 Hot Dogs/Cheesburgers Total AUGIES MOBILE CHEF $88 M Paid Chk# 078176 4/26/2004 BEACK, SCOTT E 613-49900-095 Pro Shop Hems For Resale $217 50 647018 Golf Bans Total BEACK, SCOTT $217 50 Paid Chk# 078177 4/26/2004 BENCHMARK LEARNING E 101-43290-800 Special Proiects. Contingency $1,350 00 170442 Outlook/Word Training E 101^3290 800 Special Projects. Contingency $1,350 00 170443 Outlook/Word Training E 101-43290-800 Speoal Projects Contir>gency $1.350 00 170498 OuttookM ^rd Training Total BENCHMARK LEARNING $4,050 00 l»aid Chk# 078178 4/26/2004 BONESTROO ROSENE S ASSOC. t 101-43280 304 E ngineenng-Consulting $258 00 106978 3607 Shoreline Dr Plat 03-2923 E 101-43280 304 E ngineenng-Consulting $275 22 106978 847 Tonkawa Plat 04-2986 L 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting $839 84 106978 Stonebay Marketplace 04-2974 E 101-43280-304 Engineenng Consultir)g $903 00 106978 Professional Prop Plat 04-2984 E 101-43280-304 E ngrneenng-ConsuAing $1,277 16 106976 Stonebay Plat 02-2789 E 101^317D304 E ngineehng-Consulting $2.696 82 106976 Big Island Road Access E 65M99ia304 E r>gmeenng -Consulting $742 50 106978 Brch Lane Review St Swr Oesig E 10M 3280 304 Engineering-Consulting $129 00 106978 Kokesh Farms Plat 2663 E 101-43170 303 Engineering Retainer $100 00 106978 Council Mtgs Feb 2004 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 04/23/04 11 38 AM Page 2 APRIL 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-43170-304 Engineehng>Consulting $99 00 106978 E 101-43280 304 Engineering-Consulting ($215 19)106978 E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting $148 50 106978 E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting $215 19 106978 E 101-43280-304 Engineenng-Consulting $339 72 106978 E 402-48030-304 Enginaeong-ConsuHing $118 50 106979 G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $2.065 35 106980 E 402-48039-304 Engineenng-Consulting $594 00 106981 £425-48915-304 Engineering-Consulting $620 70 106982 G 602-11500 Accounts Receivable $774 00 106983 G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress 106984 Total BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC. $i3J0T98 Review 3445 Cr Bay Rd Bldg Ra Birch Lane Plan Prep (Coding C 785 Ferndale Rd Plat 04-2985 Birch Lane Plan Prep (Coding C Professional Prop Plat 02-2782 Co Rd 19 SkJewtk Jan/Feb 2004 NLL Sewer Ext-John Makay 02/04 Lee Calrsor. Batifield Trail Nav Fire St & Util Imp 02/04 Phillips San Swr 02/04 Homestead Rd San Swr 02/04 Paid Chk« 078179 4/26/2004 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-42110-201 OfTice supplies Total BUDGET PRINTING $15 12 30777 ID Cards $15 12 F^aidChk# 076180 4/26/2004 CARDIAC SCIENCE E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total CARDIAC SCIENCE $224 90 517695 $22490 Batten - Heart Start PaidChk# 078161 4/26/2004 CARGILL SALT E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products $1.858 54 1017494 Bulk Solar Salt Total CARGILL SALT $1.858 54 PaidChk# 078162 4/26/2004 CEAM E 101-43000-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $60 00 Gappa 2004 CEAM Membership Tout CEAM $60 00 PaidChK# 078183 4/26/2004 COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD E 101 -42260-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $64 00 3/27/04 Cake - Nav Fire Open House ToUl COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD $64.00 PaidChk# 078184 4/26/2004 CULLIGAN E 613-49630-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $14 00 101-09083676- Softener Service 4/1-5/31 Tout CULLIGAN $1400 PaidChk# 076185 4/26/2004 DCA - WIRE ONLY G 101-21719DCA/Spending Accounts $1,346 13 4/14/2004 Flex Spending - 4/14/04 Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $1,346.13" PaidChk# 076186 4/26/2004 DELL E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts & Accessones $27 80 718743686 Internal Modem ToUl DELL $27 80 PaidChk# 078187 4/26/2004 DELTA DENTAL G 101-15996Non-Employee Health Ins $447 00 37220072 Dental Ins - 5/2004 G 101-21709Dental Insurance $1.486 50 37220072 Dental Ins - 5/2004 Tout DELTA DENTAL $1.933 50 PaidChk# 078188 4/26/2004 DEPUTY REGISTRAR E 231-45650441 Licenses & Taxes $40 50 WooUn Transfer TiUe-Wooten Forfeit Total DEPUTY REGISTRAR $40 50 PaidChk# 078189 4/26/2004 DEX MEDIQ EAST LLC £613^9830-340 General Advertising $306.30 19929440000 Directory Advertising CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 04/23/04 11 38 AM Page 3 APRIL 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total DEX MEDIQ EAST LLC $306 30 PaidChk# 078190 4/26/2004 E-Z RECYCLING t 101-43270*316 Contract Recycling Pickup Total E-Z RECYCLING $6.518 20 6448 $6,518 20 Recycling 4/2004 NidChK* 078191 4/26/2004 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E 613-49900-091 Beer Fot Resale Total EAST SIDE BEVERAGE $139 50 518502 $139 50 Beer for Resale PaidChkH 078192 4/26/2004 EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR E 10M3000-408 Coniracted Streel Mainl $242 50 JC3013964 Tout EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR $242 50 Signal - TH12AA/illow PaidChk# 078193 4/26/2004 ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS E 602-49450 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $95 02 41450 Total ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS $95 02 Bulbs-LS-1 PaidChk# 078194 4/26/2004 ESCHELON E 101-421 10-321 Telephone Total ESCHELON $351 98 6425807 $351 98 Phone Service - Nav Fire PakI Chk# 076195 4/26/2004 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO E 60249450-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip Total FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO $329 09 8637 $329 09 Ciaw • Debris Remover PaidChk* 078196 4/26/20M GAKSERVICES E 101 -42110-404 RepaIrsMatnI-Bldgs/Grounds E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds E 101-41900-404 Repalrs/Maint-Bktgs/Grounds ToUl OAKSERVICES $147 03 1006896461 $54 90 1006896462 $62 07 1006896463 $264 00 Mat Service • PD Mat Service • Adm Mai Service -CC Pai(i dhk# 078 19/ A/26/2004 GERRING S CAR WASH E 10142110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip ToUl GERRING'S CAR WASH $8 00 4/8/04 $8 00 Car Wash Paid Chk# 078198 4/26/2004 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL E 602 49450489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 60149400489 CXher Miscellaneous Charges $61 4 7 4030635 $61 48 4030635 Locates - 3/2004 Locales - 372004 Total GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $122 95 T^Clik# 076199 4/26/2004 GRAND VIEW LODGE t 101-43000-437 Training A Development Total GRAND VIEW LODGE $300 00 Gappa $300 00 MPWA Spring Conf Gappa PaKi Chk» 0/8200 4/26/2004 HANSEN. STEVEN C. t 101-43000 441 licenses A Ta«*s Total HANSEN. STEVEN C $19 00 4/Z/04 $1900 Class A bcense Chk# 0/82C1 4/26/2004 HARRIS INTERNATIONAL INC E 61349900 095 Pro Shop Items Tor Resale $65 87 292164 Total HARRIS INTERNATIONAL INC $65 67 Golf Gloves T>aid (.hkH 0/8202 4/26/2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY INf OR TECH DPT E 10141900 329 Other Communications $96 32 24037183 t 10143000 414 I DlVCommunicafions Equip Rent $52 59 24036063 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $148 91 Data Base Access PW Radios CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 04^3/04 It 38AM Paqe 4 APRIL 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment PaidChk# 078203 4/26/2004 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON E 101 <43280*307 Legal Consulting $383 52 E10M1600 307 Legal Consulting $1 474 60 E 101-41600 307 Legal-Consulting $117 00 E 101 41600 307 Legal Consulting $273 00 E 101 41600 307 Legal Consulting SIWjOO E 101 41600 305 Legal Retainer $1.300 00 Total HINSHAW ft CULBERTSON $3 704 12 10373800 Applications Feb 2004 10373801 Ofono/Hennessey Land f xchangri 10373801 Hollander Ha/ Bldg 10373801 Ode Liquor Lie AppI 10373802 Nf?view/Ofgani/e Resolutions 10373803 Counul Mtgs Leb 2004 Paid CHK# 078204 4/26/2004 HYDRO METERING FECHNOLOGY E60M9400 227 Utility System Maint Supplies t 601-49400-227 Utility System MamI Supplies E 601 A9400 227 Utility System Main! Supplies G 601-16500 Fixed Asset Const in progress ToUl HYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY $2.607 39 26231 $2.607 46 26363 $288 88 26424 $4.000 00 26449 $9,503 73 Meter Heads Meter Heads Meters Training/Implcrnent Radio Read PaidChk# 0/8?0'j Aamow ifp test services, inc L IOt-47110-319 Other Professional Services Total IFP TEST SERVICES, INC $3!i0 OC $360 00 3/30/04 Psydi Exam - OfTicer Candidate PaidChki 078206 4/26/2004 IIMC r 101-41300 433 Memberships 8 Subscriptions $70 00 10156 2004 IIMC Membership Dodge i: 101 41300-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $100 00 4492 2004 IIMC Membership Vee Total IIMC $170 00 i>aidChk« 6t8207 4/26/2004 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services $441 00 4/1/04 Mediation 3/22/04 Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $441 00 l^aidChk# 078208 4/26/2004 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC. E 101 42110 319 Other Professional Services $350 00 3647 Evaluation • Otto Total MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC $350 00 PaidClik# 0/6209 O 101 21/Ofi (i 101 15998 G 101 21706 4/26/2004 MEDICA Hospitali/alion/Medical Ins S11.4 74 97 Non I rnployoe Health Ins $1,549 87 Muspilali/ation/Medical Ins $1,760 70 G 101-15998 Non Employee Health Ins $1,804 55 G 101-21706 Hospttatiiation/Medicat Ins $10,090 34 G 101 21706 Hospitali/ation/Medical Ins $73111 ToUl MEDICA $27,41154 104122102552 Medica High - 5/04 104122102552 Medica High • 5/04 104122122585 Medica Low - S/04 104122125488 Medica Elect • 5/04 104122125488 Medica Elect - 5/04 104122134225 Medica I ssenti.ils 5/04 PaidChKa 0/8210 4/26/2004 E 602 49450 383 MWCC Current Charges Tout MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS $18 116 80 772533 $18.116 80 Wastewatcf Charges 5/?004 Pant dike 0/8211 4/2<W20i)4 MEYER BROS DAIRY E 101 42260-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total MEYER BROS DAIRY $37 50 339042 $37 50 MilK/Juiu; Nav Fire Open H PaMlChk# 0/821? 4/2(>/2004 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO E 613 49900 092 So8 Drinks I or Resale $222 75 82457258 Total MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO $222 75 Pop for Resale PaidChk# 0/8213 4/2l»/2(K)4 MINNF SOTA UC FUND E 613 49030'151 Worker's Comp Insuiance Prem $74 04 7989268D00 Un^npkiymcril • iensen « • • t CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 04^3/04 11 38 AM Page 5 APRIL 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total MINNESOTA UC FUND $74 04 Paid Chk# 073214 4/26/2004 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. E 10142110 437 Training & Development $60 00 12020 Total MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. $80 00 Durncstic Violence • Dembouski Paid Chk# 073216 4/26/2004 MN DEPT OF HEALTH G 601 <20802 Due to govts-Stale Total MN DEPT OF HEALTH $1.175 00 1270041 $1.17500 1st Otr 2004 - Connection f ee Paid Chk# 078216 4/26/2004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-20806 Due to Govts State Sales Tax R 101-34210 General Taxable Sales/Servioe ToUl MN DEPT OF REVENUE $243 00 3/2004 $10 00 3/2004 $253 00 Sales Tax 3/2004 Sales Tax 3/2004 Paid Chk# 078217 4/26/2004 MN HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY E 233-45670-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $8.400 00 2/13/04 Total MN HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY $8,400 00 Refund Unused Gran! Paid Chk# 078218 4/26/2004 MN STATE TREASURER G 101-20802 Due to govIs-State J3.428 42 3/2004 1st Otr 2004 Surcharge R 10* 39610 Miscellaneous Revenue ($t37 14) 3/2004 1st Otr 2004 Surcharge Tout MN STATE TREASURER $3,291 28 Paid Chk# 078219 4/26/2004 NATIONAL WATERWORKS E 601-49400 227 Utility System Maint Supplies Total NATIONAL WATERWORKS $387 09 $387 09 1206654 Hydrant Parts PaldChk# 078220 4/26/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 602^9450 321 Telephone E 101-41900 321 Telephone E 6^3-49830 321 Telephone E 601 -49400 321 Telephone ToUl NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $126 09 $262 17 $70 92 $42 03 $491 21 326180427-00 326180427-00 326180427 00 326180427 00 Cell Phones Cell Phones Cell Phones Cell Phones Paid Chk# 078221 4/26/2004 O'SULLIVANS • HOLIDAY S46 E 10142110-402 Repairs/Maint-Aulo Equip $33 00 E 101 42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $77 00 Total O SULLIVANS . HOLIDAY 546 $110 00 2/2004 3/2004 6 Car Washes 14 Car Washes Paid Chk# 078222 4/26/2004 O'SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 E 10142110402 Repairs/Maint Auto Equip E 10142110402 Repairs/Mainl Auto Equip ToUl O SULUVANS HOLIDAY 547 $136 50 $130 00 $266 50 2/2004 3/2004 21 Car Washes 20 Car Washes Paid Chk# 0/8223 4/2fi/2004 PLUNKETTS L 10142110404 Repairs/Maint DkJgs/Gfuunds E 10141900 404 Repuirb/MainI DkJgs/Grounds ToUl PLUNKETTS $9346 $114 22 $207 68 223944 223944 Pest Control Pest Cuniiul PaKl Chk# 078224 4/26/2004 STAR TRIBUNE E 10141900 201 Office supplies Tout STAR TRIBUNE $27 95 $27 96 1913693 Newspaper 5/8-8/7/04 PaHl C fik# 0/8226 4/26/2lH)4 SlEFI ENHAGEN. RON E 61349900 095 Pro Shop Items Eof Resale $299 76 4/9/04 Golf Bans mtmm i CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 04/23/04 11:38 AM Page 6 APRIL 2004 Chech Amt Invoice Comment ToUl STEFFENHAGEN. RON $299 76 Paid Chk« 078226 4/26/2004 STREICHERS E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $24 22 424502 1 Turtleneck - Persell E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $109 95 426713 1 Outershell • Persell E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $1.058 00 426766 1 Uniform Supplies • Day E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $162 80 426766 2 Hem Pants - Anderson E 101-42110 226 Clothing & personal equipment $48 44 426766 4 Uniform Supplies • Day E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $74 95 426766 5 Pants - Day E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $559 60 427266 1 Traffic Vests E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maint Auto Equip $75 00 428160 1 Siren Repair E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment ($46 70) 430900 1 Returns - Day E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $42 95 430930 Shirt - Day E 10M2110 226 Clothing & personal equipment ($109 95) 431657 1 Return - Persell Total STREICHERS $1.999 26 Paid Chk# 078227 4/26/2004 THORPE DIST CO. E 613-49900-092Soft Drinks For Resale $112 50 331093 Water for Resale Total THORPE DIST CO.$112 50 PaidChk« 076228 4/26/2004 TKOA E 601-49400-405Repairs/Maint-Watermains/plani $224 82 66967 Locate Mam • Hwy 12 ToUl TKOA $224 82 TRI CITY PUBLIC LABORATORY E 601-49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total TRI CITY PUBLIC LABORATORY $60 00 3/31/04 $60 00 Water Sample Testing Paid Chk# 078230 4/26/2004 TWIN CITY STRIPING E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Matenals/Supply ToUl TWIN CITY STRIPING $7.%0 00 3014 $7,960 00 Street Striping Paid Chk# 078231 4/26/2004 VALLEY-RICH CO E 601-49400-405 Repairs/Mamt-Watermains/plant Total VALLEY-RICH CO $1.333 36 6069 $1.333 36 Main Break - 3420 Shoreline Paid Chk# 0/8232 4/26/2004 WITTKE. TONY E 101-42110^37 Training & Development Total WITTKE. TONY $23 37 4/16A)4 $2337 Meals - Training Paid Chk# 076233 4/26/2004 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 101-43000 381 Gas A Electric E 602-49450 381 Gas & Electric E 10M3000 361 Gas & Electric Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $21 90 2015782900 $28 83 3113009200 $32 37 3113009200 $83 10 Eledricity - Wdlow Eler^kUty Electnchy Paid Chk# 0/8234 4/26/2004 XCEL ENERGY r 101-43000 386 Street Lighting $1,293 85 E 101-41900 381 Gas & Electric $1 278 94 F 101-42110 381 Gas & Elect/ic $512 68 F 601-49400 381 Gas & Electric $2.982 65 F 101-43000 381 Gas A E lectric $286 82 E 602-49450 381 Gas A E lectric $1,264 27 E 10145200^381Gas A E lectric $22 72 E 613 49830 381 Gas A Electric $124 91 E 10142110-361Gas A Electric $9 42 1180S9677710 Electrical Service 116059677710 Electrical Service 116059677710 Electrical Service 116059677710 EkK:trical Service 116059677710 Electrical Service 116059677710 Electrical Service 116059677710 Electrical Service 118059677710 Electrical Service 118059677710 f lectrical Service • • • «CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 04/23W4 11:38 AM Page? APRH.2004 Chech Amt Invoice Comment Total XCEL ENERGY $7.776 46 10100 Primary Cash $130,925 39 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 231 DRUG/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND 233 AFFROBLE HOUSING GRNT/LOAN FO 402 MUNiaPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTIUTY OP FUND 10100 Primary Cash $76.118 36 $40 50 $8.400 00 $712 50 $620 70 $17,656.50 $24,587.59 $1.726 78 $1,062.46 $130,925.39 V" > IL) iA. '.Vi U'U-«idr * H KcnnccK C ira\ cn CHART ERfc D 4*^0 PilMuiiy (xnur 200 Sniiih Sixth Strict Mitinrd|ioli\ \1N SS H)2 (012) Vr 0300 icliphniic (012) Vr o^lOCix htt|>;//\xA\u kciitu'ily t:r.iviii.iiifii RECEIVED APR d 5 im CHYUHORONO C'OKKINK II.TIUIMSON Atlomc; al I a« Dirixl l»ialt«)l2).'37-‘^2l7 rjnail clhrmTstm «i l,nmc<ly-pa\cr com Real l‘io|Kit) I aw Specialist, ('citirieil b) Muui.'soU SUU; liai .\v>n April 22,2(K)4 Ron Moorsc City ofOrono Box 6(> Crystal Bay. MN 55323 KK: Jennings Drainage Issue, 1320 Orono Oak Drive Dear Ron At your ra|uest, I called Assistant Attorney General Michael Siiult reyaiding the Jennings property at 1320 Orono Oak Drive. As 1 understand it, MnDO T contracted with Ames constmetion for the Highway 12 project. Ames was supj)osed to remove soft soils from an area near the Jennings property, and that work was originally scheduled to be done during the winter. According to Mr. .Sindt, MnDOT settled the contract with Ames based on that scheilule. Ames started the work later than scheduled and consequently needed to dewater. I'he dewatering drained a wetland area on the Jennings property that was outside of the temporaiy’ easement that MnDOT had acquired from Jennings for the project. Mr. Jennings contends he is entitled to additional compensation. Mr. Siiult ap|ieared to agree that Mr. Jennings might have a claim for additional compensation, but the amount of compensation is in question. Mr. Sindt told me that, because the contract with Ames has been settled and the claim is for damage to an area outside where Ames was authorized to work, Mr. Sindt told Mr. Jennings to contact Ames directly. MnDOT’s position is that Ames is rc.qion.siblc for addressing Mr. Jennings* claim. I was lel\ w ith the imp-'ession that MnDOT stalV people may be w illing to participate in and facilitate the discussions w ith Ames. I understotul that MnDOT had already paid Ames and. if MnDO’f pays Jennings. MnDO’f would not be able to offset that pa\inent against any amount owed to Ames. Therefore, MnDOT wants Jennings to talk to Ames first. Sincerely, // 'TH Corrine H. Thom.son Cl ITrjms ( All 74<>SK'M RM702