Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-17-2004 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday February 17,2004 6:00PM 27S0 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Boh Sanscvcrc AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the frout podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants wUI be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the applicatioo. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the CHy CounciL If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the March 8,2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #04>298l Jeff Marlincau, 2565 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Melanie Cunis) OLD BUSINESS 2. #04-2969 Terry and Gretchen Blount, 1590 Cherry Place. V'ariances and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 3. #04-2971 Hickory* Fine Homes Inc., 3220 and 3240 Watertown Road, Lot Line Rearrangement (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 4. #04-2974 Reliance Development Company LLP. NW Comer or Willow Drive and Highway 12, Commercial Site Plan Review, Re/oning, Comprehensive Plan Amcrndment. and Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 5. #04-2983 James and Jean Echtemkamp. 2800 Pheasant Road, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 0. #04-2984 Mc'Carthy Construction on behalf of Berkshire Properties, 2745 Kelly Parkway, Commercial Site Plan Rev iew (Staff: Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis) 7. #04-2985 Tom Cullum, 785 Femdale Road North, Variance (Staff: Mike GafTron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. Rciiort of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings January 26. 2004 and February 9,2004. 9. Other issues for discussion. 10. Planning Conimisston approval of minutes for January 20,2004. 11. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on Fctmiary 23,2004 and March 8,2004. ADJOURNMENT iL ifn I i-*T-rr-i Public A ttendance Meeting Date X -\1- >c \ * j □ Council — ST Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ O ther Please nLLo*TTiiE intormation requested ■ELOW FOR OUR Cm' RECORDS. NAME (pleasr prim)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (rrom agenda) NAME OR NUMBER r.A V lAV ^’ 2.^1 9*/ rt________. Ha I ____________I /g t / V , i / ( ^/ r-.if > 4.. 5.. fi.. 7._ 9._ 10.. H-. 12.- 13. - 14. _ 15. _ t4rMM»KMi All ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION TiMiday Ptbnwvy 17.2004 (:0IPM 27S0KilkirPirtwiy-r<i«mygrkaiBiMH AGENDA CouadI lUpciNBtalhtt Bob Sauevere j AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Nmm (tpi la fbr Iho pubik racord at Iht froot podtana If rau with to adimi Cbt Ptar.. ComniMioa Applied will b« MkoO to mm to tho (Iroat tabit la amur «aOio«' TbiPlaaafafCOBMtalooliaBadtlaaykodyir March 8.2004 City Cooadl BMtIag ualoi odNrwtet aolei by ftt Chair. CO.SSENT 1 •04-2911 JeffMartjnejd. 2S0S North Shoro Drire, Vma.nca (Safr. Melarjc Cums) OLD BUSINESS ^ •04-2949 Trny and Orctchm BlRat. 1390 Cherry Flact. Vihaxei and Condibonil Uk Pemut (Staff: Janscc Gtndiach) 3 004-2971 Hickory Fine Komea Inc. 3220 aad 3140 WalHlawn Road, Lm lift Rcarraniemcni (Suff. Mika Oaffroo) 4 004-2974 Rehince Deveioptsent Company LLP. .NW Comar or Wllo* Drive i Highway 12, Commercial Site Plan Review, Reioning, Compteheasive Fan Anendmcni, and Subdiviaion (Staff KLke Gaflron) NEW BUSINESS 3. 004-29I3 James and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Fbauaat Rood, Coadtonal Uac Penau and Vananca (Staff Mika Onfhoa) <■ 004-2904 McCarhyConisuction on behalf of BeriuhuePropen«a.274S Ball' Parkway, Coesncmal Site Plan Review (Staff. Janxx CondlKh md VUaia Ort 7. 004-2915 Tom Cuaua, 70S Fcnidala Road Necih,Var.ance (Staff: hEkeCaf PLANNING COMMlSSias COMMENTS 8 Report of Fianiuo|CoininuBoaicpfcacmativa attending CoondlnaetbnJinwn2004 and F^ntary 9,2004. 9. Other iuues for diicuMion. 10 Planning Coimiiiioii approval of mimitea for January 20,2004. *'' 8*wT CouncU mectingi on Febmary 23. 2004 and M ADJOURNME.NT / file* 04-2Mt Ftb-ua-V ’0 2004 Paj» 1 o' 4 Date Application Received: 12*3(M)3 Dale AppNcatloa Cooddered as ComplHc: 02*OS*O4 60-Da« Review Period Expires: 04-0d4M Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis. City Planner February 10. 2004 04-2981, Jeff Martneau. 2565 North Shore Drive - Hardcover Variance - public hearing Zoning Distrkt: Lot Area: LR'IA, Single Family Lakes ho re KesidentiaL 2 acre minimum Gross: i.47 acre (64.2*50 s.f.) Wetland: 33.000 s.f.± Net Dry Buildable; 31.250 s.f. s Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing elevated deck (252 s.f.) and replace it with a smaller, stone patio (180 s.f ). The application consists of (he following: ^ A hardcover variance for 21.18*:^ hardcover within 75* of the OHWL where 0*^ is allowed and 21.61% currently exists. The applicant is proposing to remove 52 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone w hich equates to 0.43% hardcover for this zone. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends approv al of the hardcover variance to reduce the hardcover wuhin the 0-75* setback zone by 52 sf.. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover Iimiiaiions. (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 tnbutarv', except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL. there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OH\M. there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and LOGO feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hards.hip Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/S;te Plan D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations E. Property Ow rrrs List F. Plat Map k FILE0O4-2M1 Ftbru«ry 10.2004 P»9»2o(4 Background 256S North Shore Drive is a 1.47 acre lot. The property contains a large wetland over most of the north half of the lot which accounts for nearly half of the total lot area. The residence was constructed prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance (January 1975). and the location of the wetland most likely dictated the location of the existing home toward the lake. The applicant has proposed a reduction in hardcover in order to replace a grade level deck with a smaller stone patio. The proposed net decrease in hardcover is 52 s f.. or 0.43%, of the 0-75’ area. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Arca/Width: LR-IA Lot Area UtWidtli Required 87.120 s.f.(2 acre)200* Actual 64.250 s.f. (1.46 acres) Gross 31.250 s.f.(0.72 acre) Dry 157 ’.163* SuSiiskii LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Rear 50’Deck 0 260’-f Removal of Deck SESide 30*Deck 9 36 ’Removal of Deck NWSide 30 ’No encroachment Removal of Deck Lakeshore 75*Deck 919'Removal of Deck Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 64.250 s.f. (1.47 acre) 1 Allowed; 9.638 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3.434 s.f. (4.4%) Proposed; 3,434 s f. (4.4%) No Change F'LE«:429ai PtlOr^ *3, 2004 Pa3*33<4 Hardcover Calmlationi; Hardcover Zaae Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover E«isUng fttvlouriy 1 Proposed Hardcover 0-75 12.070 s.f.Os.f 12,608 s.f.- k. ^ (0%) 1(21.61%) 1 No change 2.556 sf (21.15 %) 75-250 30.120 sf.7.530 s.f. 4.731 s.f- | (25%) (15.7%) 1 4.922 sf. L (16.3%)No change TOTAL 0- 250 ’7^30 s.f. !7339s.f.7.530 s.f. 7,478 s.f. ' 250-500 22,060 s.f.6.618 s.f. (30%) 550 s.f.- (2.5%)No change | Hardcover Setback Variance The applicant is proposing a minor reduction in hardcover within the 0-75’ zone, in order to remove the existing deck and replace with a smaller stone patio. Currently, there is a total of 2,608 s.f. of hardcover in this zone where none is allowed. This hardcover consists of a home, deck, paiio and retaining walls. There is currently 21.61^^ hardcover in the 0*75’ setback zone, and a total of 25r*r or 7.530 s.f. for the combined areas of 0-75' and 75 ’- 250 ’ setback zones. The applicant is proposing to reduce this level by 52 s.f. The existing grade level deck is located entirely within the lake setback. Anv propcsed change in the hardcover within the 0*75’ setback zone requires a vanance as the hardcover level in the area is non*conforming at 21.61%. The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover level by 52 s.f. w ith the removal of the existing deck and adding a smaller stone patio to achieve a level within the 0-75’ zone of 21.18%. Hardship Slatcmcnt The applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form, attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysb in contidering appttcntioHs/or wianct. the Planning Commution ihaU eomider the effea of the propmed earianee open the health, t^ety and welfare of the eommunity, exUting and anticipated tnffU conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the puhlic safety, and the effect on mines of property in the snrrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending appromt for ranances from the liural prorisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would (ante undue hardship because of circumstances unigue to the inditidual property under consideration, and shall recommend appromt only when if is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping wUh the sp irit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The applicant wishes to remove a total of 52 s.f. of hardcover from the 0-75’ zone. The deck will be removed; therefore a vanance is required to put noncorforming hardcover back in the form of a non-structural patio. FILE* 04-2M1 Fabrutry 10. 2004 P*0l4of4 Most of the applicant’s existing home, including 2,608 s.f. of the hardcover for the property, is located within the 0-75 ’ zone. The nonconforming hardcover square footage from the 0-75 ’ zone has been applied to the 75 ’-250 ’ zone, in addition to the 4,922 s.f. (16.3 %) currently approved for the 75 ’-250 ’ zone, for a 75 -250 ’ total of 25%. The reduction of 52 s.f. as proposed will bring that total to 24.8% or 7,478 s.f. Staff finds that a hardship exists due to the location of the home and nearly half of the property consisting of wetland. The proposal will improve the visual impacts from the lake and decrease the amount of structure on the property. Staff feels this improvement is minor, and because of the reduction in hardcover and removal of the deck structure the request should be granted. I—M— fiMP ration Does the Planning Commission have any issues concerns with this application? Staff Rccomrocndatkm Planning Staff rKommends approval of the hardcover variance in the 0-75' zone in order to removed the existing deck and replace with pauo, thus reducing the level of hardcover in this zone by 52 s.f.. r City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A StrMt Address: 2750 Kelley ParKway Orono. MN 55356 Application^ \ 2- g)0- o3 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 652-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-3066 Date Received. Amount Paidj. l;00 ^ o Staff: Fee:-4; Renewal; 5300 After-the-fact S1.20C Double Fee This application fbrm must be completed in full. App'cart will be notified witnin 15 days as to tfe status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION:./ k Site Address: Jy/: Property Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if rjo^cluded on the survey.) Present use of propeiW: ^ Reside Zoning District: ResiOenlxa^/ □ O'Jier I own the adjacent parcels. APPLICAN Name: WiNFORMATI lome): ^ TION: (Complete legal nares and marital status r^uired for each interested party) PClX") r4 evs— ^ ^ LPhone (home): v Phone (wc^)/ Address: Email: _______________ ^ ^ J^/0 - Fax; OWNER INFORMATION: (Coraplete legal names a*d marital status required for each interested party) Name: i ___________________ _______________________ _________________________Phone (work): ______________________Phone (home): Address: Email: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if nece^ry): ^ l<>T. > rvb jflT/A i^ry):____. Jj iki #2981 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: «^a'e <" om.r ,or you S Completed Haidship Documentation Form ^ SrSW and p.a, .ap ^ ............. APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: THa snr^fi^anf _____• « ^^••no’::,Zl^^^ “Pon failure denial of the request regardless of Its ^ntial Ijerlt^ ^ recommendyihe request for na.Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: OWNER’S ACKNOWLE^BtelW ^ entry onto the^Prop<^°by*aty S^^ Mher authorizes reasonabl€ purposes of investigation and v^fication^ this request Commission & Council Members foi Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature:Date: Date:-----------------— _____uaie: Jsr ?a:rc:xr i.vr rzrs "r"? # O C) Rit^ 1o ^ Btoafcidfc<e>oiBiwbiMJW exhibit B Page I of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a rsquirsd submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas unti this form is compists and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Sutxjivision 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 writh the land and not the land owner. Persona/ and aconomic situations are not considered valid hardsNps. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having mer.t must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outliong the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance win affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them at 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 cons dered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (sone may not apply): 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditionSiMowed by the official controls.*-I'm "The plight of the landowner is due to circumsta.rces unique to his property not 7l(d Tl h,r_ 6^ ^------------------------------------------ created *TI^ variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if lie use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." -A- 'j -"Irrkic!: Page 2 of3 'Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunligW for solar energy systems Vanances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J 06. Subd. 2. vst^en in h^gny with this Chapter " ^------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not perms ss a variant any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the rone wherar^ affected person’s land is located. The B<The Board or Council may permit as a vanance the temporary use of a orte-ff mlly dwelling as a two-famfly dwelling.* •The special conditions applying to the structure or land In question are cecullar T' ......to wc^^property or Immediately adjoining property.* 9. 'The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures In the ostnct in «vhicn said land is located.* __________________________________________ The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofjh si^antial property right gfJhe «plicanUr4 C 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, ^fort. morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning jj. 1.• ' n fQ Page 3 of3 12. *Th« grafftlng of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicaht but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficutty. V Hardship Statement . . ^ ^ ^ Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria, desenbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditior^s preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): exhibit D HARDCOVER C^CLLA llUiN WURKSMULl’ ‘ S^ACKZONX: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500* EXISTING HARDCQ\TR IN ZONE A. House _____________ i/n/03 ^0 tt/4i 500-1000* f/if/ij •• /• Atv /72S S.F. Ltfiftf)widd) B. Cange * C. Driveway D. Sidewalk B. Pauo/Deck F, fcea idseey ^ululeiiiAdiu, BrHwfc __ Of rebrte hi 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ♦ B tZ07C no-?o X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House B. Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Oeck F. Lattdscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric ZJ.^t •Z3Z 4- iZO O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ *► B . 2€0l - « - ____ a 100 - iioio SF. S.F. SF. SF. S F.‘ S.F. SF. SF. Z?.err;/c S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. r •- S.F. SF. S.F. %f'i S.F. S.F. S.F. cr S.F. S.F.•tr S.F. S.F. S.F.AiM»Vt 4 S.F. ASS ^jr» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ’ A S.F. B % •71 M^ATf*^€AM HARDCOVER CALCLLAr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* gVtSTTNC HAKDCmTR IN 7QNT A. Houw _____________ ' L nUN V (15-2S^ WUKK5Hl!J!.i 250-500'500-1000* L«n|dl WidJ» B. Garage ■ C; Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pitlo/Deck _________ Uwdifliin _____________ 9r9lmAc ____________ OTFWrtc 0. Other fiA4A^ 7-4 /4J. 32^9 z TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 47ii - B 3^f20 a lOO - PROPOSED HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House _____________ \ Un|A B. Otfage ^ $*%u*C. Drsveway _____ "T 2CC Cxr/r/^r:- / F78 4 38o €itiJrtA*e AAtUfu^^ D. Sidewalk _____________ E. Paiio/Deck F. Liadtcape Uoderlaio By Plastic Or Fabric Q. Other _ -7^7 S.F S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F S.F. ,S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. JOf -zo /S. 7/ S.F. S.F. S.F. ft i/VP/cj S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. SF. S.Fs S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B . A/T/ S a iOO - !f722 S.F. FO.t7.o S.F. ft «04-29M Fcbruiry n.2004 Pagt I of 4 DateAppticitioaRcccNcd: 12*1743 Datt Application Coaiidfrcd at Conplcu: l-S-04 W-Day Retiet* Period Etpirct: 3-S44 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Fron: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Date: February 11,2004 Subject: 04-2969, Terry A Grctchcn Blount. 1390 Cherry Place • Lot Area, Width and Hardcover Variances • Public Hearing Zooteg Disirict: LR - 1B. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.S27 acres (22,957 s.f.) Lot Width: 100 feet Appiication Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 0.S27 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. 2. Lot width variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 1 OS' in width when 140* is normally required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow- 8.41% hardcover (653 s.f) in the 0-75* zone when 0% is normally allowed and 11% (860 s.f) currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to allow 30% hardcover (4.542 s f) in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally allowed and 40.45% (6.149 s.f) currently exists. 5. Conditional use permit to allow restoration of an existing railroad tie wall in the 0*75' zone which consists of a boulder outcrop area. StaffRecommeniatUm: Staff reconunendatio.is: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow- construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. 2. Approval of a lot w idth variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105’ when 140' is normally required. 3. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41% hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when 0% is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer. These plans should include elimination of the steps that are currently located on the low end of the slope on the lake side of the home. 4. Approval of a hardcover variance for the 75’-250’ zone to allow- 26 5% hardcover. The Planning Commission should discuss the hardships to allow approval of the 30% the applicant has proposed 5. Table of the conditional use permit to allow landscape restoration in the 0-75* zone More detailed plans shall be submitted once weather permits for review and approval by the City Engineer. Fcbr»ary*^X004 Pt|t4of4 Staff has also reviewed the optimum hardcover allowance as it relates to lot shape. An ideally shaped ht of 0.527 acres would yield a 75’-250* area of 16,070 s.f. where the applicant’s lot has a 75’-250’ zone of 15,200 s f. in area. 25% of the ideally shaped lot wotild yield a hardcover allowance of 4,018 s.f. where the applicant's lot would yield 3,800 s.f. of hardcover. Applying the 4,018 s.f. hardcover amount to the applicant’s lot would amount to 26.5% hardcover. The revised proposal is for 30% hardcover or 3.5% beyond the optimum hardcover allowance. This amounts to approximately 524 s.f. The Planning Commission should discuss the hardships which would allow further approval of524 s.f. of hardcover, or 30% in the 75’-250’ zone. Issues for Coiuidcralioii 1. To what extent of a hardcover variance should be approved when weighed against the topographical constraints of the lot? 2. Is there enough hardship to allow approval of 524 s.f. of hardcover beyond the 26.5% that could be supported by the optimum hardcover allowance relating to lot shape? 3. Has the applicant made a good faith effort towards reducing hardcover? 4. Is the revised proposal reasonable? 5. Are there any othn issues or concerns with this application? Stuff RecommeMlation Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105’ when 140 ’ is normally required. Approval of a hardcover variance of 26.5%. The Planning Commission should discuss further approval of 524 s.f. or 30% total hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone. 4.Table of the conditional use permit and hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone due to incomplete information. This request can be heard once all the information the City Engineer requested has been submitted. Two separate resolutions will be approved; one for the 75’-250’ zone to allow a rebuild and one for the 0-75’ zone which would address the railroad tie wall restoration and removal of one access to the lake. CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TERRY «e GRETCHEN BLOUNT OF LOT 7. BLOCK 11. SAGA HILL REVISED AND N SEC. 8-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MMNESOTA ®WOHOdOAllD KIK 6 0 83J aaAaoau LAKE MINNETONKA oamtfi iM NORTH ARM IlMl 9—t mt ». ' •* laliM« al |l«a lha Sowia liaa at aai4 Lai 7 la IXa ahara al Ma«lt« Arm, laaa M<m>ala IsMaa it O laal. nwa ar la*« la IHa MarlKaaal ca««a' at lal I. afin l«na at aaitf lol I la llta Maflhaatl earner al «aia lal I. M>M<a ina Narin MO M.SO lal I. ■lack II. Sa«a Hill Havitatf a Mnalas Iran imrkar ■earinya ahaan are baaed upan an aaatrad dalin a 117 ivrlk, Nana# 7) «etl al in# Mk PrMMiaal Ma«iaian al lal 7. Black ll. Saga Hill Ncviaea. Ikanca .........................aa. Ikanca aaulka> Ir Black 4. "Crialai Ba •aal «Mrlaian. ca fa«l aianp ralai Ba* vtea*. ikaace «*ai aianp IkerKe nailkarty la 1^ placa al Baainmn^, fkia Ilia ana aurvaa inienda la akaa IHe bowndonea of lha oba«e deter ibad proptrle. locallan ol on aeitlinB haute, lha locollon al oil ••tibia 'har4co*er*. lha araaakad local ion al loa oraaatea addiliana ana ta:kt iharaan nal Burpipuraarl lo thoo oAf alhar mprovaivnla or er^roocltnenla. /iMuMra Mt t,B GRONDERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. CBWIiTOO OOBBIB^ LMO atMTOB^ Bit PtMOBMB MB MB1M BUM dMB. uaa LMC lat Miaa BU-a;v4ui ;;s!T5.as’;.r'arur.-'S^2aArs iwi IM a aar icnoD mvwbm bbMV ob laa aS-BIA leRQY T OL0U«or n 9f»Hp n-to-OJ HARDCOVER CALCULA setback ZONK: (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75* EXISTING H VimCQVER IS ZONE A House X ORKSHEET 2S0-S00* iM Sktioai 0-117-23 500-1000 ’ UrfUl 2.d zg WiOdi z.^ B Cange C Driveway 20. S' Q. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ♦ B iS.Trgg) xlOO - VHOPOSED HARlirnVER IN ZONP A. House U»|uS Width B. Oarage C. Dris-eway D. Sidewalk E PaUO'Dcck 7.67 0 Other WECBVEO totai Hardcover n zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE FEB ^9 2004 _______ - B envoFonoNo 'ZSZ* 102A _SF.-«OVSf 6 ^C«MC. AA F. SF _ €/»•<. MCXi t _ s F.-^trAr?_S F. -GARA^I; 377 _SF. -6A4tAA(5 3)D7 s F. -?5tw &» y S.F. nr C0.4C. STEP. SF.-AP.70V SF. __Sl4__SF.-DCiie SF - s F.-vjo>o eopi SF 7?_S F. -BXK B pRC ’’KEYSTtVll Sr.“ s^Aii c A 14^S.F. A IS SF. B A«.4».r _S - 102X _S.F.-Ei<(^tIHS f 2B3 S.F.-fB0AatfD at ism _S F.-MI>. AOOt 1070<- ^9? ^ 5521 100 - _S.F. _SE ■> \72ft PeopoMO _s.p. ___SF.-strop « aAI ^ c p SF -HOftIM OCC SF.-$OiiTVOFdJ -SF -SF. _SF. extSTlNCkf SF -W4U.5IS' I^IOO T9 ACj^a . S F. A S.F. B _% Fd>raafy 7,2004 Ms. Janice J. Waattja. City Planner CityofOrooo PO Box 66 CryttalBay.MN 55323 DearMs. WaatM, Enclosed you will find a survey drawing showing revisions and reductions of hard cover areas proposed for the addition to the Terry & Cretchen Blount residence located at 1390 Cherry Pto Also enclosed is the Hardcover Calculation Worksheet showing the reductions in hardcover square footles for certain portions of their property. The revised calculations show over a 5% reduction in hardcover area from the Blount’s first presentation to the Orono Planning Commission, January 2004. I have been hired by the Bloum’s to prepare construction drawings for their home addition. I offered ray services to he^ them prepare this revised proposal to graphically show the areas of reduction of hardcover. If you have any questions or concerns with the condition of this pKkage delivery or on the graphic representation please contact me. Thank you. Jay Boyle f 4519 Robin Circle Robbinsdale,MNSS422 763-536-1292 javntrac/^sfamilv net RECEIVEO FEB 0 9 aXM CHYOFOaOND •04-2969 Janiiiry 20.2004 PtCtlgfl Dale Application Receded: 12-lT-OJ Dal* Application Coaiidercd as Complete: 60*Day Review Period Cipires: 34^ To: Chair SmiA and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Janice Gtmdiach, City Piannci^ Date: January IS, 2034 Subject: 04-2969, Tciry & Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Place - Lot Area, Setback, and Hardcover V.iriances - Conditional Use Pennit • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: 0.527 acres (22,957 s.f.) Lot Width: 100 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the fr'.iowing variances in order to construct a ♦ new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to allow constriction of a new home on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. 2. Lot w idth variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot w hich is 105* in width when 140’ is normally required 3. Side setback variance to allow a 2"*^ story deck to be setback 8 ’ from the south side property line when 10* is normally required and 25* currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to allow 8.41% hardcover (653 s.f.) in the 0-75* zone when 0% is normally allowed and ! 1% (860 s.f.) currcrtly exists. 5. Hardcover variance to allow 35% hardcover (5,321 s.f) in the 75-250* zone when 25% is normally allowed and 40.45% (6,149 s f.) currently exists. 6. Conditional use permit to allow restoration of an existing railroad tic wall in the 0-75* zone which consists of a boulder outcrop area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1 Approval of a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when I acre is normally required 2. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105’ when 140* is normally required. 3 Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback of 8 ’ when 10’ is required. The proposal should be rc-dcsigned so as not to encroach in*o the required setback. 4. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41®i hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when 0®/o is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer 5. Table of a hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone The applicant shall further refine the proposal in an effort to reduce hardcover. 6. Table of the condiuo.nal use pcnnit to allow landscape restoration in the 0-75’ zone More detailed plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer 004-2969 Jannary 20.2004 Pagt 2 of■ PcrtuicBt Zoniog Ordinance Sections See. 78030. Area, height, lot wdth and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The folio>Aing minimum requirements shall be obser\ cd: Lot Area (aert)j Loi Width (feet) Front Yard (feet) tuo 135 TSidt Yard Adjarant Rear Yard (feet) (0 Aooiher Lot (feet) I S de Yard Ad;acea: to Street (feet)________ Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover linuutions. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL. there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-I A, LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. LbtofEahibitt Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Forms Exhibit C - Hardship Statement Exhibit D - E.xisling Sur\ cy Exhibit E - Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit O - Aerial Photograph Fxhibit H - Photogiaphs Exhibit I - Landscape Plan for 0-75 ’ Zone Exhibit J - Proposed Elevations Exhibit K - Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit L - Property Owners List Exhibit M - Plat Map Backgroand The applicant has met with staff to discuss the proposed plans. The discussions related to whether or not the proposal would be reviewed as a renovation or a rebuild The applicant is proposing to tear the existing house down to the cap. replacing floorbg as needed and keeping the wall on the south side of the house in order to reuse the fireplace. The applicant lus stated the intention to reuse whatever the builder is able to, although •M-3M9 January 20.2004 raftJors the cost of a renovation to retro*fit plumbir ^ and electrical work is higher than if she were to do a rebuild. After review of the submitted plans and further discussions with the applicant, staff has concluded that the project will be reviewed as a rebuild. The information submitted in association with the conditional use permit and hardcover variance for the 0-75 ’ zone are incomplete. The City Engineer has requested further infonnation prior to making a recommendation regarding the proposal. Rather than separating this request from the proposal, staff is recommending that the variance for the 0-75' zone and the conditional use permit request be tabled. If necessary, and in an effort to not cause further delay, separate resolutions can be drafted and ^proved. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Setbacks Stnictnnil Coveraae LR-IB 1 1 Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 22,957 s.f. (0.527 acres)105 ’ LR-IB Required Eiisling Proposed Front n/a n/a n/a Rear 30’ 0 ’ (deuched garage) 63’(2«a- 106 ’(house) 52.5 ’ UftSide 10 ’25 ’8- (deck) 13’(house) 1 Right Side 10 ’31’(house) 10* (garage)11’ Lakeshore 75 ’78 ’(deck) 92 ’ (house) 86 ’(decks) 92 ’ (house) Average Lakeshore 80 ’78 ’(deck) 92 ’ (house) 86 ’(decks) 92 ’ (house) , Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 22,957 s.f (0.527 acres)Allowed: 3.443.55 s.f. (15V.) Proposed: 3.428 s.f (14.9%) •04-3H9 JmuMry 20.2004 pig«Sori protect the shoreline, minimize runoff, and prcser>e lake vic^^^. As suicd in the hardcover section of this report, the applicant is proposing to replace the railroad tie retaining uall with a boulder out-crop area. This involves requires approval of a conditional use permit. At this time the applicant has not presided enough information regarding the railroad tie wall restoration for the City Engineer to conduct a complete .Tsiew. Once the City has receisxd complete information for this piece of the proposal, a fall analysis of any impacts to the lake will be review'ed Section 78-1282 only allows for one set of stairs to provide access the lake. The cunent plan proposes to keep both sets of stairs. The second set of stairs adds hardcover and impacts views &om the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the impacts of two accesses and encourage the applicant to eliminate one. Hardship Statcmcat Applicant has piovided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A & C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship ApaKiis______________________________________________ /n eomUlerInt applications for vatUmet, tite Fianning Commission shaii consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the keaitk, safety and weifart of the community, existing and anticipated ttttffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the pubik safety, and the effect on vaiua of property in the surrounding area. The Rlannlng Commission shall consider recommending approval for vatianees from dte literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause un^e hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shaU recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In hr r>lng with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff does not find any hardship to allow approval of a side setback variance in order to allow a deck to be setback 8’ from the southern property line. The deck can be easily re designed to meet the 10' setback. The applicant has expressed her willingness to do this and the Planning Commission should therefore, not approve a side setback variance as no valid hardship has been demonstrated. Staff finds that there may be some hardships warranting some amount of a hardcover variance for the 7S-2S0' zone, however not the 35% that is currently proposed ;: •* topography of the rear of the lot, and how the existing w*alls, which the applicant is proposing to keep, tie into the existii^ foundation make it difficult to shift the house further towards the road requiring a substantial amount of driveway. Staff has reviewed the proposed driveway and finds that it, as proposed, is a minimum and isn't an area for potential reductions. However, staff feels that there are potential areas for additional hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f. of the hardcover. The applicant is also proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f. The decks and porch together comprise 5.6% hardcover (861 s.f.). The applicant's plans also arc proposing what appears to be a 4-cai garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has stated that their real need is only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attached to it The applicant has demonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, porch, and garage. M04-2M9 JMuar; ZO. 2004 Pap 6 of I The Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant the need of the proposed decks, porch and 4-car garage and determine if a re-^sign incorporating a smaller porch and deck, and smaller garage area is warranted. The Planning Commission should also consider that a full 2**^ story isn't proposed and could potentially be an ideal way to reduce hardcover on the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship'* pertinent to this application: 1 . ‘The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Lot area and width variances are required in order to build a new residence, H hich is an inherent right the property owner Puts The lot could be rebuilt at the required 25% hardcover, however, the strict enforcement of this requirement may not be reasonable on this lot. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances uiuque to his property not creat^ by the landowner." The challenging topography of the lot is a circumstance unique to the property and not a condition which the landowner created The requested hardcover variance is a circumstance which the landcwner has control over 3. "The variance, if grai.ied, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The granting of a lot area and width variance will not alter the character of the locality as many of the lots in this I acre zone do not meet the I acre requirement. To w hat extent a hardcover variance is granted, may alter the neighborhood w ith regard to setting precedent. 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Sot applicable 5. "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 defmed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Sot applicable 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use tlut is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." The uses the applicant has proposed are uses allow ed by the zoning district, and as such variances can be granted to those uses 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporar>' use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." •04-2M9 January 20.2004 Pa|c7ofl Not explicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the stnicture or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Vie challenging topography is a condition v hick is peculiar to the properly The Planning Commission should discuss u hether there are any special conditions applying to the existing house, w here that applicant has proposed to use the foundation, which might warrant a hardcover variance 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or strucnires in the district in which said land is located." It is of staffs opinion that this criterion is met. 1 0. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property nght of the applicant ” The granting of a lot area and width vcariance is necessary for the applicant to construct a new home, wluch is a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of a hardcover variance is not a substantial property right of the applicant, however a reasonable hardcover variance might be justified due to the hardships noted earlier in this report. 11 . "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." It is of staffs opinion that this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The granting of lot area and width variances are necessary to alleviate the hardship which exists due to the lot existing in a I acre zoning district and only being 0527 acres The granting of a hardcover variance, and to what extent, may serve as a convenience to the applicant. Issues for ConiMcratioa 1 . Are there any hardships to support any amount of a hardcover v ariance? 2. To what extent should the proposed hardcover by further reduces? 3. Should the declo'porch/garage be reduced in an effort to further reduce hardco\er? 4. Should the applicant consider a 2"^ story? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommendations: 1 . Approval of a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. 2. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot l04-29i9 M, 2004 flftltfl where the width is lOS' v^dien 140* is normally required. 3. Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback oft* udien 10* is required. The proposal should be re-designed so as not to encroach into the required setback. 4. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41% hardcover in the 0-7S* zone when 0% is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer 5. Table of a hardcover variance for the 75-250* zone. The applicant shall further lerme the proposal in an effort to reduce hardcover. The applicant should consider re-designing the plans to incorporate the following: 1. Re-design the southern deck to meet a 10* setback. 2. Reduce the amount ofdecks/porch on the property. 3. Reduce the amount of gmge space, and if po^le, driveway connected to it 4. Consider a second story in an effort to reduce the footprint and hardcover. 5. Revise the plans for the 0-75’ zone to only allow one access to the lake. 6. Submit more detailed plans for the railroad tie retaining wall restoration. EXHIBIT A AppUcatta# Date Recched Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND ISE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site Address \ .___________ Type of Application to be Filed__ ________ __________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O^ Z 3 QQL3 APPLICAIJT r, Ji Ai -r- PhonefhomelXt^ Name IdWaj A -T 6tpCU>Cii fH . Q Uu phonc (woijc) \ Address^ N. Arv< City "iCCai K,v6t h H q Zb OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phonc (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address Date Property Acquired______ __ ________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Creditmidg S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use )C $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After*thc-Fact Fee - Double Cu.Tent Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (•► consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation WiA Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #2969 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 5. 6. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Pl*t map (sx>\i SbraaL”^ • **'■" “ f« ««"«y Attach le^ description to applicaUon if not included on required sur\ ey U«rf the teg.1 (include nuriul stems) of all persons with « inieresi in the of any other SU»HTTED. ,SMt rt' ^ TOUMIMS submiued.)(Suff will requim to scale dmwings of ill ^unt^Tts.etc. to be Wlic«tTno“1,,^J?e';rTftS^^ ■■ _____Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATLUE iSdroi^'f::; ruia ckiu^leder Date f X' !(• 0 5 ntember, for pnn»^f in^c.u^atra.rSoiTu;u ”^^^^ Owner ’s signature Date Applicani mat have all jubtninals iato the City ofTtces 25 d^vc .v bi . Plannini Coomtsaioa Meeongs are held on the duid Moadiv PUnoing Cotnnusion .Xleedeg .cheduled review meenap of U«c P^ ** « **' Kbcduled meeting, please make anan^roMB iTSJI an Wlicaiit u unable to attend a . BuOding L Zoning Office of this cha^T^iw to ihToKet^ *"***^ “ !. - __f _ •• vi ^f .J.Zf \J cQ 1 AppUcitioB # Date Received"' t AmooDC Paid $lSd,UO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial ^plication Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucnires S250.00 After-the-Fact Feei (Double application fee) Site Addreu NFORMi\ l59o Property Identification Number (P.P.D.) O Rgyvij ibw(P.l!.l rp OO^ Attach legal description to appli^on if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /O/g/__________________________ I (do) (do not ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ,(month/ycar) ne Present use of proper^ I residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: /_ I APPLIC Name ^iSmi y6tr^hlitr> f^(oc;ni" Phone fltome) Address:^^1? ___^ Phone (wor k) s ^ /— City: 1\A i ef ?njtia Zip: .5^.70/ OWNER (if different thnn applicant) Name____________________ Address: Phone o»n»Tu-)_ Phone (work)_ City:, VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side (Dther (specify) _________________ )C Hardcover .Lot Coverage Rear __ Average Lakeshore ( '#2969 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the follBwtag infornutloa mast bg mbmittii bv tbe ■PoBcarioB dtadtlng in nrAmmfor Yoar ■PPlkadon to b* roniIder*d 1* Completed Application Form 2. Prope^C^crs List of owners within 150\ libels ind plat map (you must obtam this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). 3. — C^ficate of Survey (signed by a licensed suneyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11" for reproduction. ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed clevaUons) if any changes in existing grade . are p^sed. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. __ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy BVi" x IT) ---- Lul of the lepl names (include marital status)’of all persons with an interest iii the property. Tbs would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. MbIImH ob U not compitte If »h. .Hey, ..t h«.. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^ WUcul hereby igreee to provide aU infoititation required or requeued by the Zoninu Adimtustrelor, egrecs to pay addiUonal fees (staff time not covered by orig^l fee payment) tad/m in rwew of this application, and ccrtifcs that Oirmfomiation supplied IS true and correct to the of h.-./i,-, 5. 6. 8. ----: ---------- uus appucanon, ana c supplied IS true and corrccugjhc best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^ r>T.. /-2-/l T OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable Owner's Signature S'? Cfc'elinr Xl'e •«*>" ““ CommissionA Meenngs are held on the third Monday of each month cSM^l'*tf"'“* •' f*»tew mcetliip of the Plaaolng Comaalssloa and puncIL If an wUcant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please tn^e ..v..,____ to Sl^Jg^p^t^tte mretiT’' “ ^' #29 (?9i •U • •>EXMBITB r f 1i it Ml 1723330035 SCOTT DSANDBEKC I3MNORTMA1U4DII MOUND MN SS3M Adlaceat Property Owners' AcknowlcdgcmeDt Form ____________of__________________ ac(s)][print address] proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^ referred to as Land Use Application No,_______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council aporoval. Property Date Property Owner Date ]| Ml 172)330031 E ALLEN SCHMIDT UDCKEWlYrLS mound MN 533« iame(s)][print address] tor the proposed inqirovement or proposed use of the propeny located atuic tor tae proposeo unprovement or proposea use also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing diis acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare ^roval 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. S.X 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.#2969 i .7 i /AdUccnt Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form y 31 0etn233300l2 CEXCAAMARYTZUUC 1400 CHEWY PL MOUHOMN »>44 U name(s)][print address] A the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at / also referred to as Land Use Application No« _______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement* I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to conhrm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s projea or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date 31 0111723330011 THOMAS 0 4 ANHE T WILBUR 1410 CHERRY PL MOUNOM.N S5364 print name(s)l [print address] have reviewed thej^j^ for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at »lso referred to as Land Use Application No I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the imp^vement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires CotinciLapprm Propcit)^ Owner ProjArty Owner Date If you have any infonnation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building A Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled mectmg date. L 31 MIITJJJJOOOI timothy b a dune e bates I IJI3 CHERRY MOLTNOMN SJ364 voers* Acknowledgemeat Form ____of_______ [print address] jr the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located athave reviewe^the P^^Jor the proposed improvement or proposed use f .^^iO Cc4JAu also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to coahnn 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. fd C)oJl Property Owner Date Property Owner Date 31 OtI1723320033 TOCMNAFSTAD 1370 CHERRY PL MOUND MN SS3«4 me(s)][print address] have reviewed Pjjp for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at r aiso referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council tha: I (wc) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use require^ Council approval. 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. •• c r^'* ’-s QQvl k .A ’ ’ M tc • V r>f T'' i''^-^ ?«A<iLi^'^ I Hs ui view H^)^^ Rn^ % •. '%> - V- ■-------,i H (yj I "’!%> •••• ' r* * ii- • • ♦ ^ i t& EB Ug^|Lrt ^ ;;p/i LAIE^ ’^iO^ _______ / . ^ ' ■ Aw’I i^fi I* r’.*- ^ ' f 4 * iliiBHPrii'Wmwit ^ 1 •V .1---------* • j *" ^'•■»* »>- ^ <i_' —• —. ' '. ~ •-. 'V VI^W Of KEYSr0^iC WAU6 ‘5 ««*^»Tr fS IS *1?-^ ^•'' \ * ..^' — ViL • •.*. > - ' • -: * > - . > A... 1« •» *■* f. '■ *■ '> i-.’ .‘.r^ y'i i:rrr—^ \ ' ' •wrv.-j, . 4 * • ~ *VS , .1' /t^w of ^JtltOAD T’£j WAtU ------ / dr»r-Tl»=*r=; J: —-ITTrr.feAyr^ 'I ""'ij • ■ - - ^ JNH •i-'-'iSs W:^ > 1 *' .r \’ '-^ •' •' / V/. - >aii 1-1 EXHIBITI PtOFOiAL I PMt ^^AltWAP lie ViAtX^ V/1»M -q:„ I RECEIVED JAN 1 ? 2001 CITYOFORONC AKOMNSa VICES INC db* (KXXVOOO & dT DOi hUQSOSCS i«mi(uu»t «>xi «UKT Tern' 6 Cretcben Blount 11 M JpMivMjgcj KM r»t L _ jPOll iiim 1 ! '.«:-rM«A>LWK.i«<i- h' •. :# O' O •H' ^'■-..VI V '. ■■v,>2 S*-< • m V ___^ QMtXT|1 tuv. pate *«• #2969 ■e^h tecras4 5^ Id- I or 7 I n: p p,' ’ 1 1 1 1 ,n ) GAKACC rOUNOATlOW PlAW #2969 t GARAtfPUM DateApplkatkmRcctlvrd: 12.17^ Datt ApplkatkM Considered m Complete: 1-20-04 120-Day Review Period Expires: 5-20-04 Chair Sntith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director February 12.2004 #04-2971 William &. Roslyn Henderson/Hickory Fine Homes. 3220-3240 Watertown Road - Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) Zoning District: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential. 2-acie min. Lot Area: 9.75 Acres (7.57 ac. dry. 2.18 ac. wetland/creekbed) Application Summtuy: This is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990. the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road). Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WC A). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the propenies, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house location j. The new plat is subject to ‘front lot/back lot’ area and setback standards which were also not m effect m 1990 The applicant has now provided a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek eroising, which requires a number of variances. The plan also indicates proposed house locations and elevations. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has provided his comments in Exhibit B. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Lia of Exhibits A - Grading and Driveway/Creek Crossing Plan B - City Engineer Comments 1-22-04 C • Notice of PC Action 1-26-04 D - Draft PC Minutes of 1-20*04 Meeting E - Memo and Exhibits of 1-14-04 §04-2971 3220-3240 WaUrtownRoMi Ftbniary 12.2004 Pa|e2 Grading, Driveway Plan The proposed drivewayis located along the base of theslopewithinOutlol A andLot 1. It is proposed at a width of 16 ’ from Watertown Road to where ilT’s off to serve Lot 2, then reduces to 12' as it heads northward through Lot 1 . The dri vew ay is completely outside the 0-75 ’ hardLover zone until it reaches the midpoint of Lot 2 where it curves left to cross the creek. The driveway as designed will constitute approximately 2100 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75* zone, or approximately 3^ of the 0-75* zone adjacent to either side of the creek. The cul veil has been designed to meet all stormwater demands. City Engineer Tom Kellogg has indicated the top surface of the driveway crossing should be lowered from elevation 973.0' to 972' to allow for an open channel overflow that will be 2' lower than the lowest floor of the upstream residences (974 ‘ mm.). Kellogg has indicated the culvert should be on arch RCP to allow this reducuon in height A final dnveway plan and profile will be required prior to its construction. The driveway will be approximately 1000 ’ in length, and the Fire Marshal will be review ing the driveway plan to ensure it meets emergency access needs. If the paved width needs to be expanded slightly the percentage of hardcover may increase to 49b or 5% of the 0-75' zones; however, it appears the driveway would still remain out of the 0-75' zone except for the crossing point. Drainage. Stormwater Management At the January PC meeting the adjoining neighbors to the east warned the developer that substantial runoff flows westward from their properties onto the site. The applicant is advised to incorporate swales as necessary along the driveway to accommodate this drainage. Because the property includes a significant length of creek which flows to Lake Minnetonka, the City Engineer has suggested the incorporation of vegctaii ve buffers for stormwater treatment. The applicant has proposed a 35 ’ buffer adjacent to either side of the creek, which will be subject to a buffer casement. BuildablUty of Steep Slope on Lot 1 The topography of the site indicates a s>tccp hill at the south endof Lot 1, and the proposed driveway will skirt the oase of this hill. Neighbors have expressed a concern w hether this area mJght be buildablc. The slope is approximately 40% in some arras, and portions of it may meet the definition of a bluff, which would be unbuildable area. Staff would recommend that the area southeast of the creek w iihinLol 1 with slopes of 18% or greater be deemed as non-buildable. Summary of Issues for Discussion Please again review the memo andcxhibils of January 14. The following items are potential issues for discussion: Width vanance for Lot i • hardship is site topography. Siam •04-2971 3220-2240 Watertown Road February 12,2004 Pages 2. Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75 ’ of OHW - depending on final driveway width, will be 3% * S% of 0-75' zone. 3. Park fee for Lot 1 - did it meet its obligation in 1990, or is this creation of a new buildable site subject to current park fee...? 4. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee - payable only for Lot 1? 5. Establishment of 35* buffers along creek for storms atcr management - should any other specific conditions apply to protect the creek? 6. Status of MCWD permitting process? 7. Other issues? Staff Rccommendatton Staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to: 1. Granting of a hardcover variance for the driveway creek crossing. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 1. Requirement of 35* vegetative buffer/easement along bopth sides of the creek. Submittal of final driveway design prior to issuance of building permits. Driveway width subject to approval of Fire .Marshal. 7. 8 Subject to all recommendations noted in the City Engineer’s letter of 1-22-04, plus any drainage provisions deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommodate drainage from the east. Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee. Subject to the area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater being deemed as non-buildable 9. Final plat approval shall not be granted unul MCWD permits have been approved. PROPOStO SUBO»VISK)N FOR HICKORY FINE HOMES M SENN ORONO AOOtTION HCNNEPM COUNTY. MNNESOTA traw. cr wpiisca uu t a. aiMk I. c-.iui A. urn woe «oom<M OwMm ^ Im Inm Ut-tf/ • t ««MtM Mllll*' Mtlatk* •••« IM«* alMM feat*4 an -m I ./«••*«» tltt /»,,, thl« la «aaa laa kaaaaa< l«» at ll>a a^*t «#■«• Ikaa a<aa«'lr. aaa im lacaliaa al IM *a«a al aallaa* Ikaiaa*. a* aaii«aal«4 Ar alhart il «aa« Ml p^pt I la •>M pm$ allu* ai»(a««i*<iU ar aaciaackavaU. 1M4 W. ____ IM UWI, Mi TPTM. MBA I &7S ♦- MJD mrti n>v av>< • arart . /•*■••*« i«a/.A 'h l/f' ' i; >?s?« •''/ '^1/1///7 // tv-.\ ■ mrvh'w'i'M •>' l/ji Bonestroo gjg Itosene Anderlik & |\j| Associates Engineers & Architects •aotit'oo. toi«n«. and Atiactatat. me li an Atfnmalua Afiion/Cauai OpfortiAwir I*w<aaa> ana Cinaioyaa Ownad B Arinopatt Oito C d»^u<oe *1 • f I So«>a<a a» • C'd"-’* Coe* »l • a;»*.i g U-w'-xm *l • 2“*^ Ja"r A la.'don at < Mara a na^ton at taniat Contuiiann ■oea«i * aeit"* a| . ^ctaonC a»fla<t« a| « ti»«df »u*-r' »l • Wumw caa AMacaiaanncipaii arm a Qeaeori a| . ?e<)a*f t a*ti«,,i* a| . atnwe « »©«»• U •Tt.aO .ei»s<a at . M.(aar t lawtn-ann a| . Tpa a r>aid at . fmnai<*a a«eaiien at • van « #»i»i at • Oa«d • •snaufse via l.drw)fa «.a.an>ten at ti * agnrtM tng uia . anartio a| . T^emat « ••!a>ien at . jjn*ai a MAand at • aaaat • imtrt at • t anufcp *i at . o*n*< j tejaaen •! • »t • Tno<*'ai a af . inrdo" i jonrian • Oa* a o-o,« at • r»*a***» a iowi-A at . tc8»fr j 3».a>, »t January 22,2004 orricti tl P*kM Si COud •KaailV'and W una? VM*Mrwau*«« dn*Cn<>eo t dWOlil* nn*l>enritrea(a*a Mike Gaf&on Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ^4l< CIIY^. ‘iPOOi 3220/3240 Watertown Road Plat No. 04-2971 File No. 139-04-000 ON o Dear Mike, Wc have reviewed the preliminar>’ plans for the proposed two lot subdivision on the sue located at 3220 3240 Watertown Road. The prorosed use is for single-family homes. The two lots w ill be served by a single shared driveway constructed across Outlot A- The driveway to serve Lot I requires the construction of a creek crossing and culvert mstallation. The creek crossing results in some wetland impacts and mitigation will be necessary. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • The proposed culvert size appears to be acceptable however we recommend the culvert be an arch RCP so as to reduce the overall height of the structure. • The low point on the dnveway at the creek crossing should be lowered from 973.0 to 972.0 to provide adequate freeboard for the home on Lot 1 . • Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review ar i approval. • Final plans should include plan and profile views of the dnveway from Watertown Road to the proposed home site on Lot I. The finished dnveway should be paved and the plans should include a typical driveway section. Dnveway grades should not exceed 10% at any location. • Plans should include storm water treatment provisions. This might include best management practices (BMP’s) such as filter stnps, buffers, infiltrauon areas, etc. • Driveway easemenu should be in place for Lots 1 and 2 across Outlot A. • Erosion control measures should be mstalled, inspected and approved by the city pnor to any work on site. • The fire chief should review and comment on the access, particularly to Lot 2. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 tf you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 • Fax; 651*636*1311 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Pirkwiy P.O. Box 66 Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE «04-2971 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 26. 2004 TO: Steve Bohl Hickory Fine Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 815 Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: William & Roslyn Henderson 430 Wakefield Road WayTata, MN 55391 Mark Gronberg Gronberg Sc Associates 445 Wiliow Drive North Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: January 20. 2004 Planning Commiition recommended as follows: Tabled pending completion of review of recent submittals. A copy of the City Engineer ’s January 22 comment letter is enclosed. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 ACAISST As a followup to the City Engineer ’s comments, at least two weeks prior to the February 17 meeting, please provide the following; 1 . Proposed storm water treatment plan (filter strips, buffers, infiltration areas, etc.) for City Engineer review. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: PlanniDg Conunission - Tuesday, February 17, 2004; meeting slaits at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaf&on at 952-249-4600. 1>eAfpr" MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. from creeks and wetlands since the late I970's; tested sites for Lot I were accepted at less than a 7S'setback. Since the original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of “front lot/back lot” standards (Sections 78*1370 and 82>2S6), die existing lots aren't subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: • Lot I as a back lot must meet a 3 acre tmnitmim (it does); • Lot 1 is subject to 1S0% of the standard setbacks. • AcceutoLot I mustbe via a 30* driveway outlot (as proposed) • Lot 2 is subject to a SO* side street setback from the driveway outlet, rather than a 30* side setback. Gafifron lutranarized die Regulatory Impacts as follows: 1. for The 968' OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be measured this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site are: • 100* structure setback from OHWL • 75' septic setback from OHWL • no hardcover allowed within 75'of OHWL Areu below the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations. The lot dry/wet areas and the OHWL setbacks as shown by the surveyor appesr to be acceptable. Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have established boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot I, due to non-buddability of wetland and the 26' setback requirement. 4. The original approvals to construct a driveway within existing Outlot A die creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since bees adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variancea are PAGE 26 of 64 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: Portions will be within 75* of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or pading is allowed except by variance per Section 78*1286; Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring variances from die City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of that approval if not used). Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, Gaffron noted that the 1990 subdiiision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots. i.e. a shared driveway is required. Gaffron pointed out that a pnmary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has inqiactt on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the dnveway to parallel the creek within the 75' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetlandcreek crossing withm Lot 1 would ulUmately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is treasonable plan. However, in order for the (kiveway to skirt die hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shonened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance for Lot 1. As a desipi for the driveway hu not been submitted and such a design would entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, the ^iplication remains incomplete and the dnveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of S2d0 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the PAGE 27 of 64 f k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived. Since both lots drain directly to a creek which flows to Stubbs Bay. from a water quality standpoint, they function u lakeshore lots. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of stormwater runoff from eidier lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore, Gaffron maintained that Stormwater treatment provisians should be added to the plan in die form of required substantial buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at S2.700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per loL For this property. Lot 1 would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee (S10.800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres (S9.369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 should be required. With regard to septic, Gaffron noted that Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. While the proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the infonnation submitted to date, Gaffron reiterated that the lack of a requested proposed driveway and creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in determining the feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be tpproprute until that infonnation is submitted for review. He recommended that the Commission briefly review, provide comment, and then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plans. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the ipplicant had begun the process with the MCWD. Henderson indicated that this had begun. PAGE 28 of 64 ^ - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jinutry 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gary Rotler. 3280 Watertown Road, the neighbor on die west side, stated that he had a diHicult time seeing the building site on the back lot Oaffioa pointed out that the buildable site was tucked in against a 4S* setback from the uest lot line, between the creek setback and wetland. Mark Summers. 7S Crystal Creek Road, pointed out that his home fell 60* north of Watertown Road and 7S-100* west of the property and he, too. was concerned with the placement of a home on lot one. Steve Koehler, 3S Ciystal Credc Road, questioned the site on die hill, diiming that this location would be much closer to his property than the alternate home site. Henderson stated (hat the most attractive building site for any potential homeowner would be the site in the back versus the one up boat on the hill. Oaffton pomted out that the location of the septic site would likely drive where the house building site would be. He agreed that the hill side site would be difficult, u the septic lines would have to run 1 long distance and across the creek bed. While he felt this to be an unlikely building site, he noted that the applicant could feasibly build there, or agree not to build on the steep slope Hoiderson agreed, stating that the hillside location would not likely be a desirable one, and indicated that they would consider Use suggestioiL Koehler uked what the location for die outiot and setbacks for the drivxway were bemg proposed at GafGrofl stated that the outlet would be a IS’ wide drivewiy corridor that narrows. He noted thet (be driveway wu placed merely 5 ’ from the lot line and questioned whether the outlet should be wider or whether the driveway widiin the outlet oflset PAGE 29 of 64 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Summers stated that the driveway outlet was of great concern to him, since the driveway would run the entire length of his property. Although one option might include moving the driveway further west by widening the driveway, Gtffron noted that widening too much would impact the septic sites and house size. Koehler pointed out that drainage issues might also be a concern for the future homeowner as the runoff tends to move towards this site and under Watertown Road via a culvert. Gaffron thanked the neighbor for his concern, and acknowledged that the City Engineer would need to evaluate the drainage issues, and how these might impact construction. He mentioned that some buffers would be likely to manage treatment near the creek, and noted chat the applicant hopes to have these issues resolved by the February meeting. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned how the applicant would plan to cross die creek. While the City would need confirmatton from the MCWD, Gaffron stated that a 48** oval culvert with fill on eidwr side was proposed to accommodate flow. He noted that MCWD may even take the position that the applicant can’t build over the creek bed. Henderson stated that, having spoken with the MCWD, he had been led to believe that they would accept this proposal. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would End it difficult to require »dditionsl park dedication fees and stormwater trunk fees being charged to the applicant, she would defer this to the legsl department Hawn concurred. ActlBg Chair Mabusth moved, Bremer seconded, to table AppBcatiou tH)4-297], William and Roslyn Hcudersoii,/Hickory Flue Homes, 322OJ240 Wstertowu Road, a proposed Prelimliiary Subdivision and Lot Line Re-Plat pending receipt ud Oty Engineer review of PAGE 30 of 64 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondty, January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. rcqnestcd driveway aid creek crossing plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON, 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE, VARIANCE (8:43-8:53 P.M.) Robert Knuth, the Applicant, was present Curtis explained that the applicants are requesting a firont yard setback variance and a side street (right-of-way) variance to allow a porch with pergola 45.1' from the front lot line where a 50' setback is required and 35* from the street right-of-way where 50' is required and a 40' setback exists currently. Curtis pointed out that the applicants home is situated nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order to avoid encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil treatment site when the home was Tint built in 1978, the home was constructed 56.1’ from the front property line, 5' from the required 50' setback. Along the western property boundary between 2700 and 2715 White Oak Circle a continuation of the road right-of- way exists. This right-of-way is currently and indeAmtely not used as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently located 40' from this street side yard where a 50' setback is required. Due to the angle of the home on the lot, the proposed porch addiUon would extend 5 additional feet into the required side street yard. Curtis pointed out that the property is located on a cul-de-uc and the property owners wish to create a "neighborly feel" to their home with the addition of the covered front porch. Due to the close proxinuQr to the front yard setback, any modification greater than 5* off the front of the home requires a variance to front yard setback requirement. Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance and the 15 ’ street side setback variance due to the location of the existing house with relation to the front lot line with the stipulation diat the covered porch shall not be enclosed. Knuth sttted that they wished to open up the house to the neighborhood and add a front entry feel to the cunendy blank wall. He pointed out that they began speaking to neighbors about their a year ago and gained much siqipoit for the action. PAGE 31 of 64 Datt AppUnttoa iUctIvtd: 12-17<«3 Date AppUcattea Coasidtrcd as Cempitte: (lacaaplcte as af 1-14413) 12t-Day Rcvtnr Parted Eipim: 04’iU act start aotll complete appUcatioa received) Fronu Date: Subject: Giair Smith and Planning Conunissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Dimrtor January 14.2004 W4-2971 William & Roslyn HcndcrsonHickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road • Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) Zouiug District: RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. Lot Area: 9.75 Acres (7.57 ac. dry, 2.18 ac. weiland/creckbcd) Application Summary: This is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat ofproperty located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990,theCity ofOrono approved iheplatofSenn Orono Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watenown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two yean before adoption of Orono's Shorel.*md Ordinance (Zoning Code Secuon 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Mirmesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to ‘front lothack lot ’ area and setback standards which wxre also not in effect in 1990. The application is incomplete pending a gradmg plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of vananccs. It is staffs intent to review the vanances and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each other for viability. Staff Recommendation: Briefly review, proude comments, then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of request^ driveway and creek crossing plans. List of Exhibits A • Application B - Existing Plat: Senn Orono Addition C - Survey/site plan including staff sketch D - Aerial photos E - Wetland delmeation excerpts F - Septic systems information G - Plat map H • Property owners list Information requested but not submitted as of 1/14'04: - Grading plan and design for driveway and creek crossing (P04-2971 3220-3240 Waicrtowa Road JiBuary 14,2004 Page 2 Regulatory Impacti The following regulatory impacts have come into play since this property was originally subdivide in 1990: /. Shoreiand Ordinance impacts Prior to adoption of the Shorcland Ordinance in February 1992, Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at best a 26' wetland setback was likely the only setback enforced for struemres. Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had enforced a 75' septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late 1970's; tested sites for Lot 1 were accepted at less than a 75' setback. The Shoreland Ordinance established standards and conditions for Stubbs Bay Creek (AKA Classen Creek) including ‘: .■t.l and septic system setbacks from its Ordinary High Water Level (OH WL) as well as hardcover ;...;itaiions, tree removal regulations, etc. These standards have placed numerous added restrictions on de\'clopment of the Senn Orono Addition lots that were not in effect when those lots were created. The primary impact is that parts of the proposed driveway would not be allowed today. In discussions leading to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance, stafTand City Council acknowledged that many existing structures would become nonconforming, and a number of already platted lots would likewise be negatively affected. It was the intent of the City to deal with these through the variance process as each case came up. The City did not “grandfather" existing vacant lots which as a result of the Shoreland Ordinances became substandard. Development of the Seim lots, iiKluding construction of the driveway and bridge, are subject to the current regulations in effect today. //. Wetland Conservation Act (WCAi Refutations Impaett Prior to enactment of the WCA Regulations by the legislanire in 1991, the City had few guidelines for determining the boundaries of wetlands. Furthermore, the specific wetlands protected by Orono ordinances were limited to those identified in the 1974 Orono Wetland Inventory maps. While that inventory map showed substantial areas of wetland on the Senn Orono Addition property, it did not specificity identify the creek. Because the original subdivision was completed before WCA was enacted, the wetlands on the property were not delineated per today ’s standards. The City merely detennined at that time that areas below the 970' contour would be considered as wetland. However, the wetlands have now been delineated as depicted on the surv ey. Exhibit C, and generally follow the 968 ’ contour. M4.2971 3210-324I Watertown Road Jaaiiary 14,2004 Pa|c3 ///. OHWL and Ftoik^flain impacts The Zoning Code defines the OHWL for watercourses as “the elevation of the lop of the bank of the channel". It also establishes the "Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation ” (RFPE) as an elevation no less than 1.0 fool above the ‘regional flood', i.e. 1' above the 100-year floodplain elevation. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates that the Normal Water Level for the large wetland basin just to the north of the property is elevation 963.5', with the High Water Level (100-year flood level) at elevation 970.4*. The top of the Hank of the channel at the constriction area in Lot 1 is at approximate elevation 968.0', and closely matches the delineated wetland boundary. In recent discussions with the City Engineer, staff has concluded that the OHWL for setback and lot area calculation purposes for this property should be established at the wetland boundary elevation of 968'. The RFPE, i.e. the minimum floor elevation for any building, should be established at elevation 971.4’, In proposed Lot 1, it appears that neither the buildable area nor the septic sites v^ill be impacted by floodplain and OHWL elevations. However, the creek driveway crossing will likely require filling within floodplain as well as wetland. /K Front Lot/Baek Lot Impacts The original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of "ftont lot/back lot" standards (Sections 78-1370 and 82-256). The existing lots aren ’t subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: - Lot 1 as a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it does); - Lot 1 is subject to 150% of the standard setbacks (See staff sketch. Exhibit C2). • Access to Lot I must be via a 30' driveway outlot (as proposed) - Lot 2 is subject to a 50* side street setback from the driveway outlot, rather than a 30' side setback. Summary of Regulatory Impacts I. The 968’ OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be measured for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site are: - 100* stnicmre setback from OHWL • 75'septic setback from OHWL - no hardcover allowed within 75' of OHWL Areas below the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations. The lot dry/wei areas and the OHWL setbacks as shown by the sur\ cyor appear to be accepuble. M4-2971 3220-3240 Watertown Rom! January 14,2004 Page 4 Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have established boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot 1, due to non-buildability of wetland and the 26* setback requirement. The original approvals to construct a driveway within existing Outlot A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variances arc required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: a) Portions will be within 75* of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78-1286; b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring variances from the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of that approval if not us^). c) Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, note that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required. Preliminary Plat Review □ Con formity to Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan The proposed subdivision to create residential lots of two acres in area or larger conforms to the provisions of the RR-IB Zoning District and the Rural Residential guiding as established in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. Q Relationship to Surroundine Devoiopment The proposed subdivision is consistent with surrounding rural-density residential development □ Lot Layout and Lot Standards Lot area: Both lots exceed the minimum lot area standard of the RR-IB District Lot width: Lot 2 more than meets the 200* minimum width requirement. Lot I has a defined width of only lOS* at the rear of the required 7S* front yard, requiring a lot width variance. «04-2971 3220-3240 Waiertowo Road January 14,2004 faicS Setbacks: The preliminary plat dra>fcnng has been annotated by staff in Exhibit B2 to accurately depict the setbacks that would apply to this subdivision. Adequate but somewhat limited area exists within each proposed lot to allow the construction of single family midences. □ Driveway EsttMiskment: Alternatives Are Limited A primary issue for development of Lx>t 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 7S' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland creek crossing w ithin Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance for Lot 1. As an alternative, staff has suggested that access to Lot 1 be sought from the Boyer property to the west of it, avoiding any new wetland impacts or new creek crossings. How-cver, such a dhvew-ay would require the cooperation of the owners of the property to the west, which apparently is not likely to occur at this time. The potential issues wnth this alternative include; • Possible significant negative impacts to the adjacent Boyer building site by constructing a driveway through it. • City codes would require that access through Boyer be via an Outlot, requiring new approvals of preliminary plat. - City codes would require that for a level of three users, the Boyer dnveway would have to become a road, bringing significant extra costs to the table, including issues with the w idih of the wetland crossing. A further alternative that obviously does not meet the goals of the applicant, is to merely sell off the back portion of the property to an adjacent landowner as additional land, forgoing buildability north of the creek. Drivew ay and Creek Crossing Desipi. As of this writmg a design for the driveway has not been submitted. Such a design will entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review. The application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and review ed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Park Dedication A park fee of S200 was paid for the existing Lot 1 when it was created in 1990 pa the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived in since some time in the 1980s. «04-2971 3229-3240 Watertown Roid JiBaary 14.2004 Pt|ti Lot 2 as it exists is buildable. Staff would suggest that as a fonner occupied dwelling site, and based on the 1990 subdivision conclusions. Lot 2 should not be charged a park fee. Lot 1 is being re-platted to make it buildable. Should Lot 1 be charged a park fee based on today's standards, as it is technically going to become a new record lot? Or. should it be treated as ha\ing paid the park fee in 1990, and not owe anything fiirther? Stormwater and Drainase improvements Both lots drain directly to a creek which flows to Snibbs Bay. From a water quality standpoint, they function as lakeshore lots. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of stormwater runoff from either lot before it reaches the creek. Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at S2.700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot. For this property. Lot 1 would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee (S10.800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 should be required. Easement Vacation/Dedication. The proposal includes vacation of existing Drainage and Utilities Easements granted with the original Senn Orono Addition, with rededication of new easements along new lot lines, and newly described wetland casements to match the new wetland delineation. The subdivision is subject to dedication of standard Diainage &. Utility Easements along lot lines. Septic Tetting and Site Avaitabilit\> Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolierman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confimM that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. The elevation of the sites in Lot 1 is generally at least 1.5* or more above the 100 year flood elevation, and 3.5* above the delineated wetland elevation. These sites arc located or can be slightly tweaked as necessary to mec» the required 75* setback from the OHWL and other required setbacks. Other Shoreland Standards The slope near the south end of Lot 1 averages 29% at its steepest point, and therefore is not considered a bluff. Tree removal (6" diameter or greater) within 75' of the creek is prohibited unless permits are granted; the creek crossing may require tree removals which need to be reviewed once a plan is submitted. As previously noted, hardcover and other variances will be required for the creek crossing. M4.2971 3220-3240 WatcnowB Road JMuary 14,2004 FafcT IFirtigudlf A Conservation and Flowage Easement will be required over the delineated wetlands on the property. Summary ofluues for Dbcufsioa 1. Width variance for Lx)t 1 - hardship is site topography. 2. Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75* of OH>\' and for fill in wetland and floodplain - plans needed for re\ncw. 3. Paric fee for Lot 1 • did it meet its obligation in 1990, or is this creation of a new buildable site subject to current park fee...? 4. 5. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee - payable only for l ot 1 ? Establishment ofbuffers along creek for stormwater management • should any other specific conditions apply to protect the creek? Has applicant contacted MCWD regarding their permitting process? Any early indications regarding approval of creek crossing? Other issues? Staff Recommendation The proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the information submitted to date. However, the lack of requested proposed driveway and creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in detcrminiig the feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be appropriate until that information is submitted for review. MHm MtHM FreXlTY « QUO MQi p.iii/ait p-za A Aiwlkitfon# r>y-^<V7/ DateKtcthtd /:^-7? 0’^ AawuntPald ^,eo ^*-o CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION AFFUCATION pROFEirry location silt addrtn Propaty Idtptificttkp Nuabtr (PIP). _________ PImk check eat •Propeny____absnctor ____tocrcas? Attach kfU docripiioa to ipplkatmi. APPUCANT Kmc VAvcW Vic/w^\ X h r Addim i^/rpteatfhemtl City Tjd Phontfworkl V?*// OWNER (if iOSm dm NipUcaDt) Kmc CLrc»jii #s ^ ^<Mw— Cl »f ^ I ]\A - C^. (attKh liti if moic ihia ooe) Phooiftome^ </o <f ^'ic .Phone (wock)________ Ntfflibar of Tax Parcels Development Siza '7.S7 Acta Dry Land 2.f8 Aoes Wet Land S Acics Total, all paicals Residential; no. of unitsPrescni use (check)X Other (anceify) PiciCBt Zoning Diibict PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes ^ - Lot Line Rearraagemciu Only (no new boildlinf sites) ________ Subdivifton for New Building Sites Number of Buikliiif Sites __i.__Exiitin| Units JZ:__New Units _D__Total Units Proposed Gross Density Ml^um Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^___Uaiu PCT^-75 Acres P7./10 Sq. Ft Dry Buildable Land X Residential _____Other (iPcciM #2971 \ DK^tfci M:oifi •imiMii H3I MIt/Dll P-t4J MCOMUM MAiniAL IIQUIID fcm COMPIXn miiMDiAKy AFIUCATICNC 1. yi)WWHffcM(i»fcf»*iwKiTrinifcM'llwidbtto^X 2. C«ipli S. ruUaiMqrplMi «. CttiMFiepK^OramLittoff Oo«tC 5. AiMidtedkai^i|vi>eMiM.pkMe«Kk»i4nttlist9rByMberpma8spov{ihBetifirjgr^9paate. Za>i»Ottriift lioiBai „ , - - Dv ____________________ ofSamy. wito35(r(ygBaMtcft>fattiiHiifaBiH«aip<HCcc3!yDcp <faa««ofyi 412.30.J271V 3*f> <TV /o n » MnlieMioa, BkMe MKk » Muntt III A403 MCdMUM MATOUAL IZQVniD roft COKPLtn FINAL ATTUCAnON 1. PiyBnK«rfta(icftrn?itUariMtyS«b«viiioaAppfovi!teMk(i0B«^MkCHiirM9Be^). 2. Si^CMflcaBefSuvcyoroQftecopksoftasalptat J. TW«( ‘ ‘ 4. fi 5.MdLiBBrerCndiL ZoBi^Oactaft«^Mt. L AFFUCAT10WFXI8(ZooiagAdmioit>MDrlo check [XI ttoif which ippty) A. AFFVcatfwBMefMf: ■ Sknch Plea Review (Cteu 1.0 A DDt275M __ ShbdtviaiOBefi Let Line R«BnBanBnt|3SO.OO S«b4ivis»i ApphoAoB (Qua IA 0) S400.00 PnhBiBvy SiibdivlilM AppUcaiM $400.00 ♦ SM.OQ10I (Out m A aC acc-roideatiO FioalPlai AppUc«i«(Clau ID} S250.00 _____Legal Revlaw and FUar _____SubdMsioe oaly SlOO.00 Rabdiviaiaa w/iaicaratt aad eovtaaaa tin, taofl flfl - PaikFcca(B be datenaiaad par SactioB 13*227) _____Lagri aad ffngiawrint Review raaa(aalacBntd) _____RaBCwaloraaaalMdnSabdiviiioaAppUeatioBt200.00(Noduagefeemori|lBaIappUe3tioa) __ Reoa«alerClaaam.?ireliBai»ySBbdMiioaApplicadoaS2OO.OO(Nocfaaa|afrom0n|siIa8pIictdoo) _ RcBewdorFiaaiaauinSubdivlaioaApplicatiaaSISO.OO(Noeh^&aaarigiaal^kadoB) _____Pt^eMdFuMkRoadiS9JO.00-»^S.50/liaeilft;_____ULRaJOwf - Ra^icitfiirClQrioAeoapibdatiag Pima Read S9S0M ___ PropoacdSaaiaiy Sewer lifaiaExaKnoBS27S4)OtS25/taib PrapeacdWaaeBBaiatneBaiaBU73.00vS2S/NBb PrepeaedS«aBSawarS>ttn(adadiagcah«ta}t230.00 *y Oa-Sha Syaaaav Sto E^wlaadoa Review (applicable lo nualfBhdiviiiao ipp'Jcadeai) SdO.OOfgae lot B aaw kaa C. flnlble AgpVeatiaa FaaaAfiac Paaa _____Variaact S250.00 (130.00 pat aart addiBcaal vaiiaaea) _____EaaeaaaiVacaflflBAnodaiBdwiASnbdiviaka $100.00 FRD AppUcad80wiASabdiviaioeS33.0(VDweUaBgUBit The applicaat hereby a^ la provide an mteaadoa reqiaixvd or requend by Ae Zoo8« A^aitsasz. Coy Eastaecr. City Awsey Pl^^CaiBmiuioa aad Cap^ aenaAi^B proem due applieatioa aad ftiite a^ 10 pay a3 aUidoaal tea ceabUiked by (J //■>/> »_________AppUcaaCs Siptaam, Ownert Sipaatft_Dm. PjsafagCaoBxaBieBoeetan erekeldooAeAMMfiodayereacbffleadL AppbgeaBaiatbepweataanacbedttladiwkwMaaapef AePlaaaiMCBBai«x)i aadCeuaca tf.yi—nakrarrangi nmfitiTtiaTtar i-*ioTtm1«t-^»*~«Tir“* place and ea adviM iha Boildiag A Zeeaf Office of Aia cheage pria to (be 'Z ? W ' 4 • o o A • ■ ' h cmroroBONO Moaldpd Office Jamaiy7.2004 S»wt Miriii, 2750 Win Pvlaray Om m 55356 MtaflMrus: ro 6a 66 Cnfstai Bn. MN 55373-CC66 Steve Bohl Hickocy Fine Homes P.O.Box 813 LoogU)ce.MNSS3S6 DetrKlr.Bohl: REQUEST FOR FURTHER DiFORVUTIO.N Zoning AppOcation M04<2971 The City of Orono is required to noniy you uithm fifteen (IS) business days as to the status of your application for subdivision of the property located at 3220-3240 Wateitovm Rc^ Below ts a list of items the City of Orono is requesting in order to coisplete our review: o Copies of on-site se«*age treatment system testing and design reports for each lot. y o Copy of the complete wetland delineation report for the property. o Griding plan and driveway design for driveway in Outlet A and Lot I, includmg engineered design for proposed creek crossing. o Indication of proposed house locations (show on the survey). /f ^ (t»9T Drainage calculations a.nd information to indicate the OHWL of the creek and 2-year. 10- year and 100-year flood elexadons within Lots 1 and 2. SufTicicnt information must be presented to confirm the extent of potential inqiacts to the septic systems on Lota 1 and 2, and to establish minimum floor elevations for structures to be placed on those Lots. Application #04-2971 is incomplete. Please si:bmit the items requested above by Monday. January 12.2004 to remain on the January 20.2004 Planning Commission agenda. Absent timely submittal of all miy requested, this item will be renewed as a sketch plan for the January 20 meeting to merely identify potential issues, with more detailed reiiew as information is submitted. Please call me at (952) 249^1600 if you have any quesnons. Sincerely. Michael P. Gaflron Planning Director cc: William dt Roslyn Henderson Gronberg & Associates TdephoM (9S2) 249-46M • Fax (952) 249-4<li wwir.cLonmJBs.as PHOPOSED SUBOMSXM FOR HICKORY FINE HOMES N SOM ORONO ADDITION HENNEPM COUNTY. MMCSOTA -L itw, Boonwii m mutut ■ UU » 1. «. *. tm hmm C*t ta« ■ . «Ml*» ttlilia* •!**•. ky ««>«• wt kM^ *•'<»" tkli awky lalaMkarTS.xis.r^j;/i££ri;-«aa<r(ka« »«aa««ly. a<*< Ik* i*(*mm iaa«*wi. aa #aiia**la* ky alk#«# M ^a r** *«•!*. Mi*ia.*»a«la •• aoMiaaawiMa TSTM. muk t%n*-»a tSIM. oav MD I 7MH- yi\i%mJ\ rymkk4 =>l3LL -■'M WATElfrOWN RbAD y (t pj O IfVj mm K-;-;.'. --'i k-- , •»: ■ ■: -\ . r^ .)idjs!r. /r/.v 'A -V 'mm. Piliw^-mmwmmm -i'-f' - S»S«:S^l3s MM b! ^'v‘-!^W^m i'v • ’ ' ■>5.;-iS. l‘. ^a ,. s ;-;-.w' P ' • V *>. •>| y.i -' ■' * H^ig' ■ •■ [‘ ■"it; ■ <-r-'^ *v V ” .‘ ...... mm III ■ ;W^' f^- IP IWrl-^lriilartt^ 1mm i ■'' <‘ ■. ■_ i'lsa |W7| M'-,. r;^1 ihm ~ .M -- ■ ^ "^1 i f ■' V m /m ■^mi-: W9.i ktL " p- j V V'^ ^P4>^^'--1^ -K r' ■ Mr* .'tp; 1; ‘.1« ^' -p*" ly.. BBIbl ';:ir^-. r ' / /a . r \'4^ •»»^:>r iA* -K*.'■-'•a-i5 ■ < '’■•i'>. 2 I lil^^ ■ ;• ||sSHdf'‘ / 'A ii t5 ■Kw^f j -* i)w-■ ‘’ "• • -■'/ A/-.'•> • V-*^^ ^•>7Jirtr-, Lcr * - ‘ '- V HT Z-IT:*-v ■■■ t' - A -. as^. " ’'~!b.j^- i; ■v^. : I ^mm if ;. -' . . ,.. &■» .y;?W >'v'>- .,w. Af - '^■l K\A ;>i ,‘.*.T y/ "ri . \ • *8-; rv' ■. '• ii 1c r y ij vr'‘ n : ■ ■ .»■ X ' v> ^r V ##■■ -x-'* •x., -*‘/ . ■■<. •■ .j. •■*«:;■ VfH' ' • ■ ,!■ -’/ rV-- ' ' ‘''V4-- '■' y ‘ • :yy '5^' ■-.X P ,'V y ;■ ..; f’if' i,..-\ ■■ . i#-'y - • ^v 'tT ’' .• - ‘-t'i'>a^ ■R~-v. ■ -Vi SBgea^^5fe£^ 9 r'K IK'^' '{•Mi;-‘: ‘'f:Q l^gE“4%v' kir.,'C'^2 _r t- .'^ yo 7^ / xr;- y-' ■‘ A’’ '* ___♦>? «7r •ii* JglMC.Aadmi SPlfWlrttlUMd >ttiiwpnlH.MN 55416 EaiirolMiti^Iiic. 952344.1761 Fn: 952393.9546 e-nail: by*k#p^6ifyMi hBp://www.prauwy/cavjrodiu/ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELIENATION FOR COLDWELL BANKERS PROJECT IN ORONO, MN Wetlaod Ddineations • Inventories • Penniu • MitignUoo ____________________________________________________________________________________..j I WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR COLDWELL BANKERS PROJECTIN ORONO.MN John Andenon, EnviroDita, Inc. Sl Louis Park, MN delineated and documented a ivetlaad boun^ on the sulgcct propeity on 1st, 2003 at the request of George Stickney. This iqmft provides infinmndon as to the ^minant wettand chanctchstics at the site as requested by the applicani, LOCATION Southeast 'A, Southeast Section 32 Township 118, Range 23 METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1987). The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified accordi^ to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1956) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitant of the United Slates (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31* Cowardin et. Al. 1979). CHARCTERISTICS OF SITES INVESTIGATED Checksite A.I.a This is a Type 1 (PEMl Ah) zone of Type 4 (PUBFh) wetland. Dominant species are American Elm (FACW+), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), and Wild Black Currant (FACW). Soils arc Marsh, a wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is present The site is ponded. Checksite A l b This is a non-wclland checksite. Dominant species arc Box Elder (F ACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-) and Bugle (UPL). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Sur&ce hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. CWkrirg A n.a This is a Type 3 (PEMlCd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Sedge (OBL). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Wetlmid hydrology is present The site is saturated within one-foot of surfke and In a wetland drainage pattern. id id ids d d d d d d d # # # 0 0 0 f f » I I » I llasisaoon-weCbipdcliecksite. Dominaat species afeCofnaion Buckthorn (FAC*)« Reed Canary Grass (FACW>t>X Scdee (OBL). and Fowl Meadow Grass (FACW*^). SoUs are Lester, a noo-wcdand soiL Surftoe hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or satunled widiin one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. ChwtoifT Hus is a Type 3 (PEMlCd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW-^). Soils are Marah, a wetland soiL Wetland hydrology is present The site is ponded and in a wetland dniiMige pattern. Checksite GJJ> This is a Type 7 (PEMlBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthocn (FAC-). Virgima Waterieaf (FACW-), WUd Black Currant ^ACW) and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surfoce and in a wetland drainage pattern. Chgfitaiti? GJ»g This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW-t-). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.l .d This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Caiuuy Grass (FACW-f). Soils are Lester, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.n.a This is a Type 7 (PEM1 Bd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Gray Dogwood (FACW-), Sedge (FAC to OBL) Tall Goldenrod (FACU). Soils arc Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surface and in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.ll .b This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), American Elm (FACW-X Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Tall (joldenrod (FACU) and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils are Lester, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. ThiliJtTVpe 7 (PEMlCd) wetland checksile. Dominant ipecie* at Green A« (FACWXRaed Canary Grass (FACW+), and Sedge (FAC to OBL). SoOi are Glencoe, a wedandsoU. Surfin* hydrology is evid^ as site if ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. fi-in -b This is a non-wcllaid checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Common (FAC-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surftce hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated widiin one foot of the surfime or in a wetland drainage padem. This is a Type 7 (PFOIB) wetland diecksiie. Dominant specks are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Gray Dogwood (FACW-). and Wild Black Currant (FACW). SoiU am Glencoe, a wetland soil Surftce hydrology U evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. This is a non-wetland checksite. Domiiumt species are Green Ash (FACW), Box Elder (FACW) and Gray Dogwood (FACW-). Soils arc Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. l^^ite H.n.a This is a Type 7 (PFOIC) wetland checksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Sedge (FAC to OBL), and M om (FAC to OBL). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. Oiecksitg H-ll.b This is a Type 1 (PFOI A) wetland checksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW), Black Ash (FACW+), Common Budclhoro (FAC-), Sedge (FAC to OBL). and Moss (FAC to OBL). Soils arc Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. ChwKittf HJ1«£ ^ ^ .•/-This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. TOibanoBiwrtinddiedBile. DinmiiMnti|tericiiwOw«AA(FACV),Oiy Dogwood (FACW-).iDdCeaBBoaBuGklfaani(FAC-). SoilstreKimd,aw^Biu«>iI. Statee fayMogy b Boc evident, ts the b not flooded, pooded, or ticuratod within ooe foot of the mftoe or in a wetland draioage patteni. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Idalineaiedtwojiirii^ctioiial wetland atesa within the pcopeny boundaries. One wedwid area Iws flow-duough hydrology and b dominased in its center by Reed Canary Oiasa and open water. The northern wetland be swamp that bdoninaied by Green Aih, Black Ash, nd Black Willow. I apprecUte the opportunity to present ihb assessment ■ Sincerely, fy EnviioData, Inc. Professional Wetland Scientist (SWS, #0001065) Certified Mapping Scientist Rc^te Sensing (ASPRS, #RS127) La. % egsKiva rac Ml. : FfW to. : «'*3 ^ UKC. At mmt i OftB. i« ama ia:4iM5 « ■■(9,1 F-i .-.-Ut*i ..... //'V/.' /A // / >r •//i / /t I • I• • RUNOAICilMiaOl 31 04II71JI10003 tOTAOM Sm WATEmOWNRO WNERNAMB TCIUTTCRRKSIlfmR OPAYER THOMAS CRKAtUS RITTER AME/AOOR JIM WATERTOWN RD LONOLAXEMN S51M HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST MCE: I 11 MII72123000T ntOPADOR 25 CYCNETPL OWNER NAME OCR A LSHAUOHNESSV TAXPAYER DAVID R ANN SlUUQHNESSY NAME/AOOR MCYCNETFL LONOLAKEMN SS1S6 II M1I7»2200M PROPAOOR IS CYGNETPL OWNERNAME KTKROLCZVKRM AKROLCZYK TAXPAYER KEVIN RMICHEURROtCZYK NAME/ADOR iSCYGNETPL UONGLAKEMN SSISI IS 03II72JIIOOOI ROPAOOR SMS WATERTOWN RD WNERNAME CRARNAME AXPAVER CARL P RHAME J34S WATERTOWN ROAD LONOLAKEMN SSSSA IS MII721IIOOOS PROPAOOR tS LEAFST OWNERNAME ECGRAHAMIR TAXPAYER ECORAMAMIR NAME/AOOR M LEAF ST LONOLAKEMN SS1S6 J1 S2IIB2S440002 PROPAOOR 3210 WATERTOWNRD OWNERNAME OLROLLERRCJROLLER TAXPAYER CARYL ROLLER NAME/AOOR J210 WATERTOWN RO LONOLAKEMN 3SSSS II S2III2S44000S ROP ADOR S2I0 WATERTOWN RD WNERNAME OLROLLERRCiROLLER AXPAYER OARYLROLLER AME/ADOR J2IO WATERTOWN RO LONOLAKEMN SS1S6 in ROPAUUH SIS OLOCRVSIAI.IIAVMON WNliKNAME CnYOPINlONO AXPAYEK HTYOFORONO AME/ADDR POBOXM CKYSTALBAYMN 35J2S JS 3SIIUSSS0004 ROPAOOR I S3 CRYSTAL CREEK RO WNERNAME JARLOOOOWALO AXPAYER JERRY A LORRAINE OOODWALO VAME/ADDR I» CRYSTAL CREEK RD IONOLAKP.MN S3S3A SI JSIII2SSJOOI2 ROPAOOR SS ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO •WNERNAME CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS AXPAYER CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNEKS (AME/ADOR OO STEVE KOEHLER U CRYSTAL CREBCRO ORONOMN SS3S6 SS J2III234400I2 PROP ADOR 3240 WATERTOWN RO OWNERNAME W HENDERSON A R L HENDERSON TAXPAYER WILUAM A ROSLYN I. HENDERSON NAME/AOOR 4J0 WAREJItliJ RD WAYZATAMN SS39I IN CROP ADDK 33 CRYSTAL CREEK HO OWNI.K NAME S M K(H IIIJ H A A TKOMII I.R TAXPAYER STEVEN A ANNE KOEHLER NAME/AOOR 35 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN S33SA 31 33III23JX»0S PROP ADOR 163 CRYSTAL CREEK RD OWNERNAME RL MELAMED IRAK A MELAMEO TAXPAYER KIMBERLY A ROBERT MELAMEO JR NAME/ADOR 165CRYSTALCREEK RD LONOLAKEMN S5J36 31 32IIS234inM>«*«2. PROP AODR 3S20 WATERTOWN RD OWNERNAME BOYERRUROINaCORPORATION TAXPAYER BOYER BUILfMNO CORPORATION NAME/ADOR IU79 MINNETONKA BLVO DEEPHAVENMN S539I JS 32IIS2J4400I3 PROPADDR 3220 WATERTOWN RD OWNERNAME W HENDERSON A R L HENDERSON TAXPAYER WILLIAM A ROSLYN HFNTMIRSON NAME/AOOR 430 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATAMN SS39I tR l.llIRnUlRHIl PROP ADOR 75 CRYSTAL CREEK RD UWNI'K NAME MARK A A UURA U SUMMERS TAXPAYER MARK A A UURAD SUMMERS NAME/ADDR 75 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN SS3S6 JS 33IIU5550006 PROP ADDR 175 CRYSTAL CREEK RO OWNERNAME CHRJSPAUL/IULIEPAULETAL TAXPAYER CHRIS PAUL A lUUE PAUL NAME/ADOR 175 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONOLAKEMN SSJS6 %to CO •3 1 ite am V* tbh Suoi — — —VMMOAVUV AVfeKTw»'V M Miinmoooj TMOMAS C * KAUJ i IITTEB lltSWATOlTOWNIIO LOMOLAKCMN S»M M osimjiioeoi CAiLMUtAMi )2«S WATfUTOWM ROAO LONOIAKCMN SUM SI S3lltUA4000J OARVLROtUX J2IOWATnTOWNIU> LONOLAKEMN SSSM M JSIItUMOOOS cmrorcMONO POtOXM CRYSTALIAYMN SS323 St 33III2SSS0004 JEMYA LOfUUINEOOOOWALO ISSCtYSTAl CUEKRO LONOLAKEMN SSSM St JSIItUJSOOIS CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS OO STEVE KOCHLEK SS CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN SSSM •MisaANI/W St 0411723220007 OAVma ANN SHAUOHNES8Y 2S CYGNET PL LONOLAKEMN SS3S0 SO 04II73S220QOO KEVIN * RUCHEU KROtCZYK OS CYGNET EL LONOLAKEMN S5S50 SI 0SII72SII000S ECCRAHAMJR 03 LEAF ST LONOLAKEMN SSSSO SI SSIII2S44000S CARYL ROLLER S2I0 WATERTOWN RD LONOLAKEMN SSSSO SI S2III2S4400I2 WILLIAM * ROSLYN L HENDERSON 430 WAKEFIELD RO WAYZATAMN SSS9I SI 3311123440013 william a ROSLYN H£7<0£RSON 430 WAKEFIELD RO WAYZATAMN SSSfl SI 3311123330002 STEVEN A ANNE KOEHLER 33 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN SSSSO 31 SSIII2S330003 MARK A A LAURA DSUMMERS 73 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN SSSSO 31 33III233SOOQS KIMBERLY A ROBERT MELAMED SR lOS CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONOLAKEMN SSSSO SI SSIII2SSS0006 CHRIS PAUL A JLA.1E PAUL I7S CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONOLAKEMN SSSS4 SI 32III3S4IOOO10C«Z. BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 11379 MINNETONKA BLVD DEEPHAVENMN SS39I AKlAV-OD^Ot-L NMOVllAArMMM •MIS UTMNU/mav •hohluarm < v^ PROPOSED SUBOfVISJON FOR HICKORY FINE HOMES M SENN ORONO AODITiON HENNEPW COUNTY. MNNESOTA UCM. W<Oil»tl»« or WQM»» ; i«U I aM >. •••€» I. flat 1*1 *. ** «*>C —1 BmIm caatar •« tra<a CMf ma* -tfl • I «anaUi aalatlaf a«tlaa«a tiaka. kr alkara ••aflaaa akaaa art kaaa4 aata a« a«»tf«a4 aalim -• I «**»«»r» ».V< fr»tt Ikla t«r«a» Ulaaat la aHaa Ika kavatarlat al Ika akara aatirlkaa araaarta. aM Ika lacaliaa al Ika akfa ai aallaaa Ikaraaa. a* taliakalaa kr alkara t| aM> aal pmtptt la akaa aay alkar ta^raraiaala ar aacraa maaala. r» at'ara<*Mata, vtaaat #• a«t*r M.A ] kl__ •M-2f74 StoMtey M«rh«lpUct Ftbriwy 13.2M4 LbC of Exhibits A • Revised Site Plans: Version 14 (North lot is retail) Version IS (North lot is bank) B • February S. 2004 Traiumittal Letter from John Trautz February 2. 2004 Letter from John Hasster of John Terrance Homes Notice of Planning Commission Action 1-26*04 Notice of 60-Day Extension 2-13-04 Subminal • Houn of Operation. Number of Employees Lists of B-1 and B-6 Allowed Uses Memo and Exhibiu of 1-16-04 Status of Review Process This item was initially presented Planning Commission review and a public hearing at the January 20 tegular PC meeting, the applic .. .<»h.‘v? also made presentations to the Planning Commission on January 7 and February 11. Staff has me. ; .m the applicants on multiple occasions to discuss the site planning aspects of the proposal, m jst - y on February 2, including the City Engineers Tom Kellogg (general site engineering) and She'l. .faffic) as well as Planning Consultant Phil Carlson. From the petspective of sric circi' vn an^layout, the numerous revisions to date have resulted in a plan that IS neanng acceptability for the piopivsed uses and sizes/shapes of buildings. However. Planning Commission on January 20 expressed concerns about the fundamental issue of revising the Comprehensive Plan to allow for retail as the primary use of Gudoc A. rather than the current CMP guideplan status of retail only as ancillary to a primary office use of the site. To allow for additional discussion of this issue. Counal members were invited to attend the February 11 work session. Three of the four facets of the application air subject to the 60-day review penod established by statute. The review period expiration date has been extended (See Exhibit E) an additional 60 days to April 15. 2(X>4. based on the tabling by Planning Commission and the anticipated future meeting schedule. Planning Commission does need to reach a conclusion regarding a recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment. Rezoning and Commercial Site Plan Review issues within a time frame that allows for Council action to approve or deny t e proposal. #04.2f74 tioaibiy MariMplKC Ptbnun'13.2M4 Pati3or( Comp PUn Amendment The Comp Plan Amendment is subject to Met Council approval. Met Council procedures automatically subject the amendment to review and comment by adjoining municipalities, including Long Lake. I w ould encourage Planning Commissioners to again read die Comp Plan amendment comments included in the January 16 memo which address the basis for this minor change, and consider whether this change significantly alters the intent of the City in terms of commercial development along Highway 12 as indicated in CMP Pages 3B-37 thru 3B40 (Exhibit Fof that memo). Staff feels it jj merely a minor change, in that all of the properties between Willow Dn ve andOId Crystal Bay Road, save for this comer Outlot. will be developed for office uses as currently guided. Commercial Site PUn Review, Conformity lo Standards City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City's planning consultant. Phil Carlson of DSU. Inc., have previously comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan, and many of their suggestions have been incorporated in revisions to the plan. Please direct your attention to Exhibits A-1 and A-2. the most current site plan versions provided for initial review at your February 11 work session Staff would make the following comments regarding the current site plan (Versions U and 15): 1. We are in receipt of a letter of request from John Hassicr of John Tcnrance Homes (developer of the residential portion of Stonebay) that the City dqI re-onent the storefronts and pnmary parking toward Kelley Parkway, as that will have negative impacts to the Stonebay residential developmenL Rather, they would prefer substantial landscaping facing Kelley Parkway, which is a strong element of the current site plans. 2. Staff has suggested that the Walgreen’s mam entry be shifted to the southwest side of the building, to perhaps create a focus toward the center of the site rather than the Willow/12 mteiscaion. The developer has indicated that Walgreens is adamant in orienting the entry to the signalized intersection. 'There are pro's and con ’s to a souihw cst orientation. Staffs goal w as to have the main vehicle ingress point lo the site not be at the back of buildings. However, the addition of substantia) landscaping, the re-positioningof interior driveway access locations, and the 4-sided high-quality design of the buildings should eliminate concerns that entry to the site is the 'ugly' side of the buildings. Addiuonally, it is clear that if Walgreens were to re-orient i w entry lo the southwest, it will require parking directly west of the building, which will cause significant traffic circulation issues directly at the Kelley Parkway access. As it is currently designed, incoming vehicles can proceed straight ahead between the Walgreens and retail building without conflicts with parking stalls, andean alternatively turn left to go to the bank, or straight and to the right lo the coffee shop drive-thru. r MM-2f74 StOMlMyMirkctpbce FtbnurylS.2004 Pifi4or« 3. The Waigreen's service area (trash enclosure, loailing dock area, etc) on the west side of the building has been provided with beefed screening as compared to earlier plans. Use of primarily coniferous trees in this area would allow for substantial winter screening. 4. The coffee shop drive-thru at the west end of the retail building still can be improved. Staff would recommend the following: A) Eliminate the inbound (southbound) lane at the west end of the site. Have the westerly Kelley Parkway access point as 'out only'. Ingress from this location has linle value to the overall site circulation. B) This will then leave approximately 12'of additional space in which the exit from the dnve- thru can be extended to a 90-degree angle, allowing drive-thru traffic to exit north rather than south. It may also be necessary to reduce the length of the building by 1 S'-18' to accomplish this. However.staff is quiteconcemedaboutthecunentla>out pointing drive- thru exiters into an oncoming lane at a 45-degree angle. C) The removal of the southbound lane also will allow for additional green space and patio space at the west end of the building overlooking the pond area.. 5. In general, save for the above comments, site access and circulation has been refined to a point that staff is generally satisfied with the current plans. Pedestrian access has also been revised to provide for reasonable and safe access and circulation throughout the site. Minor refinements may >et occur with the suggested traffic circulation changes. 6- Required Parking. The two current plans differ slightly in parking requirements: • Plan 14 (retail on north site) requites a total of 172 stalls per Orono code, and 146 are provided, a shortage of 26 stalls. - Plan 15 (bank on north site) also requires a total of 172 stalls, but only 140 air provided. The plan reviewed by Planning Commission in January required 172 stalls and provided 167, a shortage of only 5 stalls. City Traffic Consultant Sheldon Johnson will be asked to comment on the need for the full complement of parking. 7. IJghting. Signage. Planning Commission should review again the site signage plan (Sheets A5.1 andSN-1 of the January 16 memo) and determine whether it needs further refinement. Also review the building signage as depicted on the elevation views and in Sheet C2.2. It would be staff s intent that adefined signage criteria document be drafted to regulate ongoing signage on the site. r •M-3174 Sta«bvM«talpbct FiknMryl3.2l»« r^ioC* Stiff and applicants have spent a great deal of time refining the site circulation and layout The current site plans are very nearly acceptable in terms of the currently proposed uses. The ancillary plans Gighting, landscaping, signage, etc.) have been subject to only minor change as the site plan has evolved. Smunary of luucs to Address 1. Does Planning Cocnmission conclude that the Comp Plan Amendment is appropriate as presented, with the proposed change to allow phmanly retail uses? If not, what aspects of it are inappropriate? What if anything, might be changed to make it acceptable? 2. Regarding the proposed rezoning to B6-PUD, are there any specific inclusions or exclusions Planning Commisssion would choose to apply in terms of allowable uses? Applicants have requested that allowable uses include those allowed in the B6 district plus retail uses allowed in B-1 (See Exhibit G). 3. Regarding the site plan review, please identify any concerns regarding each of the followingtopics: 1. Site layout and orientation 2. Traffic circulation 3. Pedestrian circulation 4. Building design, materials, colors, etc 5. Site signage, building signage 6. Lighting 7. Landscaping 8. Site amenities 9. Any other issues of importaiK e Options for Action Given that staffhas not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the fine details of the most recent plan versions, staff would preferthat the PlanningCommission spend substantial time on the site plan review to identify any issues remaining, reach a conclusion on the Ct»np Plan Amendment and Rezoning issues, and again table to your March meeting for a final site plan review and recommendations. If you wish to act on the Comp Plan amendment to allow it to proceed to City Council and through the Met Council process, that w ould be an option. HIGHWAY 12 A- IPAJUdNC SUMMARYI ■ >■< MSM Mftkt • «; 1*1 »— IM«• •• • M *#*• mmm ■1 ■# r^ti ?jt rr, v^Liajr.!:^ iiuj;::- - y»> ••r*m W «n »«MM N »m»«n K*ti w rt REVISED SITE PLAN-1- LANDffOBM STONEDAY MARRETfLAC pc-IV’ \ ! j !l • „„.y------------------^ I HIGHWAY 12 BPAioaiio suimaTi M m mmm £H^:s?------ Si&^-------- tmimm 0km mm• •« •mm •mmm mm wwjpy 53 ••Tfm m ■■* tiu* M«* !•• M mm u <mm hrl_K4U ■ net REVISED SITE PLAN-15 STONEDAY MARKETflACE REOSOe Reliance Development Company February S. 2004 Mr. Mike OafTron City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Oronok MN 55323 R£: Stonebey Site Plan Dear Mike. Landform has lent over to you with this letter the revised site plan for Stonebay Marketplace thtt we prepared after hearing your comments at our last work session. There were two thinp we did a bit diffetenlly and I wanted to have a chance to explain them to you. First, for the bank/officeAreUil building on Lot I (north of Walgreen't). we had discussed angled parking and a one-wray driveway along the front of the building. Our site plan shows 90 degree parking and two way traffic. I would like to propose that we try it this way. Our strong belief is that very few can will be turning right from Willow Drive and then right again into Lot 1. The traffic conflicts would be minimal. If there was a problem, we would restripe the lot for angled parking, narrow down the “throat" of the driveway and install signage to indicate the driveway is one-way. The decision to make that change could rest solely with the City of Orono. We would also be willing to escrow funds to ensure the work would be done when you requested it. Second, rather than flip-flop the tnsh enclosure area we added additional screening on the wjst side of the building. If we flip-flopped that area, the trash compacter would end up ^jac«t to the pharmacy area. We can ’t move the pharmacy area because of the location of the drive thro. It’s all interconnected. We thought the best course would be to try and accomplish the goal of hiding the trash enclosure area by moving the driveway ofTof Kellv to the west and adding additional screening. 1 look forward to your comments. Sinaerely. Reliance Development Company. LLP. 1000 Rand Tower S27 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis, MN S5402-1327 Telephone (612)338-1000 Facsimile (612) 338-8971 Stone^^C »»oor,,, 'B SSJS* February 2.2004 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2780 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mike. It has come to my attention that there is a push on the City’s part to te-onent the development in Outlet A to the residential neighborhood. We are very concerned about the affect this will have on the residents and our ability to market homes adjacent to Outiot A. The plan as currently proposed by Reliance has been well received by our buyers. They see it as providing services that will make their lives more convenient. They like the fact that they can walk, when they chose, to the businesses that will locate there. While some residents will take advantage of the sidewalk and trail access many will use their cars especially this time of year. We doubt that by turning the development towards the neighborhood any additional residents will be inclined to walk to the center. However, by turning the orientation a riumber of our residents will be impacted by more light, parked cars, store fronts, signs and less landscaping. We strongly prefer the backs of nicely designed and finished buildings with a significant landscape buffer to store fronts. We encourage you to hold to high standards for trail connectivity, architectural design and landscaping. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. JOHN TERRANCE HOMES John Hassler Vice President CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdky PMkway P.O. Box M Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4500 ZONING nLE #04«2974 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 26. 2004 TO: John TrauU Reliance Developmeni Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis. MN 5M02-1327 COPIES: Vicki Van Dell Landform 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue Nonh Minneapolis. MK 55403 TYPE OF APPLICATION:1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: January 20. 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion to table all aspects of the application, to allow applicants to meet with City stai'f and consultants to work through the variety of identiHed site plan issues This item will be placed on the PC Work Session agenda (tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 4 at 5:30 p m., but could move to Feb. II) for review of a revised site plan. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meetings are confirmed as: 1) Planning Conunissioa Work Session • Wednesday, February 4,2004; meeting starts at 5:30 p.m. 2) Planning Commissioa - Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - Meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commissioa minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffnm at 952-249-4600. r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55325 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE #04-2974 60-Day Extension Notice DATE OF NOTICE: February 13. 2004 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE TO;John Trauiz Reliance Development Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower S27 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis. MN 55402-1327 COPIES: Vicki Van Dell Landform 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis. MN 55403 TYPE OF APPLICATION;1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requesU within 60 da>s from the dale of application, and that this review period may be extended by noUncation to the applicant Your application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezoning and Commercial Site Plan Review was received on Dumber 17, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on February 15,2004. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the February 17, 2004 meeting, the earliest potential date of Hnal Council action faUs after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby exUnded an additional 60 daya to April 15, 2004. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - Meeting sUrts at 6:00 p.m. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. H 9 I«$ \i • • * t Approximate Houfs of Operation/ Number of i:mplovces STAKaUCKS S. lopnt — RtiVhiyra: 14 lOam -9pmi Employees; 4^ each HtCHitAY ii h.' • t»4 m 4Mt LANOfOKM REVISED SITE PLAN-M MCIMC ■'AT MACU CI030r»ovmto* rriiri iinnaiai"^ii n i r i 5.-1 U ZONINC RECUIATIONS The aoti£cetioii and public hearing procedure for such amendment ih^ be the tame at for ap proval of t^ original RFUD. A major amendment it any amendment which: ^ altera the/ocation of build- ; areas OTi Increases or> idential d« I the number of res-1 Increases the I vidual buildii > floor area of any indi-1 I of stories of any the amount oX open space oi ^it in such a way a^o change its design or intended Ve; or itea noncompliance with ihy special ition attach^ to the appro^l of the master development plan. other amendment may be made through and approval by a simple majority vote of council. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series. § 1(8), 2-26-2001) Secs. 7»-6S0~7M40. Reserved. DIVISION 12. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT* Sec. 78-641. Purpoee. The B-1 retail sales business district is in tended to provide a district for businesses that supply conunodities or perform a service prima rily for residents in the surrounding neighbor hood. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business di^cts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shaU have immediate access to adequate highways and pub lic sanitary sewrr. (Code 1984. § 10.40(1)) *CroM refemce—Sutinmes, eh. 26. Sec. 76642. Permit application. All applicationa for a building permit in a B-1 retail sales business district shall be review by the council and may be referred to the pla ning commission for review. (Code 1984,1 10.40(2)) Sec. 76643. Permitted ueee. Within any B-1 retail sales business district, structure or land shall be used excepit for one the following uses or uses deemed similar by t council: CD78:123 Betail and service businesses. The foUov ing neighborhood retail sales and ser\ii businesses supplying commodities or pe forming a service primarily for residerv in the surrounding neighborhood: Arts and school supplies store. Banka and insurance companies. Barbershop* and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, record shop Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drink cosirotica and other usual dnigito merchandise Dry cleaning and laundry piekt stations, including inddental pres ing and repair. Garden ouppUea, florist shop. Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, earners and phot graphic supply stores. Jewelry shops and repair Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV. appliance lalei a repair storee Newsstands. h. i. j- k. 1. m. n. o. P q-Office supply store, office machi store. r. Pet shop. I7f4a OROKO CITY CODE t. Pfpt tnd tobacco ihopo. L Flumbiof, iloctricol, beating, houaowana, ftirnitun. carpet itore. u. Peotal Bubatation. V. Raal ef ute aaloa. w. Retail fDod of all varictiea and borne Buppliea. a. Sewing center and yard gooda. y. Sporting food* atoce. I. Ibilor ibopa. an. Ibinporary aalea, aucb aa Cbriatinaa tree lota. bb. TVaeel bureau, ce. Variety etore. dd. Wearing apparel atore. aboeatore. ee. Off-aale liquor atore. ft Home and garden equipment rental. (2) Jtfunleipal building*. Municipal buildings where the uae conducted ia customarily considered to be an office uae. (Code 1984, f 10.4(X3), Ord. No. 162 2nd series. 9 1.10-2S-1996) Sec. 7B*644. Conditional uaes. Within the B-1 retail aalea buaineas district, no Btructure or land shall be used for one of the foUoving usee without a conditional use permit: (1) Garagee for the aer'-.ciog and repair of autoaobOeo, provided repair functions are totally ancki^ in a building. (2) Motor ftiel stations subject to the provi sions set forth in section 78-1373. (3) Restaurant (dees I), in which food ia served to cuatoaaers while seated at counter or table, or cafoteria, in which food' is se lected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consump tion. Neither live entertainment nor in- toaicatiog liquor salee are permitted in class I restaurants. (4) Restaurant (class II). le.. a fast food, convenience, drive-in, or liquor store res taurant, which is a restaurant where a mqjority 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 con sume their food in an automobile regard less of bow it ia served, or rsatauranU which serve inUndcating liquor or have live entertainment. (5) Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another B or I district eiui is in the same ownership aa the land in the B or 1 district and subject to those condi tions as set forth in article X, division 5. of this chapter and such other conditions as found necessary by the coundL (6) Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines and buildings, such as telephone ex change stations, booster or pressure sta tions, elevated tanks. lilt stations and electric power substations. Personal wire less service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be consid ered public service structures. (7) Day nurseries, provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. (8) Profosaional office and offices of a general nature. ((>>de 1984, i 10.40(4); Ord No. 161 2nd series, I 8. 6-7-1997; Ord. No. 183 2nd series, «| 1. 2. 2-22-1999) Sec. 78-648. Accessory uses. Within any B-1 retail sales busmeu district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: (1) Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this chap ter. (2) Signs, as regulated in this chapter. (3) Buildings temporarily located for pur poses of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete the construction. CD78:^24 70N1N0 REGULATI0K3 (4) (6) (6) Decorative laxidscape featurei. Fences, as regulated in this chapter. Any incidental repair or processing neces sary to conduct a permitted principal use. prodded that the incidental use shall not eacced 30 percent of the floor space of the principal Iniilding. (7) (8) Public telephone booths. Communication reception/transmission de vices. Accessory onten*uu. Accessory anten nas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satel lite dishes. TVRO's, aiul amateur shortwave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory anten nas that are accessory to the princi pal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts, provided they meet the following con ditions: Height. A ground mounted ac cessary antenna shall not ex ceed 20 feet in height from ground level. Yardt. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the re quired front yard setback, cor ner side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street Roo^. If vegetation or obstruc tions interfere with satellite sig nals at a location in any allow able placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any autho rized structure on the premises. Setback. Accessory antennas shall not be locat^ within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be sat back from adjacent proper^ lines a boi^untal dis tance no less than the maxi mum height of the antenna. CD78:125 Building permits. A buddin permit sh^ be required for tb installation of any accessory ai tenna requiring a condition use permit Building permit a] plications shall be accompi nied by a site plan and itru< tural corxqronent data for tb accessory antenna, including d< tails of arrchoring. The buildir official must approve the pla: before installition. Lighting protection. Each sect sory antenna shall be groundi to protect against natural lig* ning strikes in conformance w. the National Electrical Code; adopted by the city. Electrical code. Accessory a tern < electrical equipment a: coimccLons shall be desigr and in*talled in conformn with the National Electr Code as adopted by the city Color/content Accessory anti nas shall be of a neutral ca and shall not be used as signn. Amateur shortwave radio antii and towers. Amateur shortwsTi dio antennas and fowlers whic not meet the conditions for seen antennas, may be allowed wi conditional use permit in ail so districta provided they meet th« lowing conditions; Height. When an amateur sh wave radio antenna is moui on an antenna tower, the t height of the anterma andto shall not exceed 65 feet. Yards Amateur shortwave dio antennas and towers s not be located within k fr comer side o» side yard. Setbacks Atnateir sbortwr radio antennas and towers a! not be located within any quired setback ar-a and si r I7M4S ORONOC nr CODE be located no leu than the hei^t of the antenna and toirer from the property line. (Code 1M4.1 10.40(5); Ord. No. 161 2nd sehea. I 8. 6-7-1997; Oid. No. 183 2nd serin, | 3. 2-22-1999) _________________ Sec. 7 ^Araa« bei<ht, lot width, utback sments and dcsiEn re* Its. (a) Arta. In •ize shaU be 20, B-I district, the square feet nun lot (b) Lot u-idch. 100 feet (c) Front yard*. be 20 feet. rntwimum lot wulth ■^*0 be mifittrum front yard shall rear yard shall any R district adjacent to a io building shall be 3nt lot line, 35 feet from any side lot adjacent to a the street from t leu than 35 feet (d) Rear yarde. The be 30 feet a side yard shall be 15 feet, and a strut shall be ten feet. (e) Setback requirenunu\ nearer than 35 feet to any from any rear lot line, 15 line, or 35 feet to a side strut ucept abutting or ^ an R district no friilding I from such lot line. / (f) Fencing. VfherevjJ a B-1 r^pul sales busi- neu district abuts an ^district along the side or rear lot line, a fence of compact evWgrun hedge no leu than 50 perc«|it opaque no A'us than six feet in height sbidl bf erected along^^ r.buttng linu except within the required froi^ yard. (g) Budding desijpi and construction. In add! tion to other rutrictions of th,s chapt^, the uu. construction, altet^tion or enlargememi to any building or structure within the distLct shaU mut the following standards: \ (1) All exterior wall finishes on any building shell be: Face brick; b. Natural stone; Specially designed precast concrete lits if the surfacu have been inte* ily treated with an applied deco* ! material or texture; metal if the of those i—cofthis rfebricatedand panel panel ^terials are of noted in^Bubsections (g!( section; be approved itions of such itted. e. Other m^rials u i by the council Comb| materials Vhall be All subsequent\additio^ and outbuild ings constnictediafter^e erection of an original building or muildings shall be constructed of mttf^s comparable to thue used in the original instruction and shall be duimed in a manner con forming with theuriginal architectural duign and generm wppearance. (3) No building or itru character, trailer, b shall be con^lructi Jure of a temporary ^ment, tent or shack placed or main tained upon Uie prope^ except as acces sory to and/during tne constnsory to ancy during (h) Drainage, ^o land shall no uu shall be f>ermitted that runcTcausing floods, erosion or cent propertied! Site and dri submitt^ required by construction of developed and suits in water liu on adja- [plans shall be 'the applicant in J|^h detail as le council and tho^e nlans shall be reviewed b]^the aty engineer befew submiuion u> the plamung commission and council for ap proval. Sujeh runoff may be requu-ed to be prop erly chaimeled into a natural watereduru, pond ing arem storm drain or other pubUc facilities. Any cMuge in grade affecting wa» run.'tff, whethtf onto adjacent property or otherYiu, must be m rampliance with the surface water, manage ment plan and shall be consistent with ether applicable regulations or provisions of th*s Code and subject to the approval of other agenoes having jurisdictioa over the area affected by the drainage. CD78:126 L ^.;2- ZONING REGULATIONS §78.7! poDdinf ATM, itorm drain or othtf/public facili- ties. A^^changa in grade affectipg water rtmoff, whath«^l^ adjacent properta<v otherwiae, must be in with the lurace water menage- ment plan ai\d shall be^’^conaistent with other applicable r^ul^tion^/^ prowiaiona of this Code ami suhject to tW approval of other agencies having juriadictaoho^ the area afCected by the drainage. No stories or 30 feet i in oectioa 78-1366. is 1984.110.44(6)) building shall ex- )ieight except as \ 8ms. 78>7i7-78-790. Reserved. DIVISION 17. B-6 H1GH1^'AY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT* Sec. 78-701. Purpose. The purpose of the B-6 highway commercial district is to provide a commercial district specif ically tailored to accomplish the commercial de velopment objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor study section of the comprehensive plan. (Cede 1984, f 10.45(1)) Sec. 78-70S. Revi' w of building permit ap> plicatioD. All appbeanta for a building permit in any B-6 highway business district shall be reviewed by the coui^ and raierred to the ^Janning commis sion for review. (rtfdii 19AA.I Sec. 78-798. Permitted uses. (1) Offices (business and professional). (2) Banks and financial institutions. (3) Libraries. *CroM leterenc**—BulinMus, ch. 26. Hiffawajr 12 Cor- ridor Study Ana. | 76-1041 at uq Within any B-6 highway business district, no structure or lend shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the council: (C^e JOrd. No. 152 2nd lerie S 3.10-28-1996) Sec. 78-794. Relationship with planned un developments. Other types of commercial uses and mixed u: developments may be applied for through tl plsnn^ unit dovtlopmsnt process. Applicat:oi that incliids commer^ uses within the Highwi 12 Corridor shell atsume the B-6 district as d underlying toning district. (Code 1984. f 10.45(4); Ord. No. 152 2nd serif i 4.10-28-1996) See. 78-795. Conditional usee. Within any B-6 highway busineu district, structure or land shall be used for one of t following uses without a conditional use permi (1) Rostaurnnta (claas I). (2) The following uses when such use eludes a drive-through condition: Offices (business and professtona Banka and financial institutions. e. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. (Ord. No. 152 2nd series. « 4,10-28-1996) Sec. 78-796. Accessory uses. Within any B-6 highway business district, following uses shall be permitted accessory u (1) Private garages. olT-street parking ; loading specce, as regulated in this ch ter. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Signs, as regulated in thia chapter. Buildings temporarily located for ( posea of construction on the premises f< period not to exceed time necessai> complete the construction. Decorative landacape features. Fences, as regulated in this chaptei Any incidental repair or processing ne sary to conduct a permitted principal CD78143 r\ " 17|.tH OlONOCTrrooDS providad that th« inddratal om shall not arsoad 30 psfctnt of tha floor space of tha principal huildinf. (7) Public talaphooa booths. (8) mf-apriwiAranKWiiMiftn Sm- vicaa. a. Aeou$t»j owtennos. Accassnry antan- naa ba limitad to radio and talaviaioa rscahring antsnnas. satel lite dishas. TYRO'S, and amateur ahoitwava radio transmittinf axul raoaivinf antennas. Accessory anten nas that are aceasaory to the princi pal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all toning districts, provided they meet the following con ditions. 1. Htight. A ground mounted ac- cassocy antenna shall not ez- casd 20 fast in height from ground level. 2. Yard$. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the re quired front yard setback, cor ner aide yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street 3. Roofg. If vegetation or obstruc- tions interfere with satellite sig nals at a location in any allow able placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any autho- riud structure on the premises. 4. Sttbaek. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizonUd dis tance no less the maxi mum height of the antenna. 5. Building permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory an tenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit ap- plirations shall be accompa nied by a site plan and struc tural component data for the accessory antenna, including de- cf andioring. The building must approvs the plans before installation. 6. Lighting protection. Each acces sory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural light ning stiikas in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the dty. 7. Electrical code. Accessory an tenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 8. Color/content. Accessory anten nas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. b. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers. Amateur shortwave ra dio antennas j\d towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the fol lowing conditions: 1. Height When an amateur short wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. 2. Yards. Amateur shortwave ra dio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. 3. Setbacks. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any re quired setback area and shall ^ located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. (Code 1964, $9 10.40(5). 10.45(5); Ord. No. 161 2nd series, 9 8.6-7-1997; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, 9 3. 2-22-1999) CD78:144 H ApptodMDMr DMMbtf 17.2003 4M)«y lUvkw CipiratlM (SIti Ptaa A PUD Rasalag): Fcbntiry IS. 20M 120 D«y lUvtew CiplndM (Sib««WM): Aaril IS. 2004 From: D aic: Sobjcct: Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gafihon, Planning I>irector^,^^J^^^ Januaiyl6»2004 #04«2974 “Stonebay Marketplace", NW Quadrant Hwy l2AViliow Drive - Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision SumnMirv of Reouest Applicants propose a commercial retail/offtce development on Ouilot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an ofrice use on the site. The proposal includes a rezonlng via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-IB (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots as follows: Lot 1: 1.53 acres -10,000 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres - 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres • 14,490 s.f. Walgreens retail/pharmacy building Property Ownrr: John Terrance Homes LLC AppUeant/Dcvelopcr: Reliance Development Company LLC ‘JolinTrautz PUancr/Engiocer: Landforai Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. However, Staff recommends that afrer holding the public hearing and offering comments regarding the application and site r'an, that Planning Commission table the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of identified site plan issues. r M4-2974 jMntryli,2M4 ri«i2rf< Lbt ofEzhiblU A • AppUcatioa B • Applicants Subnuttals: 1 • Narrative 2 • Elevatian View Depictions 3 • Plan sheets: C§.I-nu Skm CU.ExbHMgC0m4ltl»iu CU-Dtm»IU0iirUm Clt’PrtUmimarySt$$flMm C2.2-FnUmiMMrySlgm§t»nM C3.I • PrMmlHV]f GrUUig, Dr^Mge A fraslM C»ntnlPUit C3.2 • Fr0p*u4 Dninagt Artas C4.I • Frallmtnary VtiUtg Ptan C5.1 • Pratlmimary nu EZI • PrMmlnarg UgktUig Plaa LZi • PrtUMlmvy iMiscapUtg Plan L7A.UmA»caf€Datatti AZt - Waigraimi Etavatians ELI • OfflcalUtatt EtaaatlaHM EU-MaaAEIawartaas AZI-WalgraamaSIgaaia SNI. SUa MaaameatSlgm DataB C • MPG Letter to Applicant 12-16-03 D - City Engineer Comments 12-31-03 E • Consulting Planner’s Comments 1-15-03 F • CMP Excerpts G-PlatMap H - Property Owners List L m-2974 SI—Maritftytict J —fyl4.2tM PagtStfS 1. Comprehensive Ptao AmcDdnicot The 2000*2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) guides this property for Commerciil Office uses. i.e. ^..professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use." (CMP Part 3B, Page 3B-24). The proposal is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, in that it includes fieestanding retail not specifically associated or supportive of an office use on the site. The Walgreens and the office/retail building would be characterized more accurately as neighborhood retail/service uses. The applicant requests an amendment of the CMP that would **allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD, based on the finding that amendment would comply with the spirit and intent of the City’s Community Management Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, would provide limited retail to serve the neighborhood, and would allow development of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed." The amendment would apply only to Outlot A ofStonebay. Please review the highlighted areas in Exhibit F, excerpts from the CMP regarding guiding of this area. The City Council has informally review ed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the context of its impact on development m Long Lake, in fell knowledge of Orono ’s suted intent to not take actions which will be counterproductive to Long Lake’s efTorts in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council's general conclusion was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed will have minimal impact on Long Lake’s ability to move forward with its Downtown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of neighborhood scrvicc/rctail and office can provide the business locations, services and quality emplovment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 2000*2020 CMP. Additiorol factors which may come into play in terms of this proposed amendment include: The other three quadrants of this intersection are devoted to retail uses; it is not much of a leap to bring in the remaining quadrant as retail, especially with an office (bank) component The Long Lake Downtown Master Plan does not at any location provide for the Walgreens model of a building set back from the street with parking in front. The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streetside with parking in the rear. It is highly unlikely that Walgreens would locale in Long Lake’s Downtown area. From a staff perspective, Walgreens is an amenity that would be w elcomed by the public in this area. i|4.3f74 SrwifctyMftopbct JtMMry li, 2M4 Having service retail uses within walking distance of both StoneBay and our senior housing less than 14 mile east, provides a positive amenity. - The location on Highway 12 will enable certain types of retail uses that can serve the Stonebay development that we would otherwise probably not attract to the area without the Highway 12 traffic. Review ofthe traffic study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of the general Stond>ay PUD in 2002-2003 indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed reuil uses would be very similar to the traffic generated by office uses at this site. The upgrades to smrounding roads required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals wll still be applicable if the amendment is approved. Procedurally, this CMP Amendment requires approval of the Metropolitan Council; however, it is expected this will be viewed as a minor amendment, will have no new or unplanned-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by Met Council. A copy of the plan set has been provided to the City of Long Lake. No comments have been received as of this writing. II. PUD Rezoning St Highway 12 Corridor Standards Permitted uses in the B-6 District include business and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels Retail uses are allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Rezoning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the “Special RequiremenU for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area ” of zoning code Section 78-1065, and was anticipated during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed US' Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site: Minimuni Area- Minimum area for a rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor is 5 acres (variance required - the existing parcel is nominally 3.69 acres in area; however, the site was created in 2003 with the City ’s full knowledge of its size and the intended commercial use. An area variance to allow rezoning of the site is at this point a mere technicality. M4.3974 StMttey MarMpilc* iuManr 14.3M4 piftioft IV. Conunercfal Site Plan Review, Conformity to B-6 Standards City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson of DSU. Inc., have been asked to comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. Please carefully review their comments (ExlLuiu D & E) as well as the comments in the staff letter of December 16. Phil Carlson's comments of January IS are in complete alignment with staffs thinking. The site plan has a number of significant issues which should be worked through at the staff developer/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a detailed site plan review. For that reason, a review of the site plan details has not been included with this memo. A public hearing has been scheduled for this proposal at your January 20 meeting. Planning Commission members are encouraged to use the limited allotted time after hearing from the public, to identify for the benefit of staff and the developer any specific concerns you believe need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics you may wish to make general or specific comments on include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Site orientations, relationship to Slonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to l2/WilIow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-thru's Building materials and building design Pedestrian access and circulation 5. Signage, lighting, and landscaping 6. Other topics of concern or interest Staff Rccommeadation Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Planning Commission could take action regarding these elements of the application at this time, or could table them so that the Commission takes action on all elements of the application at the February 17 meeting. Staff recommends taoiing the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of identified site plan issues. The intent w ould be to present Planning Commission vriih a revised site plan for a comprehensive review at your February 17 regular meeting. A AppUcalloo # Date Received AiBoimtFafcl Zt-.'lSb *n> CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address________ Type of Application to be Filed ' _______ Property Identification Kumber (P.LD.I IIt ~CjO(/3 APPLICANT ^^ay«^^hone (home) Name ______JckM. Uacutjr Phone (work! lotZ'bt^'Otd'^ City Zip y5~4d>^ co-fiffuemrr * OWNER (if dififerent than applicant)rnc.K tu uiucrcni uioii Phone (home)_________________ Name ddtH} Ttrdjfitff (workl 95^-i-T^-f97/ Address City . A/A^ Zip yS3g& Dale Property- Acquired_____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjace \i parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PER>nTS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S2S0.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/lndustrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or fioodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakesbore ______ PRD PID - sec Fee Schedule ______ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Aftcr-lhe*Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS 7^ $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review- (•♦• corj-jUant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation S 100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision X $350.00 Rezoning (PUT) - refer to fee schedule) y $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals C.her - sec Fee Schedule #2974 REQUIRED SUB.NUTTALS !• - X Completed Applicitioti Fona. 2. _ X Describe request in detail. Certified Property Cheers List of ouxen uirhin 350*. labels and plat map fvou “> •’“'*«“< f» ‘urvey 5, Attach legal description to appUcatica if not included on required surs ey ■ S ta elevS & of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the nropern- This would include name<s) of applicant(s) if not cunent o\Mier(s) !• ------Constnicuon plan, if applicable (sec stafif for requirements). ^ ^ ’• — Of TOR ',r r«"- Of •» °oc~ P^'T^^he Wlic1rionTno“o4Te7f^^^ »■« >^u: w“cie7a?s7^^ is complete. Date ,T.ji-L. ji APPLICANT S SIGNATURE me applicant hereby agrees to ptoride all infottEation required or requested by Lbe Zonine Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees fsiafT time not ^ Zoning and/or unusual expenses incuned in rerie^A- of this zuDlication » a r payment) supplied is Hue and com^ t^t^best oj^isher loiwledge. ’ “ ‘“‘'“""“O" Applicant ’s signature^ OWNER’S SICNATUkoi. mernber. for purposes o^t^vesti^ation anrS^n^oT;^ Ouuer-s signature Date /P./Z-Ci ^ Applicant nsat have ail subminali a:o the Crev c 5-m ** ebv« K.r, .1. Planning Con«nmio.T .Mecticgs are held on the £rj Mct!da~ of each^ T’'^* Cc.-r.-nmion Meetuig scheduled revie»r ireecsgs of the Placnutf Cooacisriesa Ji* r Applicants naat be present at ail scheduled mcetuig. pleue make afrangemeau to Iunt an ‘ “ appiicaat is unable to anend a Buiidmg & ZoMg Oflke of this ehaege prior to tt^crensg^ ** B- STONEBAY MARKETPLACE NARRATIVE Community Management Plan Amendment We are requesting an amendment to the Community Management Plan to allow retail uses on this 3.69*acre parcel. The property is currently vacant, but was recently platted as OuL'c* A Stonebay The applicant Is now proposing to provide a mix of retail, service and office uses at this location. The commercial uses would complete this intersectcn, which has ratal commercial uses at the other three quadrants and would provide neiohborhocd convenience commerdal uses for the community. The property was recently reviewed as part of the City's recent Ccmmcnity Management Plan update. The City has indicated a desire f:r office uses on th.e comnierclal portion of this site and has suggested that this proper:/ be developed in a yNay that does not compete with the retail uses in downtown Long Lake. Our ana^ys:s shows that the area would not support the amount of office the City planned for the sit«- however, some retail commercial could be provided to serve this neighborhood and provide retail uses that are not planned or available In Long Lake. V/e are proposing to limit the commercial uses In StoneBay to this outlet. No addition retail is planned w^'-Jn the StoneBay development. The mix of residential homes approved in StoneBay and the proposed commercial land uses would allow for the creation of a truly walkable community that would be an asset the aty^o^Long Lake^"^ complement the existing and planned development in We respectfully r^uest approval of an amendment to the Corr.rr,unity Management Plan to allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD based on the finding that amendment would comply with the spirit and intent of e.e City's Community Marwgement Plan, would aflow development of this vacant site, would provide limited retail to serve the neighborhood and would allow development of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed. Rezoning CurrenUy. the property is zoned Single Family Rural Residential (RH-1B) This zonLna IS not consistent with City s Comprehensive Plan. We are requesting approval of a rezoning to Highway Commercial District (B-6) with a PUD overlay district as requir*^d by the original StoneBay development approvals. This rezoning would be consistent t with the existing land use p'an and the requested land use guide plan amendment The v..- • rezonirig would also be consistent with the Section 10.52 of the Zoning Ordinance which identifies the requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area ^ \ Specifically: ' ' I ^ : 650 BUTLER NORTH BO'LCi.NG 5?0 ciRST AVENUE NORTH MN.NEAPOi S. UN 5^:3 OFFICE 612 2529070 FAX 612 252 9077 wm, nti McM«l Gtffron P»g» 3 of 2 R«: Ston«B«y N»t«Sv« _____________ 0tCfnb<rl7.2003 1. The project area exceeds five acres fn size. 2. The proposed development wou'd be consistent with the CIt/s TransportaUon 4. This development complies with the Cir/s Surface Water Management Plan. Jl’an^d^fH "-P-hensive ®- P«Pn.ion to PUD Concept Stage Plan/PUD General Plan/Sita Plan ssi- 's^zs 2 ;r?.wrfr r neighborhood commercal. The neight^rLd commeSal w7be an asLun rntTZ of Orono and the surrounding neighborhood, by providing needed retail commercial, as well as. a convenient neighborhori gathering ptace “ wt:SnJr«ISrDn;SwaT/^r!?a “ ^9'''-‘"''<9«-uton development and Is consistent with City standaMs wrinte^ ?o*aml2l]cMh^'°"®^*'' as a secondary access to the site. We will utiliz’ me rMton^sm^^ nn^n of me site as planned with the SteneBay devetopmer^t Xvall notron mat convenient service retail shculd t» lon^.H wlhT ° ^ fhis'rerpi“S“:^^^^( 650 butler NORTH BU.LDiSG 5^0 FIRST AVE.SUE NCRTM H«NNEAPOCS M.S 5S403 OFFICE 612 252 5C:: FAX. 612 252.9C- em^re Urdof^ r„ 6 Michad Gtifran P*g«3of3 Rr. SloncSay N«nl«« Dacewfcf 17.2003 ^mmercial development on this comer would be consistent with the commerdsi sh^Ta1'’ihf" llJt® comers of this Intersection. Furthermore, our analysis show that this comer would be well suited for neighborhood commercial userwW^ would support the walkablo neighborhood concept in StoneBay. ’ ^ ^ ^ surrounding residential and create devetopmenL Kelley Parkway will form a buffer berween the neighlwrhood to the north and StoneBay Marketplace, but trails will provide MnneSlnnc ^Ite With sidewalks providing internal "pTvWedIn ^^®-^®^ (?) The design of Orono Village will offer a rich, warm material and color palette which resjwnds to the site s immediate context, including City Hall. The buildings have been designed wim pitched roofs and pitched roof elements to reflect Orono's residential nature. Buildings will be constructed with br^ck and integral colored block and will receive equal trcatn^nt on all sides of the buHdlng. Trash enclosures are consiJuct^ Mrlrisibnity^ materials as the pnncipal building and will be heavily screened to reduce StoneBay Marketplace will have covenants In place to ensure that high-oualitv Allowable Uses ® ® development with uses as uses as allowed in the B-1 disW ncluding banks, restaurants, drive-through businesses, dry cleaning gift stores ewelry stores video stores, gift stores, barber and beauty shops, day ca?^ off?sale liquor, medical and professional offices and similar retail or service uses. Master Sion Plan StoneBay Marketplace Is designed to create a neighborhood commercial center that is compabble with the surrounding uses. We have met or exceeded all develowem standards as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. " We have prepared a master sign plan and are requesting PUD (lexibility for the riiscussions with Planning Director GaSton w| noted tlmt me there were no sgn standards for the new B-6 district Directo- Gaffron md^caled that we should use the B-1 standards as a starting place, which we have 650 BUTLER NORTH BUHOING StO FtflST AVENUE NCRT h MiNNEAPOCS. MN ;54Q3 OFFICE. 612252 SCro FAX 612.252 9Cr? wv«yrJtncionnj)«| i Cc Mcha«IO«ffron PMt4of4 «•: 8too«e«y Mirtit«>l«c« Narra9v« ____________Dtconbtf 17. 20C3 ma^mbe ordinance. While we are not proposir^^to m^mize the sigr^ge on site, we are requesting PUD flexibility to allow some siqnaae qnoJffv ^ square foot maximum individual sign area allowed by ordinance ftens u??o requesting approval of wall signage on the pharmacy Jth individ-^i feet eaSi* ^ freestanding monument signs totaling 62 square We are requesting Individual monument signs with tenant space on each of the three mai*rh\h!fh ^mtemaHy niumlnated signs with brick and block base to match the building matenals. These monument signs are proposed at 62 square feet in area to allow adequate space for up to three tenants on the retall/bank signs and a aMo^H^h ® pharmacy sign. Changeable message ^ards are ^ovred by your ordinance provided they are not flashing signs, such as d^tal message reinforce the Identity of the entire mixed-use StoneBay development A second sign would be located at the entrance to Stone^aJ -Stnn n^ landscaped and wouldStoneBay Marketplace . The signs would be brick and block bases to rnatch the building materials. The backdrop will have a stucco finish with stud-mounted lettenng attached that is up-lit from ground lights. While these development anH advertising for the tenants, they do provide a sense of^place signs Mr.■-IF? B-3 distncl are allowed up to 100 square feel per sign, Iherefore. we believe the T L. 650 butler north BUILDING 510 RRST AVENUE NORTH M.NNEAPOUS. MN 55403 CfF.ce 612 252 9070 FAX 6‘2J52 9077 ’ MdiMlOt»an PtiOtSofS «•: S(on«B«y UartttiKs Nam*w« ____________D^carsbf 17.2DCX3 nM?s*o?ihe“3to(4?"*'’'®"‘ and the would meet the Landscaolno pepsin ^ reflect a retail development that accommodates both vehicular arxl reaint^jjstoility from Highway 12 and Wniow Drive, while creatir>g an that is enjoyed by pedestrians. This is accompHshed through the um of imderstory trees, smansharbs and perennials along the pedestrian traH. These smaDer gathering areas. Large overstory trees are placed along Hlgl^y 12 ar^ WHIow Drive to allow views within the srte. The screening of tra^ ^dosures. backs of buildings and car headlights from surrounding homes is also bnportanL This was achieved through the thoughtful placement of evergreen plant material. Our tarxjscapii^ plan complements the street trees planr>ed along Kelley Parkway and pfDvWes an attractive environment for residents. WMe the City has no ocen soace f^lremente, we^erstand that 25 percent pervious area Is the goal. The proposed development has 20.5 percent pervious area, however, rt is important to note that much of the Irnpervlous area is created by the exceptional amount of trails and sidewalks within this development If the ^lls and-skJewalks are removed from the plan or placed in the pubOc i^hLof-way. the pervious arewjduld Increase to 25.1 percent This clearly meets the City's Preliminary and Final Plat pr^minary plat and final plat for approval. Outlot A wni be replatted as three lots, which is consistent with the original PUD concepts for this park^g a^aoeS^^* agreements will be prepared to allow the three lots to share Summary is Pleased to submit this applicalion for approval Marketplace. We request City Council approval of the PUD concept stage plan. PUD general plan, commercial site plan, preliminary plat, final plat, common^ management plan amendment and rezoning. 650 butler north BUHOINO 510 ElRST AVENUE NORTH W NNEAPOUS. US 5S*05 OFFICE: 611J52 9070 FAX. 612J5Z9077 wmeiandtarm ntt lil !i im mwm^^ T .-< ES^ , VT. V.5 r A: illlllBIlIU 'Mr'i ;'T''^ *••• • Stonebay Marketplace E ntrance Feature LANDFORM ___________________________________________________________________ "’ ■’^'cliance Develop__ merit -ompanv. L.L.P. Entrance to Site at Kelley Parkway M I T "* r 1UW n- S tonebay Corner Feature LANDFORM Development Company. L.L.P. Willow Drive and Highway 12 I-------- lARIA LOCAnOir Htfl OROKO. UH lAUnVIATTOKSI w \ ? ? i:I s Isrr 7; » e.*sL,t.r I St' _ tixIT* 2:2£=2. 11=^ :^sr * - IB I *•# •« JrT^••«• «M •mm STONEBAY MARKETPLACE lORAVDIC SYMBOtSI IITTUTY mOOLSI lam/imutY coKTAcrai ©® r-r ' • •''**.I mm -TiC;. mm* mm 0 wm^ -srtT ISITC SYKBOLSI «• w«aa VC !11ettrtn LT.T-. |T*a2r;u« V nr* V!. %0mmrn tmm- <?r;.a«L2r-“ • ’ «r« ««*««• m m nm •mm •; m vn »€S ISUKVtY SryBOLS 0* .M» v*M^ mm m m r» -♦**%ItXSTSCC LEGAL DESCRIPTIONI •a.♦ I EROSION CONTtOL SYVBOLSI !*•-»« ««« i«c «r ««ii • :•’> w WT IPROroSEO UCAL DESCRIPTtO ^ r m** mrnm mm* i <M mm* ■PV I BENCHUARJCSiBB^B M**'PN»cn^ -'■^6 if A fra XliNimjLNCE HOMES LU 711*1 BHCfraOt ■■•Mill ••«•••• ^^TRdUart Doxlopmcnt Coniptay. L.LP :: arT-rrt ^-is- ? CITT SUDMITTAl. OBgXPtO.lPOB STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OAONOi MINNCPSrrA LANDFORM . t rru**«fT rn 1 iMciai , •• m Mt* a I •<« HIGHWAY 12 m ___ r •» •« ^^ar« MN» »«« «««««» » >« ^ • 0M •■ «M»*« 9 ISrt PUK HOTtSM » mm ■* • I’M* ^. • r «•• MV f> W *. M «*M •• • ^ MV rM r » AM • «« new *«m *• r I ««• V T M ^v rvM «V ^. • r «| • •• • »<^ir • M • «« n • V f > *-•» M MS - • w»^- V MM f *f • M ^ r«M« My *W V ■>* JC«^ -M •«* ••’VrlTnj A f Mi— *A « a«^ MB **•kM«« » jjWMM -JB V vn t mj^rm •m w <•••■• TV b* ' •# W 'M m€ &*V # BM%» A M» V :W« «A f~1 »rv MM IMA ■BPARJCNS SwlOORVaOBHBHM • M •,‘M • :« A*«» MM « «M • MM *jm m» «•* SJM ^ • k«l««vJBB M < WM • M • w !•• M« • W«UM ^ • M <» •# • r r^t msm0 *««iM r^ « ^ MtK MMk r«»* B BARIA aV)iUAHYI MM •*•««»• A«t« MM MB »VB iM* «i U n-7 B:w!{rLmncKi<'ii; •s4M«roB«i IVIBMA4 4<«M AV JOiNTK?jLNCEHOMIillC •Miiun*vr«4B ^Rdunct l>c\«Jopmrnr <^!cp«AX> L LI* »' ^*=- S' ^3Sryis. : 5§^““ CMVr #2974 » CITY OUOMITTAL otoiMtn.aoco STONEBAY MARKETPLACE OWONO. MINNC50I A LANDFORM c^vi ■ 1 n «4J*rM muOtOr SfTt'JS/. C2.1 r- & j ____» •-on_I KAU n mr isorcsi «j j »jy |g;g* • **, •;* Igy r T'i'j * « •.•^•WIM M>«k » ------------_ - * I51CKACE KEQinRICDnSI ^ j- »«» ^ ^ m aar • %tM ^«a«-------------------------- -------------------------- Mzjm •• • . ^ » M aar • M a^i« «••• «a» a»ft» ««p«^ ««p m ^ m M MAa «• « » »«.. •^m • 0 <« Maaa* 9 ^ < I5CK SUIOURYMI X* aiV^aa 9^—* rnm$0 «.«^aa «a« mm— a a m • jw WN« «««« m^ Mava* • aa i » a «a a Q «•«•»•«» Q-Q I r> • iM • 0.0>kt«fi. »* •••* ^ ■• mi m't 0....... 0.0 u»^ ttimmm Q t« . • » 0 v-r • > « ■ • •r» -•• I • ,n » Q M4vr«<-4r>«t» 0 ..r.»a 0 0 « I f • M • 0 a4-/rtr««a<» 0........ 0.......... ^ • atj • Q •••.<•• 0 #i..aa t •■ KUMnramaifiiuj taia ■aa JQWltRRAliCE HOMES U£ ^^P^R<1mbix Dc«clopmeni CotnpAiijr. L.L.P. CITV OUDMITTAL otaomao.tm STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OaONa MIMNESOri'A LANDFORM H I ■•( *>0t. I • ' »■••■! ■ •‘Sr.r * nULMMAifr MNnA^ r? 9 ntoTcsi Smm «5S*V^ ICRADING k PAVIKC NOTBi ««A f»»* ii»^ a -m w*^ tftr x«M « ». 4M«^ Mi m» («»«•« iPfiMi % VU«»Vi *M«< Ii««** M*» iv »*^Mwi «M *««r *m*«n <i»t M»* %. ca»<w ••u**«i • ;#»«'« r. r »# ri»" • «*• irMf*«i •»■ * **• r *r • A«f* • to* (#*«•«• aarAtoi • SSpIl ■^fckZTA'V^ *** t M* Atoi^aa ww •* r«*» to** » ^ «« m ^ Ito^r* r 4*i*to w* M **«A IP Ato«'** «i Mp O *«i «(^ aa MU ax « iMar* A* iw*<« X *«<yM ^ nm • i**« A.M ^-aa* t«xA «i • «x«a «a •XTM* to»^l a »PI *lto A4M ■* MM toMtoi *• • *« .M«X i«M M MP.A-W ^ aato« to*M • » aiMT «# *M* M«l M toXA Mm » *i M • M VMM MV« »«»• P I* Ml iM a M *P ^ *to MM M« .i M ** MMW Mm M* MCMPtraa * MM** • M»# *WM Mi M MM «MM to» M X BMM to ••****« •*• *to * :.M«<ato M M*M • MM M MU M M#MB •* M«**a m XM <ar« •• ** »oMt m nx «*««*• Ml toMP • Ajaaa «* tXMM .toC ^ 'MMfVI «M ;P»toM* *»*-M •• ^ 'M M ^•a ^ ■ -- --- - - - . M a*•M *to» «.« I ^ *J MM xa «« fto«MJ P P*toM M M(P«MBi ;PPM*M «M aa« *MMn # m ia* P* MEBCSIOK COKTKOl KCTESI a M •* to*» M>«» «• 4M« aaaa •# cPito iM MM* % M to^to W toaa MtoM m uSX'^■Saa^M- «m«7mmm7»x • **• ^toCM a rptoi* M iM*to xa m Mto pk ^ Ato *a M*a MMM « MtoCto* PM*a M M VMlt APto toa* M iMP Mto • *M fMMMM *M* ^ M M *M *>IM kJ*f Mto to *a MMa Ato A» c*a-a*-Mi **<Mi M* ixa* *»• .MA MM I fl • «A tto-««r 'M a^ aaafM m ppm mm m «aaaa *a XMM M* ** to* Mas *a • «. toi toM tM*! Mm. • •*«»• «to» «MP Mtoi .• * ^to*a X MM ea X M aartt r x *»4«ai r *api # .‘paaia* p aMM mapi a W «M*CtoM X* 5 “4N—Mai ^ M • • *• a M p A PM *M . X «MAMtf X XAjai X #2974 suivumimaii^.u V ia«Q*n% ama nmi XHNTSR aXI HONES, ILC tUlMDCC Docfepmrm Cotnp«a>; L.LP S-fe i i5£2Ul. r c-r.y OXiC-tA -r-iT-SF*— CITY euOMITTAL SIZMCX 17.1005 STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OWOVQ. MINNCSCyr^ 739m LANDFORM hrf T •££r« ■"' ■ oawTn •^UtTa;tuva rtXJM. 01ASN3. OlAMMC. AC ouscNsanvaRAM CX\ IN07DI IBM Q ■ #2'J 74 r.H I KsmLmHfi(Oia.ui JOHN HRIUICEHOMQ tic »B«m »<««<? ^^FRdupo Dcvclopfiufir Cornpiny. L.LI* e%»«ni e5?!-j: ^ raar-otiJIL t bjrr »«« CITY OUBMITTAU oecEMBcxaaocQ STONEBAY MARKETPUCE ORONO, MINNCSOt A LANDFORM .II* ^Pflltl B WOetBCKMtMMMOAA C.^7 INOTISI i^9Q*7d. r-9 —11^ mmM *—»— ••fn*i rn *m «• MMI MU# • ^f«# Hi —ini> Buminr kotes^h^h^^^mi & HMW tj & M MM •« "iiiKM HM CM# # rMVM *• *m # r«CNB fl M » MM M fv a>« • «M #K M M S SL^i «. M Hi HP#PM M MCHTU ft ^ jftHry# H ■ • Iff—I n r^« e*« ft ^ H<«M% KB*<i •<« »tac* » M«0 4#MCMft M • —Hf ftiM • «*«• U* *■%#•.«« ^C M H*«*» H HJ»W JMfti vftH C^.« ^ ^ SS mSmrSi JSSt 3hS* **** ** ft Ji nrftft H MM MMI ««« *9 ft aaM»*l M J ftMT*## ft MM HU M» .*1 itHftUi H M Ml H ftiHM H Hftflt* • flMH* MU f rft U <ft* M MM «#r**M' ~t mm •§ c.u ftir^m m* MMuftt ■*«••• •ft Kft*ftCW *• *H I isrTE/unixrY contacts i • M*# m<Kt 1 Rifftns 11 es»*4cn r Mi j M>H« MM • 11 f ‘ .'i CftM ru MU* «M««* CM urns. «ft M U •# MHV* »«« «c.‘.:«*.<Hft ftA.-ftC 1.yw* •*ftHMftft m MM 'bM ^ftu H:-4-;.irj 1 iM 1 ^ IftR •ftftMfc •M » nwi fttf -XMl-MM CM H V> Mift *••*««VI H m«mmm 1 .MM ft*MfV ftM j*H C^-C-M*! Ku«EEmim(Drtfr,LU mXSSSlileSrTSmtftiMMM fmwmmm* CPftMMP MUCiiiir JOKtTDUUXEHOMmiXmrttiwimx j<S j^m J^Kdiion DevTlopmem Compjnj. LL.P t ilk I mM^ tro»o»>mvf s=t!ss^* gr^.-asg=r^s%=sr,=r CITV aUOMITT^^L pcCTMeoff.axa STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OROSg MIN^CSOTA mm LANDFORM filMilEA»Oilt*VHiCft>V •sSsis^ ******* rULMMUlYinurvnAM 04 1 lEonwt iMAma • «« Av • I STONEBAY COMMERCIAL 5 c» HIGHWAY 12 I mcpr> fmm •» **—1^4«*M 4M mm m ^ cm-m^ ■ m *m •otm wmm m IM «tf i«»t mts^nm « mjca mh^^hhhhhh^hb *• • M» mrnm nmtttk 2?**." ** “^-* iS^/i74S* miMA U kM»«l ' MM* »* llM Ml ^ I r *»•I M ♦» »ii MJ A.M* M a«« 4M Ji » •• // cMiE[nu^(nfiXTijj joKiTnuuNaHOMEatijc ff«t»«Araiiwifiir‘iirriT m RdUiicc Dodopoicnf Compjny. LLP. I im I ip.t. gj=y r«6«CTlMM>«ll CITY SUOMITTAU vtctuxxn.vco STONEBAY MARKETPLACE OWONg MINNESCfA A. x-N F«.. - LANDFORM ^ I \ M' KI»«>l>P»vH .PWCIMH pifUMiArPur rs.i luncxAnc scKiouin HICH}yAY 12 •a* ••»,m MM » :/ laUDIAatS tTAT3TCai 1<«C «»•« «. at «i ■cEKnut mill 1^ * mmimi • a<M l!.r;SS3«.-’ •• r»M •• Ml • < 5cu 3t: O #2974■■ * CJ^HIXICMltTaVillllL? m aitM alia *•••« Ml JQKSlDUUIlCEHGMmiC Tmi IMfTlDM Raunc* DciaJopacnt Comp4Dj; L.L.? IrI r*-.. CITY eUOMITTa^L. tKD»aLV.tOCO STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OHOSO. MINNESOTA LANDFORM wiMiiam imiMf ^==- •SKSS. rtnAMAr* uaMTMrAN E2.1 mOTESI ■■UKOSCAPE KOTESI ____________ ‘ V, ^^ ^ n.-M^<»-u •«•••■* mm <« a^-Hi m. ukmi ’ Sti^ **^“ •air»>^ *■*«►-» r^.M •» fc*. ■ * rx» -m •*- nta svwi .c . •<• • . statue* .■» w» > «>m n^*> *»» MM.* IM* «• « 4, •,> •..t ^ MM CMM « MVAV ■*' ^ ''■*' • **• "**■*“■••**■*“ ■*<*•’ M» « Mnu tu. -u.^ aw m’wm dwc •«, , , .AM ^ >m «■ je*-« • ►«-• •'■ •*»•« au» ■»••« ».»■*>c<wor« -m- ©’**»'•••“ r »M« MM* M M* D’'** '*• •»* ■'•• -.*■»■ «M»«*x* we%xr wji >www«k MWM *r mm* 85" •.*»•«** ar j*f ». CJM*^ ^““ •*•«**•*«»*»* a »*•«*«*•» (MUra MM MAC ***?* *****V wCfcM* •*.M!*» MH 1»«MI > .-arMMatrva* «r m* ••*? * «•• MV* M t»‘ MO M. MOM • MWMM *<W.M<*««V« •/W«C MM'** (MtW.M I •« .-OOW1 MM (MM. M MM — *M. ».*• M* *• .***»•»<«»<•*• ••**••»■ M-M-* M.M-M , ., MJ. M-MM, * M* M W- M* MMM MM, o ..M M **>1, *(M« ;«*|*M ■*■«•« nm » m wr* •« om* •, • mvm «. w< ■UXDSCAPE K£QUTH£K£KTSaaBBIMHEaiMBE^B^HHnaBn^BaBBZ^K^^BBaBI^^^Bi ^’KVmm,MM.«mM*.-„M.**.*m.>*OM,M.M-*MMM*.. _ ________________________________MM w.. M. .-V— -i^?vrrM2rsrJS:T:*rt.*- i-S* — 1 liVSL nk aiM **• M.M, (MlJUa O-tmttrn («€»» Rl«rr .%M «W. «M •w. n^i O'4#> VM«***t» 'A.M*«M . tm (D •R. #.%.R G-mf •iT*^ ir 1.W •M «W . MV (E>CAH m>7E>cv9 mxs # ‘ ^ w<•wt MmM*• ^•M •M ■ $m D « MAM o •lii•TM »rMi « ^M w • #•• liiftr o •w»t* «R 4t •k«M* • w •M w . tf»©f watr- CMooxTu. mtao •04»*»> r«A»o«« wmm .r •r pw * %•E>.'A.l o ■mc»m tiw»«%«»•««•r W. JM E>•w. f*.-» czcsK.'tr.'S aar.wo •ejf.5r*^*1 c*.RT W • 9m IL>IL>»w Mk.'V @ ■ 0 • WM4P RM« (*WNV* «R««* > iR I4i^•r w, W W • W S5E> E>25 •*. CAJt • «i (MP»* ir«»« IPJJ*J W M*AM. M ©Z>•wtAA 0 *•«••• %0mm M •«'«•1 •r W. M 5>tE>•UTWW4 0 MR MW MW W3M4 f «i^•M > • M E>(E>‘-'ARW4 ccumotl SMSVM 0 •C'RWIf ncMW*W IR •r ..M £>Q^I.W.MW •■WM «M • «W •r »»• l»E>E>• WMr. «WM MWa* WM*1 RT w. ••S>lD PEXunoiu * dunia ft ■Si^W„P«*4 M*• *•,•r w. t«DLD JM a»n •3W«M •4iaM wwfr»fc< «M«n iPM • C r w*W . M DCD • •MR**u •r »• r»DZ>WR*< ■ «•LMtJ trm^ru A.«RA«*• ««•■r w • :•DS m UMMM *tK Jt4 • • i«0!D W*DD cj«iinicp£frai»ciuii johntduumhome !;llc ^^-RcLAiut Dcvciopmeni CornpiS]!; L.LP. K tT-=- i » SHrs?--;. • gsi?-~ =£iT:2s rr.T.-; CITV ©UOMITTAU De£ZMBCKI7.2O09 STONEBAY MARKETPUCE ORONO. MINNC^^^I A LANDFORM i» t wRf »ow 11 ><>ef * ■— — — — R* m O /! 0 rUlMKMY IMMCATtflAM T 0 1 /7=:r:‘r:: ©■TYPICAL EDGE detail f^srj!£<fu; itaa ^ • iO^ti ^ m mam — f -mttm MM VI ^ • » ------C'.-(M mm m mt€m ---------- — 7mL^ ***’ ••'**•**' r « r« typical CCS -E^CLS T«3EE PL^S'SC EuaaoEiELMiraiMiii^ •■Kidwiawi m tMOLim *wavia XKNTIRRAICEHOIC^U jC will II rw ■iwiiviMMait I - Conpaajf; L.LI' I mr f : ^ AT 5DODED EDCiE (E>TYP.CAL EPCa DETA L AT PLANTC<» bed Sifrtr*-'— I « • <M«<« « WPMf srsr.*ssy--—• *uV*tr "* i«M«9 » 4 r*i* *w# *M «■•••• W Umrn> ■m 0^»vmKmm 9^ * ^ • iPlM* •< • M «i •« L-‘ » tfw V •! ;/ Mkl* *14^ H.T* va :M»Wki • m Am p • f • »r MM rm •• iM •• I cmr 0U0MtTTAL PKP>«Kty.«003 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO, MINNCSai'A T-<cica L PEC*C-C^^ T»?EE Plan - vi 3N^ LANDFORM mS Af w*» < • • »<0tw I ■ CQ^ lAMKWIBOAU J1 1 V/: IS* HBPlPOB ■□II- ^:|_ ;: I'll ?iih^ ♦2^i^=;s«^ niMiiitm-iiiuiiimBi .mimiBnviaBBiiiia £ ■I g J<Q« Ull •ill ■BMilillllUasi.a^afl3ffiaaiK ®j i'ir ex O' ©lii <y©^ Hj) ©t ey gJ j gI ana ofunM «<a «<a |G— 0«WMa • OM • cut VMH 0MHMifn«a 0«M« ©k*M«« '©»•■ O' ii.*«r Bi Qmc M *x a • a»«a m O —■■■!■ amj 0 M M« K •««» a «d ®S?^“"^**** “ 04kjm w a*^M laiaSADiVS^----- * W »W> — 1^_________________»»-«■ mm___ B SSaiwS?^ PREUVlNARr: NOT FCR CCSSTRJCTION Cf J»’»«CA ’XJ« Uto UM. 'Wa£^Xzc4cL rrsMf aowi roMU'* MMTna omnoaaf««nM* 01.9PMM««C 'iOi-C r%! aOBMi A2.1ocoact^'■OMn'g 5RF—*• m—► - m—► lOUTHHETAI WW^ATIOM .*■ . . V\ Vv^ »U 'At .VSI^*.-'. liil Isl liil ^ EAgm^M pw/ATlON w T (me E/n TAL 1 OOOE : j^m 0 msr BETM.«i:wATinM 0 STALMEfUN 0^ ^mtiAutiAULm fTtiflfTri T\BftTSH «anw «o* g^p—» —f FI im^ia A-A. A.A.A.A.A.A. ...nXTr^>ID 0 < cc < i < ^6 S 1 nr«. lUMnoa i/i* - r-«* ELI MMOn —► ^^ Q wemMBttmiPKATinw G>eAgrBAMtBEVHHOI 0WEgTBAMCBPVATiQM A ama A. A. A- A. A. A. A- A. •T!5rJS-lESfiisr lU 0 < i X < I mtt UJ 1 •MM CUVBUQMS i/r • r-«* «»£?u Sf.>)yyA ^ ;,v i>r:V:;.r;v::r • .-. *• •••. -:; •»1 r 0MpNy^lT «M BJEVAT10N |•le^AMC/ i=5 ©WPWaffWQHaECTBN wSSi*^^___mmm^m 1 ^»w«a-u.«gar- ■t >-w IVcUffJuta^U, (■ iliITtWTMU A5.1 !>■ C>> 0-mHJUWBflrATIQN 0EAgrBAWCHJVATKpif V Mm.**, a mtm A. Am. A. ▲ . Am Am Amtz iis lU 0 < 1 X < 2 i<""g CD ® liJ I turn tJPiUtuS i/i* • r-0* «T KC ajsr-in^A ^ & PROPOSED SIGN ELEVATOR (TYPICAL OF THREE) #SQ-74 AIMXBOSM ij A iz UJ 0 <1 QC < < ^ m LU I •CIMCC «/♦• . I It ecc 0) SN1 c CITYof OROXO Municipal Offices Street Itfdrtst: 27S0 vaiti Piftwej Ofona. MJi 55356 M<ub| litfren P3. 6a 66 Cvral Bey. KN 55323-CC-: O. O V December 16,2003 John Trautz Reliance Development Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55402-1327 Re: Stonebay Marketplace Dear Mr. Trautz: retctionary mode WIc I we pro “rideT^^^^ m regMds to development of this site, we would like to reinforce a few kev coinl7wWch we believe are cntical in gaining City acceptance of this PUD project: As we indicated, the basic Walgreens flat-roofed design would not be accentable. wL’lJ’otST ' of uchitectural fe.turrand methods by hgher quality appearance can be accomplished, la our view, this necessarily roof «:«nont to cm.te a res dScharacser and to eliminate the 'bo.xiness ’ that U rommoriv ______ u.. 2.J a Signage pla.i more limited lha.n cur general zoning appropriate for this site. Small, low monument siens at each of nmni ^ ^ reasonable, and the monument at the comer of1-A\ illow can set the right tone for the site. Telephone (952) 249-WOO • Fax (952) 2494616 wwwxlj)rono4na.us JohnTrautz December 16» 2003 Page 2 Signage and believe it should not be incorporated into >our plan. ?lle U y 9u 1 apd C»m>lad9n. We have concerns rep:ding three speciSc areas of the sue Pint, the area ^lu'ccn the bank and the Wa:5rceas drive-through seems ex^ely narrow arid is a potential congestion point, with vehicles using the n^t-in Kcess ^cdiately encountering the primar.- driveway entrances for both the bank and the TOgrcens. Adding to this, the main parking area for bank patrons requires backing into the main driving lane, and the Walgreens drive-thru vondow entrance requires a lane crossing at mid-blcck. Further, with the limited bank parkmg bank customers during busy periods might see fit to park at the ° and add a pedestrian element to this Uu^oncem ^ conflict area needs f-nhcr refinement to address leaves no dedicated north-south pedestrian walkwa/dirough the center of tTc rile counleq?roductive in the scheme of the otherwise pedestrian-feicadly amenities parking op^si^*^th^<^ between the <Ly-c!eaner driye-ihru md the supports, adding to the visual cluSr!° backing into the canopy Third, we question the need for a double one-way lane at the west end of the strio center. tbwe is a potential or long-term intent for this to become a drive-thru, we would hkc to know that up front. We would oppose a drive-thm at^t location, and would prefer that the second lane become green space. Landscjipinqapd Green Space . We would prefer fr.-: all green spaces shown on your site plan be vegetated with grass and/or t..*e$ zrA shrubs. We also acknowicdge that some of the small green spaces shown will be difficult or John Tnutz December 16,2003 Page 3 SISf"™pS,= *’““ *>“' Potein'ally can be Kheduled as pan of the oT4ir»::;rs!r,Sis5r ” »><,ucstions.please contact me at 952-249-46(X), Sincerely, Mike Gaf&on Planning Director l/iBonestroo ££l?osene Anderlik& IvJl Associates Engineers 4 Architects December 31.2003 Mr. Mike Otffron Planning Director City of Onmo Post Of5ce Box 66 Crysul Bay. MN 33323 Re: Stonebty Marketplace File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 04-2974 *»»*"»■ AMrrSi an4 Aai*n«i«i. Inc l« an Arfwnatta* Artian/tauai Oaaa'twMt/ S<npiay«f r>«Mt»alc Cca a tenas-K »t • »*jnnn L Un«<a. rx . 0*nn ■ Caa*. rt . Baacn G toxa-ent . ' JTTf A. •a«^«en. ax • Mar« < njraa^ af. tafwa* Cannatantx tear-; « *••*-«■ at • jauan Cat . «<nai« C at . w,•» lte*w C»- Aitariata a-r«r«ate Cr<- « Ga'acn at . aear-t t at • laaara w aaut-. at . OanaO Laiteta at lacxMi 1 ta.r-iarr-. at - >: at • ir-vwtn a Araa^tan. at • Man t •aitv. af . Oa«-a K •anritracMl tanay a araanMn. as. tt - m »n« msa • xtan t n knnai. at - T>«nai • anan». at . aa-M* t Maareax • Mm 1 jantan at • L anna Oaoat • at . Sana* x (etanan. at • >«nvt(« Martwai a| • rnana* X I/'-a at • 9 ’rsr t jc-rrson . om A Cra«>a »X • Tnanaa X towmar. at . taaan x Oara-y. at oarwaK tc a«j $c Ooka fcc-acar ara wnnar. mn • M-natAra m • cx<a«a t MMiita; ■rvnaarcsTDa ca- ''ece/vgp '^^^(>S200i Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminiry constractien plans fer die proposed Stonebay Marketplace dcvelopmnu. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the icieneccon of Willow Drive and T.H. 12. The proposal provides for a mix of retail, office and service uses. W*e ha\e the following comments in regards to engineering matters. Sanitary Sewer Sendees: • All 6-inch sanitary sewcr services should be uialled at a minimum grade of 0.6%. • All sanitary services should be installed in accordance with city standards. Water Services: • The fire chief should re\iew and approve vetwlar access and b>'drant locations. • Suinless steel bolts shall be used on all h>drar:s and core-blue bolts shall be used on all fittings and joint restraint Storm Sewer: • Steam sewer calculations should be provided :cr review and approval. • All storm sewer shall be reinforced concrete pipe. • All storm sewers within the pavemcr.i secnoiu ihall have a minimum of 3-feet of cover between the finished street grade and the top of ±e pipe. Streets/Parldog Lots/Tralls: • A geotechnical report, R-valuc recorjceiuJaticn and pavement design should be provided for review a.id approval. • The typical trail section should be 3-ir.cfces r.pc 4 LA bituminous wear course. 6-inchcs of class 3 aggregate base and geotextile fabric. • Tbe proposed bituminous trail along WiBow Dnve should be 8-feet in width. Traffic: • Please see the attached ccmmeius acd sketch Shelly Johnson regarding trafific. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MS 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-13II sit* Gradlag tad Erasioa Controk Flnind*! CntraBt***; • Wewfflp*tp«eiconstnictioncoste$ti have been nibmitied.imt. ind il» «oci«ed (bacU jummet once the &»i pto. Phoee eooUct me et (MI) 604-M63 if ]f«i have «ajr qneaioni repidiii* iliu Your* v«y truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES INC maner. Tom Kellogg Attachments Cc: OregGapp*.CityofOrono Inter-Office Memo Bonertroo Bonn* AnStrOik Anod«tes Nni To: Tom Kellogg From: Shelly Johnson Date: 12/30/2003 0) Re: Stonebay Marketplace - Traffic Review Project 139-03-000; Land Use Application #04-2974 '■ WUlofori™*"'f" Ae iSttniifl ^nfi « «'« Office-relail building). This crossing* dds to west end circulauon road or “back out" of the parking aisle which isn't desirable. ^ thTcrosswik’^"" *' «>™ should be shonened so as not to eiirnd -h: Kelley Parkway driveway to provide a four fool median separaiint directional now. The dnveway angle, u it intersects with the parking aisle access, is such that the m'edian is needet If there are questions, please contact me. ffoneatroo, /7 om/m, Andtriik anc/XMoetates, Ine, wy¥w.bontst/eo.eon tL B«4 iI Ofllea: OK«: t3MwwiHr—>aa nitwMMMb^sbtMi ti^.bMHsi) tta««vw<ue«l •! «» tico t« 14t.*a« nMMi«»uu Km aiM4i.nei Roclwatw Offiet: <*<P*»rMII« Kac^MW.UNMm f-<crM ior-m-im K4K»r^»3iaa WUL-narOmev2nwi»iMiaw m M»t"hM. afrai4.fin Kac a>|i4.|4U SL Ooud Offlct; r3tn«»M>s h o«aimu30i Knex* 3»>»t.4SS3KctaMst^na ObtftyyTi 0«e» <nc »H4i KTxr tr*' •« Uwv<««^«.UU4 Kwcx* •4T<iK'UI K4« INCTCSI ^1 m% m ■■■ isrrt fUK KonsMM SJ«^j!w«7 ^£>5 «»*TnS M» "^M «■ «M % •tnran M« ■• • mmmm •• •» E>sur,';£ifri?Ri^s sl^sv« IPARiCNC SUMMAEYI m 9 m ^ji» ««• !/• 5/Iiir• I* **^a m r«»mt m 9 m^* ^ja •«• au • «i • Ma Iwa 9fm • a r«a TX7£w^«a» ai > a» • •«» a *t'^ aan« »*<>a rw» r«Mj • «; «%ai »iri a 1^ • 14 r a -^timJ «a t»a«« a%*a«aja a urn aww a •%» •ta t*ta •e% a a«» a -f< ^ > I . ■ ■„..^^—i> •• • cjKvcLXHuairaiKnu; w •MA4-m «^—fni IMMU Mi XHNTIWmBOkGLLC CompuTv L L? evxaiT jra f. pjg, I rr.*r.-. ciTir sudmitta;. P«3yBgfy.20C3 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONQ, MINNESOTA >1^ LANDFORM *. u.~r-» nt&AOvXr •Bir-v* 1 DAI IK.KI \ s| lAKl Ai )\\ A\D I T,A\ COKSUtTlMC FLAMNIM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS JOO rtMT AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS. MN SS40I 612 JJP SJOO MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15.2004 TO: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP; Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Stonebay Marketplace, Highway 12 and Willow Drive, Orono Introduction .-\t your request we have rcview’cd the materials submitted for the Stonebay Marketplace PUD, as well as city staff and consultant comments, and offer the following comments for the Planning Commission at their January 20 meeting. Rocommondatlon Based on our review of the Stonebay site plan I w'ould recommend that the Planning Commission continue review of the PUD to a later meeting - perhaps a month out - allowing the developer, suff, and consultants additional time to look at alternative layouts and a revised plaa 1 believe the time spent in this additional review will be well worth the effort fer the developer and the City in gening the best project possible for this important comer in Orono. The ideal situation is for the staff and developer to come to the Plaiuiing Commiision with a plan that they feel works well for everyone. Comments We looked at the various elemen: of the Stonebay Marketplace PUD and have the following comments: Site Plan. The site plan places three buildings on a small odd-shaped site, with one full access off Kelley Parkway and one right-in/right-out access to Willow Drive. All three buildings (Walgreen’s pharmacy, bank, office/reiail) are shown with drive-through lanes, plus their owm parking lots. The combination of these numerous features crowded onto the site creates a number o: awkward or potentially unsafe internal intersections. These have been pointed in other memos by st^ and consultants. These issues alone suggest that there needs to be mere work on the site plan, to make all the uses fit together harmoniously. All other rite and building issues should be pul off until the basic site arrangement can be made to work. MUu GqgHon City of Orww January IS. 2004 2) Pedestrian Connections. A key goal of the dc\ eIopraent it to be pcdesthtn-fricndly for the immediate residential neighbors noith of the site on Kelley Parkway. All three uses turn their back to the residential side in favor of the Highway 12 side. While visibility to Highway 12 is desirable and important, there could be arrangements that try to accommodate both, while still functioning well for the retail operators. Ideally, pedestrians need a pleasant, safe, dedicated pathway from origin to destination. For example, the sidewalk off Kelley Farlo^ ay near the main entry into the site docs not provide such a pedestrian connection to the front door of Walgreen's. Again, until the basic site arrangement works, all other issues fall to the side. 3) Architecture. The building materials and details are quite nice and would create a high quality, residential character to the development I am especially pleased to sec Walgreen ’s come forth with this kind of design. Older versions of their stores have not offered this level of design sophistication. I do not have color material samples, but I presume the colors of Walgreen's materials are compatible with one another in earth tones and green, and also compatible with the materials and colors of the bank and oflice/retail building. 4) Signage. Signage is a critical element to creating the character of the development - the size, style and placement all being imponanL I agree with staff comments that signage on the Highway 12 frontage should be reduced or eliminated, relying irutead on building signage and monument signs elsewhere on the site. I will be happy to assist in further detailed review of the Stonebay Marketplace PUD at your convenience. CMP Part 3B. Laad Use Plao extent limited by enviroomcr.ial constraints, each such development must be analyzed and revieurd on an individual basis. The properties Identified for residential development at densities of 2*6 units per acre include properties guide-planned for such use as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1988, as well as properties heretofore planned for single family development at runl densities All identified properties are located relatively high in the Lake Minnetonka watershed, allowing ample opportunit> for effective stormwater management. These properties are detailed in the following tables and maps. Site Descriptioo: SHEA (Parcel Group 1. Map 3B-7) 50-aerc parcel located oortb of Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Cry stal Bay Road Backgrouod, Site Cbaracterbtics Planned Development Parameters A number of potential development schemes for this parcel which included lownhomes and commercial development were reviewed in 1987 which became the basis for CMP Amendment Itl adopted May 23, 1988. This site was not subsequently developed, with the exception that the City of Orono municipal facilities were developed at the west end of the parcel in 1991. A development option for the vacant parcel was generated by the City's consulting planner, DSU Inc., in 1998 at the City’s request, taking into account new information including the new MnDOT ^ stormwater pond; City's new topography maps suggesting greater areas r. wetland than previously anticipated, and the initial development of Kelley Parkway that established a serv ice road corridor at the v.est end. The intent of this plan set w as to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed The result of the 1987 study was adoption of a plan with the following components: a. An east-west service road will be developed connecting Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive, located approximately 300-50'' feet north of H:ghwa\ 12. This service road will allow for one tier of developable lots between the service road and Highway 12. such lots to have access to the service road but not to Highway 12 due to traffic considerations b. The portion of the property between Highway 12 and the service road may be developed with one t er of commercial uses, to potentially include professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use ________ c The portion of property north of the serv ice road may be developed for residential uses, potentially a mix of single family and multi-family uses at a density of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre. d. Conversion from 2-acre rural zoning to to the mixture of uses described above will be subject to strict performance standards which were added to the Oreno Zoning Code in 1989 City of Orono Connuaitjf Maoagcmeol Plan ScfUabcr 2M0 rage 30-34 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 4^ *- L Urban CommercUl Land Use Urban commercial development is limited to tvso areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial Cviitcr of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navane. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices arxl owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly enviromnent is the most important development parameter for the Navane commercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of iixlividual commercial sites in Navarre to allow' for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities. An additional commercial area is designated along Highway 12 where the availability of transportation and utilities as w*ell as proximity to similar commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make commercial use appropriate. Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to Highw’ay 12 area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. The retail development in the Highway 12 area will be community/neighborb^d s*ale rather than ‘big box* regional scale development The types of retail uses will be those that focus on providing services to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono. while also drawing from the traffic stream that will be on current Highway 12 after the Highway 12 Reroute is open. However, the retail development is not to draw substantial traffic from beyond Orono. The development plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally- owned and operated businesses tliat provi^ services to Orono and Long Lake residents. AddiiiomJiy, the Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian- friend'y area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the public. The two commercial areas along Highway 12 witliin Orono arc identified in Map 3B-7 and includr the following: City of Orooo CoBouoity .MaoasctDcat PUo S«pu«b«r MOO Page 3B-37 CMPPMtSB. LaadUMPlu Property abatting the north side of existing Highway 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) from Brown Road North to Willow Drive. This area was reviewed as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1989, resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uses abutting Midway 12, with primary access to a service road connectiog from Brown Road to Willow Drive, and elimination of direct access to Highway 12. The area is currently hounded on the north by existing residential development at densities ranging from 1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per 1.3 acres. The western half of this area has since been det’eloped via PUD as a nursery/garden center with included leasable commercial spaces. The east half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000 S.£ office building, and a vacant 6.5 acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Browr Ruau^nd Highway 12. The Ciqr Council in February I .‘>98 adopted a General Concept Plan for development along Highway 12 iiulicating that the Council's vision includes community scale tetail development (as opposed to regional or 'big box* scale development) focused in a more compact area in or near downtown Long LaV e (closer to Drown Road than to Willow Drive, at least in the short term) for the following reasons: 1. Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area, and helps preserve owner-operated small service busmesses in Long Lake which are vital to Orono and Long Lake residents. 2. Focuses on malotainiog a vital dowxtown and "sense of place" for both Long Lake and Orono. 3. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity. 4. It is easier to plan, coordinate and control the development of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. 5. Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability' to obtain desirable development on the north side of Highway 12 east of the Otten Brothers Nursery. 6. Enables better control over the amount of retail development that occurs along Highway 12. 7. Proudes the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high tech, medical, etc. City of Oroao Comnuolty Maaagcacat Plao s«94<ak<f 2M« Page 3B-38 CMP Fart 3B. LaodUBcPUn 8. A more compact community scale retail area matches the design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through Long Lake. 9. Limits the impact on north/south roadways (i.e. increased trafBc and activity levels) as compared to the more intense “big box" retail uses. 10. Maintaiia a lower activity level in the area west of Willow Drive. 11. Would create less pressure for providing access from new Highway 12 to the retail area. Accordingly, this area should be developed with a mix of commercial uses including retail, service and office components. Access via a service road paralleling Highway 12 should still be required rather than direct access to Highway 12. since existing traffic levels along Highway 12 arc expected to remain at a level which makes direct all way access difficult and dangerous. The Highway 12 re-route (“proposed Highway 12*') when completed in approximately 2007 will have a significant impact on access for this area, because current Highway 12 traffic levels are expected to increase between now and 2007, then should drop dramaticdly when the Bypass opens. Howes'er, traffic levels on "old Highway 12" after 2007 arc expected to again creep upward, and the long-term need for a se.vice ro^ may again manifest itself. For this reason, it is in the best interests of the City and the business community to preserve at least a partial service ro^ corridor between Brown Road and Willow for future use, that will provide all properties with act ss options otl^ than direct access from Highway 12. The City supports the development of a "mid-point" connection to Highway 12 directly across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right-in, right-out configuration. Further, if and when the service road is constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should ultimately be removed. Property abutting the north side of cxbting Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map 3B-7 as the ‘conuncrcial’ portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent City of OroDO Coamaolty MaoJtemcat Plan SepttaWr rOM Page 3B-39 CMP Part 3R Lud Um Plaa * to the north side ofHigh^wBy 12 forcoounexcial development At that time, the City was not dear about the type of commercial development that should be planned for this area. Through joint discussions with the City of Long Lake regarding development along Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development in this area would be office development Office development can provide services for Orono residents, can provide facilities for businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality employment opportunities. The development of this area for office use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a more compact pedestrian-friendly retail n*ea versus a non-cohesive ex tended strip of retail devdopment Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto Highwqr 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay The City’s intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north of the service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by MnDOT midway between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow, and the City's intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportunities for large office sites axe limited. As many as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the intended residential development to occur. This area is guided for office use with minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. “Big box” retail uses will not be allowed within this area. aty of Oreoe CoaaoalQr Maaif cacat PUa Stftaabcr 3MW Ps|c3B-40 mil niMOiaMrife tmA Mm «VM^ !»•»««% Pireal G«eup 2: CiM»ia2mn| bn*i| 0>M>mn |iHe)mfMlBmM«i«M»>*sirMM«iMit*'ifOmiacrat muMHO^prn im Plfcal Ofoup 3:_______ __________ giiimitwn m II <rm 1>1I nx — JAM U^xwa {•IW)ar^tr«l»M«im M« >MV«a «W M • Mnm « ' «MW J KFW miM«0«MilMn Snp* W} Ml >Mrw«dM■•!««% 1114 iMHIwm Cammarttil Atm Batwraan Willow Dr. and Brown Rd.: BCSfiKaTSSf ” tiMiia^MPlat (imiOWB»ww..iu»MMB««M'tHy»i,, «1 — n»>»«c» >bi Imw aw« Mid ■ »> K«w i*r M MfMM »> Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change City of Orono Minnesota "T • *no /oF\ map: RINGERS 2 \l r' RUN DATE:HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP »INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0» -RSUSr rAfii I * 72 3JIII2H400II ROPADDR 2460 tNDUSTRIAL BLVD W WNERNAME ETCO PROfEKTIES tNC AXPAVtA irCOfROrERTlESINC AME/ADOR ISMO WAYZATA BLVO «7$4 WAYZATAMN 3S39I 72 33III23I400I2 rROP ADOR 2420 INOUST RIAL BLVO W OWNER NAME LOSE AND SON INC TAXPAYER SAFEWAY STORAGE WC NAME/ADOR 2420 W WOOSTRIAL BLVD LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 33III23I400I3 PROPADDR 24)0 INDUSTRIAL BLVO W OWNER NAME ROTIIGRFAVES MOLDINGS LLC TAXPAYER ROTMGREAVES MUU)INGS LLC NAME/ADDR 301) CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 33391 72 3)11123140021 ROPADDR 246) INDUSTRIALOLVDW •WNERNAME LARTCHDEVELOPMENT00 AXPAYER FRED MANUS AME/ADOR ISMIWESTOAKS MINNETONKA MN 33343 72 3311123140023 PROPADDR 2410 INDUSTRIAL BLVO W OWNER NAME SYSTEM CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP TAXPAY lR MCDONALDS 22 0322 NAME/ADDR PO BOX 66207 AMFOItARE CHK'AGOIL 60666 72 33III23I40026 PROPADDR 2400 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNER NAME SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERJCA LLC TAXPAYER speedway SUPERAMERNTA LLC NAME/ADDR C/0 PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 339 MAIN STS UNDLAYOII 43140 )• 34IIU332000S ROPADDR 701 DICKEY LAKE OR •WNERNAME PAKPUOH AXPAYER PATRICK A KAREN PUOII lAME/ADOR 723 DICKEY MKE DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 II 34III232200I4 PROPADDR 2330 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNERNAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYER CUFPORD A LOUISE OTTE N NAME/ADDR BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 33336 31 341112)320011 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNERNAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYER CUFPORD A IjOUISEOTTEN NAMFZADDR BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN ))))6 31 3411133230020 ROPADDR 31 ADDKFXS UNAVSKINED iWNIRNAMU CALOnU4 AXPAYER CUFFORDALOUISCOTTEN AMr^ADUR BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 34III2323000I PROP ADOR 2399 WAV7ATA III.VI) W UWNI.KNAME OKUNO PKOPLKItlS LU* TAXPAYER ORONO PROPERTIES Ur NAME/ADOR C/0 CECRGAYNC KRAMER 2I70SMEVUNDR WAYZATAMN 33)91 PROP AIMIH 73 34111232)0002 2363 WAV/ATAIILVn W UWNI K NAMI: H L A II H IIALNil N I; I Al. TAXPAYIJt OSCAR SEVLD A IK)UR) IIAKIMI 3903 lILKNAKOri. EDINA MN 33436 NAME/ADDR 31 331112)1 10M9- ROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO •WNERNAME DAIILSTROM DEVELOPMENTUC AXPAYER AME/ADOR OAIILSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC 7743 POLARIS LA MAPLE GROVE MN 33311 L I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTIC HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES OePARTMEPrT, TO THE BEST OFMY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF. BY ^ 4EPrr.T0THEBESr ^ la&a&i DtU AppUcatkm Rtctivcd: 1-21*04 Date ApptIcaUon Coiuidercd as Complete: 1-21-04 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 3-21-04 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director January 30. 2004 #04-2983 James and Jean Echtencamp. 2800 Pheasant Road - CUPA^ariance for Land Alteration in 0-75' Zone - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, I-acix tmn. Lot Area: 88.543 s.f. (2.03 acres) Application Summary: Applicant requests CUP approval for filling within 75* of the lake to avoid construction of a retaining wall at the 75’ setback line adjacent to the dnveway. St^ff Recommendation: Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed grading. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 78-282; LakeshoreHardcoverandLand Alteration Regulations Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures.. 2. Section 78-1112: Development Restneted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstnicuons, sepue systems, well or other construction shall be allow ed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwatei elevation of any lake shoreline. .. 3. Section 78-1286(b): Grading, filling orexcavating of more than lOcubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Section 78 1217„. 4. Section 78-1286(e): (Shoreiand standards for CLIPs and variances for land alteration) List ofExhlbiU A - Application and Hardship Sia'cmcnt B - Letter of Request C - Survey/Site Plan - Existing D - Suivey/Site Grading Plans - Proposed E - Photographs F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map H - Resolution No 4847 (2002 \'ar. approval) I - Code Excerpts • Land Alteration Standards •04.2983 Januaf7 30.2004 P«fc2 Background Please review ihe applicant’s letter of request. Bncfly. this property was granted hardcover variances in 2002 for a rebuild. The basis to allow the hardcov cr excesses w as primarily rcla’^ed to die perunsula shape of the lot, leaving about 1.5 acres of the 2-acre lot in the 0-75’ zone; and the placement of house and dnveway which allows for an unusually substantial area of lawn in the runoff flow path for infiltraiion. In order to avoid filling in the 0-75’ zone to accommodate the dnveway. the applicant was approved for a retaining w all adjacent to the dnveway. Now that the house is completed and final grades established, applicant has concerns about the necessary height of the retaining wall. From staffs perspective, safety IS the pnmary factor which suggests that elimmaring the wall may be appropnatc. The wall as approved was nght at the edge of the dri vew ay. with an immediate drop of 2 5'. then a 1:1 downslopc for another 34', w ith gradual slope after that. The driveway functionally is about 6’ above onginal grade at this point, and filling/grading would have stopped at the 75' setback line. This immediate grade change in an area th.it will have pedestnan traffic, children playing, etc. is less than ideal. The visual impacts of the wall would be primarily as it is viewed from the lagoon. Grading the slope and vegetating it w ould provide a softer and more natural view from the lagoon than a 64' long. 2 ’-6" hi gh w al I The driveway itself will not be very visible from the lagoon regardless of whether the wall is built. Applicant has suggested that creating a slope from the dnveway (clev. 942 ) to the esist.ng grade (934*) would eliminate 64* of retaining wall, or approximately 50-60 s.f. of hardcov cr. which w ould allow for a better situation in terms of ninoff. The trade-off is that rainfall that would have fallen on a relatively flat lawn surface at the base of the wall, will now fall on a slope and be somewhat more prone to run off than scak in during certain storm events. It’s probably an even trade. City code requires finish grades to be 3:1 or flaner in a situation such as this. Therefore, the 8' total drop translates to a 24' w idc slope. The dnveway is about 79' from the shoreline, so the toe of the f^11 area w ill be approximately 55 ’ from the shoreline, and the filled area w ill be about 80' in length. Total fill needed to do this is esti mated by staff at approximately 250 cubic yards of matenal [80 ft x (avg.7x24/2) / 27 ft per cy = 248 c.y.J. The fill w ill cover approximately 1900 s.f.; about 2/3 of this m the 0-75’ zone. Hard^gver. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone was approved at 8.810 s.f. or 39 2'^ of the 75-2.50’ zone This was equivalent to 9.97t of the total lot area. Hardcover associated with the retaining wall is approximately 50-60 s.f.. so without it ihx 75-250’ hardcover will reduce to about S.750 s f or 38 9%. Hardcover Zone Area In Zone Allovied Hardcover RcsoL No. 4847 Propowd Hardcover 0-75 ’66.0X6 s.f.Osf. lOS-)Os.f 75-250 22.497 s f 8.810 sf. (39.2%)8.750sf. (38 9%) If— i •04*2983 January 30,2004 Pa|t3 Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a letter of request and completed the hardship documentation form included in Exhibit A-2, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Issues for Consideration 1.Is the reduction of negauve impacts associated vuth a 2-3' high retaining uall sufficient to offset any potential negative impacts of the proposed fill to within SS* of the shoreline? To mitigate any negative runoff impacts that might be created by the increased slope in the 0-75' zone, the City could require a 5-10' wide vegetated border/buffer be established at the base of the slope. This area could be maintained in high grasses or other vegetation which would allow for greater infiltration in this area. It could be a visual amenity as well as having runoff treatment value. 3. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a vanance and CUP to allow the fill as proposed in the 0-75' zone, to allow for elimination of the previously approved retaining w all, based on the plan increasing safety of the site, reducing the negative visual impacts of a wall at the 75' se.back, and resulting in maintenance of an equivalent level of stormwater treatment, subject to: i. Final grade of slope to be established at 3:1 ; and Establishment of a 5-10* wide unmow ed vegetated buffer (raingarden) for infiltration at the base of the slope. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Partway Orcno, MN 55355 Main 952-249-46C0 fax 952-249^616 MaiUng Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-G366 Applicjlicr a Date Received" Amojr.t Paid Staff; ____; Fee:S630 Renewal: 53CD After-the-fact Si 200 Doute Fee This application form must be completed in fuli. App^cant will be notified withm 15 days as to the status of th application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ^oolcJ g-\ \\n 32. COOMProperty Identification Number (PIN); (Attach legal description to application if not uncluded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): a crz. □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property; *£1 Residential □ 0*jier Zoning District; ______ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal nares and mantal status required for each interested paly) Name: x«Ncx.5:>cv*e.c3 Phone (home): ^*5.2. Phone (wdrk): Address: VotoO Qtovno Email: \Go\.A v<><L«'Vc- • cr.o'ro MOV OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete ie;a* names z-i manta: status requ red for cacn interested pa.iy) Name: ______r>e.e. oQicsova e-__________ Phone (home); ____________________ Address: ________________________ Email: Phone (work': Fax; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ Sooo Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary); oA.V qi^ s»sc -\W- 0-~\^ ^ ocA ■2.0VNP ■ ~\\\e- i::>xg>cseg.g.t^ (qS \.U-\ros\T ^ 0-».Nr ^ <7 OC g. V~ Q>tv>-V\\e. *~IS ^QQ-\ Vv.v\eL. cvj C^.^ ^-c-ejoke. Oi^ ^0»r 'fX\Ojr\ric,«'Co,gt~o>rv- . o V\.Qw5i AVe (pM Uvric^V. ^cx.-v CA.VSsc^rv.^'tvor As.g .'N, gj^ VxQca. \JN\v<vtv.<a.\o<^yNccxia v.^*CA.‘''.g»r- c^octV.-V e._^cxs-Vtt^ Vyxg.'orocM^ /* REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the foll(^ng information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order fcr yo O' O' O'□ B- O' 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 ma List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Fmarc Go\/ernmenl Center. A-603 300 South 6^^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting ?I| the requiremen listed Within this pacKet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one coov 8 5" x 1 r 11" X17" for reproduction. 0«\9 vVeoo'v\Vv. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one coov 8 5' x 1 or 11" X 17" for reproduction. kx « i Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11* or 11" x 17") □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending cn the scope of the project." APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Plannir Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payme-'t) and/ consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/she is solo responsible for subrnitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so tl Applicant’s Signature; Applicant's Signature:\- OWNER’S ACKNOWLED i^ENT: Owner's Signature ^ Owner's Signature: Applicant must have all Amittals into the” City offices 25 days before the Planning Commss.t /•-Vv b il - - * h? r /4'2- Page 1 of t“ HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An applicat on will not be cors dered complelL or placed cn any meeting agendas until th*s fcrm is complete and submir.ed to the Cly. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 req”ires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances njn with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic Situalions are not cons dered valid hardships, in order for an app’ication to be hea*d by the Planning Commisscn and City Council a hardship having meht must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This fcrm 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 pc'nts listed below and answer them as clearly as possib'e Since you are requesti.ng the code exception, you have Lhe burden of proving that the variance is justified. Tr*e information the City receives is \Ahat is used in cetermring a der al or approval recomrendat cn If you leave something curt it wi'l not be cors dered Please address each of these hardship entena as they relate to the request (some nay rot apply): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions a'lowed by the offeia! controls " *TV>e. C-cx^tn. vXvHVvAVwe. V c^^V^vV^<Xl\ VC >~v vQ o..Ou rr\Qce. rr^^.^»cT _______________________________________________ *V-o rvi'CN.-oQ^ ooeoVO ViA "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to h.s property not created by the landowner." cugl-^e- \c\ v*a o<n VxaSugs^iNcvg.. *~\S Vocftc>\.g_ Ok. ~y cvr>g» W\.c_Vn V.\.rv\ V<. g -k “The variance, g-anted, v^:ll not alter the essentia! character cf the loca'ity ’ “XQ Voc.c>\ c.Wx.rc>g,\e<r vjjANr\Vo^ ^<.1 l\iN< cx V\c3kA.i^T-QA. o e.Vccv.\.^v:.g .' ^3 — si —^ — "Economic consideralons alone shall not constitute an undue hareship if reasonable use fer the property exis's under the terms cf the Zenmg Chapte'." <*\oV cv,c:.r^\.Vwi___ V A-2. Page 1 of f HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An applicat on will not be considered complete or placed on any meelng 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 hea-d by tne Planning Commiss.cn and City Council a hardship having m.erit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This fcrm 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 y are requesting the code exception, you have the bu *den of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is wha- is used in determining a denia' or approval reccmTendaticn If you leave something out it will not be considered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some nay net apply): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used ur’der conditions a ’lowed by the official controls." qQ \Ve. o:>gxV\ aS_OO.S\-*i>Cg. \.S ex soVjo'tNjotN. -Vo o.5e)o\<b Vaa 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." cxc.’^e \q\ . y cjce^VtrL v^vV- ^CX.cic«-as CA»PNd) 'r\aX«ATcv!\ "The variance, if g'anted. w-II not alter the essentia! character cf the locality /XQ ■VV^e, Vg>c.c»\ c.Wx.vor:.\ej|fc- "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an uroue hareship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapte'.’ ,s^:- /■ ': V 6. 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,* >c\d\ •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a - apsa. 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling - 8. 9. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such i.«rocerty or immediately adjoining property.* "Wv!!. =.ot\aA;.oc^.5. ■te.ooes,-'. -VVvfecgL. tv,-. -\W. ^Vv^Ao.c- lrs^^o,W^ e-fscvA.v^di>fv^_______________ \ Page 2 of 3 6. 8. 9. •Undue hardship also indudes, 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 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 spedal conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such picu-ftny or immediately adjoining property * ■ V.o\ Woc&ero^ qo.-<cuaQ o9 \o>ce..aN>o'r«- -------- •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.* _____Vc\»\v<»v -g5v -VnNOK-^ OlXC- VNt-% e>^Ve.<*________________________ AW ■^vrrsAcxg- •The granting of the appncation is necessary for the preservation and enioyment of a substantial property right of the applicant* •The grantng of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfert. morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Cede.* Page 3 of 3 12. ‘The grantina of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty * rvr*>-W Hardship Statemefit Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________________________________________________ « «'• 'Nii*V . A-2 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWUOGEMENT FORM I (w«) Mri. ■ _______ [print name(s)]U .’t address] *^^^**** property located I (we) ufKlerstand 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 Coundi approval. ProoeSvOwneri/ Date — Property Owner Date •••••••^•••••eeeeeooeeeoooee**#*#^# I (we) Q.-^ c( [print name(8)j [print address] s ?! use of the property located I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Counol that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Coundi approval. If you have any information that may assist the Crty In the review of this Land Use prior to m”’ <romments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days RR 3 BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION OF REQLTST Applicant purchased the property in April 2002. The property is a unique, peninsular property, surrounded by water on three sides with approximately 1,700 feet of lakcshore on the two-acre site. The significant amount of lakeshorc along the 0-75 foot zone resulted in a relatively small and narrow buildable zone for such a large parcel. Working with staff, applicant requested a hardcover variance for the site. Applicant proposed to remove existing dwelling hardcover from the 0-75 foot zone and to construct a property that did not exceed the current existing hardcover. Both the planning commission and the council, with the findings that the unique nature of the peninsular lot resulted in a hardship to the applicants, approved the application unanimously. The application and findings are in applicants file at the city offices. In subsequent meetings with city staff, applicants voluntarily eliminated a lower garage entrance and two retaining walls within the buildable zone, resulting in further reduction of retaining wall hardcover. The remaining retaining wall is approximately 64 lineal feet and rests on the 75-foot lakeside setback line. In designing the wall, the landscape architect noted that the wall could be eliminated if a gentle slope could be graded approximately into the 0-75 foot setback. The actual area of grading in the 0-75 foot zone is relatively small and can be accomplished along with the sod restoration that will follow construction. The proposed slope is illustrated on the topographical map included with the application. The advantages of such a slope are: 1. Elimination of 64 lineal feet of hardcover on the 75-foot setback line. 2. Increased vegetative surface and a more positive environment for run-off. 3. A safer surface area, as opposed to a two and one-half foot tall retaining w-all. 4. Such elimination of hardcover and better management of nutrient run-off is more in keeping with the Orono City Philosophy for protecting the Lake and promoting better water quality. Current discussions with staff indicate this plan will be a more desirable alternative to a retained surface. The grading can be easily accomplished as a part of the required landscaping and sodding following construction. It will result in minimal disruption in the setback area. Applicant has included before and after topographical surve>s showing the area of recommended grading to avoid retaining wall ha^over. In addition, we have included photographs of the area to be sloped and the adjacent property’s driveway and slope. You will see that the adjacent property graded a substantially similar slope in 2003 to accommodate its driveway. Such similar slope is illustrative of the grade that applicants are proposing In summary, applicants respectfully request the approval of grading in the 60-75 foot portion of the 0-75 foot setback pursuant to the attached grading plan in order to eliminate approximately 64 lineal feet of retaining wall hardcover. JJ- O .■O Q m ROAD i*30" E «?■ ti-macn \ \ \\ V \\ \ \ miov< \ \ ^7S> SETBACK LtC [)^TMG \ BOAT \ MOUSE. \ CONCBETC.\ SOeWALK \ \\ 'PROPOl bRIVEB \ »r smjcf rAL SCAWAU \ EWAY \ \ /ttTSI*fi»*e Mil \ t EXtSTiiG BOAT A SMELTER \* pRo^^a- tlOUSE % \ \ --V* I »»>» *W w \ \ \ vr immm M \ ‘u—1 \ ' I ■’ Setback uc '/\ ^ J '■ / EMSTtid 1 '' • \/ hou 5eT • . ok '(T<r^, REEVED) ^ ...............«■«. ■ ---------—---------------------------------------' ^ *29.4 0» lake 'll ROAD ’iin 0-t>? •s> yff BE.RtKWVtu, jj*- . J \ .... \^_:iSr^'zlzZZZZZZZll........................^ ‘ *' 129.4 OOh lake OLD CHy np\ /I \ s'>'>lk\ y'S- fhpM- J.l (■' ■^) {, .O Oif #4^ • 4c/ , /i/>/>'^' Z>'2 y M: lisSs?' (tWWIKWI ^'33te •V'*C-^s^.mm lia ^-i*.'* v‘ *-> ^ i W' — *4iv a V- \ /; !• ^ . * .:■> ■-f/y, • * i • - ; '" ** •" fw* • » %; iv.g<*|ii^.'',4 ' V «• •*»•* "' W?S7«---i..V.•'• .. ■> •• •••' ■ • ■ &•••■. ■ .. •*' ■■ r.. . ' * ••:••...-• .“■•. • 5^ : ■* "/-H" i • *- ..• V b^lf^'■■■l Uvi l»l**<ai0^ '^5^^^**’** ■••w'*»*^«-•■%.«»ift«., V!h iMlJL RUNOATTrlMOOn M aill72»MMM n» ADM M ADOftTSS UNASSIGNEO OWNfellNAMt PHtASANT LAWN HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER fMLASANT LAWN IKJMLOWNI RS NAMiyAOOR aroO PLEASANT HD EXCELSIOR MN SSJ.II Hr.NNCPisconNTT PROPhRrs- information system PROrtRT Y OW-NUIS LIST PAGI U 2IIIT}12M»IS PROP ADDR 27W PHEASAN f RO OWN!R NAME TJMAllONLVAKAMAIiONtV lAXPAVER TIMOIMYJ MAHONEY NAMfMOOR 27M PHEASANT RO EXniSIOKMN 5SOI )l 211172)240001 PROP AOOR im MIAUYWOOO Kt» OWNER NAME UOAJMIOX 1AXPAYLR OAYlORDOAiOiiMARII MIX NAMUADOR 2701SIIAI)YWOODRO tXCEI-MOKMN 5JJ3* M 211173)240004 PROPADM 372S SHADYWOOORD OWNER NAME M OAR A MEEK TAXPAYER MICHAEL D A ROni RTA A MEEK NAMI/AOOR 2725 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOHMN 5SJ1I n 311172)12000) PROP AOOR 27V9 PHEASANT RD OWNER NAME ELMER J MARTINSON TAXPAYER UMER J MARIINSON NAME/ADDR 2»*9 PHEASANT RD EXaUAIORMN S5))t n 2111721)1000) PROP AOOR 2745 SHADYWOOD RU OWTIERNAMC JAMES E ZIMMERMAN TAXPAYER JAMISL/JMMLHMAN NAMI7ADDR 2745 SHAOYIA'OOI) RD LXCLI.SR)RMN 5)1)1 M 211172)120001 PROP AOOR 2000 PHEASAM RD OWNUINAME lAMESOrCHIENKAMPETAl Ia XPAYTR JAMES a jean ICHIENKAMP NAME7AOOR «20 RIRCH BLHII RU TONKA DAY MN 5S)JI )• 211122)120002 PROPADOR 2m PHIASANTRD OWNER NAME RRTlARD A MAR> AN ■TAXPAVI R KK'HARO A MAR/AN NAMFMOOR 270) PHEASAN T f O OKONOMN )5))l I CERTIFY THAT TMU FACTS REPRESENT ED ARE AN ACCTIRATC AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS IlATbONTHE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVIQS DEPARTI^ENT. TO HIE BEST . . * OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND UEUE;F. ( DATE by (D *• V •4 OKONO cm' J--------------- not rrquirr the issuance of a separate grading and Tilling permit. However, all grading and Tilling activity approv-ed permits for construction of Mruc- ture*. sewage treatment systems, and dri\‘eways klinll adhere to the grading and filling standards of this article. I te» The following considerations and condi- [ tions must be adhered to during the issuance of : conotnirtion permits, grading and Tilling permits. \ rondition.il use permits, variances and subdivi* I man approvals; tbi Gratling. Tilling or escavating of nurv than ten cubic yards is pruhibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high w.iler level of the public w.iters enumer.ited in section 78-1217. Grading, Tilling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. Id Public and private roods, drivewa)-!. park ing nrt*ns. and public or privote wntercrnfl occess ramps shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such iraprovemenU shall be subject to tlie standard xoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account tlie following considerations: Such improvements shall be designed to tnke odvantage of natural vegetation and tupogrnphy to achieve maximum screen ing from view from public waters. All ro.ids and parking areas shall be de signed and constructed to minimire and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdicUon. (d) Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways, a land alteration |M*rmit will be required as follows; Kor iitoveinent of one through 500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued liind alteration permit shall be required For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland ‘^erlay District, conditional use permit approx-ol by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration nermit. X.. I CD7S 192 Cradin" or Tilling in any type 2. .1. 4. -5.0. 7 or .S wetl.ind must be evalti.-ved fo determine how extensively the pro|x>sed activity would alTect the following func tional qualities of the wetland; a. Sediment and pollutant trapping .and retention. b. Storage of survive runoiT to prevent or ivtluce flood d.image. c. Fish and wildlife habit.it; Recreational use; Shoreline or bank stabilization: and Noteworthiness, including tpoci.il qualities, such as historic signifi cance. critical habitat for endan gered plants and animals, or othera. This evaluation must also include a deter mination of witether the wetland alter ation being proposed requires penmts, reviews or approvals by other local state or federal agencies including but not lim ited to watershed districts, state dc|inrt- ment of natural resources, or the United St.itea Army Corps of Engineers. I 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. Mulches or similar materials roust be used, where necessary, for temporary hare sod coverage, and a permanent vegrtatioo cover must be estoblished as toon as pos- t.ble. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any sur face water feature must be used Altered areas must he stabilized to accept able erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the XOMM: REOUUTIUNS I local foil and water conservation districti ond the United States Soil Conserv ’ation 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 materi.il on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city enfincer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8t Kill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. «9l Any alterations below the onlinary hij-li water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat. i 103G.245. tlOi Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not aiUerseU affi'cl adjacent or nearby property. Ml) I’bcement of natural rock riprap, includ ing associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is per^ mitted if the finished slope 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 riprap alwve the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet A riprap permit slnll be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969 ------------------ tf) Kxcavations where the intendcsl puriwse is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations Mow the elevation or the ordinary high watt-r k-vel are subject to approval of the departnu-nl of natural resources and other agencies with concur rent jurisdiction • Old No 101 2nd series. } H10.56(16xJu. 2-2-1- 1992. Ord ,\o. 127 2nd senes, f 8.7-11-1994. Onl No. 163 2nd series. S 3. 12-8-1997. Ord. No 171 2nd series. { 2.4-4*1998) Sec. 78*1287. Stormwater management. 1 The following general and specific standards Uball apply in addition to those sUndards found tin article Vlll of this chapter and section 82-222 tl) When possible, existing natural drninngcways. wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filler .md 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 volocitio« and erosiun potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes Disturbed nre.n* must be stabilized and protected as suun ns (Kissible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) Wlicn development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation condi tions are not sufTicient to adequately han dle stormwater runoff using natural fe.n- turrs and vegetation, vanous typos of constructed facilities, such as diversions s(>ttling basins, skimming devices, dikes, wnterways and ponds m.iy bo used Pn*f eci'nce must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and innilrn- tion rather than buried pipes and manmade ni.-iterials and f.icilitirs 141 Wlieo constructed facilities are used to perform water management, documentn- tion must be provided b> a reguien*d professional civil engineer that they are (Ji'signed and installed consistent with the field ofTice technical guide of the locnl 1 soil and water conservation district (5) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtenngor settling of suspended solids and ikitn ming of surface debris before duchargr. tOrd No 101 2nd series. I 1(10 aGtlfixKH. 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or irapervious surfi'^ shall be placed, located or constructed within T'l f»-ct of the ordinaiy high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code Supp .\o 1 CD76 193 Mi. IMA rcbntary I7.20M riftiarc DaU AppHcadM RMdvfd: 1-214M Data AppHcathM Coaddcred u Coniptotct 2>11<04 M-Day Review rariod Expires: 4-11-04 T«: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner Melanie Curtis. City Planner Date: February 13.2004 Subject: #04-2984. McCarthy Construction on behalf of Berkshire Properties. 2743 Kelley Parkway • Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-6. PUD Planned Unit Development (2 acre minimum) Lot Area: 2.S6 acres (111.308 s.f.) Lot Width: 376 feet Applieadon Sum$nary: Applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36.000 square foot medical office building. Stuff ReeommtndaHon: Staff recommendations approval of a commercial site plan review with the following stipulations; 1. A revised parking plan shall be submitted showing a 20* parking setback from Highway 12 and the revised parking stall arrangement required to achieve this, prior to City Council review. 2. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 3. A revised landscape plan shall be subrmtted prior to City Council review which incorporates the commenu contained in this repon. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-792. Review of Building Permit Application. All applicants for a building permit shall be reviewed by the council and referred to the planning commission for review. Section 78-793. Permitted Uses. Within any B-6 highway business district, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the follow ing uses or uses deemed similar by the council; (1) offices (business and professional). Section 78-797. Requirements. Area. Height. Lot Width. Setback Requirements and Design m-tm Fcbnun 17.2tM Fl|t2iir( UltofExhiMis Exhibit A- Application Exhibit B- Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape and Lighting Plan Exhibit D - First Level Floor Plan Exhibit E - Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit F- Building Elevations Exhibit G - Grading, Drainage. Erosion Control, and Utility Plan Exhibit H - Plan/Profile Utility Plan Exhibit I - Plan of Surrounding Development Exhibit!- Property Owner's List Exhibit K- Plat Map Background In November of 2002, Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. received approval for the dental office building that exists just to the west of the applicant’s property. During this tinrte the applicant's property was platted and given an address with the expectation that the site would develop as Phase n. The applicant's current proposal is in accordaiKc with those expectations and is proposed as a medical office building to be known as Orono Professional Medical Building II. PUD Designation The PUD, Planned Unit Development designation originated at the sale of the property just to the west where the dental building is currently under construction. Professional Properties of Orono, Inc., the owners of the dental building bought the property from the City who required that any development of the lot be brought to the City with a PUD designation. This allowed the City to have more control over the development and design of the site. Because the applicant’s property was platted simultaneously with the property to the west it was conditioned that the PUD designation be required at the time of development of this site. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width B>6,PUD Lot Area Ut Width Required 20,000 s.f. (2.08 acre)100 ’ Actual 111,308 s.f. (2.56 acre)376 ’ •M-29M Fcbniarr 17.2M4 Ptgc^ofi Building ScUMKks B^PUD Required Existing Proposed Front (Kelley Pkwy)45’n/a 153* Rear(Hwy 12)45’ (1.5 X building height)n/a 45’ UftSide 10 ’n/a 143 ’ Right Side 10'n/a 30 ’ Structural Coverage Because the propeny is in excess of 1.99 acres it is not subject to the 15% structural coverage requirement established under Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed two-story footprint is 18.000 square feet for a total of 36,000 s.f. of floor space. The anticipated use of the building is for medical offices and proposed Hoor plans are attached as Exhibits D and E. The building will comprise approximately 16% of the site. Hardcover Calculations and Green Space The subject property is not located within 1000 feet of an ordinary high water level of a lake, pond or flowage or within 300 feet of a river or stream and is therefore, not subject to any hardcover restrictions. The B-6 zoning standards do not specifically outline a green space requirement: however staff has consistently exp^ted a imnimum of 25% with all new commercial development. The dental site to the west was held to a 25% green space figure and the applicants have submitted plans depicting a green space amount of 28.9%, well within the expected 25%. Parking Location. The propeny is surrounded on the east and west sides by propenies zoned B-6. The propeny has frontage on Kelley Parkway to the nonh (zoned Residenual), and Wayzata Boulevard to the south (zoned Industrial). The setbacks for parking shall be 20 ’ at the fronU and 5’ for interior side yards. The proposal meeis the 20* setback to Kelley Parkway and the S' setback at the interior easterly yard. There is a shared parking arrangentent with the dental building to the west, so the construction of the parking lot will appear contiguous of the parking lot to the west and a S' parking setback would not be required. The site plan does not meet the 20* required parking setback along Highway 12. The applicant must revise the site plan to show a 20* setback to Highway 12 prior to City Council review. 0M-2N4 FtbnurylT.lOM P»fe4orC Number of Parking Sulli. Required s 1 per 200 tX of floor area (Net s 30,000 t.r. - 10% = 32,400 s.f. /200 > 162 stalls required) Total stalls required s 162 Total stalls proposed * 157 (5 are proof of parking) To meet the 20' required yard at Highway 12, mentioned above, the parking will be reduced by 3 stalls. The applicant has stated that 3 proof of parking can be incorporated into the revised plan. Staff finds that an additional 3 proof of parking stalls is acceptable to achieve the 20’ required parking yard. 5 proof of parking stalls are proposed in total and 1S7 stalls will be constructed. Staff finds the S proof of parking stalls is acceptable and these parking stalls would only be constructed if necessary to meet parking demands. Surface Water Management The applicant submitted a Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plan for review by the City Engineer and is attached as Exhibit G. The applicant has supplied the City Engineer with a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations. All storm water will be directed, via pipe, to the storm water retention pond to the east. The City Engineer has reviewed all plans as they relate the storm water and finds them :o be acceptable. Sunltury Sewer and Water Services The applicant has provided the City Engineer with a profile view of the proposed sewer. The site will connect to City sewer and water services from the existing stubs along Kelley Parkway. The City Engineer has reviewed all plans as they relate the sanitary sewer and water and finds them to be acceptable. Road and Pedestrian Access The property fronu on Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 and the site will be addressed off Kelley Partway. The lot is considered a through lot due to parallel frontages. In determining setbacks, staff required both frontages to be considered front yauds to ensure adequate site lines from the roadway. The properly will have 2 accesses off Kelley Parkway. The most westerly is the shared access with the dental building and a new access, aligned with the public works driveway. The City Engineer has reviewed these access arrangements and finds them acceptable. The City has not received a copy of the shared access agreement, which will be required prior to City Council review. The applicant will be required to extend the existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk, from the dental building to the west, to the eastern propeny line. This provides pedestrian access from the cxisUng trail along Old Crystal Bay Road, east along Kelley Parkway. Subsequent development of property east of the subject propeny will also be required to extend the concrete walk to allow pedestrian access. Signage The subject propeny has 376 feet of road frontage on both Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 for a total of 752 feet of frontage. Thus, the site is permitted one square foot per fool of frontage, with each individual sign being limited to 100 square feet and setback 10' M04.2M4 Ftfaniary 17,2004 ragtSoTO from all property lines. The applicant has proposed a single monument sign to be located at the south east comer of the property, 20’ off the property boundary and viewable from Highway 12, to match the signage at the dental site to the west. No sign is proposed at the Kelley Parkway access. The applicant shall be required to obtain a sign permit prior to installation to confirm that all signage regulations outlined in Section 78-78-1468 are met. Landscaping Plan The applicants have submitted a landscape plan attached as Exhibit C. The plan proposes 5 maples, 4 ashes, 8 spruces, and 8 crabapple trees to be distributed around the penmeter of the site (25 trees total). Goidflame Spirea, a landscape shrub, is proposed along the building and within the landscape islands. Section 78-797 (8) lays out specific landscaping requirements for properties located with the B-6 zoning district. The following is a list of requirements which need to be incorporated into a revised landscape plan prior to City Council approval: • An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained, • The trash receptacle shall be screened. • 11 trees of at least 2 Vi inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landscape islands, • A landscaping estimate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 78-797, and • A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to 1 Vt times the value of the lan^caping. Lighting The B-6 Highway Commercial District does not require specific lighting requirements; however the applicants are required to comply with City Code Section 78-1573, which governs light transmission. The applicants have proposed a lighting plan that has been reviewed by the City Engineer and Planning Department staff and have deemed it appropriate. The lighting fixtures will match those on the denu! site to the west. Building Quality and Materials The type and color of the exterior building materials are proposed to match the dental building to the west. An elevation is attached as Exhibit F. The applicant has proposed rock face block for the b^. brick throughout the facades, and an eifs material will run along the top of the building. The applicant has proposed a flat roof. Planning Department staff feels the buildings exterior is acceptable and a pitched roof would make the building appear taller. All other materials, including windows and columns, will be required to match the dental building to the west. The Planning Commission should discuss the design of the building and determine if the proposed flat roof and appearance are acceptable. Connectivity to Surrounding Development The reason for the PLT>, Planned Unit Development designation was to ensure congruity to the surrounding commercial development. With the construction of 160 units of townhouses the commercial pieces along Highway 12 will all develop in the near future. m-im Fiknnnrl7.20M rtfiiorc The pUn attached as Exhibit I shows how commercial pieces only the northern side of Highway 12 are tentatively proposed to be developed. The Planning Commission is encourag^ to discuss the sites relationship to the area and determine if anything further could be incorporated into the plan. Staff finds that a congruence of building materials and color, along with the shared access and parking arrangement allow this proposal to fit well with the surrounding development. Iiiuca for CoBsideralion 1. Are the S proof of parking stalls acceptable? 2. With the incorporation of 11 trees into the landscape islands, will the landscaping be adequate? 3. Is the appearance (materials and color scheme) of the building and the Hat roof accepuble? 4. Does the proposal fit well with the surrounding development along the northern half of Highway 12? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommciidatioii Staff recommends approval of the commercial sue plan review subject to the following stipulations: 1. A revised parking plan shall be submitted showing a 20’ parking setback from Highway 12 and the revised parking stall arrangement required to achieve this, prior to City Council review. 2. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangement documents prior to City Council review. 3. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review which incorporates the following: An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained. The trash receptacle shall be screened. 11 trees of at least 2 16 inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landscape islands, A landK^ng estimate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 78-797, and A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to Council approval, at an amount equal to I Vi times the value of the landscaping. a. b. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# Q H ^^ Data Racaivad i Amount Paid foOO. ory p0 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT I All Name ( ovSKuc^Tlc/*' Phone (home)______________ Address oA Phone(work) _City_________Zip___________ OWNER^(if different than apollcant) % , # ^ » .t Name V rc(j^ e ^ ^o,\fMur ifcr Phone (home)^___________________Phone (work) 95“> 4-7 fi Address.________ City zip Date Property Acquired ,i^>^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS--|-r f __(month/year) . q C| c f P**'*' * * . $600.00 Residential Accessory Use . $600.00 institutional (church, school, etc.) . $600.00 Guest hous^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 wails within 75' of lakeshore . PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) . Afler-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHW APPLICATIONS —-$600.00" Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$6001)0 Vacation ~-----—' .$600.00 Easement Vacation , $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision , $600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) , $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule' 5 i.'.-i s REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ____Completed Application Form. 2. ____Describe request in detail. 3- ____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Government Center. 348^271). --------Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. __Attach legal description to application if not indudad on required survey. —Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land anerations involve changes in elevation (grades). — List of the legal names (indude marital status) of all persons with an Interest in the property. This would indude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __Constmction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). —As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir X 17“ OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:____________________ Date 5. 6. 8. 9. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informatioryrequired or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agre^to pay addi^al Ws (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusuahSkpenses lnp(jri^ jri reviei^ of this application, and certifies that the Information supdnbd4s4iee^^ to thirst of hisrtter knowledge. OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry ortto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ^ ___________ Owner’s signature Date j - Applicant must have aU shbrnittals into'me C^otfkxi 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetno ^ing Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at an scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an appkcant is unable to ORONO PKOFESSIONAL CENTER I I I * w p c I r ftiCMiTccrt •«> iM. Mw> n 2 -J 2 srrt fiAN Nkimtar A1 r^Mci M» uioa^t r ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER I I <«l *««iK |I^ AiCMiTCCTt ilU» m 9mm V 2^2m P I ^ </> M “*o S S a. ^ g STJS-. UinipajCr* t/mm anmmtnm^ tMm m-vmnH. srrc UAH »>Wt NMntar A1 No 01I003>2 KELLEY ROAD U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 12 ----------------- II iuMWiB 10€BU1£____________________________________"" ■ % inaG3COMWbMC MtMOK. Hm «E MIVO VMAbIS 1 •i>/r •«T mmmam tvr «•TT mmmmmwmm ■MAMM f m.■•T mmmmmmm MHIrMMiMMVT «'/r ■ ' m T mmm wm^•mmm mmm 9Vr ~ 5 SSiSSr^Simvy i!u«m I ’w mti mm MM • M« ■ «/m«mmm «%i«a r uMi mm om mjloi Ml MM MM w:‘ qct <ul ©SfiAianting S£TAL Q<UJ 00 Uic u li “i M UJ II a. o» iHuam .uaff* tmjrn LAMMCA^ ft UGKTVC lumbar •^iMi bb U*oo>.2 «r-4r jr-r m-tr tm^ I In. ? > iuj * Proposed Building ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER It OroAO, MkmcsoU llji- |il==m: VATION fVATKM AST ELEVAP0»< - ff ST Or*^^**** SMl*W) l A H r C I TAlCMITCCTt «MI1 m ]■m» Uta. m »m !■ g>C l|| Q i Is Ii-gs s « OfV OIVAT1GNS Skm4 Nk^tar A4 *r*jKt ■* OilOM-l ,- QyyplNQ. PRAfylAG E. EROSION COWTROL. AND UTIUTY PLAN ORONO PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING ORONO. MN :____KELLEY P^KWAY I I r--------------"--1 j i-.. U VICINITY MAP —-J ------M «*■ (MOr M*l **M f/ -..i-J— r cjM «r «iir »**«.*■ UK iMce* KMiw ca^acxs luKMC PAVEMENT SECTION EROSON CONTROL NOTES “:iua ts:TraiTitrTit,T^ «• HI II «> «* mt m M V MM -v^=.. ,^.. v.,i; vv' i;,. • , S«.T FENCE to M MM *MM «« M «MMi Sfr.S£%VS^»^SV7J rSLOS - Lsjrnssi'arj»3ur •sstsjrsst:;«M M «l M MKMto «W toW mfmt LEGEND: 0«n«(M D«tCt«n •! >enof« ■0«<atn PropMM Cor'.our ’) ■ 2)- 3) -Oanoln C^it^-g Conleur 4) —*—3«"ol« Sit '■.ne* 5) ■ O«no<n 4>ooc»»4 Spat Ot«tc»t 6 ••mo Otnott* Er«t»g Spc! Ciaaat'On 7 — »— Ccnottf Ci’aixg Son tar^ Saw B — • — Dareita (ratvig •alarmer* • —»*— Oanotn Cii«Uig S«orF> ’0) —»— OanotM Prepoaad Semlorr Sf«ar tl)_i— Oanoiat Propoaad Wottrma^ '2)—»— C*»otM PrepOMd Storm «.OHFflMairaRQ AC »••» tfrai' w ar OW mcj «• ue<*.Mn *Hv m-ft :rl ciuncc KAic UgyrBVTAACHTECTS 'JBJ7 Af tavcOA srBffT row LAdt MW SSJC^ g*«»Mr (-Tgj; 733- » PLAN/PRORLE UTUTY PLAN ORONO PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING ORONO.MN 4;—j I ij «—— l: : : ■ i liHlTTm i 3 LJ U I I I I II L/ < V?:>::2 h liMim m & TTT-r ; - ■ t ir.>v?^. . ■ i.v‘v4 D UXii f J - 1M 025 020 « M 010 It •'V -Sisy DS >V4S.—« 'isrsii ’m }** • M* C*tC» »t»i •m.^rn^ C8t AONF^aWWQ MS IT —MKM— uttmf... .JiUn.. It—* oiunac SCALE l»M*) 1 Ilf1 t ii tVIP*Ipl 1025 1020 irt m,0 M* m ^Ut1 1015 W m H i 'M r irt !«_e;f 1010 '■r*. -,1 ’'ilirePfrAficMTccTB tMJ/ n € uncon STKCT NMi uurc ttN 5U04 pnonc (?sj) Tu-iiii of On»u> SURROUNDING LAND USE '■•.'■ K . ‘ ..... S t~*- ^-^^/.>ury>rr--.r::rrrtfe=^^ - 1' X- »r ■'_ X--', I ! __^ l./wi.:~^sai; SK I r MMIMIErimN ]| 3)lll23ll0m «orABM msuLLivniwv jwnmuudm fmomUOHALfflOKmOMOU^ rAKfAYOi paarasnNALmoroMNOLLr ^AfciMAnif tJSfARTENWOOORD UMOLAKEMH S»34 Jt UlltUllOOOl •MrAOM ms kbabvpkwv IWNBRNAMK fWOmSKIWALPaOf OAOMOLLf rAXTAVEII monssiONALnioroMiNOLLP 4AM&AOOR WJ rARTEHWOOO RD UONOLAKfiMN SS)M SI 33IIU1!SOOI4 >K)r AOM rm wavzata m.vo w JWMRNAMe VCOAINC rAXTAYER VaCAmALWC NAMG/ADOIt lO BOX 315 tONOLAKEMN SSSSI 33-118-23-12-NEW DAHLSTRQM DEVELOPMENT LLC OAHLSTRON DEVELOPMENT LLC 7745 POLARIS LA N MAPLE GROVE HN 55311 HENNEPIN COUKnr PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PXGPCRTY OWNERS LIST MOI I 31 33IIU3I300M raOPAOOR SI AOmtaSUNASSlGNtO OWNER NAME CITYOFORONO TAXPAYER OTYOfORONO 1333 brown RDS WAYZATAMN SSS9I SI SStlAlSIMOOS PROTADOR mo KBLUEV PKWV OWNERNAME HRACTTYOPORONO taxpayer M RACnVOPORONO NAME/AOOR I3JS BROWN ROI WAYZATAMN J5WI 31 33III23I300U PROP AOOR W WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME ACEPROPERTIEIUT TAXPAYER ACEPROPERIWUi: 3300 ANUERSON ESTATES RD MAPLEPLAINMN 3S3S9 SI SSIIUSISOOil PROP AOOR mS WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME VEOAOCETAL TAXPAYER VaCAPfTALIHC NAME/AOOR PO BOX J7S IjONOLAKEMN SSSSA SI SSIII23IS00IS PROP AOOR 710$ WAVZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME WJMPROPERTIESliX; TAXPAYER WJM PROPERTIES LLC NAME/ADOR ATTNOREOORY W WAOENER IZ330 WAVZATA BLVO MINNETONKA MN S3S03 V I OFTHE HEPWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPAKlMDiUO -mE BET arm KNOWIBPOEAWBEUEf.^^^^ BY m QDm %• DM Applkattod lUctlvtd: 1-21-M DM Appttolloa Coaridtftd u CwplM; 2-24M iO-Dqr lUiriM Ptriod Eiplm: 4.2-04 From: Date: Sabjcct: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mike Gaffron. Planning Director Febniary 2.2004 #04-2985 Tom Cullum. 7S5 North Femdale Road • CUP and Variance for Wetland Alteration • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. (The property is also within 1000' of Lydiard Lake and therefore is Vkithin the Shoreland Overlay District) Gross: 147.500 s.f. + (3.4 acres) Net (Eacl. Wetlands): 3.0 acres Afi^koHon Summary: Applicant requests variance approval forTilIrngofa small portionof aCity- protected wetland located mostly within applicant's property but partially within the neighbonng property. The fill is Intended to allow for the establishment of w oody vegetation along the v^estem property boundary. The 2,135 s.f. fill area will convert approximately 10% of the existing wetland from ashallowopen water wetland to a wetland with saturated soils. Because the project will also involve excavation of adjacent upland tocreate new wetland ^'^uinng a CUP), the project is being treated by the Minnehaha Creek Watenhed District as a No Loss situation, and as a w etland restoration basedon reducing the impacts of wetland excavation that occurred in the 1950’s. StaifReamnumdation: Staff recommends approval of th^ proposed w etland alterations per the conditions recommended by the City's wetland consultant, John Smyih of Bonestroo and Associates. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 78-1112; Development Restneted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter spec! fically pennitted. no filUng. grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent stnictutes, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allow ed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. 2. Sections 78-1 113/14(2b): “All dredging orexcavation of matenal from any lake bed, pond or w ctlandor from adjacent land thereto" is a conditional use within the Roodw ay and Flood Fringe Districts. This wetland (as all wetlands) includes areas w ithin those tw o Districts as defired in Section 78-1108. 3. Section 78-1117; (Standards for floodway and flood fringe conditional uses) 4. Section 78-1286; (Shoreland standards for topographic alterations, grading and filling) •01-2985 February 12,2004 Page 2 List of Exhioils A ' Variance application form and: 1-11*04 Letter of transmittal from Rachel Igcl 1-21-04 Memo of request from Rachel Igel B - SWMP Map Excerpt Identifying Wetland LL-612 C - City 1974 Wetland Inver.iory Map D - Airphoto of Site E - SurveyCite Plan/Grading Plan h - John Smyth Comments Mem.o 2/3/04 G - Kjolhaug Welland Delineation report excerpts (11-1-02) H - KJoIhaug Memo to MCWD 11*6*02 re: No-l^ss Determination and Wetland Restoration I - 11*25*03 Rachel Igel letter to MCWD re: project J * 12-19-03 Permit Approval Letter to Applicant K * MCWD Notice of WCA Decision Packet L * Property Owners List M - Plat Map N * Code Excerpts Pertinent to WctLjid Alterations O - Orono SW>3* Excerpts; Section 5, Wetlands Management P - Standard Flou agc and Conservauon Easement Background The property contains a small wetland which was modified in the 1 950 ’s (based on airphoto evidence) by dredging to make it deeper. The wetland since that time has generally had the characteristics of an open water pond. A residence has existed on the property since 1963, undergoing numerous remodels and additions since its original construction. As a result of legal vegetation removals by the neighboring property owner to the west, the applicant’s view over the pond area has changed, and now he views the neighboring residence rather than a w ooded area. Because the far shore of the pond is on the neighboring property, applicant is proposing fill in a portion of the pond just inside his pro^'cny boundary to create a “berm", which will allow the establishment of wooded vegetatron to regain some of the wooded character of the lot and provide a buffer to the neighboring property. It may be somewhat ironic that the neighbor may have removed the vegetation to gain a view of the pond, and the current proposal would tend to negate the impacts of that activity... Pnor to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the early 1990 ’s, generally the only filling of wetlands approved by Orono had been for the purpose of providing access to property. Orano’s first wetland protection ordinance was enacted in 1964, and prohibited filling without a pennit approval from the Council The protection ordinance was strengthened considerably in 1970 by acknowledging the public benefits of wetlands. •04-ms FtbrwnraSMM PiC»3 With passage of (he WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the WCA regulations. These 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 negative impacts when they are unavoidable. The WCA regulations also provide standards and oppoitunities for wetland restoration, where prior human activity has changed or degraded a wetland and it is possible to bnng it back to nearer its original conditions. Orono's onlinanoes have never been specifically revised to acconunodaie the WCA regulations; the Zoning Code still simply prohibits filling within a wetland (requiring a variance and showing of a hardship) and requires a conditional use pennit for land alterations in. or within 26' of. a wetland. The Zoning Code provides virtually no specific standards for when a wetland alteration should be allowed, and in the Shoreland section merely suggesu a list of factors to be considered [see Exhibit N. Section 78- 1286(e 1)]; however, the City's Surface Water Management Plan (S WMP) in Section 5 "Wetlands .MonagemenCdoes establish a detailed management approach to maintaining or improving the City's wetland resources. That section is included as Exhibit O. ^;WD Approval Itx applicant initially contacted staff regarding this project perhaps a year ago. and he has engaged a of professionals to design a project that would meet the WCA guidelines for a wet'snd re n. v.vLoss status. The MCWD as the designated LGU for Orono has approved the projo ^ondiuons (see Exhibits J and K). CUy Consultant Review This application was directed by staff to John Smyth. Water Resource Specialist with Bonestroo & Associates, the City's engineering and environmental consultants. His favorable comments are attached as Exhibit F. and reflect that the project will result in an overall improvement to the wetland. He notes that the additional wetland to be created will meet the WCA replacement guidelines. He also notes that this project could in fact be considered as a restoration, and he recommends approval conditioned on 1) that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration required by the MCWD. and 2) that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Project DcUlls Rather than attempting to summariie the details of the project. I w ill refer you to Exhibit H. the Kjolhaug memo which provides a detailed review of the project Hardship Stalcment Because the proposed wetland alterauons are not allowed by Orono Code except by variance, the activity is required to be justified via the demonstranon of a hardship. Given the variety of agency approvals •04-2MS rcknMnrl2.2t04 rat>4 required, and the State regulations applicable to wetlands, this hardship requirement would tend to make it difficult to approve many wetland alteration projects which may in fact have positive impacts but are not spec..kaliy supported by hardship. While Orono ’s past history of ‘just saying no' to most wetland filling requests has served the City fairly well, the current regulatory climate suggests that we may need to consider code revisions that allow for positive wetland alterations, without the finding of hardship. That being said, the question to be asked is whether the current application is in fact a positive wetland alteration. SiafTsinitial reaction to theearlyqueriesabout filling the wetlandtocxeareaberm to plant trees to screen the applicant from his neighbor's home, was that this didn't seem to be a reasonable request, and wouldn't be recommended for approval. However, the current request has been highly refined to meet the WCA guidelines, and has been the subject of much scrutiny by the MCWD staff and consultants as well asaTechnical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives from the MCWD. the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR). and Hennepin County Environmental Services. It passes muster with the other agencies as resulting in positive impacts to the wetland. In terms of a hardship, Plarmi ng Commission may wish to consider whether the hardship is si mply that this wetland was altered in the past, and that the project will restore it to acondition more closely resembling its natural state. Issues for Consideration 1. 4. Are there any aspects of this project that will be detrimental to the neighborhood? Is Planning Commission satisfied that the project is appropriate? Does it matter whether the project is 'necessary' or not ? (i.e. what would be the negative or positive impacts of doing nothing... perhaps the applicant should be asked this question...) 3. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Stnff Recommcndnlloii Staff is satisfied that the basic considerations regarding the functions and values of thi s wetland have been taken into consideration by the variety of reviewers of this proposal, all of whom have recommended or granted approval. Staff recommends approval of the variance and CUP tc allow the w eiland alteration pn^t including filling of a portion of the wetland and excavation w ithin 26' of the w etland, per the plan approved by the MCWD and subject to the conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions as recommended by the City wetlands consultant: Staff would further recommend that the applicant be required to execute the standard Fowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD-rcquired buffers (sec Exhibit O). that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration required by ' the MCWD. and that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reporu. Pr»<lTY OP OKHO ♦fttllMIII T-cn p ni/na pmi City of Orono Variance Application aOf.A- StmMAOdmu: 2750 Kallay Pwinray Orono. MN S53S6 Uaia: M244M600 IKC M2-24M6ia mUngAOdrw B O M Ciy^ Bay. MN SS39M066 AppIcaiJoni rj^-Q ^P3 Dote fteoah>«A / - 0 V AmountPia oo Staff: Ha 5600 UOORtnawat:__________________ Aftar<tf«>fiKt <1.200 Deubia Pat This appocation form muit bt oompiatad in tun. App~c«n wn ba notilM wimm is oaya at to ina iMui or mo appicaMn. kicemplela applleattona will not be placed on Planning CommlBsIon Agendaa. PROPERTY INFORMATIOli StleAddfeaa: ^£5 Tcaa» Properly Identfficetion Number (PI_______________________________ (Attach legal deacription to application if net induded on the survey.) Data Prop^ Acquired (monthVear): ______□ Yes. 1 ovvn the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: Ol Residemial □ Other Zoning District: ' o APPLICANT MFORMATION: (Complate fosal nr-u and marital sMut required tor aach intarts^ad parlr) Nomo: ^uLLiulLt_______________________________________________ Phono (home)! A Address; gr.vo N>>a,^ Email: Mtu c.^luu m ^ Cr m Fax: Phone(vrork): A ca - - OWNER INFORMATION: (Compfote Itgai names s*d marital status required for each inttrestad party) Phone fhome):Phona (suorit): Addmsa: Email:Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:Estimated Prelect Cosr % 2o> ore Descrfoe the reouest In detail (attach additional shaets If nacessary): j bCC*. Att/vc,mws c»lOTirn.! #29HD JwfU-2N4 I0:MW T-UI f 118/Bn MUI REQUIRCO SUeMlTTALS: Ail of tht fbllowiog infomitlion mutt bt tubmittad by th« ipplettion dtadiint date in order for yoia* •ppiieation to be prooetied. □□□□ □□ □□ Prt-Appneation Meeting Form, compleled by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Complelad Hardship Oocumentatkyi Form Certified Property Ownert List — owners within 150 ’ of the subject property, labels arut plat map Lift, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A 603 300 South e"* Street. Minneepolia. telephone 612-346-5910 Original Certificete of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements bsted within this pecKel. including hardcover calculaUons. Also provide one copy 6.5* x t V or irxirforreproductlon. " Completed hardcover calculation woritshetti (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5* x 1 r or 1 r X 17* for reproduction. Sketches or ptans of Hoor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 1 r or 1 r x 17*). Additionel items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPUCANTS ACKNOWLCOOEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide aS information required or requested by tfie Plwwing Oepertment agrees to pay additional fees (staff tima not covered in the original fee payment) arvl/or consuitant axpansts incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supptlad is true and correct to lha bast of his/her knowladge. The appHcent recognizee that ha/she is aolely retponalble for aubmltlino a complett appHcatien being aware that upon fillurt to do so. the etoff has no sHsmatKre but to rsjsct it until it is compisto or to rseommend the request for denial of the rtquett regardleaa of its potential merit Applicant's Signature Applicant's SIgnatura: ^ Date: Date: OWNER'S ACKNOWtEOGBMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authortzes reastetable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission A. Counca Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's Signature: L/ 0¥wner*s Signature — ^Date: Date. Applicant must have aU submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plarmlng Commission Meeting. Planning CommiMlon Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of aaeh month Applicants must be present at alt echedultd review meetings of lha Planning Cemmisalon and Council. If an applicant Is unable to attend a schtduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project J i O. o 7T ^ Ja«>14>IN4 ll:tlM hm<\rt V 0«0 L MSI ^Ill/Sn Mil P»|t 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM TMtfWfnlstrt^uMtukfiiMlalfof ALL vMiMiMtpfffMlfMM. Anappiieofen wil not bo coniidorod eompMt or ptoeod on my agondit uma this form it compitto tnd tubmatid lo Iho Ctty. MinnoMla Stitt Stttut Stcbon 394.27. StAdhrision 7 rttuirts that • ha.'dthip bo dtmonttrilidlHordtfforiviHtnctlobooranud. Tbo hardsMp mutt bo uniquo to ffw proparty it vartaneot run oAhtfM land and not iwlmdoiMnor. PtetonsI and •oonomic aitmtiona §fa nci conaUafdd vaU ha/dahipa. in ordor for an ippGeit»r> to bo hoard by Iho Planning Commiaaion and City Ceunea a hardahip having metfl mutt bd dtmonatr atad. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points ouBi^ Iho basis Oty ataff ussa to dctsrmino V a hardship oxista and how tha varianos wiR affool iho surrounding community. To provo a hardship, addroas all Iha rolavani peinis Ratod bolow and anawsr tham as daatly as poatibta. Sinea you art raquasling tha coda axosption. you hava ttia burdon of proving that Iha vailaneo la |ustiflod. Tha Informaiion tha City raealvta Is what is usod in dotarminir^ a donial or approval raeommandadort. lfyoulaavtaomtthingoutitw ‘'3 notboconaidorsd. Ploaso addrsss oach of bwaa hardahip crilaria as thoy rclala to tha raquatt (some may not apply): Tha preparty tn quaation cannot ba put to a rtaaenabla usa if used undar conditiona allowed by tha official conirela.* Tha pight of tha (andoamar ia dua to tireumatancaa unique to his preparty not craalcd by tha landownor.* 3. ‘Tha varianet. If granlad. will not altar Iha aiaanUt charactar of tha loearity.* ‘Economic eonoidiralions alone shal not conatitula an undue hardship 9 raasonaWa usa for 9ia property adsis widtr tha ternis of tha Zoning Chapter.* ti-.iiai .pi*-€irropono •nniMii T-cn poii/m mii Pafc2of3 5. *UndiM hardMp ilM tndudtt. M to not Imtad lo. hwdiquBto accMt to (Snd •unlightfortetortAafBytyttoms. Vadancn th«l to givtoto for Mrfh iht«trid eerairuetonMdtfintdinliinnneto8tatutot.8«ctloo 116J.OO. Sum 2. when in tomiony too 6. "Tto Board of Appooto and Adptotnonto or Ito Cound may noi parmit at a vortaneo any uoo Itot to not porndtod tindor IMt Ctoptor for propatty in tho zona wtoft lha aftoetod paraon^ land It toeatad." 7. ^Tha Board or Cound may pamtil at a vananca the tamporary ute of a ona^andly dwtitog at a too-tondiy ^wailinQ.* ■Tha apodal condtont applying to tha alnielura or land In quattion art paodar to auch proparty or Immadiataiy ad|o)nino propatty.* *Tha condrtiont do not apply ganarally to othar land or airuduraa in tho datriet in atoch add land it loonltd *aoiiatoii raaaa 10. *Tto granttno ol Ito appication m nacaata ty for tto pratatvaton and amoymant of a tutolanlial proparty right of too appleanl* 11. *Thi granting of too propoicd varionoo an not in any way impair haaitti. tafaly. comfort, moralt. or in ony othar ratpaet to contrary to toa intont of tho Zoning Codo.* So jM-U-mi Pra<lTY W HlltIMIII T-ni #|li/IN Mil FafiSen 12. *TM tranlliia of Mich varfmet «H not moioly oan* u a eorwanianca to tf>a appHont but ia naoattaiy ta alavMa damonaMMa hardaiup or dMeuRy.* HartfaMp tlaaMnaal Should you tail tfta haidMi^cannot fUly ba daacrtbid in ttia abevt eitarfa. datcftM tfw umqua hardahip. pfaedeai difficuKy or unusual pfopafty eondWona pfavarting eompQanet «Mth Zonino Oninanoa raquiramama in tha fcOowing Into (attach adifitional ahaata if naotaaafy); ^ ^ _ _______Z3ee r^TT»cac.l\ J iT^-2985 lOEL LAW OFFICE January 21,2004 Mr Michael GafEron Planning Diccctoc Gty of Otono Pose Office Box 66 OyttalBay,MN 55323 Dear Me. Gafftoo: Enclosed are clienc% Tom CuOum, appBcMion and EIk for a variance for a wedand restontioo project we are proposing for a dntniahed wedand located on his property. As we discussed on the telephone vesterday, we would appreciate your insists regarding our project especially r^arding the hardship criteria. The information 1 hare submitted a dcso^tioo of the proposed project inchiding how the wetland will benefit from the proposed improiements. A VTedand Deltneadon was performed in 2001 by Kjolhaug Environmental and is available for your review; if you wish to see it. This proposal is consistent with the project u*e discussed with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ^ICWD) in rotir office some nwnths ago^ which you and the group agreed was worthy of support Since that meeting, we have receh-ed permit approval from MCWD to implement the project Cpon )*our review of the enclosed information, please contact me and we can discuss whether additional information is necessary for our submission to the Qty of Orona Thank you for your assistance writh our proposed project Sincesefy, Rachel A. Igcl .Attorney At Law Endotuics CC TnmCaBtHii .Mike IXRuj-ut. Kjiinuuit Km-mmmcntal I**! SIC «Ut»OS SLVD. StITr. • CH \KIUSSCN. MK • SUIT fimsi: ’fiz) )au.i4Mi, . (taau«»i e/A. /-V IGEL LAW OFFICE TOj MIKI C\l l RON,envoi ORONO FROM: R.\(:IIU.IOU^^iQ SUBJECT: Rl.gUl.sT IDR \ VRI WCK I OR WI ll.WO RJ>'IOR.\110N,CI‘1J.L‘M PROI’LRIY DATE: 1/31/2004 CuUum Property Address; 785 Femdale Roed North, VC'ayzata Legal Description: Site IdenuScation: N 'A of the N£ V* of Secdon 36, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, Orono, Minnesou Tract B, Regutcred Land Sur\-ey No. 1031, Hennepin County, Minnesou As described in the Wetland Delineation Report, dated No\-cmber I, 2002, the wetland consists of a T)*pe 5 (PUBGx) pond in the western half of the propert}-, surrounded by mowed Kentucky bluegrass lawn in all directions e.xcepi to the north and southwest, which u dominated by common buckthorn and green ash trees. Based on a re^’iew of aenal photographs, the wetland appears to have been excavated benveen 1953 and 1964, an assessment that was supported by obsen*ations of the w etland durmg the December 14, 2001 and June 6,2002 site visits by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. Dunng these visits, the wetland was ob$en*ed to consist of an open-w'ater pon^ which had very little emetgent vegetanon around the edges, and the uplands were mowed to the w*ater's edge. Water depths in the pond were assumed to be 1 to 2 feet. As shown on the anached grading plan, the applicant proposes to construct a small berm in the wetland along the western property line in order to provide substrate for the establishment of emergent herbaceous and woody wetland vegeudon. A break in the berm will maintain the existing drairugc of the wetland toward the southwest ui order to prevent changes to the pond's water level. The berm was detemuned to be necessary because the water depths along the western property line were too deep to allow woody vegetation to become established. The proposed project would reesublish vegetanon around poruons of the w*etland, and partially restore vegetation to the inner portions of the basin. The top elevation of the betm will be no more than 1.0 foot above the norrrul water level of the wetland, therefore, the project will result in no loss of wetland area. Although the project will parnally restore the excavated wetland, the placement of 2,135 square feet (sO of Ell maten.vl for the construction of the berm will be mingated through the creation of 2,135 sf of new wetland adjacent to the existing wetland, and the esubUshment of 11,787 sf of nanve. nooHOTMivc TcgmiioQ ia pciminent bufier lunoundiog the new end existing vcdsnd. The ptoposcd new wcdend atces wiU be cteeced by excsrecing down front die existing contoucs adjeceot to the wetland as shown on the Gtading Plan. The new wetland axeas ate projected to become semipennanendy-Booded and scaaon^-flooded wedand (PUBF/PEMIQ fiiQ|cs of die existing wedand basin, with die benn expected to become tamtated forested (PFOlB) wedand. A combination of native, non-invasire seed and scedlings/phigs will be established along the edges of the new wetland areas. Native, non* invash'e tree species such as American tamarack, northern white cedar, black ash, green ash, or silver maple will be planted on the proposed berm, depending upon availabilin-. The proposed upland buffet areas will be a minimum of 16.5 feet wide along the southern and eastern sides of die wetland, and a minimum of 25 feet wide along the northern edge of the wedand. A native, noo>invashre plant community will be established in the proposed upland buffer areas uamg a mix similar to that included in Anachinent A. The upland buffer area aloQg the ootdiem edge of the wetland will be maintained in the »*«^pg woody vegetatioo, widi the excepdon of invasive species such as common buckthorn, which will be removed. In summat)', die proposed project will partially restore an excavated wetland basin by constiucting an earthen bema, which will be uUd to establish emergent herbaceous and tvoody vegetation. In addition, 2,135 sf of new wetland and 11,787 sf of upland buffer will be created adjacent to the wetland to mitigate the placement of 611 for the construction of the berm. #2985 MOjl N - y — -exrtt 8 /i\LL-29 I 's9>3 0 /MO-0 MO-2 MOP2 I W7.0 1 U.-P29 "'Jp^ xT -----, 10-3/ ^ JLL-4(MCM>3 L 994.0 V f74/ LL-60 LL-50 LL-61 ..S12^y ^ j / PL-l ;5Vfe4' LL-63 r<9 '<SB r /. Y»vt»* *r-*‘ |W^ ii® ’^f'STa lV \':^i^^fe^ ■ ‘ •*J'.’ -V;r'-i ^’T-. '4#^//^''-'?"'Mm '^vS^r^•■TvWSS VJ« PS' V w k--V k-4&. J GRADING PLAN e-1 AREA - JLJ9 At ALLOW FOR drainage thru 8ERA NOTE: CONSTRUCT BERN tS‘± mOC TOP ELEVATION m gg.Q (APPROXULATEL^ as ABO\€ WETIANO ELEVATKN,) PROPOSED WETLAND lUPACT " Z135 SF TD/a*. MfTTGATION AREA^ZTSS SF 23* BUFFER AR£AmZ1S7 SF tas BUFFER AREA^ZBJO SF total buffer AXAmUJBF SF «[5P«r<y 0*9Cf^t/en: _______ ft Land Sunmy ” denotes iron monument found denotes iron pipe set and marked as shown: c*^notes wood lath denotes soil boring denotes percoiotion test hole - m. UNCIMPOiT AT IMX. VAONO ^ataianxrfmc ^ -nmc ANCMOUfiC «kmo- •AOm «TM TAIMB NAIUIULIOa. Notw U WtUandg OUhtotwd byt KJoOtaug EhrBvnnnntat tardcu. not toGotad ea pari af thh auf¥ay a S Q orro-»i>4j' .ono-Moaj; Tom Cullum Kle!------- OB/H/02 thrown By:Scale: KDK ; =50' SPECinCADON. OR REPORT WAS PREPAY Sr ME OR UNDER MT WRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Merlin P. Complon MMMr bto I -Jl '^>ottoa$go€la»g$jgm '54<vl]!? jssMsr UCENSE # 10901 f\kyT» Revisec TT/m/02 lob Nc 163 * I?-; iiTtf MBg, gxu. F_ Memo «l AlwcUi»l Proiect Nanw: Tom Cultum, 765 North Fomdate Road Client: City of Orono Film No: City •04-2965 Ofte; 2/3/2004 To: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director From; John Smyth. Water Resource Specialist Ro: Wetland Alteration - Proposal Review for stormwater and wetland Impacts Romorko: I have reviewed the submitted information for the Tom Cullum property located at 785 North Femdale Road. Key Facts: 1. Wetland was excavated between 1953 and 1964 2. Consists of open water with scattered vegetation around fringe 3. Adjacent uplands Kentucky blue grass 4. Wetland is identified as LL-612 in the Orono SWMP. No proposed improvements to wetland are listed in SWMP except providing a pipe to outlet the basin in the future. 5. Property owner proposes to convert 2.135 square feet of the wetland from a shallow open water wetland to a wetland with saturated soils by placement of fill in the wetland. This will allow the establishrront of woody vegetation along the western boarder of the property. 6. Property owner proposes to mitigate lost functions and values of the wetland by excavation of upland to create 2.135 square feet of new wetland and planting a buffer around the wetland that ranges from 16 J - 25 feet in width and totals 2.135 square feet Buffer will convert turf grass to native vegetatior. 7. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approved this project as a No-Lcss after discussiorts with other agencies as pan of a Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluaton Panel. Findings: 1. if this project was processed as a Wetland Impact it has the wetland replacement necessary to meet the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. 2. This project will result in an overall improvement to the wetland. Oenmtroo, Roaene, Andertlk end Auocietee, Ine.mrarJenMfiroAcoin OttnnriomcK Sl^MNSSIIS rMMi-aft-1311 OMHM uImOM o*: ilitwanMaquonReM Ui«an.WlSMK Pnon* pk au-ny-mi a xccmutf owcK 1127*trMISC HotfiMar. MN SfiSOI Prior* SOT-2U.2100 Pm 107.02^100 OUntawOein: xtemunmPM W*nar.MNSa20l Pnon* 320 21A4SS7 Pm SaO^iP-MSO OStOoutfOmn: 3731 zTSmhS St Ooud tmsesoi P-vrm 320-2S1.4SS3 Pm 320^2314302 □ Qray«WaOflto«; MEMBMMSartRoad OriytlaM. IL00C30 Pro* M7MS4274 Pm M74«04t7l Memo 3. it it rtoommtnotd that tht City dots not support conversion of wetland from one type to another unless the applicant can ahow that it la a reatoration. In this case the wetland was excavated deeper in the late 1950*a as shown on aerials and the project could be considered a reatoration back to a previous wetland type. Recommend Approval of the Variance Application with the following conditions: 1. The City receive a copy of the declaration for the preservation of the wetland buffer once it is executed and recorded. 2. Copies of the monitoring report be provided to the City to insure that the fill placed in the wetland is functioning as a wetland and also to determine the success of the plantings that are part of the buffer. •oiweeMk MoMAa 4ndbr«k end AaMcMM,www.ba/ieelna a OBLeMrfOmcK OMUmulmOmm: omm amWMHieNnyM iHfWMlUi9Mnaa«tf airtui.iMHiu rf«encM1-a»4M0 9774 umuoawiaaoM n«n»jn<Ml44M rw3»ati-4«i osBimairoiaBK 1127*8>MIPa nnrmmr.MwaMOS eionK U7.aa4ioo ^007404100 owamvoeioK mShSlrMlSW waw.iMMaoi •Hon* nMI44«7 ruaa>.ti4«« aatctoueotiM: □< arsitrsNtii MiMBevUM ftCkMtUNMMI ntofw a»2si<«M3 ftK3304i1«tl Qmy«nM,L«l030 FInnt M7-54S- rwM7-Me«7« r L Kjolhaug ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY AiMwfc MbMM CuUum Site Ororto, Minnesota Wctbnd DelincaHoo Report m Cl 3 L INTRODUCTION The Culhim Site was examined oa December 14,2001. and on June 6,2002 for the prcsoice aad extent of wetland. The site was tocaied in the N of the N'E'/. of Section 36, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The she, identified as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1031, Hennepin County, wu located west of Femdale Ro^whh unnamed property boundaries. Adjacent land uses included large-lot residential in all directions (Flgera 1). The site ,;onsisted of a single-fomOy home with surrounding landscaped yard, woods, and a wetland. The woods, located akng in the northwestern and southwestern comers of the property, were dominated by green ash, American elm, trembling aspen, raspberry, and common buckthorn, with some red pine, white spruce, red cedar, black cherry, and prickly ash. 9 3 3 3 1 '1 3 n. METHODS Wetlands were identified using standard dclinearioa methodology described m the Corps of £ngfneers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) as required bv Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Coaserv*atioa Act. Wetimd boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for hydric soi^ h)^phytic vegetation, and wetlaixl hydrology. Wetlaod-upbad boundaries were marked with pin flap and subsequently located by Otto Associates by using standard land survey methods. Kjolhaug Environmental Services Cornpvry revwwed surveyed wetland boundaries for accuracy. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland- upland boundary. Plmi qpecies dominance was estimat^ based on the percent aerial or Kami co^^ge visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for the tree and shrub layers and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being sampled. Soils were chaiKterized to a minimum depth of 18-20 inches utilizing Muasell Soil Color Chans and standard soil texturing methodology. Plants were identified using standard regfonal plan! keyi Taxonomy was based on the Mamal of Vascular Plants of f^ortheastem United States andAd/acent Canada, Ed 2 (Nfw York Botanical Garden, 1991). Indicator status of plant species was taken from the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Minnesota (U.S. Fish 8t WMlife Service, 1988). nL RESULTS Review of Sntla. NWL —d DMt lafowrion The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1989, Excelsior Quadrangle), shows one PUBF wetland on the property (Figare 2). The SoO Survey of Hennepin County^ Minnesota (USDA, 1974) shows the following soU types on the she: Glencoe sihy clay loam (Gc), Duodas silt loam (Du), Hayden clay loam (HcD2), and Nessel loam (NeB) (Flfure 3). Glencoe and Dundas are hydric soils characteristic of wetlands in the absence of drainage. The DNR Protected Waters Map, Hennepin County (Mixmesou DNR, 1981). docs not show any DNR Protected Waters, Wetlands, or Waterways on the property. Lydiard Lake (DNR Protected Water 1S9P) is shown approximate^ 1000 ftet west of the property (Figure 4). Wetland PetermlnnHoni and litf !/Cr Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detafl during held observations. One wetland was ^ identifred and delineated on the site (Figure 5). Corresponding data forms are included in i^r’ Appendix A. The foUowing description of the wetlandandstirrounding upland reflects field condhions observed at the time of the delineation, which was typical of early winter, with dormant vegetafion and no snow cover. A thin layer of frost in the soil sur&e did not prevent examination of the sods. At the time ofthe delineation recent precipitation k\eb had been slightly below normal and temperatures were above nonnaL Precipitation for the year was above > noimal because of an abnormally wet firing. Wetland I was a Type 5 (PUBGx) excavated basin located in the western half of the property. t The extreme eastern edge of the wetland occurred on the adjacent property. Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the w etland appeared to have been excavated to create open a* water some time between 1953 and 1957, with the spoil material sidecast on the adjacent uplands surrounding the wetland. Most of the wetland consisted of open water, yhich was seasotuibly low, exposing approximately 2040 feet of pond bottom around the edges of the wetland. Scattered reed carary grass, green bulrush, and giant ragweed ..as observed around the edges of > the basin, and duckweed was on the surfiKcoftbe pond and exposed mud. Soils in the wetland ^ consisted of 18 inches of silt loam sediment which had low chroma matrix colors and distinct ^ iron coDcentrations over a buried black silt loam A-borizon, which no iron concentrations. Water was observed whhin 6 inches oftbe suifrice in soQ pits just bdow the delineated boundary. The adjacent uplands primarily consisted of mowed Kentucky bluegiass lawn, with cotmron buckthorn and green ash trees to the north and southwest. Upland soils just above the wetland boundary consisted of 8 inches of black sih loam which had no iron concentrations over sandy r 9 O 9 9 il a 9 L loamwlikfahidtowcfaroini mitiix colon and pronaoMiroocoocaitmtioDS. Nowiterwas obicrvod within 20 bdtet of die soiftee in any of the iqilaDd ninpk piti. TIk delhieated boundaiy primarily followed a distioct change in pbat oonanunities and rae in topography. TliedeliDeatod wetland concided with an area indicated on the sod nrvey as water, Gkncoe, and Dundai aoOs, and wj dwwn on the NWI as PUBF wetland. No other areaa on the dte were observed that contained a faydrophytic plant comnunity or had wetland hydrology indicators. No other areas ofm^ipedhydric soils or NWl wetlands were indicated on the ihe. V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilged in the described deHnettion are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Defineadcm Manual as requited by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Mtnnesota Wedaod Conservttion Act Both the delineation and report were conducted in conpHance with legulatoiy standards in |dace at the tsne the work was coopleted. Delineation and Report Com>leted by: Reviewed by:. Mflce DeRiivtcr. Soil ScieitisL Professional WetbMvt Seientirt No QOQOnt 1 Date:. MaikS.^1^ Pioftsaiour^tlaiid Scientist No. 00084S *1 •“) •“> 3 a a t CuUum Site WctbiBd DeliBcation Report Fifwti: • Figore 1 - Site Locatioa M^i • Ftguie2-NWIMep • Figure 3 - Sofl Survey Map • Figure 4 - DNR Protected Waters • FigiureS-Wetlaod Boundary Map ■> ) m 9 9 \ f • 1 sm 9 9 9 a a Figure 1 - Site Location Map I^OUJAUG ENVnOMlIZNMLSEKVIGES COMMNY CaUum She (KES No. 2001-215) Oronf>t MinactoU . tN Note: Site b«ud«rkt M this fiiPfc ore oppmlaate ob4 do oot coaititote on offl^sonrey ptoducL ruou^ •\PU6F>V .::l-::,. peJxa\ peW ’!' psiic \, .^■o,,p_p pufeG-^- • 7 iiJS*- Figure 2 - NWI Map C;nm f i V Cunum Site (KES No. 2001.21!) I^OLHAUG ENVnONMENXAL SZXVICES COMPAKY Oroio, Mioaeiote tN Scale:. T = 1,100' Note: Site bounderice on tbii figure ■re ipproiifluitc aid do not conititntc an official lurvey product I* - HbD Gc- Glencoe silty clay loam Du-Dundas silt loam HcD2- Hayden clay loam, 6-12V* NeB-Nesselloam. 1-4% Figure 3 - Soil Survey Map I^OLHAUG ENVIROKMENTAL SEEVXCES COMPANY CuUum Site (KES No. 2001-215) Orono, Minnesota tN Scalr.l"s:iao«* Note: Site bonodorict oo tfcio figarc arc approiimate aad do not coastitiite an official surrey product Figure 3 - Soil Survey Map IQcmajG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Cullum Site (KES No. 2001-215) Orono, Minnesota tN Scale: r^UOO* : « 9 9 3 3 9 9 Figure 4 ~ DNR Map KJOLHAUG f.s-\trosmental services COvcpany CuUum Site (KES No. 2001-215) Orono, Mionesota t.V Scale: 1,500’ ; i H IQOLHAUG environmental services company fretid'rfScuni, BcUfttd. ACcfn^* /aeunt Selytioni MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6,2002 TO: Mr. Mike Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Tom CuUuro Rachel Igcl, The Wetlands Company Marty Campion, Otto Associates FROM: Mike DeRuyter, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Conqumy RE; No«Lo>8 Determination and Wetland Restoration* Culfum Site The purpose of this memorandum is to describe proposed modifications to a wetland located on the Tom Culhim property located at 785 Femdale Road, in the N ‘/a of the NE '/«of Section 36, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, Orono, Minnesota (Figure 1). The site is specifically identified as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1031, Hennepin County, Minnesota. As described in the attached Wetland Delineation Report, the wetland consists of a Type 5 (PUBGx) pond in the western half of the property, surrounded by mowed Kentucky bluegrass lawn in all directions except to the north aiKl southwest, which is dominated by common btickthom and green ash trees. Based on a review of aerial photographs, the wetl^ appears to have been excavated between 1953 and 1964 (Figure 2), an assessment that was supported by observations of the wetland during the December 14,2001 and June 6,2002 site visits by staff fiom our cfiBce. During these visits, the wetland was olncrved to consist of an open-water pood which had very little emergent vegetation around the edges, and the uplands were mowed to the water’s edge. Water depths in the pond were assumed to be 1 to 2 As shown on the attached grading plan (Figure 3), the applicant proposes to construct a small berm in the wetland along the western property line m order to provide substrate for the establishment of emergent herbaceous and woody wetland vegetation. A break in the berm will maintain the existing drainage of the wetland toward the southwest in order to prevem changes to the pond ’s water level The berm was determined to be necessary because the water depths along the western property line were too deep to allow woody vegetation to become established. The proposed project would reestablish vegetation arouitd portions of the wetland, and partially restore vegetation to the inner portions of the basin. The top elevation of the berm will be no more than 1.0 feet above the normal water level of the wetland; therefore, the project will resuh in no loss of wetland area. Although the project will partially restore the excavated wetland, the placement of 2,135 square feet (si) of ^ material fbr the construction of the berm will be mitigated through the creation of 2,135 sf of new wetland adjacent to the existing wetland, and the establishment of 11,787 sf of native, non-invarive vegetation in permanent upland'buffer surrounding the new and existing wetland. * 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • Phone: 952-401-8757 • Fax; 952-401*8798 The proposed Dew wetland areas will be created by excavating down from the exiftiDS eont ours •dijaccot to the wettaod as shown on F^ure 3. The new wetland areas are projected to become senqwnnaDentty-flooded and seasonally-flooded wetland (FUBF/PEMIQ fiinges of the existing wetland with the berm expected to become saturated forested (PFOIB) wetland. A combination of native, non-invasive seed mix and seedlings^higs similar to the mix in Attachment A will be establisbed along the edges of the new wetland areas. Native, non-invasive tree species such as American tamarack, northern white cedar, black ash, green ash, or silver maple will be planted on the proposed berm, depending upon availability. The proposed upland bufier areas win be a nimintum of 16.S feet wide abng the southern and eastern sides of the wetland, and a minimum of 25 feet wide along the northern edge of the wetland. A native, non-invasive plant comnainity will be established in the proposed upland buffer areas a mix similar to that irvb«^ in Attachment A. The t^land buffer area along tbenorthcmedgeofthewetland will be maintained in the existing woody vegetation, with the exception of invasive species such as common buckthorn, which will be removed. In summary, the proposed project will partially restore an excavated wetland basin by constructing an eait^ bens, which will be used to estahlLsh emergent herbaceous and woody vegeution. In addition, 2,135 sf of new wetland and 11,787 sf of upland buffer will be created adyacent to the wetland to mitigate the placement of fin for the construction of the benn. If you have any questions or comments on the proposed plan, please feel free to call Mark Kjolhaug orn^a^ Figure 1 - Site Location Map CuaHm SiU (KES No. 2001-215) OroBOt Mionaota IQOLHAUG ENVItONUEKIALSEKVlCES COUPANY Sctle: 1 ioch s 1^00 fot 7 r*k . / 1953 Photo shiOwingthe ^^’etIand in its original state. ‘y' f •?>) y ,f •-> i' y a ‘ “"I ,. t/ ■‘■'i• v4 , .f< •:-l i 1964 Photo sho^^'ing the wetland had been excavated since the 19S3 photo. Figure 2 - 19S3 and 1964 Aerial Photos I^OLHAUG ENVniOKMZNTAL SEKVICES COMPANY Cannm Site (KES No. 2001-21!) OroBO, MionaoU ♦N ' No Scale GRADING PLAN ARSA m S3$ AC ALLOW FOR DRAMAOS THRU BSRkU UNCIHTCSr MAX w*am f AOTC fiMWC AWCWatAaC TWOICK■Aom «t1H MmIRD NOIR COHSmOCT BERU t5’± MDC TOP BSVAVON - 99.0 (APPROmAIELf as" ylffovr WETLAND ELEVi PROPOSED ¥€TLANO 9APACT • 2,135 SF TOTAL ymOATtOM AREA/^135 SF IT BUFFER AR£Am\157 SF 18.5 BUFFER AREAm8.BJ0 SF TOTAL BUFFER AREA^11,7B7 SF Property DMcrpthn: Tract a, RcMcrad 4 No, 1031, tmmcph C Land Survey eeecfding to the BmTofitofiSgSSi of Thiac. denotes iron monument found o denotes iron pipe set /ono.««ji and marked <Js shown: {_• □ denotes wood loth ‘ S denotes soil bon'ng denotes percolotion test hole Requested By: Tom Cullum vote: 08/H/02 Drawn By: KDK Scole: r^50' cnecKed by: I HEREBY CERT iFt TMAT TMIS PIAN, SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WIS PREPARED ST ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENQNEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Martin P. Campion LICENSE nATT* # 19901 Note: 1. WManda DBhoatad bye KJoBiaug Ehvboammtal oarvhu. 2. The ftoMbM If any waro not located e» pari of UtB aurmy. FIGURE 3 MMSKh wwwAftieiiadWfiixf®TTo Revised: it/tn/H2 K 7 Wctbod St BofTcr Sccdiaf Plaa The following seeing plan utilizes elements and recommendations from the Seeding Manual of MnDOT Office of Environmental Services, Turf Establishmera and Erosion Control Unit, Draft Year 2000. EismituQjttd.Sfifidio8 1. The smooth-graded wetland and bufo areas designated for seeding should be prepared by loosening topsoil to a minimum depth of 3 inches. The designated upland bufier areas • that ha^ not been graded and contain existing vegetation should be prepared by mowing at a height of 4-6 inches in late April/early May or late August/eariy September. The grass should be aUowed to rc-grow before herbickle application (1-3 weeks). Recommended herbicide rates are 2 quarts/acre of glyphosate and 1-2 quarts/acre of 2,4- D. The soil can then be loosened and seeded 7-10 days after herbicide treatment 2. Seeding should be conducted either April 15-July 20 or Sept. 20-October 20. Seeding can be acconq)ltshed by broadcast or drilling. Broadcast seeding is particularly recommended for the wetland seed mixture unless the weather is hot and dry and/or the soil moisture content b low at the time of seeding. Broadcast seeding should by accomplished by u» of any type of broadcast seeder capable of broadcasting the seed evenly over the entire area. Seed should be mixed thoroughly prior to seeding and should be mixed occasionally in the spreader to prevent separation and settling. If the drill seeding method b used, seed should be installed with a Truax-type seed drJl containing a minimum of 2 seed boxes (6ne seed box & box for largc/flufi^ seeds) and equipped with dbc furrow openers and packer assembly to compact the soil directly over the drill rows. Maximum row spacing should be 8 inches. Small and fine seeds should be drop-seeded onto the surfitte from the fine seed box, and large/fluflfy seed should be placed to obtain a final planting depth of Vi-'/i inches. All drill seeding should be done at a right angle to surfoce drainage. Recommended seeding rates are given for the bufifer and wetland seed mixtures at the end of thb plan. 3. The seeded areas shoi^ be harrowed or raked following seeding. The areas should then be pack^ using a cuh^ker or equivaleut. Packing will be considered adequate when only a slight footprint b left in the soil after walldog across the area. 4. Following packing, the areas should be mukhed and disc-anchored at a rate of 2 tons/acie using MCIA certified weed free mulch. MnDOT Type 7 or 8 prairie hay/mulch. or MnDOT Type 1 clean straw mulch. Mmlenange and Evahiation of Seedir^y Year 1 (spriqg seeding) Prepare and seed site April 15-July 20 Mow to a height of 6-10 inches Ju|y 20-August 20 Optioaal mowing mear|y September Spot sprqr weetfy q>ecies such as thbtles S. r iLi Yevl (bn feeding • Prq>are and seed site September 20*October 20 • Mow tot height of 6<10 indies June IS-August 15 • Spot spray wtedty qiecies such as thistles Year 1 Evaluation • Cover crop should be growing within 2 weeks of planting • Native grass seedlings may only be 4-6 inches tall • Seedlings should be spaced 1-6 inches apart in each drill row if drill seeded • Flush growth of foxtail and other »nnual< may indicate need for more fiequent mowing Year2 • Mow to a height of 6-10 inches June 1-August IS • Spot spray weedy qweies as needed • Some sites may not require mmntenance m year 2 depending on seedling success Year 2 • Cover crop will be gone unless winter wheat was used in a M planting • Grasses forming clumps 1-6 inches ^>art in drill rows, but still short • Some flowers should be blooming • Flush growth of foxtafl and other annuals may indicate need for more frequent mowing Years • Most sites do not require mudi maintenance • Mow only tfneoessaiy to control weedy annuals • Spot qny weedy species as needed • Planti^ should look as intended with a diverse mixture of native grasses and foibs Long-term • Mowing not necessary or only occasionally • Spot spraying of weeds if needed • Optional bunung in a 3-S year rotation ahernating ^>riog and bll burns • Optional hioiDg in a 3-5 year rotation late summer or e^y &U. Alternate with bumatg or substitute for burning f Wetland Fringe Areu A Kcd mixture will be selected from local seed sources. The seed rabcture wiU include the following species in the approximate percentages listed or an available mixture with similar divostty: Tall WM Sedge Prairie Qrasa Mbr Qraai/SedgaMBx Percent Prairie oordgraM Spartnapecti.'iata 250% Fringed brome Bnomus dliatua 15 0% Canada bhieioint Calamagroetis canadanaia 100% Fox sedge Cerex vulpinoidee 60% Fringed ledge Carex crinata 5.0% Porcipine eedge Carex hystericina 50% Giant manna grass Glyceria grandis 5 0% FoMlmana grass Glyoeria striata 50% Grean butruah Sdrpus atrovirens 10.0% Wool grass Sdrpus cyperinus 100% Bearded sedge Carex comosa S.0% 100.0% WUdflowete Percent New england aster Aster Novae Angliee 50% Marsh milkweed Asdepias Incamata 16 0% FMtopped aster Aster umbellatus 100% Ftattopped aster Eupatorium maculatum 60% Bonetel Eunatorium perfollatum 50% Bneezeweed Helenium autumrtala 5.0% St Johrfs-vwrt Hypericum pyramidatum 2.0% Blue flag iris Iris versicolor 15.0% Swamp lousewoit Pedicularis lanoeolata 1.0% Cutleaf coneftower Rudbeckia (aciniatijm 50% Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 10.0% Ironwaod Vemonia fasIcUlata 10.0% Culvers root Varonicastrum virginicum 10% Prairie blazing star liatrie pycnostachya 100% Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia eiphUitlca 1.0% 100.0% Seeding rates fi>r tooadcast seeding are 16-18 pounds per acres for grasses and 3-5 pounds per acre for vdldflowers. Seeding rates for drilled seedings are 8-10 pounds per wot for gnsscs and 2-3 pounds per acre for wildflowers. Note: seeding latcs are in pure live seed (PLS). L V f • » z Upkad Buffer Aral A seed mbcturewQI be lekcted from local seed sources. The seed naxture will mclude the following Q)edes in the approximate percentages listed or an available imxture with diversity: Maalc Oraaa mbc Percent Irxfan Grass Sorgastrxxn nutana 25 OH Bigbiuestem Andropogon gerardii 150H UtSablusslefn Shlzachrylum sooparlum 30 OH sklsoats gramma Bouteioua cuitipendula 100H Canada wUd rye Elymus canadenas 150H oiMicn Panicun virgatum 50H 100.0H Blacfcayed mean Rudbedda hiita 10.0H Purpta prairla dover Dalea purpurea 15.0H WHdbargamont Monarda fistulosa 4.0H Whita prairie dover Dalea candidum 5.0H Common Yarrmr Achillea millifollum 1.0H Hoery vervain Vertwna ilrlda SOH Gray-headed coneflower Ratidda pinnata 13.0H Prairie Splderwort Tradeacanda bfictsata 10H Stiff Gddenrod Sotidago rigida 2.0H Upland Goidenrod Solidago Ptarmlcoides 5.0H Showy goldenrod Solidago speclosa O.SH Fdseaunnowar Heliopsis helianthoides 12.0% Smooth Blue Aster Aster Laveis 1.0% Haartleargoldan alexander Zizeaaptera 2.0% Maximillian aunflower Hetianthus maximllHanl 3.5% Partridge Pea Caaalafaaicdala 7.0% Canada tick trefon Oesmodium canadenses e.0% Prairie Blazingstar Uatrlapycnostadtya 5.0% 100.0% Seeding rates for broadcast seeding are lS-20 pounds per acres for grasses and 3-S pounds per acre for wildflowets. Seeding rates for drilled seeding! are 10-12 pounds per acre for grasses and 2-4 pounds per acre for wildflowers. Note: seeding rates are to pure five seed (PLS). M£ESfflE| Uplud Buffer Aresi A seed mixture will be selected fiom local seed sources. The seed naxture will include ^ following spectes in the ^iproximate percentages listed or an available mixture with similar diversity: Maaic Graaa mix Parcent Indian Oraaa Sorgaatrum nutana 25.0H Bigbluestem Andropogon gerardR 150% Littfa bluestem Shlzachryium acoparium 30 0% akleoats gramma Bouteloua cuitipendula 10.0% Canada vdid rye Elymus canadenda 15.0% Switch grasa Panicum virgatum 5.0% 100.0% WUdflowatw Blackayed tusan Rudbedda hirta 10.0% Purpia prairie dover Oalea purpurea 15.0% Wild bergamont Monarda fistulosa 4.0% White prairie dover Dalea candidum 5.0% Common Yarrow Achillea millifotium 1.0% Hoery varvaln Verbena strtda 6.0% Oray-headad ooneflower Rabblda pinnata 13.0% Prairla Spiderwort Tradeacantia bracteata 1.0% Stiff Goidanrod Solidago rigida 2.0% Upland Goldenrod Soildago Ptarm ’coides 5.0% Showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa 0.5% Falae aunnowar Heliopsis helianthoides 12.0% Smooth Blue Aatar Aster Laveis 1.0% HeerHeef gOldan elexwtder Zizeaaptera 2.0% Maximillian aunflower Helianthus masdmilllani 3.5% Partridge Pea Cassia fadedata 7.0% Cwadaticktrafdl Desmodium canadenses 8.0% Prairie Blazingstar Uatris pycrsostadiya 5.0% 100.0% Seeding rates for broadcast seeding are 18-20 pounds per acres for grasses and 3-5 pounds per acre for wildflowers. Seeding rates for diiled seedings are 10-12 pounds per acre for grasses and 2-4 pounds per acre for wildflowers. Note: seeding rates are in pure live seed (PLS). mm Miaaesota Wcdaad CoascivatioB Act APPLICATION FOR CERTinCATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION* APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFOR.MATION Tom Ciillum Name(s) of Applicant 785 Ferndale Road Street Address Orono. MN 5S39I LGUt Minnehaha Creek Watershed District________ Project Location: 1/2 N 1/4 NE S 36TH8 R_2L UTM Coordinates: X:_______Y:_________ County Name/Number _______ 20092 City. Stale, Zip Code (__)_________L Tdishone (Day)(Evening) Minor Watershed Name/Number: _ Size of entire wetland: 0.3 acres Wetland type. Circular 39 TvoeS : NWl PUBGx Check one: ■<50% o50%-80% or a >80% Check one: o Agricultural land; a Non»ag. land _______ PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project: See attached narrative (•OKb ad&ttoMl if omM) Tiinetable project will begin on 1 / 15 / 04 _(mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 3/15/04 The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one): a No Loss Dctcrmiaalioa (attach plans) Eieaiptioa #.. (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible for submitting theproc ntetssary to shouf qualification for the exemption claimed.) Dcacriptioa of Eicoqitioo ClaioMd: APPLICANT SIGNATURE The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of ray knowledge. I ensure that, m draining filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures vdll be taken to preve setfimentation of the water, the drain or fill will not block fish passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compliance with:: other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best managerrtent praaices and water resource protecti: aents established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H. m OiltiuM i^/5 /o-z (Date) ^ !v CotacM orNo4.oa or E«eot«n (2000) PitclefZ Sott: Any apprtiml is not nmU MpMttm Mow an compUto. Ho work skoati kfii nnttttkt I S-4ay sppoai window has iofstd, or, in tkomntofon ^pMontU At appeal has boon finaUxtd. FOR LGU USE ONLY A.) LGU hai i«em«d adequMe dooBiaitatkia fo claim ofNo-Loss (T ExeoptiaB, and ipprra this cemficitr as oAlm^ ------— _ ^^^^Tliiscctiiicateomires____________^(Dtte) 0>«t) 9U ootifictfe fcr ncnfflpbaDtBdsMR. 8420 0122. Sabpnt 1 or Sobput 2. liemB? LGU si«abclow. 9iri»I.Mpm^bovc is sufficktf.Bd certificate ucoopkte tX}U wte AKot Applicabks in sapatUR bkxk below. B.) IXHJ haa leoaRd cvideooe of reconliai of Declaradoo of Restrictioos aid Covcaaoia far bopacted WctlaodUider Agricutan Excoptiao (BWSR. Fora B): (County wfaoe recorded)(Date recorded)(Document * ttisigoed by recorder) (LGU Official Simiature)(Date) •APPROVAL OF THIS CERTIFICATE ONLY APPUES TO THE WCA. Permiafrom local. State, and federal agencies ma, be renuit'ed. Check with the appropriate oufAorfV/ej before commencing work in or r\ear wetlands. The Combined Projec Application form can be used for this purpose. Wilhfal 16 day* of the dccUon. aotkcof the above deciaioa nmsl be naaikd to: Landowncr/Applicant Membcn of the Technical Evaluation Panel Department of Natural Resources Regional Office DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section SOO Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Corps of Engineen Project Manager (3 Department of the Army. Corps of Engjaaers, St Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St Paul, MN 55101-1631 Members of the public who have requested to receive notice. iiCEzr:'"' DEC 0 5 2003 CmtOBmenMxmm fmeicn am X IGEL & Johnson llc Rachel a . Igel Direct Dial (952) 3K -1400 EnuU Addicsi: RjchelOIgeOiwxom Febroar)’ 2,2X4 Ms. Rrrue Gark Minnehaha Creek >Xktenhed District 18202 \finnetonka Blvd. Deephav'en, MN 55391 Tiansmitted Via Facsimile And Via Pint Cass Mail Tom Cullum Property - 785 Ferndale Road , Wayzata , Minnesota Dear Ms. Clark, Thank )t}u for helping to oiganize and participate in the recon\*ening of the Technical Evaluauon Panel CTEP") for the Cullum Property. I belieN-e that it vas a x^ery effectK'e meeting, ukich resulted in the group designing an accepuble game plan that satisfies the partictpams ’ needs and concerns. As part of that game plan, I am wndng you lo summanze the resulu of our last meeting and to confirm die approach approved in the nveting to restore the CuUum’s wetland. Once you have renewed this lener, we would like to have a follow* up discussbn with you to ensure that our application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCVC'D”) includes your input and ultimately w*e hope to obtain your support for our projecL To sumnuiize the history of this proposed project, originally in No\*ember of 2032, we presented to a comrned TEP a No Loss and Restoration project, which was denied by the TEP due to disagreement over the application of the Wetland Conservation Act Rules. A year later, we base readdressed the issues that concerned the original TEP and met with the City of Orono and the MCWD to create a project that supports the principals behind WCA and esttblishes a higher functioning wetland arid ecosystem fer both \egeution and wildlife. -2-Fcbniary2,2X4 I believe everyone agfced at our last meeting that the proposed project would create a good result that everyone could suppon. To that end, we are proposing a projea that will result in a larger wetland, which will restore portiom of the pond and increase the wetlands o\erall divenity and values. Below is a description of the proposed project as it was presented and supported by the reconvened TEP, MCWD and the Qty cf Orono at our last meeting. For purposes of this lencr, I will presume that you have the original wetland delineation presented by* Kjolhaug Environmental and the previous submittals related to this project The Proposed Project Application for No-Loss Determination Wetland Project Historically; this wetland was stirround by' hardwoods and vegeution on the western side and a ruturally occurring groundwater source that originated from the northern side of the wedand. The resuk was a wetland that provided excellent habiut for wildlife arid ruturally maintaining water levels that prevented the wetlarKl from experiencii^ high e\aporation levels. The main purpose of our projea is to restore the wetland to its pres’ious existence. To reesublisb habitat areas we propose to cotutrua a snuU berm along the western boarder of the wetland to provide substrate for the esublishment of emergent herbaceous and woody wetland vegeution. The proposed berm will be less than 12 inches abo\e the normal water level of the pond, which will pre\ent the con\ersion of wetland to upland, but will result in a change of wetland type in this area of the wetland. This aspect of the proposed project would restore a portion of the pond to a saturated hydrobgy regime on the berm. It also would result in the esublishment of a woody hydrophytic plant community on the berm aiul an emergent wetland plant community arouiid the fringe areas of the weil^. This portion of the proposed projea was heavily discussed at our last meeting wir^ the reconvened TEP, MCWD and the Gty of Orono. After some thoughtful discussbn, the conclusion of the group was that the proposed berm does iu)t resuk in a wetland impact In summary; the group concluded that the projea would not resuk in the loss of quantity* of wetland. The group reviewed the WCA rules defitunon secooo for "orfkKf ’ which means a lea nAeqmpttt^ (rbklagad<inmity(f dwdaitloMaibydmmig,fil!v^cracnUB^as daoibed in part 8420.010i. Under our propel plan the berm area, as desenbed above, will remain wetland and only the wetland type will change. Native, non-invastve tree species such as American tamanck, northern wime cedar, black ash, green ash, or silver maple wiJ be planted on the proposed berm (depending on availabOil^. Seco^y, we propose to excavate a portion of the uplands adjacent to the pond to expand the siae of t^ wetland by 2,135 square feet, which is equal to the area occupied by the footprint of the proposed berm. Because no wetland will be lost through the esublishnxnt of the berm, the resulting wetland will be 2,135 square feet larger than the existing pond. The projected wiland types would be Type 4 (PEMIF/PEMIB/PSSIB). These new wetlaxxl areas will be creat^ by excavating down from the existing contours adjacent to the wetland as desenbed m the attached Figure ("Grading Plan ”). The new wetland areas are projected to become semi permanently flooded and seasonally flooded wetland (PUBF/^PEMlQ fringes of the existing wetland basin. A combiiutbn of native, oov r -3-Ftbruaxy2, 2004 invawe seed mix and icedlmgs/plugs similar to the mix in Attachment A C'>X'etland Buffer and Seeding Plan") will be established along the edges of the new wetland areas. As mentioned earlier, these changes wiU impros-e the quality of the uttland by increasing its habitat value for wildlife, its biological diversity and iu abilit>* to absorb nutrients before discharging to downstream waters. As an added requirement of the MCWD, we propose to establish 11787 square feet of rutive, non*invast\*e vegeunon in permanent upland buffer (See Attachment A f'VC’etland Buffer and Seeding Plan ”)) surroundmg the new and existing wetland. The proposed upland buffer areas will be a minimum of 16.5 feet wide along the southern and eastern sides of the wetland, and a minimum of 25 feet wide along the northern edge of the wetland. Howe\’cr, the northern edge of the wetland will be maintained in the existing woody \*egetation, »iih the exception of invasivr species such as common buckthorn, which will be temo\Td. One final item discussed in our last meeting was the issue of the well and pump associated with the current wetland. As >ou know; it is cuncndy run in an effort to maintain a cf nsisicnt water level, which became necessars' due to disrupoon of the wetland ’s ground water source during the e.xca\-auon of the northerly neighboi's sub-basement a few years aga Recendy the neighbor to the north attempted to reroute the ground water back to the wetland through a series of drain tile and piping are hopeful that this new system will restore the groimd water flow to the wrtlaiid; howes-er, only time will tell if this measure will be effective. During our meeting there was some discussion over the desire to see this well and pun^ permanently discontinued. Although, no one wants to see the wetland dry up. Therefore, at the meeting it was agreed that we would allow monitoring of the wetland by the MCWD and the Qty of Orono for a period of three years to evaluate the effectiveness of the northerly neighbor's dram tile/pipmg system, llic Cullum's pump system has a measuring device that provides details on ^ amount of water pumped from the well Therefore, is will be easy* to evaluate exactly how effecuve the neighbor's system :s telauve to the water level of the wetland. In summary the proposed project wdl be a No-Loss wetland in^rvsement projea by partially resto^ an excavated wetland basin by corutiucting an earthen berm, which will be used to esublish emergent herbaceous and wx)^y \egeution. In addition, 2,135 square feet of new wetland and 11787 square feet of upland buffer will be created adjacent to the wetland. Finally a three-year monitoring period will be esublished to evaluate the need for the continued use of the well and pump system used for nuinuining water lesels in the wetland. I hope you find the above review of the Hndings from our last meeting and the detail of our proposed plan helpful Our goal is to satisfy any ou’.standing issues you have with our plan and then present an official application for approv'al at the next available MCWD Boa.'d Meeting, hopefully in December. Upon approWl from MCWD, we would then present our plan, with the support of the staff of the Gty of Orono, to the Orono Planning Commission and Council would like to begin construction in mid-winter to max imize the helpfulness of the frozen ground and water. 1 -4-F(bniiry2,2004 I win contaa you ihoitly to discuss or proposed plan. In the ineantune, if you have any questions or conunents regarding this submiiial of information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above-referent telephone number or e-mail address or Mike DeRuyier at KpUuug Environmental Services Company at (952) 401-8798. Sincerely Rachel A. Igel Attorney At Law MikeDeRuyicr Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company Endoiuici Gr Tom and MjchrOe GuUum SOI lie WOODS boulevard , suite 1000 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA • SS317 PHONE: 9S2.3I0.1400 • PAX; 9S2 401.1342 r F«b 02 04 lOiaSs FtB-02-200* 10* ic«i m^•€MRH4 CHEEK UHTTOCD 8024011382 Mlmbta btA ||^W>tiiKM Biitfitt ...... = Imfrwing QjuUty Qu»luf $fL^ m lanMmMkiM Om Fm MMWII Planr(W)«n«» Mb MiM jMMCbm LMtHMr MMOM IMM DiceMH.lOOl Tom Cbl— TISFoMeUsd CMMN 5S3fl MCWD Mil ApflieM Ko. «-«n DMiAprhcMt -------------------------------------- nM6beb0»mc |Mmmii«rMi«MMiottt iM«i«ri7OI0 F«yMo(lWi J 43917 bi4KM« bOi MM Wfc Ml Mb* «d alfcntMi aaMHl •415.000 vafai UBul Ike cad «f tie OuciaMiMiM c aw»lM>4cMbapiM.8»0oMd.kyHi«ki.Miu8it»»ii uM«DM kc cwMcMd. In M CMca. «• ■ppIiCM* i> i«9»>rtd top«y w M OiNKi, • fee c^ul ni£riM cMttoftMyM or «K pr^)Rt. 6cW iMpnOoa. «a|Mmu8 MtviMi. k«^ •ad My MbMM ^ *■ **^ ^^ ^ *^ **^^ ** " ^*^' ^*** tcMlMIM ntm eaUmei 0534714390 Mfh iny Mnbi. Siacm^. DbvktTaM CdyofOMa |UcMl«b.AB«MyiiU« K Minnehaha Creek Watenhed District 1820214innetonki Boulevard Deephaven,MN 55391 Name of Applicant: Tom Cullum ^AN Application Number 02-433 Type of Application (check one):Q Exemption Decision ^ No Loss Decision Q Replacement Plan Decision Q Banking Plan Decision □ Wetland Type/Boundary Decision ^0}(^ Date ofDcciiion: December 18.2003 Check One: QApproved IS Approved with conditions Q Denied Lbt ef Addressees: Tom Cullum 785 Femdale Road Orono.MN 55391 CityofOrono MUceGafhxm P.O.Box66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources BcadWozney One West Water Street. Suite 200 St Paul. MN 55107 Department of Natural Resources Central Region Waters Attn: Julie Ekman 1200 Warner Road St Paul, MN 55106*6793 DNR Wetlands Coordinator Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road. Box 25 St Paul. MN 55155 nMWMiNoIkt 02433 - Pa«t 1 of 2 (Ascii 2003) -1 r Coipafn^iiiiwyn»rtMw^ Dip«lM ofte Afi^r. Ooips of Ei«Mm. St P«U District ATDf: 004U 190 Fitt teMt EM 8 lPwI,MNSS1011<3I Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Chip Hentges 219 East Frontage Road Waconia,MN SS387 Tim Brown Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 200 Grain Exchange 400 South Fourth Street Minneapolis. MN 5541S You art hereby notified tfut the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above* reftrcnced plication wu made on the date stated above. A copy oftbe Local Government Unit's Findinp and Conclusiona is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing e petition for appeal to the Mumesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. [LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT] Signature Tide Date DaeMflaNotka 02*43) *P^2ef2 (April 2003) \/l/ CONSE.VT Permit Appljcition No.: 02«433 Apphcint: _____Tom Cullum_______ Project: WetUnd Alteration Location: 78S FerndaM Road. Orono Rule: R/D Received. U/U 02 .Complete I2/Q5A)3 Ncnficahon: 12'10/03 Recommendation: Approval. Permit should not be issued until the followinn conditions are met Reimbursement of mailing costs Remibuncment of Rule J Fees . Subnutul of a Declaration for foe preservation ot the wetland butter which must be executed and recorded Submittal of a surety for wetland altemtion in the amount of SS.OOO valid until the end five-year monitoring period. Approval from the City of Orono____________________________________________ Backgroaad: The applicant is proposmg wetland alterabon at the location cited above ui the City of Orono The project consists of a berm for the esublishment of trees in a type S wetland less than one acre in size along the western edge of the property line. As shown on the site p’.sn there will be sn opening in the middle of the berm 10-12 feet wide to allow for hydrology to be maintaned on the western portion of the wetland off the subject property. An application for No-Loss has been submitted for the berm. The applicant also proposes to create a 16 S-2S foot wetland buffer, convertng mowed Kentucky bluegrass to native wetland buffer vegetttion in addition to the creation of 2,135 square feet of new wetland m adjacent upland as part of the proposed project. A permit would allow for alteration of a wetland. Erosion control consisting of silt fence and a wetland buffer seeding plan is proposed The proposed project will fill 2,135 square feet of wetland for the creation of a berm to support trees, provide 2,135 square feet of new wetland, and pro\ide a 16 5-25 foot wetland buffer which will be converted from mowed Kentucky bluegrass to native vegeution. As stated above, the purpose of the berm is to provide for foe esublishment of trees such ss green ash, silver maple, and nonhem white cedar. The proposed berm will less then 12 inches above the normal water level of foe wetland. The low profile of foe berm is to allow for wetland hydrology to persist and qualify the fill for a No-Loss exemption in the Wetland Conservation Act A Technical Evaluation Panel consisting of MCWD suff and engmeering consultant. Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Hennepm County Environmental Services met with the City of Orono and the applicant’s wetland consultant. The panel discussed at length the application for No-Lou defined in MN Rule 8420.0220 which applies if the proposed work will not impact the wetland, i.e. dimmish the quantity, or biological diversity of the wetland The goal of the design for the proposed fill u to mamtain the thm entena of a functioning wetland The panel corxloded that the proposed project would result in benefit for the function and value of this w etland and could furxtion as wetland As a condition of the permit, suff recommends i momtonng report be submitted to MC\M> once each year for five consecutive years regarding sutus of the berm as a functioning wetland and the nicceu of foe esttbliihinent of the wetland buffw^_____________________________________________ Atuchmenu: 1. Pennit application 2. Site plan/survey 3. Wetland buffer seeding plan (4) 4. Site location map ______ V.\tjujcr\ RenaeCtark ifDate r • danotn irofi mo«Mjm«nt found O denotes Iron pipe Ml and morliad os shown: o dhnoiss wood loth O donotss soil boring 9 dooofss porcolotion tsst holo ftoqusstsd By: Tom Cutium Dote:Drown By:Scale:Cheched By: 00/t4/V7 KDK f-30* wjBsiagTi aftyjirjsrsxAr' FIGURE 3 ; or losoo ts § nssi @TTO ggasMan Job No t63: L MapQuest Mapt: print Page 1 of I -:iAA>p«ycST. tSi S*nd To Printer Bark ro Man Lov/<^tMvBiMS com L^ss?f;jsi :i)ALillT! 785 Ferrvdale Rd N Orono MN US Mortgage Ratal at 40 Year Lows Select Wur Curreie Rale S Sawn t1,OOQe S«-5 99« 6%- 6 99% Holes: * Leae-'nMrvPtffacl Credit OK I CIltIcHefei | I «ia#«anrW '•■ \ __.^rv ; ukt 1 > i»*«N f f ~'i P^ / It %r%- ? c'«‘ r-»-« S, X ; vv-c .. • . •- i ON03 kOaQuMLoBm. IM. 08000 NMMton IMinotagto enawNL.r V • “TvrvSv TMmao N9 rtertia<'taoo« a maat or »ar^»»'tv B<»tn •* u laconivt. uior atsur^ttai rttorus*. MapQwMt and a tvptt*ri auwmt no reipons«kty for any ten or titity OMOng rrpm i«cn uot. Pfiwarv ealgy % yig|]j|Bt|£0 O 2003 MapQuestcomi, Inc. Ml rigtits rewrved. RUNOATC: i/aow HENNEPIN OCXJKTY PROfEimr INPOHMATION SYSTEM PKOPEKTY OWNERS LIST M UMUMMOM ntorADOR US HOLLAMJERRO OWWRNAM8 IMWLRCHERVLLKRUaY rAXPAVIR DAVO LA CHERYL LKEUCV mMiYrtrtm ushollanoerrd WAVIATAMN SUtI 31 UIIIU4AN0T raOPADOR 2UHOUANDERRO ownername um« 0 close a MX k close TAXPAYER LOUBD CLOSE A MX K CLOSE NAM&AOOR 2MH0LLANIJCRED WAYZATAMN SS)*I PROP AUOR M 2SII12M400I3 2IS HOIXANOCRM) OWNERNAME WBMCKFXVERAMHMCXEEVER TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR WAYNE B A MARY H MCKEEVER SISHOtXANOERRD WAYZATAMN SSJ9I SB SMIBUIINI2 PROPAOOR IBS PBRNOALERON OWIMRNABIB MAATCCULLUMM TAXPAYER MCNBIXEATNOMASCULLUMM NAME/AOOA TtS fERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 9S39I SB SIIIBUIIOOIS PROPAOOR IBi PONOALERDN OWNERNAME REVM A SHARON TAPAM TAXPAYER REVM A SHARON TAPANI NAME/AOOR TSI PERNOALE RO ORONOMN SSMI PROPAOOR 3B JAIIB2JIIBBI1 773 FERNOALBRON OWNERNAME B A A K i ERIOtaON TAXPAYER BRADLEY A A KAREN J ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 773 fERNDALE RON WAYZATAMN S31«l 3B 311 IBUI10017 7IS PBRNOALERON OBTNBINAMB RCNARDiASIBANKLYMAN TAXPAYBI RKHARDJ A SUSAN K LYMAN IMME7AOOR 7l3PnNOALERON WAYZATAMN SS30I 30 31IIOUIIOOIO PROPAOOR 30 ADORBSSUNASSIONEO OWTCRNAME MAATCCULUMM TAXPAYER MCNUXE A THOMAS OJUJUMm NAME/AOOA 70S PERNOALE RON WAYZATAMN 33301 M MIIUIIIOON PROPAOOR n ADDRESS UNASSKMEO OWNERNAME KAREN BEUIENPREY TAXPAYER KAREN RELOEN PREY NAME/ADOR 11133 OTHAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 33447 10 S1II02SI20001 PWOPAOOR TUPOWDALERDN OWNERNAME MJSOWA0AAMB9OWAOA TAXPAYER MKKAELPMAROARETBSOWAOA T23PER7IDALERDN 30 36IIOUI2000* PBOPAOOR 30 AOORESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME JOHNABEROANANCYCBERO TAXPAYER MICHAEL I NANCY FREY HAMPAPI^ 74SFERNDAURON ORONOMN SS39I 3S 34III2JI2Q0I4 PROPAOOR 793 FERNDALE RON OWNERNAME CATHERINESBLAZIER TAXPAYER CATHERINE S BLAZCR NAME/AOOR 70S FERNDAIX RD N WAYZATAMN 33101 10 MU0UI200IS PWlPAOOR 30 AOORIsSSUNASSiaNEO OWNERNAME KARINBELDCNFREY TAXPAYER KABINBODENFREY IMSSOniAVEN PLYMOUTH MN SS447 icamnr THATTIC facts REPHeSENrED are an accurate and TRUeREfRESBirrAIIONOFMORMLTIONAS TT APPEARS TNS DATE ON TtC RECORDS OPTIC ICfMPlN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES I OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. lOEPAJnMSg^TOTMEBBT y ^ Y BY FACE:1 >0 CO Q rO.NLNO R£G'JLAT10N3 I 7S-1286 (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be ei* thsr constnicted above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, pro* vided they arc designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil cro* Sion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings oust 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. (61 Fadlitic.: r.ocetsaxy to provide shore area access to physicauy handicapped persona shall be allowed, provided that the dimen sional and performance standards of sub- sKtions (1>—(5) of this section are com pleted in addition to tlte requirements of the Minnesota Regtilationi. chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction ?f stairways, lifts and land ings regardless of whether such improve ments are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. 9 1(10 56a6XF)). 2-24- 1W2) See. 7S-1S83. Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting e permit for construc tion sewage treatment systems, roads, drive- wsys. structures or oUier improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to al low the city to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be at tached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing veptation screening of struc tures. vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, lesf-on vegetation. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. 9 1(10.56(16XG)>. 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1284. Height of structures. No structure within the Shore'and Overlay District shall exceed the height lim;tat!oas set forth in the standards for the underlying aonieg district. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. 9 1(10 56(16XHn. 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1285. VegcUtion alteraUons. (a) No live tree within 75 feet of the ihoreline or within the bluff impact zone with a diameter of su inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit Grom th* city staff, providtd that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acctpUblc to the staff are planted at the same setback firom 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 of 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 *5 feet of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact tone 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 of any size is allow^ to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings picnic areu. acoeu paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or o'Jiet facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditirns, is not suiatantially reduced. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. I 1(10.56(16X1)). 2-24- 1992; Ord No. 127 2nd series. 9 7. 7-1M994) Sapp. Ns. 1 See. 78-1286. Topographic alterations/grad- Ing and filling. (a) Grading and filling and excavstions neces sary for the construction of structures, iiwagi treatmtnt systems, and drivtways under validl> issued construction permits for these facilities dc CD78I91 4 7S-1296 ORONOCmrCODE not rcquirt tht ittuasct of ■ itpiratt grading und filling permit. Howtvar, all grading and filling activity approved penoits for conitruction of atruc* turea, sewage treatment ayatemi, and driveways ahall adhere to the grading and filling standards of article. (b) Grading, filling or cacavating of more than ten cubic yards is pr jhibited within 75 fret of the ordinary high waur level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or escavating of un cubic yards or leoa shall require dty staff leview and permit and be subject to otto pertinent sections if this chapter. (c) Public and privau roads, drivewayt. park ing areas. anJ public or private watercraft acoasa ramps shidl not be conetructed srithin 75 Sect of the ordinary high water level of the public w aters enumerated in eection 78-1217. If no altemativce cxiet. ei'ch imprevemente ehall be subject to the standard zoning variance review proc^ure, and such review ehall ta'ie into account the folbwmg considerationi- Such iffipruvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to arhieve maximum screen ing from view from public waters. All roads and parking areas shall be de* Signed an'i constructed to minimize and control aroaion to public waters consistent with the requirements of el! agtndes with jurisdiction. (dj Evceot ibi those prqjecu requiring penaiu for couatruetion of itructuree. sewage treatment systems and driveways, a land alteration permit be required u follows; For movement of one through 500 cubic yerda ut material anywhere within the Shorcland Overlay District, a siaff issued land alteration permit shall be required. For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of mateiial within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional uat permit approval by the city council ia required in addition to the required land alteration peimit L (e) Tht following coneiderations and condi- tioni must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances end subd:vi- Sion approvals' ri)Grading or filling ir. ar.y tvoe 2. 3, 4,5.6, 7 or 8 wetland m .r*. be evaluated to determine how exterr vely the propcsed activity wbuld affect *hc following func tional qualitita of th«' wetland: 8«sa. Ka 1 CD78192 Sedinient and p'«Uutant trapping and retent on; b. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood dsmege; e. Fish and wildlife hibiut. d. Recreational use: e. Shorelin* or bank stabilization; and Noteworthinesa, including special qualities, auch as historic signifi cance, critical habitat for endan gered plants and animals, or othera. This tvaluation must alsc include a deter mination of whether the wetland alter- aticn being proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by other lo^ sute or federal agencies including but not lim ited to watershed districts, state depart ment of natural resources, or the United Sutee Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Aherauons must be designed and con ducted in a manner that ensurte only the emallest amount of bare ground ia ex posed for the short*..'*, time possible. Mulches or similar materials moat be used, wharf necassary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must he established as soon as pos sible. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sedimenti before they reach any sur face water feature must ^ used. (5) Altered areas muit be stabilized to accept able erosion control standard! consistent with the fiald office technical guides of the ZavZKC RECLIAHONS f 7i-:a8 local toil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or rscavated 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 r-Niewed by the dty encinecr for continued sbpe stability and must not create finished ^pes of 30 percent or greater. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zonea. (9) Any altcratioiu below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorirnd by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Sut i 103G.245. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do net 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 slope does not ex* ceed three feet horizontal to one foot ver* tical. the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of th«i ordinary hi^ water level, and the hei^t of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. Ariprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 70-969. (0 Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level Such excavatiens below the elevatioa or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agennes with concur rent jurisdictico. (Ord. No. lOl 2nd tehea, ^ 1(10 56(16)(J)). 2-24* 1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series. ( 8.7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, « 3. 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series. 9 2. 4-4-1998) Sac. 78*1287. Storawster management. The following general and specific r.andarda shall apply .. addition to those standards found in artidc VUl of this chapter and aactioo 82-222. (1) NMstn possible, ciisticg natural drainagewayt. wetlands and vtgeuted mil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter and retain itomwatcr runoff befere discharge to public waters. (2) A development must be planned and con ducted in a manner that will miniiniw the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velodties and erosion poientul and reduce and delay runoff volumea. Disturbed aress must be stabilised and protected as aocn as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. When development denmty, topographic features, snd soil and vegetation condi tions ore cot sufficient to adequately han dle itormwaur runoff using natural fea tures end vegetation, various types of constructed facihtin, such as divemons, settling basins, skimm.nf devices, dikes, wBUnways and ponds may be used. Pref erence must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegeution, and infiltra tion rather than buried p.pes and marjnade materials and fadlitiei (4) Mlien constructed facilities are used to perform water management, documenta tion mutt be provided by a regiMrcd profear.onal dvil engineer that they are designed and Installed consistent wiUa the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation district (5) New coostrucud stormwater outfalls to public waters m< provide for filtering or •ettling of sus ded aoUda and skim ming cf surface . cris before discharge (Ord No. 101 2nd series, 9 1(10.56(16KK)), 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1288. Hard covar Umitatlona. la) No hard cevar or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 7S feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for atairways, lifts, landinp and lockboxes u regulated elsewhere in this Code. 8upp. No. 1 CD70193 o 5. Wetlands Management ^ 5.1 General As described in Section 3. the formation of the londscope in Crono has resulted In the creation of mony wetlonds. The City recognizes o verier of functions and vofues provided by Its wetlonds. induding ♦ Acting as port of the natural surfoce water monogement system • molntenarce of water quality • flood ottenuotlon • erosion and sedimentation reduction ♦ Providing hobitat for a voriety wfleJife ♦ Presenring open spaces and natural landscapes ♦ Contributing to on enhanced overall quoHty of life Orono's leaders formally recognized these values In the 1960 ‘s and adopted the Oty's first comprehensive wetlord protection oroinance r 1970. Based on various water quolity/quantity studies that supported tr^ 1974 SWMP. Orono adopted oddltlorxil ordinances in 1975, which proNbited filling or draining wetlands, and required a 26-foot setbocK from a wetlond boundary to any cor^struction or groding activtty. This section of the SWMP describes the City's multi-faceted resource monagement approach to maintaining or improving the City's weitond resources. Stemming from the goals orxj pdioes of both MCWD and Orono. the following process serves os the bockbor^ of Orono's weticr manogement plan; ♦ Discussion of impacts to wetlorxJ resources (Section 52) Inventory wetlands likely to be affected by runoff {Section 5.J) Assessment of wetland functions and values {Section 5.3) Determination of a runoff suscepfibUty rating {Section 5.3) Develop protection strategies to minimize Impact {Section 5.4) • dossify wetlands by required level of protection • volume and rate control (quontity) to manage bounce • phosphorous limits to maintain or Improve water quality • buffer strip standards for quantity and quality Plan for enhancement or restoration of wetlands {Section 5.3) • Identify candidate wetlands • create an Improvement plan for each OtyofOtaao ♦ e e e ^ 5.2 Impacts to W^ctlands With the possage of weiond protection tegislotioa one corrstructon o* ponds for runoff monogernent. the rote of degradation from urbon development has been greatly slowed. However, with intens ’ve land development, agricultural production, and housekeeping practices m developed areas, degrodotlon of wetlands continues. The focus of recent wetland legislation, policy, ond practice has been to preserve fr functions, values, and overall quality of wetlands by minimizing poor water quality and unmonoged quantities of runoff associoted with ogre urban impacts. 5.2.1 Water Quality Impacts Water quality plays a significant role in the overoil quolity of a wetland. When the quality of Incoming water declines, the plant community mo> degrade to fewer of spedes and retain orjy species toiercnt af high nutrient and sediment loads. A degraded plant conrvnunity results o les vduoble ecosystem in terms of biodiversity, habtat. ond oesthetlcs. There are two primary factors that affect the quality of runoff ente *:*-1 n wetland, and therefore to overall water quality within the wetland: 1 . phosphorous, os the primary nutrient of concern 2. sedlmentotioa resulting from erosion of soil 5.2.2 Water Quantity Impaas Recent surface water monogement plans have protecrec weriands ‘ro nutrients but not from fluctuation of woter elevation (bcjnce) or curstic of nundotion. In foct. it wos common to use wefionds to reduce floceJr potential by sizing pipes to maximize bounce oixJ durotion. The findings of the [State of Minnesota) Storm Water Advisory Group we published in a document colled Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands (1994). The findngs Indicated that there is a brood range of tolerance to bounce end duration among different wetland types. And to a lesser extent, the range of tolerance con be attributed to the characteristics oxj qudity a given wetland. Some wetlands (e.g.. bogs and fens) are sensitive to any dsturbance a wll show signs of degrodotlon with even low^evel irputs of runoff. Conversely, some wetlcnds (e g, floodplain forests) ae better odoptec to handle fluctuating water levels often casodaled with runoff. OtyafOnno ^5.3 Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands 5.3.1 Wetland Inventory As stated earlier, the Oty's objective is to protect, enhorce. cnd/or restore wetlorxis that may be directly affected by rur^off as deveiopmen orxj redevelopment occurs. Therefore, only those welarnds locoted within 20 feet of o proposed or existing stomnwoter outlet pipe were inventoried ond mapped as port of the SWMP. This inventory olso se vec os the base of information for development of other pahs of ^e wetiarx manogement plon. The wetlarxis inventoried for this SWMP are listed in Appendix i ond ere shown on the SWMP System Map. 5.3.2 Stormwater Susceptibility Assessment The Guidonce For Evaluating Urtxin Storm Water and Snovmeit Runoff Impacts To Wetlands v^os the source material for rating a wetiarxJ's susceptibility to runoff. Potential impacts ossodated with storm or^ meltwater runoff include fluctuation In water levels (bounce) within the wetland, the duration of inundation at the varying bounce elevation! and the quality of the water being directed to the wetland A given wetland's susceptibility to runoff is dependent on the wenond type, one the characteristics orxj qualit/ of its plant community. As on exomple. a sedge meadow, wi'uch ikes a particulor hydrologic regme is much more susceptible than a floodpion forest, which deper on fluctuutirg levels of water associated with seosonal flooding Aiso. c wet meodow witn a variety of grasses and flowers is more sensitive thor one domirxited by reed canary gross. The runoff suscepflbiity rating fo eoch of the evoluated wetlands is incficoted by color-coding on the system mop. The ratings described in the guidance document ere ♦ Mighty Susceptible ♦ Moderately Susceptible ♦ Sighlly Susceptible ♦ Least, Susceptible. Further dscusslon on susceptibility and associated wetland comminity 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 types. Including plant communities and hydrology. OtyafOnno 5.3.3 Functional Assessment Orono's 1980 Community Management Plan articuloted the genera, oa for wetlorxj protectioa but locked a functional assessment of the value* ottributoble to each of its protected wetlarxls. Such an ossessment was needed to be able to develop protection or enhcncement strategies fo individual wetlands. The New Hompshire Method, slightly modified for conditions In Orono. w* used for the functional ossessment of wetlarxls. The Minnesota Poutire Assessment Method (MnRAM) was also modified, ord used in conjunctic with the New Horrpshire Method. The intent of combining these methoc was to allow for city staff to assist In future assessments of wetlands. The New Hompshire Method is designed to be 'user friendly' ond Is specificolly set up so that non-sdentlsts can fill out the method. MnRAM a technical method that needs to be filled out by a wetland scientist It was necessary to include MnRAM because the New Hampshire Method does not adequately address floral cSversity. (an important factor with regard to runoff protection and buffer strips). The New Harrpshire Method allows for a comparison between wetland! within a project boundary, ft Is one of the few methods that gives an actual number ranking. This dlows for comparison of functtonol values. The method addresses up to 14 functional values of wetlands, whch arc listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Functional Valuet Under the New Hampshire Method Ecological integrity Water-based recreation Snoreline anoonrg wuiifehaMat Rood control potential Urtian qualty of life 1 RsNhabicat Groundwater use potential Urtian qualtyoflife 1 Educational potential Sediment trappng Notewofthiness Visual/aesttietic quality Nutrient atteruation Of these 14 functional values, the City chose the following three for ossessment of the wetlor^ identified for the SWMP: ♦ Ecological Integrity determines the degree of human influence. ^ WVdVfleHobffofassessestheoverallsultabllitYofawetlandfor widfife typically associated with wetlands. ^ Visual/Aesthetic QuaSty ranks the wetland's scenic beauty. Functional value indices for eoch wetland are presented in Appendix I. inducing the MnRAM rolit^ of a wetland's floral dversity/lntegrity. OHfafOme i MCWD A99§M§m§nt As of the approval date of this SWMP. Minrehaho Creek Watershed District was in the process of completing a function and value ossessrrer* of wetlands In the District. It is onticipoted that that project will be completed orxj a final report will be published in the near future. The C» of Orono will refer to MCWD's data for the followirig considerotons: 1 . Source of data for wetlands not inventoried for Orono SWMP 2. Cross-reference with OrorK5 SWMP data 3. Goin perspective on the wetland rrxanagement strategies set forth in the Orono SWMP 5.3.4 Non-Inventoried Wetlands UnderstancJng the value of on inventory orxj evaluation of oil wetland resourcei the Oty will take the following general opproach to achieving a complete data set for remaining wetlarxJs; ❖ Inventory and assess wetlands as cost-sharing opportunit^s become availoble •> Incorporate data from similar projects by other agencies notably the MCWD wetland assessment project 4* Require data from any land disturbing activity near a wetland The last of these will hoppen when there is development of iarxj near ar wetlands that have rot been accounted for in o previous effort. When preliminory plat is received by the Gty, proximity to wetlands wll be among the review items, if a recrby wetland has not been accounted for. the developer of the lord wil be required to hove a runoff susceptibility evaluation compieted and submitted to the Otv The developer may request that the evaluation be done by *he Oty. in which cose a fee wi be ossessed. By requiring this, the plat dpproval process wi take into account the qudtty and sensitivity of a given wetkard. as well os add that wetland to the City's database. ♦ 5.4 Wetland Protection The god of this management strategy is to maintdn or enhance tne ecdoglcd Integrity of wetlands in the Oty during site development. GK- the variability of the type and qudily of the wetland communities, o twc step wetland protection process has been developed. Wetlands subjec runoff must Initidly be dossifled as to the level of protection required. Frc there, an appropriate protection strategy can be planned for each wetland. atyofOvno r Information needed to form a wetland strategy for each wetiorxj will be derived from one or all of these sources; 1. Wetland inventory and assessment completed os oort of this SWM? 2. Wetiorxj inventory and assessment completed by MCWD 3. Non-inventoried wetiond procedures detailed In Section 5.3.4 5.4.1 Protection Classification Orono's wetlarxJ protection classificollons ore based on a wetiond's susceptibiiity to impoct from runoff (see Section 5.3.2). Because the runofi susceptibility rating can be used as an indicator for the overall quolity of most wetiond types, it con ciso serve os the basis for deterrrtnirg the feve of protection to be afforded to a given wetland. In some cosei wetlands with a ’utilto* dasaiflcation can actually be enhanced when used for runoff nnanogement, by raising water levels or by excavating. In other situations, restoration of Protect II or Protect III wetlands may provide treatment for downstream waterbodies ard improve the habitat and oesthetics of the subject wetland. Table 5.2 Wetiind ProtMdon Clanificatiofw ClaMifteatlon Suaeaelibmty Ratine Dtactiption Protectl HighV SuscepQbie Highly susceptible to both quantity and quality impacts from runolf; have the highest of protection. Moderately suioepdble to quantity and quality impacsProttCt II Moderately SwctpCbie protection is lea stnr>geft than Protect I, provides proteebofl to maotam their charactehsocs Proteatn SiigMy Susceptible Less soingent protection than Procea n wetlands; mamtenance of charadenstics is desirable Uttize Least SuscepOble Wetlands arc significantly degraded (e.g., cuHvaced or canary graa monotype) or tack wetland characteristia not typlaVy impacted by runoff; no quantity and only limMd qualty treatment of runoff s required S.4.2 Protealon Strategies Existing federal and state regidatlons address potential impact to the •aeal" extent of wetlands from placement of 1111 material. In concert witf MCWD. the aty also Intends to protect the overall ecological integrity of Its wetland corrmjnitles. The protection strategies in Table 5.3 were developed to address potential Impoct to the type, chorocter. and quolity of a wetland comrrxjnlty. from runoff. The Protection Strategy for eoch wetland is based on Its Protection Qassitlcatlon. abfofOnne i-LAbinu.L^..iiL' 11 Considering that runoff reaches a wetland both from o storm sewer ar^c from adjacent uplarxis, the following three issueswill be marxjged to minimize impact from runoff: •> Bourtct - deals with the volume of stormwater input, in terms of the change in water levels end the duration cf that change. Ponds wi be designed to rrxanoge bounce associated with runoff from storrr sewers. Based a runoff event with o 1 00*year recurence intervol. •> Phosphorous (P) - addresses the amount of phosphorous being delivered to a given wetiarxj via ajnoff from storm sewers Buffer • addresses both the quality ord quontity/rote of ajnoff entering q wetlond os surfoce flow from odjocent uplands. Table 5 J WeMend Protection Streteolee Protactipw Omlflcation •ounce: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditors j Protect I P*: Umit loadings to predtvelopment loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) •uflier: 50 feet wide •ounce: Maintain bounce at or below ejdsbng condiCons plus OJS foot Protect 11 P: Umlt loadings to predevetopment loadings bmes 2 (0.28 itx/fic/ir) 1 •ufVer 35 feet wide •ounce: Maintain bounce at or below existing cordibons plus l.O foot Protect in P: Umit concentration to predeveloomert concentraticns (2(M ppb) ! »•urrer 25 feet wide * 11 •ounce: No quanbty requremert ! utilizei P: Limit concentration to 225 ppO1•uffer. 15 fM wide The aty of Orono has taken a somewhat different opprooch to the szirx and location requirements for wetland buffers, for a couple of reasons; 1. It Is generally known that, assuming all things equal, a larger waterbody has a greater assimllattve capacity than a srrxall wetiarxj. I.e. some given amount of phosphorous can be more eosily *absorbed' by a 14 acre marsh than by a 0.8 acre fen. 2. A given wetlorxj ’s ajnoff susceptibility rating Is a good indicator of overall quality in terms of its functions and values. Sensitive communities with a diverse assembloge of plants, provide scarce and/or Hgh quality habitat (remember. Protection aossifications c lied to runoff susceptlbBty). of Orono BulHn Itshoiid be noted cat the outset of cany cfccussion on buffers, that this requirennent Is not the same os a 'setback' requirement in fcx:t. the ^ginning point for o settxack requirement may actually be the buffer's •up^rodient' edge. The City wfll adopt the buffer strp widths Indicated in Tcabie 5.3. okang with other buffer guidelines cfiscussed below, with opproval of this SWMP. During Impierrientotlon of this SWMP. the Oty will include these requirements and guidelines in an oppropriate ordinance. A buffer (or buffer strip) is an oreo of undlifeibed vegetation surrouncjng a wetlond. it can consist of trees, grasses, shrubs, flowers, or ony combirxatioa os long os it is the vegetation (or enhancement of) that is ii placae and weB established before any grcxflng activities begin. An uncfatvjTbed buffer can reduce Impact to a wettcand by: ❖ Keeping soil stcablllzed to minimize erosion ❖ filtering nutrients and sediments from overiand runoff ❖ Sowirg and/or retraining overiand runoff ❖ Providng habitat od|o<»nt to wetkands During construction, a buffer is an area in \^ich there will be no vehicle« equipment traffic, stockpiling of soil, or stoging of any type of constructic materiol. After constructioa these guldeiines should be foflowed ❖ No mowing, fertilizing, or other maintenorace • moncagement of native or rKaturd vegetotlon is OK ❖ No placement of kawn dippings, leaves, etc • limited bfushpiles mcay be OK. check with City* ❖ No sheds or recrecational features ❖ No trampling or paths, except cas allowed, check with aty • paths should be poroBei to the weitand edge • occess to weticxyj should be meandered •bfianplei may serve « hodtof for wfldiife If done property ♦ 5.5 W^tlAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMEN'TS Four wetland complexes have been identified as high priority restoration enhancement sites. Additional wetlands wil likely be identified during th Implementation period for this SWMP. Furxlng sources for the wetland restoration/enhancement sites con come frorTi a variety of sources, discussed further in Section 7.7.4. OfyofOnno A summofy of each of the wettand restofotfon/enhoncerrent sites fc Enough information wos collected to begin the process of opplyjng f: grants. The cost shown m the tobies below are opprowmote and me. modified if odditionai information becomes ovoilobie. or for cost iTJcreoses. 5.5.1 Wetland PC-L-31 Approximate Ste Size; lOoaes Township 11BN Range 23 w . Section 31 Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #. 2C Oty Watershed Nome: Painter Creek OrnmaiOmeripthnofSttm This wetland is located in the upstream portion of the Painter Oeek watershed. A tributary of Pdnter Creek bisects the wetland. McCiile Rood is located at the south end of the wetland Approximately 85 percent of the wettarid is a wet meadow and 15 percent Is a lowionc hardwood swamp. The wet meadow is dominated by reed canary g with patches of willow located in the middle. The lowland hardwooa swamp is dominated by willow and cottonwood. The Pointer Creek tributary has been ditched through the wetland. A lateral ditch connects with the Pointer Creek tributory. These dtches have partially droired the wetland and contributed to the degradec condition of the bosin. Restoration Obfoctlvos and Proposed Construction This s.te is high profile due to its location odjacent to the Luce Line Trc; ond within land publicly owned by the aty. The gools for wetland restoration will include the following: • Control runoff rates to Painter Creek • Restore native dversity of wetland vegetctioa including wet mea ard emergent marsh plant commiriities • Enhonce the wildlife ond oesthetic viewing of the wetland for the public using the Luce Une Tran • Enhance the Pointer Deek wildlife corridor Siepe In thepropoeed wetland remoradon Inetuda fhe following: 1. Construct a series of low berms across the ditch to eliminate the scope and effect of the ditch. GtyefOsao • •■*1 Complete two controlled bums of n'e ste to old in controlling reed conarv gross. Provide o spottreatnnent of herbicide to further control reed canary gross. Plant o diverse mix of wet meadow grasses ond forbs Tasks Descfiptiofi Approximate ' Cost Surveys Feld ana topographic survey o( site $ 3,000 Design Complete site design including dra^ plan ard Fnai construction documefts 5 8,000 Meetings 1 Meetings with Gty stifT and surrounding landowners j $ 1,300 j Permits 1 Obtain necessary permits |$ 2.000 1 1 Complete two prescrted bums and spot hert)ickle j 1 treatment to control exobcs |S 3,000 1 ‘ Seed with wet meadow mot S 15,000 * Constructon of k)w berms across ditch SX.000 I Appcoxifnate Project Cost!$62,300 S.5.2 Wetland PC-M-31 Approxlmcte Ste Size: 13.5 acres Township IISN Range 23 W , Section __H Watershed Nome: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed # 20 City Watershed Nome; PainterCreek Gmyrat OtBcription of Sito This wetlord is located in the upstream portion of the Painter Creek Watershed. A tributary of Painter Creek bsects the wetland. McCulley Rood is located at the north end of the wetland The wetland contains the followirg corrmjnities arxj species: • 40 % shollow marsh - cattail, loke sedge, water plonroin • 40 % wet meodow - reed conary gross, sf^iging nettle, giant goldenrod. and sedges • 20% shrub swamp-willow The Pointer Creek tributary has been ditched through the wetland. A lateral ditch connects with the Painter Creek tributary along the troll. These ditches hove partially drained the wetland and contributed to the degraded condition of the basin. OtyofOmo R9§tcntion ObJ^etivu and Conatmction Propoaad This site Is high profile due to its location odjocent to the Luce Line Trail and within lond publicly owned by the Oty. The goals for wetlorKl restoration win indude the following: • Control runoff rates to Ponter Creek • Restore native diversity of wetland vegetatioa induding wet nr^adow and emergent rrx3fsh plant comnxjnities • ErThonce the wildife and oesthetic viewirig of the wefiand for me public usir^ the Luce Lir»e Trail • Enhance the Painter Creek wikJife corrldof Steps tn the p/ppoMtf amdand rmtoradon ineiuda tha following: 1. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland site to aid in controlling the reed conory gross and cattail. Provide a spot treatment of herbldde to further control reed canary grass. 2. Plant a dverse mix of wet meodow grosses orxl forbs in the wet meodow. 3. Construct a control structure at the outlet of the wetlard Tible 5.5 Project Cost For PC-M-31 Tasks Description Approximata ! Cost I Surveys 1 Field and topographic survey ot site S 2,000 ! Design ; complete site design induding draft plan and final corrsmicoon documents S 4.000 i Meetirgs Meetings with Gty stair and surroundir^ landowners S 1.300 Permits Obtain necessary permits 1 S 2.000 i ! Restoration . Complete 2 preserved bums and spot herbiode treatment to control exotics • Seed with wet meadow mo( S 3.000 $ 7.500. 1 ; Constnjction of control structure $ 15,000 ‘ 1 1 Approximata Projact Cost $34,800 I 5.5.3 Welland lL-C-26 Approximate Site Sze: 14.5 acres Township 11BN Range 23 W Section 26 Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed U: 20 City Watershed Name: Long Lake (DNR 834W) OtyafOnno GtfMfi/ D9§cHptlon of S!to This wetland is located in the Long Loke watershed just upstream of Lor»g Lake. This location provides an excelent opportuaty for water quality treatment. It hos a cStch that is approximately 10 feet wide through its center. Water flows through the ditch rather than across the entire wetland, creating a coTKjition In which the wetland serves a 'imted nutrient function. This wetlorxl is not under Gty ownership. The topographic rel ef of the wetland would confine the limits of the project to the wetland. The wetland « a shallow marsh/wet meadow dominated Py reed canary grass and cattail. ffootonthn ObfocUvm and Conatrucdon Propoaad • Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a control structure at the outlet (may require a berm upstream, dependent on dnvewoy elev.). • Provide water quality treatment for Long Lake. • Enhance the wIldRfe and aesthetic functional values of the wetland. • Restore the plant community alor^ the fnnges of the wetland. Table 5.6 Project Cost lor Wetland U-6-26 Components Description Approximate Cost Surveys Field and topographic survey of site $ 2.X0 Design ! Complete site design indud’ng draft plan and 1 final consmjct}on (tocuments S S.OOO I Permits Obtain necessary permits S 2.XC Meetings Meetings with Gty staff and surrounding • . vn landowners i * Land and Legal Purdiase of easements around wedand or access to control structure $ 9.300 Complete 2 prescrted bums anc «>pot hertiCKle treatment to control ootks Seed and/or plant fringe areas Construction of control structure S 3.000 $ 7.500 $20,000 Approximate Project Cost j $ 50,100 j atyoromno arriaiiliiifltdi St§p» fn th9 prepoMBd W9tfand natontlon tnclud9 th§ following: 1 Construct a control structure at the outet 2. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland site to od m controlltng the reed canary grass orxJ cottol orx3 inaeose tne nutrient uptake of the welond with new growth of vegetation Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary gross. 3. Seed ond/or emerging plants dong the fringe 5.5.4 Wetland SB-E-31 Approximate Wetland Size; 65 acres (Restorotion Site • 35 acres) Township 118N & 117N Rcmge 23 W Section 31 & 3 Watershed Nome: Mississippi River (Motro) Wotershed #: 20 City Watershed Nome: Stubbs Boy (DNR 140P) Qonoral Doocrlption of Site This wetland is located in the lower portion of the Stubbs Boy watershed just upstreom of Stubbs Bay and south of the Luce Lire Trail This location provides on excellent opportunity for water quality treatment and enhanced aesthetics and wildlife habitat for users of tne Luce Line Trail. It currently hos a main ditch with two laterals that have partially drained the wet meadow portion'of the wetland. Water flows through the ditc^ rather thon across the entire wetlord, creatiryg o condition ,n which the wetlorxj sen/es o limited nutrient removal function The portion of the weticrxl that should be considered for restoration s o 35^cre wet rrveodow community that is predominontly roea conary grass. There ore currently isolated portions of higher quality sedge meadow that contain lakebonk sedge, bliu joint gross, joe pyeweed. Qi'd boneset. A tamarack swamp is located in the northwest porrion of the wetland at a higher elevation (approximately 833 - 836) than the wet meadow (833) Raising water levels to restore the wet meodow would reed to be linitea to the 833 elevation to protect the torroock swomp from inundat.on. Permarent inurxlaton in tamarack swamps con couse mortolfty. The wetlond area is not under public owrership end one driveway crer :s the wetlond to gdn access to a house that is ’ocated between the Luce Line TroiJ and the wetland. OyafOrtno ff«f Ipntfon 06/tctfwf and Conatructhn Propoaad • Provide water quality treatment for StutDbs Boy • Enhance wildltfe and aesthetic functional values • Restore the wetland plant community within the reed canary gross portion of wetland • Restore hydrology to the wetland oasin with a series of ditch blocks arid a berm with a control structure. Stapw In tha propoaad ivfftJiend raatoradon IncHida tha Mowing: 1 . Construct o berm arxj outlet control structure. 2. Complete two controlled bums of the wetand site to ad m controllirTg the reed canary grass arid increase the nurrient uptake of the wetland with new growth of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed conory grass. 3. Seed selected portions of the wetland with wetlarxj grass and forbs. TaMt 5.7 Prelect Cost far Wettand Sa-E-31 Components ;Deecriptiofi Approximate Coat Surveys Field and topographic survey of site $ 3,000 Design 1 Compiete site design including draft plan and final ; construction documents 5 9,000 Permits ; Obtain necessary permits $ 2.S00 ! Meetings Meetings with Gcy staff and surrounding tandCM’S 1,300 Land and Legal Purchase of easements around wetland or access to control structure. Easements should already exist along public road for access to control structure. 1 s 1,500 j Restoration Compiete 2 prescribed bums and spot herbicide ! treatment to control exotics j Seed and/or plant fhnge areas , Cbnstruction berm, ditch biods and control structure I $ 5,000 $ 7400 $ 35,000 Approximate Project Coet $64,100 OhfafOmo MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:. Acting Chair Jeanne Mabusth; Commissioners Cynthia Ba*mer, David Rahn. J. Mark Frit/lcr, Li/ Hawn, and Alternate Jules Hannaford; City Council liaison Lili McMillan: Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron. Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach. and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Chair Sandra Smith and Commissioner Stephanie Zugsehuen wea* absent. Acting Chair Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. 'While Item #17 was added to the Consent Agenda, Item #1 was a*movcd for further clarification. CONSENT AGENDA *(»2) KNM.2975 REVEREND LOREN D. DAVIS ON BEHALF OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Hawii moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approv al of Application #04-2975, Reverend Loren D. Davis on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, granting a Conditional Use Permit Amendment In order to change the roof structure from flat to pitched on the cvlsting classroom portion of the church. \‘OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. *(#3) #04-2900 ORFIELD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INC. ON BEHALF OF MARILYN MCCLASKEY, 2693 KELLY A\ ENUE, VARIANCE Hawn moved. Acting Chair hlabusih seconded, to recommend apfKoval of AppUcalion #04-2900 Orfield Design and Coaslmctioo Inc. on behalf of Marily n hlcClaskey, 2693 Kelly Avenue, grancing a front yard setback variance In order to add a 2*^ story addMoo on the eibting home 20* from the front property line where 35* is required. %OTE: Ayes 6, nays 0. '*(#17) #04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY. 1005 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approv a| of AppUcatlon #04-2979, Dr. Donald Ristad and Kent Cassidy , 1005 Old Long Lake Road, granting a lot area variance, conditional use permit to allow the pool to remain on a through lot, and a variance to allow the existing pool to be setback 2H* from Highway 12 when 50* is required as the pool has existed since 1978. no complaints PAGE 1 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. •(M4-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, IMS OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CoattoMcd) Lave been received by dbe CNy, and pool b toflkieolly screeoed from H^way 12. VOTE: Ayet 6, Nayt 0. OLD BUSINESS («l) MM-297f ROBERT P. MACK, 1525 BAY RIDGE ROAD, VARIANCE (6:07- 6:15 P.M.) Robert Mack, the qiplicant. was present. Planner Gundlach briefly explained that the applicant had requested a side setback variance to allow a side setback of 18' at the southeast comer of the home when 30* is normally required and 18 ’ currently exists; an average lakcshore setback to allow an encroachment of approximately 50’ in order to construct a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exist; and a hardcover variance to allow 27® o hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25®o is normally allowed and 28*« currently exists. Gundlach reported that staff would recommend approval of the side setback as the existing setback is nonconforming and no additional living space is being pmposed; approval of the average lakcshore setback variance os the home was amstructed in 1950 according to all zoning ordinance regulations, because the proposal doesn't include any expansions of the current fwiprint. and the raised roof will not affect any sightlines as an existing tree line currently covtTs the southern property boundary. Staff is alst> recommending approv al of the hardan cr variance due to the square footage of removals being greater than the .square footage of additional hardcover bringing the lot closer to conformance. Rahn inquired whether a hard.ship was necessary to allow the construction of 14’ high ceilings as proposed. Mr. Mack stated that the existing flat roof was leaking, and it w as their intent to raise the roof to repair the damage, let in mt>rc light, balance the ruoflines. and improve the aesthetics. Breawr Moved, Haw* secooded. to recoMMead approval of AppMcolloa M4-2970. Robert Mack, 1525 Bay Ridge Road, graadag a tide setback variaace to allow a aide setback of IS* at tbe soatbeast coraer of tbe buaM wbea 30’ b aoraudly required and IS* carreatiy eibts; aa average lakcsbore setljack to allow aa cacroaebaMat of approsbaat^ 50’ la order to coattract a pitched roof where a flat roof carreatiy eibt; aad a hardcover variaace to allow 27% hardcover la the 75-250’ zoae whea 25*/a b aoraially allowed aad 2S% carreatl> exists. VOTE: Ayes 6, aayt 0. PAGE 2 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («4) (MI3-2923 STEVAN WAGNER. 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-6:25 P.M.) Sicvan Wagner. Ihe applicant, was present. Planner Curtis reported that in September 2003 the applicant submitted an application for a building expansion and remodel in the B>l Zoning District. As per City Code Section 78- 642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site re\‘iew by the Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the applicant has requested the following: 1 ) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2310 s.f. concrete block building on the properly to a 4080 s.f. building, a 1.770 s.f. total expansion. 2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8* from the front property line where 10' is required. The signage itself will extend an additional 4' into the setback area for a sign setback of 4' when 10' is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow existing dri\eway hardcover to become structural hardcover.* *Each of these items will be reviewed in pari with the overall commea'ial site review Curtis continued, stating that the application was presented at the October 2003 Planning Commission meeting and the November 2003 work session. The following infonnation was requested by the Planning Commission at the October mceiing for the applicant to pm vide for their review: Storm water management plan (indicating draiiuge and grading). Detailed landscape plan including any vegetative screening. A lighting plan. Existing and pn>posed exterior storage plan, including any equipment staging area. Exterior building material detail. Hazardous wa.stc management solutions 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. During the November work session Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide more detailed information and receive approval from other jurisdictional permitting authorities such as the Hennepin County Environmental Scnices. Minnesota Pollution Contml Agency (MPCA) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districn (MCWD). Curtis indicated that to date the applicant has complied w ith Hennepin County Fn\ imnmental Ser\ ices hazardous wa.ste generator requirements, applied for a MPCA Industrial W'aste Water Permit and received a permit (for Rule B: Hmsion Contml and Rule N: Stormwater Management) fmm the MCWD. The Rule B pc*rmit states that emsion contml consisting of a silt fence and a gravel construction entrance have been approved, and the Rule N permit states that the applicant's pmjcct requires Best Management Practicos (BMP) and rate control in order the fuinil the stormwatcT management practices of Rule N. The MCWD has determined that stormw ater runolT rates PAGE 3 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (M3-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3M9 SHOREUNE DRI\ E, COM.MERClAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - CoatfaiMd) will not increase as a result of the proposed project. The applicant ha.s propt>scd to the MCWD that he will convert a 3’ wide area along the west property boundary from gravel to Minnesota wild gnLvses and will install a rock drain with a skimming structure (PIG) for the proposed equipment wash site as BMPs. Curtis stated that staff performed a site \isit with Hennepin County Environmental Ser\ ices staff and addressed the i.vsues Planning Commission hmu^t up during the w ork session. Those is.sues were: the appropriateness of curbing, paving the w cst parking area vs. gravel, and how effective the proposed waste trap and skimming structure would he. Hennepin County did not feel that the existing site would require extensive improvements regarding the afore mentioned items and felt that they would best be addressed, if necessary, by the MCWD. Additionally, during this site inspection it was noted that the area behind the building to the rear had an accumulation of scrap, scrap metal, inoperable trailers, tires, and general debris. Planning Department Staff recommends approv al of the proposal subject to the follow ing conditions being met: 1. City Engineer ’s recommendations must be implemented. 2. Compliance with all other juri.sdictional controls is maintained. 3. Compliance with City Code 58- 1(a) Maintenance of Private Pniperly prior to being placed on the City Council agenda for final rev iew Acting Chair Mabu.sth indicated that the current debris behind the building would have to be removed prior to addressing City Council. Mr. Wagner stated that he had done his best to comply with the Planning Commission recoinmendation.s. and worked w ith staff to come up with a plan w hich w orks for the City, as w ell as. fits his needs. While he is awaiting specific direction from the City Engineer w ith a*gard to plant material. Wagner indicated that he would be planting a 3’ buffer of Minnesota wildflowers. He requested that, if recommended for approval, his application not be heard until the February 20 City Council meeting which would allow him adequate time to remove the debris behind the building. There were no public comments. Hawn thanked the applicant for supplying the City with all the necessary information; however, questioned how the hazardous waste exposure would be avntained and w ashing of equipment handled. Wagner indicated that he had been instructed by the MPCA to continue to use the waste trap system both inside and outside for washing, which is later removed by a licensed PAGE 4 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 5:00 o'clock pjn. ((NI3-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE. COMMERCI>a SITE * PLAN REVIEW - CoattaMd) hazardous waste hauler. With regard to the proposed diagram of the site. Hawn questioned whether Wagner's intent was to add mure to the site and expand his operation. Wagner maintained that he had no intention of expanding the operation, and in fact, believed he had maxed out his facility. He stated that it is his intent to beautify the whole site and make it more comfortable. Hawn asked w hether additional hardtopping of the surfaces was intended. Wagner itnlicalcd that he hod no intent to blacktop the low cr area, and belic\ed this would nut be feasible. Curtis intcfjcctcd that, during the site walk. Hennepin County did not feel blacktopping the lower area was necessary* at this site. She pointed out that further discussion will take place between the City Engineer, Applicant, and the City with regard to stormwater management before being heard by the City Council. Acting Chair Mabusth voiced her concern that the ‘use' of this site w<tuld be inereaNcd. She agreed with Huwn that the site use had been maxed and suggested that the City take an in\cntor> or record the specific items that exist on the property currently. Rahn stated that the rcrK>valion would hopefully allex iate the concerns expn.'ssed by the Commission, since some of the pieces of equipment could be stowed aw ay more readily. He recommended the City use the plan as a record to track increased use. ActlBg Chair blabMith nMved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application M3-2923, Slevan Wagner, 3M9 Shoreline Drive, granting approval of the proposal tnhject to the following condMonf being met: 3. CHy Engineer's recommendations most be Implemented. 4. Compliance w Hh all other Jnrisdirtiooal controls b maintained. 3. Compliance with City Code S8-I(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to being placed on the City Conncil agenda for final review \ GTE: Ayes h. Nays 0. (•5) M3-293S JCDD DALTON, 2«I5 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE (0:25-7:05 P.M.) Judd Daylon. the applicant, was present. PAGE 5 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (W03-295S JUDO DAYTON, 2W5 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - CmillaMd) Gundlach explained that the applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing oversized accessory structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming location in the rear of the lot. She indicated that the application was originally heard at the October 20,2003 Plaruiing Commission meeting. At that time, the Planning Commis.sion encouraged Mr. Dayton to combine parcels and riK>ve the bam to make it conforming. Doing this raised questions about whether or not the parcel would be conforming as to the amount and size of acxessory structures on a single property. Therefore, the application was tabled so staff c«>uld research the existing accessory structun.'s and whether or not moxing the bam would alk*> iate the current situation. With regard to the option of combining the Lots and the Feasibility of Adding the Bam, Gundlach noted that to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way to 825 Old Crystal Bay Rtrad, or simply moving the bam to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road would require the following plaiming actions: (Bam (48* x 24') - 1.152 squoa* feet] Variance: Variance: To allow the accessory building total to exceed 6,(MMi square feet (5.168+ 1,152 = 6.320 s.f.) To allow more than one oversized accc'ssory structure on the lot due to the existing bam/stablc. Since the chart in the access*»ry structures section of the Zoning Ordinance only extends out to 9.01 acTes or more, this brings into question the feasibility of the aK>\e planning actions. The Ordinance sets the limit to 6.000 square feet of total accc*s.sory structures allowed for any properly 9.01 acres or more. The chart starts as 0 - 1 .99 acres allowing a maximum of 2.000 .square feet of accessory structures and increases by appn>ximately 400 squam feet with every additional acre. If this chart were extended out to include the applicant's propeny. which is 21 + acres, it would allow for 1 0.800 square feet of accessory^ stmctua*s and the applicant could conceivably add the bam to his parcel and be within the ullitwable limits of square footage, should the Planning Commission deem this appropriate. On the other hand. Gundlach pointed out that the same section of the ordinance states that a pn>pcrly is only allowed one oxersized accessory building (any building in excess of 1 .000 s.f.). This rcquia*s that an additional variance be granted to allow more than one oxersi/od acccssiiry structure. The Planning Commission should discu.ss whether there are any hard^l.i>* to grant two variances; one to alK>w more than one ox ersized accessory structure per property and als** to allow more than 6.(KK) square feet of accessory structures. PAGE 6 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. ((M3-29SS JUDD DAYTON, 28SS VARIANCE - Continued) LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL In light of these considerations, Gundloch stated that it is stalTs opinion that there arc no convincing hardships to allow the bam to remain at its existing si/c requiring two variance approvals. The '‘Little Orchard” subdivision has eliminated any context the bam previously had in relationship to its surroundings. Further, the bam ha.s already been reduced in size, further lessening is historical significance. The bam aiuld still be allowed, without any planning actions, if it were reduced to 832 s.f and either moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road or if 2885 Little Orchard Way were combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road and the bam is moved to the location shown on the plan. Gundlach suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the following options: 1. Require that 2885 Little Orchard Way be combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay Ro^ if the applicant wishes to keep the bam. This action would also require the bam be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and the following planning actions: a. Variance to allow the total of all accessory structures to exceed 6,000 s.f. b. Variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure on a single parcel. 2. Same as above but requiring the bam to be reduced to be under 1,000 s.f to alleviate the need for a variance to allow more than one oversi/ed accessor>' structure. A variartcc may still be required to allow for the acces.sory .structure total to exceed 6,000 s.f if the bam isn't reduced to 832 s.f or less. 3. If the applicant doesn't wish to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old Crystal ^y Road, the bam must be reduced to less than 1.000 square feet and it must be moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road in a conforming location. If the bam isn't reduced to 832 s.f or less a variaitce would still be required as iHitod above. Gundlach explained that it would be staffs recommendation to require the bam be reduced to 832 s.f or less to alleviate the need for any plaiming actions, and if the parcels are combined the bam must be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and if they arc not combined them the bam must be moved to a conforming location on 825 Old Crystd Bay Road. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the large the existing bam was. Gundlach indicated that the bam was 1152 s.f In an effoil to do the responsible thing. Da>1on explained that their original request was to simply move the bam to a better location, wiiich was soon complicated by oUict issues. He PAGE 7 of 53 iiiM MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («03-295S JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - CoaHMMd) staled that even though the building may not be considered historic any more, it proxides a lot of history about the area before dex elopment came to the area. While he indicated that he had spoken to his attorney's about the possibility of combining the parcels, he wished to explore his options. Haxing also spoken to many of his neighbors', he believ ed that many liked the 100 year old bam. with some repair and maintenance. Acting Chair Mabusth asked what further historical significance the bam held. Dayton stated that the bam was part of the early Carpenter estate, and stood for what made up the early landscape of the area before construction. He noted that all of the accessory structures have been in their present locations for over 100 years, acknowledging that it was the Ordinances that have changed. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if there were any formal letters in support of the application or in opposition to it. Hawn asked if the applicant would consider reducing the si/c of the bam. Dayton staled that, while some work needs to be done to repair the structure, he would have to do further study to determine w hether reducing the si/e of the bam w ould eliminate its character altogether. He a.sked that he be given a date to meet the stalT recommendation, by mid July for in.slancc. while he investigates the options. Gundlach reiterated that the bam needs to be moved as a principal structurc doesn’t exist. She pointed out that if the bam is moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Rood that the parcels w ould not need to be combined; how ev er, if moved to any other location the pareeb w ould be required to be legally ct>mbincd so that a principal structure exists. Daylon asked whether the Commission might be amenable to allow ing him the variances to move the structure w iihout legally combining the properties. Hawn repeated that she believ ed the parcels must be combined if he w ished to keep the bam, adding that a reduction in its si/c would also alleviate some issues. Hawu noted that, unless it was turned into a principal structure, the bam could not exist w ithout one. Daylon stated that it made little .scn.se to him to move it to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road and a.skcd to be given a date to conform or determine how to proceed. PAGE 8 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CX>MM1SS10N MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock pm («i3-295t JUDO DAYTON, 2«SS LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - CMttaMd) Rahn stated that, short of a hardship, he would expect the bam to be moved to a compliant location and size. He indicated that the Commission docs not have the authority to say otherwise and suggested the applicant be given a deadline. Gaffron indicated that the Commission could grant the staff recommendation with a timeline attached, which might differ from the standard year. Dayton stated that he would request to be given a deadline of up to a >'car. if customary, in order to determine if the bam could be moved, combined, or turned into a principal structure. Gaffron stated that a mid July timefranie would be a reasonable amount of time to comply. He stated that the Commission could deny the renewal variance application and accept that no action be taken until the deadline date for compliance has been met. In addition, grant the variances that would accompany the options presented. While she wished someone would have already evaluated the rcUKation of the bam. Bremer stated that, as a neighbor to the site, she liked the bam and would prefer to sec it remain on the main property. With renovation, she indicatcxl that she would allow it to be kept the same size and moved to a new' ItKation to prcserN e its charm. Hawn agreed, stating that she did not sec how reducing it in si/e added anything to the application. Bremer suggested that the Commission extrapolate from the table w hat is allowed at 2H acres, w hich would allow the bam to remain as large as it is, but mo\ cd to a new location. R^ disagreed, staling that he failed to find a hardship, and would require the bam to be reduced and moved. Acting Chair Mabusth ameurred with Rahn. Hawn stated that she had been swayed by Bremer's comments. Friuler stated that he could consider the size of the bam in a new location. Aeliag Chair Mabusih moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of the reqnest by the appUcant in Applicatlan MI3-295«, Jndson Dayton, 2S8S Little Orchard Way, that the bam be allowed to remain at Rs current size of 1152 s.f. tfthe lots are legally combined wHh the homestead parcel and the bam moved to a conforming location. \'OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Fritzler and Rahn dbsmting. PAGE 9 of 53 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MI3-2fSt JUDD DAYTON, 2S85 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL VARIANCE - CoatfaiMd) Rahn reilcraled that he saw no specific hardship lo allow the structure to remain at its current si/e. While he could accept the lack of hardship. Frit/ler belies cd lha: the combination might be subject to subdisision at a later dMe. Gundlach reminded the Commission that they would also need to amsidcr granting a variance for accessory structures in excess of6.000 s.f. and the addition of a sccor>d oversi/ed accessory structure, if they wished to follow this course of action. With regard to the potential for subdivision. GafTron pointed out that the applicant would need to sign covenants for oversi/ed structures which could require the removal of the structures if the parcels were subjects of a future subdivision. He felt the future potential for subdivision could be address^ at a later date with reference to the oversi/ed structures. Mabuslli added lo her mothm, moving that the eoroblaation fkadlinc of Jul> 20,2004, be noted and dial a second variance b granted to allow for 2 oversized accessories stmetures on tiM legally eomSIned parceb in excess of 20 acres. Hawn seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Rahn and Fritzler dissenting. Rahn and Frit/ler referred to their prc\ iously noted rationale for denial. <»6) HNI.V2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHAD^’WOOD ROAD. VARIANCE <7:05-7:24 P.M.) Ritbcrl and Joanne Swit/. the Applicants, were present. Gundlach reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in si/c when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variamre to allow 38.6^« hardcoxer in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8^« currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Gundlach explained that the project was originally heard at the November 17.2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the cxccssix c structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12.2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project l^led as new plans w ere being prepared. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning Department slaffbrought the applicant back lo the Planning Commission for a ru;w recommendation. PAGE 10 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. ((TO3-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHAD\ WOOD ROAD. VARIANCE - ComiiiHcd) The applicant has suhmillcd new plans for a house that mcx*ts the 1 5% requianneni. Alsi> included is a conserxative driveway of 1,000 s.f.. a 53 s.f. sUK>p. 60 s.f. concrete walk bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4°/o. Gundlach staled that the applicant had also indicated that a 12* x 12’ patio/dcck would be incorporated into the new plan: however that is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f. patio deck were incorporated the hardcover would rise to 37.6*o. If the propv>scd 16 ’ x 16 ’ patio'deck is added instead, it rises to 4.4(W s.f. or 38.6*/o. The applicant is proposing to remove all hardcover in the 0-75 ’ /one. including the boat house which isn’t reflected in the revised survey. The shed that exists in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone is also proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing 4,409 s.f. of hardcover, or 38.6^« in the 75*250 ’ /one. These numbers include a 16 ’ x 16 ’ patio deck which is not shown or calculated on the revised survey. A hardcover variance must K* granted in ordt*r to approve the 38.6*o hardaner in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone. Gundlach relayed that some hardships exists that could support approval of a hardcover variance. The lot is t|uile shallow if you consider its depth. 1his is limiting when calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcov er, a lot w ith the exact same lot area (0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250 ’ hardcover allotment if its dimensions were 250’ x 82.5’ which would >’icld a 25“o hardct>ver of (1 75 x 82.5 x .25) = 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship avuld justify a hardcover level of 3.609 s.f.. 800 s.f less than what the applicant has proposed. Also, because the lot is located on Shadywood Road, a hardship exists in that more driveway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has proposed a I.(NNJ s.f driveway. This is essaitially a 3-stall wide dnveway that tapers towards the road. It should be noted that other similar lots hav c been held to much narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcove; moMs ;’.*:':’*uilds. The Planning Commission should discuss to what ex1c*nt a hardcover variance shi«.id be granted, and what hardships allow what level of hardc'ovcr excess. Gundlach indicated that stafT would recommend the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot w hich is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Approval of a hanicov cr v ariance as the shallownc*ss of the lot and llic need for a back up apron provide hord.ships inherent to the property. Acting Chair Mabusth inquired as to how much hardcover existcxl in the 0-75* currently. Gundlach stated that 2050 s.f currently exists in the 0-75 ’ zone, which would be entirely removed in the new proposal. PAGE 11 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2CM)4 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADY WOOD ROAD. VARIANCE-CondMcd) Mr. Switz indicated that they planned to work in the equivalence to a I6*X 16* deck along the lakeside of the residence in a meandering fashion so as not to infringe on the 0-75’ setback /one. Acting Chair Mabusth complimented the applicants on a*designing their propitsal to more closely adhere to much of what the Commission had rcqucstctl. Rahn slated that he liked the revised application and did not sev any excessive areas Iti further reduce hardcover. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she was willing to acxept the hardships set f«>rward in the application which would warrant the variance requests. Hawn questioned, even w iih the hardships, whether the hardcover a>uld be reduced on additional 8(M) s.f. Gundlach pointed out that the back-up apron is virtually acwmpIishcHl by the construction of a three stall wide apron at the garage access. Swit/ stated that. o.s it stands today, the property is dramatiealiv out of confomtance. He maintained that it is their intent to create a loiter situation than what c.xi.sts. even beyond the mathematics. Rahn concurred that by adding more driveway for a threv car garage: the applicants have given themselves a rcily made back-up apron. Bremer agard. staling that given the reductions made, the light lot parameters, she could support what has been proposed fur the af^>priatc /ones. lla«Mr«rd moved, Actiag Ctiair hlalNnlh seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2962, Robert and Joanne Swit/, 1740 Shady^ood Road, fponling a lot area variance to allow a rebnild on a lot which is .47 acres in tl/e when JW acres Is normally allowed, and a hardcover variance to aUow 30.6% hardcover In the 75-250* /one as the shallow nest of the lot and the need for a back-np apron prov ide hardships inherent to the property. >'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS PAGE 12 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'cIiKk p.m. <m7) (H03-2965SENNEUS DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND KERSTFN JFVNE, RI9 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE (7:24-7:M P.M.| Scott Sennes. the Applicant, was present. Curtis explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback \ arionce in order to remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage w ithin 24.1* feet of the side yard where 30’ is required. The existing home is on a 1 .0 acre pioperty within a 2 acre /one. The applicants arc proposing an extensive rcmcMlcI of the htmte. adding additional living space while utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the applicants were requesting a 10.7' setback horn the side lot line where 30* is required. A tier discussions with stalT. the applicants have revised their plan to extend no further into the side setback than cxi.sting resulting in '.he request for a 24.2* setback where 3o* is required. The a*qucstcd side yard setback variance of 5.8* is in order to utilize the existing foundation on the st)Uth side of the garage and continue the plane ol the garage toward the rear yard to change the 3-stall Iront loading to a 2-stali ,'ront loading and a I -stall side loading garage. The applicants have proposed this change as the result of the meetings with staff and their hope to minimize hardcover on the lot. Curtis laid out additional i.s.suc*s for consideration: 1 . Is an upward expansion to create a garage w ith a ': story K»nus riM*m above more intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low one-story garage'.’ Will citht*r expansion have negative visual impaets'.’ 2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If view^ ax a rebuild, should it meet all zoning a*quiremcnts. including setbacks? Under the pn>posed ordinance this would he considea*d a total rebuild. 3. Is the applicants’ desire to reuse the existing foundation w ith a substandard setback considered a hardship? Curtis stated that the '’lonning Staff, ccommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.1 ’ w here 30’ is required, in order to construct an expandcxl one- story’ garage with bonus nMvm. on the existing foundation w ith the following stipulations: I. Ail cxmstruction within the substandard setback shall be w ithiii the haght and bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan. Mr. Sennes stated that it would be their intent to reuse the existing 12* concrete bliKk foundation Jim rierponl, 1801 W'c*st Farm Road, interjected that the proposed improvements would be an enormous upgrade than what’s currently there. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned wheihcT the applicant was aware of the position of the mo.st atfcx’lcxl neighbor. Sennes stated that he had spoken to them and their feedback was favorable. PAGE 13 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PIJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2IK)4 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-2965 SENNES DESIGN BITLD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND KERSTEN JEVNE. «I9 BROWN ROAD NORTH. VARIANCE - CoRlinvcd) Acting Chair Mahusth noted that the existing west side of the house is huITered by pines and she questioned where the driveway to the mirth would be placed GalTron poinlcxl out that the mirthcriy drive would likely be close to the north boundary line. MVliile she did mit ha\e a dilTicuIt time accepting the proposal. Ilaun siaieil that she sio^cd it as a total rebuild, and asked if the Commission uould be vtiing any precedent by allowing them to reuse the existing foundation. Fril/ler concurred. Acting Chair Mahusth stated that she could endorse the proposal, since the northerly dri\eway next dinir will he along the applicant’s north property line. Gatfron p«iinted out that if the applicants find that they can’t save the existing foundation, the basis for the proposal is gone, and they will ha\e to adhea* to the zoning for new construction. Acting Chair Mahusth indicated that the C’ommission would ncxxl an engineer’s report to confinn the stability of the fiiundalion before proctxding. in order to be ct*nsislciU. She stateil that the approval could he basexi upim the engineer’s reptwl Acliiiit Chair Mahuxlh moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #tl.V2965, Sennes Design Build Inc. on behalf of Franz and Kersten Jevne, MI9 Brown Road North, granting approval of the tide setback variance, to allow a tide setback of 24.1* where 30* is required, in order to construct an expanded one-tlor> garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: All construction wHhhi the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the approved plan and that an engineer*s report will be completed to confirm the stability of the foundation before proceeding to C’ity Councit \'OTE!: Ayes 6. Nays 0. (#H) m-2967 SHARON IL\E Gl I.MOND. 2900 WATERTOU N ROAD. CONDITIONAL ISE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:.l»-7:48 P.M.) Sharvm Guimond. ihc Applicant, and hcT stm. Matthew, were prc*senl. (’unis explained that the applicant an|ucsts a variance to allow an oversized accessory structua* 15tKt s.f. (30 ’x 50 ’ pole bam) where I2IKI s.f is allowed on a 2 acTe lot and a condititmal use permit to construct the oversized accesstiry building on the through lot. She PAGE 14 of 53 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m (#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Conliaucd) reported that, in June of2003, a 2,616 s.f. bam on the property was destroyed by arson. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Oversized Accessory Structure limit to replace the bam »hat was destroyed wnth a 1,5(X) s.f. bam. The maximum si/c for an oversized aecessory structure on a 2 acre lot is 1.200 s.f. Additionally, the nature of the property is a throu^-lot. Accessory structures constructed on throu^-lots are a conditional use. The purpose of the conditional use permit in this instance is to assure minimal visual impact on neighboring properties and view s from the road. Curtis indicated that the Planning Department SUIT avonunends approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions: 1 . E)ensity of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the v isual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed bam. Hardship: Staff finds a hard.ship exists in that the situation which destroyed the bam was a situation not created by the applicant. Ms. Guimond slated that it is her w ish to a*placc the bam that had burned down w ith a smaller, but similar, style bam garage. Acting Chair Mabusth a.sked how large the original bam had been. Curtis indicated that the original bam had been 2600 s.f. and 40' tall. Haw n recommemded ttu* applicant remove some of the cement and remaining damaged property from the fire. Guimond staled that these would be removed with the new con.struinion. ^he indicated that she would like to retain the bam look and roof line. There were no public comments. Fntzlcr mainuined that the applicam could reuse the original concrete slab and reduce the size of the structure to 1200 s.f. and still have a bam style building. Ilannaford pointed out that the original structure w as almost twice as large os what w as being proposed. Hawn moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2967, Sharon Rae Guimond, 2900 Watertown Road, granting approval of the variance and condiUonal nie permit at requested with the following provisions: Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visnal PAGE 15 of 53 , r*-___-.i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MM-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - Coatteacd) infiact fron Wear Circle it mtaiiaited. tiMre wiH be ao accett to Wear Circle for propoied bara, aad the aew barn b aot to eiceed the beiftht of the 2-story boiae on the property, thice the situation which destroved the bam was not one created bv the applicant. \ OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1. Frilzlcr dissenting as mentioned earlier. («9) M4-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD„ 440 STI BBS BAY ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT (7:40-7:53 P.M.) Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, the Applicant, was present. Curtis reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 2 loLs on one block at 440 Stubbs Bay Road to be known as Stubbs Addition. She e.xplaincd that the existing home and outbuildings on Lot I arc proposed to be annoved upi>n approval. The proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance reg il.itions with respect to area, width, and setbacks. Curtis noted that staR'recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City EnginexT prior to placement on a City Council agenda. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fcx*s and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Rex'icw by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. Mr. MiN>re had nothing further to add. Curtis added that the wetlands would not be disturbed. There were no public' comments. Acting Chair Mabusih moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application 404-2968, Lane Moore of Custom Structures Lid, 440 Stubbs Bay Road, granting Prti^mlaary Hat Approval with the follow log stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the Cit> Engineer prior to placement on a CHy Council agenda. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dbtrkt. PAGE 16 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MM-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD„ 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT - CoatMMcd) 3. SMbnbalM Mid approval of tiM ffauU plat. 4. Sabjcct to staadard feet aaddedkatioa of repaired eascawats. 5. Peaielitiaa of Ibe cibtiag boaae aad aay oatbaOdiaKi prior la aay site Kradlag. 6. Review by tbc Pari Coauabtioa prior to CRv Coaacilrrvira. VOTE: Ayet 6. Nays 0. (410) 404-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:53-1:21 P.M.) Grclchcn Blounl. the Applicant, was present. Gundlach explained that the applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1 . Lot area variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 0.527 acres in si/e when I acre is normally rcnjuircxl. 2. Lot width variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 105* in width when 140 ’ is normally required. .1. Side setback varianc*e to allow a 2**^ story deck to be setback 8 ’ from the south side properly line when 10 ’ is normally iequirc*d and 25 ’ currently exists. 4. llardcouT variance to allow 8.4To hardcover (653 s.f.) in the 0-75 ’ /one when 0"« is normally allowcxl and 1 l'*/o (860 s.f) currently exists. 5. Hardtxner variance to allow 35®i» hardcovcT (5.321 s.f) in the 75-250 ’ /one when 25"o is normally allowed and 40.45*o (6.149 s.f) currently exists. 6. Conditional use pcTmit to allow restoration of an existing railroad lie wall in the 0-75 ’ /one w hich c^msists of a bouldcT outentp area. Gundlach pointed out that the applicant has met w ith stall to discu.ss the proposed plans and whether or not the proposal would be vicwc*d as a renovation or a rebuild. The applicant is pn>posing to tear the existing house down to the cap. rc*placing fliHvring as nevded and keeping the wall on the S4>uth side of the hou.M: in ordcT to rcnise the fireplace. The applicant has stated the intention to reuse whatev er the huilda is able to. although the cost of a renovation to retnvfit plumbing and electrical w ork is higher than if she were to do a rebuild. Ailer review of the submined plans and limher discussions with the applicant. statYhas concluded that the project will be reviewed as a rebuild. The existing hardcover in the 7.^250 ’ /one is 40.45®o or 6.1 49 s.f The applicant is proposing to tear down the detached garage that sits on the strexi property boundary’, add two large additions to the existing footprint, add two decks. rci’”'-e the existing driveway by 1,379 s.f. construct a 92 s.f stoop, and to keep the existing Keystone walls and steps. This brings the proposed hardcover to 35 “o (5.32 1 s.f). well below the existing hardcover but still requiring a v ariance. PAGE 17 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2(X>4 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#•4-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - CaatiaMd) In the 0-75* 7onc. Gundlach indicated that the applicant is a\so proposing a conditional use permit and s’ariancc to replace a large railroad tic retaining wall, concrete stair ss-stem. and railroad tic stairs which comprise I l*/o hardcover. The applicant is proposing to keep both sets of stairs and replace the railroad tic retaining wall with a boulder out-crop, which reduces the hardcover to 8.41 requiring a variance. While siafT finds that there may be some hard.ships warranting s<ime amount of a haidco\cT variance for the 75-250* /one. Gundlach questioned the .^5*o that is currently proposed. The topography of the rear of the lot. and how the existing walls, which the applicant is proposing to keep, tic into the existing foundation make it ditTicult to shift the house further towards the mad requiring a substantial amount of dh\ c*way. Staff has review ed (he pmposed driveway and finds that it, as pmposed. is a minimum and isn't an area for potential reductions. llowcwc*r. Gundlach stated there are potential areas for additional hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f of hardcowT. The applicant is alst» proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f The decks and porch together comprise 5.6“/o hardcover (861 s.f). The applicant’s plans also are pri»posing uhat appears to be a 4-car garage totaling 904 square fex ’t. The applicant has stated that their real neetl is only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attached to it. The applicant has demonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, pitrch, and garage. Gundlach urged the Planning Commission to discu.ss with the applicant the ncxxl of the pmpt)sed decks, poreh and 4-car garage and detcTmine if a re-design incorporating a smaller porch and deck, and smaller garage area is warrantcxl. The Planning Commission should alsii consider that a full 2"^ story isn't pmposed and could potentially be an ideal way to reduee hardcover on the pmperiy. As pmpi>sed. Gundlach stated that staff w ould recommend: 1. Appmval of a lot area variance to allow cimstruction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in si/c when I acre is normally required. 2. Appnwal of a lot w idth variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105* when 140* is normally requircxl. .3. Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback of 8* w hen 10* is required. The pmposal should be re-dc*signed so as not to encroach into the required setback. 4. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41^« hardcov er in the 0-75* /one when 0*^« is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed restoration plans for review by the City Engineer 5. Table »>f a hardexn er v ariance for the 75-250* /one. The applicant shall further refine the pmpi>sal in an effort to reduce hardcover. PAGE 18 of."' NflNUTESOF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - CoatfaiHcd) The applicant should consider re-designing the plans to incorporate the following: 1. Reslcsign the southern deck to meet a 10’ setback. 2. Reduce the amount of dccks'porch on the prupeny. 3. Reduce the amount of garage space, and if possible, dri\ cw ay a)nncc1cil ti> it. 4. Consider a second story in an crTorl to reduce the fixnprint and hardcoN cr. 5. Revise the plans for the 0-75’ /one to only allow one access to the lake. 6. Submit more detailed plans for the railrosid tic retaining wall restoration. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that it would be difTicult to pass the application on to City Council for rev iewr until further reductions w ere made and more detail supplied w ith regard to the 0-75’ zone. Gundlach stated that the applicant did not w ish to send the 0-75’ improvements and the rebuild to Council separately, but hoped that the Planning Commission might be able Ui discuss the 75-250’ zone and supply her with some direction. Blount stated that the current retaining walls in the 0-75' need to be replaced, since the railroad ties are failing, ^he e.xplaincd that they had purcho.sed the home w ith the intent to use it for their retirement home and preferred to keep the master bednHim on the main l1cH)r. Blount indicated that the additional garage space w as neces.sary to house her husband’s workshop and hobby area. In addition, she pointed out that the decks were intended to be kept within the setback zones. Acting Chair Mabusth quc*stioncd whether the driveway could be reduced to accommodate the two car garage excluding the workshop area. She a^cd the applicant whether they had considcaxl building a new sirucnure. as the costs of upgrading plumbing and electric can be excessive. Blount indicated that they had hoped to reuse the existing foundation, hut would consider this. Rahn stated that he would like to see further reductions in hardcover, noting that the home meets setbacks in the current location. Although he would allow a stairway to the lake and retaining walls to help w ith drainage, he maintained that moa* details were neccs.sary. In fact. Rahn questioned w hether further reductions might be found in the 0-75’ zone, if the slope was altered in order to potentially eliminate the need for the retaining w alls. Gundlach suggested the Commission table this section of the application in order to allow the applicant to discuss their options with the City Engineer. PAGE 19 of 53 MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. iim-im TEJRR\ AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT. 1390 CHERRY PLACE* CONDITIONAL USE PER^tlT AND VARIANCE - CoatiMctf) Blount stated that the most crit'eal items to them would include the main lliwr master bcdnxmi. sun poa'h. and workshop. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to meet with her architect and bring the Commission ro ised drawings, w hich would include one stairw ay access to the lake. Blount asked the Commivsitm whether what they were requesting was w ithin the realm ttf feasibility. While she was hesitant to supply the applicant with specific percentages. Bremer asked why the applicant wished to keep 2 walls in the first place. She questioned whether the applicant felt keeping the walls would be helpful to their ca.se. Bremer pointed out that, while keeping the foundation might be po*.siblc, the applicants might be better olTpulling the home back and starting over. Blount stated that she hoped to keep the fireplace on one of the walls. Rahn enctiuragcd the applicant to question their architect, us to how they might benefit the most, for instance by pulling the home back and con.slructing a front loading garage could reduce the hat Jeover clo.scr to 25%. Brrnacr moved. Fritiler iccoadcd, lo table Applicatioii MM-2969, Terry and Creteken Blonni. 1390 Cherry Place, for the purpose of redeslftn. \’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. I > 904.2971 HICKORY FINE HO.MES INC,. 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD. LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT <8:21.8:43 P.M.) William Henderson, the Applicant, was present. GafTron stated that this is a pn>pt>sed 2-K»l residential re-plat of pn>pef1y liK'ated adjacent Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990. the City of Orono approv cd the plat of Senn On>no Addition, creating Lm I (3240 Watertown Road). Lot 2 and Outloi A (aimbincd as 322tt Watertown Rood). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono’s Shorelond Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the .Minnesota Wcilond ( un.scrv ation .Act (WCA). Gaffrim noted that Kith of these subsequent regulations ore applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on th :ir buildabilily. Neither lot has e\ er been built on. As a result, applicants arc proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow rcliKation of the proposed dnveway (which was never built and now would not K.* approved in its PAGE 20 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY HNE HOMES INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAO« LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - CMltaucd) 1990 configuration due to Shorcland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house locations. The new plat is subject to 'front lot/back lot* area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. Gaffion pointed out that the application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staffs intent to roiew the variaiKes and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each other for viability. Gaffron explained that, prior to adoption of the Shordand Ordinance in February 1992. Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or cre^s. and at best a 26* wetland setback was likely the only setback enforced for structures. Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had enforced a 75* septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late I970’s: tested sites fur Lot I were accepted at less than a 75 ’ setback. Since the original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of “front lotliack' lot" standards (Sections 78*1370 and 82-256), the existing lots aren’t subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdiv ision will be subjeet to those standards. The impacts include: • Lot I as a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it does); • Lot 1 is subject to 150* o of the standard setbacks. • Access to Lot 1 must be via a 30’ driveuay outlol (as proposed) • Lot 2 is subject to a 50* side street setback from the driv eway outlot. rather than a 30^ side setback. GalTron summarized the Regulatory Impacts as follows: 1. The 968’ OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be mea.surcd for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affecl developmcmt of the site arc: - 100* structure setback from OHWL • 75' septic setback from OHWL • no ha^cover allowed within 75' of OHWL Areas below the OHWL will nut count toward lot area calculations. The lot dry wet areas and the OHWL setbacks os shown by the surveyor appc*ar to be acceptable. Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have establisncd boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot I. due to non- buildability of wetland and the 26’ setback requirement. L.PAGE 21 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MM-2971 HK’KORY FINE! HOMES INC,. 3220 A.ND 3240 \l ATERTOWN ROAD. LOT LINE RE-ARRANCEMENT - CMtiaacd) 4. The original approvals to ct>n.slru<:t a driveway uithin existing OulKti A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, arc mi longer valid, hccause the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new-, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted w hich veould make such construction a v iolation of current axles. A number of variarK-cs are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues w ith the driveway arc: a) Portions w ill he w ithin 75’ of the OHWL of the creek where no hardaw er or grading is allowed except by variance per Sextion 78-I2S6; h) Portions w ill be w ithin a delineated wetland or w ithin 26’ of the wetland, requiring variances fmm the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approv al w ould by definition have expired w ithin one year of that approval if not used). c) Grading and filling in or near a w etland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variance's to their regulations would likely be required. As a rclate'd issue. Gaifron noiexl that the 1990 subdivision approval requiie'd that there be only one ucce*ss to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a share*d driveway is rexjuired. GalTron pointe*d out that a primary issue for development of Lot I is acce'ss. The pn»posexl access along the ea.sterly boundaiy of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development pote*ntia1 of Lot 2. The current propttsal correx'lly a.s.sume's that variance's would not be granted to allow the driv e*way to parallel ihc ercck within the* 75’ hardenuer grading setback. Assuming that a we'tland cre ’ck erossing within Lot I would ultimately be oppruv exl. the*n the propose*d 3(f corridor along the e*ast boundor>’ of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the M»uth half of Lot I. is a reastmable plan. However, in order for the drive*way to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2. Outlot A is shortened and Lot I extends southward past the ba.se of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width V ariance for Lot I. As a design for the driveway has m>t bexrt submitted and sueh a de*sign wiHild entail varianecs w hich canmn be quantified w ithout sueh a de*sign for rev ••.*w. the application remains inexxnplctc and the drive*way information will have to be provxle’d arxJ rev iewed before preliminary' plat apprxnal can be granted. Furthenm>re. GalTron explained that a park fa: of $2()0 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was crc*atcd in 1990 per the ordinonc'c in placx* at that time, and no park fa* was paid for Lot 2. on the basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived. PAGE 22 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#M-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - CoatteMd) Since both lots drain directly to s • reck which flows to Stubbs Bay. from a water quality standpoint, they function as lakcshorc lots. Then; is little ability to collect significant amounts of stormwater ninofT fh>m either lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore. Gaflron maintained that Stormwater treatment pnivisions should be added to the plan in the form of requiaxl substantial buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with hij^ giuvscs and not be fetiili/ed. As with the park fee. there is some que:»tion as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at $2.7(X) per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot. For this property. Lot I would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee (SI0.800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres (S9.369). Hov ever. a ease can be mode that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot I buildabic. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 should be required With regard to septic. GafTron noted that Septic Systems Inspector Matt Doltcrman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adcquatcly-si/cd septic systems. While the proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate buscxl on the information submitted to date. Gaffn>n anierated that the lock of a requested propt»sed driveway and creek cn>ssing plan, and the lack of pn>poscd house hKalions to help in determining the l(»sibMity of house development on these somew hat limited sites, suggests tabling may be appropriate until that information is .submitted for review. He recommended that the Commission briefly a*vicw . pnnide comment, and then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested drivew ay and creek crossing plans. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had begun the process with the MCWD. Henderson indicated that this hod begun. Garv' Roller. 3280 Watertown Road, the neighbor on the west side, stated that he hod a ditTicult time seeing the building site on the back lot. GatTron pointed out tliat the buildable site was tucked in against a 45* setback fntm the west lot line, between the creek setback and wetland. Mark Summers, 75 Crvstal Creek Rt»ad. pointcxl out that his !k»mc fell 60* m»rlh of Watertown Road and 75-100* west of the property and he. totr. was concerned w ith the placernem of a home on lot one. PAGE 23 of 53 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. <(Ht4-297l HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD. LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - CoatiMicd) Sloe Koehler. 35 Crystal Creek Road, questioned the site on the hill, claiming that this location would be much closer to his properly than the alternate home site. Henderson stated that the most attractive building site for any potential homcouiicr would be the site in the back versus the one up front on the hill. GafTron pointed out that the location of the septic site would likely drive uhero the house building site would be. He agreed that the hill side site would be difiieult. os the septic lines would have to run a long distance and across the creek bed. White he felt this to be an unlikely building site, he noted that the applicant could feasibly build there, or agroe not ttt build on the steep slope. Henderson agreed, stating that the hillside location would not likely be a desirable one. and indicated that they would consider the suggestion. Koehler asked what the liKation for the outlot and setbacks for the driveway were being proposed at. GalTron stated that the outlot would be a 15’ wide driveway corridor that narrows. He noted that the driveway was plac'ed merely 5' from the lot line and quc*stioncd whethcT the outlot should be w ider or whether the driveway within the outlot oiTset. Summers statcxl that the driveway outlot was of ga*at conccTn to him. since the driveway would run the entia* length of his property. Although one option might include moving the d.ivcway furthc*r west by widening the driveway. Gaffron noted that w idening tixi much would Impaci the septic sites and house si/e. KoehlcT pointed out that drainage i.ssucs might alsi> be a concern for the futuro homeowner as the runoff tends to move towards this site and undcT Watertown Rivad via a culvert. Gaffron llianked the neighbor fi>r his concern, and acknow Icdged that the City Enginevr would need to ev aluate the drainage istmes. and how these might impact con.struction. He mentioned that some buffers would be likely to manage treatment near the creek. oikI noted that the applicant hopes to have these issues resolved by the February meeting. .Acting Chair Mabusth questioned how the applicant would plan to cross the creek. While the City would need confirmation from the MCWD. GafTK)n stated that a US’* oval culvert with fill on eithcT side was proposed to accommodate flow. He notc'd that MCWD PAGE 24 0153 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2U04 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT - Continued) may even lake the position that the applicant can’t build over the creek bed. Henderson staled that, having sp<tken with the MC’WD. he had been led to believe that they would accept this proposal. While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would find it dilTicult to require additional park dedication fees and stormwater trunk fees being charged to the applicant, she would defer this to the legal department. Hawn concurred. Acting Chair Mabuilh moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #04*2971, William and Roslyn Hendcrson,/llickor> Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road, a proposed Preliminary Subdivisioa and Lot Line Re-Plat pending receipt and Citv’ Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plans. \’OTE: Aves 6, Nays 0. (#12) #04-2972 ROBERT KNl Til AND MARY THOMPSON. 27IK) W III I E OAK CIRCLE, VARIANCE (M:43-H:S3 P.M.) Robert Knuth. the Applicant, was present. Curtis explained that the applicants are a'questing a front yard setback variance and a side street (right-of-way) variance to allow a porch with pergola 45.1 ’ from the fnmt lot line where a 50 ’ setback ir. required and 35’ frt*m the street right-of-way where .50 ’ is rei|uired and a 40 ’ setback exists currently. Curtis pointed out that the applicants home is situated nca.ly at the fnmt yard setback iine of this expansive 2.1 acre pmperty. In order to avoid cncToaching the appmved alternate sc*ptic svstem soil treatment site when the home was first built in 1978. the home was c»)nstructed 56.1 ’ from the front property line. 5 ’ from the required 50 ’ setback. Al«»ng the wc*stem pn»|KTty boundary hetwtvn 27(MJ and 2715 White Oak Cirele a continuatum of the road right-of-w ay exists, litis iight-of-w ay is currently and indefinitely not used as a trav eled n>od. and is open space. The home is currently located 40 ’ fnmt this street side yard w here a 50’ setback is required Due to the angle of the home on the lot. the pmposed poreh addition would extend 5 additional fexi into the required side strexi yard. Curtis pointed t»ut that the pn>perty is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owners wish to create a *’neighb<irly feel” to their home w ith the addition of the covered front p»»rch. Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any mixlification grcale*r than 5 ’ olT the fnmt of the home requires a variance to front yard seibaek requireincnt. PAGE 25 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2972 ROBERT KNtTIl AND .\IARY THO.MPSO.N, 2700 WHITE OAK CIRCLE, V ARIANCE - Continurd) Planning Depurtmeni SlafTreettmmends appro\ al t>f ihc 5* front yard setback \ariancc and the 1 5* street side setback variance due to the hK'ation of the existing ht«use with relation to the fh>nt lot line with the stipulation that the aiveml porch shall ni>4 be c*nelosed. Knuth stated that they wished to open up the house to the neighbttrhiHHl and add a front entry feel to the currently blank wall. He pointed out that they began speaking to neighbors about their intent a year ago and gained much support for the action. Thea* were no public comments. Acting (’hair Mabusth acknowledged that many neighhi>rs had indieatc'd their support for the impn>vemc*nt. Rahn askcsl if the sU>op would be considerc'd a legal encroachment. GulTrttn stated that the stm>p is not an encroachment us long as it is at grade le\el and not covered. He believed the applicant should be allowcxl sttme leeway for a coNcred ititryway. While the sliHip it.self was allowed. Rahn was hesitant to make it nonconlonning and urgc*d the applicant to accept the 6* to the setback for a covcTcd slop. Hawn did not feel this was an obtrusive additiim and notcxl that most of the alTectcd pr«»pcrty owners had voiced their suppt*n Acting ('hair Mabusth concurred. Bremer moved. Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of AppUcalhm #04-2972, Robert Knuth and Mary Thompson, 2700 W Ukm Oak Circle, granting approval of the 5* front yard setback «'. ianre and the 15* street side setback variance due to the locatioo of the existing - uve with relation to thv front lot line v,iih the stipulation that the covered porch not be enclosed. VOTE: Aves 6, Navs 0. Commissioner Hawn left at 8;53 P.M. (Recess taken from 8:53-9:04 P..M.) PAGE 26 of 53 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. Januar>' 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13) #l»4.2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC.. 475.3 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (9:04-9:.15 P.M.) Sieve Saxton, of Minnetonka C'usiom Homes, was present. Gundluch stated that the applicant rcqu'.*sts the n»llowing in conjuncliitn w ith a pa*\ iously approved pmjecl: 1. After-the-fact variance to allow 49*,o hardcover in the 75-250' /one when 44*« was prc\'iou.sly approved and 2S?o is normally allowed. 2. Conditional use permit to allow- retaining walls to be constructed w ithin 5' olThe properly line. Gundluch explained that the applicants rcccixed a number of xarianees in April of 2003 in order to construct a new residence on the properly hKated at 475.3 North Shore Drive. Hardcover variances were received for the 0-75' and 75-250' /ones of 9.34®o and 44.S5*’# respectively. During the building pennit approval pnKCss it was amcluded that the City Engineer needed to review the grading plan and that to result in proper drainage on the propc*ny the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions. The changes includcu raising the house approximately 2 feet and installing gutters dircx'ting all the w ater to the driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shore Drive. Also, uppr»>ved was a short retaining w all on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance. Follow i.ng construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City's Building Imipcetw noticed a number of retaining walls were amstructed in the 75-250’ /one in an effon to control the drainage on the property. Alsvi. repair of an exi.sling w all at the top of the bluff and a scctmd wall at the top of the blulTwere also auu4ructed all of which were not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan appnwed in April of 2(K).3 by the Planning Commission and City Council. StalTInformed the applicants that this work was not approved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcov er v ariance to allow 49.2" o hardcover w hen 44.S5"«i w as originally approved would be requiaxl if the walls were to a*main. A conditional use permit is alsci required in order to allow mtaining w alls w ithin 5' of the property bivundary. Gundluch pointed out that, at the time of building permit review, the applicants proposal less hardcover in the 75-250' /one than was approved by the onginal plan. This iKcurretl Kxause the applicants w ent from a fiHilprint of 1.500 s.f. to 1.451 s.f. and a smaller driveway/walk (525 s.f to 4H1 s.f). At the time, the applicants were also approved to construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance, which added 8 s.f of hardcover, bnnging the total hardcover to 44"o (whem 44.K5"o was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council). PAGE 27 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2(MM 6:00 o ’cltK'k p.m. (MI4-2973 MINNETONKA CLSIOM HOLIES INC., 4753 N. SHORE DRI\ E. AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL ISE PERMIT- Cmtlaued) Gundlach explained Ihc anal>-sis of the As-Buill Plan as follows, along w iih the City Engineer ’s comment- regarding the necessity of the walls: East Wall & Steps: Neither the steps or retaining wall w ere apprm ed w ith any of the plans. The City Engineer has determined that a smaller wall is neeessar) to prmide a transition from the dri%ewa> elevation t«» the elevation of the side yard, which achieves the same results and is not w ithin 5* of the property Kmndary. West Walls: The only wall that was approved is the wall that protects the side entryway. The original plan was designed to grade a swale leading to the lake. Further, thc’sc walls encroach onto the neighbor's property, which isn ’t allowed by City Code. The City Engineer has stated that an extension of the existing wall pmtevting the entrance may be warranted. howevcT. the rest of the walls and fill should he removed and a swale should be a*-graded as show n on the approved plans at approximately the original site elevation. South Walls: The wall that was approved was the pre-existing wall, vvhich has since been repaired. The applicants also constructed a second tier to this wall and hnmght in fill in an attempt to create a larger lawn and to avoid a I ’-2’ step down from the walkout level to original grade. It should be noted that these w alls are w ithin the blutT impact /one. The City’s Building Inspector authorized the applicant to improve the pre-existing wall in an elTon to protect the blutT. The applicant did improve the wall but aLwi constructed a new. second tier which extends onto the neighbtirs property. It is of the City Engineer and Building lnspecti*r’s opinions that this second tier wall was not nevessary. The second tier wall and the fill should be removed and re-graded as originally approved. The second tier wall and fill raises the w alkout yard to an elevation higher than me neighKmng yards. Gundlach stated that, in addition to the acceptance of the City Engineer ’s comments, staff w ould recommend: 1. The w all on the east side of the property be relocated w esterly onto the applicant’s properly to provide a 5’ setback to the easterly lot line. 2. TTie steps on the ea.st side of the properly be removed. 3. The w all follow ing the properly line on the w est side of the lot be moved ca.sterly to a point 5’ of the west lot line and its length be cut in half. PAGE 28 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (m-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HO.MES INC^ 4753 .N. SHORE DRI\ AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Coatlniied) willing to work w ith staff to make things right. Acting Chair Mabu-sth encouraged the applicant to work w ith siaifand the City Engineer to go forward. Fril/ler u>ked if this was the first h*>use they had ever built. Saxton applied that this was the first home he had built. Acting Chair Mabu.sth questioned w hether the retaining w alls could be cut off on the west side. City Engineer Kellogg interjected that he had \ isitexi the site over the past week and believed the side retaining wall could be moved closer to the sidewalk. He alst* indicakxl that sex eral of the retaining walls could be removed in lieu of grading, including removal of the retaining w all on the south west side to axlircct drainage onto this properly. Gulfron suggested that an alternative to the 3:1 slope might be to dig down 2’ at the grade level to allow the homeow ncTs a small w alkout area w ith a flatter lakeside yard. Kellogg agreed that this would be an acceptable alternative. \clliix Chair 51ah«ith moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Appikallon tNM-2973 l^llnnelonka Custom Homes Inc., 4753 North Shore Drive, granting approval of necessary minimal hardcover variance and conditional nse permit, subject to the applicant w orking w Ith the City Engineer and staff to develop a plan wMch creates swales in the side yards and removal of retafaiing waUi* Since the home will be shown during the Parade of Homes. Gatfron pointed out the importance to rectify the situation so that a potential owner will sec the required removals prior to purchasing the properly. \ GTE; Ayes 5/0. PAGE 30 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:fK) o'clock p.m. (#14) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY I.LP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REEONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (9:35-10:20 P.M.) John Trout/, Reliance DcvelupniL*nl. and V'ickic VonDel. the Applicant's Representali\c*s, were present. Gaffrun explained that the applicants propose a c^>mmereia] retail ofTlcc dcnclopnic'nt on Outlot A of StoncBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly a.ss4>ciatcd with supporting an otlic'c use on the site. The pn>posal includes a re/oning via the Planned Unit Desclopment (PUD) process from RR-IB (SfR. 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separolc building lots us follows; Lot 1: 1.53 acres • I().(XN) s.f. oflicx retail building Lot 2. 0.86 acres • 5,0(J0 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres • 14,490 s.f. Walgreen's retail phannacy building Since the proposal is n<4 in conformity w ith the Comprehensixe Plan, in that it includes freestanding retail not spcx'ifieally assiKiatcd or supportive of an office use on the site, the applicant requests an amendment of the CMP. Gatliron noted that the amendment would “allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD. based on the finding that the amendment would comply w ith the spirit and intent of the City's Community Management Plan, would allow dex elopment of this vacant site, would provide limited retail to sctv e the neighbortKHKl. and w ould allow development of the mi.xed use SioneBay development os originally proposed.'* The amendment would apply only to Outlot A of Stonebay. Gaffron indicated that the City Council has informally rev iewed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the cxMitext of its impact on dev elopment in Long Lake, in full know ledge of Oruno's staled intent to not take actions which would be counlc*rproductive to Long Lake's elTuits in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council's gcmeral conclusion was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed w ill have minimal impact on Long Lake's ability to move fttrward with its Dt>wnlown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of neighborhood serv ice retail and office can prov ide the business location.s, services and quality employment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 2(KM)-2U20 CMP. Gaffion cilcxJ additional factors w hich might come into play in tc*rms of this proposed amendment including: PAGE 31 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2(MM 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04-2974 RELIANCE DE\ ELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHW AY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-Conttaiwd) The other thax quadrants of this intersection arc des oted Nt retail uses. The Long Lake Downtown Master Plan docs not at any locution provide for the Walgrccn ’s model of a building set back from the street with parking in frunL The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streviside w ith parking in the rear. It is highly unlikely that W'algreen ’s would locate in Long Lake's Downtown area. From a staiTpcrspcxtivc. W’algreen's is an amenity that would be w elcomed by the public in this area. Having service retail uses within walking distance of both StoncBay and our senior housing less than '/j mile east, provides a ptvsitivc amenity. Hie ItKation on Highw ay 12 w ill enable certain types of retail u.scs that ean serve the Stonebay development that we would othcrw ise probably not attract to the area without the Highw ay 12 traffic. Review of the traffic study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of the general Stonebay PUD in 2(K»2-20n.l indicates that the tranic generated by the pmposed retail uses would be very similar to the traffie generated by oflice u.ses at this site. The upgrades to surrounding roods required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals w ill still be applicable if the amendment is approved. GafTron poinicti out that. priKcdurully. this CMP Amendment requires appn>v al of the Metropolitan Council; however, it is expected this w ill be viewed as a minor amendment, will have no new or unplanned-for impacts on metnvpoliton facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by Met Council. In addition. GalTron added that a copy of the plans had been prov ided to the City of Long Lake, althivugh no comments hav e been received as of yet. With regard to permitted uses in the B-6 District, GalTron stated that these include business and professional offices: banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels. In addition, retail u.ses ore allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Re/oning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the ’'Special Requirements for Re/oning in the Highway 12 Conidi»r Study Area” of zoning code Section 78-1065. and was anticipated PAGE 32 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12. PUD REZONING. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-Coatiaued) during the approval of the Stonchay plat. B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of dev elopment standards applicable to this site: Gaffron continued, staling that the proposed site plan meets the City's established standard for no direct access to Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Rood. The applicants arc proposing a righl-in. right-out access to Willow Drive and a full access to Kelley Parkway, which will be further discussed as the review priKcss moves forward. Trail links are provided os called for in the City’s plans and in the Stonchay approvals. Gaffron acknowledged that interior site cimulalion is a major concenn which rctiuircs additional discussions between staff', applicants and consultants. Gaffron pointed out that City Engineer Tom Kellogg arxl the City's nianning consniltant, Phil Carlson of DSU. Inc., have been a.skcd to comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. He cncHiuragcd the Commission to a*view their comments. Since the site plan has a number of significant issues w hich should be worked through at the stalTdcvcIopcr consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a detailed site plan review. Gaffron stated that the plan details w ere not included this evening. Gaffron indicated that a public hearing would be scheduled for this proposal at the January 20 meeting. GafThm encouraged the Planning Commission to identify any specific concerns they believ e need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics for comments included: 1. Site orientations, relationship to Slonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to 12AVillow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity 2. Site access and circulation patterns, impacts pros cons of drive-thru's 3. Building materials and building design 4. Pedestrian access and cianilaiion 5. Signage, lighting, and landscaping 6. Other topics of concern or interest PAGE 33 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MM-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12. PtJD REZONING. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-CMdMNd) While llannaford believed the concept was attractive enough, he pointed out that the coiner is already a grab bag of uses, though the Commission needs to give consideration to whether they wish to see those uses continue. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she liked the r^erings and exterior materials presented. VanDcl asked for further direction before they present their final plan to the Commission at the February 1 7 meeting and. hopefully, move on to Council. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would prefer minimal signage and felt that the traffic flow was critical. Along with a 6* high sign at Highway 12. Traut/ indicated that the plan proposes one 10* sign per lot for the commercial uses dl made of the same masonry style. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the site would contain any ctimmunily scaling area. In addition, she asked who would maintain the common areas. Trautz pointed out that the coffee retailer would allow some outdoor scaling. With regard to the common area.s, Traut/ stated that interconnection is a common way of developing properties, guided by easement agreements which regulate the common areas. Rahn stated that he wished to see the final draft GafTron stated that the Commission could wait until after the February work session, take action this evening, or table the application. There w ere no public comments. Bremer stated that she was concerned about the possibility of bringing in a Walgreen’s. so close to the Snyder’s in Long Lake. She indicated that she was surprised the City Council would change their position on retail, given their past position on redevelopment of the Long Lake business district. She believed it would not promote hoilthy competition to allow a Walgrecn’s to etime in and likely displace the Snyder’s. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned w hether the City had been supplied with any comments from Long Lake. Gafthm stated that he had not heard any specific or general comments from Long Lake. He PAGE 35 of S3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1901 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Coattaned) rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would ha\ e to be removed. Because the City will not accept continuation of the Guest House use without 4.0 acres of dry buildabic land, applicant has chosen to pursue a Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP. Discussions at the Council level established that removal of the kitchen facilities from the existing guest house structure would be required, but the plumbing would be allowed to remain subject to applicant successfully obtaining a CUP. The lot line rearrangement approval does not take effect until the Plumbing in Accesstory Building CUP is obtained. Gaffron pt..A:v»'’ t’-at 1801 W'csi Farm Road has been c^mfirmed to have a site h>r construction of a 3-bcdnK>m mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serving the house and accessory building. Howeser, the City Council has received arul acted on a petition by this neighborhtxKl for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that the property will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future. While the accessory building is conibrming os to height, it is nonconforming as to si/e and location. The structure consists of two buildings - an old stable and a new er garage, connected by a circular riHim. The t«itul square fiH>tugc is approximately 1075 s.f., which would placx this building into the category of an ‘oversi/e accc*ssor>' structuro' subject to principal structure setbacks (50* fhmt. 30* side) and not nearer the street than the principal residence structure. However, this building is liKated approximately 49' from the cul-de- sac where a 50' setback would be required, and it sits bciween the house and the street. Further, its location range's from 1.5' to 6' from the north side lot line. Gaffron indicated that the building today is scTcencd from the north by \cgeiatii>n existing on the adjacent property. Staff believes the neighborhiKHl visual impact Itnlay is os minimal as it was in 1990. Gaffron stated that it is assumed that the property owner will agree to the cove*nant requirements, including: • the building will not be used for a home occupation; - the building will not be used as a dwelling; and - building will not be rented. Iea.sed or otherw ise provided for use as a dw elling. In order to approve the CUP. f'^nffron explained that the Council must make the follow ing two findings: - the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. PAGE 37 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2(K)4 6:00 o ’clock n.m. <#04>2976 JAMES AND Jt OITH PIERPO.NT* 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Coattaved) • the plumbing rrdua*s proposed are in keeping with the intendal use of (he acccssor>’ building. He enamraged (he Planning Commission to ask the applicant (o confinn the intended uses of this building once the kitchen L removed, to ensure that the above findings aa* satisfied. Kitchen romoval should include tne following, in the opinion of stalT: 1 . Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. 2. Remove refrigerator. 3. Remove kitchen sink and asiwuriated plumbing. Planning Commission should confirm that these arc the appropriate fixtures to be renuned to result in the conversion from a ‘guest house* u.sc to an ‘accessory structure w ith plumbing’ use. The fixtures to be removed w ill be documented os ’not allowed to be reinstallc'd’ in the CUP ros«>lution Gaffron staled that staff recommends approval of the C’UP for plumbing in the accessory structure, subject to the following: 1. Applicants to execute standard ‘use limitation ’ co\enonls as letiuirod by City Ordinance. 2. Conversion from ‘guest house ’ status to ‘accesstirv building w ith plumbing’ status W'ill require removal of existing kitchen facilities including stove and microw ave oven, if any: refrigerator, and kitchen sink and a.vs«K'ialcd plumbing. While Mr. Pierpont agreed with stall's conditions, he questioned w hcthcT w hat he used for a kitchen sink, which w as an antique piece of furniture housing a sink, aiuld be diffcTentialed fh'm a kitchen sink. In addition, he pointed out (hat the guest house provides a small rofrigerator and ctwk top. Pierpont pointed out that it was their intent to div ide the properties into 4 acre and 2 acre sites. He argued that due to the change in code, the '/j acre wetland has diminished lhe*ir property to the point at which they cannot have their gue*st house. He maintained that the weiland has alwa>^ been on the site, as has the stable and guest hi>use. and only the Ordinance change has changed di.sallowing these things. He asked for an exception. Acting Chair Mabusth asked whethet the applicant found the subdiv ision neve*ssary if they planned to hiwk up to City sewer when av ailable. Pierpont stated that they are trying to ex>irect a flaw in the property and make a second stand alone paroel. PAGE 38 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMlay. January 20,2(X)4 6:(M) o’clock p.m. (#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT. 1901 WEST FARM ROAD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Contlniifd) While ihc sink as it exists was small. GatTn>n questittned the Commission whether they felt the covenants would limit its use. Pierpont stated that he was willing to sign any covenants. Acting Chair Mahusth did m)t hetiev e the smalt sink enclosed in the antique piece should have to go. Prit/lcT disagreed, .slating that he felt a cook top and sink con.slituted a kitchen in his mind and would have to go. Rohn concurred with Fril/Icr. .stating that the concc'pt allow s a bathnnim facility but stops short of a kitchen facility. Gaffron suggcsic'd this be revisited in Ihc code at a future date, as the original intent of the code w-as to allow a bathnwm facility in the garage. While she believed Ihc sink housed in the piexx of furniture was lovely, Breinc*r was concc'mc'd that the Commission has detiic’d similar rvquc'sts in the past and could not allow this request. Pierpont rcttc*mtc*d that the only thing that has changcxl ovct lime is the law. He mainiaincnl that he hod not changcxl a thing to his pn>perty and bcx*n given approvals from the original con.struction dexades ago. os well a.s. os rcxcmlly as 1990. and now they are being told they ncxd to remove this amenity. He again repcatc'd that plumbing had always been a pan of the stable and mc*rely upgraded ovct the years, just os the wciland has always bexn a pan of the propcTty. He fell this .should be a non-issue, since his guc^l house was approved 14 years ago in a prev ious application. Rohn rcmiiMlcd the applicant that the prev ious approv al was ba.sc*d on the lc*gul evimbination. which was not pcTl'ormed. Pierpont maintainc'd that he was unaware, until beginning this process to uncombined thc*m. that they were nevcT cximbincd in the first place. Rahn staicxi that Ihc dilemma facing the Commission is that there is no hardship to support this request; therefore, they mu.st slick to the Cixle. Hannaford disagreed, stating that in his opinion. IhcTC was a hardship, the application before the Commission had been approved in the pa.st. and now they arc asking him to remov e something that he w as already granted approval of. Hannaford statcxl that the PAGE 39 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2<KM 6:(N) o'clock p.m. (dNM.2976 JAMES AND JLDITII PIERPONT, 1M»I M £ST EAR.M ROAD, C ONDITIONAI. ISE PERMIT - C onliaved) Commission has the ability l<» exercise M»me judgment here, in additi»>n. \o satisfying the code without setting a precedent. While Acting Chair Mahusih stated that the City Council will be given the opportunity to hear the applicant’s rationale, she belie\c*d the Commission would be remivs in approving the application. Raha moved, A c H ok C’hair Malmtlli seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-297b, James and Jvditli Pierpont. I Ml West E'arm Road. approvioK Hie lot line rearranKement, subject to stafTs recommendation that Hie applicant eiecute 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. N OTE: Ayes 4, Nays I, llannaford dissenting. Hannaford dcfc*rrctl to his earlier comments. (#l6)#tM>2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEIIAI.KOE RICHARD M. KE.WENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE. CONDITIONAL i SE PERMIT AND CO.M.MERCTAL SITE PLAN REMEW (10:53 P..M.-I2:2U A.M.) Mike Keaveny. the Applicant, and Paul Ode. the pt>tcnlial restaurant lessee, were present. Gundluch explained that the applicant has submitted an application for a crmdilional u.se permit in order to operate a a*stauront and an asstK'iuted commercial site plan rcv iew in order to c*onduct improvements in conjunction w ith the asiaurant use. As per City Ctnie Sextion 7K-M2 any application for a cimimcrcial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Ctiiiimissii>n and City Council. The applicant has reque*ste*d the following; 1) C’ommercial site plan rev iew in order to obtain a building pennit to construct new entrance's at the rear of the building and to com en an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) (’onditional use permit in ordeT tt> ope*rate a a*staurant. ilardcove*r variance to allow 9<)*o hardcoveT on the site. The improve'ments a.vsi)ciate*d with this application will not ineTcase the hardeHn eT above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coveTage variance to allow 16®o structural coverage when 15"o is allowe*d and l5*o currently exists. It is iH>t unusual for ct*mmeTcial propertie*s to nexxl a variance to this requirement, and variance's have bex-n approve'd for strueiural coverage at 20®» or 30*o in the pa.st.* *Each of these items will be rev iew ed in part w ith the ov erall commercial site rev iew' PAGE 40 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMlay. 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 - Coatiaued) Gundlach continued that the applicant's intended restaurant lessee originally cMitactcd stafT in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a a*siaurant out of the existing building which is currently know n as Navarre Lanes bow ling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time that a'sluurants needed a conditional use pennit. Follow ing that initial telephone conversation. Planning Oepartment staff met w ith the building ow ner. Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee. Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour aiHl explained the extent of the restaurant use and the projTOS^ improvements associated with the restaurant. Follow ing that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would requia* a conditional use pennit and a commercial site plan rev icw. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and additional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant. The property is ItKatcd at .1425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre aa*a of On>no. While the pmposal doesn't include any new hardcover, the major changes that should be noted aa* the entry ways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site aa* a small aaa of grass along the southern bvmndary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining walls separating the lower pacing lot from the upper parking lot. Gundlach pointed out that Section 7M-I403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15*/o maximum structural anerage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which atTect the sites structural coverage is two entryways and an aw ning. The applieant has slated that these entryways are proposed to help control heating and aniling costs and to prov ide .safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The ea.siem entryway is proposed at 600 squaa* feet (50' x 12') and the western entryway is prop»»<*ed at .16 square feet (6' x 6'). The pn>posed awning will extend along the south elevation of the building to cover the current sidew alk. The structural coverage ordinance allows for ov erhangs to be included in the building square footage when they arc 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 92S.5 square tact (l**o of total) of additional structural coverage, or l6"o where the existing pcrecnlagc is 15®#. Gundlach indie iled that it isn't out of the ordinary for structural average variances to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 2()^o or 30®o for commereial properties. Gundlach encouraged the Planning Commission to consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet the required setbacks of 2U' to Shoreline Drive and lU' to KLclly Avenue in an PAGE 41 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2(KM 6:00 o'clock p.m. (.MIKE KEA\ E.NY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST. 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL ISE PERMIT AND COM.MERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Coatinued) cRbrt lo increase green space on the site. The 20* required front y'ard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. 1 he number of parking spaces will be alTectcd. should greater setbacks be requiaxl than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently e.xists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. Required Number of Parking Stalls. Restaurant l^se: Bow ling Alley Use: Lounge (w in Kmling alley): I.8V0 s.f. (a I space KO s.f. - 24 spaces 10 lanes (u 6 spaces lane = 60 spaces 535 s.f. ui I space 80 s.f = 7 spaces Ti»»al Required Parking = 91 sp.ices Total Prop«>scii Spaces = 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel space's and 76.9* x 20 ’ spaces) As proposed. Gundlach noted that the applicant is 7 parking spaces unc.T the parking a'quiri^ by Section 78-1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. StatT feels that w ith the existing demand for parking, coupled w ith the proposed rc*staurant use. a sharc*d parking arrangen*.*nl of these 84 spaces would be adequate if not excessive. On the other hand. Gundlach explained these numbers do not take into account the 1 5 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the rood at the front of the building. Assuming a net tliHir aa*a of about 8.(8)0 s.f. for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall pc*r 1 50 s.f is about 5.^ stalls, as eoinpared to the 30 stalls that exist, ^vause 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 pnwide ulcquaie overflow parking between the restaurant and retail uses, should it ev er he nccdcxl. However, it should be noted that during limes w hen all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday aflermxms). parking could be short by about 20 stalls ba.scd on Code requirements. The parking required by the zoning ordinance should be discu.sscd against the actual nec*d of parking on site. With regani lo pedestrian access. Gundlach staled that sidewalks currently exist along the fn>nl of the pniperty providing pedestrian connections to the pn>penies cost and west in the Navarre area. The applicant is prop»*sing lo rennwe the existing stair system which amnecis the top gravel parking area to the low er parking area, w hich is how the bow ling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A new* stairway svxtcm is pmposed with a small sign and minor lights at the lop of the staireo.se prov iding a safe pedestrian connection from PAGE 42 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Coatiaued) the upper parking area lo the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, howeser. the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot. Km ling alley, and restaurant entrances. Gundlach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City Code standards. Scciion 78-I46S. Additionally, no individual sign may exc'ccd SO s.f. llic applicants proposed signage meets all the city code roquinrments. Wliile the applicant has not provided a landscape plan. Gundlach ptdnied out that there are three potential areas for landscaping: 1 ) The area betw c*en the 2-tier retaining wall s>‘stem 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 Commis.sion discuss requiring implementation of .some type of landscaping in these three areas in an enfort to pn>vide additional green space on the property. Additionally, as noted presiously. the pros ision of 20’M0* grevn 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 formalixation as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that, approaches City Code Standards. With regard to lighting. Gundlach staled that the applicant has provided a w ritten 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 residcntially zoned property. In addition, the City’s Public Serv ices Director has requested that a 100 s.f. casement be granted lo the city to allow the cnirrcnt bus shelter near D’Vinci ’s restaurant to be relocated lo the northca.st comer of the applicant’s site. A 10 ’ x 10 ’ casement in the northeast comer of the site is proposed. While the City Council has aulhori/cd re-location of the shelter, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commi.ssion 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 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, 342S SHORELINE DRIN'E, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN RE\ lEW - CoatiMMd) rcstaurani 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 residcntially zoned area. Gundlach submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. Since the applicant is also propi>sing a trash receptacle he u.scJ in ct^njunction w ith the proposed restaurant. Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10* from the south lot line and ItKated further west than cast, 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 Plaiming Commission: 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so. w hat is appropriate? How many parking stalls arc needed to adequately serve the site? 2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the 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? Slmuld Hush facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue righi-<vf-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast aimer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which would incorporate all the businesses occupving the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Av enue 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 S3 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 - Coaltaacd) 9. Arc there any other issues or oonccrmvkith this application? In conclusion, Gundlach stated that the Planning Dcpoitment stafTrecommends the following: Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gra%el parking lot be hinher refined in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendaiion regarding the amount of green space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed. b) The building materials match the existing south facing favade and the roofs be shingled. c) If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the norlhcasl comer of the site, the existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue ri{dd*<>f*^ay be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place. d) All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the residential property to the south. c) 11ie sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly A\ enue he monument style rathc*r than pylon style (no poles) and not higher than 8*. The applicant shall have the comcTs 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 9<)*/« hardem er when 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 show n in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added w hea* povsible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary. Approval of a structural an erage variance allowing 16% structural coverage in order for the proposed entrances and awning to be constructed. 4) 5) Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. The applicant grants an ea.sement to allow re-liKation of the bus shelter to a lO’X 10' northeast comer of the site. Mr. Keaveny stated that the bow ling alley has been elosed since summer and this new proposal allows the applicant to irtcorporaie the cuirenl bowling alley with a restaurant and lounge. PAGE 45 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2(K)4 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERI^IIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - CoMtlMcd) Aastin Evans. 2497 Kelly Avenue, the nearest neighbor to the south of the howling alley, s-oiced numerous concerns: 1 ) As Kelly Avenue is a residential street, he found the additional traOic worrisome within a residential neighborhood. 2) The fact that the restaurant and lounge would have a liquor license was a concern, especially since the ncighbortMxid is kept up at night fh>m the commotion at the Narrows currently. 3) He questioned whether there was adequate space for restaurant use and the parking to accompany it. 4) The City cannot ensure how long the Pi//a 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 traflic exiting onto County Rood 1 5 would make a dangerous situation and intersection worse. 6) Evans cautioned that re-I<Kation of the bus shelter at the junction of Kelly Avenue and County Road 1 5 would be far more dangerous than where it is currently. Encouraging pedestrians to cross 2-4 lanes of tralTie betwexm cars stacked up for the light would be ha/anlous. 7) What would the impact be to Lake Minnetonka from this additional desdopment merely 200* from the lake. Might people try to snowmobile or obtain boat access to the restaurant. 8) 68*i of the little proposed landscaping at all is liKated primarily in the rear where few see it. In fact, no land.scape plan has been provided. Reminded of the Navarre 1 own Meeting a year ago. during w hich residents asked for additional landscaping along County Road 15 in Navarre. 9) The proposed parking facilities are iiK*omplete and iiuidcquate. Wliilc 53 spaces ore required, contrary to zoning regulations, the proposal oiTers a mere 3U spaces for a 75 seat restaurant. The additional use requires 9| U)tal spaces, short 7 in the proposal, w ith no setbacks or grecnspace pro\ ided. I0> This approval would increa.se the use of the lot to I6.(KM) s.f of retail space, which requircxl by zoning sluiuld assume I' of lot area per 4* of retail space. Evans maintained that by approxing this request the City will continue to perpetuate an unacceptable planning state of affairs for Navarre. II) In the Na\ arre Town Meeting sex cral points w ere echoed by the residents. Since Nax arre is considered Orono’s tow n center, why not make it more like Wayzata or Excelsior w ith additional landscaping, street lighting, and updating facades of the businesses in the area. Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to gix e serious consideration to denial of this applicant’s request and recommend the owner address alternative uses for the site, ffe PAGE 46 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Co«lla*tcd) maintained that Orono is at a crossroads of determining which direction to take the Nav arre business di^cL Sylvia Berlagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, a rcskleni of 10 years, asked whether it was too much to expect to have a nice home and quiet street to live on. She did not wish to see the additional noise and traffic this proposal would allow at all times of the day and night. Barb Ward. 2503 Kelly Avenue, asked if the Planning Commission were familiar with the proximity of the homes to this business location. She staled that the current lev el of noise and smells from the Navarre area is horrendous and feared this w ould only perpetuate w ith this application. Ward encouraged the Commission to demand a new face be put on the Navarre town businesses which started with Rick’s and should continue with this site. In addition, she stated that it would not he appropriate to have this business facing a residential area. Mike Kcllen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, questioned what sort of element the City would like to promote in the Navarre area. He suggested the Commission fiKus on fixing up the buildings and the overall appearance of Navarre. Kellen discouraged the Commission fn>m allowing a business to go in facing this residential area. Paul Ode. franchisee of the Pi2za Factory, stated that it was his intention to improve the area, make significant upgrades to the buildings, and dress it up with this pn>posal. He indicated that the Pizza Factory would be a restaurant for families to gallic in Navarre. Acting Chair Mabusth inquire whether a full liquor license was necessary. She asked whether improvements wtTe going to be made inside. Ode staled that the combination of full bar. bow ling alley, restaurant is what makes the operation successful. He indicated that bowling alleys have not kepi up with what clientele want otkI have since failed across the nation. He noted that the restaurant would be added to the east side of the bow ling alley, replacing the current garage storage area. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether additional parking could be placed above the prage. Keaveny stated that he was unsure whether additional parking could be added above the garage. He stated that improvements would include painting the back of the building, repairing lights, improving or repairing the stairwell, and overall cleaning the place up. PAGE 47 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20.2(K)4 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KCAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEA\ E.NY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - CMHjancd) Bertagnoli micijcctod that the Navarre area provides family rcstaura<. >. via Culvers, the coffee shop, and D’Vinci’s. Frit/lcr asked if the upper lot would be paved. Keaveny slated that this could be done. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that any apprt>val 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 w ith 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 arrd matched to the front of the building. Bremer asked what the proposed hours of operation w ould be. Ode staled that, generally, the hours would run until midnight or bar time of 1:00 AM. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the City doles out liquor licenses. Gaffron staled that the City has the ability to dole out 7 licenses in the Orono area; howev er, to date has only one. He indicated that Mr. Ode was currently going through the review process of obtaining a liquor license. Gafln n stated that, since the application is a CUP arid backs up to residential neighborhood, the Commission can pul reasorudrle standard.s on the application. While she was sympathetic to the ironic concerns on Kelly Avenue. Bremer was also concerned about the proposed rc-localion of the bus shelter at Kelly and County Road 15. closer to the dangerous intersection. Gaffron stated that the police department has been looking into mov ing the crosswalk, and fell 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 mov ing the crosswalk to Kelly Avenue. PAGE 48 of S3 .. « .-.^1'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, 342S SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Coatlaucd) Keaveny mentioned that he’d suggested to the metro transit authority they actually pull into the pork and ride to pick up and drop off on Shoreline Drive to a\'oid having pedestrians cross traffic. Acting Chair Mabuslh stated that she agreed with the neighbor’s comments that the City needs to take this opponunity to get the upgrades in Navarre as the opportunities present themselves. The rest of the Commission concurred. Gundlach indicated that they are uncertain exactly how much square footage of retail exists in the building until doing fbriher examination. She pointed out that the site would lose an additional 10 spaces if the City requires 10’ and 20’grcen space yards along Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive respectively. GafTron cautioned the Commission from allowing loo 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 w ill cost the loss of 10 spaces; whereas, this plan provides 40 stalls. Rahn stated that it was difFioilt to gauge what the balance between parking and green space might be with the lack of a landscape plan. He noted that he would like to see more green space, and acknowledged that the plan requires additional parking. With regard to the issues for discussion, itc*m 2, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she believed the existing upper gras'd parking area should be paved and striped. Haimaford pointed out that the access to the bowling alley has always been off of Kelly A\enue. 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 added on the upper lot near the stair to direct patrons down the steps to the restaurant. GafTron 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 S3 MfNUTESOFTHE 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 - CmIIbm^ Keaveny indicated that the receptacle was proposed for the southeast comer and would he fenced. GaHron believed the applicants could find a better location for the trash receptacle, further away from the access and neigMiorhood. Keaveny stated that he would propose placing a monument sign and planter box directing people on Shoreline Dr. to the Piz/a Factory and bowling alley off Kelly Avenue. Gundlach pointed out that the sign located in the right-of«way of Kelly Avenue would be removed in conjunction with a new sign to be erected in the northeast comer of the lot. Smaller directional signs would be placed below to mark the access. Acting Chair Mabusdi encouraged the applicant to talk to the Public Works deportment about the proposed location of the signage and monument sign as they might interfere with si^t lines. Gundlach noted that the lighting plan would include illumination for the staiiwell and staff would recommend that all lights be shielded and directed downward elsewhere on site. Acting Chair Mabusth staled that she would support a nKmument sign at the northeast comer of Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive versus a pole sign. Fritzicr 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 intrusive. Gaflion acknowledged that a monument sign w ould have the potenlud to cause problems. In reference to the ‘hours of operation*. Bremer 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 prefcrTcd hours of operation would be noon - 1:00 A.M. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that there were many other open issues os 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 S3 jtUlH MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20,2004 6:00 o’ckKk p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - CMUaaed) Road 19 versus trying to access Shoreline Drive to reach County Road 19. He maintained that Kdly Avenue was not designed to handle a lot of tralTic. Bremer asked if the proximity to Lake Minnetonka was a concern. Fritzler staled that he could envision people trying, albeit unsucces.sfully. to aeces.s the restaurant via boat or snowmobile. Rahn asked how the City would be able to deal with the additional noise lc\’els once the license has been issued. He noted that this is the same type of issues faced by residents living near Al St, Alma's and admitted it is a conditional use which is allowed. He bclicscd more thought needed to be devoted to the consideration of hours of operation. Fritzicr 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 con be reduced with a CUP. If it is allowed, the City can place certain limitations upon it up front, and then have to li\e with their ikcision. 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 during other hours than the restaurant. Ode stated that the two operations would have separate entrances and closed olf from one another. Bremer referenced the old adage, *in for a penny, in for a pound*, roferring to the fact that if the City wishes to improve the site it must also be willing to acc'cpt what ci>mcs with it. Evans asked what provision for parking of delivery trucks and what procedures would be followed in the proposal. Kaveny stated that he had referenced where the delivery trucks would be allowed in his proposal. Evans pointed out that the lane provided for deliver)’ trucks should be re\ ised, 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 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, 342S SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERSIIT AND CO.MMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - CMilia«cd) Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out w ere accurate. Rahn staled that the plan doesn't reflect what’s precisely required for parking and landscaping to determine whether these arc adequate and requested further information. Evans noted that staflfhas merely estimated a rcduction of 11 spaces to allow for green space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces aKtve 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 he 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 w ith limited use which resided at this location, he never would have imagined a foil liquiir licensed restaurant use would move in next door. As the next door neighbor most aflccted. Bertagnoli asked where the venting for the restaurant would be. Kcav eny suted that he would work w ith the franchisee and the City on the vcmilation and air conditioning placement. Ode reiterated that, in order to be successful bowling alleys need this combination of services; restaurant, liquor liccruu;. and bowling alley. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to table Appttcation #04-2977, Micbael Keaveny,3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and CondMonal Use ParmiL, snbjecl to receiving a rampiHe site plan, parhing plan and anal)^ of needs, locate loading areas, type of lighting, signage locations, mioimnm green space of 10* along both avennes, landscaping plan, staircase repair, type of exterior materials and elevations, proposed improvements to the stmetnre, and exhanst fan location. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. PAGE 52 of 53 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ((MS) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES attending council meetings of DECEMBER 8,2003 AND JANUARY 12, 2004 While there was nothing to repoil from the December 12,2003 City Council meeting, Gaffron reported that the Resolution was adopted for the Wildman Application during the January 12.2004 City Council Meeting. ((M9) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Acting Choir Mabusth encouraged staff and the City Council to appoint new permanent Planning Commission members as soon as possible on behalf of Commissioner Hauii and Chair Smith. The next Planning Work Session will be held on February 4,2004. («20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17,2003 Brener moved, AeHiig Chair Mabatth seconded, to Approve the Plannbig Commission Meeting Slinntes of November 17,2003 as presented. \'OTE: Ayes 5, NaysO. (»2I> SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 26,2004 AND FEBRUARY 9,2004. January 26 - Lili McMillan ADJOURNMENT February 9 - Mabu.sth Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fiitzler seconded, to adjourn the Plauning Commluion meeting at 12:40 A.M. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned M 12:40 A.M. Saadra Smith, Chair PAGE 53 of 53 Reliance Development Company Febniafy S. 2004 Mr. Mike OifTron City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,NtN 55323 RE: Stonebay Site Plan Dear Mike. LanJfrnn has sent over to >ou with this letter the revised site plan for Stonebay Marketplace that we prepared after hearing your comments at our last work session. There were two things we did a bit difTerently and I wanted to have a chance to explain them to you First, for the bank/oflice/rctail building on Lot I (north of Walgrcen ’s), we had discussed angled parking and a one-way driveway along ilie front of the building. Our site plan shows 90 degree parking and two way trafTic. I would like to propose that we try it tliis way. Our strong belief is that very few cars will be turning right from Willow Drive and then right again into Lot I. The trafftc conflicts would be minimal. If there was a problem, we would restripe the lot for angled parking, narrow down tite “throat" of the driveway and install signage to indicate the driveway is one-way. The decision to make that change could rest solely with the City of Orono. We would also be willing to escrow fuiiJs to ensure the work would be done when you requested it. Second, rather than flip-flop the trash enclosure area we added additional screening on the west side of the building. If we flip-flopped that area, the trash compacter would end up adjacent to the pharmacy area. Wc can't move the pharmacy area because of the location of the drive thru. It's all interconnected. We thought the best course would be to try and accomplish the goal of hiding the trash enclosure area by moving the driveway off of Kelly to the west and adding additional screening. I look forward to your comments. Sinectely. Rellartcc Development Company, LLP. 1000 Rand Tower 527 Varqjctte Avenjc So-t^ Minneapo'is MS 55*02-1327 Te'ephone (612) 338-»000 Facsimile (612) 338-8971 . ♦------- izh^r^— -— ^*T. rr t: £C5 ^?7L,'Lvjnjjttni* ~* rT^ftMA vj3:r'^sin w«r 7 I y «w« * f«r* REVISfclDSITE PLAN-15 Lanovomm 5T0IC5AT UMU rnA" aAKM : —t. K IrfKfr?’------— U?^nv--------- rs.-.v. r: :: tfS ttfipi • rr~^«iu •ffr^ -X > to 'tmmm •••M >• •»** RKVLSKDSITb: PLAN-M «fONIIMV MMU m Ml FttOiJW OSJOftO* Ston^au 7iC0 •O.0-:V% 5MS* February 2. 2004 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2780 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 Dear Mike. It has come to my attention that there is a push on the City's part to leonent the development in Outlet A to the residential neighborhood. We are very concerned about the affect this will have on the residents and our ability to market homes adjacent to Outkst A. The plan as currently proposed by Reliance has been well received by our buyers. They see it as providing services that will make their lives more convenient They like the fact that they can walk, when they chose, lo the businesses that will locate there. While some residents will take advantage of the sidewalk and trail access many will use their cars especially this lime of year. We doubt that by turning the development towards the neighborhood any additional residents wilt be inclined to walk to the center. However, by turning the orientation a number of our residents will be impacted by more light, parked cars, store fronts, signs arid less landscaping. We strongly prefer the backs cf nicely designed and finished buildings with a significant landscape buffer to store fronts. We encourcje you to hold to high standards for trail connectivity, architectural design and landscaping Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. JOHN TERRANCE HOMES & John Hassier Vice President STONEBAY MARKETPLACE Approximale Houw of Operalion/ Number of Employee* La NOVOUM viA««iinAci »C05Ci^ OZObi-4 "'-i / '' v ;{v 'S' .‘5*^ T^M LANPFOKM Kelley P arkway Entrance Corridor 1’ ! • 1. Ill N 5 Q s i I IPARKIMC SUIUIAIIYI 5;T5.:::. r* ;-.-r;r.r ■• •••* r: .’v-v.’ — "• • •- iAREA StlMMAKYOaaaHBMl 18 MM HiT M !u REVISED SITE PLAN-14 STONEDAY MARKETfLACE EE030» 02/Ca.'J4 \I I » • L y i//(;i/nA) 12 55 % IPMOONC StHMAKYI -TVT~. ? ;*.r •.■ ^ • -« m*ft. • . ^ • m* ^ • • ---------- '•a*^ '. •■tef .'% .«*M. »*«M« ^ f««a r?. ..•::;\;'; .■ iv i* ■' lAREA aVMMABTI ■■ omT ** *cS REVISED SITE PUN-15 STONE0AY MAKKETfUCE KEOSOe _______________^04 L •M-2M9 Frtnnr> P. 20*4 tnt > I D«tt ApfNnltoa lUrthrtd: I2-I7-43 DiU Ap^atkM Ceaiiderttl IS Conpltft: M-Diy llfirir* PtrM Ciplm: 3-4<44 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, Cit> Planner Date: Sobjcct: February 17.2004 04-2969. Terry ft Grttchen Blount. 1390 Cherry Place • •REVISED* Hardcover Variance. Public Hearing As of today, the applicant has decided to remodel the interior of the home, as opposed to the plan included in the packets. The applicant is no longer proposing any additions or any new hardcover and all exterior walls will remain intact. From staffs perspective these plans should no longer be rev iewed as a rebuild and an interior remodel can be achieved simply by applying for a building permit. Therefore, the original requests for the 75'-250* zone have been withdrawn. However, the applicant is not wishing to withdraw her request completely but to revise it. With the interior remodel, the applicant would like to replace the existing deck which has rotted. A hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance are required to replace the deck. The applicant has proposed a smaller deck of a new contlguration. The proposed configuration requires an average lakeshore setback. The existing deck cncniachcs 2 ’ into the average lakeshore setback and the applicant would like to encroach 2 additional feet in an effort to achieve better view-s and for the deck to be more functional with the interior floor plan of the house. Revised hardcover calculations and the proposed deck footprint are attached to this memo. The plans will result in a net decrease of 183 s.f. of hardcover, bringing hardcover in the 75’- 250’ zone to 39.25% when 40 45% currently exists Consistently, approval is granted for deck replacements when hardcover is not iiKreased. The Planning Commission should discuss whetiicr any hardships exist to allow an additional 2 ’ encroachment on the average lakeshore setback. Staff finds the topography of the lot restricts views and the deck footprint, as proposed, will not affect cither neighbor’s views to the lake. The neighbor to the north sits at a much higher elevation and the neighbor to the south wouldn’t have views across the applicanu due to the changing topography. Staff Rccomamndatioa Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 39.25% hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone and an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 4* encroachment in order to replace an existing rotted deck. Table the conditional use permit and hardcover variance request for the 0-75’ /one to allow more deuiled information to be submitted to the City Engineer. Twt> separate resolutions can be drafted and approved separating the 0-75’ and 75’-250’ zones. 1 L A. \ HAMDtYjVBM Iff TOfff in xtrrmAnr »/**«• ‘®*^*^^*'^* CALCUl^lQS VfORK^HKFT SETBACK ZONE: (CiKCLEWiEt B75' ^ TS^ISO^ 2S0SC0' MM SO0-JMO* ^QZh s VI.^ 0. Gor^ff C Drtv€w^ IM _1.2>7 jM 3/07 D. SidtyMUk £. PadBOTtdt F. Luidscapi VndtHaln ByFtautc OrFatrie 9t X • t G. Otktr TOTAL HARDCOVER mzOSE - TOKO. FRG^£ff7r.4jt£4 iNZONE ^ ♦ B moo XIOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70VP A. Houst B. Cange C. Driveway D. SdewM E. Pario/Deck - /«->, F. Landtag UnderUdn By PItttHe Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER mZONE - TOLU. PRO^mAREA INZONE B KlM xJOO - ■b f.F. .SF.AfC^i>^^ SF.Pdrir^-^ y S.F. ‘ by Mi/ J.F. SF. S.F. SF.Stffi> io S.F. ^ S F. S.F. S.F.iU^^ ^- S.F. s.F.rtOO bd ,S.F.kUjf^^f . _ 5.F. A »-y B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. A SF. ~% :/ L MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Commission Mike Gaffron Dole: Subject: Fcbniary 17. 7004 Suppicmcniary Comments. #04-2974 - Reliance Dev. Corp. PUD As lime was exirenKly short between last Wednesday evening's w ork session and the Friday deadline for getting your packets completed, the staff memo reganling applicolnin #04-2974 u as somew hat rushed. I ould like looffer the follow mg additional comments m rcgoids to the Stonebay Marketplace application. Much of this stems directly from comments reccised icxiay from Phil Carlson and is intended to provide a fiKus for tonight's review of the proposal. The Land Use Plan amendment should be handled first and separately. The Planning Commission (and City Council) have not to date objected generally to the land uses proposed (scrv ice retail: pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, etc.) although individuals have expressed reserv otions about certain uses. But if the Land Use Plan is to be amended to allow Stonebay Marketplace or some similar retail development, these uses must be designed in an exceptional manner and several issues addressed. Since this on amendment to the Comp Plan, there should be some discussion of the overall intent andcharacter to be achieved w ith this amendment. It doesn't need to be a whole new chapter to the Comp Plan, but it should lay out the issues that are important. If Planning Commission concludes that the Comp Plan amendment is appropriate even if Reliance and Walgicen's goaway. the City should cstablisn specific cnicna for development of the site, regardless of who the developer is. Regarding the current site plan. Planning Commission member comments at the Fcbioary' 11 w ork session included that the site is 'too intense'. needs to focus more on the pond os an amenity, should have smal I error fewer buildings, needs more connection to the Stonebay residential development, docs not have enough green space, expressed concerns about parking needs and future uses, and expressed a wish to establish a list of appropnate and inappropriate uses for the site. The focus of the site toward the 12/Willow intersection was seen by some as the development 'turning its back on' Kelley Parkw ay. These are all valid issues that need further discussion, and may ultimately be addressed as a set of parameters for reguiding/rczoning of the site. If Planning Cbrnnussion wishes to take a step tow ord approval, it is staffs rccommendMion that an amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Allow service retail uses, such as a pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, and similar neighboihood and community scale uses (uses can be further defined if you wish), with the folio wing characteristics: The development plan shall incorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quality building materials and architcciuial detailing. f / L MEMORANDUM To: From: Dale: Subject: Planning Commission Mike Oaffron Fcbniary 17.1004 Supplementary Comments. #04-2974 - Reliance Dev. Corp. PUD As time was extremely short betw ecn la^l Wednesday evening ’s work session and the Friday deadline Tor getting your packets completed, the staff memo regarding application #04-2974 was some whai rushed. I w ould like looffer the following additional comments in regards to the Stonebay Marketplace application. Much of this stems directly from comments rccei s ed today from Phil Carlson and is intended to provide a focus for tonight ’s review of the proposal. The Land Use Plan amendment should be handled first and separately. The Planning Commission (and City Council) have not to date objected generally to the land uses proposed (sen ice retail: pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, diy cleaners, etc.) although individuals hav e expressed resen otions about certain uses. Buiif the Land Use Plan is to be amended to allow Stonebay Marketplace or some similar retail development, these uses must be designed in an exceptional manner and several issues addressed. Since this on amendment to the Comp Plan, there should be some discussion of the o\ crall intent andcharacter to be achieved with this amendment. It doesn't needto be a whole new chapter to the Comp Plan, but ii should lay out the issues that are important. If Planning Commission concludes that the Comp Plan amendment is appnopnaie even if Reliance and Walgreen s goaway. the City shouldcstablisn specific entena for dcvelopmeni of the site, regardless of who the developer is. Regarding the curreni site plan. Planning Commission member comments at the February 1 1 work session included that the site is 'too intense*, needs to focus more on the pond us an amenity, should have smaller or fewer buildings, needs more connection to the Stonebay residential development, docs not hav c enough green space, expressed concerns about parking needs and future uses, and expressed a wish to establish a list of appropnoie and inappropnale uses for the site. The focus of the site toward the 12/Wi How intersection w as seen by some as the development ‘turning its back on ’ Kelley Parkway. These are all valid issues that need funher discussion, and iruy ultimately be addressed as a set ofpaiametcrs for reguiding/rezoning of die site. If Planning Commission wishes to take a step toward approval, it is staff s recommendation that on amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Allow service retail uses, such as a pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, and similar neighborhood and community scale uses (uses can be further defined if you wish), w iih the following characteristics: The development plan shall incorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quality building materials and architectural deuilmg. r , / 1 MM-2f74S(Mwbay .VUrkdplacc SnpiiitimmUrj CooHmnts 2-17-M 2) 3) 8) No single use shall occupy more than 15,000 square feet of flcx)r area. There shall begenerous, ^^cll•|rfanncdgreen space, landscaping, and buffering throughout the entire site, exceeding the minimums in the Orono Code for similar developments. There shall be a clear, N^ ell-designcd connection andonentauon tothepondvvestof the site, such that patrons can see the pond from the development, pcdcstnanscancasily >valk to and around the pond, and adjacent uses w ill onent u indows. outdoor seating areas, and other elements toward the pond. There shall be clear, well-designed sidewalk connections from the sidewalks and trails surrounding the site (on Kelley Paikw ay. Willow Dn ve. and Highw ay 12) to all points within the development, especially from access points that serve the residential development to the north. The scale and type of uses, and the design of the site, shall be such that overall traffic into and out of the site will not be more than under the prev lously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. The site plan shall be designed to provuie clear and safe traffic movements w ithin the site for all internal movements: entrances, exits, parking areas, dnve-through lanes, loading'service areas, and driveways. The overall site plan shall be designed such that the oncntation of buildings is not mainly to Highway 12. but also creates a significant sense of place internally in the site. If ownership of the site is to be divided among two or more lots w ith more than one ow ncr, provisions shall be made for adequate handling of access, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions in a manner that can be guaranteed by the C.ty. If Planning Commission recommends approval for the Land Use Plan amendment, with or without any of the above specific conditions attached, a recommendation for approv al of the rezoning to B6-PUD could also be made, assuming you are generally satisfied w ith the current plan. The other option is to not recommend approval for the rezoning until you have seen a plan with which you are completely satisfied. t f04-2V74 StoMbay Markttplac* Supplcmeaury CMimiMils 2-17^ Pie>3 It is suggested that a recommendation regarding a rezoning should include development parameters that will become zoning requirements for the property, and include the following: Recommend approval of a rezoning to PUD for Stonebay Marketplace, with the follow mg conditions: 1) 3) 4) 5) Development on the site must follow the design for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all other site features illustrated on the submission for Stonebuy Marketplace by Londform for Reliance Development, sheets x-xx. dated x-x*x. No deviation from these designs shall be allow ed without approval of an amendment to the PUD by the Orono City Gxmctl. except for minor adjustments to be approved by City sta^. at the discretion of the Development Review Committee. The orientation of the Walgiccn ’s building and parking areas shall be changed to place the mam entry in the southwest comer of the building. Gretii space within the site will increased as follows in the follow ing locations:.. The cnniieciion and orientation to the pond west of the site will be changed to.... ".Sc* shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure adequate pipvti* •. (Jixcess. parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions, mclur* . All buildings and improvements shown on the submitted plans will be completed by x-x-x (dote], and if not. the remainder of the site will be sodded (condition of all areas of the site if left undeveloped)... I