Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-15-2004 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mooday Marck IS, 2004 6:00PM 2750 Kelley Parkway -CottBcil Chambers AGENDA ConodI Represeatative: Jim White AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the appIicatioB. The Planning Comnlsiloa b an advisory body to the City Council. If nction Is taken on any items on thb agenda, they will be scheduled for the April 12, 2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 04-2986 Natural Environments Coip. on behalf of Shawn Vaillant, 847 Tonknwa Road, Conditional Use Permit, (Staff: Melanie Curtis) OLD BUSINESS 2. 03-2928 Mike Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road, Variances, Continuation of apublic Hearing (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 3. 04-2974 Reliance Development Company, LLP NW Corner of Willow Drive and Highway 12 (Outlot A, Stonebny), Commercial Site Plan Review', Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 4. 04-2982 Claryce B. A Lyle K. Jobxson, 1398 Rest Point Road, Afier-the- Fact Variances, (Staff: Melanie Curtis) S. 04-2988 Sean and Leah Daly. 60S Park Lane, After-the-Fact Variances, (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 6. 04-2989 Christopher Diesen, 1100 Townliiie Rond, Preliminary Subdivision (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 7. 04-2990 PatrickandLoringKaveney. 1444 Baldur Park Road, Variance, (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 8. 04-2991 Pat Flemming, 4760 North Arm Drive W, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 9. 04-2992 Ron Potas, 2190 Shadywood Road, Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 10.04-2993 Chris Vslerius, 2377 Shadywood Road, Variance, Conditional Use Pe Commercial Site Plan (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 11 2794 Landfonn 87S W. Wayzala Blvd. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (Staff: Mike Gaflfron) 12.04-299S Bob Carlson, Jyland Homes. 1070 W. Fcrodale Road, Variance, (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 13.04-2996 Bob Carlson, jyland Homes, 1070 W. Fcmdalc Road, Street Vacation, (Staff: Mike Gaf&on) 14.04-2997 City of Orono, Big Island, Conditional Use Permit, Variances, Public Hearing (Staff: Mike Gaffron) SKETCH PLAN 15.04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra. 1745 Fox Street, Sketch Plan (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 16.04-2998 Henry J Lamars, 120 Brown Road South, Sketch Plan Review (Suff: Mike Gaffion) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 17. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings February 23.2004 and March 8.2004. 18. Other issues for discussion. 19. Planning Commission approval of minutes for February 17, 2004. 20. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 22,2004 and April 12,2004. ADJOURNMENT r' Public A ttendance Meeting D ate ^ \* ) V C » " I □ C ouncil -BC planning C ommission □ Park Commission □ Other Please ntLoiTTHE infoiimation rcqucsted ■EI.OW FOR OLR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please priat)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agrRcIa) NASIE OR NUMBER 1. /<•. /'’U/LL /'rr2. ■ i.J,.,, Jf , f/ 2. ‘s4.- ^ \y sie^'^ Ic V -V iU. 3« Js >(7'/, i/if k 'A.____Jy / l\f. S. A iC * Z-cr 6.i\v‘*0 _______ \ L-1 V' ■ • j t ^ Uv .V ^ r i' I / C/- - ^ S/ A < ^ / j »c «-* /VL / I, 1 <' I i t ________ r' ^ I- >V‘/7 ; >-:y "7 7/>-r^./ ^ -7/. _ Ar ^>v\ I r • 7 cv- rv^i'. 3 V Vn ^ ^ ^ /vV ^7c *1 ~ X**) 4^ 11. ^ ^ ^ y y >1 12. ^ _____'S f V- jLeyu /7 *5 V-> r/ /N i^w. . .• r. A' W /I. :,> w . I- \c* r ic. 13- I4._ V i\il\A Lv'A.A - n ■ ■—!i—u -.'-■^( ry.K, iM ( ...4-.- , 7.1 ■ ’ ■.■^ 7-^^^“* JZ ^ V.' “T *:»y./*/'/a>»> ii., ',v7 -U,.., --------------------------------ft/v' f Public A ttendance Meeting D ate □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other_____________ NAME (pkue prial) Please fillotmriE information reqi'ested BELOW FOR OUR Cm' RECORDS. ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agcada) NAME OR NUMBER 2. / / O. A »lo /;*c> i: , r,..y py /V 4. j/i J 1j<'i f\ 7a £lLHZ£Y ^ Vi^ ^ ^ C l I/I t: / - r^4 d.. 7._ »•_ 9._ 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. I5._ ORONO rLANMNG C0M3OSS1OR M«*4ayMvikl9.]0M (:MVM l?<BKa<w»>iTtw-CaMcflCbob«f| agenda CMBcd lUffVMtatiM-. }is Wbiti AUSH>C1 KEMBIRS- PhMB t%i ta ter Ut p«blic ncortf «i te« teMt p*«aa If ym u adAim ift« AppUcaan will b« Mh*d te iw*« a te« fr«at taMi a aaataaiab«ibtCbairaaaMamih«a99litasoa. n« naaateg CaoaWM li ■ a«*atfy My a ter Cay Coaadl. U acCaa b taJ«a or mg turn aa teb aerate, tear rtel kr aUteaM tor ter 12. MM Cky Craate a ari a g laba arter<Ma aaaibyterChair. NaarbEar I Cary aa MalfafSawB VbUat. M7 coffK.vr 1. M-2IM I. —r----------------------------- Taakaaaltea4,Caatfiti9Ba:UHtenat.(Saff MahorCsr&s) otamptus I «S-2m M>]icKiiteke.imSkBdr>aa4lM<.VartaBMa. apufcbc Htvtni %Ucr GaOtti} S. M-29T4 RsIiactcOevcbpniBtCcxpBy.lXr.HWCoraaofWBaa DrtnaadHicbMiy l2(OutMA.Saateay).CaamadatSiBr.aBKamc«. yiriani i| Compr«ticiiii*r Plra A irmlmirn. aad Siibdxratea (Stt9 Mur Gtf%ar.) lOWIUSLNESS 4. 04>m2 CIirycrB ALytoK.:teaaa.llMaatPolBtlUa4.Albr4w* Fact Vahaoccr. (Stair MeUsaCutu) } M-mi SaanndUah. Daly. MS Park Lur,A(l0-l!M-FaclVr,anea. (Saff MdaoiaCiAa) C. 04-am OnneFiarDieacikllMTowaUarRaaAFKlitBaMfySBbdpriaba (Saff. Mrlanst Curtia) 7. 0«>m0 PatncliiadLerjJiKa»fiiry, 1444BabarFate«aai,Va-aacr, (Saff Malania Cunts) I. M-mi Farartaaiei,47Mflarte AraDriaW.VifiaDca (StafT; Mrlanir Cuitu) 9- 04-1M2 Raa?otaa.2l»0Skadywaa4RBa4.VanaDtr (fail incaCtsdlaeh) 10 94-299J Cteu Valanut, un S4a4ywaa« Rate, Vanane^CaadManal Vm rmabl CaonaRtal Sia Plas (Staff laaea G’^dbeb) II 94-2994 Lttdftia rs w. Wayaaia BPte. Coante aaa iteFlt ftmaalirai (Staff Mika Cateoa) a 94-2999 Bob CaTjaa, lytoMKamaa. 1979 W.ftTadab BaaA CStbf MJaGaftoo) U.94-I9N Bob Cateea.Ir'-ateitatiik 1070 W.rtradalalBaA Saab VnBoo. (Staff MOB OaSaa) 14.944997 Ciiy ofOtcaa. Blglalaad.CateacBA XM Prate, Vai a nra k Frbbe Ktaw« (Saff bUa Gafina) mroipucr 1194-2997 HaabcBAbttltateA 2749 ran Sar«a, Steak Plaa (Saff lanica C«£acb} 16 94-2999 Hasty ) Usun. 120 Brvwa Read Saate. SLctte Plan Ra*irw (Saff VUa (UatM;) PLXV!<I}«C CO^OOSSIO.N COMMEMS 17 Ra9on ofPlaasss Canar-a Fabtsary U. 3004 aad Matte I. 2904 IS. Otea laaca tot toa ca iBsa . 19 FtMMf Cecnutaian ag-preva! efssuuaa tor Frbrury 17. 2004 F1lEi042tM 27FsOf«*ty »04 P«9* 1sf4 DsiiApplk»Uoa lUcthrcd: OMHM Dilt A^lkatioa CoMidcrtd at Complctt: 02-2MM 60-Day Rtvltw rcriod Ciplres: 04-24-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: February 27,2004 CONSENT Subject: 04-2986, JefTNuic of Natural Environments Coip for Shawn Valliant, 847 Tonkawa Road • Variance - Conditional Use Permit • public hearing Zouiug Dfatrkt: LR-IB, Siagic Family Lakcahort Rcaidcntial, 1 acre Lot Area: 1.4 acre (64,870 s f.) Apptkatiom Summary: Applicant is requesting the following: 1 . A conditional use permit in order to replace a failing timber wall and wooden stair system with lower glacial boulder walls, vegeution, re-grading the slope and the installation of a granite stair system. 2. A hardcover variance is also necessary ’ due to the change in the hardcover percentage proposed. The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover within the 0-7S ’ zone from 4.5Hu>4.2%. Si^ff MecommauiUkiom: Staff recommendations: Approval of the application subject to the City Engineer's recommendations, which are as follows: 1 . The proposed walls will not exceed 3-feet in height and will be screened with vegeution. 2. Walls are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. 3. Heavy duty silt fence with steel t-posts must be installed and remain along the shoreline throughout the duration of the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. Pcrtincal 2U>iiing Ordiuucc ScctioBS Sec 78-282. Lakcsborc hard cover and land alteration rcfulatious. In any LR-1 A, LR-lB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. FILEi04-29a6 27 February 2004 Pa9«2of4 Scc.Tg-966. Land Alteration; Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to build, alter or repair any seawall, retaining wall or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakcshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. Sec. 7S*12S0. Conditional uses. Conditioiud uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and ^)ptoval procedures and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in this chapter. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shoreland overlay district: 1. Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure; a) The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; b) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; c) The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and d) The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely acconunodate these watercraft. Sec. 78-1282. Stairways, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Sec. 78-1286. Topographic altcratioBs/grading and miing. (b.) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover Umitatioiu. 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. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing & Proposed Sur% cy/Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations E. Letter from City Engineer dated February 25,2004 F. Photos G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map FILEM4.2966 27 February 2004 Pages d4 Backgroand The existing home at 847 Tonkawa Road was removed and a new residence is currently under construction. In conjunction with the construction of the new residence, the homeowner is proposing to remove the existing, failing timber wall and wooden stair system and replace the wooden stair system with a durable and less visible granite stair system. Additionally, the homeowner is proposing to remove the 8’ existing timber wall with a re*graded slope and intermittent glacial boulder outcroppings and low boulder walls. These boulder walls and outcroppings are proposed to have significant vegetative screening which will reduce the visual appearance of the boulders and create a more natural looking slope from the lake. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR.IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 64,870 s.f. (1.4 acre)150’ Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 A & A ■ 8,250 s.f.Os.f (0%) 377 s.f (4.5 %) Accounting for the stairs, landing and timber uail 350 s.f. (4.2%) Accounttngfor the stairs, landing and timber wall Hardcover Setback Variance City Code 12*1282 allows for the installation of stairs, lifts and landings in the place of major topographic alterations on steep slopes. The nature of the topography on this property’s lake yard is very challenging, and a stair system is necessary for the homeowner to access the lake. The existing limber wall, stairs, and landings within the 0-75’ setback zone constitute 4.5% hardcover. The proposed stair system and re-grading of the slope to eliminate the timber wall and replace with short boulder walls will be a minor reduction in hardcover with a percentage of 4.2. Hardship Analysis /a eoiutderiHg appikoHotu/dr wimee, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, sajtty and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for varlencts from the Utaral provblotu of the Zoning Code In Inaances where their stria enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shad recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions wilt be in keeping wish the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. FILE«04-29M 27 Fa6ru«ry2004 Pt9t4of4 Staff finds that a hardship exists due to the challenging lakeshore portion of the lot and the need for the hardcover (stairs), justifies granting the variance request for the minor reduction in hardcover. Conditional Use Pcrniit Analysis A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site have been made, and are addressed by the following: • The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; Steps have been taken to address possible soil erosion during and after construction. • The visibutvy v/ $trjctures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; Visibility of the steps and the walls will be minimized by vegetation plantings which will screen the proposed structures. • The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; Xot applicable. • The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft; Not explicable. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the site and has provided staff with a recommendation (the letter is attached as Exhibit E). The following is a summary of Kellogg’s comments: • The proposed wall will not exceed 3 * in height and will be screened with vegetation. The wall construction is acceptable from an engineering standpoint provided the installation is in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. • Heavy duty silt fence with steel imposts must be installed along the shoreline immediately to protect the exposed slope. The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. Issues for CousidcratioD Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommcndalion Planning Department staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations. a(Hi»irA CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address pvt ______________ Application# 0^-2.^fU Data Recalvad t 7J OA- Amount Pm\d)[/fCO. Qo Type of Application to be Filed_______ Property Identification Number (P.1.0.) APPUCANT Name kJ^U, (^a.A4w»,/ y Phone (home) ~7/3 v?9 PhonefworlO Address 'n^: t______city Zip OWNEf Name. EfUif different^an applicant) ^Qu'ify h:\lOnt Phone (home) Address 'Thniiaui^ PV Date Property Acquired Phone (work) / _ City _________Zip___ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • $600.00 Residential Accessory Use . $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ^ $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ' $600.00 Commercial/lndustnal Use ^ $600.00 Land Alteration ^ Permit ____ Grading and filing - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more y Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75* of lakeshore .(month/year) , PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) , After*the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) _____$600.00 Vacation $600.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #9Ci 7T rW <i> REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 • 2. . 3. 5. 6. 8. 9. .Completed Application Form. . Describe request in detail. .Certified Property Owners Ust of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels ara pl^ map. Ust. labels and map may be obtained from Hennepiri county^partment of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6** Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). .Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. .Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. .Top^ra^ic suivey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations Involve changes In elevation (grades). List of the rumes (include marital slalus) of all persons with an interatl in the property. This would include name(s) of appllcant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) sub^edf require scaled drawings of an documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant arid Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete If the above Information has not been Included. APPLICANrS SIGNATURE agrees to provide alt Information required or requested by the that the information supplied is Iru^d correct to the best of hismer knoviiedge.plied »tru^nd correi .Date o VApplicant's signature__ OWNER'S SIQNATU^ T •pplicalion and further authorized reasonable entjr oift^e property by City staff, consultants, agents, commissi^ requeM*’ CouVc^embeis for purposes of investigation and wrlflcati^ofMils LOwner's signature Applicant mutt have ajrtu Planning Commissio ils into the attend a echaduled meeBhg^ltaie make arrangemcnu to have an authorized eoent li ^ c^e prior to the meeting. ® ^ Date ng ComrJissien Wting. #2;;J O w’■$ r ex-A N atural Environments C orporation 1 1 10 CvsNdHaBN Lak « N ohth PkVMOUTH. Minnesota 55441 Suite 3la Phone (763) 544-5002 PAE (753) 545-0204 Request for Permit Property Location Site Address - 847 Tonkawa Road Orono, Minnesota The permit requested Is for land alteration to be done in the 0-75* zone. We have submitted pictures of existing lakeshore as reference to changes to be made. The existing wooden staircase and wooden retaining wall are deteriorating and will be removed. The proposed lakeshore changes are to provide for a natural, softened landscape which will blend in with the surroundings, provide for a safer access, and stabilize the lakeshore/hlllside area to prevent erosion onto the lake bed. To replace the wooden staircase, granite steps with a hand rail will be installed. This will dramatically soften the hillside and will be more visually appealing. To replace the timber wall, a series of shorter glacial boulder walls will be constructed to hold the hill side and prevent erosion. Also, in random areas as rx)ted on proposed plan, glacial boulder outcroppings will be installed to help prevent erosion. We feel glacial boulders, versus timbers, wilt blend very nicely with the shoreline and the rest of the lakeshore. The visual Impact and erosion concerns are our main priorities in making these lakeshore changes. The plant material (Trees, shrubs, and perennials) will be placed in a manner so as to steer away from a structured, man made appearance. The plant material along with the hardwood mulch will be critical in the stabilization of the hillside. If any additional insight or information on this project is requested, you can reach me at 612-735-3336. Thanks for your consideration! Sincerely, Jeffrey JJ. o o jht • IIWT- •WhwCI 6^Lfi<lAU UALL f-<« ^ f0f\ p//er y^mruKe K'J^Vi_____L w \ ^UAC/AL CToiytt^OCXS ai^ft <.o^0^SC tSK^fitCD Af»Pgo\. cC(lAt4iTC $Ttf^ lAAhJD-RAlL -To i^ACCT Co0C\ S^^ce -r© pzTCtiAMKitoy Natural E nvironments Corporation 1 no EvBRSRCCM Lams nomth Plymouth, minnbsota 08441 •uiTC 3ta PHONS (78J> 844-8002 Fax (782)848-0204 Construction Specifications: The glacial boulder walls will be constructed with boulders ranging In sizes from 24 to 36 inches in diameter. stability is achieved by using larger boulders and instaRing each course of boulders with more setback, versus a "straight-stacked" method. The walls will be backfilled and compacted with a soii and day mixture, reason being, the mixture helps the boulders to settle and naturally lock together. Meticulous care is taken in piedng the boulders together and dosing off the gaps. Also, by avoiding fabric behind the wall, groundcover will be planted in the gaps to contribute to the stabilization of the boulders and the natural look of the wall. The granite steps will have a base of compacted gravel. The base will be excavated in virgin soil and approximately 10-12 Inches of 3/4" gravel will be plate tamped every 2 inches to provide for maximum stability. The step treads will maintain a 12-15 inch width with the rough suribce fadng up for traction. A hand-rail meeting all applicable codes will be installed. Erosion Control Specifications: A silt fence will be Installed at the top of the hillside and also on the shoreline to prevent any erosion from filtering Into the lake. In areas around boulders and steps, plant material and shredded hardwood mulch will be installed. In open areas where equipment may have damaged the existing terrain, a Futerra Erosion Control/Re-Vegetation Mat will be laid down. • 1 Hi • .•- -s ____ - ^ ^ CJoJtteo V- • ’ iAt, {iLACIAL {riAL> Cc^ST€(t 'd) ©^'' C?^? CP (5*^4.u U a ^ Srtps f ^jJ^tAL /JotAtp^-C HA^o «A/t ^— ^cA^/^4 0<^^L^A ^ALC oHiJ «?J7, y ■ srA \X 1 j: A----- V—1 K55G PS1 'KZTSr^.A^ >;C; .-■c^-::iC ,x:::ii (iocV. t/AUCAf</T' ^€^ip€\ic^ < / I><-,/« -g- - ; tHHtir KCY / e^uA^ r. 5^A -3^AK;^Ar^ ^ ij^ccouj t^AfiptmiOOO y^%^c*t4 Afiai^sJO fi^UAKtrX Aa/O Oo«^.A.(d^^X C»;.‘ -J r f w- 'f' ;. > <•*' ’•-'.*'•■■ ?. v;v'”->- r^'! *^y *'Ci^' VAILLA i^T /S£SJ0£/J^£ eV7 roKjICAUA 8oAC3 cJ«2o/s/o Ajf^ ^errx> HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET trrSACKZONE: (CIRCLIONE)Tf-lfO*100.1000* PlflOTlin MAKPCOVBt m ZOMg A Mouto _____________ B. 0«ng« C. Drivtvvty D. tUmlk E Palioa)tck F. Undocopo ByHMOe O. OOwr C««^c TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B g.2.$0 KlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER N ZONE A Moum - B. Owogt C. Drivowty 0. Sidtwalk E Patkyotck F. Landtcapt Undtrtaln ByPluOc .8.F. .S.F. .SJ. .SP. .S.F. .8F. 8.F. ,8.F. 8.F. .8P. .SF. .SF. .8#. *n*T H 1.^0 __S F. A ^SF- ® % .8.F. ,8i*. SF. SF. BE 8.F. 8F. 8F. 8F. 8F. 8F. 8.F. O. Ottwr TOTM. KAKOCOVER IN ZONE xioo ^ 25o *• J v; //iJ *> .S.F. A .S.F. B o Bonestroo Rotene AfKlerlik& Associates gnginttri S ArcMtt<ts I OpMm—1» Febniaiy2S. 2004 Ms. Melanie Cuitis Planner CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: M7 Tonkaw;: File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2986 ■ »WWK». Awa«n> M*. M an amn ana Onwaa rtmdaala Glia O lanaMrae H • tttnxn L Un>au Af • Cannl Cooa. »t • toMfi 0 n • Mfff A tai^aan N • Mark A Mar*ian n SaMar Can«Mliania: aMan w lokana H • JaM»n C Antfarta. af • a>crta>« I l^«ar. H • Wtan M laarvi C »a Aitactait PrmcMaia (aaA A Ooraon kf • aaoa>i > a%*r^ at • aan«>« ar 'oiiar at • d#«m O Lowaia At • ka«natr r ■autatann *!•%«• a«<a af • aannain a Anar’ian at • kka>* a aaA. af . a Aarwtiraa k« ■ a a wnaaiMn at. LS • A^nai M a«>f Mt A . Aa«. a<« S<nn«ai *1 • Tt^amai M atia>ien at • >«»att Waiana at • aaiaiA Jr*tan a| . ^ an.no&a«arai ai . Oona* J fatt>ia» At • HaMar ikana^t At • rmraaa A l.t.* at . taa<oan. Mr«non . Oaw a Qro»a af . Tnonwt A Bosnaar at • tMMt a OMra OffKta l< aaM M da.* BacntM*' an* oratnar mt. or. cn<««* A MMiar •wnMnaKfMrwn epHiBir ^ Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the plans and spccificaiions for ilie proposed shoreline improvements at 847 Tonkawa. The proposed improvemems include replacing some deteriorating steps to the lake and the removal and replacement of a timber retaining wall. The wooden steps will be replaced with granite steps and boulders will replace the existing timber retaining wall. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The ptoposed walls will not exceed 3-fect in height and will be screened with vegetation. The wall construction is acceptable from an engineering standpoint provided the installation is in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. • Heavy duty silt fence with steel t posts must be installed along the shoreline inunediatefy to protect the exposed slope. Tlic silt fence should be maintained throughout the conatniction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. If >Tit: haw .v.y questions pi-ase cpII me a» (651) 604-4R63 Yours very truly, BONESTRCX), ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. mC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Oiono 233S West Highway 30 • Si. Paul. aSN SSttI • 431*634*4600 • Pan: 431*434*1311 TT ^ ^:!—.TA--Triv’'/*5 , t • rp~ wr. 1 en:jv •*i‘»*** #‘ 1-- •%a _ ■>'•" k ''J % ’ ^--yf .1 ' ■ ‘'J6 ms-_sr - ^ . f • IV.ipf'IP IUNOA1t;Uira04 mOE:! n •)ll7I)>40ilO KVAOCm 7M TONKAWARO «M«NAMe TRATIMAUOAN UBMM toooratcresaihauoan 7H TONKAWARO UWOLAKEMN J5M4 M MIITllMOOU mOTAllOR MS fAR-reNWOOOLA OWNER NAME OUKHASMGUL TAKRAYER SMAKMASIMOUL MSRARTENWOOOLA lONOlAXfiMN SS3M 31 0MI7733400I3 fROr ADOR 175 fARTtNWOOOlA OWMERNAME Jf A F. K BFCHOOL TAXPAYER JOHN P A CUZADCTIIR OGCIiOOL NAMf/AOOR MSPARTEKWOOOLA lONGtAKEMN 553SE Jt MIITIJlIflaOl ROPAINM »l TONKAWARO IWNBINAME ORfOMUCAIPOMUe VUCPAViR OAVSRrOMUe lAME/AOOR EOITONKAWARO tONOLAKEMN S3S36 M MIITUllom PROPAOOR US TONKAWARO OWNER NAME JE MOORE A LR MOORE TAXTAYBI JOHN B A tOURDESB MOORE NAMEJAOOR Mil EREMONTAVBS MPtSMN S5Mi M MII7232IOOOI rtOPAOOR M7 TONKAWARO OWNERNAME DVARXANTAS VARIANT TAXPAYER OENNaVAttJANT NAMP/AOOR M7 TONKAWARO UWOLAKEMN SS35«1 )H «l 1723210010 WOPAOCM MS PARTENWOOORU iwnername marvjanesafar rAXPAVER MARY JANE 5APAR 4AMWAOOR tUPARTENWOOORO LONOLAKEMN SSSSO 30 00II7232I00II Jl OIII7232IOOIO PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO PROPAOOR ITS TONKAWA RO OWNERNAME MARY JANE SAPAR 0\^NER NAME A P RICHIE A M A RKTWE TAXPAYER MARVJANESAFAR TAXPAVFA AP RICKIE AM ARJCHIE NAME/AOOR tISPARTENWOOORO NAME/AOOR OSOHICHCROFTRO U)NOtAK£MN SS3S0 WAYZATAMN SS3TI M 0111723210010 NIOPAOOR its TONKAWARO 7WNERNAME APRJCNCAM ARJCMS TA3(PAYER A P RJCNM A M A RICIRB MftHFftpn* OSOHOHCROPTRO WAYZATAMN SSStI M WII72J2I0020 PROPAOOR OIS TONKAWARO OWMERNAME APRCNK AM ARKWK TAXPAYER APRJCNCAMARX^IK NAME/AOOR OSO MKJHCROET RO WAYZATAMN 5S3M I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACOAATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IhfORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TIC RECORDS OFTME »«fJNEP1N COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES rePARTMBfT. TOTI^BECT OFMY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF. nATE /-Jt'OY BY -J \J/ —— ^ .. if.____I ................J DMtApplicatiMRMdvt^: T.II-03 Df Appllmi— CtMidtrid at Cwplctt; 7-1M3 M>D«)r Ktvtew Pvrtod ExtmiM lUcdvtd 1-21-041«: 4-l«04 Frown Dlte: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GaHron, Planning Director March U. 2004 #03-2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road - Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, I/2-acre min. Lot Area: 0.16 acre (6,913 s.f.) ApfUeatIwm 5aunaMfy; This item was tabled at your August 18,2003 meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to re-think his attached garage & second story addition project He has provided two pota^ revised site plans for youro oo iidcratioa Hispnman<intentatthistiroeisloreroovetheexistingdetexKrateddetacbedgarage and replace it with a lar^ detached gnge; also to coostiuct a smaU deck on the lake side of the home. The second story is not proposed with this application. Variances required include 0-7S' and 75-230' hardcover, street setback, lake setback, and side setbacks. The magnitude and hardcover zone balance diffen between the two options. Foreither option, lot coverage is proposed at 1490 s.f., just under the 1300 s.f. limit for this small lot. St^ffMteommenimtion: Staff recommends; a) Approval of the setback variances for the detached garage in either of Plans A or B as presented. b) Approv^oniardMvervahanceforettherPlanAorB,butnotforthe 10*x 10 deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-hardcover materials for walkways. UstofExhiblU A - Proposed Plan A (applicants preferred) B • Proposed Plan B C - Updated Hardcover Calcs for Plans A & B D - Proposed Garage Plans & Elevations E - Notice of PC Action 8-26-03 F - PC Minutes 8-18-03 G - Memo & Exhibits of 8-11-03 PertineBt Code Scctioas 1. 78-330: Area, height, lot width and yard requirements for the LR-1C District: The following minimum requirements shall be observed: side Yard Let Let Freat Side Rear Adjaceei le Am Width iBcd Xaol Xifd strMt 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 13 feet Garage fKing street: 30 street lot line setback. Side opening garage: 1 O’sediack to street lotliiie. 78-282 & 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shorelind District 0-7S' zone: 0% aUowcd 7S-2S0' zone: 25% allowed 2ni-lf72 8lMtfywMd Marcklt.2M4 PifiS Indbcape beds around the itndence (see site plan). A condition ofapproval would be a stipuUticm that Uieae remain as non-hardsurllKe areas, not paved and without fabric or plastic underlayment DfifiL Applied requests approval for a 1 O'X10* main floor deck extending horn the existing door at the lake side of the house. The deck will be 42* fiom the shoreline, aitd in itself will constitute approximately 2Hhanlcover in the 0-72'zone. This deck is clearly for the convenience ofthe applicant, and stoff does not see a hardship that supports it REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IC Let Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f.(0.S acre)100' Actual 6,915 s.r (0.16 acre)50* defined width 48' average functional width Snr—e SesA«gk«; LR-IC Required Proposed Plan A Proposed Plan B 75*106'103* Lakeshore (North)75'ST 57 Rear (Street)A: 10* B: 30'T 9.8' Left Side 10'5'5* Right Side 10*23'23' Stmef ml Cover—e! Total Lot Area Total Stmctaral Coverage 6,915 s.f. vO.ldac.)Allowed: 1500 s.f. Proposed: 1490 s.f. (21.5%) Hardcover Zone Total Areata Zone Allowed Hardcover ExIstUg Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Plan A PlaaB 0-75*5165 s f II1630 s.r. (31.6%) 1375 s.f. (26.6%) 1616 s.f (31.3%) 75-250'1750 s.f.438 s.r. (25%) 1216 s.f. (69.5%) 1003 s.f (57.3%) 669 s.f (38.2%) Totals 6915 s.f.438 S.C 2846 sf.2378 S.C 2285 s.f. M9-Z9U • lf72 SkaiywMd Mar«lill,2M4 raft4 Hardihip Stalcmcat Applicant has provided abriefluadship statement in Exhibit A of the August 11,2003 memo, and dwuld be asked for his additional testimony regarding the revisions to the application. Hardship Analysis (Se« information in the 8-11^03 Packet) Issnes for Considcratioa 1. Is the location of the new garage mostly in the 0-75* zone of&et by the retention of open space along the south lot line? 2. PlanAmeet8dieipplicantsgoalsofpn)vidixigadequateon*siiepaiking.PIanBmorecloselymeets theCity's hardcover goals but paring fiinctionality is decreased. Which of the two plans will Planning Commission nq)poit regarding the garage? 3. hdiouldbenotedthattheplanreviewedlastsummerresultedinonly 1952 s.f. total hardcover, 300-400 s.f. less than the current proposals. The difference is in the request for 100 s.f. of deck, and the additional sidewalks associated with the detached garage scenarios... 4. Is there anyhardship demonstrated that supports the hardcover and setback variances to allow the proposed deck? 5. The proposed non-hardcover walkways and landscape areas need special consideration in terms of documenting their non-hardcover status for the future... 6. Does Planning Conunission have any other issues or concerns with this iq)plication? Stair RccommcndatloB Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore, relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, staff recommeiuls as follows: a) ApprovalofthesetbackvariancesfbrthedetachedgarageineiiherofPlansAorB as presented. The nature ofthe County Road right of way at this location reduces the concerns about a garage that backs out into the street. b) Approval ofhardcover variance for cither Plan A or B. but not for the l^x 10* deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non-hardcover matgrialf for walkways. -x3 ^ r;O 8S CO ^Oi;«?e- I ^ ^|6MACL. HARDCOVER^LCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500* EXISTING HARPrOVER IN ZONE A H oum _____ X B Width B. Ovage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Palio/D;cK F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other s.s TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ X xlOO Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc cT lO 17 ^.1“ 0 Other total HARDCOVER INZONE total property area IN ZONE A * B 500-1000* 003 5IZS~ *S<-96 8d3 10^ J37r SF. SF. S.F. SF-'inSS* SF.-VMtoO »Tf«. SfOKC SF .SF. .S.F .ST 5tfP$ o>* ttoT 5 p , sot Of HOvVe S.F. ;sF % .sf-%Se ^ SF S.F .S.F. MOfWfO .SF-6AMSC S.F .SF ExiS^Hfir STti: .SF- At .SF. SF-W0flO5f0 UCk .SF-P««». sre^ S.F. ’S.F. S.F - >6aAMnT .SF- goRCrfiZ xlOO 26.6Z. S.F. SF H //IlCMAEl. AllSCNKt - PlJttJA HARDCOVER CALCULATl SETBACK ZOrrE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTINC HARPCOVER IN ZON^ A Houm ______________ B. Ova|c C. Drivway D. Sidewalk E. PtfioMc F. Lendacepc Undertein ByPluUe Of Febne 0.75’ •noN V g^s-Vsoj) WORKSHEET 250-S00' 0. Other 7S Un|Ui TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * B PROPOSED Hardcover in zone * A Kouie_____________ X B. Oirege C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck xlOO WiAh F. Undieepc Undcrltia By PI&Mie Or Fabric 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • B 500.1000* 207 SF»M0U>£ 886 207 £i£L IOC 3 XlOO SF SF. SF SF-6«AftfL SF SF- SF SF. >F. SF. SF. SF VT a «P SF. SF. H ' ^ ftoo A B ,SF- SF SF- SF. EjriSTtHA CXt^TiHd; ST09 A h O AA Pa A SF-fflowio 6A9AAI SF SF SF SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. .SF- SF. ,SF. H 4>"MA nii T Bo«0E« •A B Alicmsi. A1i$cHfcfr - HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 81TBACK ZONE: (CmCLE ONE) OTO 75-250* 250-500* EXISTINC HAttnrhVER IN ZONE A. House X ■ B. 0«r«|e C. Drivevrsy D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House ______________ X B Garage C. Dhveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F. LWscap/ UnMm By HMic (^t^c 0 Other Wwih xlOO WiAk I o TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B I ? 04^ Ol SOO-IOOO* flg3 SF -MOUVC if ^40 loa SF !sf SF S F *AAan^C SF S F -zM- t*e«f S F. - waoo 5»€PS Mum*. smoaC SF S.F S p.fKJd SF SF ■mOH . a<0t lOviC. SF SF, H sn__sF-^igrt* S.F. SF ;s.F. .SF- SF. .SF SF-'ltig?'^ ,SF- P:Jdf. STcVJ .SF ll-nsaffs EztHT.xc, Vk% .SF-^T XlOO SF SF H AIiomel AIiscmkc- j HARDCOVER CALCULAXiQriVVORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE CNE) 0.75* ^5-250^ 250-500* EXiariNC HARPCQVER IN ZONE A H oum X * 3 1.04 ftMi, 500-1000' 201 W.4ih B. Ovi|c C Ohs-eway D. Sidtwitk E Patio/Deck F. Landicapt Undtriain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other IS ^.*T SF SF SF SF SF. - - r I S-rgofi SF SF SF S.F. SF. tO^*C. A/c ,SF.- piAO b'f A, 2 □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ 18 M L. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ 1«H L D-a <- CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdky Parkway P.O. Bra 06 Crystal Bay, MN 5S323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2928 NOTICE OF PLANNING CO MMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 26. 2003 TO: Michael R. Mischke 1972 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN SS391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances COPIES: DATE OF MEETING: August 18. 2003 Plawifaig CnaiiaisslBB recoauneadcd as foUaws: Motioa to tabic, to allow applicant to submit revised plans, with the following guidelines: 1. Have the foundation inspected to confirm that it will support a second story addition. 2. Maintain setback of 10* to north lot line with second story addition. 3. Try to maintain 10* setback from south lot line from garage; issue of keeping garage outside of 75' setback is apparently not as critical as earlier assumed... 4. Propose minimal hardsurface walkways in appropriate locations so that they can be approved now with appropriate conditions and limitations. VOTE: 5 FOM 0 AGAINST Applicant's next icheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plaulng Commission • Monday, September IS, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Please submit revised plans at least 10 days prior to the September meeting to allow adequate time for review. if you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. 60-Day Review Period Exteaskw. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extendi by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on July 18. 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on Septemb:; 16, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the September 15 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to November 15, 2003. minutes OF THE ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#S «03-2^HEIDI B. NAGEL, ContiDUcd) entryway at the^k^ door. The variances include: 1. Avenge sctbak encroachment by decks and screen porch. 2. While h^ve^noi increasing with this proposal, it is noted that the '75-25Cr zone remains out of complianb^th the 1995 hardcover approvals for this;)rope)crty. Applicant proposes to remo^ and an unused walkway/apron areas of existing concrete « ^ behind the garage, vcen the front porch an^^e driveway. Gafi^n relwrted ^ stj^s recombination would ))erto approve the enclosure of the SCTO porch per the revised plan ove^a portion existing 1 “ story deck, approve the hudeover be renoved to reduce the iiIe;<t^.9IO s.f. limit of the 1995 epprovd. ^ ““Wrivewey remb)^ could tike place before .fleeting Gid^ii beUevrt that jlrivewy removal would bdtoconsequenlial. noting that the removals should haveb^en done by the previous owner. ^ to table the appUcation once agauMo allow her to meet with the archite^pdSo has brought up some additional issues with the^^fline. There ^efe no public comments. "”''•*** ***•“ leconded, to table AppUcation #03-2905, Heidi NasH. 995 Udhurst Trail, at the request of the appUcant for the purpose of redcsi Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS VOTE: tS i P.M ** ^nSCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, Michael Mischke, the Applicant, was present ^ the appUcant requests a number of variances to constnict an c second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include: 3 encroaching within 0-75' setback zone. 46‘ from shoreline. 3. Second story addihon encrcachmg 2.9 feet from left side lot Une 4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line 5. Two story garage stniciure encroaching 12.5 feet from street lot line PAGE 10 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Cootinncd) 6. Hardcover in 0-75* reductions proposed fiom 1630 s.f.(31.6%) to 1000 sf (19.4%) where no hardcover is allowed, by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas. 7. Ha.'dcover in 75-250’ rone will be reduced from 1216 sf (69 5%) to 952 sf (54.4%). Additional factors: - Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f. allowed). - Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5' away from this residence (separation between fireplace chases is l.T^. Ga^n explained that the property is the second lot south of Coffee Channel, and is subject to 75' sett>acks from two sides. He noted that the applicant proposes to remove the existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely within the side 0-75' zone, and add a new 2-stall attached garage, plus add a second story ova the existing house and new garage. Gaffron pointed out that the property is very small, and impacted not only by its proxiimty to the lake, but by the proximity of neighboring structures. The house to the north is only l’-2’ from the side lot line, a^ the existing separation between the applicant's house and the neighboring house is 4'-5' (their chimneys are only 1.7' apart). Gaffron pointed out that the structural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f to exactly 1500 s.f as allowed by code. The result is that 22% of the lot w ill be covered by structure. In addition, hardcova on the property in both 0-75' and 75-250' zones is proposed to be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The detached garage moves out of the 0-75' zone, but is replaced with a largw garage in the 75-250* zone. This results in less open parking area on the property, but still yields a parking area on the lot with depth fr?m 12* to 21', allowing for one larga vehicle and one tubconq>act car in the driveway. Gaffron pointed out that the main entr>' to the residence would be the door on the lake side, with a secondary access through the garage. Applicant proposes to add non-hardcover walkways and non-lined landscape beds around the residence. He added that the garage addition is the smallest functional footprint (20’x2(y) and is located so as to be out of the 0- 75' zone, which places it 6.9’ from the south lot line. This also forces the garage to be ntf.-er the street than the required 30’ setback, but as a trade-off it minimizes hardcover. The street right-of-way at this location is a widening of County Road 19 due to the bridge, and the street area in front of the lot acu as a shared driveway. Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore, relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, Gaffron stated that staff recommends the following: a) Approval of the right side and street setback variances for the garpqe addition. PAGE 11 of 30 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIOK MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o*clockpjn. (#9 #03>2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Contin^ ----------------------------- b) Conditional approval of the left tide setback and lakeshore setback for the second story house additions - the second story should be setback 8-9' from the lot line to maintain a 10* separation between the two homes (i.e. only a 1 -2* gnfmfrhmrnt of side yard); however, requiring a fiUl 10* side setback would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... • applicant to confirm the strucniral ability of the existing foundation to support a second story, and address the degree of remo\’aLi intended to allow a determiiution that this will not become a total rebuild. c) Approval of hardcover proposal, with ^ropriaie conditions placed on use of non hardcover materials fior walkways. Giv« the difficult parking situation along Shadywood. Chair Smith inquired whether the parking desipi of the application might accentuate the problem. Gaffron reitertted that the property falls near the widened portion of County Road 19 near **^^bl"**^*' ** * driveway and would not cause to accentuate any parking Chair Smith asked what ftiture ‘maintenance and openness issues’ might arise. If the home ww situated just 2’ from the lot line. Gaffion indicated that it would be difficult to^mamtain the hom^or even erect a ladder that would not sit on neighbor’s property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside of the home for repairs as well. Rahn stat^ that, personally, he would like to sec a 10’ side setback * longer driveway. He believed it would be more acceptable to allow an encroachment into the 0-75 ’ setback a little bit in exchange for a 10’ side setback. In addition, he suggested the garage be sUd back into the home and that the second story be stepoed back on the other side so no ftuther massing of the encroachment occurs. Mischke sUted that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage. Hawn asked whether the foundation had been evaluated to see if it could support a second story. She asked why the ippUcant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. Misc^e stated that he had plaia to have the foundation examined; howev er, felt he could not afford to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick facade currently in place. PAGE 12 of 30 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9 #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, ContiBned)---------------------------------------- pointed out that the applicant would be gaining only half the second story size he desired if it were stepped back and slid into the garage. Mischke indicated that he would need to determine how the 10’ requirement the Planning Commission was recommending would impact the design of the home. Chair Smith suggested the Commission toble the appUcation for redesign purposes. Mischke asked if the Commission could approve a portion of the design in order to allow him to proceed with the garage addition. Ga^n felt this would be difficult given the proposed second story above the garage, since the Planning Commission had not yet determined their comfort level uith the entire property. Mischke asked for Anther direction. Chair Smith stated that she would be comfortable with the staff recommendation. fa addition. Rahn asked the applicant to include a 1 O’ setback from the garage and no further encroachment on the other side. Hawn recommended that the applicant have the foundation evaluated to ensure it could support a second story before proceeding. Km Hutton. 1835 Shadywood Roa4 fell that, aesthetically, the design would be a nice change. Mijchke .wed that he alio had 1 signed letter ofnippoit font the neighbor on the Hawa move^ Raha lenaded, to tabk Appllcadoa »03-292«, Mfchael Mkchke. 1972 Shadywood Road, for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mischke asked if other Commissioners, as well as Raha, were opposed to leavine the garage where proposed. ® Hawn and Chair Smith indicated that they were not against it While he empathized with the applicant Rahn staled that he was against it from the sli^int that there shouU be access to the lakeside hom at least one side of the home for mamtenance, as well as, safety reasons. PAGE 13 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#9 903-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, CooliBned) Chitf Smith stated that she could support encroaching ftmher into the driveway area to obtain a greater side yard setback. Hawn stated that she was opposed to a rock walkway to the front door, since as Fritzler has pointed out on many occasions, the walkway is often resurfaced after the first year. Mischke asked what the Commission would suggest instead of rock. Gaffion suggested the applicant reconsider where the main entry should be placed. Hai^ indicated that she would be receptive to or prefer allowing a wooden slat walkway, in lieu of the rocks, as a better way to access the front door. Fritzler indica ted that he agreed with Rahn's earlier reservations. (9lb)«^930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OFAtlCHARD AND DELOREStETTLE, 2775 SHADrWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7<24 - 7:38 P.M. JeCr Ripley, AppHbMt’s representative, and the Applicant, Mr. Ut(le, were present. Foth indicated that the aj>|^cant requests a hardcover varia^ in order to construct a 22’x 25’ garage over existing drSqway hardcover. The variamt^cludes: 1. Hardcover variances f^e 0-75 ’ and 75’-25oj^nes. Hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone is currently at 60.5WH0.753 s.f.) andj^e 0-75* zone is at 4.91% (378 s.f.). The nature of the hardcover iPq^ging zones resulting in a full hardcover review. ^ ^ Foth explained that, in 1986, under previ^ o^umhip, variances were granted for construction of a 2"* story deck and stay^ay corn^ing 0.16% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone where no hardcover is allowed wH 37.6% harder within the 75’-250’ zone whae 25% is normally allowed. A 3’ s^niral encroachmenlWo the 0-75* zone where no structure is allowed was also apptbved. The total hardcovSamounts approved were 0.16% in the 0-75 ’ zone and ^6% in the 75’-250’ zone. In 1995 imder the prcvioi/bwners, variances were granted to pennjbMnstiuction of a two- story addition constitufiiig additional hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone irf^cess of the 25% normally allowed. condition of this hardcover variance approval inite 0-75' zone was limited to 0.2^^d the 75’-250’ zone was limited to 5,777 s.f. (31.7%J\^though the additional sharc^veway within the 75’-250’ zone was not figured mto the iSdcover within that zmC Foth suted that for suff purposes it was now included. Thercfbi^per RcsoluUon^6lO (5,777 s.f. ^ 1,518 s.f. for additional driveway) 7,295 s.t loUl PAGE 14 of 30 Datt AppIlcatfM Rtcdvtd: 7-11^3 Datt AppUciMoa Coatidtrtd as Cempklt: 7*11-03 M-Day Review rirtod EipIrM: 9-16-03 •i-zi-oW From: Date: Sabject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director August 11,2003 #03-2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoalag District: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min. Lot Area: 0.16 acre (6,915 s.f.) Apptiauisn Smmmary: Applicant requests a number of variances to construct an attached garage and second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75* setback zone, 46* fhmi shoreline. 3. Second story addition encroaching 2.9 feet from left side lot line. 4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line. 5. Two story garage structure encroaching 1 2.5 feet from street lot line. 6. Hardcover in 0-75’ reductions proposed from 1630 s.f.(31.6%) to 1000 sf (19.4%) where no hardcover is allowed, by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250* zone will be reduced from 1216 sf(69.5%) to 952 sf (54.4%). Additional factors: - Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s.f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f allowed). - Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5* away from this residence (separation between fireplace chases is 1 .7*). Staff R€C9MmemSaii»m: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side and street setback variances for the garage addition (see discussion). b) Conditional approval of the side setback and lakeshore setback for the second story additions - to be somewhat consistent with recent approvals of similar simaiioos, should at least be offset to maintain 10’ separation from neigh^ring residence structure (i.e. only a 1 -2’ encroachment of side yard); however, denial would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain at least a bit of visual openness, but also to avoid fimire maintenance issues... c) Approval of hardcover proposal. ListofExhIblU A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Photos G - Property Owners List H • Plat map •2921-1972 Skadyweod AagMt 11,219) Pif«2 BackgrMid This property is the second lot south ofCoffee Channel, so is subject to 75* setbacks from two sides. Applicant proposes to remove the existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely within the side 0-75' zone, and add a new 2-stall attached garage, plus add a second story over the existing house and new garage. The property is very small, and is impacted not only by its proximity to the lake, but by the proximity of neighboring structures. The bouse to the north is only l'-2' from the side lot line, and the existing separation between ^rplicants house and the neighboring house is 4'-5* (their chimneys are only 1 .T apart). The house to the south meets required setbacks, but its detached garage is only 4' from the lot line; applicant’s attached garage addition will be 11' from that garage. SttUCtUfllCQVCTftgg- Struchiral coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly 1 SOO s.f. as allowed by code. The result is that 22% of the lot will be covered by stmeture. HinlMYCT- Hardcover on the property in both 0-75' and 75-25(7 zones is proposed to be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The detached garage moves out of the 0-75' zone, but is replaced with a larger garage in the 75-250* zone. This results in less open parking area on the property, but still yields a parking area on the lot with depth from 12* to 21', allowing for one larger vehicle and one subcompact car in the driveway. The main entry to the residence will be the door on the lake side, with a seconds. / access through the garage. Applicant proposes to add non-hardcover walkways and non-lined landscape beds aroimd the residence (see site plan). The rock border shown should be changed to a non-hardcover edging to minimize hardcover. The garage addition is the smallest ftinclional footprint (2(7x2(y) and is located so as to be out of the 0-75* zone, which places it 6.9* from the .«outh lot line. This also forces the garage to be nearer the street than the required 3(7 setback, but as a trade-off it minimizes hardcover. The street ri^t-of-way at this location is a widening of County Road 19 due to the bridge, and the street area in front of the lot acts as a shared driveway. The second story additions to the bouse and garage do not stricUy meet the proposed definition of a “half story**, although the side walls of the second story will not be full height. The existing bay window on the lake side first level does not extend to the ground and has not been considered in the lot coverage calculation. «2»2|.1972Slud]rwood A u |u M 11,2(M3 Pat*3 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot ArgM/Widifci LR.1C Lot Area Lot Widlb Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100 ’ Actual 6,915 s.f. (0.16 acre)50* defined width 48' average functional width S€ih«!ki! LR-IC Rcqaircd Existing Proposed Lakeshorc ^East)75’46'46' Lakeshore (North)75’59-59' Rear (Street)30*36' (house)12.5’(att. gar.) Left Side lO*2.9' 1.7'(chimney) 29' 1.7 (chimney) Right Side 10 ’19.9' (house)6.9’ (att. gar.) Average Lakeshore (No Eacroichmcot Allowed)No encroachment No encroachment StroctTol Cowraye i Total Lot Area ToUl Structural Coverage 6,915 s.f (0.16 ac.)Allowed: 1500 s.f Proposed: 1500 s.f (22%) Hardcover Colgulotiooi! Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*5165 s.f Os.f (0%) 1630 s.f (31.6%) 1000 s.f (19.4%) 75-250 ’1750 s.f 438 s.f (25 %) 1216 s.f (69.5%) 952 s.f (54.4%) 1. 2. j/ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AlLoLtht follOWiPt Information muit be ■ubmitted hv thg inplicaHon deadline daft in ttrAmr for vour ■DDilcaHon to b« cnn«^^y|y| complete! viwn Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Ownen List of owners within 150*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603 Govt Center, 348-5910). tovi. ' Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x IT for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade w proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy W x IT for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8^* x 11"). Ust of the lepl names Ooclude marital status) of aU persons with an interest iii the property. This would include naroe(s) of applicants) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this appUcation, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Appliunt and Fnpaty Owner must sign this appUcadon. Please remember that veur VbllMCt MPlIcatlOa ll QOt complele If Ihe ^huy, laformnH.. ... K.,, l.,i.,w.4 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^e applicant hereby agrees to provide an infoimatioa required or requested by the Zoning P<V tdditioiU|l fees (staff time not covered by original fee parent) aruvi cons^umt expense incurred m review of this application, and certifies that thr^oimation supplied is true and concct to the best of his/her knowledge. AppUcanVs SisnMtuxtyyCiJ^ Date __________ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicadon and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission mernben, and Council members for purposes of mvesUgation and verification of ihi^ request. 5. 6. 7. 8. DateOwner’s Signature'^u,x^«J?y Council. If an ^licant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to cto^prio^AeTeJinT ^ ““ ^ O O Q J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MICHAEL MISCHKE OF LOT 37, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 C-l 02M eONTM UC LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 0 : dtnetai Iron mrkor Boeringi ahown era baaad upon an oaivrrcd dotim. Thia Bur.«y inltnda to aho« the boundoriaa of tha obova daicribcd proporty, th# location of on aaiating heuaa ond goroga. onp tno location of oil viaibla ’’bordcouar" tharoon. it dots not purport to aho« ony otnar ifrprovvnanta or ancreochmanta. NOTE : Boundorioa thown ora from allotino rntnuranto found end 0 survay by Sehoall k Modaon dotad 2-16-02, ond moy not ograa with linaa oa oHo*n on tha plot of Shodyoood oa treoaurad from tha taction iina by tha North and of tha plot. >cirr» vtny fur ria vcororo^ ei___ •u •vMca ar « ei moci irr omei tmt I <M « ouLT uctMie •aortuowi kku mc um> am>m aara m uia a ta n*ti a anKK ucum wAou. firs. 04-01-03 03-104 jffp.CiTss Minnesota as«s4 '<5«36 Listing H ouse ^Sp% / // ./ garage S ®*^5sa »«a ^ /(^O ec «tl40VBD)i \Cl ^^ISTING *26.89 qS^2?° '? faoposffl ' feas? ...______________ S7 1 House >^'. -w* / X. —' 75* ,^b.ck- ^ ®®"5j'oo"'^^ fS«r :) CD ^x/sr/^JG N > X gA/Sr/NG house I7i( CON «8l| 9fc)0(, OQP*? 20t CR ■^^S^LOESCR|Pt,ow LoTlT^iTl ---2L£g£MlSEs . u L|J HOUSE . S 85*54* 45" E \ \ \ r (7 1 I /^»cMA£L- A1i$cf+i<e of= L ot 3/ <•- C3 ^ 7-/9 -03 bHA&fv/CtoD HARDCOVEWJlAl.CbLATlOiN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: vCIRCLE ONE) 75-25U* 250-300* 500-1000* j ____________ - 0^^ SF-fWSg EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONI A. Houfc ______________ Ur|--»WiAh B. C«rigc C. Drivewiy O. Sidewilk E Palio/Deck F. UDder'.tin By Plutie Or Fabric O. Other 10.A S' 4..9‘ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ir 1630 SF SF SF .SF STOHf- irePi ,SF - AT ’ S F - wtt>o rr£PS «OnfrS^<?f SF .SF SF -ROCiZ A/?£4 SF !sf SrePi OM SF-WuT** S«Ot of^ SF A TOTAL PROPERTY A'tEA IN lONE si4*r SF a A • B X 100 -3l.^<S PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 099 SF-Or<STirv<^ .. Lt»$ut X SF X -SF X a SF > >, • ■ * •* •B. Gtriee X SF C. Driveway X m .U s F -pnoiisrx)_. » .• X m SF • : ♦*• *• .‘X . D. Sidewalk J ■7-f X a S F E. Pai.VDeck X SF X ■SF V ^F. Landseace X S.F. Underlain X ■SF m By PloMic X ■SF*Or Fabnc 0. Other ____X UD STAT . ...... . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ./ooo SH4>RL- S.F A t. .TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .SF B A • 3 xlOO -I9.3<f % H if[•OQ]So •• / f h f SETBACK ZONX: vCmCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ AA»CMA£U A^*SCW|<£ C-C-C3,7~f9’03 HARDCOVEHXAJ.CbLATlO.N WORKSHEET 75.2 5U- 250-S00* OP Lot 37 S^H4DTv/c?oD B. Car*|e C. Dri\ew»y D. Suie%«elk E. Pttio/Deck F. Landsetpe Underltln By Plasue Or Fibnc O. Other 10.^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY A'tEA IN lONs A ______________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X LtufUi B. Garige C. Drivewiy D. Sidewalk E. Pit VDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * 3 «T.3 X too xlOO - »293! 500-1000- 00i_SF-B^A/5g 16*50 51A5* 899 SF SF .SF .SF .sF-£f;2}/^ .SF 5ton5 SreP5 , SF - AT SF -wrtomps SF !sf SF - Rood A/?£4 SF .SF ;r£PS OH SF-WuT** S»D£. SF A SF B S ,S F -CX'VTinfc SF SF 'SF .SF-P«>A35fx> .SF s f JTaof /OOO 19, SF ,SF SF SF !sf .sr-V,‘’£“4 S«4>RL- S.F A SF B 4 / ^ 7-/f-o3 HARDCOVER CALCUL.A‘HON WORKSHEET SETBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* ^5^35^ 250.500* 500-1000* —* 201____SF-w«y5E OP Ut 37 Smor'\Nd»D EXISTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hou»t ______________ w.«/. B- Ca;i|c C. Dnvewty O. Sidc%»tlk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Pluuc Or Fabric 0. Ocher IS 2.5* TOTAL HARDCOVER >.* '’ONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN LoNE A ______________ • U PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Ho«$e ______________ X \1\6 \n*^o xlOO 0*^.4-? SF SF .SF .SF r ”ftP>ivCL. .SF W/dcX f .SF-^raop’ .s F SF .SF SF SF !sf £/>r*C. .SF - (vtO SF A SF B L««c>X B. Oarage C. Drcvewiy i\0O .SF.-B/iSTia/«r .SI; .sF*wpi>5(ro SF ■m : *• .•'* • •% ,-yrf >., J-r •• » - ; ' *;4^ ■ V ws in- m-;. >•-,■- »4 -.V M-'- ^ * i,-i;4 r'.- A./ • .«< T .>*^.‘ ' y. © i-i. * B . ,f > -'- f S 4 • « V C'« •' - .f ■: V. > •V.’jf*-^- * • I •.►I ,. **■•' t *• Vm ** \s. •■* • • *«>•■.• ' • •'• • -’ ■'■•■> •'.* . .' ' U .-.,^1- >* 4^* *. > * p s*. •. • ^ .•5- Kt Wr l.i ’t « ft ' t A fO ^ k^7' .'f. *♦ • • - / ’«. f V fe# r'^ r i Ciii •'«'■ <'•'' •. ' ' V - 'tv * ■ »'. ‘ \ i, ". X* .* “ '■ .^-V ?• *«''aT t»»; s -i^,— - m -»»/' »l-i .%r ■'4^W ■:: ..'4;|r-^ ■ • ■ - • ■ *. .- ■ •* ' *•'* *# • ^ / •V • '.'" ..T,,. ^'m: ' V‘\ ii**' .*. /• V < S"'i <B :...,;(-iSSte h • .-,*v r-;« . .. ■ ’ ‘‘'■,'-v*‘<‘^:? . ■ ‘ h*;> •. . 'S*}rr.C'‘P ™is*w © ii**- • ■" .’ e*‘k -.< . .iH- I > »' \ ' K • ■ • i ■::.,.«^*W^-;:-v: , .%2S;rrjaiw»rHr?wT:v>-j' V “ »•*.' ^ww V* • '.‘•_ ; ; t M ^ ^■^•'" VuiT^*wijr K • •A i •'.•r'f-» ^-.*.^,-nmr4 >T Hi •l \- - ■ u... JSU ‘iii^rr r-TT^*. r •* • **i i.«4t S .I'VrfJ > •*'■• f ;.•« W.-. • , _ •!« a .1 Sw'-*.V‘;'SS!S ■ ‘ ‘ . ., ^<«wi w«««wv« ju **'<» «^-** ^«<3» M •.. ~ - 4t ^ -V. .M ,4i‘ rk -... . '.-^..f I9|agp««H»••'■ W'" J. mitt\ s. .‘ . ' '-rmm'ih^T^ r’.VTfi■ <r •»-5jf'* m«v war *j ***- 'it?/.* <' :.?•! .*4. *f #♦.•11 «*>?!:■ ,'J ^>Hf< ? vm r . irOM*" 4,t. •wcjMMOI ••> „ . . * . -• • - "* •• "■ ’ aS^^*r£f2iif “‘*'*«»*»«^ <M %m9t' __ ^ ? .•!» i^** T#f»r **3*r HO^t »<••.*• *»!»r* ^r/*^ »»»• «i V»* r'-A» • • ji^'V • •••^ ' •aw«rr’*^ ■ • • 'V... .'••• '-v>.oiir«4 1 • 4 >«» • ••f»..- «. .% ■*■• ♦ ■ . .-. . . -4 > J,.,. >• UtV\. , . / ^VL«f .* - • -• v*>- • •. **»»a • I* r . r-- I**-# - ^v*?; ■ ra^ • * •• S •. . ■• ««- H M •*-'•• •v^'- N »*ir <>.#.*« .•■<9 »i« .,;i^ ^ . *“>•-“• ••—•*•'«•« • •%»—MMf# 1 »J»*«4rV»* . «• 4*.*. J*CH- dSSrL’' ’^^'* •• >■•.**«•■»»' — •till* Vi:-. * •r-Tv 4T-J '• •' T' •'^■ ‘ '• . • *- - ^ - ' «**»■* » r".* .•%.■»••» ■#• .TT** .'» IMn *•••»»♦»»* ‘ ,r ,rsM>»r*'> .•n^„ r.‘ '-•• w»i % ••MOT • n ■ .^»v . i •«« , »r*^ ».* X «- ,Vt ^ V..' ■■’A ♦> MC8 ■rv'.^.i »» • . r•^ :• *.'•*''» $%•(« ”, '-* . 0tHt . «M0 A^*0 isr . -.pr^K .'•■‘jj ■<'«»# W»* » v-c.'»»»• 5^ . ..... •• V. . "A.« .. ' “1\ I r •■-• .. •••"^ -V - •>'. •\ •\ ■ ./ .. fy '* ,»*• r •' <• -, ; f •M, •» .•■ v\"* i V..m ^r* i^.kS- -:' V- ■>«5 m , V ?"• 'v:-■ .seJiaB ___-Sy;^#* •1 I ^ ISiSas^ ’; I y':-n* --•’ V ’‘ •■• . «•.. ■ IV !J _________ ... . ^ . ... '.•/ -j^ '-'^’ •'!^';^^'»‘;-> vVf‘ •• *. -*•■ >■• '«• *C- .. ,■ , «SK -.■ W-. i i. • •r* ''’»• ■ ‘e- . -r» .» •' » , - • ••• < r/. . ,^ ■MM .->■*.• t '^y* ‘. NV** *>r • . ■^•••*" • i • rr:tr:U«^# ~ .. f-*' '•'I' j *• ’ %•' 4'v?'-»r ‘>*•1fsf'^4'-';-•fc.. :•• -.jV *v r i * *%•" • *. -j«*‘ . t ■ * .»* • ^« ^ • pmptK»^t rzsssi ^ 4#ir<«> li »p3>»tw>«> ,V»H- ^ •; -H*.^;v '«!' W“ ,e • . .• • ■: »•• A- ;'VM0f'^ •■•rr'.Jl rf^'^ 'flwrt rjs^'' " .-•••^ /v»f.-V;''- • V-'*- r «. •» ■ -V j£ >'.«au __ gIMft 99^ ^•*** ►t." W sTP^ Hk’^ii;V«^»*' 4liM^':rV T ; <^..r, »■*' •;•* I'vtai .*> 1*»- - '* ‘ .• «!:.:« «•. -5<aw" ' «F«rssSSS:^-^'k r.V .Mh. « .> < - V r r • r*• ►w 1^ ttf-'-tr 1 i .yw ••a * ^ u.\*^ .: -.■ir»- V(<‘• <** S«ir^.l5.*i.- »»!i:v.*.‘ ,^a «•». ’. »i?ii osTe!^.,» .•j^' j 1SSso «•««;/*'- ri >M ..*^,^** v.:tr:rr; •:*•». •M'*^' •* :y'tr.w- _■ »J ♦ ■* *^i| ; • !»!■'; f^:' ..^A- ' :■■• ^ •A?’; f^i3 i'ia*is f.v-'VAi'r «»**^, nV/«;:S'.'».i?; : V'-' ‘ >•* •••' •. ,.ir^' }/V*:\t^j. •-’{■:*aB9esgfs ■•fifiSWfjSKj:^ 14/ P’*' ■ sew*!' -•.4. K V* ' ru-i k >• .'J / .. VN?. >»/ , .'Vi ’7" “ ' ■ 4: A* 4^ Adjacent Property Ownera* Acknowledgement Form I (we) _____________of MCI. 0<. [print name(s)] (print addreZ] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (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 (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. — :rty Owner Date Property Ownw ^ (n- //-fit Date I (we) [prim name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner ' DateDate Property Owner Date 7." 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. *o ' 8 ' / 9 ------- ' ,1 O AppUntlMDMn DMcnibcr 17,200J lahtal M-Dtx lUvkw rcrio4 EipIntiM (Siu PUn A PtD RooainO: Fcbrury IS. 2t04 M-Day Eitcaiion Notinatlaa Faicd M 2-I3-04, Ettmtiaa to: April IS. 2004 120 Day Rtvlaw EipIraHoa (SuMKltion): April 15.2004 From: Date: Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator yMike Gaffron, Planning Director* ’ March 12.2004 ' Subject:#04-2974 "Stonebay Marketplace”. NW Quadrant Hwy 12AVillow Drive - Continuation of Public Hcanng for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: (CMP Amendment. PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, Preliminary Subdivision) Current Status of Application; This item was reviewed at the February 17 meeting, at which time Planning Commission concentrated on establishing a list ofacceptable uses for the property if it is reaoned. A summary of your conclusions is anached as Exhibit G. Plaiming Commission tabled this item pending a joint work session with the Long Lake Planning Commission, w hich was held on March 3. At that work session, the commissions exchanged information about current and pending activities along the Midway 12 corridor, and discussed whether rezoning of this site might impact redevelopment efforts in Long Lake. Each commissioner in attendance can draw his/her own conclusions regarding that discussion. The time siafThas spent reviewing this application has provided the opportunity to digest the potential impacts of the conversion from ofTice to retail, and to clarify the key role this site needs to play in this mixed-use neighborhood ifthe site is reguided from office to retail. The role ofthissi'x became clear only as we worked through the site planning process w ith the applicants, and had a chance to reflect on the basis for the office guiding in the current CMP. It has become clear that the driving reason to consider re- guiding this site from office to retail is to enable this site to benefit the surrounding neighborhood by providing uses and amenities that facilitote this area becoming a somev. hat self-contained walkable mixed- use. mini-village. Stanbelieves the currently proposed site plan cannot, through minor tweaks, enable the site to serve the role described above. This resulted in staffs March 1 letter to the applicant (attached). Staff Recommendation: At this point, our expectation is that if the Comp Plan Amendment goes forward a significantly revised site plan should be presented by the applicant To that end. staff would request that Planning Commission do the following at your March IS meeting: 1.Discuss and make a recommendation to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following; a) Review and confirm the list of allowed uses you determined are appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the development goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March I and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incoiporaled into the text of a CMP amendment. Your recommendations will be forw arded to the City Council on March 22 for rcNiew and possible achon. 1^ #04>2974 StMtbay Markitplact M*rcH12.2M4 PtCt2 List ofExhlbits A • March 4,2004 Suft Memorandum to Planning Commission and CouiKil B • March 1,2004 SufT Letter to Applicant C • March 3,2004 Letter from Applicant D • Revised Site Plan #tl7 E - March 2,2004 City Engineer Comments re Site Plan «I7 F • February 17,2004 Staff Memo: Supplementary Comments G • Compilation of Appropriate Uses from February 17 Discussions H • February 13.2004 Staff Memo and Selected Exhibits I-Draft PC Minutes 2-17-04 DU cuss Iob Staffbelieves this site can be planned in such a way as to ptoside the types of uses and amenities needed to enhance the surrounding neighborhood as a walkable, somewhat self-containod. mixed-use mini-village. Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD, subject to the parameters and goals delineated in the March 1 letter to the applicant. These concepts would be incorporated into the text of the CMP as requirements for development of the site. IfPIanning Commission agrees with the comments and principles of the March I letter, there is no point in going ahead with a detailed review of the current site plan until a substantially revised plan is submitted. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment before proceeding with its site plan review. As noted at your February meeting, the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and canprovideforagreaterlevelofdetailthanthePlan. PlanningCommission identifiedaspeciftc list of allowable or unacceptable uses for the site in February, and these will be incorporated into the PUD rezoning for this site. The PUD approval for this site becomes the governing ordirumce for the property, and should be carefully crafted to ensure that only appropriate uses are allowed under appropriate conditiotu. Finally, note that PlanningCommission must make a recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendnkntat your March 15 meeting, in order to conform with the statutory 120-day review period, which ends April 15 (prior to your next meeting). *04*2974 SiMttajr Mirkctplict Mtrtlit2.2004 PagtJ Sumnury of Issues to Address Hi tuere sset of parameten within which the Planning Commission would conclude that the Comp Plan amendment converting from office to retail uses, is appropnate? - Does the Planning Commission support the concept of the conversion to retail uses to provide the elements necessary to complete a self-contained, mixed-use neighborhood? If so. the Planning Commission could provide conceptual approval of the Comp Plan amendment, subject to detailing a set of development parameters that would ensure the site it developed in a way that does provide the elements necessary complete a self-contained mixed-use neighborhood. • Does Planning Commission conclude that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropriate as presented, with the proposed conversion to primarily retail uses? If not, what aspects of it are inappropriate? What, if anything, might be changed to make it acceptable? • Does Planning Commission agree with the concepts and development parameters described in the March 1 letter? Should any of those concepu be modified, strengthened or changed? • Regarding the proposed rezoning to B6-PUD, in addition to the list of allowed permitted uses and conditional uses reviewed and refined on February 18, are there any additional specific parameters that need to be addressed? Recommended Action Staff recommends that Planning Commission do the following at your March IS meeting: 1. Discuss and make a recomroendatioa to Council as to whether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from primarily office to primarily retail uses. 2. If you recommend in favor of the amendment, you should also do the following: a) Review and confirm the list of allowed uses you determined are appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the doelopment goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendmenL Your recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council on March 22 for review and possible action. MEMORANDUM Mayor Pclcrson and City Council Chair Smith and Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Adnunistrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director March 4.2004 Subject: Latest Information re: Stonebay Marlcetplace Attachinenti 1 • Staff letter to John Trautz dated March 1. including conceptual sketch 2 - Trautz response leuer dated March 3,2004 3 • Revised Site Plan #17 (Most current applicant submittal) 4 - City Engineer corrunenu dated March 2. 2004 re Plan #17 As a result of two Planning Cotrunission heatings, at least two work sessions and a number of discussions with the applicants, staff has concluded that the applicants have not been focusmg adequately on the issues we feel are important to allow conversion of this site from primanly office to ptimanly retail uses. Over the past 3 rmnths we have seen many tweaks to the initial site plan, but virtually no changes in the iruensity of use or the orientation of uses. It seemed appropnate to send a letter that nukes clear exactly what we am thinking (Attachment 1). The response letter from Mr. Trautz (Anachment 2) is attached, as is the most recent site plan (Version 17) and the most recent comments from the City Engineer as to parking and circulation in that plan. On February 17 the Planning Commission tabled all elements of the application (Comp Plan Amendment - Rezoning- Subdivision - Commercial Site Plan Review) to its March 1S meeting, with the intent in the interim to meet with the Long Lake Planning Commission to discuss the topic of development along Highway 12 and hopefully gam a sense of whether Long Lake would see the conversion of this site to reuul as a positive or negative impact on their ability to implement Long Lake’s downtown master plan. That meeting was held last night with a majority of each planning commission in attendance. It was a cordial meeting, and I think both commissions have a better understanding of each others intents and concerns regarding development. My sense is that a majority of the Long Lake people in attendance are concerned that implementation of their plan will be difficult and take some time to accomplish, and that any retail we do at the west end of town will not make it any easier for their plan to move forward. They seemed quite supportive of our actions to date in not allowing retail west of Willow. 1 will be asking the Planning Commission at its March 1S meeting to make a formal rKomniendaaon to the Council regarding the (Tomp Plan Amendirunt, and if the recommendation is m favor of the amendment, to ccnfirm that die goals laid out in the March I letter to the applicant should be incorporated into language to be added to the Comp Plan for development of this specific site. CITY of ORONO Municipal ORlcei StrMt Mdnss: 2750 Kcllty Paitwar Orano, MN 55356 B Milllrf Mdrm: PO Bn 66 CryttalBay. MN 553210056 Much 1.2004 John Trauu Reliance Development Co. UJ* 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55402-1327 Re: Stonehay Muketplace Dear Mr. Trauiz: As we have worked with you toward a workable site plan for your Stonebay Muketplace proposal, there have been numerous iterations of the site layout in response to our comments. Although the changes have resulted in some significant improvements, they have fallen short of our expectations. This may be partly due to us not being cleu or speafic enough, or assertive enough, about our expectations, and partly due to the fact that you have chosen not to look beyond the initial concept plan to find the best solution for the site. If the outcome of the joint work session of the Planning Commissions results in a lecoromen dahon in favor of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow the teguidingof the site from office to retail, the next step is to provide a site plan that makes the most of the opportunity provided by the amendment. The key to this is the quality of the site plan, as well as the mix of uses and the quality of the buildings and landscaping. If we look at this comer and the proposed retail uses from the perspecti ve of the Comprehensi ve Plan, the mix and layoutof uses on this site need to first serve the neighborhood. They need to first be the best amenities we can provide to the neighborhood. By neighborhood we mean anyone within walking distance. This includes the office uses existing and planned along Kelley Parkway, the City facilities, the Orono Schools campus, the new Stonebay residential neighborhood, the Willow View subdivision, and the employees of industrial and retail uses neu the site. Although we know that retail uses on this site must rely on a muket area broader than the intmediate neighborhood, retail uses arc being considered in this location in large part because they will serve the neighborhood. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.cionnojiui.as John Trautz March 1.2004 Page 2 In order to best serve the neighborhood, we believe it is criticsl that the development proposal provide for convenient pedestrian-oriented access and food-oriented uses that take advaetaje of the pond area to provide an enjoyable setting for casual dining. Based on this perspective, and to provide clear direction, staff has developed a set of speci fic parameters for the development of this site for retail rather than office uses. We have considered your corrunents regarding the mix and types of uses proposed, as well as yoiir concerns regarding site layout and ameruties that are critical, from your perspective, toensutc a successful retail use of the site. We also desire a successful development, and to that end we have iden tified a number of key elements for planning this site that we believe are critical to your gaining Gty acceptance of a proposal: 1. Focus on the Stormwater Pond as an Amenity. Treatment of the j6tnrmu/a trrp<'»n<i«y amenity rather than a necessary evil was one of the primary selling points for thco vcrall Stoncbay concept. To that end, a variety of features including sidewslki, trails, stone walls, an overlook, and substantial landscaping were incorporated into the ponddesign. The City clearly has an expectation that the non-residendal uses eidier end of the pond wiU take advantage of this amenity. It h as become clear that the degree to which the pond can become an amenity reli es to a great extent on the uses. The westerly portion of the site would work quite well for office uses, which would have windows and views overlooking the pond, and it would similarly work for a restaurant use. However, it appears thst there are inherent difficulfies wnti orienting retail uses to take full advantage of the pond, since such uses relyonparking adjacent to the front facade, vehicular access on all 4 sides, and i *back doer' for secondary access. The interior divisions within the stripretai 1 building you hive been proposing so far. as well as the circulation for the drive>thru, seem to preclude any effective or meaningful orientation toward the pond. In addition, the focus to date has been toward providing a pond amenity at the southwest comerofthe site, near Highway 12. Wewouldsuggestihatsuchintmenity wouldbe more appropriately located nearer Kelley Parkway at the northeast comer of the pond, farthest away from the traffic on Highway 12. The elements of design we believe are critical to an acceptable retail development orientation to the pond include: a) Omit all vehicular access between the building and the pond. b) Move the amenity feature further from Highway 12. c) Provide and design for retail uses that will benefit from a pond orientation. 9 . John Trtutz March 1.2004 Page 3 d) Retain the trail and pedestrian circulation aspects of the plan v^hich you have provided to date. City naff would strongly support an office or fast-casual restaurant use overlooking the pond, assuming a site plan that incoiporaies adequate parking and ci rculation. We will support retail use at this location if it includes food-oriented uses for which the pond can become an amenity and which can take advantage of proximity to the pond. Development Orientation . Stonebay was approved with the expectation that the office uses would visuallycomplcmcntdieStonebay residential development, especially since the primary access is from Kelley Parkway. This same expectation needs to be met if the site becomes primarily retail uses. Although there may be some negative impacts by orienting retail uses direcUy toward Kelley Parkway, as indicated in the letter from John Hasslcr, there are also significant benefits and advantages to an orientation not totally focused on Highwayl2. Your site plans to dale have focused on Highway 12 as the orientation, and while the building designs have incorporated attractive features and landscaping on all sides, the site layout still presents itself u ‘backing up' to Kelley Parkway. We think there is a middle ground that can orient this development more toward the center of the site, providing a more inviting appearance from Kelley Parkway while not h.aving negative impacts to the adjoining neighborhood, and not negatively impacting the viability of retail uses. The following are key elements of this concept a) Reorient the Walgreens entry to the southwest comer of the building. Establish Walgreens parking on the west and south sides of the building. The phanracy drive- ihni will then be along the east side of the building, with the del: very/trash area along the north facade. b) Absent an office use or fast-casual restaurant uses for Lot 1. turn the retail strip to a north-south orientation, backing up to the west end of the site, and design the north end units for food-oriented uses that would allow some views of the pond and use of a plaza or outdoor seating area overlooking the pond. Omrt any driving lane along the west side of the building This orientation provides excellent reta. lervis:bitty from the l2/WiIlow intersection. The entry to the site from Kelley Parkway will allow for customers to see the entries to the Walgreens and the strip center from the Kelley Parkwayentrar.ee to the site, allowing them to make easy dccis-.ons about how to reach (heir intended destination within the site. John Trautz March 1.2004 Page 4 c) The west facade of the retail strip needs to be attractively dcsigncd and landscaped to minimize its appearance as the back side of a building. d) We understand that with this onentadon, signage with faces perpendicular to Highway 12 will be critical forthe strip center. A monument sign would be acceptable along 12. Signage for each use on the west wall of the retail strip would nfll be acceptable. e) A drive-thru at the north end of the retail strip would be feasible. If this was a coffee shop, the proximity exists for pedestrian/customer access to a pond overlook, plaza, or outdoor seating area at the northwest comer of the strip retail building Parking Layout and Capacity . To gain staff support, your site plan needs to incorporate adequate parking for the uses proposed on the site. Future uses that require parking in excess oi uat provided, ax not likely to be approv:d. The parking plan also needs to incorpoiates island for trees and green space. With a strip rel^ building oriented north- south. parking between the strip xtail and the Walgreens can be mox flexibly used as daily parking needs fluctuate. With asite plan that meets the parameters set out in this letter, we ax willing to consider the Walgreens model that the peak need for Walgreens is 60 parking stalls; wc arc not willing to vary from the parking rcquixment for other users on this site, be they office (1 stall per 200 ne' s.f. whex net=90% of gross floor axa), xtail (1 stall per 150 s.f. of net floor area) or xstaurant (I stall per 80 s.f. of net floor axa). Oxen Space . The City’s goal is still to have 25% of the site as green space. Given the Planning Commission's nearly unanimous comments that the cuirent plans do not pro vide adequate green space, as a minimum the xquired perimeter trail* viihin the property should not be counted as pan of the 25% requixment. Structural Coverage . In line with the Planning Commission ’s strong sense that the cuixnt site plan is too intensely developed, note that the zoning code docs limit any building site of less than 2.0 acres, whetherresidentialorcommexial.to 15%covera^bystructuxs. Your plan pxposcs 3 individual sues, each less than 2 aexs in axa, and two of the thxe exceed the limit. Lot 1 is at 17.7%, Lot 2 is at 13.2%, and Lot 3 is at 22.4%. Overall, the site should be limited to no mox than approximately 24, lOO s.f., but it cuner.tly is a: just over 29,800 s.f., or 18.6%. This is an indication that the current site plan is over- ambitious. Market Analysis . You have told us that fxe-standing xstaurant uses and fast-casual restaurant uses ex unlikely to be attracted to this site because of the lack of nxjftops. Ln assisting our consideration of the proposed conversion from office to xtail uses, we xquest that you provide clear and valid market information supporting your conclusions xgarding xstaurant uses. John Trautz March 1,2004 Pages 7t BuildinyDcaipi and Materials. We have been pleased with your efforts toward providing ahigh quality building design theme for the site. However, the light color of the brick you have chosen is not acceptable and needs to be substantially darker. We would suggest a red brick similar to that being used on the City offices and on the medical office buildings currently under construction rr in die approval process further west on Kelley Parkway. We have had Phil Carlson of DSU sketch a conceptual site layout to help illustrate some of the parameters described above. We haven’t attempted to determine whether this plan strictly meets the City's development standards such u green space, parking, structural coverage, etc. It is merely intended to show a site layout concept that follows the design parameten set out i n th is letter. We have shown an 8.S00 i.f. strip retail building because that appears to be the largest building for which parking standards could be met. We arc excited about continuing to work with you toward an end product that meets City expectations and provides for a successful commercial development. Once the joint Planning Commission work session is concluded, if the response to the convenion to retail is positive, we should get together as soon as possible to work out site plan issues. If you have any questions, please contact me at 9S2-249-4600. Sincerely, Mike Gaffron Planning Director cc: Ron Moorse City Council Planning Commission c - Reliance Development Company VIA COURIER March 3. 2004 Oiono City Council Orono Plaruung Commission Ron Moorse Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Re: Stonebay Marketplace Ladies and Gentlemen: I am in receipt of the letter from Mike Gaffron dated March 1,2004 regarding the site plan for Stonebay Marketplace. Although this letter is not an exhaustive response to the letter, I felt it was important to get a partial response to you »oday before this evenings work session. Needless to say, we (the enure development team) arc perplexed. After 5 months of discussions, 2 public hearings with the Plarming Commission and many meetings and work sessions, wc thought we were getting close to an acceptable sue plan The staff report for the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting recommended our site plan but for “two specific areas of the cunent plan”. The staff report made a suggestion abc ut how to fix those specific areas, which wc did. This current lener and associated plan dismisses most of our plan and basically requucs us to begin all over again. Some of our immediate and specific thoughts are listed below: 1. The most recent site plan submined by our development team to the City of Orono accomplishes the site plan goals wc have heard consistently from the Planning Commission and city staff. It has considerable landscaping (over 25*/o of the site plan area) and amenities (front comer feature and orientation to the pond). It has minimal traffic conflicts and it provides for significant pedestrian walkways. It has architecture that is well above the standards you will find in all communities m the metropolitan area. Retiince Development Company, LLP. lOOO Rand Tower 527 Ma'diJette Avenje South Mirneapol s. MN 55402-1327 Telephone (617)338-1000 Facsimile (613) 336-8971 HIGHWAY 12 LANDFOKM I ! » ^ ,____.___. ' * D s ‘' L_j__ LOT : CB* ACRES |P^ —---^1 1 1 y) C*. •*> ft; Q O -J £ (i>;>lter^ate use LOT 2 IPARCKC SUMMAIYI ^r^r.iz— •*«* M 9m 90 9 mi tm m»%amu mm 9 mm mm «m i m9 • m m 9mu t • n rmm V9J rS^riw-rttf •' lAJtXA 9U10USYM »« MK • M fL’-LJ'ic«u w mr REVISED SITE PLAN-17 6'ONEBAY MA!IRETP^E RE03015 O2JT7/0^ widths. I do believe that the loading situation will work. I have attached a sketch of some minor improvements for consideration in this main entrance/cxit area. • With regard to parking supply for the site, here is another way of calculating the potential parking supply required. This method uses square feet of gross leasable area. This method assumes gU of the space is leasable Retail - S spaces per 1.000 SFLGA Bank - S spaces per 1.000 SFGLA Office - 5 spaces per 1.000 SFGLA The totals then become; Pharmacy = 14.820 x S per 1.000 SFGLA = 72 spaces Retail/Office = 10.000 x 5 per 1.000 SFGLA = 50 spaces Bank = 5.000 x 5 per 1.000 SFGLA = 25 spaces The total required parking equals 147 spaces. This is less than the City required parking. The parking demand is based on average rates for a variety of retail and/or office type tenants. There are certain types of retail tenants that generate les parking than othm. For example a retail store selling lamp shades/lighling fixtures could be expected to generate less parking demand than a video store. If part of the retail on this site includes a coffee shop, than the demand may exceed 5 spaces per 1.000 SPCLA at certain times of the day or day of the week. The same holds true with small office tenants. Some types of office users generate more demand than others A review of the site plan indicates that we feel that the pharmacy/office-retail parcels on the south side of the site will have sufficient parking. Those uses contain a total of 117 spaces which includes the 10 employee spaces on the north side of the office relail building. This is a ratio of 4.7 spaces per 1.000 SFGLA which is 7 spaces less than the suggested 5 spaces per l.OOO SFGLA. I think this area will be all right since pharmacy stores 1 have observed never seem to have a shortage of parking. The land use in the NE comer of the site presents an interesting quandary. The retail concept of 5.000 SF has 29 spaces of which 19 are in front and 10 are in back. The total satisfies a 5.0 parking ratio but it can be expected that there will be times when the front lot fills up. Deperuling on the retail user, this could happen frequently. The bank concept shows 10 spaces on the west side of the building and 11 spaces on the east side. This is a ratio of 4.2 spaces per 1.000 SFGLA. I am concerned that the parking will be inadequate for bank demand purposes. If you have any questions concerning the above, please don't hesitate to contact me cc: Tom Kellogg 2335 W9Bt Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 1 pMVJ r ' MEMORANDUM To: From: Planning Comniission Mike Gaffron Date:February 17. 2004 Subject: Supplementary Comments, #04-2974 - Reliance Dev. Corp. PUD As time was extremely short between last Wednesday evening’s work session and the Friday deadline for getting your pacaets completed, the staff memo regarding applicsion #04-2974 was somewhat mshed I would like to offer the following additional conunents in regards to the Stonebay Marketplace application. Much of this stems directly from comments received today from Phil Carlson and is intended to provide a focus for toni^t’s review of the propoul. 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 (service retail; pharmacy, bank, coffee shop, dry cleaners, etc.) although individuals have expressed reservations about certain use s. But if the Land Use Plan is to be amended to allow Stondiay Marketplace or some similar retail development, these uses must be designed in an exceptional manner and several issues addressed Since diis an amendment to the Comp Plan, there should be some discussion of the overall intent and character tobeachievedwiththis amendment b doesn't need to be a whole new chapter to the Comp Plan. but it shoul d lay out the issues that are important If Planning Commission concludes that the Comp Plan amendment is appropriate even if Reliance and Walgreen's gp away, the City should establish specific cntcria for development of the site, regardleas of who the developer is. Regarding the current site plan. Planning Commission membercomments at the February 11 work season included that the site is *too intense*, needs to focus more on the pond as an amenity, should have smaller or fewer buildings, nods more connection to the Stonebay residential dcvclopnicnt, docs not have enough green apace, expressed concerns about parking needs and future uses, and expressed a wish to establish a list of appropriate and inappropriate uses for the site. The focus of the site toward the 12/Willow intersection was seen by some as the development ‘turning its back on’ Kelley Parkway. These are all valid issues that need further discussion, and may ultimately be addressed as a set of parameleis for reguiding/rezoning of the site. If Planning Commission wishes to take a step tow ard approval, it is staffs reco.Tunendation that an amendnient 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 following characteristics: The development plan shall incerporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featuring high quidity building materials and architectural deuilirg •04*2974 Stoncbay Marketplace Supplein«iUi7 CommeaU 217-04 Page 2 2) No single use shall occupy more than IS.000 square feet of floor area. 3) There shall be generous, well-planned green space, landscaping, andbuffeing thxougboifi the entire site, exceeding the mimmums in the Orono Code for similar devciopmena. 4) Thereshallbeaclear.well-designedconnectionandonemationtothepondwestof the site, such that patrons can see the pond from the development, pedestiianscan easily walk to and around the pond, and adjacent uses will onent windows, outdoor seating areas, and other elemenu toward the pond. 5) There shall be clear, well-designed sidewalk connections from the sidewalks and trails surrounding the sue (on Kelley Parkway. Willow Dnve, and Highway 12) to all poma w'lihin the development, especially from access points that serve the residenual development to the north. 6) The Kale andtype of uses, and the design of the site, shall be such thatoverall iiaffic into and out of the site will not be more than under the previously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. 7) ThetiteplanshallbedesignedtoprovideclearandsafetrafficmovemeRtswithinihesite for aU internal movements: entrances, exiu, parking areas, drive-through lines, l(»ding'sen^ice areas, and dnveways. 8) The overall site plan shall be designed such that the orieniauon ofbuilefings is not mainly to Highway 12. but alto creates a significant Knse of place internally in the site. 9) If ownership of the si te is to be divided among two or more lots wiUi roore than one o w ner, provisions shall be made for adequate handling of access, parking, landscaping maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions in a manner that can be guarani^ by the City. If Planning Commission recommends approval for the Land Use Plen amendrrxnt. with or w ithout any of the above specific conditions atrached, a recommendation for approval of the lezoning to B6-FUD could also be made, assuming you are generally satisfied with the current plan. The other option is to not recommecd ^iproval for the iczoning until you have seen a plan with which you are completely sausfied. •04*2974 Slontbajr Markttplact 2-17.04 PaftS b ii suggested that a recommendation regarding a rezoning should include development parameters that vdll become zoning requirements for the property, and include the following: Recommend approval of a rezoning to PUD for Stonebay Marketplace, with the followingcondiioos: 1) DevclopmenionthcsiiemustfoUowihedesjgnforbuildings,pMkingareta,landscaping. md all other site features illustrated on the submission for Stonebay Maiketplace by Landfotm for Reliance Development, sheeux-xx. dated x-x-x. No deviation from these designs shall be allowed without approval of an amendment to the PUD by the Orono Gty Council, except for minor adjustments to be approved by Qiy staff, at the discretion of ihe Development Review Committee. 2) The orientation of the Walgreen's building and parking areas ihallbechinged to place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building. 3) Green space within the site will increased as follows in the following locations: 4) The connection and orientation to the pond west of the site will be changed to 5) The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure adequate provision for access, parking, landscaping, maintmance, and other reasonable site conditions, including..... 6) All buildings and improvements shown on the submitted plans will b« completed by x x-s [daicl, and if nou the remainder of the site will be sodded [condition of all areas of the site if left undeveloped]... CompilatioD of Approved Uses for Outlot A, Stonebay (Febmary 17,2004 PC Meeting) Permitted Uses A. Retail and Service Businesses - The following neighborhood retail and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. Arts and school supplies store. 2. Banks and insurance companies. 3. Barber and beauty shops. 4. Bicycle sales and repair. 5. Books, magazines, recorded music/video shop. 6. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. 7. Diy cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. 8. Garden supplies, florist shop (but not home and garden equipment rental). 9. Gift or antique shops. 10. Hardware store, paint store. 11. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply store. 12. Jewelry shops and repair. 13. Locksmith. 14. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and repair store. 15. Newsstands. 16. OfGce supply store, office machine store, copy shop. 17. Pipe and tobacco shops. 18. Housewares, furniture, carpet store. 19. Postal substatioa 20. Real estate sales. 21. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies.???????????'' ? 22. S ewing center and yardgoods. ' Sporting goods store. 24. Tailor shops. 25. Travel agencies. 26. Variety store. 27. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. 28. Off-sale Liquor Store .1. Permitted B-6 Uses: t «:i. following uses as ai ■ • ed m the B-6 District: 1. Offices (business and professional). 2. Banks and financial institutions. 3. Libraries. 4. Motels and hotels. CoBdidonil Uici 1. Restaurants (Gass I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table, or cafeteria in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Gass I Restaurants. 2. Restaurants (Gass II). Fast-food, convertience food, cofifee shop, drive-in, dii vc-through or liquor store restaurants, which is a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises, regardless of how it is served, or a drive-through where most customers pick up for J at a drive-up window for consumption on or off the premises; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. 3. The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Accessory Uses 1. Signs. Signs, as regulated in the zoning code for the B-1 District. 2. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. 3. Landscaping. Decorative landscape featiues. 4. Fences. Fences, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 5. Incidentals. Any incidental repau or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal I* hiding. Public Telephone Booths. H-t Appl!citloaDaUt Dtc«nb«r 17,2003 Initial M-Day Review Period ExplraUan (Site PUn & PUD Rcionin^i February IS, 2004 60-Day Extciuion NotUlcation Fated on 2-13-04, Ealemion lo: April 15.2004 120 Day Review Expiration (Subdividonit April IS. 2004 From; Date: Subject: Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Diicctor^^^^^^ February 13.2004 #04-2974 "Stonebay Marketplace", NW Quadrant Hwy l2A^■lllow Drive - Continuation of Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision Summary of RequKt Applicants propose a commercial retail/office development 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 associated with supporting an office use on the site. 1 he proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-1 b (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots. Per the most recent site plan submittal, the lot area/building footpnnts are as follows: Lot 1: 1.30 acres • 10,000 s.f. officc/retail building Lot 2: 0.87 acres • 5,000 s.f. bank or retail building Lot 3: 1.S2 acres • 14,820 s.f. Walgreens retail/pharmacy building Property Owner: John Terrance Homes LLC Applicant/Devcloper: Reliance Development Company LLC - John Trautz Stair Recommendation: Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Staff supports the proposed mix of retail and office uses. Staff has been working with applicant regarding ongoing revisions to the site plan and circulation, and there are two specific areas of the cunrnl plan to which staff would recommend revisions Planning Commission should attempt to reach a conclusion on the Cemp Plan Amendment, review any rezoning concerns or stipulations you w ish to plate on the PLP. and spend time revsew mg the dev clopmcnt aspects of :hc site, providing staff with any concerns to be addressed regarding building design and styling, landscaping. lighting, signage, etc. •04-2974 SUMb«7 MariutplM F<bnuryl3.2004 P>ge2«44 List Of Exhibits A • Revt&ed Site Plans: Version 14 (North lot is retail) Version 15 (North lot is bank) B - February 5. 2004 Transmittal Letter from John Trautt C - Februao' 2, 2004 Letter from John Hassler of John Terrance Homes D - Nonce of Planning Commission Action 1-26-04 E • Notice of 60-Day Extension 2-13-04 F - Submittal - Hours of Operation. Number of Employees Q - Lists of B-l and B-6 Allowed Uses H - Memo and Exhibits of 1-16-04 Status or Review Process This item was initially presented for Pl«muii£ Commission review and a public hearing a: the January 20 regular PC meeting. The applicants hao :<>iade presentations to the Planning Commissi on on January 7 and February 11. Staff has tci with 'be applicants on multiple occasions to discuss the site planning aspects ofihe proposal, most Tceii. ; 2. including the City Engineers Tom Kellogg (general site engireering) and Shelly Joh. , as well as Planning Consultant Phil Carlson. From the perspective of site circulation uiOt layout the numerous revisions to date have resulted in a plan that is nearing acceptability for the proposed uses and sizes/shapes of buildings. I loue ver. 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 Outlot A. rather than the current CMP guideplan sums of retail only as ancillary to a primary ofTice use of the site. To allow for additional discussion of this issue, Council members were invited to attend the February 11 work session. Three of the four facets of the application are subject to the 60-day review peiiod established by statute. The review penod expiration date has been extended (See Exhibit E) an additional 60 days to Apnl 1S. 2(X)4. based on the tabling by Planning Commission and the anticipated future meeting schedule. Planning Commission docs need to reach a conclusion regarding a teco.mmendation on the Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoningand Commercial Site Plan Review issues within a ume frame that allow s for Council action to approve or deny the proposal. •04-2974 SiMttaj Martut|4ac« Fibruary 13.2004 Pi|(3ofi Comp Plan Amendment The Comp Plan Amendinent is subject to Met Council approval. Met Council proceduxes automatically subject the amendment to review andcomment by adjoining municipalities, including Long Lake. 1 ivould encourage Planning Commissioners to again read the Comp Plan amendment comments included in the January 16 memo which address the basis for this minor change, and consider w hether this change significantly alters the intent of the City in terms of commercial dcsclopmcnt along Highway 12 as indicated in CMP Pages 3B-37 thru 3B-40 (Exhibit F of that memo). Staff feels it 15 merely a minor change, in that all of the properties between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, save for this comer Outlot. will be developed for office uses as currently guided. Commercial Site Plan Review, Conformity to B<6 Standards City EngincerTom Kellogg and the City'splanningcoiuuliant. Phil Carlson of DSU.lnc.. have pteviously 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 follow mg comments regarding the current sue plan (Versions 14 and IS): 1. We are in receipt of a tetter of request from John Hassler of John Terrance Hones (developer of the residential ponion of Stonebay) that the City osS le-orient the storefronts and primary parking toward Kelley Parkway, as that will have negative impacts to the Stonebay residential development. Rather, they would prefer substantial landscaping facing Kelley Parkway , which is a strong clement of the current site plans. 2. Staff has suggested that the Wolgicen's main entry be shified to the southwest side of the building, to perhaps create a focus toward the center of the site rather than the Willow/12 intersection. The doclopcr has indicated that Walgreens is adamant in oncniing the entry to the signalized intersection. There arc pro ’s and con ‘ s to a south west oncntation. Staff’s goal was to have the main vehicle ingress point to the site not be at the back of buildings. However, the addition of substantial landscaping, the re-positioningof interior driveway access locations, and the 4-sided high-quality design of the buildings should eliminate concerns that enby to the sue is the ’ugly’ side of the buildings. Additionally, it is clear that if Walgreens were to re-onent Us entry to the southwest, it will requite parking ditectly 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 w ;Ui parking stalls, and can alternatively turn left to go to the bank, or straight and to the right to the coffee shop drive-thru. •04-2974 StMcbay MarkctpUc* Fcbnuu7l3.2004 P»t«4of6 5. L„. The Walgreen’s service area (trash enclosure, loading dock area, etc) on the west side of the building has been provided with beefed up screening as compared to earlier plans. Use of pnmanly coniferous trees in this area would allow for substantial winter screening. The coffee shop drive-thru at the west end of the retail building still can be improved. Staff would recommend the following; Eliminate the inbound (southbound) lane at the west end of the site. Have the westerly Kelley Parkway access point as ’out only'. Ingress from this location has little value to the overall site circulation. This will then leave approximately 12' of additional space in which the exit from the drive- thru can be extended to a 90-degree angle, allowing dnve-thni traffic to exit nonh rather than south. It may also be necessary to reduce the length of the building by 15'-18'to accomplish this. However, staff is quite concerned about the current layout pointingdrive- thru extters into an oncoming lane at a 45-degree angle. The removal of the southbound lane also w ill allow for addiuonal green space and patio space at the west end of the building overlooking the pond area In general. sa\e for the abov-e comments, site access and aiculation has been refined to a point that staffis generally satisfied with the current plans. Pedestnan access has also been revised to pro\ ide for reasonable and safe access and aiculation throughout the site. Minor refinements may yet occur with the suggested traffic circulauon changes. Required Parking. The two current plans differ slightly in parking requirements; - Plan 14 (retail on north site) requires a total of 172 stalls per Otuno code, and 146 arc provided, a shortage of 26 stalls. - Plan 15 (bank on north site) ai o lequires a total of 172 stalls, but only 140 are provided. The plan reviewed by Planning Comnii»ston in January required 172 stalls and provided 167, a shortage of only S stalls. City Traffic Consultant Sheldon Johnson will be asked to comment on the need for the full complement of parking. Lighting. Signage. PlanningCommissicn should revic v again the site signage plan (Sheets A5.1 andS.N-1 oftheJanuary 16 memo) and dcicrmim; whether it needs further refinement. Also review the building signage as depicted on the eh vauon views and in Sheet C2.2. It would be staffs intent that a defined signage entena document be drafted to regulate ongoing signage on the site. •04-2f74 StOMbajr Mariictplact February 13. M04 PagtSofC Staff has suggested to the applicants that the Walgreens signage not include a manual lOKkr board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrollingor flashing reader boards. The cxienor parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2.1. Applicant should be requested to describe the intent for lighting at building entrances, etc 8. Building Design and Materialt. Planning Commission should carefully review the building design and style exhibits in the January 16 memo. Applicant has provided a board with building extenor material samples for review and approval, this will be available at the meeting. 9. T iwidcrapiny Pleasercview the landscaping plans (Exhibits L2.1 and L7.1 fiom 1-16 memo, and new site plan exhibits). Staff has not had a chance to thoitxighly review the latest revisions; the B -6 landscaping standards establish a percentage of the overall project value to define the minimum landscape value required. 10. Other topics of concern or interest Preliminary Plat The proposed plat w ould create three building lots, one for each proposed building, w ith each lot fronting on two roads. Access and other site functions will necessarily be shared between the three parcels, requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. This was discussed bnefly at the February 11 w ork session. Staff is confident that cross easements and covenants will be established to ensure ongoing access and maintenance of the site. Plat approval will include (he establishment of drainage and utility easements, payment of park fees and stormwater A drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), eic. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PLTD. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment before proceeding with its site plan review. The rezoning goes hand in hand w nh the Comp Plan Amendment, and can provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. For instance, if Planning Commission wishes to define a specific list of allow able or unacceptable uses for the site, that is certainly an option. If you wi*h certain potential uses to be subject .0 conditions, that is an option. The PUD approval for this sue car be defined very specifically to ensure that inappropriate uses d>. not occur. •0«-2f74 St«aite]r MwlutpUct February 13,2004 Pa«c«or« Staff andapplicants have spemagreal deal ofumcrcfining the site circulation and layout. The ciffTcnt site plans are very nearly accepuble in tenns of the currently proposed uses. The ancillary plans (lighting, landscaping, signage, etc.) have been subject to only minor change as the site plan has evolved. Summary of Issues to Address 1. Does Planning Commission conclude that the Comp Plan Amendment is appropriate as presented, with the proposed change to allow pnmarily 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 (he site plan review, please identify any concerns regarding each of the following topics: 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 importance Options for Action Given that staff has not had sufficient lime to thoroughly review the fine details of the most recent plan versions, staff would prefer that the Planning Commission spend substantial time on the site plan review to identify any issues remaining, reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning issues, and again table to your March meeting for a final site plan review and recommendations. If you wish to act on the Comp Plan amendment to allow it to proceed to City Council and through the Met Council process, that would be an option. AppllcatlM Dste: Dcctabcr 17,2003 OO^ay RrvJrw Eiplratioo (Sitt Plaa it PUD R oodIbi): Frtruar> IS, 2004 120 Day IU>icw Eiplrattoa ($«bdMiloe): April IS. 2004 H-i. From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffiron, Planning Director^ January 16.2004 #04-2974 ••Stonebay Marketplace”, NW Quadrant Hwy 12AV1Uow Drive - Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprdiensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3) Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdivision Summary of Request Applicants propose a commercial retail/office development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requues an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-IB (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-S PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lota as follows: Lot 1: I.S3 acres - 10,(XK) s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres • 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres • 14,490 s.f. Walgreens retail/phannacy building Property Owner; John Terrance Homes LLC Applicant/Devcloper: Reliance Development Company LLC - John Traua PUnner/Englnecr: Landform Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. However, Staff reconunends that after holding the public hearing and ofiering comments regarding the application and site plan, that Planning Commission table the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to woric through the variety of identified site plan issues. M«-2f74 SMttarMwtetplMi Juttai7l<.>004 Lbt of Exhibits A • Application B • Applicants Subtmttalt: 1 - Nairativt 2 - Elevation View Depictions 3 • Plan sheets: CA/-7We5AMS CLI -EjdstiMg CwiiMeas CtJ-DmmMl0mPlam C2.I - PnUmbttry St4 Mm C2.2 • Pr^lmbiary Signagt flam C3.1 - PrtUmlmary ending, Dr^nagt A Erotlon CantnlPlMM C3.2 • fngcttd DfwiMnge Anma CAI. PnUmUuuy UtOlty Eimn CU-PnUmUuuynat EZl-PnlAnlnarfUthttMgHMM L2.I •PnUmUutry Lmndscapbig Ftan L7.I-LaiubenptDaaOs All • Walgntmt BkmtUnt EU-Offk^RtldiEltnd»ms BU-BMkEUnthns All • Wdtgnt$u SIgmagt SffI - SUt HoHamat Sign DHaU C - MPG Letter to Applicant 12-16-03 D - City Engineer Comments 12-31-03 E - Consulting Planner’s Comments l-lS-03 F - CMP Excerpts G> Plat Map H - Property Owners List iHMlIilllSii MM-1974 StMcbty MAriittpUcc jMiury H, M04 PattJoft 1. Comprebensive Plan Amendment The 2000-2020 Orono Community Managemeot Plan (CMP) guides this property for Commercial 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 freestanding retail not specifically associated or supportive of an office use on the site. The Walgreens and the officeAretail building would be characterized more accurately as neighborhood retail/setvice uses. The applicant requests an amendment of the CMP that would “allow retail uses in this area whei 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 Outlol A of Stonebay. Please review the highlighted areas in Exhibit F, excerpts from the CMP regarding guiding of this area. The City Council has informally reviev^ ed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the context of its impact on development in Long Lake, in full knowledge of Orono ’s stated intent to not take actions which will be counterproductive to Long Lake's efforts in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council ’s general conclusion was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed will have minimal impact on Long Lake's ability to move forward with its Downtown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of nei^iborfaood service/retail and office can provide the business locations, services and quality emplo>ment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 2000-2020 CMP. Additional factors which may come into play in terms of this proposed amendment include: - The other three quadranU 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 budding 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 locate in Long Lake's Downtown area. From a staff perspective, Walgreens is an amenity that would be welcomed by the public in this area. §04-2974 SlOMbayMartetpttu JMKiry 16,2004 Pa|t40f6 Having service retail uses within walking distance of both SloncBay and our senior bousing less than mile east, provides a positive amenity. The location on Highway 12 will enable certain types of retail uses that can serve the Stonebay development that we would otherwise probably not attract to the area without the Highway 12 traffic. Review of the traific study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of the general Stonebay PUD in 2002-2003 indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed retail uses would be very similar to the trafhc generated by ofBce uses at this site. The upgrades to sturounding roads required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals will 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 fiKilities, and is not expected to be met with any resstance 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. IL PUD Rezonhig & Highway 12 Corridor Standards Permitted uses in the B-6 District include business and professional offices; banks and financial instimtions; Ubraries; and motels & hotels. Retail uses are allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Rezoning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the “Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area" of zoning code Section 78-1065, and was anticipated during the approval of the Stonebay plat B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site: Mininmm Atm- 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. 1 •04-2974 StttcOay MirtetplM Juuiry K, 2004 ^iftSofO Access and circulation plan . The proposed site plan meets the City's established standard for no direct access to Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicants are proposing a right-in, right-out access to Willow Drive and a full access to Kelley Parlcway, which will be further discussed as the re\iew process moves forward. Trail links are provided as called for in the City's plans and in the Stonebay approvals. Interior site circulation is a major concern which requires additional discussions between staffs applicants and consultants. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water must be available. They are. Connection charges for the site were established at the time of the Stond>ay PUD approvals. Stormwater Management.The code requires that a stonnwater management plan be submitted and be in compliance with City standards. All stormwater from the site will be duected to the regional pond immediately west of the site which was designed with capacity for development of this site. Building Design and Construction . This section addresses the extoior wall finishes, architectural compatibility of future additions and outbuildings, and prohibits temporary buildings. The proposal generally appears to be in compliance with the pertinent suiidards. Development Agreement . The ordinance requires that all rezooings within the Highway 12 Corridor are subject to a Development Agreement assuring compliance with the code requirements. Unique to this site is the intent to create multiple lots with individual ownerships, using shared infrastructure. The applicant has suggested that separate Agreements be established for each of the three lots, which should be feasible but adds to the administrative complexity of the approval process. III. Preliminary Plat The proposed plat would create three building lots, one for each proposed building, with cKh lot fronting on two roads. Access and other site functions will necessarily be shared between the three parcels, requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. Plat approval will include the establishment of drainage and utility easements, payment of park fees and atormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminaiy plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. •04-2974 SiMibayMwtetplMa jM«af7l«.S004 TV. Commercial Site Plan Review, Conformity to B-6 Standards City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson of DSU, hic., have been asked to comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. Please carefully review their comments (Exhibits D & E) as well as the comments in the staffletter of December 16. Phil Carlson ’s comments of January IS are in complete alignment with r'^afTs thinking. The site plan has a number of significant issues which should be worked through at the stafEdeveloper/consultant level before Planning Coimnission 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. Plaiming 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.Site orientations, relationship to Stonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to 1 2/Willow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity 2. 3. 4. Site access and circulation pattenu, 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 Recommendation Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezonlng to B-6 PUD. Planning Commission could take action regarding these elements of the ^plication 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 tabling the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of identified site plan issues. The intent would be to present Plamdng Commi ssion with a revised site plan for acomprehensive review at your February 17 regular meeting. j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Tuesday. February 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p m. remodeling permit; therefore, would not be needing the lot area and lot width variances as originally expected. The applicants wish to be given a hardcover variance to reconsauct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshore setback variance to allow the comer of the deck to encroach 4’ into the average lakeshore setback zone. Gundlach pointed out that neighboring views would not be obstructed by the replacement of the deck, since the grade changes are dramatic. She suggested the Commission table the conditional use permit request to allow landscape restoration in the 0-7S* zone until more detailed plans can be submitted once weather permits for review and approval by the City Engineer. In order to meet hardcover restrictions for new construction, the Blount’s believed the design had become aesthetically unattractive and not worth the investment to build new construction. Although they would have preferred a front porch and first f oor bedroom. Ms. Blount stated that they will remodel the existing cottage instead of build new. Hawn moved. Bremer seconded, lo recommend approval of certain clcmcnta of Application #04-2969, granting a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshore setbacx vanance to allow a 4’ encroachment of the deck into the average lakeshore setback. In addition, tabling the conditional use permit for landscape restoration in the 0-7S’ zone until weather permits the applicant to submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#3) «04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC, 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARR/.NGEMENT (postponed after Item #4) (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PLD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-7:43 P.M.) John Trautz, Reliance Development, and Steve Johnston, the Applicant’s Representatives. PAGE 2 of 2S L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. Febniaiy 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. were present. Gaffron explained that the applicants propose a commercial retail/office development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rczoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-IB (SFR. 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commerciil District). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots as follows: Lot 1: 1.S3 acres > 10.000 s.f. office/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres • S.OOO s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres - 14.490 s.f. Walgreen’s reutl/pharmacy building Gaffron pointed out that, while staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the rezoning to B-6 PUD, and proposed mix of retail and office uses, staff has been working with the applicants regarding ongoing revisions to the site plan and circulation. He explained that there are two specific areas of the current plan which staff would recommend revisions. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment, review any rezoning concerns or stipulations they wish to place on the PUD, and spend time reviewing the development aspects of the site, providing suff with any concerns to be addressed regarding building design and styling, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. In addition, based on comments received from Phil Carlson, the City's Planning Consultant, Gaffron suggested the Commission handle the Land Use Plan amendment first and separately. Since this would be an amendment to the Comp Plan, Gaffron felt that some discussion of the overall intent and character to be achieved should be made. PAGE 3 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Tuesday. February 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. will and will not allow. Rahn suted that, currently, any restaurant with a drive-thru would have to be approved via a CUP. Acting Chair Mabutth suggested the PUD be written that any proposed change in restaurant use be subject to review by the City. Bremer proposed the coffee shop be viewed as drive-thru with incidental food use. She suggested food prep issues be the trigger to treat uses differently. Hawn questioned why the City just doesn ’t make the proposed Starbucks a dnvc-ihru with a CUP which the City grants. Oaffron concurred, stating that all restaurant usea could be CUP. entitling the City to grant those they fr.d more palatable than others. Trautz suggested the Starbucks apply for a CUP based on the fact that the food prep is not performed on site. With regard to the orientation of the Walgreen's, Bremer stated that she liked the orientation as proposed. Rahn concurred, stating that he did not wish to create unneeded parking issues with the revised orientation. As proposed, parking was short 26 spaces on site and Rahn did not wish to see the situation worsen. Johnston staled that Walgreen’s has estimated, through their vast retailing experience, that they need 60 spaces for this size location. PAGE 9 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuetday. Febiuary 17,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Commercial PUD Development, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision In order to invite the Long Lake Planning Commission to Join the Orono Planning Commission for a work session with the appUcant to review the proposal on March 3,2004. VOTE: Ayes 5, NaysO. NEW BUSINESS (#3) m.2^1 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC, 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (7:43-7:54 P.NL) Steve Bohl, representing the Applicant, was present. Oaffron explained that this is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plai of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City o 'Drono approved the plat of Senn Orono Addiuon, cresting Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road). Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono's Shoreland Ordinance and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the propcrtica. and each has significant m pacts on their buildabiUiy. 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 subicct to ‘front lot/back lot’ area and setback standards which were also not in effect in 1990. Gaffron pointed out that the applicant has provided a grading plan and design for the PAGE 11 of 25 riL£«04-2M2 27 Fctyuary 2004 P»g«i of 4 Diit AppUcalton Received: 0I*12>04 Dim Application Considered as Compleu: 02-23*04 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 04-24-24 To: Chair Smith and Planning Comniission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From; Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: February 27,2004 Subject: #04-2982, Lyle & Claryce “Corky” Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Rd, -After-the-fact Variance - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, 1 acre Lot Area; 0.24 acre (10.700 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicants arc requesting after-the-fact hardcover variances within both the 0-75’ and 75’-250* zones, and an after-the-fact lake setback variance for a lakeside deck.__________________________________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variance requests Hardship: Staff could find no hardship for granting the afier-the-fact \ariance requests Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover iimitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or construct^ 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 5(X) feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Sec. 86-66. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to erect, (onstruct. enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure, or anv part or portion, including but not limited to the general construction, plumbing, water well, on-sitc sewage treatment system, wood stoves and fireplaces, veniilaiing, healing or air coadiuoning systems, or cause such work to be cone, without first obtaming a separate building or general permit for each such building, structure or separate component from the city. (Code 1984, § 12 02) FILE«C4-29a2 27 Fttruary 2004 P*9«2of4 ListofEihibils A. Application G. B. Ha^ship DocumenUtion Form H. C. Existing & Proposed Survcy/Siie Plan D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations I. E. Revised Hardcover Calculations J. F. Hennepin County Assessor Report K. Aerial Photo Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgement Form Property Owners List Plat Map Photos Background The owners of 1398 Rest Point Road are Lyle and Claryce “Corky” Johnson. The property was previously owned by the applicant's parents, and is currently being used as rental property. In conjunction with an interior remodel in the sammer of 2003, a grade- level lakeside deck was constructed. The applicants were not aware that a building permit and hardcover, and setback variances were required in order to construct the deck The applicants have indicated that their project was to replace an existing, deteriorating deck. Staffhas not found evidence that a d^k previously existed on the property. A Hennepin County Assessor visited the site in the summer of 2000 and a deck was not noted on the site plan (Exhibit E). Additionally, staffhas examined historical aerial photos and has been unable to conclude whether or not there was a deck or even a patio on the property. The applicants were asked for any photos documenting the deck and have been unable to locate any such photos. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaA^'idth; LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (l.Oacre)140 ’ Actual 10,700 s.f. (0.24 acre)70* Setbacks for the deck: LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Lake 75*70’70’ NE Side 10’15*15* SW Side 10’43 ’43* FILEM4-29B2 27 February 2004 Pag* 3 of 4 Structural Covtr>gct Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10.700 s.f. (0.24 acre)Allowed; 1.605 s.f. (15 V») Proposed: 1.628 s f. (15.2 */o) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 5.245 s.f.Os.f 60 s.f 60 s.f. 0-75 (0%)(l.l4»/o)(1.14 «/o) 75-250 5.455 s f.1,363 7 s.f (25*/.) 2,356 s.f.* (43 2*/c) 2.356 s.f. (43 2 %) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lake Setback Variance The newly constructed deck is 14.5'x 12*. The deck extends 5’ into the required 75’ lake setback. The portion of the deck located within the lake setback is 5’xl2 ’ (60 s.f). Hardcover Variance Currently the property has 43.1 “/o hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25®/a is allowed. The deck accounts for 2. l®/o of the hardcover within this zone where previously there was no hardcover. Within the 0-75 ’ zone there is a toul of 60 s f. of hardcover where nortc is allowed. The deck accounts for all of this hardcover (1 .14®/o). Hardship Statement Applicants have completed the Hardship Documentation Form (Exhibit B). and should be asked for additional testimony rega.'ding their application Hardship Analysis tm considering mpplkatlons for wiance, the i'iannUig Commission thail consider the effect of the proposed vorianee upon the he iith, safety and welfare of the community. exiiilng and anticipated traffic ( ditioHS, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public tafety, and the effect on values of property in me surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the llteraJ provisions of the Zoning Code bi btuances where their strict enforcement would rause undue hardship becruse of circumstances unique to the Individual property under comlderatiun, and sh til recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff ftnds that, absent the documentation of the old deck, there is no hardship for the size or location of the new deck. Ftt.EfO«-2962 27 Fibruaty 2004 Pag* 4 of 4 Issues for Consideration 1. If Planning Commission concludes that a haxdship exists, they should discuss a reasonable square footage and whether the deck should be required to meet the 73* setback. 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances as requested. The applicant rhould be allowed to construct a small landing for safety purposes. However, should the Planning Commission find a hardship to allow the after-the-fact hardcover variance. Planning Staff recommends removal of the portion of the deck extending into the 73* lake setback. j city of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Stnet Addnss: 27S0 Kelley ParVwsy Orono. MN 55356 Main 9S2-249-4eC0 fax 952-249-4615 Maying r^ddnss P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:066 Application # ^ 2.^ Date Received. 0109^0*4 Amount Paid: I^CJQ. c/t? Staff: ____________________ Fee: “S606 ~ Renewal: S300_____________ Afler-the-facL Si.200 Doub'e Fee This application form must be completed in full. Applcant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the appScation. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commisaion Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . , Site Address: / Property Identification Number (PIN): __________________ ____ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): /jSI □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: ^ Residential □ 0*iher_________________________________ Zoning District: _____i __________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete lepa! ra.-es and martal status required for each interested pa-Ty) Name: C^£Ur\jCQ ^ ? Ly/o kL sJohn^n Phone (home): Address: TjT 61 Emaih IPH-Phone (work): Fax: OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names I'd mahtal status required for each interested part)) Name: QcUr\(CO ^ ^ Lu\-c John^n Phone (home): Jj Address: ‘Ut ~T las'll Phone f^uin/-} An/^ 4 Mpti r/5’^ Email: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessary):____________ ■•»•<#* 'I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: "pn^Mon to ”'® appncatlon deadline date in order for your □□□□ □□ □□ X ir Pre-AppliM«on Meetin^Form. completed by a City Planner. Cornpleted Hardship Documentation Form ^ 50* of the subject property, labels and plat mao List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Sofnarc^rtSratr'nf 300 South 6“’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 *"** elevation views (provide one copy 8.5' x 1 r or 1 r x m AddiPonal Items may be requested by City Staff depending on me scope of me proVrt .• APPLICANrS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planmro Applicant’s Signature: ^ Applicant’s Signature: '] ------------------ * --------------- OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:x°=' as,=rpurposes or investigation and verification of this request. Council Members for Date: Date: // ^ 3.^/0 y' Date: Date:----------------------------7*=***'“'*^^—-------------------- W fJl.^ ________ #29 8^ L EXHIBIT B Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form It • rtquirtd tubmltttl for ALL variance applications. An application will rot be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas unti tMs 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 hard^ips. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answe** them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under con^lons allowed by the official controls/ 2."The plight of the landowner « aue to circumstances unique to his property not thelj W. cr^ed by the landowner." . y-. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentia! chara^r of the locality." "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ____________________________________________ .7 •: ~X' it Page 2 of 3 -Undue hardsNp also Includes, but is not imited to. 'adequate access to direci sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shaO be granted for earth eheltsfed construction as defined In Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when h harmw with this Chapter.- 6. -The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permS as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property In the zone erherejiw affected person's land is located.- 7. -The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-f^ly dwelling as a two-fomily dwelling.- 8. -The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such i^p^ or immediately adjoining property.- 9. -The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district In which said land is located.- . __________________________________________ 10 ^ appHcation is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a^yb^tialjpmpe^ right of the appficanl- 11.•The granting of the proposed variance wil not in any way Impair heaith. safety ^fort. morals, or In any other respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning i ! iO O Page 3 of 3 12. *Thc ^ *uch variance \nBI not merely aarve aa a convanier)ca to the applicant, but imcaa^ to aDaviate damonstrabia hardahip or (fixity.* Jew rfr- " ^T:I}l, HardaMpStalamant Should you faal the hardahip cannot fully be deacribed in trr ibove critarla. daacrlbe the unique hardahip. pracbcai difficulty or unuaual property ccr^ditiona preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirementa in the foltowing bnea (attach additional aheeta if naceaaary): LYLE &T6 rKy'JOHNSON OF LOT 3. SUBDtVISlON OF LOT 14 REST POINT PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MjNNESOTA legal OeSCWiP'TlOM or PRCMISES : Lot 3. Sobdiviiion of Lot t4. Rest Point Pork -«9.4 CONTOUR IRC AKE MINNETONKA VEST ARU O (»oa.3) ..flio- — donotoi iron fnork«r dtPOtot •■Itting spot tltvotion. mean stc ifv*l coti#n dtnoltt OEistlng contour lint. n»on tto Itvti dottfn Btorinqt tho^n ort bottd upon on oitvntd dotin. This turvty inttndt to thov th# bouncoritt of the ebovt described property, the loeolion of on t«|Stmg house _ and gorogt. ond the location of oil visible hordcover thereon. It does not purport to eho« ony other irrvrovormnte or encroochments. cBOHBKiusoaimiiq V V taUKAHI MMIMM I SrOi Sk Si N ■ • ^ ^ ■ as ee I * t e* 04 «e MS Wioiv I ee tM N Si 9sk N Mnmis idtr _isnrr&a—i Ipwii tkdSi »CTa _ Oi«» 11-1 VOS 0V4» exhibit C CMocac< u tI i w HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA •-929.4 CONTOUR UNE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 3, Subdivision of Lot 14. Rest Point Pork LAKE MINNETONKA WEST ARM O (908.3) - -910- - denotes iron morker denotes existing spot elevation, mean seo level doti/n denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datun Beorings shown are based upon an asstmed datim. This survey intends to show the bounderies of the above described property, the location of an ®jjsting house and garage, and the location of all visible hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. I coo 03-420 GRONBESG ft ASSOCIATE INC. cnauB em iM 9C RM5 mtimimm imucmsbi SM73-4M1 I ewtty *4 wwy •• hf viMV ori tM I am 0 rejitarad CM «d Imi Sintjv the Ion of the Stab of Mroesoto. litrt S. &M*Mra Mwoto Licdbe Nwdcr 12756 SCALE 1--20* DATE 11-13-03 03-420 01cc Oc 01 f C0tKT EXHIBITD hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A Houm _____________ X . • 500.1000* WiM B. Garagt C. Drix-cway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deek F. Landxapa Underlain By Pluiie OrFabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE’ A House _____________ X ■Ms xlOO B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Side^valk E Paiio/Dcck F. Landsca pe Underlain By Plastic OrFabnc 0. Other WMk TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ * B S-F. S.F. SF. SF. ;sF. SF. ,SF SF SF. SF. S.F. SF -SF ________,SJ. I.l» % SF S.F. SF. .SF. .SF .SF SF S.F .SF S.F SF. SF XlOO - 05 ,SF. SF. r EXHIBIT D IYU4 C0tt$LY JWfK4Ts*y UAUJJCOVER CALCULAT setback ZO^fC: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN A. Houm _____________ B Oari|c C. On\«wty D. SidcwtUc E. Ptiio/D«ck F. Lindxapc UndcrUin By Plutic Or Fabric 0. Othar 0.75 ’ :no^ yVVORKSUEET 3S0-S00*SOO-IOOO* I22Z S F - WA.H TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER !N ZONE* A Houk_____________X m- X 100 »i.W Un«h WiCUi B. Oart|c C. Driveway D Sidewalk E Petio/Dcck F. Lendscepc Underlain By Plastic Of Fabne 0. Other TOTAL HAPiJCO VER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOl'/E A _____________ * B SF SF. SF sF-*#S5SSir Sf-'F-tSa SF SF !sf .SF SF. ISF fTOtti .-s.F SF SF Vfc SF S.F. SF. SF ;sF SF SF S.F .SF SF SF SF X 100 .SF SF H CQ ifc exhibit E HARDCOVER CALCULATION IVORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CnCLEONE) 0-75' r?flimWC HAMWiftYFiB IN lONf K Houm ____________ X 75-2S0*ZSO-SOO'500.1000' wudi crrv»_^?i'Pto O' •AoorESS // 7 ,-• • r . / Ui Hs X d i 0 AVkl'H. ------ ^^ *T?5^ --------- I* .. *. ® i'?? TiwjsiiET^ 1 RENTALS SALCS | DATE CONSIDERATION I HCNTS 1 BUILOMGPERUITS | Ij23!2!2i22 TYPE AMOUNT ■■■/ J r:rj _'l:Z. STY MT J/C2. Jli_______^ 4^____/J2 UtVCNStONS lYPf poncHCS 'iLl DECKS CAfUGCS ^LIL lO OtHCR BUILDINGS 80 FT y«/ _1!Z0. //0O yp COVVtNTS DATE J# J* . >* - O . • ..t BIP "1 ; , ■•H-?ji. ; 'I>X'.' ^ * .*• »-V*^ ^ • .:_.... • ..L-,--'- ■• ■^■■ ';«rT;.y>; \vA MT*; ■' * A'.- • •- ^ > \ •<'. > \ : \ .'. 4 I*" •#»•*,• 'j*' ' •#t' f.'a ■ v4 - i ' u exhibit H Adjacent Property Ownert* AcknowledgemcDt Form I (we) /C tC J. (iJm A)_______of/j^^ r [print nime(s)][print address] have reviewed ihe plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at y^9/jtSi. also refetred 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 conf.rm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date I (we) 4 / // yg H D U/; )l »a of ?0 A IS [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed ^ plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the properly located at /Mt i6. also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council spprovaL )C. &rs/. 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. # aUNDAlE mWMM H oTimnnooi OrAOM MIO RfcSTrOINTRD VNERNAMe ROBERTOBREDCSON J(PAVER ROBERT OBREOeSON OIE/AOOR SI00STCROWAVECB30 OOLOEN VALLEY MN SS«21 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOlWATlON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE I M 07II7211I00IU PROPAOOR 1400 REST POINT RO OWNER NAME ULUAN D WILLIAMS TAXPAYER LILLIAN D WILLIAMS NAME/ADDR 1400 REST POINT RD MOUND MN am M 07117271)0003 PROPAOOR I40A REST POINT RO OWNERNAME LRHORNAMHORN TAXPAYER LESTER R R MVRTU HORN NAME/ADOR 1406 REST POINT RO MOUNOMN SSIM M 07II72M)0004 OPAOOR l)*t REST POINT RO ONCRNAME LKIOHHSOHRCBIOMNSON JCPAYER LYteKIOMMSON 27)7 WVINO AYE SO MPUMN SS40I n oiunnmu PHOPAOOR im RESTPOB4TRD OWNERNAME PRNWAlSH TAXPAYER PATRICRIWAISH NAME/ADOR I)« rest POINT RD MOUNOMN 3S)64 IS 071172)110006 PROPAOOR IM6 REST POINT RO OWNERNAME 1 T NVOARO A K M NVCARD TAXPAYER JTNYQARORKMNYGARO NAME/AOOR 1116 RfST POINT RD MOUNOMN 3)164 )S OTIinilMOO? XIPAOOR USD RSrrPOINT RO NNERNAME IONNSCHWARTZMANETAL OIPAYER ION A 7ANE SCHWARTZMAN I MO REST POINT RO MOUNOMN 33)64 M 07limi)00ll PROPADOR ins RESTPOINTRD OWNERNAME DWAILRAHN TAXPAYER OAVtOWAIOOILRAHN NAME/AOOR IMS REST POINT RD »IO!INOMN 33)44 )■ 0)1172)1)001) PROPAOOR 1403 REST POINT RO OWNERNAME CCAVENDER A BCAVENDER TAXPAYER C CA VENDER A B CA VENDER NAME/ADOR rest POINT RO MOUNOMN 33164 m )Uj ^'€1 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTWS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHEICWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICeS DF.PARTMEPfT. TO THF. HFST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. PATE.^- BY niP. HhST V exhibit J H«rif»rpin Hennepin County ' ; f V 0 Taxpayer Services Depaiti^rit #2^irc«r liii^irmlkm,- .■«'JM2S2S5E2S^ : and dam itam Ofy, County. mtdStat»^Mhotnimandoifmr_9gurcmJ^;t- 8i>:. '«|Vf ■■- >'’5v WSSj v-‘/ ^f!i«rA Q&KC- i ^r.V.jf t , 1 r^- \ 0^'t> , ♦. Mtfdi9.2004 City ofOrotM) POB0X66 CryitalBay.MN 55323 Attn; MikeGaffion RE: m-29M Sena aad Uah Daly Dear Mike We, Shane and Km Rudd, reside at 601 Park Lane and are the "neighbors to the north" of Sean and Leah Daly Unfortunately, we win be out of town on March 15* and therefore unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We want to express our approval of the reconstructed deck and are in fiivor of Sean and Leah receiving an after-th^fact variance for both the deck and the side yard setbacks I know that Dick and Kathy Rudd, at 607 Park Lane ("neighbors to the south") feel the same way. (The new deck looks so much better and is much jq/br than the old one ^ Being familiv with our neighborhood, you know it is tightly woven and is mostly comprised of young Emilies who are all trying to update and improve the lots (monrv of wAtoKt ore akuaify over in hardcover percentages and Am* required side yard setback^. Please fed fiee to contact roe with questions at 612-270-9749 or 952-473-2488. Mardi9.2004 City ofOrono POB0X66 CiysUlBty.MN 55323 Attn: MikeGtfton RE: MM-29tSScaa and Lcnh Daly Dear Mike: We. Shane and Kris Rudd, reride at 601 Park Lane and are the "neighbors to the noith* of Sean and Leah Daly. Unfortunately, we will be out of town on March IS* and therefore unaMe to attend the Planning Commission meeting We want to express our approval of the reconstructed deck and are in fovor of Sean and Leah receiving an after-the-foct variance for both the deck and the side yard setbacks. I know that Dick and Kathy Rudd, at 607 Park Lane ("neighbors to the south") feel the same way. (The new tkckkfob so muck better and is much se^ than the aU one !} Being familiar with our neighborhood, you know h is tightly woven and is mostly comprised of young fiunilies who are all trying to update arid improve the lots (numy of which an alreaify over in hcrdcover percetttages and have required side yard setbach), Please fed free to contact roe with questions at 612-270-9749 or 952-473-2488. FILE«>«-2M8 2Ma>cn2904 Paflci o>S 5 Dait ApptkaiiOB RMcIvtd: f2‘134M Data A^HcatioB Coatidcrfd u Conpltte: 60-Day Review Period Expirci: 04-24-04 02-<»-04 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner March 2,2004 04-2988. Sean & Uah Daly, 60S Park Lane. • After-the-fact variances • public bearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-ID, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, 1 acre 0.2 acre (8.8S1 s.f) Apptiauiom Summary: The applicants are requesting the following variances: 1. After-the-fact hardcover variatKe within the 7S*-2S0’ zone to allow 58.2% hardcover where 2S% is allowed and S2.2% was previously approved. 2. After-the-fact side yard setback variance in order to allow the newly constructed deck to remain at 4.2* from the side lot line where 10' is required and the home is setback 3.2 ’. 3. After-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 3.5* into the average lakeshorc setback with the newly constructed deck. 4. After-the-fact structural coverage variance to allow 21.4% structural c . crage where 1,500 s.f. (17 %) is allowed Hardship: Staff does not find hardships to support the after-the-fact variances ________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends denial of the after-the- fact hardcover and structural coverage variance requests. _______ PcrtiBcot Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-281. Setbnek regulations. (a) In any LR-1 A, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district the setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be 75 feet for all structures; except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lockbox not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of the lot and requires a building permit from the city. (b) No principal or accessory struemre shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications), except that this does not apply to structures allowed in subsection (a) of this section. ni£M4.2M« 2M«'CA2004 P«0«2ofS See. 7S-282. Lakeshorc hard cover and laad altcratioa rcfaladoas. In tny LR-1 A. LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreUne. there shaU be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or pcimanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater th^n 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 (Code 1984, § 10.22(2)) Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requiremeots. (a) Height. No structure or building in an LR-IB district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. I b) Lou. The following mininiuni requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (•era) Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (feet)___ Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacetu to Street (feet) ______ Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. LUt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Hennepin County Assessor Report E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgement Form G. Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map J. Resolution No 2047 K. Additions and Final Hardcover from 1986 approval Background The applicants, Sean and Leah Daly, are the property owners at 605 Park Lane. The i^licants are requesting afier-the-fact variances in order to allow newly constructed decks to remain, and allow re-construction of a 2"^ story deck. After purchasing the property the applicants removed the existing decks which were rotted, unsafe and not functionally efficient with the layout of the home as they existed they also removed sidewalk, and installed boulder walls in order to make their property more functional. Not realizing that permits were required, the applicants replaced the decks. The applicants are also requesting to replace a 2*^ story deck (36 s.f) on the lake side of the home. The applicants removed the old deck as the wood was rotted and unsafe. This 2*^ story deck would be constructed over the existing hardcover arul structural coverage (landing Sl stairs) below and at the same size and location of the previous deck. 3Mr(»<20C4 PagtSi^S LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 8.851 s.f. (0.2 acre)55’ Stttirtii LR-IB Required Exbtiug Proposed Lakcshore 80' to the deck 61* to existing shed 80 ’ to the deck 61* to existing shed Retr 30*3’3’ North Side 3.2’ Home 4.2 ’Deck 3.2* Home 4.2 ’ Deck South Side 17.5’17.5’ Average Lakeshore For the Deck Deck encroaches 3’« 3.5' into the average lakeshore setback Deck encroaches 3‘- 3.S’ into the average lakeshore setback ToUl Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 8,851 s.f. (0.2 acre)Allowed: 1,327.6 s.f. (15%)* 1,500 s.f. Existing: 1,894 s.f (21.4Vo) •PtrCayCoda 78-l40i Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover 1986 Approvab Proposed Hardcover 4.128 s.f 0s.f 420 s.f 102.5 s.f 420 s.f0-73 (0%)(10.17%)(2.5%)(10.17%) 75 - 250 4,723 s.f 1180.7 s.f (25%) 2,749 s.f (58.2%) 2,376 s f (52.2%) 2.749 s.f (58.2%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The existing house is set back 3.2* from the side property line >vhere a 10* setback is required. The deck, which was replaced, encroached equally into the side yard setback. The applicants, in rebuilding the deck, have tnaintaioed the setback at 4.2 ’ from the side lot line where 10* is required. Hardcover Variance Variance approval for a garage addition in 1986 limited the 7S*-250* zone to a total of 52.2*A hardcover, and the 0-75 ’zone to 2.5% (see Exhibit J). Since 1986, a shed,decks, driveway, and additional hardcover have been added to the property without City k FILEM4.39U 2MartH200« P»9«4ofS approval. The q>pHcants have removed approximately 142 s.f. of hardcover from the 75’-250’ setback zone, including a paved sidewalk on the north side of the home. When the applicants purchased the property it had a total hardcover level of 61.2%. Permits were not obtained in the reconstruction and removal of the decks, sidewalk, and other hardcover in order to accurately document the square footage removed. Had a permit been applied for by the applicants; the property would have been reviewed and the new, unpermitted, deck and hardcover additions would have been noted and the building permit most likely would not have been granted without bringing the property back to the approved 1986 hardcover levels. Staff has included the Hennepin County Assessor’s report (Exhibit D) to illustrate the size and configuration of the decks which were reconstructed by the applicants. Historically, in reviewing similar applications, staff has consistently applied 0'7S’ setback zone hardcover overages to the 7S*-2S0' zones. This property currently has 10.17% hardcover in the 0-75* zone where none is allowed. Consequently, the 420 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-7S’ zone shall be applied to the 7S**2S0* zone wUch brings the hardcover level for the 75’-250’ zone from 58.2 % to 67%. The level of hardcover and the substandard setbacks are not uncommon in this neighborhood where small lots and lack of on>stieet parking make the give and take between unnecessary hardcover and safe vehicle parking a constant tug*of-war. This may help to explain the unapproved 220 s.f. gravel parking pad, the installation of which did not require permits from the City, however, this additional hardcover is reviewed at the time of a permit application and/or during a variance review. Although, the requests in this situation are not excessive, and although the hardcover reductions the applicants have done to the property have resulted in a better situation than when they purchased the property, staff still finds that this is no justification to allow retention of hardcover that would not have been approved if leg^ly requested. Average Lakeshore Setback Varianec The new deck is located 3.S* into the average lake setback. Although the applicants reconstructed the new deck no further toward the lake than the existing deck, the existing deck was constructed without City approvals and cannot be legally replaced to this extent without a variance. Hardship StatciacDl Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. aw - FILEM4-MW 2Mreti20M PigaSofS Hardakip Analsrflf lnt»mHtrtmtaftlkaHttuf9r¥Mtnct,tk€MMiilHiCommlal§mth9acomld*rtktiifftei§ftkt ftof»itiwiametmtoinlt»keMt,uiftfymiy»tV^rtoftk9coimm»lly,mtMtgutdmtldpat9imtne cmUklmM^Utktmdak, irngv 0ffln, H»k to At pmkUc mi At ^ffta on tobm ofptoptrtt In AttormuMogmoo. Tke PlonnAgCommbiUm AotteonsbkrneonmoiiiAtt^rovol forvoHonees f^omAtUtrotprovlUons tfAt^btg Codt A katontts wktrt AOr stria tnforctmtnt wooticaost tm4oo korAklg kteontt o/dKomotonets onlgot tt At AAvUuoi proptrty undtt cotnUtrekoH, and id^grotolomfywkenitlsdomonstroiedAoistick octbm wUt ke A keeping wUktke ^Mt mod kuenief At OronoZonktg Cette. Stiff finds that although the applicants replaced existing decks on their property and did not increase the size or the setbacks of these existing decks, the existing decks did not have City approval. However, due to the fact that size and location of the decks (which were replaced) were not approved by the City, there is no hardship for which to justify allowing bigger decks than were approved to remain. In addition, to base subsequent hardcover levels and approvals on unapproved decks would ix>t be in keeping widi the City’s practice. Therefore staff does not find that a hardship exists to allow the current level of hardcover on the property. Issecs for Constderalion Does the Planning Commission feel that there is hardship in order to grant the after-the- fsct side yard setback variance? Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccoBBcadatioa Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, and average lake setback variances. City of Orono Variance Application exhibit A Stn9tAddnss: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Application# Data Recalva6; o«-/ Main: 952-249^600 fax 952-249^4616 MaSktg Atkknss: PO Box 66 c'ryatalBay. MN 55323-C066 8600 Amount Paid: / J g;c> Staff: Fee: ^Renewal: 8300 ______________ Qj^After-tha-tact 81^00 Double Fee This applicatton form must be compteled in M. Applcant wfll be rwlified within 15 days ai to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: i rul‘l/L ____________ Property IdentificaQon Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): pllTA □ Yes. i own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property. ^Residential □O-Jier________________________ Zoning District | __________ Email: INFORMATION: (Complete legal na.-es and nwrttal ^ VI j£0\t\( I^ACmTA \ ~ Phone(woifc): lES APPUCANT Name: ____ Phone (home) _ Address: Un*=r U\ IS required fbr each intarested party) Fax: OWNER INFORMATION: (Compete legal names a.-d marital staijs required fbr each intereated party) Name: Phone (home): Address: ___ Email:_____ Phone (work): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: EsUmated Project Cost $ __ Describe the request in detail (attach ad^tional sheets if necessary): ________________________ ___________i c\A\fAZ.vA__________________________________________________________ ^5^29 S8 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: WHcaSon ^ submitted by the application deadline date In order for your ^ Pre-Applicatlon Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner Completed Application Form Br Completed Hardthip Documentation Form □ Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat mao List, labels and may be obtairied from Hennepin County Department of Finance s Gwemn^nt Center, A-603 300 South e®’ Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-6910 "" Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements iis^ ^thln this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or / n X 17 for reproduction. Completed hardcover Miculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). ^ oM 1^)Tl7"^r^reiproduc^^ existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" 2 fiSlf^**1^*^ plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11’ or 11" x 17") □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: 7^ applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Plannlno peparjnent agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered In the on-ginal toe payment and certifies that the information supplied is fhr ^ hisAier knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/ehe is solely 215 application being aware that upon failure to do so, thearss xsiis"**" “~ Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature;Date: Date: ^ 7j OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: app“«“ten and further authorizes reasonable ofttMd ‘ “-“er, for Date: Date:2 f Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: P‘Q '-t,.V D«cr^ii«a of We need an after-the>&ct variance in order to keep the decks on our home that we replaced without a permit This includes the strect>side entrance and the lakeside deck. We feel this is a reasonable request seeing that the decks were constijcted within the same footprint as the previous decks. We also would like to replace the second-story deck as soon as the wmk is done inside our home. Hardship Doev 1. Italian Farm We would not be able to enter or exit our home without the front and tear decks, therefore, a platfoim/landing and stairs are needed. The decks that we replaced were rotted ^ unsafe. 2. The entire lot is located in the 75-250 feet setback area and these decks existed when we purchased the home. 3. there were previously decks in the same location it keeps the character the same. 4. Our hardship is not economic rather access to the home. 5. N/A 6. N/A 7. The use ofa deck is permitted. 8. Itisalong.naiTowIotandwedonHhaveany other options. 9. We had old rotted decks and people in the area have already updated their decks. 10. We need an area that is raised up off foe ground in order to have our patio furniture and grill The lakeside deck allows us to sit outside, eat, and ciyoy being outdoors. U. The newly constructed decks actually improve health and safety. 12. It is necetaify to have a landing and stairs for entrance into the home. p r 5; ,i ■ ■ 0., J ■■■rr EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Thl» fofm Is s rsquirsd submittal for ALL vsrisnes applications. An application will not be conaWsfsd complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is compists and submitted to the City._________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be damonstratad in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as varlanoaa run with the land and not the land owner. Persona/and econom/b a^uathna era not conaiderad valid hardahipa. In order for an application to be heard by the Piarming Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DOI PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the varianoa will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justified. The information the City recehres is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out It will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship aiteria as they relate to the request (some mayIf — 1, "The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use If used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” 2, "Tha plight of tha landownar la due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.* 'Economic conslderatkms alorw shall rtot corutitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” 88Jl yt Page 2 of 3 ^ *Undua hanJahIp also tndudoa, but ii not nmilaO to, Inadequate access to direct sunlight far solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction ss defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* 6. Ttw Board of Appeals end Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a r. r- The special corKjitlons applying to the structure or land In question ore peculiar to such property or Immediately adjoining property.' « *■ iiSdilSdtolS “* r Page 3 of3 12. The granting of euch variance will not meraiy terve at a convenience to the applicwit. but it necessary to alleviste demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship carvtot fuDy be described in w abo\^ criteria, describe the unique hardship, praclicel diffiojlty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning O^inanos requiremertfs in the following lines (atta^ additional sheets if. •a-----i EXHTBITB Hardship Statnacat In order to get t better idea of what construction actually took place, I've included before and after pictures of the properly. During die process of rq)laciitg the dedcs we actually reduced hardcover. The only difference between the lakeside deck and the previous deck is the elevation ofdie lower deck. The old deck had two levels. The first p^ of the deck extended from the boose ^ipcoximately 5 feet and then had stairs in the center, with no handrails, that dropped off on either side. The lower deck extended another approximately 5 foet The pre-existing deck was unsafe and was not functional. We took away 36 sq. ft. of front walkwqr leading to the gersge. Wealso took a lection of 40 tq.fr. off of the lakeside deck that extended across past the baywlndow. We frien had to add 12 sq.ft, of stairs in order to align them with the door for lafety reasons. We removed 36 sq.ft of deck on the second story due to unsafe rotting wood. For safely reasons, we would like to put it back on once the problem is taken cart of inside the home. It is a safety hazard to have a sliding glass door that does not lead to a deck. We alao removed 70 sq. ft. of cement sidewalk that was along the north side of the home. In addihon, we would like to keep the gravel area on the south side of home in which to park on. Since there is no parking available on the street, it is necessary to have that area so we don't block irafiBc 1^ having can sticking out into the street. V.1 ^ s .r. ^ CO U'j C) 00 Se^ Okur EXHraiTE I 1 /^/2-04 HARDCOVERJCALCULATION WORKSHEET SKTBACKZONE: (CIRCU ONE) fO-7^ 75-250’ 250-500’ existing HA wnrovKn in zorre SOO-IOOO' A. Houk .1 WMi B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk l06xVj 5 £. Patio/Deck 62 «toot iTAilLv^Y 9-WOPQLAHO INdk 2y~ F. Landeeape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other 190 TOTAL HARDCOVER !N ZONE total property area in zone ^ * B xlOO - Mr PROPOSED MABnCQVER IN ZQ VE A. House WiSdi B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc 0. Other total hardcover inzone total property area in zone A ____________ •*. B XlOO .... f' a- ,SF. .SF SF -5M£0 •WtTOO PAaiC. SF. .S-F SF SF. .SF. .SF. .SF. .S.F. S.F VViALl.5 S.F. SF. H S.F. .SF. S.F. ,S.F. .S.P.- .S.F. .S.R S.F. .SF. ,S.F. SF. tA \ ! S.F. SF. H EXHDITF l(w«) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM > l(f ic. nf (gOI TWk- ^CtX')€ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plant for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at lotiS "parlL LiUiL also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) urfoerstand that in executing this scknowiedgemenL i (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to ocnfirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the Improvement plant and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires CouncH approval.indl ajmvai. 'ZijyJL di%Jn4 IwSvvnSrr'^ Date ^ I (we)VifLinrH »///}? ~P(U'/l Lanp [print name(s)l [print address] have/eyimtedJbe ^ru for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /iZAialso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understarfo 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 apotoval.use requires Council appipvai. ,QjjJSI 0.jnJf)4 Propel Ovmer Dete^ ' If you have any infomiation that may assist the City in the review of this Lsnd Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. f. . • EXHIBITGX ?r . ■f •' ... ., ':■' :• '^"- ^1?5 ’ rsJ - "'-s^' P vr: -‘S •.■am -♦. • o?> •.■•■.V---V..1 ” *. • .• A*»--»J>\.> • ■3F^JK Kfe )■ m$ J^ ,i:i .■naw* lSS:^l L!"*J f',5£.v.- I -J *r. j.v4ritAnLu9 tUNtMTCVanOM M MII72)4IM0I nWADOR U AOOR£SS UNASSIGNED ONNBINAME UCHARDR RUDD TAXTAYER RCMARD R RUDD NRMRWDDR MTrARKlA LONOLARRMN 5SSM N «ll7234l«ttt PROfAOOR Ml RARKLA ORfIMRNAMt INANERAKJUSTMEM RUDD TAXRAVIR SNANBRAKfUSTINEMRUDO NAMBIAOOR MIRARKLA U>NQLAK£MN SSU6 M MII73MIOOU RRORAOOR M4RARKLA OWNER NAME HENNCRWRORFGnEOLAND TAXRAYER CITVORORONO NAM&AOa ROBOXM CRYSTAL BAVMN SSttS It 0III72)4MII4 rWRAOOR AM RAJUCLA OWNERNAME R O ANDERSON A N L ANDCRKM TAXRAYER RICK O ANDERSON A NAMEIADQR NANCY L ANDERSON UORARKLA lONOLAREMN HENNEPIN COU^raOPg^^ SYSTEM RAOE I II W1IT2M100tt RRORAOOR 377 RAJUCLA OWNERNAME DB«SELOUENOW TAXRAYER DENISfi L DOENOW in RARE lA Jl OtimMtOM* RRORAOOR MfRARKU OWNERNAME SEAN DALY TAXRAVn SEAHALEAHDALY NAME/AOOR MSRARKLA LONGLAKfiMN SS35S Jl MII73I4I00M RRORAOOR SM RARE LA OWNERNAME HENNERWRNtFEfTEOUNO TAXRAYER CITVOROROMO NAME/AOOR ROOOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SS32J Jl MII72J4MOIS RRORAOOR Jl ADDRESSUNASSKWEO OWNERNAME CERLEMINOIRRLRFLEMINC TAXRAYER JOHN R SHARON RERC NAME/AOOR IMXVIOEO 31 06II7Z34I0M7 RRORAODR MJRARKLA OWNERNAME OINAR A STEWARTLHANSEN TAXRAYER GINA RR STEWART L HANSEN NAME/AOOR aiRAEKU LONGLAKEMN 33JM ]| MII72J4IMI4 RROPAOOR 3M PAMCLA OWNERNAME SERSNBURCER TAXRAYER SCOTT E R SHANNON N BUROBR NAME/AOOR JM PARK LA ORONOMN 33336 Jl UII72J44000S RRORAODR 449 MMNETONKAHCLOU OWNERNAME SVSWANTEKARGSWANTEX TAXRAYER STERHEN A RATRJCtA SWANTEK NAME/AOOR 449 MINNETONKA HOLD LA LONGLAKEMN 33136 Jl 6411723440017 RRORAOOR 407 RARKLA OWNERNAME RRUOOAKRUOO TAXRAYER UCHARD R KATHLEEN RUDD NAME/AOOR M7 RARK LA LONGLAKEMN SSJS6 CO CO *. • ^ I CERTIFY THATTie FACR REPRESBWTBD ARE AN ACCURATE AND niUEREPRESBaATlONOF DfXJRMAHON AS IT APPEARSTIfS DATEONTHE RBOORDS OPTIC WWBPIN COUNTY T/LXRAYER SERVICES DERARTMPIT. TO THE BEST Hi IIM' piM •' V. ; :- • ^i. .Hennepin County Taxpayer Seivices De|Mi|tmi^;'' -•V. \y^r\ o # 107.2 te». m m (96) f« 130 M (91) 00 f •• ■..''7: •■V- . ’■ .W. .. i>7 : a 'TNmIo not 9 hgtlly rwcordtd tnap: itrtfinmntM • caggMaHon cfJnjbfini3S^ ^ 4 miaa&lafnmCiy. County, and Sleti t . I* imoN.oT City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2047_ _ _ _ _ A IBSOIJDTXaa GRANTING A VARIANCS TO NDNXCXPAL SORING CODS 8BCTX0BS 10.22. 8UBOIVX8XOR 2 AND 10.24. 80BOIVXSX0N 5 FUJI 01022 NBBRRA8. Charles A. Schall (hereinafter *the applicant") is the otfner of the property located at 605 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City*) and legally described as follows: Lot 15. Block 6, Minnetonka eunnit Park. Hennepin County. Minnesota, except that part of said lot lying South of a line dravm parallel with and distant 55 feet Southerly of the North line of said lot; (hereinafter "the property”)} and NBBRBA8. the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Hunioipal Soning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 to increase hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone from 48.6% to 52.21 where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of a side-loading attached garage which will be located 7.7 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot setback is normal ly required, and located 3.5 feet from the street lot line where a 33 foot setback is noraMlly required. HON. THBRBFORBf BE XT RESOLVBO by the City Council of Orono, Minnesotai PXNDIN6S 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile 11022 • 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Coasaission reviewed this application on Kay 19, 1986. and recosMnded approval of the proposed variance baaed upon the following findings: A) The proposed side-loading garage is potentially safer than the existing end-loading garage, although this is a very lov- traffic street. B) The proposed garage will provide a greater setback from the street than the existing garage. Page 1 of 6 i > • - 4. I • • / .?K Cityof OROIVO .» i ■ •■’■ i RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2047 . C) There is no other location on the property in which to construct a 2-car garage due to the required 10 foot separation between structures and the close proximity of the house to the south, which is only 0.5 feet from the lot line. ™ garage is reasonable considering the small size of the lot, and is preferable to a horizontal expansion of the house which would create additional hardcover. P) Por safety purposes it is reasonable to allow the applicant prov'fdV Vr*..* ^nrouV G) No o^er land is available for applicant to purchase in order to make his property more conforming. B) There is existing hardcover the 0-75* and 75-250* setback »»>• proposed ** inadequately sized for applicant.reasonable use of the property. «*■» 9»rage is necessary to provide a useful second bedroom sine» t>^*v vrase currently contains only one ?rasio^-s7d%“ o‘? neighboring property to the north. Page 2 of 6 CityofOROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2047 8. Revision of the roof line of the existing house to create a usable second story above the existing house would result in additional encroachment on neighbor's sunlight due to a higher peak, and might also require a variance to maximum height restrictions, and second story structure over garage is less of an encroachment on sunlight or open space. 9. Expansion to create additional space outside the existing walls of the house is limited by the hardship of the small lot sise. The lot was created and existing house constructed prior to formal City soning controls. These conditions are unique to the property and do not generally apply to other developed lots in the LR-IB Zoning District. 96% of the developed lots in the LR~1B Zoning District exceed 0.20 ftcres in area. The subject lot contains 0.199 acres in area. These unique conditions were not created by the applicant. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicant to make the property more conforming. 10. The second story addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood but will be consistent with existing development in the neighborhood. The amount of sunlight, air, and open space in the neighborhood will not be adversely affected to any significant degree. The traffic conditions in the neighborhood will not be adversely affected but actually may be improved. 11. Because one of the general purposes of sideyard setback and height requirements in the Zoning Code is to maximise the amount of open space, air, and sunlight in a neighborhood, it is appropriate to restrict the height of this garage addition, given the side setback variance allowed. 12. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and comments by the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the commun.^ty. 13. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property In this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2047_ _ _ _ _ OONCLDBXON8« OMIBR MR> GOHDZTXOMS Baaed upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to Increase hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback sone from 40.8% to 52.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of side-loading attached garage which will be located 7.7 feet from the aids lot line where a 10 foot setback is normally required, and located 3.5 feet from the ''here a 35 foot setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions! 1. This approval is granted only for the garage/upper room addition proposed at this time, with roof peak approximately 3 feet below the peak of the existing roof of the house, per Exhibit •A" attached. Bxtention of the garage/upper room peak height above that height approved with this application is prohibited. 2. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of the* proposed additions, applicant shall remove the following items of existing hardcoveri Front Sidewalk - €9 s.f. Portion of Existing Driveway Pavement - 49 s.f. Plastic Under Rock Beds in Lakeshore Yard - 221 s.f. 3. The hardcover on the property is limited as followsi 0-75* setback sonei Bardcover may not exceed 102.5 s.f. or 2.5% 75-250* setback sonet items I Hardcover is limited to the following Bouse Hith Garage and Bntryway (with short sidewalk) Driveway and Backup Apron Sidewalk Decks 1,450 s.f. 599 s.f. 217 s.f. 110 s.f. 2,376 S.f. or 52.2% Applicant is advised that any future development of the property which will create additional hardcover will not be approved, and might be approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting In no net increase of hardcover. Page 4 of 6 ‘IP IWJ Cityof OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL NO. 2047 :mw: 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 22, 1987). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall auteawtically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the orono City Council on this 22nd day of September, Page 5 of 6 ; t RESOLUTION «2047 STATE or MINNESOTA ) ) as.couimr OF bbhiibpxh ) On this bsfors ns s Notary Public day of within and for said 1986 countyr personally appeared |vl>hyi.VAj L. A. known to ne to be the person(s) describea in and who executed the foregoing instriment, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the sane as his (their) free act and deed. MICHAEL f. OAFFROn sorMw mmo-mmnuota * HOMiFIN COUNTY |%Cl—ltS7 NOTARY PUBLIC KY CONklSSIOM EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )«•• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1986r before me a Notary Public within and for said County# personally appeared ___________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrumentr and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC HY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of € i04-2M9 3M»rck2004 Pif* I of 4 Date Appikatioa Rcceivtd: 02-174M Datt ApplkatiOB CouMcrcd ai Conplttc: 02-2344 (O-Dajr lUvicw Period Eipircs: 04-24-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: March 3.2004 Subject: #04>2989, Christopher Diesen, 1 1 00 To\^iiline Road - Class ni Preliminary Plat • Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1A« Rural ResidentinI Diitrkl, 5 acre minimum Lot Area: 600,692 s.f. (13.79 acres) A^iaUion Summary: Applicant is requesting a Class III preliminary plat approval to create 2 loti on one block at 1100 Townline Road. The total lot width of the subject property is 490* not allowing for the required 300 ’ of width for each lot. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the 300 ’ required lot width as part of this apnlication.___ St^ff RecomrttendatioH: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Review by the Park Commission prior to City CouzKil review. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Scctiona Sec. 78-395. Area, height, lot width and yard rcqnircmcnts. (a) Height. No structure or building in any RR-1A district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obst.-ved: Lot Area (acres) Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 5 300 too SO too 100 Chapter 82: Subdivbion Regulations 3M«rcHX»M Pip2tr« Lbt»fEiMbltt A. AppUcstion Site Plan Wetland Inventory and Delinendoo Rqwit from Gray Biological Consultants Memo from Septic Inspector Man Boltetman dated Mareh 3,2004 Septic Evaluations by S-P Testing dated June 19.1998 and May 12,1999 Aoial Photogr^)h Letter from City Engineer dated March 8,2004 Tonetu Document Letter from neighbor Propeity Owners List Plat Map B. C. D. E F. G. H. I. J. K. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS Introdacdoa and Conforauuicc with Comprehciasivc Plan Christopher Diesen is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2 lot subdivision at 1100 Townline Road. The property is located on the east side of Townline Road between Watertown Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad. On the west side of Townline Road is Independence. The current zoning for the propeity is RR-1 A. One Family Rural Residential District which requires five acre minimum lot sizes. The property is guided for Rural Residential in 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of five acres. Coarormaiicc with Zoning Ordinance The proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area and setbacks. The applicant has requested a variance to the required 300' lot width, proposing lot widths of 220' and 270*. The following table outlines the setbacks from the proposed and existing building pad locations: RR-IB Required Lot 1 (Labded Tract A) Ld2 (LabaJtd Tract BJ Lot Area S.O acres 6.14acres± (5.98 *<ky buUddfla per staff calcvlati^ 7.65 acres± (7.58 aeru * dry buUdablt par siqff eakmtatloiO Lot Width 300’220.6*270.1* Front Yard Setback 100*385 ’200':a Side Yard Setback (north) 50*50*88* home 50* garage Side Yard Setback (aontk) 50*92* home 50* shed 100*+ kbiijaHiaia •04-29I9 3M«rcl 2004 Pttt3«r4 Rear Yard Setback 100’500’ +500’+ SarrouBdiag DevtlopnieDC The pfeliminaiy plat is surroimdcd by RR-IA, five acre minimum residential property in all directions. Independence is to the west across Townlinc Road, and single family RR- 1A lots sunound the property on all sides. • ot Layout and Standards Two side-by-side lots are proposed to be served off an existing driveway which will be shared. The applicant has requested the variance for lot width as opposed to proposing a front lot/back lot configuration due to the topography and wetlands located to the rear of the property and at the NW comer. The plan in Exhibit B shows the required setbacks and primary and alternate septic locations. The applicants have shown that an adequate house can be placed on these lots and staff is satisfied with the lot layouts as proposed. The lots meet all required lot standards as shown in the tables above. City Septic Inspector has submitted written comments regarding the locations of the septic sites and the applicant vrill be required to meet all recommendations of the City Engineer and the Septic Inspector prior to City Council review. Road Layout and Standards The iqjplicant has proposed to use the existing driveway along the north boundary of the proposed Lot 2 (labeled as Tract B) for both lots. A driveway easement is required to be provided over the existing driveway for access to the northerly lot. Required Easements The applicant must dedicate the follo\^ing easements: • Conservation and Flowage Easements over all delineated wetlands, ponding areas, and drainage ways. • Driveway Easement over the entire existing driveway. • Standard drainage and utility easements around all lot boundaries. This consists of 10’ around the plat boundary lot lines and S’ on the interior lot lines. Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control The applicant has contacted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and has not yet received their comments. For final plat approval the applicant will be required to comply with MCWD recommendations. The subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at $2,160 per acre, with a cap of 7.0 acres to be charged per lot For this property, two lots are being created: Lot I at 5.98 gross acres would be charged a fee of 5.98 acres x $2,160 ■ $12,917. Lot 2 at 7.33 gross acres would be charged a fee of 7.0 acres x $2,160 » $15,120. M4-2fM JMartfcltM rat«4tf4 Arckacologksl Ia|»acti Tliere are no historically significant features on this property known to staff. Sewage TrantMtnt Copies of dte proposed septic plans were submitted with the preliminary plat. Septic inspector Matt Boltennan has reviewed the proposed septic plans and his comments can be found in the memorandum dated, March 3, 2004. He is recommending approval of the proposed septic systems. Park Dedicatioo The property does not abut any of the existing or proposed public trails shown on the City’s Compicfaentive Trail Plan. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with diis plication? Staff UcconiHiendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations; 1. Implementation ofthe recommendations ofthe City Engineer. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Mi^haha Creek Watershed District 3. Submission and approval of the final plat 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. CityofOrono A Subdivision Application Strvtf Addrus. 2750 Ketley Parkway OroiV). MN 55356 Mam 952-249-460C fax 952-249-4610 M§ikng Addnss P O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 This application form must bo completad in full. Application # Date Received 7 -n Amount Paid x-7P.. Staff Fee Renewal' Vvi PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Addreas: |\QO T~c***-^*^ vc- Property Identification Number (PIN) (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) . Date Property Acquired (monttVyear)- □ Abstract or a Torrens, please check one Pnatnt use of property: H Residential □ Other Zoning District RR \ A APPUCAI^ INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and manta! status required for each interested party) Phone (home): 7^i - - ilt-qq________ Address: I too >we, rA A^*nt» ON a C vn Emaa: ^ Fa Phore (work)- OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested parly) Name: a O \ cv> Phone (home); 7 0.1 “2 q Address: noo Vxv,t* c -a Emal: __Phone (work); EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size: I /.l.gl 13. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres TOTAL, all parcels Praaent Use (check one) ^ Residential; Number of Units: (h □ Other. (Specify) ________^ Present Zoning District t in________ Proposal: □ Division for Tax Purposes □ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) 0 Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check)Wi I ^0 L_ Residential □ Other (specify) .10. Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per 0*^ Acres Square Feet Dry Buildable Land MOQ QQ tAvmnuk, torn. COMPLETE PRBJMINAWY APPLICATION I fins' listed below). * * * * 4 • t * ■iiwmuM cc 1. Paymwit ^ %n (rofsr to 'n^Qcalion i 2. Completed eppUeation form. 3. PteNmlnaiy plat information on Certificata of Survey. CerlMiod Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this Kst from Henrepin County Department of Financa, Government Center, A*603 300 South 6* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). . As an addendum to the appRcation, pease attach a separate 1st of any other persons you wish nobfied of this ^ appUcaton. MINIMUM MATERIAL RgQUIPgP FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1 . Psymant of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolutcn and park fees if appiicab e). 2. Signed CertificatB of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Tide opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Cred-t APPUCATIQN FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Appileatlen Baae Feet: ___ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, < & III) S350.00 ____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600.00 Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $600.00 k Preliminary Subdivision Application $750 00 •*’ S30.00/1ot (Class III & all non-resldential) ___Final Plat Application (Class III) $250.00 ___Legal Review and FMing: ____Subdivision only $140.00 ____ Subdivision w/aesements and covenants; minimum $280.00 ♦ any additoral costs ____ Park Fees (to be determined per Secbon 62-227) ____Legal and EnginearinQ Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Clais I, II, & III Subdivision and of a Lot Line Rearrangement Application $300.00 6. Special Improvemant Ftea: ____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 ♦ $.50 per lineal foot._____lin. fL x .50 = $____ Proposed Public Roids $950 00 ♦ $.50 per lineal foot ____ Im. ft x .50 « $____ TOTALS Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 * $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 ^ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivisions) $60/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Foes/Miscellaneoue Fees ___Variance $600.00 ___Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting property ($600 minimum per application} ___ Easement Vaeabon Associated with a Subdivision $100.00 ___ PRD Applicabon with Subdi^sion $35 00 par dweliing unit IrO .dO The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by Planning Dep Staff, City Engineer, City Attorne^^l^ing Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Slgnaturs: (Oats: /l 6^ Ownsr's Slgnsturs:Oats: Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the City Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting. 1/-u-M O ' ■ ■; Q Ofe J ) TllACT A ____ |■•IS2Jfcr^.A«««»D^*A*fty4e^Wctl•4••••"•>•’' ati»«»4«■i«.«» M « wmTm iw -«J No.A<« Q«*w •< tf» fc^A-wi 0«-ntr. a««t-«iit, itait »*d «flk Ur ■ *id •«* h« o< SicJjoo W. d«w wtArir i»0H ^ tract B _ TI-. ■«. «# A b 0^4« oC HU S*«A^ Q»*»» •» 5«*“ Wl r rMBM Qmm U R m SeinhiMM Q*«*r. An« ««*«», il<«t «ia •» A* *» ^ OMiiwrfa* S*iii»i>—I Q*»w; Rr« *«»<» "T tr^—i«l<HDii»RM«oT>i|>—>R C««j« A*N«A2J0** E«t AuwT TRACT A The North 220.66 feel of thtf part of ihe Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30. Towruhip 118, Range 23, described as iwynning at the intersectioa of the west line of said Section 30 and the south line of the noith^9.4l feet of said Nocthweft Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence easterly along said south line 1215.22 feet; thence southerly deflecting to the right 91 degrees 48 minutes 25 seconds to the north line of the i^th^.22 feet of said Northwcit Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence westerly along said north line to said west line of Section 30; thence iwrtherly along said west line to the point of beginning. . fh,too4‘ TRACTB Thai part of the NorAwest Quvter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30. Township 1 1 8. Range 23. described as beguiling at the imenection of the west line of said Section 30 and the south line of the north 369.48 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence easterly along said south line 121522 feet; thence souLherly deflcctiiig to the right 91 dcg rcca 48 25 seconds to the north line of the south 446 2 feet of said Sonhwest QuMter of the Southwest Quarter, thence westerly along said oorth line to said west line of Section 30; thence northerly along said west to point of beginnmg. Except the North 220 66 feet thereof. WCOO STAMS ?1>CS0 aCAMNQlON A88UMCD OaTLU o ■ inCN HQN l SCT PHCnO«D l»#OnMAT1GN 18T R.OGH CLCV.*TOP 810013X9. * ORAiNACe ________wo o * BUST. GXV («•.« • l igi£V aoa.0 • COT awio» afv- msu I n««0f oowy «e r UIWW'Oy OMO Norawn ane uim I am • ewy uMMMat imewwainw oTWa »yn« Ljne C~4fT /i ny 99 88 H r. 0* sUecr z o^z afvQ^O QO. . ,¥<Oc-/Oo» ' EMt'ibi-)- O , Vne. Qray (Siological Consultayits ^erry Qray - President f!r'i (y i ’■ rlimW Chris Diesen Project M^ctland Delineation June 9,1999 \ gray Jreshwater Center • Suite ^5 • 25005haaywood Koad • Excelsior. M/^ 55331 ^oU free h5O0-27U2^ • Phonefjax 612^71 ’OA72 Chrb Dicscn Wetland Delin—tion- Jttnt9,1999 • lUMtiocI>etermiaition/DdiMttkNiForai(s) ptfe 1-2 • Aerial Photo-take* 6-S-99 pafc 3 • Aerial Photo-NRCS wHh NWI iaformatioB pa|e 4 • SoOaMap page 5 • Locatio* Map pofo 6 • Site precipitation data for April a*d May page 7-S • PredpHatioii naps page 9 • 'i C hris Diiscii Diliiualloii Pro,jcct-1 mm- (ira> ^ ( unstiKaiits. Inc. r ■ 1MCM Soils Map Gray Biological Consultants, Inc. fige 1 oti < I —start rragmnt--> .. .rRECZrXTATOH DATA. ..TOTAL FOR THE HOWTR. . . 3.43 DEPARTOTB FlOH NORMAL... 1.01 INCHES ABGVB NORMAL TOTAL FOR THE YEAR. . . S.36 DEfARTURS FROM NORMAL... 2.17 INCHES ABOVE NORMAL GREATEST DAILY- - 0.91 INCIES ON THE 5TH...NUMBER OF DAYS... MEASURABLE PRECIP... 150.10 INCH OR MORE... 90.50 INCH OR MORE. .. 21.00 INCH OR MORE... 0<!—EndFragaant—> Precipitation Data for Aprt 1999 http://www.foils.agri umaedu/reseird)/cGfliitology/tect/prcliinJcd/msp/9904txt 6/9/99 Weekly Precipitation. Departure anJ Ranking M. s lor June 7, l«w Page ! ot i Precipitaton JLnC2-Ju*<07. 1S99 5cn % N'o'^al t cr. 1999 Sli'PUL. I”IP pir AS :! StJia CtnMXD'ofi bffca.O*^ Dt Precipitation Rarkng ifjt* CM'if’sijf* bi*c« 904' l*fe* r-m ft- ■' /viE-5iSi StJtt Cimjwiog* enkt . 0B ’«'-I6fc8 X’CWU'-'OCWW'^ -'•••* r.c.'ti".'*': *.. r ’ . :t'' ^*'t'***' .\fiwteso:a Chmaroln^- lVo>^kir^ Group Main Pa^e I W*^ «/b http clinuic umn cdu docucckmap \^cekmap 99C60^ him t 9 99 Weekly Prccipliaiion, Departure and Ranking Mi' 'S tor June 7, IW9 Page ! ot i Precip.taton jLnC2-Jun07. 1839 ■s 13 t u-r- fA?^" •-11 L fT 1 '1 1 ttj:« Cknjta ’ogy OHca.Ote • UOS tji Precipta'jon Rerkng % H PrecipitatiGn % Nc'^^al M AorCI-Jun C7. 1393W ^ 1#.- HlV BBIk:JDNR , [»«M« irH • I \a lt«-c CUmits ogy C4ct . ceer-tthM s*jta cm«>**3'3«v D'Ve* aeof lasa - •.'.zvr’% •,. r * .—• Return to SUwie.sota Clw\vclo^ lVo^kw^)t_ojtp Mam I'a^e # 1 •• • ““ * mewf^e^ t tiu http /'Chmaie umn eda doc \^cck^nap. ucekrrap_99C607 him t 9 99 •v_5 Keep ell heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system wiO need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sew^ Treatment occurs. WHh proper installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softener etc. should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Iron filters must be diverted out of the system. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, anti-bacterial soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agen*s may km the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & dean your tanks through the manhole by a certified pumper every 2 years. Check with your pumper to set up a schedule. Steven B. Schirmers ^ cl i • r N HOUSE flUA W*x,v «u< \\ «•»» .5V.ML-V13L: StT-B>CKS SySttA «wi»l bt' Tar* 1*’ from praptrty IbM *>(' Ifom »i«^ 2i liwn bMqv . ■Htfnitrt •« -—I^ NOrr «ma»yw< f*»r» »n«i b« - --------------------------------- SOIL BORING ELEVATXWS J -------------------- TH*! EL.-9Li. __J».»V^llV^Osavi:£kl- I tM*hr» n«i»i M no •«iA ** ttnwfctf ond 'L*' i WCr.SlM' PSTHffjnON MOIKD StSTfV SYSTEM OeSCN -MOUMD YHAttEL-Oa*© TM!3M:L-il7 aEVUTOY ol PTO?OSCD RWPWC -\»v - ^H-O i» *.ouLT»^-< **>*0 _lll_ ruJZi-lEto-* 913 lum UC3»MW TYPt-i. JS-ICOnOOM, JWeioga ptruitotKA ro*tfeJi_"i«y»«Md»gn.85n«baoM«Mof»op*flpl-ol«Wr«w9eto«) _____ HSU gd7dlr.iD»an/,*3ai.,ll..rfH.M^«~««0V.^«|ll (;-OKA»»Jdl-fttoi,l»olWar«,Midt*par«,JHol Oka AcftniiM- J 3_ lU MDM fock M«MLlQ-aiyik ORVOI . Ardybom boc* W JTL-OjyiH aptm., <o N»hb»«lMt A««fd-3 ___Wto*Z2Sfi.9d.?.dl.*AaA»-AAnmlU»l.rUmf.Hu n! t<i< /mt«<1 at _3L'dD wnfr p*t, InltfMMilil., Ji'Lii<.«nor*M_ll9 ‘OOObifld_2. do wt,*»ft«*d«d-2-,_*—W* Wd c^iacl»ynwdid^&J^«al(bUtarw^puni|i) u\«. rnin./Bll—iv«l.<«f. IfclrR»illo« , , . - -M Pimp lit J!i&>.lv (pwpo«* tafOtAilisLff* 4cyt*ri/<toy) _Ux*-3i_3JU —ll^^a —E^-W-jSJiadVlnS-U^e — w.m..».«», t«-.««.r.y to dHOfI fito-olt Ifom tmttinq WolmtfO OAO. ----- -------' IWjPtRTY q- Y^trr i>no ro>OMuit^< ■fc'Bx.-------- vjtyQ^VT i-o< irrotjo MU U»v»>irtOj^ ' Du S/H/a. S"P TESTING, INCw Steven B. Schirmers & Debra M. Schirmers 951 Katydkj Lane NE - St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 FAX(612H97-5011 State License #394 June 19.1998 Roger Diesen 1100 Townline Rd. Orono. Henn. Co., MN This site has an existing on-site sewage treatment system classified as failed. The system is surfece discharging which is classified as an imminent health hazard under Minnesota Chapter 7080 njles which must be repaired or disconnected within 10 months. This will r>eod to be verified with the dty. This on-sIte sewage treatment system is designed for a Typo 1, three bedroom home, in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The area available will support a five bedroom home for a sub-division. Approval will be needed from the dty to be 10' away from the house with the tanks and 55' avi/ay from the weO with the tanks. The soils on this site are SCS soils mapped - KkB - Kilkenny loam. The seasonally saturated soils virere located at ir to 24" (mottlod soU). Duo to the seasonally saturated soils, a Pressurized Mound System wttl need to be insiaUed to treat septic effluent. The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of have a percolation rate averaging 4.2 mpi. A lift pump vyill be needed in the lower level for the floor drains. Tho existing tank is most likely not water tight and will need to be abandoned, pumped and filled with soil. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area. The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weather proof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device, this is In case of a pump failure. The manifold and supply line pipe must have back drainage to the pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have their ends capped. Be sure the rock and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned over, just break up the sod. be sure not to over work. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100* away from the proposed treatment area. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and alter construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Sfte Sewage Treatment occurs. With proper installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softener etc. should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Iron filters must be diverted out of the system. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & dean your tanks through the manhole by a certified pumper every 2 years. Che^ with your pumper to set up a schedule. Steven B. Schirmers y \ o*v I \- Vi*- - -- _£lASJL_V iAWL StT-BACKS House SyMM n«nl be- Tonb li* Irom pre»€ft| Wl :iL* l>ant «t«*l , ASL li«>* -Wetmtrtvn ] Vem *>*«. —*''W« limirMTi o»eo ii2.'So*i* Ji.‘ l#o»" l»ool •Jvd* i^t Onvim vm tmmm EaSe lytotfioB' Mat.ri»V 7 SVSItM -tmjijrmj ^ ------------------ OeSEN -MOUND SOIL BOaibiG CLCVATIONS rw5;«aA« osTwo/noM momo SYS^.TM>£L-JSi!* TM*ii atV«T<N 01 PRO»XBtO . -MRNC CHAVBtA-mAi-^» «»1.0 .1 - » ■fU.l^AN— Bwootrtrt) c«pocrff-m.MaM,«-oflt»ta-olilifii9M vUJI~OOl*<i«r«»toOQiol 150qol/B»^.q.A ♦Pioboddw «i iV /MOhtha«_A-‘*».»i«<i POO. lnll««AM12a_, lL«»<*"*onfcM Jjt.g*AOObv«rf_i do p»«>Hf»«W^ WOl c^HcWrMMM..S3irvA(|Af«onnforp»fip)u>•.!««•». OdVfbuliM opt jJ^*do a 11^ BvO. a (•*oo*0"0 3 l*. 0P*1 fWtbtJiJLIv. tpjriwhS csooci»»migaf Acidti/day) iio.«.Q >T*_ H»^a— ooowucw, iHd- .onorto iho-wb.»f«prt >**!:*" !• «Mrt *»0»-oH t*w" utoi»*rt o»to. >01 If _______________ pnoPtRTY 0? ■ XflU<tfe-V— OfliL-faiiaiU. grTovAn ; Oo.f >£^^. *«g *W>3SA6 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & 1 vll Associates Engineers & Architects March 8, 2004 Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner City ofOrono Post Ofllce Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1100 Townline Road File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2989 Dear Melanie: ••••»«• AnMfM AM AtMtiMM. MlCll an Affin ana Omtmm aiutciaau Otia O tonatiroo ri • war*M i ior*M »l • O^tnna Coo* »l • aoear. 6 S«nu^»*f pf . fry A toijraon P| • Mart A Hanlon P| lanior CaniiAtanu aoatrt w leimt M • joiaan c Anda-ta ai • licnaid I Tu/xar *1 • twi^ M ttann. crA Aitadata PMn<#a«i Ba m a Go'dan PC • Betta'i ■ P'a"a'it *1 • t-<na'0 « reiia' *1 • Oa».d O lotieta •• • Micnaai T toaxann a| • f «.a>a PI • aannam P Andattan Pf • Ma^ a Be*. Pf . aa>.d A lovBliad. VIA 1.0-aT p i»f»a«*io" Pf 11 • A^I M tiHd MIA. Anan !«• U-mMii P| . -nanxM W» Paia>ian P| . .anwil MMxa Pf • tPail janian Pf . i P%a« o«.a< • M • 3ana<J Id^a-tan Pf . vnat< Manual Pf • fnon«a» A Sffka Pf . inaman j aonn^n . Oaw A G>e.« Pf • tnnma. A tobmar Pf • IMa-i . Ofy *1 OMkpi Si Paia St C'Oud aeanauat and tawtita narnMnautaocent •PM. HP>.Mu«aa ax. CH.aie 1 We have reviewed the application for the two-lot subdivision at 1100 Townlme Road. The proposed project would subdivide an existing parcel of just under 14 acres in size into two residential lots. Both lots would share a common dri veway offof Townlinc Road. We have the followng comments with regards to engineering matters: • The final plat should include the dedication of 33-feet of road right-of-way for Tovmline Road. • Easements should be provided over all wetlands, ponding areas and drainage wa>s. • Drainage and utility easements snould be provided lO-feet wide along exterior lot lines and 5-feel wide along all interior lot lines. • A driveway easement should be provided over the existing driveway for access to the northerly lot. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2J35 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN SSII3 • 6SI-636-4600 • Fax; 6SI-636 I3II ItlSlT rt Nq. 20530 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT App. and Last Do. Mo 7362796 Court File No. S ^30-118.23 In the Matter of the Application of ) ) Roger H. Diesen ) ) To Register the Title to Certain Land ) • ORDER AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION The above entitle matter came on for hearing,at the Government Center in the City of Minneapolis. County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, on February 25,2003, before the Deputy Examiner of Titles to whom said matter has been duly referred, to hear the evidence in said cause and report his coiKlusions therehom, pursuit to MS. A. Section 508,13, and it appearing to the Court from the final report of said Deputy Examiner, that all the requirements of the law in respect to the Application herein and any amendments thereto have been complied with and that all the defendants in this proceeding have been duly served with process, as required by law, and it further appearing that no Answer or Notice of Appearance of any kind has been served or filed in this proceeding, except for the answer of Defendant Richard Rudd, which answer has been withdrawn. IT IS ORDERED, that a default as to each and every defendant named in the Summons and any amendments or supplemenU thereto and all heirs and devisees of any of the persons named therein who a.*^ deceased and all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, hen or interest in the real estate described in the Application herein, be and the same is hereby entered. The Court, having duly considered the Application, the Report of the Examiner, the evidence adduced by the Applicant in support of his right to this Order, and being fully advised in the premises, finds: —FE£ PAllT" FEB* 5 7003 nim fUTY FEB 2 7 2003 1. That the estimated market value of the premises hereinafter described, exclusive of improvements, according to the last official assessment thereof is S 200,000.00 2. That all the requirements of law in respect to the Application and any amendments thereto have been complied with and that all of the defendants in this proceeding have been duly served with process as required by law or have consented to the registration herein and it further appears that no Answer or Notice of Appearance has been filed in this proceeding, except for the answer of Defendant Richard Rudd, which answer has been withdrawn. 3. That, except as hereinafter provided, none of the defendants reamed in the Summons and any amendments or supplements thereto, have any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real estate hereinafier described 4. That the premises hereinafter described are occupied by Chris Diesen at the sufferance of Martha Diesen who holds a life estate in said premises. 5. That the life estate of Harold Diesen reserved in County Recorder Doc. No 571S8S2 has terminated by * his death. 6. That Thomas R. Diesen is deceased, having died mom that three years ago; that an undivided onc-lhird interest in the within land was his sole probate asset; that he was survived by his wife, Judy H. Ellis, and children: Angela Dickerson and Denise Caldwell; that the decadent Icfi surviving no other children, and no issue of decease children; that no will has been found and no probate proceedings have been commenced and no administration had in this state or elsewhere; and that title to said decedent's undivided one-third interest in the within land has vested in Judy H. Ellis. 7. That Judy H. Ellis and Elileen M. Carter each is the conveyed there undivided 1/3 interest in the parcel here'in for purposes of this proceeding and arc entitled to a re-conveyance of their re^ecti - e interests upenhere'in for purposes of this proceeding and are entitled to a re-conveyance of their remecti - e ii con^et^tm hereof) 0^ yy-pjK 8. That the encroachment of the power pole and wires along the north line and across the southeast comer of the land described in the application as shown in the inspection report of the county surveyor, subsists as a mailer of sufferance. 9. That the encroachment of the barbed wire fence along the Northerly line of the land described in the application as shown in the inspection report of the county rurveyor a^ the plat of survey on file hcrem subsists as a rrjitter of sufferance. • 10. That Town Line Road is open and in use across the westerly 33 feet of the land described in the application, and the City of Orono has an casement for such use. 11. That defendant William H. Buckman is deceased, his estate has not been probated in Minnesota, and the names of his heirs are unknown. #2^ 12. That the Order for Summons contains an cror in that it state that defendant Robb Rudd is a resident of Minnesota, whereas in fact, on the date of the Order for Surrjnor^, he was deceased, and his heirs hav- been given notice of this proceeding by publication 13. That, to the extent that Applicant does not have record title, he, and his predecessors in interest have acquired title to the above described land by adverse possession by occupying it for mere than 15 years in a manner which is actual, open, continuous, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and accompanied by an intention to claim adversely. . 14. That the occupants of the parcels which abut the parcel claimed adversely by applicant are: Gary L. Valenta and Carol D. Valenta (parcel to the Northwest), Michael L. Theis and BorJta K. Theis 'jrarccl to the North), Richard Rudd (parcel to the East) and Charles H. Kickhafer and Maxine K Kickhafer, aka Maxine B. Kickhafer, and the City of Orono (parcel to the West). 15. That all the material allegations contained in the Application are substantially true, as herein stated, except as hereinabove found, and that the Applicant is entitled to the relief prayed, as herein provided. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. That a default as to each defendant named in the Summons and any amendments or supplements thereto and all heirs and devisees of any of the persons named therein who are deceased and "all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien, dr interest m the hereinafter described real estate", is entered in the above entitled action. 2. That Roger H. Dicsen, whose post-ofSce address is 105 Beach Drive, City of Rockford, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, is the owner of an estate in fee simple of the land in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, ^ Township 118, Range 23, described as beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Section 30 and the south line of the north 369.48 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence easterly along said south line 1215.22 feet; thence southerly denectiog to the right 91 degrees 48 minutes 25 seconds to the north line of the south 446.2 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence westerly along said north line to said west line ofSection 30; thence • northerly along said west line to the point of beginning I 3. That said interest in land be brought under the provisions and operations of Chapter 5 C8, Mirxesota Statutes, and all acts amendatory thereof, and that the title thereto be confinned and registered as provided in and by said act; subject, however: To any rights or encumbrances which may be subsistmg, specified m Section 508 .25, Chapter 508, Mmnesou Statutes, and all acts amendatciy thereof; • • • ■ • -W ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- n 7 frtiitoiVI'V March 8.2004 % X, Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: We are Michael and Bonita Thas. We live at 1180 Townline Road in Orono, directly north of the DIesen property at 1100 Townline Road. We have been trying since 1997 to Torrens our property iine so as to establish our property lines. However, we have been held up in this effort because of the lawsuit against us by Jane Slaughter and Dick Rudd. They claim that the never used Historical Cartway of the early 1900's along the north end of our property is their only legal access to their property which otherwise accesses over the Burlington Northern tracks. This access over the tracks is a legal access. (Enclosed is a copy of Minnesota Statute 219.35 addressing this issue.) This lawsuit subsequently affects all of the property lines in this section on which multiple surveys have been done, all producing di^rent results. If the Diesen property is also affected it is because of this action by Slaughter and Rudd. Sincerely, ^ BonterTheis End. ujNOAnimoM TO TSIIU44I000S HOP AOOR ms TOWN UME RD )WNE»NAME DHENDWCICSOW*HENDRICKSON rAXPAYER DANA HENDRICKSON 4AME/ADOR 1125 TOWN UNE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN SS3S9 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST fAOE I. TO 2SIIU44I0006 PROP ADOR 70 ADDRESS WASSICNED OWNER NAME IAI ARSON ET At TRIATEES TAXPAYER lOYCT. A LARSON NAME/ADDR IIW CORD NO 19 MAPUPLAWMN JOS9 TO 2MIIT44)OQOT PROP AOOR 1007 TOWN UNE RD OWNER NAME C M GLOSSOT A K K CLOSSOP TAXPAYER C M CLOSSOP AKKCUmOP NAME/ADDR 1067 TOWN LINE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN J»I59 TO 2511134410000 itOPAOOR IO«5 TOWNUNERO twnername ANOREWGATSIOAICOS TAXPAYER ANDREW GATSIDAKOS 4AME/AOOR I045TOWNUNERD MAPUPLAWMN 55359 31 MIII2JII0004 PROP AOOR 45T5 WAYZATABLVDW OWNER NAME KATHULN M RUDO ET AL TAXPAYER RiCTURDRRKATTIUENMRUOO NAME/ADDR PARK LA LONGLAMbMN S))}« 30 JOI1023120001 mOfAOOR 1100 TOWNUNERO OWNER NAME MAUTNEB TAXPAYER MICHAEL LTHEB NAME/ADDR 1110 TOWNUNERO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55159 30 3011123320002 •ROPADOR 1160 TOWNUNERO TWNERNAME OARYLVALENTARWffB TAXPAYER OARYLVALENTA RAME/AOOR 1160 TOWNUIC RD MAPUPLAWMN 55359 30 3011021120003 PROP AOOR 1100 TOWNUNERO OWNER NAME ROGER II DIESEN ETA LSUBVU taxpayer MARTHA E fXESEN NAME/ADOR 1100 TOWNUKE RD MAPUPUWMN 5S1S9 30 3011021320004 PROP AOOR I0«0 TOWN LINE RO OWNER NAME CAMKJCKHAFER TAXPAYER CHARLES A MAXWE MCKHAFER NAME/AOOA IWOTOWNUNERD MAPUPLAWMN 55159 31 1011023120005 *ROPAOOR 1020 TOWNUNERO 3WNERNAMB TJLUNIESKlAi P WAHL TAXPAYER TJLUNIESKIAIPWAHL NAME/ADOR 1020 TOWNUNERO MAPUPLAWMN 55159 ICEWIFY THATTIC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCUIATC AND TRUEREPRESENTATTONOFirffORMATTONAS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE TCKNEPfN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DePARTMBTT TO THE BEST OFMYKNOM£DCEANOBEUEF_^^^^.,^^ BV ' 1 i ^ ’ 1 mm > FiLEi04-2990 eMa':^^004 P*9* 1 of4 Due Applkation Received: 02-II4M Date Application Considered as Complete: 02-23^ 60-Da> Review Period El pi res: 04-24-04 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner j\/\Cy March 8. 2004 04-2990. Patrick & Loring Kaveney, 1444 Baldur Park Rd, - Variances - public hearing Zoning District: LR*1C, Single Family l-akcshorc Residential, '/i acre minimum Lot Area: 0.19 acre (8.600 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances in order to construct a new residence at 1444 Baldur Park Road The application consists of the following; 1. Lot area variance for a lot 0.19 acre in size where 0.5 acre is required. 2. Lot width variance for a lot 47* in width where 100* is required 3. Hardcover variance for 2,330 s.f. (44.98%) of hardcover within the 75’-250* setback where 25% is normally allowed. ____ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakcahorc hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR-IB. LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78*281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover, ^^’ithla 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot w idth and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in an LR-IC district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Lot Am Lot W iom Front Y»:d Side Yard Rear Ya-d S.de Yaru Adjuent I (tcre)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feel)to Sfeet (feet) 1 0}too JO 1C 30 11 15 1 FILEM4.29M • Mircf^ 2004 Ptgt2 oi4 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or iinpervious 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, laixlings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feel and 250 feet of the OHWL. there shall be no greater than 25 percent bard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percetU hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Sec 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0 —1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. LUt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Proposed Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations D. E. H. I. Letter from staff uat,.’ February 27, 2004 Letter from City Engineer dated March 9,2004 Property Owners List Plat Map Background Patrick and Loring Kaveney are the property owners of 1444 Baldur Park Road. They are requesting lot area, lot width and hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family residence on their property. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaA» idth; LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100 ’ Actual 8,600 s.f (0.19 acre)47 ’ FtLE«04-2990 S Marcia 2004 P«9«3o«4 LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Lake 75*62*75’ ^ Rear 30*20.4’30’ East Side 10*11.r 10 ’ West Side 10 ’8.7’10 ’ Average Lakeshore The extsnng home is located behind the average lake setback The new home is proposed behind the average lake setback Structunil Covcragtt Tottl Lot Area 8,600 s.f. (0.19 acre) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 1290 s.f. (15 %) or 1.500 s.f Proprsed: 1.500 s.f. (17%)__________ •FerCiiyCod»78-!403 Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3.420 s.f.Osf (0%) 386.5 s.f (11%) 0 s.f. (0%) 75 - 250 5,180 s.f.1,295 s.r (25%) 2,439 s.f.* (47 %) 2330 s.f. (44.98 %) Total hardcover of Lot (8 600 * Alter exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area A Lot Width Variance The property is a lot of record and is non-conforming with respect to lot area and lot width. The applicants* request for a lot area and lot vsidih xa.'iar.ce in this instance is merely a formality. Hardcover Variance Due to the small size of this lot the 15% stniaural cov erage allowed is less than 1.S0O s.f.. and the applicants are permitted by City Code 15% lot coverage by structures or 1,500 s.f. whichever is greater. The applicant is permined a 1,500 s.f. footprint However, due to the size of the lot and the area within the 75*-250* zone, this footprint accounts for 29% of hardcover within this zone. In order to service the property with a driveway, sidew’alk and a conservatively-sized, grade-lev’el deck, the applicant is FILEt04-2990 S March 2004 Pa0a4of4 requesting a hardcover variance xvithin the 75*-250’ zone for 44,98% where 25% is normally allowed. The adjacent homes have hardcover in the 75’- 250’ setback zone between 30%-50,4%. The applicants’ request does not seem to be out of line for this neighborhood Hardship Statement Applicants have completed the Hardcover Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis in considering applications for variance, the nannlng CommUthn shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, sttfeiy and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic eondUeus, light and air, danger of fire, rbh to the public safety, and the effect an values of property in the surrounding area. The Piannlng Commission ^aO consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unigue to the Individual property under consideration, and shaU recommend approval only when It H demonstrated that such actions wUI be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff fmds that due to the size of the lot there is a hardship in order to grant the variances requested. The existing hardcover on the property is 11% in the 0-75’ zone and 47% within the 75’-250’ zone. The he applicants are reducing the overall and all of the setbacks will be met with the new residence. The proposed deck is minimal, only 121 s.f. and meets all of the setbacks. bsues for Consideration Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. ^i&rr A City of Orono Variance Application StT00t Address: 2750 K«lley Parkway Orono. MN SS356 Man: 952-249<4600 fax: 052-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-C066 Application# CJ Date Received. ^ - i Amount Paid. / aTY^t ^ Staff: ,l L, i >. ■' . ^ Fee: S600______________ Renewal:S300 After-the-fact Si.200Dojt3:e Fee This applicaton form must be completed in ful AppTcant will be notfed witnin 15 days as to the status of the a;pi caton Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . . rv . O , Site Address; /VW IdtAy^ iC<L Property Identification Number (PIN): og- 7-^J-YJ - ooo</ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): □ Yes, I own the Present use of property: ti Residential ^ □ Odier Zoning District: uQ. - / C._________ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. APPLIC/^T INFORMATION: (Complete leoal nan-es end marital status required for each interested party) Name; ^ L^ric\ct Koi\r^.r\e,y Phone (home): CrV..3-^qM- pAr>r.^nr Address: _ Pnone (work): /i WnV.'d.. A>\rV Email: rv\ri. fP. r/orr\ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names «'d mar^i status required for each interested party) Name; ^ ' 7u Fax: atus required fwc, A. Phone (home): QlMi - ^M ______^^hone (work): cxhf/ Address: <?yS3~ v^»V>>e, AVia ; Email: 7iCv-Vr:3g a ^ Fax: “)~V DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ pU^ifOon Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _____________, ______ rO rcr |Ma.f*yi4A ^.4~ ■» V s V ji. ,'r'„ f! '■ . ^^ ^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: applic^ionto°be ^ submitted by the application deadline date in order for your CT Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner, O' Completed Application Form i & Completed Hardship Documentation Form ET Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat mao. Ust. labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance y Government Center. A-603 300 South Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 □ Original Cer^cate di Survey (signed by a licensed sun/eyor). meeting a'l the requirements ^ ® packet. Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11 X 17" for reproduction. nyo a * n or ^ Completed hardcover calculation vwrksheets (as provided wHhIn the variance packet), a Top^rapWc survey - Including existing and proposed elevations Provide one copy 8 5“ x 11" or 11 X 17" for reproduction. - ^ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8 5‘x11"or11"x17") □ Additional Herns may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The ^licant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Plannlno epar^ent agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or tme application and certifies that the Information supplied is i-MDonllwl ^'‘s/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solely SfS application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the reouest for denial of the request regar^^as of Ite potential merit commena me request for Applicant s Signature: Applicant’s Signature: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: aclmo^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Cormisslon & Council Members for purposes of investigation and^rification of this request wlisn - --------o;» Planner # rr^. »-w v: r? -•<' * *:T%. Page 1 of 3 hard ship D0CUMENTATI0NF0RM^^^^^^^^^_^_^ 1 complete and submitted^ojlieC^---------- ^ ------------------------------ mCr>> t'rr^ h ^ <^»rr>r ^—- ———“ ~ • --------------------- ■» "The variant.» 9«n>«<- *'"1'’' *”®' ‘jjf ifr:--------- —‘;^'""’n n ‘ —--------------------- ..^________ no. cons;,lute a-> undue harts! jLp^ »*r>vM . y ^ ^ ^ -------------- '■ ;:g^ssgy^5^S5^ ■. Oo c•VT’ *"-^' ; * J’iff’ Page 2 of3 access to direct•anllght for solar ensrgy systems ^Varian<»"''*r'n ‘’' •'•‘»5s lo d.reet eonsinjclion as in Wnnesota aaS^! *5f »he?ered I’am.ony^this Chapter.- ’ ’6J <W. SuM. 2. when in 6. -y not permit a, a wKre person's land is ^ted*• ^ “ ‘'"'P'®’’P^pperty in the zone 7. -The Board or Cound! mav «««„:. o-e.fam^dwemra,,,h^,^^y"2^®J^^^ U,e temporary of a ^_ 8. 9. 11. to Ipnd in goes,on pro peculiar •‘n.ctiires the district in P'ese'vation snd enjoyment - '-"rtrrr r.| • (' *1 » V “’* /■/ *'* SL.V- 'w Page 3 of 3 ”The granting of such variance will not me'ely ser/e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to allevia^te demonstrable hardship or dfficulty.* Tkip gfopqre A. ‘ f-tj f •f~t^ C^in.St . ip /✓ Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above critena. descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the follov.-ing lines (attach ada tional sheets if necessary): "Z^OA.Wtf f CoAfi. ^ IIdoOS -fdr- O-f- /o-f AfA.f* -4 jsa^ >Vi 1 1\.\ 5S 7^ g. O la 4— ys <x,r-A /*QL<y~ t:5^ r-^CrhiA.-C<^ aE Cx. ±=f££L \ o€ u. rxAfirlfU £U^4*^drr^rj^ -M-e. r\%[•</PuJ*uy ;"aA^ / j«*. i ' C: S * T».A L ____ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR PATRICK KAVENEY OF LOT 4. BLOCK 1, BALOUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LAKEMinnetonka NORTH ARM 929.4 CONTKX LEGAL DCSCRiPTlON OF PREMISES Lot *. Block 1. BAlOUR PARK O : donoto* iron morktr 2ee^ing9 iho«<^ art teitd upon on osi^mad dot^rn. Thi* turvoy inttndt to ttrow tne boundorioa o* tl** obOMt doscribod property, ond the locotion of on eKiiling house and garoge thereon. It does not purport to Show o"y other irrproMvnentS or cncroochnert9 °0" GROtTBEBS k iSSOOATE. DC uamotfiURS HIkMM OBlAHi B}-47>4'«* GROtTBEBGl ^ ^ HI9MM I iw«r smv > tm *» mntwtti • wet ^ die ■ WHA e« iw • • Mr iioMre 04 bine M ;ae trwrv ( »t rH •* n SMu •« etfwea ■<n t >eWi Hrrm't Ijcwiw er»— 'im i-wro* ”T5Tf“ »-2*-0i C1-J7I ©4tn^iT<^ I EWCT|*J6| I ■si y-!. ^lerr c' y' >■4 ' I vf. •> •“* '"■ 'W - 0<rtlBIT DS 4ti ■• V 'A-^%3 iMHiPrirW :s ISMS^ lai ia-M-TTW A. House S'H-iBrre/ ■a»». WORKSHEET‘TONE. (CIRCteONE) (0-7^ TS450' 2W.«00‘ SOO-IOOtT tlOTlWOHARPeOVERIWZOWF • _i£2£__SF. OLMfltIWklih a Oarage C. Ortveway 0. Sidewalk E Patio/Daefc F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Ci Retaining Wells H. Other TOTAL KAROCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZOMP A House ___________ B. Gerage C. Driveway 0. Sidewafle E Pati^Deefc F. Lar>dscspe Undarlain By Plastic 6. Retaining Wals H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A r.j- xlOO .S' 3vao Wtth ♦ R V inn a :SWJ3Ln #2990 .S.F. .S.F. .SF. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .SF. .S.F. .SF. .S.F. SF. _S.F. «SF. A .^S F. B li___% .SF. SF. .SF. .SF. .SF. .S.F. .SF. .S.F. .SF. .SF. -SF. .S.F. A .S.F. B X' s/' 9 Dcffiecr HARDCOVER CAI SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-Tr l HARDCOVER IN ZONE A HouM ION WORKSHEET 250*8QO‘ SOO-1000* V. 3 O S.F. WidBi < $r. A B. Oarage C. Dfivaway . D. Sidewalk E PeM eP ec k Tk+io iO.SL 5-S . ^ ro X X X X X X X X X to I hS" hS' 0. Retaining _________________ Wato H. osier ___________-— TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER ppOPOSEP HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ____________ Laofltn B :s.F.® S.F.@ LI C, z _£J13V_11_s.f. a xioo iro -OQ S.F. 8 % /so o B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatioPeck F. Landscape Underlain ByPtastic O. Retaining Wane H. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPW^^AgEA IN ZONE ♦ B SF. S.F. S.F. .SF. S.F. .S.F. S.F. _S.F. .SF. SF. SF. 05^ ■. f”')o A-:., S' / no S.F. A S.F. B A 100 -___ CITYof ORONO Miuilclpal Odlccs Strati Address: 2750 Keltey Partway OfOTt. MM 55356 Manbii Address: P.O B<n 66 Crystal Bay. MM 553230066 February 27.2004 Patrick & Loring Kavcncy 98SS Bennett Place Eden Prairie, MN 55347 RE: 1444 Baldur Park File #04-2990 Your application was reviewed at the weekly Building Sc Zoning staff meeting on February 25,2004. At that meeting it was determined that your property is located within in the 100* year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the City will need the following additional information in order to complete a review of your proposal: 1. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans. 2. Engineered foundation plans, 3. Building plans showing the lowest floor elevation one foot above the lOO-year flood boundary f9i/.5MSL; In addition to the above list, your survey shall be revised to include the following: 1. Existing and proposed elevation contours 2. i00-yearfloodplain elevation at 931.5 MSL If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by noon on March 5,2004 in order to remain on the March 15, 2004 Planning Conmission agenda- Please call me at 952.249.4627 should you have any questions. Sincerely. Melanie Curtis City Planner Wepheoc (951)249-4600 • Tax (952) 249-4616 www.d.0rono.ma.ui ^ i Bonestroo Rosene ^ ■ Anderlik £c Associates Engineers & Architects ••ntti'** ana AitM>att«. ma M an Alfamat<ra Attianjtaaai Oppaft<A>itf |m#ny<« anm Vnptaf* Own»4 rrim««>i oiia 0 tanait’ti »l • UftA* »l • Ot^t C»o* H • *as»»i 6 S(^^<"c *1 • M«ry A ■aw»ao>’ H • Wjri A nar%o» PI lantm CanuAtann Paaa’t Pr aot*^ At • MtaanC Anpa ’aa n • Pannet Kara' H • WtAxW IM** CrA AiiMiAi* Ptintipait A Ge ’0o<' At • Aaaaft ■ H • ha-a^a « tovta *C • Sao-e O *f • w c*«a) » PatA’^ann M • Tm « »-*'9 ** • tannainp Ar^pa-ian H • va'» P »o<*i H • 3*» • A Vi A . tdf<ir» A n ti • Agn»* V VIA* *i'»A • «* Si<vf>9i PI . *•••»#• Af Prrrion •! • t w,M«r« PI • MAPI ■ ipni*" PI • I P»'-Wi 0«P.#' M: P* • Dp»t> i l9«P'to* M • n»*pr Vannai PI • Tnomi A Sf'M Pf I VnrclSA j ;oAni»n • O a« a C>a>« P| • T<«oa '#i a to„«n*» »f • Porat'i J Oarp'f Pf O'lxti tl Pp^ U C>aaP Pet^aup ’ ana w i-inaa MN • MiMA.tr* w C^:*9e A March 9,2004 enHf&IT fir Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 1444 Baldur Park Road File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2990 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the application for the new home construction at 1444 Baldur Park Read Wc have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The plans should include topography and contours extending 50-feet beyond all lot lines. • Plans should include any existing storm sewer or culverts on the property or in Baldur Park Road adjacent to the property. • Silt fence should be heavy duty type with steel t-posts. All silt fence and erosion control shall be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours vcrymily, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN SSI13 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651 636-1311 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) L^ujre/\c^f of Fs<\l6*^0L . ‘ (pnnt name(s)l (print address] have reviewed therlans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property IcoatedI at /WV ^ IQtKT- PC also referred to as Land Use Application No ________. I (we) urtderstand that in executing this acknowtedgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Cly CouncI that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Pro^rty Owner Date I (we) ^oe. ' Li'i^ 0uf\5tv.0r<— of /WO (print name(s)) [print address)|^< II •» iwyw/J II IS 0WWI C99J havejy/^v|g^h^a^ for the proposed improvement or propos^ use of the property located I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or dlsapvroval of the property or use but m.erely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plar^s and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. kyi^ *T)Un^srvcoyui- __________________ Propeity Owner Dale Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the v *y 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. a C l MM OAiE tnni/ti BATCH SM NOMEPDI COUNTY FIOPttTT INrOBMTION STSUH PROfERTT OMNtB:> LIST BEPOBT NO. P1A5MB1 ri«C 11 PMf AOON warn* NMK TAHPAVCR NANE/ADOI rBOP lacMi OMNEI NAIC TAMPAVtR NAnr/AOoii M 18-117-23 M «02S ^ •••SB ADOMSS UNASSIQNEJI RCBINAIO A SPINOLCB R 1 SriNOirR SfRINC FARN RA*2 RURROUOHS RO M DCIR PARR HA 9YR0& SB M-1I7-2S AS ••■2 ' •SAAR BIRCH LA C lIlJEgUIST I S LllJCOUIST tRlC J A SNCLLV R LUJtHUlST satr birch la HAT2ATA HN SSSRl SB M-117-25 54 MSB ‘ •142B BALOUR PARK RO THK HILI ROIN TRUST KrUT > LORI ROTH 1428 BALOUR PARK RO HAVZATA m ssm SB M-117-fS 4S ■BBS ^ BI44S BALOUR PARK RO J N 5 H R lAMRCNCC JAY N A HARLIS R LAHRUCK 144A BALOUR PARK RO HAT7ATA m ASS41 SA BB-117-2S 45 BBBl ^ B547A BIRCH LA T H BCRMARO A L K BIRNARO TNOHAS W BERNARD S47B BIRCH LA MAV2ATA NN SBS41 SB BB-11P-2S 4S BBB4 / ' B1444 BALOUR PARK RB FEOCRAL NOM LOAM NORT CORP FEOCRAL HOm LOAN NORT CORP 22B S 2NO ST HPLS NN SS4B1 T t I PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYtR NAM/AOOR PROP ADOR OMNCR NAHC TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAHC TARPAVLR NAHC/AOOR SB 05-147-23 43 BAAS A144A BALOUR PARK RO J T DUNSHORE • E A DUNSNORC JOStPH A fllZABCTH 0UNV10RC 144A BALOUR PARK RO HATZATA m SS3Y1 58 Bn-117-23 43 BOOB BSSIB NORTH SHORE OR KALTIDOSCOPl DCSICN LLP KAICIDOSCOPE DESIGN LLP 24A40 NOBLE RO SHORrMOOO HN SSSSl SB OB 117-23 43 0014 " B3Y00 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN R JONES JOHN R JONtS 3400 NORTH SHORE DR MAVZAIA NN SSSOl SB OB-117-23 4S OBBA^ B143A BALOUR PARK RO J NIKKEISON B N NIUELSON JCrfREY ■ NAROARfT HIKACLSON 1434 BALOUR PARK RO MATZATA NN SS3Y1 SB B8-117-2S 43 BBBO ' B3S2B NORTH SHORE DR R E SMtMSON 8 V L SHEHSON ROBERT F B VALERIE L SWENSON SS2B NORTH SHORE OR HATZATA EOT SSSOl SB 0B-117-2S 43 B015 ^ •340S NORTH SHORE OR R H CARLSON 8 0 L CARLSON KENTON H ■ DIANE L CARLSON S4YB NORTH SHORE DR MAVZATA NN SSSOl SB B8-117-2S 4S ISB7 B14S2 BALOUR PARK RB J 6 I H B NYBUIST joim s t luuncN r nyibjist 14S2 BALOUR PARK RB MATZATA HN SSSOl SB BB-117-2S 45 BtlB''^ BSSSB NORTH SNORE DR ALBERT J ACKCRHANN A J ACRERNAIM SSSB NORTH SHORE OR MATZATA NN SSSOl SB BB-117-2S 45 BB27 BS44B BIRCH LA 0 S t 0 K INCVALSON DOUCIAS A OIRORAN INCVALSON S44B RIRCH LA MATZATA »B4 SSSOl PROP AOOR OMMR NANC TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOtAl RAICH SB4 BMIS #2990 ex<+ie>frX f . WV. Henhelpin County Taxpayer Services DepartiriOnt Cfi-in- 2.3- . . (. ’‘i-'■r Parcel Information- ^ =^^areel ID 0811723430004 - V{^ House Number 1444 Street Name BALOUR PARK RD > Condominium .4 '•i; TNsisnot§hg*»yi9cofa*dmap ltf9pn$9ntaacomptationofHonn»ticnr ■ '■ and diats from Oy, CouXy.sntf State read siXhofCwa and otfwioufCM.^V Date Application Received: 02-1S-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02-2WM 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 04-24-04 FUEe04-2«9l 10Msrcn2004 Pag* 1 of 4 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner March 10.2004 04-2991, Patrick & Cindy Fleming. 4760 North Arm Drive, - Variance - public bearing Zoning DUtrict: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum Lot Area: 1.8 acre (77,112 s.f.) Appiication Summary: The applicants are requesting variances in order to construct a 28’ X 35’ detached garage in front of their principal structure setback at 45’ sphere 50 ’ is required. _______________________________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Deparjnent staff recommends approval of the variance to construct a detached garage in front of the principal building setback w:ih the stipulation that the detached garage meet the required 50 ’ setback from the front property line. ________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height No structure or building in any RR-1B district shall e.xcccd 2 1 /2 stories or 30 feel in height except as provided m sccuon 78-1366 Lot Art« (»Cf«) Lot Width (feel)Front Yirt (feet) Side Yvd(feet)Side Yird Adjtcest to Street (feeO Rear Yird (feet) 2 200 1 50 }0 so 50 Sec. 78-1435. Location. No detached gaiap.es or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the succt or rear yards of such lots arc subject to the setback requirements of section 78-305(b), sccuon 78030(b) and section 78050(b), except that detached garages may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away fre .n the street and a turnaround is provided on the site. FILE*0«-2»91 i0Marcn2004 Pagt4 oT4 Issues for Coluidcnition 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the screening proposed by the applicant is appropriate? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this applicauon? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance in order to construct a detached garage nearer to the front property line than that of the principal structure provided the garage meets the 50 ’ front yard setback. ; V « . .1. . » REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: apUcation to°b« ^ submitted by the application deadline date In order for your ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. a Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form N / A* ^Certified Pfopeity Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject property, labeis and plat mao. Ust, labels and map may be obtairied from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*^ Street Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ^ (®'9ned by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed ^thin this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5* x ir or 17"forreproducton. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). ° oMI’^ITMor^r^roducti and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5* x 11* Ske^es or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5*x11*orirx17"^ □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: ® * ®®niplete application being aware that upon failure to do so the Applicant's Signature:—x n . n. rxO Applicant's Signature: ^ ^----------------- OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the Property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investTgatiot^nd verification of this request v^ouncii lYiemoers Tor Owner’s Signature: s: "Tizzm Owner’s Signature: ^ \ Owner's Signature: /j Date: Date: g-vi-o^ \ << -OF SM?gnedtoTorproiea'*“"‘"''''® Planner #29^-'■<<1 Page 1 of 3 J-HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM I This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application I will not be considered complete or placed on any meetng agendas until this form is I complete and submitted to the City. ______ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Counal a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address ail the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance Is Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave scmeth.rg out it will not be consider^. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply). 1. "The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." lOo'V 2.•The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." uj ^c. ^ - -- - - - -- •The variance. If granted, will not alter the esse-.t a! character of the locality" wvi i V' \Q<* 's* >c.V- IVSc»'» A vAi.ll ttOiV>-r r-»A t-O . t\ < p___________ "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ’ ufA Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship also Indudea, but b not Dmlted to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.' 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Coundl may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zor^e where the affected person's land is located.* 7. *The Board or Coundl may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.' — . y 8. *The spedai conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar V J to such property or immediately adjoining property.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. *The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. 'The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant* ^---------------■-------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.•The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety. ^ respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning A-/- . Page 3 of 3 *Th« granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, txjt is rwcessary to alleviate demonstrable hardsNp or difficulty.* . 4t4 n±*r k ^ ^ »••Vi If n»»-4- i4i»A4- Hardahip Statement Should you feel the hardsNp cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficuity or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with 21onirvg Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach addrtional sheets if necessary): 1T4 y-i r//<r LJill A.« *T rd •?P/0^/s/4trS nfe •f'kit Lw./y/ T i?V*< 4->4-/ l-^r^L 4^i\V P,^ U t <t C A Af'J j , fd , l13i ! t AJf> 4 ^ £ Ut *• ** ‘f't'% At>i. ft r .*• • y \> •iA •4 jir 1 0)v= J r ccimncATB or suhvbt roB PATRICK D. FLEMING IH TH* NW 1/4 or SBC. 0-117^23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ..JL ...........^• mwirt •»*» / 2 \Vk ;iv SV fr • - —----- lk». • y ARU DRIVE 1 #2991 p O ' ‘ f is ":y- V V? .1t: V &it. -w. ;;>.-;v:7d'V, 5^ * . * ■'■•'‘il < ....::iVvvL'<« ^y I ; Vi ^ ‘f t- %>•'> fi!'p, li’i mm pwSNfcu. •> k L-Z tr: .y <■ ■->tA .§1 i:%^^Wa Ii|^-,j«i •• W'cMsik^-l 7rm ■a8£»feifyi^^’-'->- -^ ■''■•'■li v ’-X'V - .V!?'^!.'-'3i ii*ir^s'Mi" •v.'*..*r'yy*P- %'^-s • I —^ ■|v SIPt/RKAR PI RSPHrilVh RUN0A1E l/ZVMM HENNeriN COUNTY PROf ERTY tNFORMATWN SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS USr J| 06117232)0004 PROP AOOR J30 NORTH SHORE OR W OWNER NAME KRISTMN R UNDEEN TAXPAYER WUSTIAN R UNDEEN NAM&AODR 3)0 NORTH SHORE DRW MOUND MN 3)364 M 06II7232300M PROPADDR 36 address UKASSICHEO OWNERNAME POnEMWORCLHEMWO TAXPAYER PATRCR R CINDY FLEMINO NAMETAOOR NO*™ ARM DR W MOUNDMN 33)64 PROPADDR )l 0611723330009 4740 NORTH ARM DR W OWNERNAME JRJHEDBERO TAXPAYER lOHNA A lANICS MFOHBRO NAM&ADDR NORTH APM DR W MOUNDMN 33364 M 0611733230010 PROPAOOR 4760 NORTH ARM DRW OWNERNAME PDFLEM»«*CLFl£MINO TAXPAYER PATWCK R CINDY FLEMmO NAME/AOOR 4760 NORTH ARM OR W MOUNDMN 33364 31 06II7232300II PROPAOOR 330 NORTH SHORE DRW OWNER NAME ANRN V BLARSTVEDT TAXPAYER ANnNVBlAKSTVEDT NAME/ADOR 330 NORTH SHORE OR W MOUNDMN 33364 36 061172)230012 PROPADDR 47i0 NORTH ARM DRW OWNERNAME EFORCIERRRPOROER TAXPAYER EU£N lOAN fORCKR HAME/AOOR 3109 DAKOTA AVE 5 ST touts PARR MN 33416 36 06117232)0013 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKSNEO OWNERNAME LBCIRTZKOWRCOUtTZROW TAXPAYER l>URARCHRISTOfMEROUtT2ROW MAMF/ADOR 4TM north arm DRW ORONOMN 33364 31 061172)230016 PROP AOOR 4730 NORTH ARM DR W OWNERNAME R JAMES A KAREN F HOFFMAN TAXPAYER R JAMES R KAREN F HOFFMAN NAME/ADOR 47)0 north arm DRW MOUNDMN 53364 31 06II72332WO3 PROP ADOR 403 NORTH AkM DR ORfNER NU4E LAKEVIEWOOLFOF MTKA WC TAXPAYER LAKEVIEWOOLF OF MIRA INC NAME/AODR I33REOOAKLA MOUNDMN 33)64 vST t 413 I CERTIFY TIIATTHE FACTS REPRESEMTED ARE AN nsiTHF RECORDStouertfresektadonof information as it appearst ^d ^eont ^records OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES UEPARTMOn;^ ^ OFMY KNOWLEDGEANDBEUEF. by DATE PAGE. I C /, ).'V- } O .'I;. v V v. f* cv N I O04.2992 March IS. 2004 Page I of 7 Dale Apptication Received: 2*18^4 Date Application Coniidered at Complete: 2*18^ 60-Da) Review Period Eipires: 4-18-04 To; Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ Date: March 10.2004 Subject: 04-2992. Ron Potas. 2190 Shad\A\ood Road - Side Setback. Average Lakeshore Setback, and Hardcover Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Rcsidcnual District ('/j minimum) Lot Area: 0.75 acres (32.830 s.f.) Lot Width: 100 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the follox^ing variances in order to replace an existing ‘/i stor>‘ with a full 2^^ story and to change pieces of the roof that arc currently flat to pitched, all while staying within the existing footprint; 1. Side setback \ar.ancc to allow a west side setback of 5.6’ at the garage when 10’ is normally required and 5.6’ currently exists. The changes at this non- conforming setback arc a current flat roof will convert to a pitched, hipped roof. 2. Average lakeshore setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10’ into the average lakeshore setback when a 10’ encroachment currently exists. 3. Hardcover variaiKe to allow 42% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 42% currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances as the improvements arc being conducted within the existing footprint and the non-conformities are not being increased. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The follow'ing minimum requirements shall be observed. Lol Area (acre)l.ol W iiJiN (feet)Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (frel)Rear Y'ard (feet)1 Side Yud Adjacent to 1 Sueet (feet! 03 too )0 1 10 30 1 15 Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. (6) Axerage lakeshore setback. No principal o: accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average diiiance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this docs not apply to stairways. •04-3992 March 19.2004 Pag«2or7 lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshorc setback shall apply only to classified takes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshorc setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent takeshore lots Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations In any LR-l.A, LR* IB. LR-IC or LR-lC-l district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feel to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feel of the ordinary high water level of any lake or uibuiary. 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 feel and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Lbt ofEihibiu Exhibit A - Pre Application/Variance Application Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E - Elevations E.xhibil F - Photo’s of Existing Conditions E.xhibit G - Property Owner's List Exhibit H - Plat Map Background Ihe applicant is requesting to tear off the existing Vi story and to construct a full second story, and to change the sections of roof that are currently flat to pitched, all while staying within the existing footprint of the current 1 '/j story home. The applicant is also proposing to complete an interior renovation of the existing first floor and proposing to keep the existing outer walls of the first floor as well as the foundation, flooring, and existing grade level deck, which got variance approvals in 1992. In staffs opinion the work proposed doesn't seem to reach the 50% volume or value thresl:old and therefore isn't being reviewed as a rebuild. How-ever, staff feels it is important to discuss the particulars of what is being removed and what is being proposed as new and the comparison of before and after appcaran:es of the exterior envelope of the home. •04-Z991 March 1 5.2004 Pa|«3of7 First Floor ^ « j * • The applicant has slated that an interior remodel of the first floor is proi»sea. A mam interior wall will be removed so as to open up the first floor and to provide the support for the second floor. Many of the rooms will remain within the first floor but will be remodeled. All perimeter walls will remain as well as the flooring and deck on the lake side, which again, received approval in 1992 through the variance process. Vs Story The '/i story will be taken off and replaced with a flill second story. Currently, dormers make up the '/a story. The section of the house encompassing those dormers wll become a full story, where the cunent angled walls will become straight with a pitched roof above. The areas above the garage and the northeast comer of the home will not become a full second story, but the flat roof will be replaced with a pitch. Basement/CroMfl ^sace A partial basement exists as well as crawl spaces that were added after initial construction of the home. These spaces will not be touched with the improvements the applicant has proposed The applicant has also stated that the existing foundation will support the second story and no work on the foundation will be necessary with this project. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f (0.5 acres)100* Actual 32,830 s.f (0.75 acres)100 ’ LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front n/a n/a n/a Rear 30’ 4 ’ (detached garage) 79’(shed) 96 ’ (house) NO CHANGE Left Side (west)10 ’5.6 ’NO CHANGE Right Side (tist)10 ’16 ’NO CHANGE Lakeshore 75’119 ’ (house) 100 ’(deck)NO CHANGE •04-2992 March IS. 2004 Pace 4 of 7 Average Lakeshore 139-1 ir (house-House - 10* measured SE-N3^')encroachment 126’-99’ (deck-Deck - 12* measured SW-NW)cncroaclunent NO CHANGE Structural Coverage Total Lot Area 32,830 s.f. (0.75 acres) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: Proposed: 4.925 s.f (15%) 5.141 s.f, (14.7%) Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 7.725 s.f.Os.f (0%) 98 s.f • (1.3%) 98 s f (1.3%) 75-250 19.025 s.f 4,756 25 s f (25%) 7.970 s f * (419®o) 7.970 s.f (41 9%) 250-500 6.135 s.f 1.840 5 s.f (30%) 2.375 $f (38 5®,.) 2.3 /5 8 f (38 5°/o) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The current setback on the northwest side of the lot is conforming at the house (215 feet) but is only 5.6 feel at the attached garage. The applicant isn’t proposing a full story above the garage but a flat roof will be replaced with a pitched roof and become a ‘/i story with windows in the gabled roof This requires a side setback variance because the nature of the structure at this side lot line is changing from flat to pitched It should be noted that the overhangs of the proposed pitched roof will encroach less than the overhangs of the flat roof Hardcover Variance All of the proposed changes will take place wiihm the 75’ - 250 ’ zone No new hardcover is proposed and the changes will take place within the existing footprint of the home. A hardcove»^ variance is required because the existing hardcover is non conforming at 47®/o when 25“/. is normally allowed. One min "r change, not in hardcover but status, is ti\at a covered entry is proposed over the existing stoop The roof extension is proposed to be the same size as the stoop, which is approximately 4’ x 8’ or 32 square feet. This does not constitute additional hardcover but it is changing from merely hardcover to structure. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance An average lakeshore setback vanance is required because the existing home encroaches approximately 10 feet into the required setback. Because the applicant is proposing to build up in this non-conforming setback a variance is required. At the corner where the greatest encroachment into the setback is occurring, a full second story isn’t proposed as •04-2992 March IS. 2004 PaceS of* illusirated in the elevations HoN^cver. pieces of the home that v^'cre currently flat or a '/i story will now be either pitched or a full story. It should be noted that the house to the southeast, where the greatest impact occurs due to the encroachment, was rebuilt m -00- further from the lake than the past home creating the change m the average lakeshorc setback line causing the applicants home to become non-conforming. Hardship Statement r- r. j The applicant completed a Hardship Documentation Form, attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tn considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the efject of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger offu e. risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of oroperty In the surrounding area. The Planning Commbslon shall consider recommending approval for variances from the lUerat ptovislons of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indiv idual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when U Is demonstrated that such actions wUl be In keeping with the ipirU and intent of the Orona Zoning Code.___________________ Staff finds that a hardship exists to warrant approval of the side setback variance. The original home was constructed sometime in the I940’s with the aiuchcd garage constructed in 1973 at a setback 5.6 feet from the property line. Sometime shortly afler that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted requiring u 10’ setback Where this non- conforming setback occurs the applicant isn’t proposing a new story but rather a hipped roof where a flat roof exists The Planning Commission should discuss the effects of going from a flat roof to a pitched roof in this non-conforming setback. Staff finds a hardship exists to also grant the hardcover variance. The propc.ny is currently at 42% in the 75’ - 250’ zone when 25*/o is normally allowed The applicant is proposing changes to the envelope of the building but not new hardcover where non hardcover cu-Tcntly exists Variances were granted in 1992 to allow construction of the lakeside deck and no illegal liardcover has been added since those variance approvals The only notable change is that approximately 32 square feet of roof will be added over existing hardcover to create a covered entry. The Planning Commission should discuss adding structure where hardcover currently exist.s. and if any small removals should be required to account for that change Lastly, staff also finds that a hardship exists to grant the tequested average lakeshorc setback variance. The northeast comer of the home encroaches the furthest into the average lakeshorc setback. The applicant isn’t proposing a full second story at this comer but to change to a pitched roof where a fiat roof cur.cntly exists The house, at this comer tapers west to an encroaclunent of 2 feet. This piece of the home will go from a Vs story to a full story but any views the neighbor may have, tf any. arc minimally impacted. After conducting a site visit staff has determined that any views the neighbor has over this current flat roof will be minimally impacted when going to a pitched roof Also, the neighbor who is affected by the improvements constructed a new home in 2002 •04 2993 March 15. 2004 Page 6 of 7 further from the lake than before, which in turn made the applicant’s home non- conforming and thus creating a hardship. The Plaitning Commission should discuss the impacts of changing the envelope of the structure at this comer and whether viewfs arc obstructed. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for * ^Juc hardship” peninent to this application: 1. "The property m question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls.* The property is currently non-conforming \uth respect to side setback, hardcover and average lakeshore setback Any changes, whether the non-conformities increase or not. requires variance approvals Therefore, the official controls make it virtunlly impossible far the property onner to improve his home 2. *The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The applicant hasn t created any of the non-conformitics on the property. The property developed pre-current Zoning Ordinance and the applicant complies ss ith all the variance approvals granted in 1992 3. ‘The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential ch^acter of the locality.* The essential character of this neighborhood is narrow lots with tall. 2 and Vi story homes The applicant's property is actually double the width of his neighbor's and will only be 2 storks rather than 2 and '/; thus not creating an “out of the ordinary " circumstance 4. ‘Ecoi'.imic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if rcas . Jiblc 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 defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter * Sot appiica'nle 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property m the zone where the affected person's land is located * The improvements proposed are allowed uses under the zoning requirements of the property 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwielling as a two-family dwelling.* ,\'ot applicable *04-2992 March IS. 2004 Paga 7 of 7 B. "The spcdal conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such pioirerty or immediately adjoining property." Again, the prope-ty uflj developed pre-current Zoning Ordinance creating conditions peculiar to the property 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in uhich said land is located' It is of staff opinion that this criterion is met 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the prcscr\ aiion and cnjo>Tncnt of a substantial property right of the applicant." The granting of this application is necessary for the o^ner to conduct any improvements short of general maintenance \ 1. The granting of the proposed variance wll not m 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 ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The panting of these variances is necessary for the applicant to conduct the improvements proposed Even if the applicant were merely proposing a new roof, without the other elements proposed, the same variances would be required bsues for Considcralioa 1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable reviewing this as improvements rather than a rebuild? 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable accepting a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists, which increases the envelope of the structure, in areas where setbacks arc non-conforming? 3. Arc there major issues going from a 'A story to a full story on a lot that's at 42% hardcover? 4. Should hardcover reductions be required? Possibly the non conforming shed by the attached garage? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approve the plans as submitted which consist of approval of the following variances; 1. Side setback vanance to allow a west side setback of 5.6 ’ at the garage when 10’ is normally required and 5.6 ’ currently exists. 2. Average lakeshorc setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10’ into the average lakeshore setback when a 10’ encroachment currently exists. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 42% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 42% currently exi •04-2992 March IS. 2004 Pagt7of7 g. -The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Again, the property was developed pre-current Zoning Ordinance creating conditions peculiar to the property 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or struemres in the district in which said land is located." It is of staff opinion that this criterion is met 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the prcserN aiion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The granting of this application is necessary for the ouner to conduct any improvements short of general maintenance 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not m 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 is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or dirficulty.* The granting of these variances is necessary for the applicant to conduct the improvements proposed Even if the applicant were merely proposing a new roof without the other elements proposed, the same variances would be required Issues for Consideration 1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable reviewing this as improvements rather than a rebuild? 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable accepting a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists, which increases the envelope of the strucnire. in areas where setbacks are non-conforming? 3. Arc there major issues going from a Vi story to a full story on a lot that’s at 42% hardcover? 4. Should hardcover reductions be required? Possibly the non-conforming shed by the attached garage? 5. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recoramcndatioii Approve the plans as submitted which consist of approval of the following variances: 1. Side setback vanance to allow a west side setback of 5 6’ at the garage when 10’ is normally required and 5.6’ currently exists. 2. Average lakcshorc setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10’ into the average lakeshore setback when a 10’ encroachment cuncntly exists. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 42% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed and 42% cunrntly exists. EXHIBIT A 3gV.3 City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting^ Street Addrtss 2750 KeQey Parkway Orono. MN 55356 M^ing Address Far Office Usa Only P.O.Box 66 Planner 6K a Crysial Bay. MN 55323-0066 Meeting Datemme: PC Date: /T7.# IT f.A ' 1/ k JJd rJy^ Main: 052-246-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 ff)irch 'rYjfuJl.rA What ta the puq>OMm of M pfspplication meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal. Inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATON: . //){// J/ Site Address: ____.aZ/vO /?rvc/y*^c/r*c rr Nc«<xr f Property Identification Number (PIN): * /'7^ /in^ Zoning District: LQ.^10 Size of Property: /oo' siie»V X 3^ '(SoitTn *'</(/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Average Setback BTSide Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Front Yard Setback ^Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot / 'ea □ Lot Width □ Other: \/AttanfC. 7 AD ''a/ Apptica Initials■S£E HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: __________________________________________________ 'Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:Date: r.; ^ >..* ; ^ \ Cjfij V O City of Orono Variance Application street Aceress 2750 Kelley Parkway Oror.o. MN 55356 Mam 9S2-243-4S:0 fax: 952-249-6616 Mailing Address P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SSSaC'-CCeS App ication 0 Date Received Amount Paid Staff Fee <7 -z. 3S6oa Renewal: S300 After-the-fact 51,200 Douoe Fee This application form must be completed in full App cant will be n^tired with<.n 15 days as to the status cf the application, incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. •^flTKxJyJlL'L Crl f\ // ^iI, f /T’-. //^ j J - A/JL^ V ' PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ^ 1^0______ Property Identification Number (PIN):__________________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): 7/«^o □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: Iff Residential □ Ouher _________________________ Zoning District: _________ S^'37 / APPLICANT II Name: 7 ^ORMATIi SIS^ riyj : ^ompplete legal na“es and rrantai satus required for each iPte'ested party) Phone (home): _________________ Address; luy dyf‘ Email: c tr.:yc^hc^c. £L Phone (work). _______________ Fax: OWNER INFQIWATION: (Compete Jegai names s*d mantal status required for each interested pa.'ty) Name: rrj^S ___________________ __________________ Phone (home): <yC:2 - VV/- • Phone (work): Sc<tu^_____________ Address: (QO \^heuJ\/’Juw ff! /<crs^iL xirvi / .Email:■dp I'rh^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Fax: Estimated Project Cost: $ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: "pLton to‘Tj7ro«" i" ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Pianner. Completed Application Form ^ Completed Hardship Documentation Form ‘^50’ of the subject property, labels and plat mao Ust. labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Financa t 300 South 6* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ^ I?sted M ® licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements 1 r X l^for reproducSon ^^ardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5- x 1 r or □ Completed hardcover ralculallon worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) ///^ Top^raphic sufve^^ existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5- x 11" ^ ^ elevaton views (provide one copy 8.5 ’ x 11" or 1 r x 171 □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Plannino Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the ordinal fee pavimenh a^^^^^^^ application and certifies that the informatSn supplied is true and correct to ^e best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that ha/she is finiaiv responsible for submittino a complete application being aware that uoon faiiur* «n Ha Applicant’s Signature: Applicant's Signature; _pate: Date OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable Sl5;.roM,rn * “=^Se".Tr Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: tB Date: Date: «sTgn‘j;foTuf^2ie1?™""'’''" applicaVand advt“ rSrP.Snne'? H J V' ! * •• " / I. ;rv EXHIBIT B HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page 1 of 3 n This form is ■ required aubmittal for ALL varianc# applications. An application I ■ ^11 not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this fomn is ■ I 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 altuaVons an not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. MOW OOI PROVE A HARDSHIP? u ^ ^ This form has 12 points outlining the basis City sUff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address an the relevant points listed below and answer them as dearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justified. The Information the City receives is what is used in deterrriining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Rease address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* ■The plight of the landowner is due to drcumstances unique to his property not n - y. - The variance. If granted, wiU not alter the essential charader of the locality.* 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the te.-irw of the Zoning Chapter." * t Page 2 of3 •Undue hardship also Includes, but is not limited to, Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered constmction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2. when In harmony with this Chapter." 6. *1710 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." 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling * 0. "The special corxJitiorts applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately acfjoinlng property." 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures In the district in which said land is located." 10. "*nia granting of the appHcabon is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a aubstantial property right of the applicant," 11. ‘The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way Impair health, safely, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be conUary to the Intent of the Zoning wOuS* # i o (3 9 o J Page 3 of3 12. The grenttnQ of luch v«i«we will not merely eerve w e conwiene* to the ■pplicent. but ie necetiery to elleviate demonetrible hardehip or africuity. 8h^(Trau tool the herdthlp cannot fully be described In the above criteria, describe the f)-JUy ,\jUjlq4L.\cuJa wkfik H Iduui • :’• • • - • , - V.' •• A* . tf(? ■ —.. C% ,. v; .^.y .• EXHIBIT D HARDCOVER EXISTING 0 ALLOWEDSHED = 23SF RAMP = 96SF TOTAL = 98SF / 1.3% 75-250 19025SF ^^25%= 4766SF HC MAX. HOUSE® 3208SF DECK® 1133SF SHED® 60SF DRIVE = 3220SF STOOPS ®167SF KEMCL®. 176SF ITAL ® 7970 SF / 41.9% 6135SF ^ la^OSF HC MAX. GARAGE =695SF DRIVE = 1680SF TOTAL ® 2375 / 38.5% MMfi v> racHe^ IMF-A VIN4 >MC£ \WS t W^i p/fcroF . W£W gWU.Jy<~ I XV; -|:VAy::,Nr— ’ .• .V.. \ . V::: X*’* iji • X . 'X “ W l-l::;:::I-1:;;:;:/ mm V* ^ < r» — .•♦• . W •- ;;';'gPV“:'.?-: | | iMiS=- Uiti » ■ _i ih:i; ■:::: =.:,-ewiii^ !i.-« smiiTitJei !»»■ Boon. TB Ff^AlU- CMAfJCrC TO PiTcrtep ItOOF - /40 MSW «PACC ABOVe . • 1 ♦ ' 1 f\ IS"" 1 ^CcrtoNl ittcUMMiHb V (iMMEU evwcMTty) fVlLinK9l fNlO LMxMee serycK- i|t sr»(LY ffim ib fi/LU i’^STbUy W k ...Jill SEtflPfl FVPTMESr fMTO IWEftACiS LM(£SMI£ iSETBMX (7. MtME0!>UM«N1V^ l|t SR>ft-Y ^tM<^I I S(.CtiW K HtH-UiNrotMiA * 5V setiamc gU4T»Mr |W FWfr- >|AN4E to PirotED ^ IMF- ■* D MEvi SME MWt £xi»r/»(4 €if*nbe- CilAlsMC TO PIIUIED WMF- /W) MW ^ SPACE ptESOX-Y A60vr #111-11 iliiTtr|-| » • .• » **■*' •' • •;> • c i / h'J' 'f- -^m 1/ JMTC SCTiJl ■ ■ ras^^Gir* 11» 1 ^ ■■ rs ■: . '• ■ ■m,. Ji^NtW^es .. ,,^ |W%- .OHiesHoes *«Blg FUAT;.ft£l0F WILL iitfcijfeR:kV ' feSilES y* *v 4 ** , « f:m mm i -m f- A' • ■■;.r. V » mj i m m m. ■■■« mV ■ rj!-o TO SOUTH '.-r: |;^t / ■? ' •.*: "WT ^ Sm^ ^ ^ ^ ' •►'V • ‘ . r ^»' f ij .'. .S' '/\ ■- NJJ I \ ■«r* s-ru—_. •^*'^* •—*■ • • —- •. ^ , ‘^.**^ .V-V' ■;‘- ViEva I^K.S T& NEt6iHB0R. 10 igofLTM i--------- ^'»^:\'v.V- Mr ^;.;:,“-’ .-M''v -•..v-:|#^ ^.* .. « .V;‘ r». ' • .^' VC'ifTv . v'-''*^<?»'.Vl 5‘ '. ;.- \ i,^v.Vv N - ; ■ vsB?i ,* ' lJ^Ll__ 'M iVii.^ P ^iii;-fl '(SM’' —•• fc [l:»l, 5..r—. - View flU>M LAK.F ‘ •• *. •.“-’ .*. -»V.-..v^-. ■'• • •>.- rf-. m IK UAH PROPAnOR w?4 SHAnv^tmoRj) OWNLRNAMl: MAKKOKII+INAUSANM URIIUN TAXPAVbH mark «iNII I INTktlSANNl tiKH I IN NAMH/ADOR MIADYWOOI) RO WAV/ATAMN 5JWI V I7II7JM70006 propauor jigoaiAUVwiRHiRn OWKfcRNAML IMOMASA* lARAI SHXU lAXTAVUI 1IIOMASAS10RM NAML/AITUR iwoaiAnvwoonRo WAV/ATAAIN Jt I7II77WMIW9 PKDPADDR II7I SIIAI1VW«KH7RI> OWNI R NAMh r 4k S AHIR.k«*< lAXPAYhR CVIRIK AHOI RSON •HAMHAOOR 2I71MIAOYWWDROAU WAY/AIAAIN u mi77UIOlM PROPAOOR 770i SHAUYWOOr.RW UWNIRNAMI; I DIIUlMR •>I>HULSI TAXPAYLK IIAIOIHV UAOTNIil UHU1M NAA417AOOR IJOJaiAOYWOOORU WAVMlAAkN U ini7254JOI)7 PROPAUOR 2IW SMAHYkAtWORD OkANI R NAAH-. HKJMAS l^RSUN lAXPAYfcR lllOMASl>kRM)N KAMiyAftOR lIMSHAOVkAtTOURD WAY/AIAA4N »S)«I IHKMFIVCOUKrY PROPtRTk' IKrOKMAlUA SYSltM ' * pROPtRTY OkkNlJtS I isr PACK U S7II7JW2W4 PHOPAOOR 22l*iHAUYROUURU OWNtRNAML bAKUII.A'A’RKH-ffc lAXPAYLR AAKLULAWH ArilL NAMI/AOOR 22IASMAOVk»tJOORO kAAV/ATAMN 5JWI i$ I7II72M7UOU7 PROPADOR 2IW MlADVR'nOORD llkANIRNAML R IIKJIAA H AUXAIRUSUH lAXPAVUk ROSALUI POTAS NAA(F7A00R 2l«SMAOy»TX)ORO WAY/A1AMN SJJ9I )| I7II7274700IO PMOfAUUR 2172 AMAUYkk’OOURI) OVkMRKAAtr JOANAIARII IK7IA1LN TAXPAYLR JOAMAIARIHIOISILN kaau /ador iTOiuuniRMirnR PRR2RLAKEMN 55)71 k« |7II72)4)UI)4 PROPADDR 2IW MIAOYkk»X>t»Kl> UWNLR NAMF CtM I IN f RII Sf IAXPAVCR l-OIIIMFRUSL NAML/AUOR 2maUOYWFK)ORO WAYZATAAIN ii)9l )t 171172)4)1)14) PROP ADOR 2277 SIIAUVMWU RD Okk’NbH NAAIE OFORGIA J SPAUIDINO I AXPAYFR A»I OKtilA J SPAULDING naaii /adur podgy )I SPWMiPARX AIN ;S)44 n I7.I72U200QS I RUT ADOR 2204 SHADVkAWORU NAMI III III NNI II A M I III NNI M rAXPAVI R HARRY I A MARY I U I N III MNI Tl NAMWADOR 720IYIUOykW)ODRa WAY/A7AMN 55)91 II |7ll7?k42IXm PROPADOR 2IM aiAUVWOOORU OVkTHRNAMF AGIBIII R AOI FBHFRiR lAYPAItR AUXANIMKAiRVttll.FBIIlRJR name /auor 4'M aiADvwtmo road klAYZATAMM 55)91 II 171172)4)0112 PROPADOR 221J MIADYWOOORO OklT^FR NAML J M NC Oil lOLHIl I-50111 TCI N ,AXPAYFR RiniAHO A MlRl OOH MUH « N.AAIC/AUDR 22IINIIAUy«A<X)ORU WAYZAFAMM $5)91 n 17117214101)5 PROPAODR 7195 SIIADVkAIKIDRn OkkMRKAMI; JOIINMAMJLKSON TAXPAYLR lOIIN H ANI)[ RNON NAMt/AOUR 7195 MIAUVkiOOD RD kVAVJCATAMN 55)91 W rm tOUKW TAXP AYIR SCRVIC.S C-i I • ) 5 = ( 5‘ • ft t 'j % OFMVK.VOW.il)OI:ANOBEUEF.^^^^_^^^^ V Z'// EXHIBIT II Honnepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department f ^-v-Parce//nfomiatfon Number 2190 '!StrMt Nam* SHADYWOOD RD TTks It not • t909ay reeortfetf map tf rtpft^ts a cemp-/at/oo ot irformaJion and data from Oty. Ccuftfy. and State roatf aufriontes aotf otny tourcai __ MM.3991 Martb IS. 2M4 Patt lots Ditc Appticatioa Rcctivad: 2*1 84H Data AppIkalioB Comidcrcd aa Coaipkte: 2-1S44 6»-Day Rtvkw Period Capim: 4-tl^ JO To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Dale: March 11.2004 Subject: 04-2993, Christine Valeri.^, 2377 Shady\^ood Road. • Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking & Building Setback Variances. Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing ZoBtag District: B - 1, Retail Sales Business District Lot Area: 0.24 acres (10.350 s.f.) Lot Width: 90 feet Af^UcatioH SuHunmry: Applicant requests the following in order to con\ert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant: 1. Commercial Site Plan Review in order to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to the existing home and to convert it from a residential use to a cormnercial use. 2. Parking setback variance to allow a drive through lane and parking spaces to be located within the required 30’ yard. 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24* when 35’ is required and 24’ feet cunently exists. 4. Conditional use permit in order to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant. St^ff RecommeitdatioH: Staff recommends denial of the application as the site cannot support the requested drive through which also creates the need for approval of an uimecessary paridng variance. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-642. Permit ^plication. All applications for a building permit in any B-1 retail sales business district shall be review^ by the council and may be refened to the planning commission for review. (Code 1984, § 10.40(2)) Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Front yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 1S feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet. •04-299J Mftreli IS. 2004 Pl«t2ofS (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feel to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a sveet; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no bailing shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit: (3) Restaurant (class I), in which food is served to customers while seated at counter or table, or cafeteria, in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumptioa Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. LUt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Pre ApplicationA^ariance & General Land Use Application Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit D - Memo from the City to the Applicant dated 2-17-04 Exhibit E - Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Proposed Floor Plan Exhibit G - Proposed Elevations of Building Addition Exhibit H - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit I • Site Plan Illustrating Required Building Setbacks Exhibit J - Site Plan IHustrating Required Yards/Parking Setbacks Exhibit K - City Engineer Comments dated 3-9-04 Exhibit L - Applicant’s Alternative Plan Exhibit M - Applicant's Parking Analysis Exhibit N - Photographs Exhibit O - Topography Map Exhibit P - Property Owner’s List Exhibit Q-Plat Map Background The applicant is proposing to convert the existing residence located at 2377 Shadywood Road to a coffee shop with bakery and restaurant type uses. The current residence is a non-conforming use as the property is zoned B-1, Retail Sales District. The applicants proposed use, although conditional, is a conforming use of the B - 1 district As noted in Exhibit C. the applicant is an experienced business owner that has operated coffee shops in the Cities of Long Lake and Mound. The applicant is proposing several improvements to allow her to conduct business at this site, the major ones being conversion of a residential home into a commercial business (requiring a building permit), a 20’ x 32* <640 s.f) addition to the existing structure (requiring a building permit), and a drive-through facility. The other improvements proposed are landscaping, removal of the existing, non-conforming shed and screened porch, the addition of a grade level deck (requiring a building permit), construction of parking stalls and interior changes to accommodate a commercial busmess (requiring a M>4-29U March IS. 2004 ragcSofS building peimit). As noted, many of these improvements require ■ building permit which in turn requires i commercial site plan review. The purpose of a commercial site plan review is to allow the City to complete a comprehensive review of the site in an effort to bring it closer to conformaiKe. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET B-1 Lot Area Lot Width Required 20,000 s.f. (0.46 acres)100’ Actual 10350 s.f (0.24 acres)90 ’ B>1 Required Eiistiag Proposed Front (Shadywood RD)35’38’38’ NO CHANGE Rear (City-owned Parking Lot)35’55*35’ North Side (Lytic Ave)35’15’24 ’ South Side (B - 1 ypgoga)______15’29’27’ - Addition 17*-Deck Reanired Yards (Parkiai Setbacks) - Sec Attached Exhibit J B-1 Required Eaistiag Proposed Front (Shadywood RD)20’ 105’ - city owned parking lot (allowed) 74’ - sidewalk Rear (City-owned Parking Lot)30’ 0* - city owned parking lot (allowed) 0’ - parking stalls 9’ - drive-through lane North Side (Lyric Ave)10’-40 ’-sidewalk (not shown on survey) 2’ - drive-through lane South Side (B-1 propoerty)NONE -45 ’ - sidewalk (not shown on survey) 7’ - drive-through lane Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10350 s.f. (0.24 acres)Allowed; 1,553 s.f. (15%) Proposed; 1,453 s.f. (14%) •04*2993 Martli IS. 3004 P»|t4orS Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500 -KXK)10,350 s.f.3,623 s.f. (35%) 1,916 s.f (18.5%) 3.281 s f. (32%) Side Yard Setback VarUace The applicant is proposing a building addition to follow the same setback on the noi^ side of the lot (along Lyric Avenue) as the existing suucture. The existing structure is non-conforming at this setback with a setback of 24' when 35 ’ is required. To extend this line of the building, a side street setback variance is required. The existing shed and screened porch, also within the required yards, will be removed bringing this side of the lot somewhat more towards conformance. Required Yard/Parking Setback Variauce The applicant has proposed a drive through and parLng stalls in the rear of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires an unobstructed rear yard of 30 feet This includes all pavement for parking, drive isles, and sidew-alks. With the applicant’s proposal a rear and north side yard/parking variance is required to accomplish the drive-through and parking stalls shown on the submined survey. Required Parking Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1SI6 requires 1 parking stall per 80 square feet of public floor area for restaurant uses. The applicant has submitted a preliminary floor plan which shows approximately 52 S square feet of public floor area resulting in 7 required parking sulls. The applicant has provided 4 on-site stalls, and this site is also eligible to utilize the City owned parking lot in the rear. Therefore. is comfortable with the number of spaces provided, but remains concerned with the location of them, which is discussed in the memo dated 3-9-04 by City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and attached as Exhibit K. Conditional Use Permit Analysis The applicant is proposing a coffee shop with a bakery and restaurant. This is classified as a Class 1 restaurant under the B - 1 conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Class 1 distinction doesn’t specifically address additional requirements but the proposed use must comply with the general conditional use permit standards dealing with the health, safet>’ and general welfare of the community or neighborhood. It is staff s opinion that creating a drive-through on this property poses significant safety issues for drivers using the City owned parking lot. The Planning Commission should discuss if additional conditions should ^ required in conjunction with the restaurant use. The applicant has preliminarily indicated to staff that is will be a deli style food service. Hardship & Conclusions The applicant has completed a Hardship Documentation Form, which is attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. •04-299) MtrclllS.2004 rtttSefS Staff fin<k few hardships to warrant approval of the requesting building and parking setback variances. A drive-through is not an automatic allowed use. but rather a use that is allowed should the site be large enough and configured such that a tovc-through could be accommodated under the official controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i e. wnthin setbacks). Therefore, staff would not recommend approval of variances merely to accommodate a drive-through facility. Staff also finds that a variance should not be granted to allow parking stalls to be located up to the property line in the rear yard when 30* setback should be required. The location of these stalls forces customers to cither cross traffic entering the stalls or backing into traffic leaving the stalls. This is due to a drive aisle serving the City owned parking lot located in behind the applicant s property. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit K He concludes that the site “does not lend itself to a drive through operation’*. Staff does find that some hardships may exist due to the restrictive building setbacks and that part of the applicant’s property was taken to improve the City owned parkirig lot, which lessens the amount of buildablc area on the lot. However, a building addition of the same sire proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there may ix)t be enough room to accommodate parking. Staff would recommend that the applicant explore a site plan that doesn’t include a drive-through and variance requests could be entertained at that point. Alternative Plan «• n • The applicant has included an alternative plan with a drive-through coming off of L>tic Avenue and existing at the rear of the lot onto the drive isle of the City owned parking lot. Staff feels that the same issues exist as far as conflicts, safety and setbacks are concerned as the proposed plan. Staff originally encouraged the applicant that if a drive- through is a must, to keep it off of the Lyric Avenue side of the lot in an effort to eliminate intersection safety issues at Lyric Avenue and Shadywood Road. Unfortunately, neither plan achieves the safety or functionality standards the City should expect with a drive-through facility. Imucs for CoMidcration 1. Can the property support a drive-through? 2. Docs the Planning Commission feel there is a valid hardship to warrant approval of the side setback variance to construct the requested addition? 3. Should the applicant consider the same use but without a drive-through? Could a safer parking stall arrangement be implemented? 4. Docs the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be ^ociated with approval of the proposed coffee shop'bakery/resuuranl use? Or, is the use proposed reasonable but the site plan should be revised? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rcconiincodation Denial of the plan as proposed. The applicant should consider revising her site plan to not include a drive-through, and revise the parking stall arrangcmcnl so that customers are not conflicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking lot. City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form Stre«r Addnss 2750 KeOey Parkway Orono. MN 5S3S6 (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meet ng •) (xndJCLChMaHing Addnsa: P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 por Office Uia Only CityPlanr^r _ 'd/1 U.C Main: 052-249-4600 Fax: 052-240-4616 Meeting DateTTme ’Lf/SlOQ PC Data /yiax.A^ T7ot Whmt iM th9 purpose of a pre^pptfeadon meetirtg? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . , s a , Site Address: Z^71 . Property Identification Number (PIN):''________ Zoning District b'l ______Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback ^)R^ide Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area Q(Other. (ryyurM t'xu aJ} ptau^ f * pjd l//t'Lyn'ajnc€^ □ Front Yard Setback □ Lot Width Applicant's Initals: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and Is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: / Tn/fr\ -Tn hUildu-i^ Ya cJi'i - ^ *Please note: Your vari^ricea ation will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which th* form 1 isxuwipleleiJ by CHy staff. Applicant Signal Date:Wis/oy 4 • .. * •,• /» .J City of Orono Variance Application S(r*0f Ac/dWsa. 2750 Kefiey Parkway Orono. MN SS356 Main: 0S2-240-4600 fax: 952-2404516 MMngAddnss: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS3234066 Application# Data Recahred. Amount Paid: Mllm Staff: Foe:MOO Ranawal: S300 After-the-fact t1.200 Doub t Fee This application form must be complotod In fuU. App leant will be notiflad within 15 daya as to tha status of the appueation. Incomplete appilealions wHI not be placed on Planning Commieelon Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: / I/O !_____<Lf(2m>d fuL Property Identification Nurn^(PIN): i I (Attach legal description to application IT not Included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): ’3yc?vJ □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential Other _____________________________________ Zoning District: ___________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complota Mgal narras and mahtal status required f^ each irterssted pany) Name: ^ Phone (home): Cl- Uni_-^jT Phone (work): Address: d ____________ Email:____iv\A*>/nr f-O Fax: tolT — - COW-I OWNER INFORMATION: (Compiata legal names a*d marttal status requirad for each interested party) Name: ____ ________________________________________________________ Phone (home): Address: ___ Emsil: ______ Phone (work): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________ •22?* I ■ •'•'i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: JppK^on to*be ^ •ubmitted by th« applictUon deadline date in order for your ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form ^ Completed Hardship Documentation Form X Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance / Dc^mment Center. A-603 300 South 6^ Street. Minneap)olis, telephone 612-348-5910 ^inal Certif^te ^ Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5* x 11" or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. ^ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic sunrey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11" ^ or 11* X 17" for reproduction. ^ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" xH"or11"x 17"). □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPUCANT S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planninq Department agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred In review of this application and certifies that the infom^Uon supplied is ^ and WTOCt to the ^st of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizee that he/ehe is solely rMponeibte for aubrnitting a complete application being aware that upon foilure to do so. the staff has no alternative hut io reject It until It is complete or to recommend the request for >s of K^otendal merit staff has no alternative denial of the request Date: Date: ^/<?/ ‘-fApplicant’s Signature: Applicant's Signature: I OWNER'S ACKNOWLEbSEM^^^ The owner hereby and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and venfication of this request. Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature:Date: Date: Api^rant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Mertng. Planning Commission Meebngs are normally held on the third Monday of each month ^pHeante must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission end £mr* ■ “ scheduled meeting, please mate arrangemente to Chy Planner L i. ir*. V r:/ SJ- -1 Application# Date Raealva d 2>iP-cK Amount Paid__________ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION^ Site Address____ 4 I Type of Application to be Filed ________________________ Property Identincation Number (P.I.D.) /"y/l ^ ^ . ph:up fT^k. Phone fhomei yex C/-77. Phonefwork) .3 Add rasa ••^.Py<r Phone(work) ,3^2.-/ flu City /\/\(^^^ Zip__ss3kdl OWNER Of different than appHcant) Name ______________________ Phone (home)_______________ Address____________________ Phone (work) _City ______ Date Propeity Acquired _______________________________ I (do) ^Sot^a\so own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$600.00 Residential Accessory Use S600.00 Institutional (church, school, etu.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____ $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg X $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______$600.00 Land Alteration ♦ Permit ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ______PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ______After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS X $600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees). ______$600.00 Vacation ' $600.00 Easement Vacation ^ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______ Other - see Fee Schedule f.f ..... SV-. V O V- - : J X il l *..V^ • .r> Hardibi^ tfvoiMtatiM 2377 Shadywood Road 1. **Hicpropcffty fai^ncstioacauotbcpultoarcaioBablciucifiascd under cenditiotts almrcd bj the official conirob** This property b zoned B*1 yet up until this point has always been a residential home In order for it to be converted to a business use, changes need to be nude to make it accessible and meet codes. 2. **TheplighCerthelaadawaerisduetocircnaMtaaccs wdqueCohiipfeperiy aot created hy the laiidoenier ” This is correct When the cHy created the municipal parking lot they took part of the property that bdonged to this homeowner. In doing that the lot was made smaller 3. **Thc variaacci tf graated, wil aot alter the esscalial character of the locaUty** Absolutely not. Our intention all aloog is to keep the integrity of the property. We love the look the old home will create for our new business From the county road, the building will look like a quaint little home. From the rear, it will be easily accessible for customers and very inviting. 4. **Ecoaamic cMsideratioas aloac shah net caaetitutc an uadne hardship if reaioaablc use for the property eabts uader Che terms ef ihcZoaiag Chapter^ This property has slwiys been a home This is the perfect opportunity to add another viable business to the city of Navarre. This property, in order to house a business, needs acces^ility. 5. "Vadne hardship abo ia dudes, but b uot Ibuiicd to, inadequate acesa to direct saalight for lolor systems.......N/A 6. **TheboardofAppcabaad Adjustments or the couacil may not permit as a variance aay use that b aot perautted uader Ihb chapter for property in the toac where the alTcctcd pcnen*s land b locatcd.**...^A «y «»•' • 'xt d i 2993 7. **1VbMrdorcmiBcUmaypmMftiavariaMCtkctcap«ranrne«raoM firarflj dwriiag as a two raaily dwdliag**...~N/A pccaliarto mdi property ariaiaMdialdy adjoiatog property” TUs is exactly the case with this property. On the North side of the existing structure, the current setback is 16.9* becaise of in existing shed and three season porch. If we remove the shed and porch, the sedmek wiO be 26.7*. This win still need a vsriance as the setback is currently 35 ’ on lidcyerds. The proposed addition in the tear will not need a variance but the driveway area wiU. In additioii. the property that is adjacent on the south side b almost idealkal. ([ win provide photos). It also wu a former home. On that property, in order to provide access to customers, they paved the entire bockyard. 1 do not intend to do that. 1 want to provide the community with a beautiful place to go. 1 intend to keep as much of the green space as possible by adding shnibbery. flowers and plantings. 9. mm cendilieps do net apply gesurady to etiMr lander structures in the dletrkt la which said laiid b leented.” Thu b oorrect With exception to the pbee next door, the other buimesses were erected as busineiihuildmgs This property has always been a home It. **The gmating of the appliceliea b ncccMary for the prsservatien and enjayamat eC a aahstaatiil pruperty right ef the applicenL* In order for tfatt propu ly to go firom being a honw to a businesa, it must have access. The exblii« buildifw b already in the setback area. We imend to increase that setback by 10 ’. 11. **Tha vraadBi ef the prapeaad variance wfll net ia say way impair health, saiaty, ceadert,meraie,er in any ether respect be eeatraiyte* ‘iatcatef the Zeaiag Cede.** 12.*The grantiag ef each a vnrbace wM net merely serve as a ceaveabuce to the npplbaat, bat b necessary teeleviate dsmanstmhb hardship erdiinadty.** Yes. In order to chinge thb home into a businesa. there need to be some changes both physically and aesthetically. L VT* * O'. 0:„ J r - We fed that «dth our ideas and the city’s support, we can make this business into a great plire for bmilies. We are already adjacent to a bcautifiU park. We tee this at a piece that people can go that is‘^frnuly friendly'*. We want to help beautify the community of Navane. We need the variance because the existing structure is in the setback area. As a busineaa. we need to have convenient parldng. Tbme needs to be access for handicap. The drivenip and close parking spaces are a great way to do this. At our current coffee shop, we have a drive up. (We are dosing dueloCounty Rd ISreaUgnnwnL) Wehaveatieest 10-lS custoners that use tlw drive up evei^y because they are phyncally challenged. In addition, parents with dnldrca in car sc^ are extremely gnitefiil for the convenience. ; Proposed improvements for 2377 Shadywood Road Orono.MN This property is cunently zoned B-1. Our plan is to open a cofTee-sbop/Bakery/restaurant with a drivc-up window. We need a CUP to do this. 1. Remove all overgrown shrubs in the front of the property. Replace these with smaller bushes and some larger shade trees in the front center yard. Add on a 20 X 32.3 addition to the rear of the structure. This area will be the kitchen and entry to the restaurant. The existin^g ' ving room will be the dining area with access to the outside deck. Ihe existing kitchen will be part of the new kitchen. Remove the three season porch and Ihe shed from the north side of the structure. The current setback is 16.9*. By removing these two areas, we increase the setback to 26.7*. We will sdll need a variance since we understand the side yard setback is 35*. Add on a 12* X 24.9* dMk to the south side of the structure for outdoor dining in nice weather. Enlarge existing rest room to conform to handicap access. Add a drive up window to rear of building. Currently there are three paraDel parking spaces in the rear. We would increase this to four spaces and they would face inward. We would also utilize the rear municipal parking ^ adjaccm to the property. We have already been assessed for this parking lot. Add plantings and shrubs around die parking area and drive-up area to separate them. Plant flowers and shrubs around entire lot to increase the curb appeal. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8 After running a coffee shop in Long Lake for 6 years, (Lake Country Coffee), and one in Mound for 19 years, 1 can honestly say we have the experience to do this right. We are excited to bring a new business to Orono and know that many of our customers in Mound and Long Lake will follow us there. We need the drive-up to make this successful. V 'O L. Memoranoom Oito: To: From: RE: February 17.2C04 Chris Valerius Jantco Gundlach, City Planner 2377 Sliadywood Road With regard to your proposed project at 2377 Shadywood Road, below is a list of items regarding your proposed use of a coffee shop with dnve through. These items relate to conformance veth the Zoning Ordinance in response to the preliminary sketch dropped off on the 13** of Febniary, 2004 The green lines on the attached survey are the required green yards for the property. No buildings, asphalt, parking or bituminous of any land can exist in these yards. The red lines on the atUched survey are the building setback lines. No structure is allowed beyond these boundaries. The required parking for a coffee shop and/or deli is figured at a ratio of 1 stall per 80 square feet of public floor are«' You will need to confirm whether you meet this requirement. Parking spaces must meet a required dimension of 9* (width) x 20* (length). Parking stalls ¥vhich don't meet these dimensions are not allowed A detailed floor plan will be required to determine the amount of public floor area so that the number of on-site parking stalls can be figured. The preliminary sketch which you submitted shows parking off the main access isle of the public parking lot behind your property. This raises a potential safety problem with cars being forced to back into traffic while pulling out of a space. An additional conflict exists in that the parking is so near the entrance and exit of the proposed drive through. A structural coverage figure must be calculated Structural coverage consists of all buildings and decks 6' or greater above grade. The structural coverage limit wh'ch you must meet is 15% of t^.e total lot area. The area of the easement whicn the City owns cannot be counted towards your 15% limit. The survey must be updated to reflect the easement which was given to you at our meeting of February the 11**. A hardcover analysis must be completed. Your surveyor must determine which la^e setback zones the property is in. The setback zones are measured at 0-75*. 75'< 250‘, 250'-500* and 500'-1000* from the 929.4* contour of Lake Minnetonka. The Page 1 of 2 hardcover ImKa which thOM zonaa are subject to are 0%. 25%. 30% and 35% raapectively. Any of the above requirements which your plan cannot meet will be required to undergo the variance process. To receive a variance a hardship must be demonstrated Personal and economic consWeratioos are not valid hardsNps. There are no guaramaes with the variance process. As already mentionad. a commercial site plan review and cornlitional use permit are required in order to add on to the building and to operate a restaurant Please bear in mind that the conditional use permit process is required to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of the community are not affbcted. The variance process, commercial site plan review, and conditional use perm< al require Planning Corrwnisalon and C«y Council approval. The Planning C^mission meets the 3^ Wonday of every month and the City Cound meets the 2 and 4 Mondays of every month. Page 2 of2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LA n GDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ........ I •! .......I'- AS 0MMim.r STAMB M OOOfO 1^^ LEVeu fL4>oa- CONCUTC. *ToO» ADDlflOfJ SECOND FUOOR i r 501/frt ELWATfONl X \m SI ^ -hh ^1 III 1=t pi m 1 Av N ••• EAST elevation/ WE5T E levation ) r HARDCOVERC / SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 / hardcover in zone A House _____________ X HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET LCLEONE) 0-75' 7S-250' 2S0-S00' WMih 9ZV SF. B. C. Orivewiy f /r y isr % ___________________________ X D. Sidewalk cc. AS /5 x __________________________ X B. Patio/Deck P. Laniscape Uadcrlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Otter ____SP. _____SF. _____SF. fs SJ. _Z££_sf. ______SJ. j s F. ______SF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVEn IN ZQNV; A House _______ X .SP. .SP. .SF. .SF. .SP. y?/r SP. xtOO - yo.jso SP. yjp. P/ H Ln|ih WiCth go 7 SP. B. Oarafc ______ C Drivewoy ______ rrtu.T D. Sidewalk ______ EJMoOSeck F. Laodscape UaderlaiA By Plastic Of Fabric G. Other SP. _______SP. _______S.F. .SP. .SP. .SP. .SP. SP. _________S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property AREA IN ZONE A. ^ I JZ»y .SP. .SP. SP. ♦ B xlOO r/rrr ^4d«r/^c CAT a^e .SP. __________SF. -2Z^J2Lfi_H Dl IS?-’- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY v FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5. BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA stAtr r*3o* ^ ^ «tsnn.v uc or »cmo«< ... COMTY STAH m NGNIAr** W. riAT M IftEBUitf D BWILDiNCi SETBAC/KS | piAtL *3^' f>E (NUrmC'")*!»&’ SOVTrt SIDEi 6 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY v FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA SCAtCr.SD ’ . |REaUlfr£p pAlMUHft SEfftg^n r 2JD' P£AP.*• <me w«>f fiTaYWC'')-IO' /inifLtoR tloe TO ft 2r\ VhfiUt’ NOME J/1J Bonestroo ^jBltescne ■ Anderllk & |\|| Associates Englrwcri fc Archliecti •■ntttro*. ••wn*. An«««M And Aiio<Ui*i. Inc l« an A*r>rmMi«« A(ii««'/I«y*i Ow«f)wn<l|r lmf$or9f «n« ■aipaaytt OvrxM atwwWM Oil* C ao^it'ac • ***».•> L U'««W M • • too* M • toeoMG *1 • i»*«t A •e>a«on. •! • Wib» a mooma H loA<w CoMM«MA«i Ooor»t » ••<*«• *1 • Mtrtf C *««•••« at • OoMoroi of • Uaji- m tM^M C aa Attotiaio ■*<tA A C oma *1 • •eoo'i * *1 • o-cam • titir- Of • 0«> 0 O lOKoCa At • t A| • 'ao * t’flA *C • 0*»W1*!A A Ar«r>tO« *1 • «M** 0 •o**» At • OA«A * ■•n*U-90 A ■* tOAO| A «T4MOTton at I 1 • A9"oi M M« • • A haa *■<• At . rna>»«« w raattMaA »t • M<1W|0 M*arM at • wuoil j«nir«i Af • L Ar.*« Otaro* A *1 • 0««0< i fo^A’tan a{ . trm^i M«|^( *1 • TAO«ut A i^«d A| • VW40A i <OA"«r • 0«€ * O'*** *1 • »AO"Va| A »Ovk*‘A' »l • Aot*-t / Ottff »l OatMOt H A m/ U C*0»A» A oC-OIIA- a-o A^ -a^** MM • M *MA** A1 • C-*t fO K •wOOXftt'M con* March 9.2004 Ms. Janice Gundlach Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crysul Bay. MN SS323 Re: 2377 Shadywood Road File No. 139-04^ Plat No. 04.2993 Dear Janice: We have reviewed the plans (pnmar>’ and alternate) for the proposed improvements to 2377 Shadywood Road. The proposed improvements include converting an existing residential home into a restauranv'coffee shop use. The alternate plan shows a drive through along the Lync Avenue side while the primary plan shows a dnve through along the municipal parking lot side. We have the following comments with regards to engineemg matters: • The site does not lend itself to a drive through operation. The property u located at the intersection of C.R. 19 and Lync Avenue. The dnve throu^ shown on the alternate plan is too close to the intersection to ftmetion safely without causing dnver conflicts with vehicles on Lyre Avenue. • The drive through entrance off the municipal parking lot shown on the primary plan is located too close to Lyric Avenue. Vehicles entenng the municipal lot will need to turn immediately in front of traffic exiting the parking lot causing problems both in the lot and on Lync Avenue. In addition, the proposed sidewalk location firom the proposed building wilt cause vehicle'pedestnan conflicts as pedestrians cross the dnve through lane. • Drainage calculations should be provided identifying pre and post unprovemeni flows. Post improvement flows off site shall not exceed existing conditioni • When final plans are complete we will prepare an estimated cost for site improvements Pnor to work staitmg on rite the applicant will need to provide a financial guarantee for 150% of the estimated site improvement cost. The financial guarantee sho ild be m the form of cash or a letter cf credit and will be retai.ned until all site improvements are complete and accepted by the city. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLDC A ASSOCIATES, INC, Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65t-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Ahcrnative plan; ’y***~'*>'-» »e will* Hind of tra^ actualy mcsLync avenue during the mop»nfl Kmir« to oinanl coflfce ihop doM the molt buiinm between the houri of 6im and 9 am. Aiqr houn after that are tuuaOy mr^glera...no lines of cuatomere. I had ttentrveyor do an attend plan to diow another way of doB^ the diive-up at ournew ooflee shop. Thia ia what my research found: From the houn of 6-9am there wu an average of only 19 cars that came in tlvoiich Lyricavenue or 6 cars an hour. ^ From the hours of 6-9am there wtt an average of only 32 care that exited tlvough Lyric tvenue or about 10 can per hour Of thoae. 22 were emply leaving the neighborhood. f was to dcternime if possibly a drive thm that entered off of Lyric and exitad into tte parking lot miglil work belter. Actually, if you look at the alternate survey, it would allow ua more greenipaoe and look better aestheticsly. Another thl^ I learned was that the msioiity of the parldag lot users that me slMay iMC^ park in the for oonhweat comer. With theeueptioaoftheworkcnattheaaa statoon that use the parkinB lot directly behind tlw narrows, (4 spaces) and three othergnwwidemihma^ Mb—oulbvdVfnd oul 10 natahtorfioul by narrows InframLyifc II 1)1 u Ml Oil i 11£1 i«DM «tt I InfromDVinds (III ■m-l-fHu*r III XM-m In fttxn ntoflMNxl WrI 4Ht iHf Dll 5^ ouibvdVifid omiOrwlDhlKHtl oul by nantMM ptfk-lMisintM MfhHfKkto omiolyflc idMol drop off --------f-H— bifromLvrto 1 im II IH^ 1 JHt 1 IU\w 11 til nil 1 In from D'Vlncb III III)W1II 11 nil III • — ■ ti I I A M «■ ii m nil m II iui* L ------ 311i\ouuo ntWibofti out by narrows oarti-n-ftde out lolvric school drop off wt II 1 m m-1 III MK 1 II mr 1 il II 1 II m III 11 III UAf luu ♦tTf rfTrm- , H4f* L ^ ( yfXT I H r WJ 4f;^ »«- % p/2.^ PmJIk-^'^^ uuiiu-—LLUJ vw,<1 .I • • • • • CF ATPtKANI^ PRtPfl^SY from C«V- OwNED PARK-I^1^1 IA)T i- VIEW Of AOJACFMT PR oPeWY TO THE SOt-TH- ZOHtt> E>' RUNOAIt: M nilTlMlOn) raOTADOR M14 UVWOSTONAVE OWNERNAMi: CARLE BORO 11*00 BORO TAXTATER CARLE BORO ORCARfeN BORO KI4UVBR3STONAVC WAVZATAMN SSm MEKNFJ»IN COUim PROPERTY [NFORMATION SYSTtM PROPERTY OVWLRSLiSr )• I7II72MM0A1 PROPAOOR 34J3 UVWCSTONAVt OWMtKNAME PAULTHATCIILK TAXPAYER PAtA. R TtlATCHER MMUVWGSTONAVE WAYZATAMN iS)9l 31 I1II72M10043 PKOPADUR 303 UVimaiOh AVE OWNUtNAMR OVABNMUCfc TAXPAYER UENNBVAEVEIYNNBRUCE 34)5 UVWGSTON AVB WAYZATAMN 55)91 PA{(E: I 3« 17117234)0044 PROPAOm 3441 UVmGSTONAVE OWNERNAME OENNBLMEGER TAXPAYER DENNBLHEOER 3M3UVMaSTONAVE WAYZATAMN S))9t 30 I71I72J4300TI raOPAOOR 3422 LYRIC AYE OWNERNAME DANIELESWANSON taxpayer DANIEL B SWANSON 3«22 LYRIC AYE WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 17117234)0001 PftOPAOOR 3400 LYRIC AVE OWNERNAME MENNEPRIEORfEITEOLAND TAXPAYER OTYOPORONO NAME/AOOR P O box 44 CRYSTAL0AYMN 33323 30 |7IIT2)4)OOH PROPAOOR 3444 LYRICAVE OWNERNAME FLRSEMmtLSTAEOT TAO h *R MRAmS FRANK LMirmSTAEOT NAMWAO uA 3444L3;*^AVB WAVZA^*.MN 55391 31 171172)4)0079 PROPAOOR 3404 LYRICAVE OWNERNAME MOPIEPBIRJRFEITLOLAND TAXPAYER CfTYOFOROMO NAME/AOOR POBOX44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 35323 31 |7ll7234IOOtJ PROPAOOR M ADDR^UNASSCNEO OWNERNAME TOWNOFORONO TAXPAYER arVOFORONO NAME/AOOR P080X46 CRYSTAL BAY MN 53)23 31 171172)4)0077 PROPAOOR 34)1 LYIUC AVE OWNERNAME LOBMHUDUOW TAXPAYER LWS MARIE HUOLOW NAME/AOOR )4)l LYRIC AV WAYZATAMN 33391 31 I7II73J4)0(N0 PROPADOR 3400 LYRICAVE OWNERNAME «NNEPINFORFUTEOLAND TAXPAYER CTTYOFORONO NAMWADOR POBOX44 CRYSTAL BAY MN $5323 31 I7I173I4J004) PROF AODR II AOORESS UNASSKJNFJ) OWNERNAME HENNEPWKWEilEOLAND TAXPAYER C7TY07ORONO NAME/AOOR P 0 00X66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55)2) "O f'i' f J) % »• » ■'ik-ll v.. )l 1711723430004 PROPAOOR 30 AOORESSUNASSWNIO OWNERNAME HWNEPt*PORFEITEOLAND TAXPAYER OIYOPORONO NAME/AOOR POBOX44 CRYSTAL BA YMN 33323 31 I7II77V530099 PROPAOOR 3400 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME OALESRINNSON TAXPAYER CT30HNSONRBAIOIBOON I4II09THAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 I7II7234500I5 PROPADOR 34 ADDRESSIRIASSIGNEO OWNOINAME HENNEPMFORfDTEOLAND TAXPAYER CTTYOFORONO NAME/AOOR POBOX46 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55)23 31 |7lin)4]OI42 PROPADOR 3440 SHOREUNEOR OWNERNAME RICNAIIOWMjUOMQUHT TAXPAYER RICHARD WBtOOilQlRST NAME/AOOR 3)13 SI«REliNE0R PODOXI2I HAVARAfiMN SS392 30 I7II7334300M PROP ADDR 3416 SHORFUNfc UR OWNERNAME GERM TOM PARTNERSHW TAXPAYER OERM-IOM PARTNERSHT NAME/AOOR CX) COURT MACFARLA3* II07HAZELT»IEOLVO«J5 CHASKAMN 55)11 30 1711725430134 PROPADOR 3405 UVWGSTON AVE OWNERNAME SHERYL A BEUR DAVID J BELL TAXPAYER DAVIOR SHERYL BELL NAME/AOOR 3405 UVW05TDN AVB WAYZATAMN 55391 RUN BATE: im/m M I7II72M40003 paorADIM M ADDRESS UNASSONED OWNER NAME TOWNOf ORONO tAITATfR CmrOFOROMO roBOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SS123 n l7ll73iMI0M NKTRADOR Jl ADDRESSUNASSCNEO OWNERNAME IIENNGMNKIREEITEOLAND TAXPAYER CTTVOFOROMO NAWC^ADOR rOROXM CRYSTAL BAY MN 53 JM M I7II72J4400M EMPADOR 3124 NAVARRELA OWNERNAME AMY BEAR A CURTIS SMCTH TAXPAYER CORTB ROBERT SMmi NAME/AOOR 3U4NAVARRELA WAV2ATAMN SSNt HEKNEPIN SYSTEM PMit; 1 M I7II723440006 PROPAOOR 21BOSIUDVWOOORD OWNERNAME PAULAORECOMPANY TAXPAYER PAULAORECOMPANY OOXlHNBPPAfT soil LAKE AYE WHITE BEAR LAKE MN SSI 10 M I7II72S4A0009 PROPADOR 2377 5HAOVWOOORO OWNERNAME MARCELSOfTTRlCH TAXPAYER MARCELDCmUCH NAME/AOOR EllSTHSTW BlOt WACOMAMN SSK7 IS ITII72M4006) PROPADOR 2J44 0LIVEAVE OWNERNAME VALERIETCOYKENDAU. taxpayer VALERIE TCOVAENDAIJ. namvador 2M« olive AVE WAVZATAMN SS39I M inii2344ooo; PROPADOR 2JM SHAOYWOOORD OWNERNAME PAULAORECOMPANY TAXPAYER PAULAORECOMPANY NAME/ADOR COX3MNBPFAFF son LAXEAVE WHITE BEAR LAKE MN 3SII0 M I7II72M400IS PROPADOR W ADDRESSIMASSttNEP OWNERNAME HBNNEPWfORPEUBDLAND TAXPAYER CnVOPORONO NAME/AOOR P010X66 CRVSTALRAVMN SS12J 31 I7II7234400M PROPADOR 21ia OLIVEAVE OWNERNAME PAIR.MAOUNNEY TAXPAYER WULI MAdONNEY NAME/AOOR 2J1I OLIVE AVE WAVZATAMN SSMI JS 1711723440003 PROPADOR 2S2SOUVEAVE OWNERNAME JTJACOBSON4LOJACOBSON TAXPAYER JTJAOOBSON4LD JACOBSON MAnnAnOR 232S OLIVE AVE WAVZATAMN SSlfl 31 I7IIT234400M PROPAOOR 2311 OLIVEAVE OWNERNAME PATRJCKWSUUJVAN TAXPAYER PATRICK W8ULUVAN NAME/AOOR 2311 OLIVE AVE WAVZATAMN SSJ9I 3S 1711721440071 PROP ADM 2314 SHAUYWOOD RD OWNERNAME SRAKMORKRID TAXPAYER STEVEN R A KAREN MORKRID NAME/AOOR 2314 SHAOYWOOO RD WAVZATAMN UJPI 31 1711723440074 PROP AOOR 2324 SHAOYWOOO RD OWNERNAME MARTIN TSARENPA TAXPAYER MARTW T SARENPA Hjmeiftpnw 1 101 ELMWOOO AVE MOUNOMN SS364 31 I7II72J440O7S PROPAOOR 2334 SHAOYWOOORO OWWRNAIBE IABERK30N TAXPAYER JOHN C A BARBARA EERK:S0N NAME/AOOR 1420 SHAOYWOOO RD WAVZATAMN 5S39I 31 I7II723440076 PROPAOOR 2334 SHAOYWOOORD OWNERNAME JOHN C A BARBARA EERJCSON TAXPAYER JOHN A BARBARA ERXaON NAME/ADOR I420SHADYWOODRD WAVZATAMN 3SJ9I 30 1711723440077 PROPADOR 3324 NAVARRE LA OWNOINAMR PAULAORECOMPANY TAXPAYER YAUL AOM COMPANY fiftpiMAtMW OOJOMNBPPAPP Mil LAKE AVE WHITE BEAR LAKE MN SSIIO 31 1711723440071 PROPAOOR 31ADORESSUIASSIGNEO OWNERNAME PAM. AORE COMPANY TAXPAYER PAUL AORE OOMPANV NAME/ADOR CAJXMW BPPAFP SOU LAXEAVE WHITE BEAR LAKE MN 35110 ]| 1711723440019 PROPADOR 2J4I SHADVWOODRD OWNERNAME URIBEAOANOEIJHOFT TAXPAYER UJUBEAGANCELHOEF NAME/AOUR 2M< SHADYWOOD RO WAVZATAMN S3J9I i04.1f9417S Waynta Baalevard Marcli 10,2004 r^3 Current Ute of Property. The property was vacant until 1987, at which time a day-care center was constructed. It has been operated until recently pursuant to the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit per ResohitionNo.207Sdat^ 11-10-86. The day-care building is cuirently vacant. Thebuilding is served by a septic system. Because the day-care center required installatioo of Rre si^rprcssion qimnklers. die City of Oiono allowed the building to be served with water fiom the City of Lx>ng Lake. Long Lake provides water to the property specifically for the day-care use under the terms of a License Agreement, via a private watennain under the Luce Line, such walermain allowed in the DNR trail right-of-way via a 2S-year "License to Cross State Lands**. The Long Lake license in our files allows Long Lake to terminate water service to the site without cause via 120-day wrinen notice. The property includes two tax parcels with a combined Assessors Land Value of S43 5.000 and a Building Value of S6S.000 (January 2,2003 ValuaUon for Taxes Payable 2004). Ciiirent Zoniny and l.afut Use Plan Status The property is zoned RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential, which allows Lhc development of single familyhomesatadensityofl unit per 2 d^buildable acres. Other permitteo uses in RR-IB include municipal buildings, and public parks or playgrounds. Conditional uses allowed within RR-1 B include public^vate/parochial schools, nursery schools (day-care); churches; golf courses, country clubs, tennis chibs, camps, private parks^laygrounds; commercial greenhouses; private recreation areas of various types; Plaisied Residential Developments (PRD) limited to detached SFR at 1 unit/2 acres; apiaries; public stidiles or bams; riding academies; hospitals; and libraries. The property is within the defined Rural Area of Orono as shown on CMP Map 3B-2. The property is mqjped and guided foi Rural Residential Use, 2-acre minimum lot size in the 2000-2020 Land Use Plan. B. Proposed Use of Property The applicant proposes to remove the day care use and construct a multi-fiunilytownhome development at a density of up to 6 units per acre. Please review the applicant’s letter of request. Exhibit B. The proposed use would require the following actions by the City; - Amendment of the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan to convert the sums o f the property from Rural to Urban (i.e. this application); - Establishment ofstandards within the CMP for future use and development of this property (to be drafted if amendment moves forward); — RiKoning to allow high-density multi-family development (probably to RPLT)); and — Approval of a RPUD d velopment plan, subdivision and development agreement f04.2fM I7S Waynta loalevard March 10.20M Patc« Proximity to Municipal Sewer: Capacity. The property was added to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in 1987-8S as part ofComp Plan Aniendroent No. 2 pursuant to the Midway 12 Corridor Study. The inclusion was based to a great extent on the site limitations for on-site systems (septic and well) and the potential proximity to sewer and water from the City of Long Lake. It has not been determined at this time whether the Long Lake sewer and water systems have capacity for residential uses of this site at the densities requested. This could be a potential limiting factor in the feasibility of dw proposed use. Any expansion beyond the curreiu use will require agreemems with the Ci^ of Long Lake. The 1987 Highway 12 Corridor Study identified this property and adjoining properties to the east and south as the “Eastern Portion” ofthe Corridor study area. The 1987study considered these propertio as ‘Yelatively small in area with significant development constraints including topography, wetlands and transportation access limitations. These areas were included in the study because they could have deyelopmcnt pressures not unlike areas to the west” The 1987 study also ideates, in its Summarvof with the expectation that probable uses would likely iiKlude those currently permitted as conditional uses in the rural residential zone”. Proximity to Existing Urban Services The property is more than one mile from the urban services considered in the 2000-2020 CMP as critical to development ofhigher density housing, such as nearby commercial uses (retail and service uses) and public transportation. Walkability to such services was also considered in establishing the areas for higher density housing. Proximity to Existing Transportation Corridors The property ibuU existing Highway 12 and gains access to 12 via a long driveway at the SE comer of the site, in order to allow for adequate sight distance from the Luce Line Bridge. Access to the site m akes use of turn lanes, and is difficult at certain times depending on levels of traffic. Location within the Watershed The property is approximately one mile from Lake Minnetonka, and drains eventually to Brovm's Bay through a scries of small creeks and wetlands. The location within the watershed is not a significant factor in whether this property should be re-guided. L. it4*2994 t7S Waynu Boiikvard Mmli lt.20«4 Fatt7 Site-Specific Factors for Consideration 1. The property is to some extent an “oiphjn", with relatively little relationship to the development that sunounds it. 2. The day-care use at the site apparently has not had much saccess in recent years, due to factors not fully knowrn to staff but potentially related to vehicular access difficulties. 3. The range of potential uses within the existing RR-1B Rural Residential zoning for this si te include (he development of single-fiynily housing (up to 3 homes at a 2-acre density) as well as a variety of institutional, public or private uses. 4. ThepropertyisatahighlyvisiblelocationtotrafficenteiingOorofiomtheeastDeveloproentat this site mi^t be considered as a ‘main entrance' to Orono, and as such will inherently set a tone as to the character of the City. 5. The property abuts the Luce Line Trail, which as it traverses Orono has a completely different feel than it does in Plymouth to the east; a rural feel rather than a suburban feel. Due to topographic constrainu. development of a multiple family residential use on the site will likelybe in close proximity to the trail, and have a potentially negative impact on the rural character of the trail. 6. Attached muid-ftmily housing, and such housing at the densities proposed, would oe inconsistent with existing and expected residential development surrounding the property. While the property in Long Lake to the north is zoned to allow up to 4 units per acre, it has developed in the past with a wide range of lot sizes and at a lower density than it is zoned for. A recent subdivision at the south end of Lindawood Road created a total of S single family lots from 4.2 acres of land, a density of just over I unit per acre. D. Are There CompeUiag Reasons to Amend the CMP? In considering this application, staff would offer the following questions to be answered to assist in detennining whether the proposed amendment should be approved: 1. Is the property currently guided in a manner that allows the owner son.e reasonable use of the property? 2. Does Ae unique location of the property suggest certain types of uses may be more appropriate than others? 3. Would re-guiding Ae property tend to promote some specific goal of Ae City m terms of land use? M4-29N STS Wiyzats Bonitvard Mtrcb If. 2004 Piftl 4. Given that the areu recently re-guided for higher density housing have not yet developed, isn't it premature to consider additional areas for higher densit>? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait until those areas have developed, then consider whether additional such areas are warranted'* 5. Similarly, if in the future the areas to the north in Long Lake are redeveloped at a higher density, would that be a more appropriate time to consider higher density at this site? Staff Recommendation Staff reconunends denial of the request, for the following reasons: ♦ The basic characteristics used to establish the areas recently rc-guided higher density residential use are not present at this site. Primarily, the site is not near a commercial area that can provide the urban services, nearby shopping, public transportation, walkability, etc. that were compelling reasons for the recent rc-guidings ♦ Insertion ofhigher density housing into the defined Rural Area for a property that the on ^tict finds difficult to develop does not necessarily promote or advance the City's housing goals of providing life-cycle housing where appropriate services can be provided ♦ The property does have a variety of potential uses under the current Rural status and RR-IB zoning, and the fact that the property will now have a freeway along its S W boundary does not in itself suggest that those uses are no longer viable. Frankly, if the site is acceptable for multi-family housing units, why isn't it acceptable for single family units as currently guided? ♦ The development ofhousing at a density of6 units per acre on this site, or potentially as many as 18 units of townhomes, would be totally inconsistent with surrounding development. ♦ The potential negative visual and related activity impacts associated high-dersity residential development abutting the Luce Line Trail would be incorsistent with the City ’s vision for the Rural Area. ♦ The areas rc-guided for hi^cr density housing in the 2000-2020 CMP have yci lo be dev'cloped, and it is premature to consider additional areas until those initial areas arc dc . doped. Plaaoing Commission Action Requested Make a recommendation to the Council as to whether the 2000-2020 CMP should be amended as requested by the applicant A recommendation for denial should slate reasons fc denial. /\ny recommendation for approval should be accompanied by recommended standards to be established for development of the property. ^■^11-2084 ||:l|n Prit<lTV tf OHNO «m24|l|1l MIS PfOi/Bfl P-OIT Application# ffH- Date Racalvd^ Amount Palo CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION ivahza-ta Ht.^o Wmr Type ofAppMcationtobeFiled, , C?piu<or<>VvP«^c,. vi ^ "p\q^ Pfopany Identification Number (P.I.O.) 75- //g - 23 y^ycaoT JX- // j - zs aooi Phono (home) Phonefworfc^ Address SlO PiW- Ai^iaiAe, Hn^»u»apfl<^ Zip <s~g~4c>t^ OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ Name ofiM6\y7~ C.OfZ^ Phone (work:) 6 rz - - xayj vvx/f^^^gc/j 7ip _____________(month/year) Phone (home). Address 5“^ _______ Date PfiBfifrty Acquired ______________________ I (do)(^~^Aalao own the a^laoent percets of land FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______$600.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$600.00 instSutional (church, school, etc.) ______$600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$600.00 Duplex CredldBldg ______$600.00 Commeroial/Industrial Use ______$600.00 Land Atteration ♦ Permit _____ Grading and Ailing - designated wetland or floodplain Gradinoandliiling.SOI cu. yd. or more Grading, saawan, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ______PRD/PID - ses Fea Schedule ----------$250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from originei application) ______After ihe^act Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ----------$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacatbn Whh Subdivision - $600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other • see ^ee Schedule' # flb-IVnH H:\im ^rv-ClTY « 0D«T-m p m/iii MIT RCQUIf^O SUBMrTTALS 1. ^J^CompIttid Application Form, 2. _ ✓/ Detcrtet raguert in dataii. 3. _ Certified Proptrty Owner# Li»t of owners wrfthin 350* of the subject propert/. labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Fsianoe. Government Center. A-603 300 South . Street, Minneapolis, teiepbone 612-345-5910). 4. Certificate of Survey (signed by a Rcensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. y\ Attach legal descripbon to application if not irKluded on required survey. ^^Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) If land alterations 6. 6 8. 9. y involve chartges in alevalion (grades). - List Of the legal names (include marital sUtus) cf all persons with an inteiest in tha property. This would indude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). jC^Conelniction plan. If appUeabla (see etaff for requirements). As an addendum to Oils application, please attach a separate Hst of any other persona you wish noWed of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3* COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X IT* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of ell documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicanl end Property Owner mutt sign this application. Pteise remember that your application Is not complete If the above information has not been included. Certification by Clericai Department that Lend Use Appfication is complete. InMale of Clarice] Staff:____________________Date/fu^r ■ APPttOANTB SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ad Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pey additlona] fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expanses incurred In review of this appHcalion. md oertMles that ihe Information supplied la trug and eo^gcl Jo the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature.Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE ^ The owner he'tby acknowledges and agrees to this application end further authorized reasonable cnlry onto Ihe property by City staff, consultants, sgento. commission members, and Council niembers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature,Date AppScsnl must hews sU submittals into the CSy omees 25 Says b«Ms ths Ptonning Planning Commission Mattings are heU on the tvrC MonOsy of tsch monm. /^plicants must be ptastni at a> scheduled review meetings of Sia Ptarwing Cofivnisaion and Council U an appSkam is to /r f} '<■i ■• •• 'll j «. n 79YM LANDFORM & February 10.2004 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE; Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Swervo Property Dear Mr. Gaffron. On behalf of our client. Landform is pleased to submit this application for a community management plan amendment for the 11.08-acre parcel located at the southwest quadrant of the Luce Line Trail and Highway 12. The property is currently the sue of an unoccupied daycare facility. The surrounding properties include a cemetery to the south in the City of Wayzata, railroad tracks on the west, residential homes to the north across the Luce Line Trail corridor and Highway 12 to the east. A large portion of the site is wetland, but we believe the approximately 7 acres of upland could be redeveloped with new homes. The applicant is requesting a land use guide plan amendment from Rural Residential (2 acre minimum) to Urban Residential Medium Density. This would allow development of hvinhomes or townhomes and preserve the natural resources on site. We are requesting an amendment to the Community Management Plan to allow an extension of municipal sewer and water to serve this property and allow development at up to 6 units per acre. The subject property is within the 2020 MUSA boundary. The Community Management Plan sewer policy plan identifies this area as one of the areas where municipal sewer and water would be considered for extension. While we understand that it is the City’s intent to keep the rural sections of Orono rural, we find that this property is affected by several unique circumstances. Specifically, the location of this property-bounded by Old Highway 12 on the east. New Highway 12 on the west, the Luce Line Trail and the north and a cemetery in the City cf Wayzata on the south-isolates it from other residential uses in the area. The surrounding uses make this property unappealing for large lot residential, as the market for single family homes would likely be discouraged by the noise and traffic from Highway 12. However, our analysis shows that the area would support two-family homes or townhomes on the site. The proposed amendment would complement the existing cevebpment in the area. Furthermore, we find that the requested change is consistent with the Planning Goals outlined in the Community Management Plan. Speciftcally; 7 ^ \v •«e taaTH 8 I'lO'ia tea** w sstaaoi t V» C*V>C( tll 2*2 *0^e> Ma «12 292 -mm . ^ R«; S«i«rvo Prap«rTy Pflbruvy 16.3004 The proposal would allow development consistent with environmental protection and the land use pattern. The proposal would allow development that is consistent with the City's environmental protection goals and the existing land use pattern. Furthermore, it provides a reasonable use of a challenging site that is constrained by roads on two sides and the Luce Line Trail corridor on the north. The impact from the traffic voiumes on these corridors makes development of this site challenging. The proposed amendment would allow development that is supported by the market and the existing land use pattern in this corridor. 8. The proposal ytouid protect the financial stability of the City, by providing an adequate level of services at minimal cost to the taxpayer. The developer would extend municipal services to this site in order to allow construction of the planned homes; therefore, the proposal would have no cost to the taxpayer. The costs of site development would be borne by the applicant. We respectfuly request approval of an amendment to the Community Management Plan to allow urban residential development on this parcel, based on the finding that amendment would comply with the spirit and Intent of the City's Community Management Plan, would allow redevelopment of this underutilized site, would provide a housing option that Is need in the City and would allow development that Is compatible with the surrourrding development. It is my understanding that this Item will be scheduled for Ranning Commission review on March 15.2004 and City Council action on April 12.2004. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Stephen Johnston or me at 612.252.9070. Sincerely. LANDFORM* Kendra Lindahl. AlCP Planner COPY: Swervo. 510 First Avenue North. Suite 660. Minneapolis. MN 55403 *Undiofm EngInMrtnB Ooneany Soing bustn«a M Uniform eSO BUTLER NORTH BUILOINO 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH M NNEAPOUS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612152.9070 FAX 612152.9077 WMMrJwtdfomuW I, m N Ui>gLrt* City of ^ Long Lake 'L I H •jofli KiiiWilla n 1;^ rh c m 0 m l^A A,•-.i Lah»Minne< '"7- fii: KMk^; ■X^‘ mySfs fwi-' Defined Urban and Rural Areas City of Orono Minnesota 4- [__J Urban Service Arons ^ Rural Service Areas t553 Recreational Trail j j ' Open Water _"" Right-of-Way Railroad Right-of-Way ot'^o f/AP 3B-2 CMPFmOC. HOUSING nnA A VP POLICIES Oiono'tHouiiiig ActkmPlia isbaicd uponthe foUowiaf Goak and Policies wbichafedeai0iadtobccomutait%vithourfe9ooalboudngreq>oiisibilities and with die Goals, Policies and Plans of the odicr elements of the CommuBsty Manafsasant Plan. 1. To iasprove the beoslog eooditioas of persoos residing la snhstandard booslttg. 2. To provide safe, haaMhAil, and bUght-free rcsidcoces and neighborhoods. 3. To provide opporinailies for 0 nail of honsiag types, locations, and cost ranges which wm meet the needs and provide adeqnatt honaingfarahrooder range ofogas,fiaBllygronps,Hiestyle needs and levob of Incoaae to the groalaac citeat practical ToprovMe housing types and raaldcntinl densities conaistcat srith eavIroaBental and land nso plans and with the avnBabaUy of pnblk services and fbdUtiao. To provide iaeawdiately beneficial houaiag progmau for the greatest number of Orono raaideats with affordable homing city of OreM CeauMity MaeefnMst Plea 2na/ariH«a«mmrmt PegeS&Sf CMFF«rt3C BmOmnam Orono'i housing goals as esublished in this Housing Plan, for sites not cunently guided for such use but which may be appropriate for such use. Urban density residential development mast ocenr within the defined Urban Service Area. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The Urban Service Area as defined in this Plan will not be expanded into the defined rural area, and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes cf fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. Urban density residential development will atilizc cilillDg or planned public services and facilities. New icsidential development win be idlowed to infill existing vacant property within the Urban Service Area consistent with environmental limitations and with the or plaimed capacities of water, sewer, drainage, transportation and recreational fimUities. New development will not be p ermitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing ttsen. New urban development will not be pennitted if it requires additional urq)lanned local or regional fiKiUties capacity. Tba City will promote Kaltcrcd iltc dcvcIopmcDt as opposed to largo aealo tract dovciopmont within the existing developed niban aron. Scattered she development has less impact on tte aeigbborhoods or on the existing public fodlities capacities thm does a concentration of development at one location. In addition, most of Orono's existing urban neighborhoods are a homogenous mix of newer and older homes intermiagled with an occasional vacant lot or a larger, divisible lot There is no smgle neighborhood which is in need of complete renewal or rehabilitation. Therefore, there is no need for nor any economical way of assembling a Urge tract of property for single-project development The CHy will promote rchabUilation of existing older or rabstandard homes. Whereas there is no identifiable block of deteriorated bousing in the City, there are a substantial number of older homes or converted cottages that are in need of repair, energy Gonaervation measwes, or major rehibilitation. In many cases, these homes are occupied by low income or fixed income persotu who cannot undertake the needed work within their means. Maintaining ndghboihoods and existing hones enables maintenance of affordability. Replacement of these homes, even with higher density development, would result in substantially increased housing prices. Therefore, the City will promote private and subsidized public CHy of Oroso CowBUiHy MaaaitBnit Plaa acfHaScr 3Me/nn>MScf«(aa«r2MI rag«3C-22 ________ efforts to improve the existing housing stock, to improve twintain the neighborhoods, ond most importantly to improve the living conditions of the affected citizens. 7. The City will promote drvclopmeDt or rchablUtation that is compatible whh the existing aeighborhood. The City will all homeowners and developers to be consciotis of the neighborhood, the site and the environment in the design and improvement of residential properties. The City will encourage, and in many cases, require the retention of woods and vegetation, open spaces, light, air and scenic views. No new development vrill be pennitted to conflict with or to adversely affect the established neighborhood character. I. The City wU promote anhsidizedrehabiUtatkm that beaefits the often long term, Oroao resident Our citizens are Orono's greatest asset As they grow older, we should not turn them out of their homes, but rather we should help them provide safe and comfortable living conditions in their existing neighborhood. RnroiBoDriMFolIcka 1. Hensing In rural Orono wW be limited to liahle family bomca at established mral densities. Orono's Land Use Plan will result in an ultiinale rural density of one dwelling per seven acres on minimum lot sizes of 5 diy>biiildable acres each, and one dwelling per four acres where the zoning requires a minimum 2*acie lot size. This density ta with the City's environmental protection commitment mid is consistent with the overall Goal of preserving the historic niral character of the vea. Because of this preferred use, and because there is no provision for any municipal sewer, water or other urban services, multi-family development or any densely clustered tesideiitial development will generally not be appropri^ for rural OfODO. However, clustered development at a 2-acre density could be poss^ if sewage treatment technology for clustered devefopmeats advanced to the point that the City was assured of the long-term operation of the sewage treatment system. 2. The CHy will promote rchabiUtalioD of existing older or snbtlaadard mral baoMa. Rural Orono contains a significant number of older homes, which also r^uire repair, energy conservation measures or ma}(« lehabilhaticm. These rural owners also require the same type of assistance often reserved for urban areas. Thetefoie, the City will promote private and subsidized public idiabilitation efforts in both urban and rural housing improvements propams. CHy of Oreae Coa»aaHy MaaaguiMt PUa >C-13 stfiMktr rm/mntmsstemrn^mi r «UNlM1E:W/3aM 72 ISIIUMMOll mop « oowa Aowuas pinoinc OWNU<«AMB M»4ES A A ABLfNE V tOOSEN TAXPAYER JAMBAAARUNEVUXISEN NAME/AOM MSUNDAWOOOLA WAVZATAMH SJW 72 }SIIU}44000I PROP ADOR 92J WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME ALFRED2 BRONTE ElAL TAXPAYER AUREOJBROMTE ^^tACJAnnm 92} W WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 5S19I 71 37III77MOOO} PROP ADOR 17} WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME SWERVO DEVELOPMENT CORP TAXPAYER SWERVO DEVElDPMEFiTCORP NAME/ADDR PODOXSOIT6 MINNEAPOLIS MN 5M05 99 3SIIE27440QM PROP ADOR »0 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME CITY OF WAYZATA TAXPAYER CITY OF WAYZATA }I0 WAYZATA BLVD W WAYZATA MN S)39l 72 35IIUJ4200IO PROP ADOR 245 UNDAWmilLA OWNER NAME JAM E9^R ARUNEV LOOSEN TAXPAYER IAMES V U30SEN NAMEIAOOR 2«5LWD^Wd3WA 72 J)III2343002I PROP ADOR 225 LINDAWDODU OWNER NAME JAME5»OMEN ETAl taxpayer IA»«B>i^MN NAMWAOOR 225 iSiOAWOOO LA HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE 2 72 35IIUMJ0012 PROP ADOR 00072 ADORtWPENOWO OYYNERNAME BRENSHELL HOMES DC TAXPAYER BRENSMEli. HOMES INC NAMEIADOR 9052 OAKLAND ST STBOMFACRISMN 55J75 PROPADOR 71 JMII7MI007I 00072 AOORFSS PEN002U OWNER NAME RRENSHFLL HOMES INC TAXPAYER BRLNSMELLIKJMESINC NAMFZADDR 40S2OAWANO STBONDAC1USMN S537S 72 3511121440002 PROP ADDR 915 WAYZATA BLVIJ W OWNER NAME EIBOUUYETAI. taxpayer EJBOULEY NAME/ADDR 915 W WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 II 111 1127440004 PROP ADOR •» WAVZA lA BLVD W owner NAME CONFRSTONF. NEW TESTAMENT OI TAXPAYER CONERSIONE NEW TESTAMENT CH NAME/AODR IW05I9TMAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 31 7511127440006 PROP ADOR Jt AOORLSSUNASSRRIEO OWNER NAMt HENNEPIN lORF El TED LAND TAXPAYER HEIWEPIN FORHnEO LAND NAME/AODR FOR SAIL 10 ADJACENT PROPFRIY OWNER ONLY 31 3511127440007 PROP ADDR II address UNASSKiNLO OWNER NAME STATE OP MWN TAXPAYER DNR REAL ESTATE MOM T NAME/ADDR ATTN DEBBIE cur tin »0l>7EAYErTtRO STPAIJI MN 55155 72 15III2I44I009 PROPADOR 207 IJNOAWOOULA OWNER NAME OLRTMEIEMMER TAXPAYER D«AK£ L R TERRIANNE FLEMMER NAM&AOOR 207 UNDAWOOO EA WAYZATA MN 55791 72 1511121440010 PROPADOR 206 UNUAWOODM OWNER NAME KRGRADIOFF TAXPAYER KEIIMWRADIDFF NAME/ADDR 206 UNDAWOOO LANE WAYZATA MN 55791 i 72 7511123470015 PROPADOR 225 UNDAWOOO LA OWNER NAME JRAh^U^ TAXPAYER JAMES 5<^JRUM:VUJ0SEN 225 LDPAWIOU LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 72 15I1I2341000I PROPADOR 225 UMMWpODU OWNER NAME JAMES A fi^EN ETAL TAXPAYER JAMtSLflOSkN NAME/ADDR 225 UNDAWOOO LA WAYZATA MN 55)91 WAYZATA MN 15191 egg 2000 MUSA and Planned Expansions City of Orono Minnesota *4*' UTil ^•■rea with n tho 2000 MUSA rreposed Addi! ons to 2000 MUSA IHi Heef^^ational Trail Open Water ' R.ght of-Way HH Ra iread Right-of-Way Proposed MUSA Add t<on»_____ T * •y*— __ o-%«» ^ ' *t ^• • tv^% «*^J SM •■ L «« ^ 1 - 1g#* ■>■.!% 1^»_«• 1C J7 1 H« >11 1 g*#* t • r* »r***»y^*a ■ ,r.T"•••1 44 .4 '4 __Mun"2 V ■“'Jw»__«3 ___1 I'?-.•••-4-"“ < M •« J •f’J,!7-.iT.-l V ' -H C-^-»4____4 1* # •# *•4*: ^*W .. °•« V<i‘- MAP 4C-2 MM.299S M*rclil0,2004 Pifc2 Background Lot Area Vanance. The property has contained a single family residence for many decades. Applicant was advised during the building permit review process that the property contains less than the required 2.0 acres of dry-buildable land and is within the 2 acre zone, subject to Zoning Code Section 78-72(8X2) as noted above The phrase "if the Council finds" has consistently been administered by City siafTas requiring the applicant to go through the variance process. Tt should also be noted that while this property exceeds 2 acres in gross area, it is less than 2 acres m dry buildable area. Until May 1998, when Ordinance No. 176. Second Senes was adopted, sewered properties were granted an area credit for w'etland equal to the amount of dry buildable area on the property. Ord. 176removedthatcredit.hencerebuildingonthislotofl.77drybujklableacrcsnownceds a variance, whereas it would not have required an area variance prior to 1998, as it w ould have received credit for all of its wetland area. Further note that the property to the immediate west, with dry buildable area ofjust under '/i acre, w’as granted a lot area variance in 1 98S due to its large wetland area and the fact that it w as sewered, and had no additional dry land available. That property was also granted a rear setback variance. Finally, it should be noted that the survey prcsaited docs not match the tax parcel dimensions shown on Coimty plat maps. The northerly part of Lot 4, all wetland, is owned by the Nature Conservancy according to Hennepin County. A revised, corrected survey will be required, or evidence that the surv ey is correct Im Width Variance. The need for a lot width vanance was identified by staffdunng the variance review. The width of the property is defined in the Zorang Code as “...the horizontal distance betw ecn side lot lines measured...at the rear of the required front yard, n.rasured parallel torhe frr at :oi line." The front lot line by definition is ‘That boundary of a lot which abuts an c-^istingor ded«.ated puJdic street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street." It >s somew hat di fftcult to apply the definitions to this propetty because of the intrusive alley If i^.e line of the nonheasterly end of the alley is considered as the front lot line, then the lot exceeds the 200' standard and no vanance is needed. Once the alley is vacated and the three tax parcels combined with it, the lot width will be measured at a pomt 5(T back fiiim the mam road, and will be 160', still slightly shy of the staixlard. Welland Setback Variance. The w etlands on the property are shown based on the City’s 1974 w etland maps and to some extent on the topography, using the 929.4' contour. Topography is not shown for the entire site, however. No wetland delineation has been completed, due to winter conditions. The w etland boundary shown on applicants survey appears to be consistent with the topography ofthe site based on the City’s topo map. The exact area of wetland cannot be determined unless or until a wetland delineation and survey is completed. The exact location ofthe wetland boundary and the exact area o f wetlands is probably not critical to the application, in that whether the site contains 1.6 or 1.7 or 1 .8 acres dry buildable, it is still ‘buildable* fbi residence purposes in stalTs opinion. Howe\ er, at any location where construction approaches less than, say, 40' from the perceived wetland, it would be critical to know the exact boundary. A wetland delineation should be conducted as soon as weather permits to allow for verification of the boundary. How ever, I do not believe it is necessary to delay this variance application process for the delineation. M4-299S Mtrck 11.2004 PagtS T VS Wetland Status. Staff initially questioned whether this property should be considered as a bkeshore lot. because of the existence of929.4 contour lines v^ithin the property boundaries, and the MC WD Functional Assessment ofW'etlands • Hydrologic S etting classification as “Lacustrine Fringe**. However, after further review and discussion, staffhas concluded that the wetlands on the property for zoning administrative purposes should be considered as wetlands, and jqs& lakeshore. for the following reasons: 1. The MCWD in its review for the applicant’s stormwaler/erosion control permits considered this as wetland. 2. The DNR in its wetland invemoiies considers Femdale Marsh as Basin 852-P, separate from Lake Miiuietonka which is Basin 133-P. 3. The applicant’s surveyor has noted that the points of929.4 elevation within the wetland are discontinuous due to the hummocky nature of the wetland, and it would be impossible to accurately map any continuity if it did exist. 4 Although a small channel and lagoonoutside the property boundaries and three properties to the cart allows boats to navigate to the north side ofFenidale Road, the applicam does not have any ability to access the lake, and ptopeities between the navigable area arid the property are owned by others, including the Nature Conservancy. With its location across Femdale Road from Lake Minnetonka, the property cannot be considered as abutting Lake .Minnetonka. 5. The City of Orono in past zoning applications for properties north of Fondale Road has conaistaitly treated the wetlands as wetlands, not as lakeshore. Orono’s wetland setback requirement is 26'. While the proposed residence and amenities appear to more than meet this requirement, portions of the existing driveway are within 26* of the wetland. Most of this encroachment is proposed to be eliminated, by removing the ^veway and relocating it inland. Howeva. at the point where the driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26' setback. The two options to consider here are: A) grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain; or B) requirethatallportionsofthedriveway.includingthatportioninthealleytobe vacated, be relocated to meet the 26* setback We would also note that the MCWD requires a 35 ’ buffer, so it would be appropriate to move the dii vewr^ so that it meets a 35 ’ s^ack from wetland at all locations. Staff would recommoid OptionB. This will avoid the need for a wetland setback variance. The applicant should be asked whether there are any reasons this cannot be accomplished. #04.2ffS March It, 2004 Pafi4 Hardship Aaalytis /if maUtrii^ tppttcttlwa/or ¥»rianet, Hu /Vaan/Nf CommissJoa shM ccmsUerthe effect of the pelted wWaacr upem the ttemith, tefety end welfmre of the community, exhting end entictpeted truffle condUione, light end uir, demger of fire, rtih to the public lefety, eud the effect eu values of property tu the surrounding urea. The Flannlng CotuuUsslou ihaf/ eonsUer recommending t^provel for vexlencee from the llteml previsions of the Zoning Code in Uutoncos mkere their stria enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unlgue to the InMdtml property under consldemtlon, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In beeping with Ota s^tk and intent of the Oromo Zoalng Code The applicant has noted a number of hardships in his application. Staff would note that the clearly demonstrable hardship is the existence of wetlands on the property with no additional dry buildable land available to be acquired. The lot area after the vacation will be approximately 1.87 acres or nearly 9S% of the standard, based on information available to date. Also in support of the request isthe fact thatthe lot hashada substantial residence for many decades; the propa^ is sewered; and anew home can be placed on the property without the need for Amber variances. The lot width variance should be considered as a technicality, in staffs opinion, and a variance should be granted since no additional land is available, and all setbacks can be met without the need for a setback variance. Staffdoes not find any hardship that would support a wetland setback variance to continue the dri vew ay in its nonconforming location. Staff would recommend its lelocaiion to avoid the variance. Issues for Discusskm 1.Is there any additional land available that would allow applicant to avoid the need for lot area and width variances? 2. Are there any reasons that the dri vew ay cannot be moved to avoid a wetland setback variance? 3. Should a wetland delineation be required prior to issuance ofbuildingpennits? Or.priortothe footing inspection? 4. Are there any other issues of concern? iM-299S Martm0,1004 PiftS Staff Rccoramcadatloa Staffreoommaidi ^spioval ofthe lot net Old lot widA vaiiances to allow coostniction of a newicsklencc on the property aubject to the following: 1. 5. Applicant to provide a survey prior to issuance of building permit, that contains complete topography for the site to satisfy staff that wetlands will not likely be encroached. Appltcaol to provide welhnd delineation survey to veri fy no wetland encroachment and confirm dw actual diy buildable area of the site. This should be required prior to footing inspection. Applicant shall relocate all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the roadway to be vacated, to meet required wetland setback and/or MCWD buffer requirements, prior to issuance of Cenificate of Occupancy for the new residence. Prior to issuance ofbuUdingpcnnlt, applicant shall provide evidence that legal combination of the three tax parcels and the vacated road has been completed. Prior to issuance ofbuilding permit, applicant shall either provide a survey that reflects Nature Conservancy ownership of northerly portion ofLot 4 per Hennepin County plat maps, or shall provide suitable evidence of applicant ownership of that property. fi i- !■! iMmiAaimr i ■■ aiinii I .n I I ■■ ifc■< Ml * J LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET I Arga/Wldth; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required________________2.0 acres 200* Actual 1.77 acres (1.86 acres after vacation) 44*. 88* (160* after vacation) Setback*; LR-IA Required Proposed Front 50*160* Rear _______________50*100* Uft Side 30*140* + Right Side __________30*250* + Wetland 26*26*-m-» i Clovcraae; (Not Applicable) H e^rilgover CakuUtlQDi : Hardcover Zone Total Area ia Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75-250*29.685 s.f.7.421 s.f (25%)0 250-500*89.150 s.f.26,745 S.f. (30%)8,607 s.f. (9.63 %) 500-1000*15.000 s.f. ±*5.250 s.f. (35%)0 •500-1000* lot area shoNWi in applicants hardcover calculations appears to include t^ portion of 4 that County records indicate is owned by the Nature Conservancy. 15.000 s f. is staff calculation of 500-1000* zone absent the NC portion. k. City of Orom Variance Application Streef Addnss: 2750 Kelley Par>(way Orono. MN 55356 Main: 952*249-4600 fax 952-249-4616 Mailing Addnss P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:066 AppUcabon# Date Recehred' Amount Paid; Staff Fee: Renewal:S300 Aner-the-fact 51 200 Double Fee IfHS application form must be completed in fu5. App leant will be nobfled within 15 days as to the status of the application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ID t>>rrv4/iL Rrvirl Ofono MfJ 5535 Property Identificaton Number (PIN): eJr^ -//7 - ^ *-/3 (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (monttVyear): 7/^.^ □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: XResidential Zoning District: _________________ □ Oiher APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names arid marital status required for each interested party) Name: VAnnnACfc Phone (horneV Address: ^ Email: ht^b A Phone (work): a/a/ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names sra mamal status required for each interested party) Name: Ajlnrvj _ Phone (work): toO o g e4Jx4/t^b0. /ytA/ s‘S39y Phone (home): Address: Email: fpPkt /O J*y /*/? rr-7 Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estmated Project Cost: $ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________ 44rr t -.* fj REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the appHcatlon deadline date In order for your application to be processed. □□□□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance . Government Center. A-603 300 South 6'" SJeet. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ^ Originul Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8.6" x 11" or 11' X17" for reproduction. □ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). yC Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" / or 11" X 17’ for reproduction. Ti Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project" APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provideThe applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additiunal fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knovriedge The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting s complete application being aware that upon failurs to do so, the staff has no aiternatlvs but to reject It until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: Date: Date: OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request O'wner's Signature: Owner's Signature:Date Date; Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in p'ace of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. .95 Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is ■ rsquirod submHUl for ALL variancs appllestioiis. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the Oty. 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 njn with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance wiD affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out K will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1. *The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under qj^itlons allowed by the official controls.” . oQjujmr^. -Ui-vh V\v^inqrrjnnn/. 4m rYv4^rv»i*’ ______ (VcoorlfiA.rjrifiLrviJL Voonr* *The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” •The variar ». If granted, vwll not alter the essentia! character of the locality. “The. m rx.r'A CT>o^X<\jc^hcr\ Vv^rY^^.. nn4- iVc.________"to (7r\ r\c\ rVvtmr-lgr: >‘r^inru •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” ^2^)0 // /W so" Page 2 of 3 •Undue hardahip also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* 6. 'The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not perniit 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.* 7. ’The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling * 8. *The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoinir^ property.” 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” 10. ”The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.' 11."The granting of the proposed variance will not In any way impair health safety comfort, morals, or In any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The. Onqir^t Viom^ t/idudryj ru-ens r>f n/v^ pryncgrns. Camnlirtn nOtnfl/. liimiirl '-Vlrygup, #2995 Page 3 of3 *Tht granting of auch varianoa will rtot maraly serva at a eonvenianoa to the applicant, but is nacaasary to alleviate damonatrabla hardship or difficulty.* Hardship Statamant Should you feel the hardship cannot fdity be described in the above criterja, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance Zoning Ordir>anca raquirenwots in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): -fco (\ci r>riQt/viJL Vvynr, . ‘TV^- Qrry^r4|^ r\rwgc. not rs, -VtiJ''.- irxf.S hffyvQrDnrri i 4*v>4- r r>Yv:.tH^r/^4ir\^rT. iT iC-' 'C- ,y i;? B r.- »I, nrii -piM Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department M 011173)440019 MOOAOM MOFCIIMOAUROW OWmaHAME COACMOOKSM TAWy^YEB OUtDt O O OOHLrY »OOKS IB NAI4&AOOII fWreWOAUBDW WAYZATAMH SU9I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPEKTyOVWERSUSr OFMYKNOWLEDaCANOBEUEF. DATE-llllI^ BY TO THE BEST FACE 1 ■A 1 ■ i) *■ w** » . Oj ) JT M i nnchaha Creek Watershed District fmproving Quaiitj^ ofWttrr, ^tuility ofLife Ihuniof, tabvuary 12, 20Q4 HfaifMtonka Community C«ntar CouncN ChMnbon 14400 MImMfeonhi toutrad MkwMlonlB. MN SS34S Unctfirtiw, Prldim; Own Mat VW» Nonka Qnm, Ti CaMni^ SicralMv; SoBttTlioniM^ Mmwo«; Richard MHtar, Nanagor; 9u>m Nett: Ind<al«l tames efi csttnatM; Ktuii emit nvv«anrcors ‘ttfabty. InOviduAls «nlh Items on tra« Agende or Mho Mish to locok to the teord are oneowraged to be m sttandaaKo when the mecb>«g ■« cased to o>der •:15-€:45pfii 1. €:45pfii 2. C:4S-d:S0pfn 3. 4. (:SO-4:5Spiii 5. 7:00-7:15pm 8. 2. BoarJ Mealing CoM to Older and noil Call Mattere ftofn Ifie Moor Anyone wuhing to addreei iIk Board of Maoagen on an item net on the »«enda or or, ihc may come forward at dtii time CommenU are limited lo two minutei CAC Report 4.1 None 6.1 Luce Line Zero Runoff Oemonstradon Project*P. Palm (15) 7:lS>7:20pm CONSOfT AeCNOA (The conscoi agendi ii contukied u one iietn of btisincts It coiuistt of routine adnuniitnave items or items not requiring diKutsion itenu can be removed from die content agenda at the request of a Board Member. Staff Member, or a Member of ihe Audience.) Approval of Mimitea* 7.1 January 8,2004 8. Approval Of OiackRegiftar B.l None The Uimuhaha O cel Vaterthed Dan icr a committed to a kadftkip tote in preteenng. impramng and mcnagmg Me wface worerj e>Mf ofTtaied gfoundmoier tesofcei hu A i« the Duoict. indudi^ their relmemtkipe to the eeoiyuems of wAtcA they o>ron MegraJpm thrtuth regiuanoe cap to!projects, education. coope>au*e endtavon. and othar propams based on saund science mnonenna ihinkini. an informed and engaged constituertcy. and cast effeetine use afpublic funds ^FCCJvco i lOM ciiru* Monday March 1.2004 To: City ofOrono Pteming Cmninhaian Monbcn 27S0 Kelley Pwtnan. PO Boi 66 Ciy«UlIlay.MN.SS323 From: Kotol Floyd 960 Weal Fcnidale Road Wayxata,MN SS19I Dear Ptaruiir^ ConMniiaiun Memben. My faoiiiy and I received nolke of two vartaoic for ihe tOTu Wot Fcmdale Road profictty, variance nniirl nurefaer 04-290^ and M29M Hirtprapcrtynjutfoneprapaty weal ofowr home. I viiiled die City idTicca and diicusud both of thcK witfi Mr. Galfron in dcui 1.1 Ml wnting to prov ide aome detailed commenU and Ihouehli on Iheae rei|ueaU Variance number 04-2996 is wy aunpic and nbvioua. In more than tvrenty yeara of liviny. here, I have nevet seen any public use ol this nghi of way easement on Ihe 1070 property. The curreoUy caiiting -ad very narrow pnvala driveway lo 1070 is Ihe only use that has ever bacn made of this right of way, which was apparently crealrd a very long lime ago befurc the current single property use was established It serves no public purpose to continue this nghi of way wh-ch cuuM only poutbly be used lo acxeu the enludy pnvale tuirouiiding 1070 properly The lerrain raalia any other uk illogical and irapoBibte As nearby property owners, we favor the pc tniaocn t vacation of that CBisting nghi of way aurrounded by the 1070 property. Tha public has not and doea not receive any uae of. or value from that mall, unuaed, undeveloped, and purposeless right of way. Ilie underlying land will be much better used tunply as part of Ihe 1070 properly. Varianc* numher 04-2997 is oiore camples. The goal of the current two acre minimum of dry land is adminble on the surface, but is not actually what it acems There are only two v three properties (90S and 960) at most on Wevt Fcrodale Road, widiin the City of Onno limits, which can possibly rritnily meet this rcquiieaicnt. All of the remaining prcpertics are on less than two acres of diy land, m many cases fai less lhan tvro acres of dry land. I asked Mr. GalTton why the City persisa wnih a two acre minimum when the overwhe lming mapirity of properties obviously fail to mart ihn reqaimncnl F.apccially when you caamme Ihe adjoinieg neighborhoods of Shoreline Dnve. (>ono Lane, the Dickenson area, Orono Orchard Road, and much of ihe are* surrounding Ihe Woodhill club property. Even crossing into the Wsysaia poition of West Fcnulale Road lo the oaat of the Orono City limit, the nearby praperilr' ■re overwhelmingly much imaller tlun two acres of ilry land per hor- The code^ two acre minimum tequveirtcnl is uf very dubioua . •< Icgilimacy under these circumsUncis. The appropriate regulatory tiluain,.. should he a set uf codes which carefully reflect rcahty. ackruiiaMge the actual devciopirtefll and density already ui place, and cnabtes fitr use. ilevclapmcnl and property values for all property owners equally I beleive Ihe owiters of the 1070 property should nol be required to fulFill Ihe uniealiitic and imreasonabie two acres of ilry land rainiflram lot sis. The 1070 property is apparently leas ihnn ihu two acres uf dry ground. Is •I possible and pcrmiiaable lu alter the eaisting property by adding fill below the 929.4 level lo create additional dry ground above the required 929.4 elevation? What vnwid be involved lo accomplivh this? l-jiacily what cnviiunmental, public, or private good would aclually be served ur provided by such filling of the inwer properly? Is this goal really worth Ihe hardship on t)ir> ownm of 1070 and the disruption of the caviroomeiu? At whal point should such filhr^ be iNiiiled if IS allowed? One acre? 1 w '* If this rilling is .lut allowed, ihm how can the 10'’'' .<w>iers possibly be espcctcd lo provide Ac additional dry land lo lulfi* ihe two acre tnimmum requirement? None of the adjoining pn pertirv are cu enlly being ofTeted for talc Even if any adjoining prapetly wu cnrtcntly for •. j|«. none of them have any excess diy land available (beyond satisfying i* w.r own seprrate iwn acre Runitnuxit lot tire). Nuim if Ihe contiguous prop rties even schieves a single two acics of dry laml minimum sire currently Redrawing houndaries will nnt provide Ihe required two acres Sohowm-^dllic 1070 ownm possibly Ir especleit lo tuinn this requirement'* Would Ihe Cily even really he seeking any actual fiitnUmeni uf ihne P.« r I V"f00 • • • •*•*•*• a*******^ a*a*«*aa*« .*# a*» t • *• #*•*#*•*• a*a*a*a a .•a««*aa>aaaa ^ ' I # • ^ ► - / . . * • 1 ., .. . -*• ' • • . • .•■•.V aoMns Bayi ■ ^V.;>;- ir. . y -. •..: ••->> ^ .vvf • • -f ■■■• ; •■ |- • •• r- . •• • •'■■ .r V.;11' ■ ■.•,■•'■ •v : •' ..v'V ■".•■ ■ K y ■ ■ - ;. •• • .. . • V • / -V • . ' ;-y;: 7-i' /fV'iv:;-‘fr/r^T/r -7.V . .' .. ’ .'•.. -V': ;-';r‘ r- .*; ■ r* • * V. ■ ; . •. • ■ • • J , iJ -r A V • ;nC . ^ ‘ / ‘ • ‘ U- ^ I;T4a- 1xmm I/I 1 P: «5r STI t »•:••'•■ ■ • ■> wii..1^ i^:^m icm ft.-V- -i/ %M mdJrm 7-^1 ••Jfi m — -:“ ,?r-' lA /_» —,/ ^Pii Si >•^i^'pJW’' s « TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR JYLAND DISTINCTIVE HOMES. INC. IN LOTS 4. 5 & 6. NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ircAC Qtsoi'>TteN or COMOet AC'Ct (•■cr Md ei at i*a •«ff taal •••# t^a'aa* a <<au<'ca o* 350 M't^«aat•'l* 4M a r*«i, <^-a o' ' a.atott 136 >aat So..l4«ait*f i y O'O' *• to'd L«l *i I**#**# HaM^aatt#'If ’sa to SaytnaMli'ly ato<«9 tit HoMtari r i >t o' Lot 4 4iia. ixol tt'l e* Lot * So'tn Sift Calto^a Ac Ti«i ae»i a* Lot 4 acr Bad et fai •» NtMl 5»o> Ca La«a w f«aia«ha •«f fasattf f e4»i4f f#*ea at '• a to<"t •^1-aa 1 Cew«l». M "naaala. Lat 4. t“ar«ca Sa-H a a-** tfacr>ca a»t o»9 aa •aala-if 80 ♦aat (►a M'i*»aai a''f ‘‘"a a* • t#f I f I ."a *»x" tia "toat Ne'tia ■•.a "liat H«»tia» f aa'"a' a* tat to tia aa It a* act H' "a Na'ti Si r I .*4 Ctai tia S«yti»aal4r <f t to Sayli»a«l eafia' a» aad tat. tia"«a aaaiarif ai tia fca't»a4ata'i» •'■a 82 t Cattoft AC'at ta«a tai'-ala^a a tat 3 at o aa rt 80 no'fa' ‘y ta •aat t*a«<a Sa __________ — - - - Carwiiaifia »aat »»»n t*a Savt»aeal e8fia»: i»aK4 •aata*^ l*a A«at iaft*a»if ta»-af t»a'ao*: t»aita sa.i^- Sa.t*^ata*'f ta pout a» eaQ'"i “8 f at tat I. MM1 WaCettsM Atfaa tata »*.-atoita Sm^a"’* oiia»i» ca'iaf o» ao-d tat 8.nPa-ea ••a'f.atta''y aia^a t^ 1 iL t»a Soyti^aitaM# tnanca MwtioaiiarIf aa'aiiai o ti tia SoL!«teatar'f ^ ia o» ao.d lat to t a S^ti^aitaMf lot tiaica lo»tiaaata» I» a'««a ta d Sojt i»aataf i y l•<‘a to tia *»«a1 Soyl»a»ly ca a o •ea NaMiaaato'lf 1S2 'aat to po "t at #48 -iiia 4 aa. tiot pof 81 tia i«at Cat lot 40 taat: tnanc Ilia of caid lot tiaica Sovt* laid at. tiaica NaMiaaato'ly 0 aaiotaa ‘'on <*eria' 18CS3) daiaiat #• at i8 laal ala»8liait. n»a« aaa <a»ai aotrfi Tmi ca-ota# pcaaaaaa apal ataaatiai. *»a«i aao ia*ai aat»#» aanaiaa aaialiis tailaor litta. naan tae la*at Oe'-n awtotaa propoaaa eaitaar IIm. itaei aaa i#»al 6al4» Saar *88 fi.oi ora »atad ydn a« aaa.r*a aoluw slt focc cctm. .......... “ssi?!’s:.:*y.”r;;ri /a#Aa;rA t) aAA<ac • a»r. o ^/»»arA*^nr S fVY.J ji #y/na»» - 9ff.f <J = fff ■» A^OAT/ /rya #A«Nr« 04 M dtl 44A«r isTjr i”rts \ P'. m I'Bm J'l ft M •V V.i »J7S40 OViai >«. O.X. / J »-/6«'1684 2d. SHO«& Cal't na» |RCftms Lakc if*4<4i^t6err •»kiL &•« 1 ^***^ Iwl ~ ^^9/a »v<4.*4x^ JCm Alt.' -<^A. *UwiC xV* 4mm» mA lUe«4l 4«wr(;f & « Ctw mU^ Cl« <.»■»«« *{«*«< _ ____ ________________^ .rf iV4 2.%^a. a »fp» Ctw»* >*4* «f4<4^«-»-*- '^•*' C m*mC{ iI 1t*^v*a^u»i" JQl 3,^4 Afc»**i**A LP^^JU *t» Vi^ 4k.J»w«.. nr fu. ^u*., €yt«MtUJ> NtmtX Out*u.w .|v4«. <^<L* * £!^"’S£.g ■»»■*% 9m>i ii«kM yVj. . «C.«.|> 1^ C >t «y» ««■ > U.»vir«.- «.lv-i-p-ii.? •« *— f rfj •»«* */« ■*----* 0 fw»x4, kA^ Pfr wiKwi«i« /» -w«.«^ •<»a U ;%o 4 *■<«»« *« - -Vv di^ •fl ^iii I r atL*«4rw ^ 4>*W Ck 4k . ■^-. - . «B«. *»■ *< c;____r^- <w; o£* fep^V ■” •- - ^ ^ *• "■* 4 ^ y f.«C 1» ■■ ■' * *tC>*. VrwC *fc»»4--K».U. •< Jjr ^ xtw; *i.v^«<L^ -< a,a Ck 4k . — Tt/.(»j 4*^ ^ tM: J —•- ■Patuf-<AJZt OJ. Tfwu 6+ dU*p>K4MV« ^f»wM ; Giu. f-| VttiA^ . «f«— 4^44>4tX ‘^wto dju^ijiT^ ft“XC C»v4. 4 %4A. ^4, 4^i4i.<4b~a rCj. 4^i»*** ^r*J§***' ^ ^ C- VAtfAcT^^ iHtP'W' !s^. • Vt C ■ !--' . ‘^S. €—m^ r »#**•» *•# c <?tii ISS^f ^t:-:•r? N *ii' '*•* -*-.'•..t •■■*.-• .*•1:^□1 ZONING REGULATIONS |7Ml (11) Prescribing penalties for the riolatioa of the pro>*isions of this chapter. (Code 1984. { 10 (2))) Sec. 78*6. Minimum requirements. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and welfare. (Code 1984, § 10 03(D) See. 7B>7. More restrictive provisions to ap ply- Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are cither more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, Code provision, statute, resolu tion or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requiremenu shall prevail. (Code 1984, i 10 03(2)) Sec. 78-8. Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with this chapter. (Code 1984,1 10.03(4)) See. 78-9. Vacation of streets, alleys and pub lic grounds. V'acation of streeu, alle)-s and public grounds shall follow the procedures set for^ in this chap ter. except that such vacauon shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing pre ceded by two weeks' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat 9 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, tele phone, gas and steam purposea or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established a<ljscent lo a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space ac^ja- cent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve, (Coae 1984, $ 10 12) Slat* Uw r«f*ranc»—Vacating ut.hty tiwicania or bou* lavard Minn Slat I 462 3HS. aubd 7 Sees. 78-10—78-40. Reserved. ARTICLE II. AD.MLMSTRATIONA.VD E.NTORCEME.NT* DIVISION I GENERALLY Sec. 78-41. Zoning administrator. (a) This chapter shall be administered and enforced by the zoning administrator, wha shall be appointed by the council. (b) The zoning administrator also shall (1) Determine that all building permita com ply with this chapter; (2) Issue all zoning occupancy certificates and make and maintain records; (3) Conduct inspections of buildings and use of land to determine compliance with the terms of this chapter; (4) Maintain permanent and current records of this chapter, including but not limited to all maps, amendments and speaal uses, variances, appeals and applications; (5) Receive, (lie and forward all applicatiorA far appeals, amendments, variances, spe cial uses or other matters to the desig nated oRlcial bodies. (6) Institute in the name of the city any appropnate actions or proceedings against a violator as provided by law; and (7) Serve as an ex officio nenvoting member of the planning commission (Code 1984, j 10.C6(D. r ) *CroM r*rcrcnc»—Ais.ui.»t7mtion. eb. 2. CD7821 r RECEI**® AH < . WUOI OHO^, Mi*ul4y NUich K. 7fMM To: CiJy ofOiuoo Pliipning TooimiTOon Merobm 2/iO Kelley ParliMay. PI) Iloa 66 CryAal Uay. MN. %)J2) From. Robril Floyd V60 WrM Frrndalc KimmI '6ay/ala,MN Oral IManniUKCoiimiiMUKi Meml>ci\ My family and I rneivetl n»>«i» e of l%wi vtfiaiKC rrqucsU for the 1070 Weal Fenulale Ri«d pnipeity, variance rrnneat* numher 04 29<)S and 047906 ITiti pnipcTty IS jusi one property west of our home I visiled the (rly ofTices wmJ discuvicd buUi of llicac with Mr. OafTron m detail. I am writing to yimvide same detailed commetits and itHMiy^U on theae mpicsu. Variance numhci 04 7996 it very iimplr and obvious In more than twenty years of livini: here. I have nev« seen any public um; of this right of way easement on the 1070 lieoperty IT* currently c«istm|t and very narrow pnvale driveway to 1 010 is tia* only use that has ever hern made of this nghi of way, wluch was appa'cntly erraled a very long time ago hrhae tN* cuneiil single |MO|icrty use was established It serves no public purpose to eontinue this ri|fit of way wIihIi rould only possibly lie used to arresa the entirely private sutnNitaiing 1070 property Ihe lenain makes any other use iHogual aaJ ingiossible As nearby property ownees, vse fawir the firrmanrnl sacalion of that eaislitig right of way sueruaniM by the 1070 pnipefty. The fsiblic has aol and docs m4 receive any uac of, or value ft«n that sirull, iinjscd. undcvchpcil, atal psir|Miscless light of way Ihc underlying land will be mueh heller used simply as part Ilf die 1070 property . Variance isimbrr 04 7<)9t is nuier ctanples IV: goal rf the rufrent two asie mmiimim id dry laml is atlmiiaMe on Ibr surCair. laH is ntil actuary wbal it seems llietc are only two or three prepetUo (Wi a.nd 960) at mo« on West Fondaic Ktud, vril^ the City of Unino Usiits, which can possibly cutrenliy V’.f/'' meet this rapiiremcnl. All of the remaining properties ate on less than two acres of dry land, ui many cases far less Ilian two acres of dry land I asked Ml. (iaITron why the City (insists with a two acre minimum when the overwhelming majority of properties obviously fait to meet this requirement Tsficcially when you esamine the ailjnining neighborlwwids of Shiireliiie l)nve. Orimo lane, the Diekenson area, (kunn (irehard Road, and miKh of the am vurruunding the Wuodhill club properly Fven misting into the Way/ala portion of West FeriMiale Road In the east of the Orono City limit, the nearby properiirs arc overwhelmingly much tmalirr than two arm nf dry laml |vt hiNne ITic code's two acre minimum mpnrtmctil is of very duliums value or le|>itimacy under these circumstances the apfinipiiale regulatory lilualKin should he a set Ilf rmles which carrliilty reDrci reality, ackmiwledgo the actual deveinpineni and ilensity already in plate, ami riiabtes fair use. dcvetufmirnl arul property values for all property owners eipially I beleivc the owners of the 1070 property should mil he re«)uirrd In fulfill Ihc unrealistic and unreasonable two acres of dry land niimmum lot siM. Ihe 1070 property is aitpstcnlly less than this two acres of dry ground Is it possible and prrmissahle to alter the rsiiting property liy adding fill below Ihe 929.4 level to create additioiul dry ground above the required 979 4 elevation? What would he involved In accomplish this? I'varlly what envimemenlal. |Hiblic,at pnvale giaid would actually be served or provided I7 such filling of the lower (inqieity? Is this gual really worth the hardship on Ihe owoen of 1070 and Uicdisiu|atuo of Ihc cnviiutuoenr At wliai (Munt v'ua.ld sui li filling lie limited if it is alhiwtsf? One ai re’’ 1 wo'.’ If this filling IS mil ai'owcd. llicn how car Ihe 1070 owners possitty he esprvled loprmuie Ihe addiliorul dry land lu fuHill Sc two ai re niiiiimum lequitemeni' None of the adjoiniiig (mipertirs arecuiTmily lemg ufTrrmI fiu s#V I vm if any aJ]uuuiig property waa currcnlly for tale, none of lbr*n have any escets dry land available fbeytmd satisfying tfieu own vr|ierale two • re ll•lllur«rtn Ini sue) None of the cuntigiaars ptiqrilies even achieves a sinj’.le two acres of dry land moimum lot si/v currently Rnlrawnig Uauidatirs will nut (v.ivide Ihc requimi two acres Su how rnuld the lU to owners piissih!y fe eiprs ted to fulfill this icquirciDcnt'’ WuuUi the City even icaily be vcrkuig any avlual fuinilmml uf these v|iciaiion fjocn MlioiiiinK honwi iff now cominiindinK vrty hip^ pfKM wiMaiK Ihoe new boyei» II* cutrctil /utiinKhjf nol «nd will fwi «II ct IhiMxcurTiiike The ciuTcnt /iminp. due* ikK »tkm»wl«J|ie or deal wilh lh«i reality Another loctor ii that at the land value imteates, the new huyerv derrund propoitionjtcly more enpentive new homes on Hurt land. This has led tii the widcsptrarl dcrnolilitin of a|ueat an lever iiKrrasinp pertentoge of all Ukeshorc homes in Orono and ll* I Jike MinisetoiiVa area Many beautiful h<*nca have been loii to tins inevitable drsiie Some Iwautirul and perfectly maintained properties liave even been mtcntiortally allowed to (all into diutpnir and ncRlcct lo juslily llieir complete dmtnrction and replacement by new houses. In order to actually enforce oisd carry out the current two acre minimum, tl* City would luive to forbid any re huilding and/or rrplaeement of the ovcrwIicIminK majoiity of csisting homes in ilirsc euninit areas. Only a very small handlul of the lunently esisling |KU|iertici (nnicss U* rc<)uiicd two or more aaes of dry loml. II* City di*s not iruihfully intend to render the overwhelming majority of these valuable existing pruperues completely utibuddahic and vrortlilcss to future uwncis. Docs the City intend hi prevent all i*w ronstructinn in these neigMxehooilsV Ihis is certainly not what has actually been happening Ibis would Icml lo the great majority ol these exiiling propeitit^ trmg vacant and uninhitMlable sub standard lott every liti* anything happeni lo C* existing houses (Kcr cTNitigh time, nearly all homes will sunier fires, storm damage, ncRiecl. and rsenlial furKitonal nbsolcsccnce Suicl application of the tvMi acre lot minimum would prevern all new or teplaccmcrU csmstmiluiri oa the mainriiy iifpru|*rtics in Oruno and lead to touHy vacart. unusable, and wm^lrss properties over lime. Ihis clearly was nut tl* inlrnl of the lot sire minimum, hardcover, and sethmk rcipuremenU Ihese v«ere inimdtd In proiecl and enlioncc the |i»opcrty nwnrrV enjoyment and value, not farbid and totally ilestniy it Specificollv around lake MusacUirdia. wc have all witnessed maiy larger (woperty owners who ore very attached lo then land and very much widi to sell It inlaci oisd undivtdrd, tmly In find drat much smottrr adymn ng propcOirs are selling lor as much or more than thru own larger property OOen selling much faUer and mure easily. Lven when a seller manages lo fmd one ol the seiy iesv lN,)ers who desire aivd can afliKd a larger undivided acreage, the srllrr rarely receives the true underlying lair value for their pmpert) Iken some later owner does subdividr that same |wiiprny oimI idilains a wildly hijiher value for the esatl some property Ihe fact is that over time large |iro|icrlics usually oic lubdividerl rrgaidlesn of /uning Someone always manages in obtain subilivisiiin evriiUially Ibis leaves all of die previous selleis who cither d'd not subdivide, nr were (nrlmklen lo subdivide, cliralrrl lujl of Ihis very sif^ificale value of llieir pro|ierty Ihis is comptrirly imlsir ard, in iKioal fati and rcsull, does not hold everyone lo the same /ompg rc«|uiirmrnls and enforcement as fairness and ccjual trcalincoi demand. In Bildilion, the cunrnt rcniiiiemenls were e.subtislie«l when i niy individual sewer septic systems were being used by eacit sod every property in these portions of Oruno Now these areas have installed cirstly iity sewer service (paid by these some pro|ierty owners ImwsI on ibeir \|ieeiric lul si/e) In all properties, specifically to |vevcnl Ihe clfrs Is on ll* 1 okc and griMmdwaler that poienttti higlier density would cause or ssorsen (luce the city sewer system was insulled. It changed the situation itramalically and affected Ihe justification for the imposition of these old riming rei^uirrmenls Ihe rsinoff from building iiwifs, driveways, lernKcs, and sin itar horskover is nol the major raase of water i|aalily problrms I besc sui faces do out iutilain nr etsdicssly bleed major potiulanis Ihe major prnblems are obvuMsIy caused by homeowners who ctmlinuousty smother iheir h«imes. lawno, and gardens with every kind of losin, pvtlulonl, heibicrde, pe-.litide, and Irrtilim krwiwn to mankind tine such owner's brbasow con tasilj do far more domagr roihe water quality, grouisdwater, and area r-sidmis titan huge amourls of i Iran liork orer ever ccxdd. fhe amount ol addiiiona! natural vegetative liltering that such abusive hrtwvioi wiajld rrsjiiire to mliga'c is far riMwe than any of rbe c*»des pruvidc I here shituld t« for less ettipha.sis on lot si/e. se’ltackv, a«at hardcover and far more emphasis on homiful owner behavior I hel*ve ll* City ol Omr» should cluinge the /launj' rctjuirrrTimtv m allow ail larger property owners to subdivute to a degree which will match 11* actual surrounding properties, and ir dus way si'ip deprivirg Ihe larger Troperry owners of their to* underlying proprity vali* Itict dy sSoukIthan|re*br aomng lo prevent Ihe nearly um versal need lo obtain multiple and extreme varuuKes for any charges to the overwhelming majority of a'l r fc larger properly ovroerV role and nrwt munetary loss? b*«n il *ome ownrra are, at limri. unfairly prevented from ir 'ainuoni; Iheir use atKl value, mme later owner will wrely do lo l-conomic furcev will eventually prevail and make thu change reality. So why pcnali/e rwly lie current ptruerly ownertt The C’lty will do all pnipeity ownen and reatdenir a ureal lavor lo acknowlediie reality and the ineviubilily of ccanunuc furcer whu.li will cauae certain change. The City should work lo optimally guide this change, rather than atlcnipl lo deny aral prcvcnl il wilh artiruial and failing /nning lequiienients l>ie City shiHitd strive lo faciliUle all property owners attempling lo reauinahly masiinire Iheir value and use of ihcir properties and sliould modify City ciNtea lo relict I realily 1 favor the granting of the lot sire variance to the owners of the 1070 property. The owners ore not proposing any subdivision, only the ability lo rebuild ■ single house where a house had already been, and re'niild on rioclly the satisc lot as before The 1070 property attually has moch more riry land than many (laosl)of the surrounding pnipctttea Phe peevkjuf Ijswry home s«$ aderjualely spaced from the sumninding humo, with greater teperatior) from the larger propen«a to die cast tTus will be mainlaincd under the proposed plan The buildi-ig plans appear hi iwupose a very attractive and appropriate bouse on the site The IU70 property has cily sewer service suhich did not evist when the two acne minimum and various setbacks were imposed many years ago The property mt)Oining imtnedialely to the west of 1070 is on a miKh smaller loial diy Untl area Ihan the proposed 1070 plan. Ihc proposed plan Coes mit appear to adversely allcct the previous scperalion and spacing from itie liropcity lo the west. Tlie pro|ietty lo the west should not suffer any ill iffetTs. The prnpeity immediately acroM live street, to the south, has had a draiTMiic hardi over irvliiciion in I'MI (him the complete removal of the former Skarp home and aswKiated hardcover That property is in the process of bemg absorbed inlo the two seperate adjoining properties on ritber side of the I'onncr Skarp properly. The mult will he decreased density in the south of I07U fhls also changes the silualMin from thirty some years ago when the two acre minsmun was rnacled. Che (itTilet Ird marsh immcdialely to the north of and stfoining the 1070 property prosidrs a very obvious liinil In the (laute density ol devrhipmeni that can pussiMy occur in this area. Thai open spare lat caceeds the intended elfect of the ivMiMir minimum This alone should cause the City In view the application of the two acre minimum differently (as less netessary ) when B|>plied lo any properties suirouiuling this large (iroirs Ird ojien land wh>ch provides lieinenduus iilienng capacity fur any runulf arui provides an otivious luUl lock of any nearby liardcovcr on this marsh land The owner of the 1070 pru|ierty should be allowed Ui ulilire that p<o|irtty In Ihrt masimimi cumpalibir and sinnlai value that all of the aira's smaller properlies are already fully enjoying Ihe (wo|iosr«l 1070 use is very (um|Hilihlc with and similar In the current use and density ol the girai majiKily of surrinmding properties Ihis use as propirsed shmild not harm anyone or cause any proHrms I hope this sanance will be granted and look forward lo the new addiliui of a 107(1 house lo out neighborhood Ihis will an otivious herveni lo all of the sutiountling properry owners who will tsrnelil (lom that additional investment in and improvement to the 1070 property IThs continuing use as a single family residential property (with eiaclly the same kit dimensions ar»d dry suilacr)isthehighestcompalibleuscof, and value of the 1070 property Thank you (or the opportunity to ripress my views on this vatiaiKe iet(jrs4. Stmerely, Kulieit I liiyd P.9 h WT C. 435 a 434 / PLACE^CL.5 aggregate base 100% CRUSHED / M5- ^^2 /-PAVE SHOULDER / >. S 'a) ^ \ / • m'h-434 ^F-^^=uja.“ —^ .tr-f—^ f See Sheet sl V / > / 62* 7*65 WYE // '1i!1!--r—----------------- ...^ —mh-Vjs 933.39 ••“••’• ..................... - -----------MH-^33A 932.48 D«tt Application Received: 2-23>04 Date Application Contidcred at Complete: 2*23>04 60-Day Review Period Cxpirei: 4-23-04 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron. Planning Director March 12. 2004 #04-2997 City of Orono - Access Between Lots 38 & 39, .Morse Island Pork (120-140 Big Island) • CUP and Variance for Wetland Alteration - Public Hearing Zoning District: RS Seasonal Recreation District, S-acre min. Access Dimensions: The right-of-way providing access is approximately 90' in w idth at the lakcshore and at the rear, and is approximately 170’ in depth. Application Summary: As a result of numerous requests from property owners on Big Island, and as a result of the previously used adjacent access road being convened to law n by its ow ner, the City is requesting a variance and a conditional use permit to allow the fillungof a small portion of wetland and floodplain to allow constniction of a new dn vew ay for vehicular access from the lakeshore to the interior platted road system. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed wetland alterations. Pertinent Code Sections: 2. 3. 4. Section 78-1112; Development Restricted. Prohibition Except as hereinafter specifically penuitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcov cr. temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, w-ell or other consmuction shall be allow cd w nhin the Rood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof, nor on iny land w ithin 75 feet of the ordinary higliw ater elevation of any lake shoreline Sections 78-1113/14(2b): "All dredging or excavation of rr.atcrial from any lake bed, pond or wetland or from adjacent land thereto" is a conditional use witliin the Floodw ay and Flood Fringe Districts. This w etland (as all w etiands) includes areas w ithin those tw o Districts as defined m Section 78-1108. Section 78-1117: (Standards for floodway and flood fringe conditior<al uses) Section 78-1286: (Shoreland standards for topograph;c alterations, grading and filling) I •04-29J7 March 12,2MM Pagt2 List ofEjibibits A - Variance & CUP Applications B • Survey / Site Plan f Grading Plan (Revised Plan Submitted 3*12-04) C • Public Serv ices Director Memo 2-18*04 D • Hardcover Calculations E • MCWD Application and Exhibits F - Plat Map G • 1974 Orono Wetland Inventory Map H • MCWT) Welland Inventory' Map & Hydrology Summary I - Property Owners List J - Code Excerpts Pertinent to Wetland Alterations K • Orono SWMP Excerpts: Section 5, Wetlands Management L - Letters fiom interested parties Background Please review Exhibit C, the memo from Public Serv ices Director Greg Gappa, w hich explains Uic need for this project and the characteristics of the project The w etland in question is QQjon the City’s! 974 wetland inventory, and tliercforc is not defined as a"City- protccted Welland”; how ever, it is subject to Wetland Conserv ation Act (WCA) regulations, w hich the Minnchalia Creek W'atcrshcd District administers on the City’s behalf. The City has chosen to make the applications for variance and CUP althougli it could be argued that this w etiar.d docs not fail strictly under the City’s ordinances. The project is being proposed under the WCA “dc minimus” rules because it involves less than 400 s f of wetland area being filled. This means that the amount of fill and the impact of that fill is so minor .ls to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s f. at the SE comer of the w ctland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has slightly relocated the proposed drivew-ay fill so that there w ill be no ft llmg closer Uian 6' from the property line to the south. This complies wnth City requirements that do not allow filling within 5* of a lot line. The filling will impact a 12 cubic >-ard area of flood plain. An cquK'alent volume will be excavated adjacent to the NW comer of the floodplain area within the right-of-way as equal mitigation. Tile proposed driv ew ay will be 1 O' in wndth and 180'm length, and wnll provide a driveable access point for the north half of the island. This access will replace the access drive that w as formerly used on the north side of the wetland. That access was on private propeny, and the owner recently conv cried it to lawn area The City has long held that the City has an obligation to provide reasonable access to the intericr roads on the island for the occasior.al service vr .icle, and for the needs of the few inland properties w hich do not abut the lakeshore. •04-2W7 March 12.2004 Page 3 The driveway will consutuie filling of 2i cubic >ards ofgravel m the 0-75' zone, requmng a CUP. and w ill constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% impervious surface in the o-75 ‘ zone. These impacts arc unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by limiting the width of the driveway to 10'. With passage of the WC A, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for adnumstering the WCA regulations These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of w ctland alteration activities w hich are seen as positive ra'^ .r than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts w hen they are unavoidable MCWr. Approval Required The appro,‘riate applications are being made to the MC WD. MC WD approval shall be required befiorc the project may commence. City Consultant Review This application w as prepared by Public Services Director Greg Gappa with tlie assistance of John Smyth, Water Resource Specialist with Boncstroo & Associates, the City ’s cnginccnng and environmental consultants. Hardship Statement Because W'etland alterations arc not allow cJ by Orono Code except by ’ variance, thcactivitv is required to be justified via the demonstration of a hardship Please review the liardship siatcmcnls within the application packet. The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardship that supports this variance request. The locations ofthe few’ access points to the island were platted a century ago, before moton/cd vehicles were common. The access points generally w ere platted a! low points m the topography, for obvious reasons. This is one ofthe only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as w ell as to provide access to inland lot ow-ners Access cannot be provided without work m the 0-75' zone. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any aspects of this project that w ill be detrimental to the ncigliborhood? 2. Is Planning Commission satisfied that the project is appropriate? 3. Docs Planning Commission ha\ e any other issues or concerns with this application? ^IK>4.2997 March 12,2004 Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26' ofthe wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75* setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland, and subj ect to MC WD pcmii: approvals prior to conunencement of construction activities. City of Orono Variance Application A'f Strset Address 2750 Kel ey Par>c*cy Orono. MN 5S356 Main: 952-249-46C0 fax: 952-249^16 Maifir)g Address P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MH 5532:*-:066 Application# ni.ZCPJ Date Received i 3 Amount Paid: Staff: Fee:S600 Renewal: S300 After-tre-fact SI,200 DouaieFeg This application form must be completed in ful. App:=ant will be r^otified within 15 days as to the status cf t*e application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION:rr^wr-tirvii ii'^rwrMV ^ i iwi'V. i i i Site Address:^^&Ic *. AC C S s \oc r-AgrJj \pf\\Q l2,d ^0 Bvjlslnr^rt (Attach legal description to application if not inc'uded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): 1^10 □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: DResidentia) cm-u-er fa\rtKtv/ Zoning District: SecuonrA \l( c.r*/A\Ofs^\ ^ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na-es and maht')i status required for each interested party) Name; Ci\>y di • Gr9r. Ggcp^i _______________________________ ou— ------' • >hoi ' ——------------Phone (home): Address _f.a bOX LrYSAni Mu Ci.Orrtno. rVnn.Lti ' one (work): Faxi HS1> 2.^n-n6t4 OWNER IfIFORMATIQN; (Complete legal names srd marital status required for each interested party) Name: C i A v () H CO AO ' p f\Ar...r-vc_______________ _______________________ Phone fhomeV * PHnrxa rtA>nrL’\- c n . j" tU^\ APhone (home): '________________________Phone (wdrR)i MSZ Address: V O. iboX L6 fvAU S$S1 3 ^ _____I .V . f . —Email; YhA r. f rt C \ orrr\cT^\r\Ms'Fax: q $ Z - ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost % ^ 600 Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): --------- L^nsVLlr-\\r|.o g) f ct n ctCC^S? CpoA \o y?\/>.hvM Ct\vy n 4' Wc\\j 3)0 ^ fWirAgpmptt»r\ K ^qKnrUpgi. A., rt> _V qV S < Ify\yeu.r-fAfc m (70 CM^^V-cicKow ' " /V “ V . . _____________________I fv\ye rh/\<r-ttr C urtAfc tn »tVi« U-IT ___________ Vyhr . Klrr Krir/^AtniAr rc tinU/fM triHV r 0^1^ '\oy\f 1 < a ^C\\\^ rr/i^. -........................ rr < REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date h order forycur application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, comipleted by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentaticn Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat ntj List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6'^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-343-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirerrerts listed within this packet including hardcover calculations. Also provde one ccpy 8 5” t 11 "or 11" X 17 ” for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5'* x 11 '* or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of flcxar and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5'* x 11" or1 1 ” x 17 ”), Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Plaf'.nng Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered In the original fee payment) and'or consultant expenses incurred In review of this application and certifes that the infomration suppled is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, Iho staff has no alternative but to reject it until it Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: A(?<YpftPate: 7«~ ' 04 OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, co/isjlitants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation^d verificatiop^^^tis request Owner's Signature: —•_________Date: Owner’s Signature: _________________________ Date: ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comimissbn Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each north. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrargene.nts to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. r* / -I 1 r Pagt I of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An applicator) will not be considered complete or placed on any rreetng agendas until this fom is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Secton 364 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 ecorom'c situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit rrust tc demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis C.ty staff uses to determine if a hardshp exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardshp, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The Information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation, if you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowedly the official contro's.' . . , . - ]prppg<-\\y 1? ^ U/^> 1 OOi nU\Ao'nt rop ? f Trt f-A r 6 \ r: 3c\ ^ Woi^h\f Prop«>\'y ir.*- sirnt f(Arp or^t ....... ^ •The plight of the landovvner is due to circumstances unique to his property not createdby the landowner* . rLt<^V\\ Hc trVicrv is a CiPccmAftprf forr r i/> p ityAi Vl/^*r rrp/\riif<cf bv^^y\« •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.’ p-f 10 h-4^\"»A ^>^Qy u>i\l in<V*\ gtVi'f hK ? /?rr\\y “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship If reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." _________ F ' /.-1 # V, t- Page 2 of 3 11. •Undue hardship also Indudes, but Is not Dmited to. Inadequate access to drect 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." KrA "The Beard of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not pe-Tnltted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land Is located." /\1A 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar tosuchpropert^.i^medlatelya^joining^property^^^ V\ / ^ 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures In the district In which said land is located.” "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and en oyment of a substantial property right of the applicant" tLo^^A U hPcP^jgrV, fo/C 4hg (1/7 OrnU\A^ In p\ /? ^^r/^ fLi <9 / iV/nyr i | ^ "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, cormfo^ morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning prgpr JPr/ U(Ar\i\yyr.r U/iU rtr/t Sai:An/.?UV ., rvipin gtr ..n ^cwvv... irm/ rr fv,..;- Page 3 of 3 ”Tb« granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the appilcant. but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* pA<6lU fyrWanAs^. pCnp^M\fe ig 4W (pTtr^f/i IIW Aor p\^VV/^ ygfn b (\t- Hardship Statament Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or ur^usual property conditions preventing compbance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): r/ .V A ^ Application# r<A -?,W7 Date Received_jLiij^ Amount Paid _________ CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION, Site Address bif, T<;Z)Ct‘ rr Type of Application to be Filed Cu f G Property identification Number (P.I.D.) i\ A 8^ r \ I \\\ r.r. O-’ 1 -T i: r- / >C APPLICANT . . Name ______C (^f C'r.fnf^ G rKr* CcK Phone (hornet Address P P. &/X Phdne(wor^/^<yy- 1 ^^f-/fs/.l i( fr-ysArlb/r^ City K/.ki Zip ^Z\LA OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____Coy r? / Qy^rru- fL^v> tv/lrw-ir Phone (home). Address T O _________ Phone (work)0.0 f./ City Kr.u zio .>^^2 Date f^op^rty Acquired F\^> .^^r.. I (do) ^Sonol) also own the adjacent parcels ofland. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • (month/year) $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) , $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ] $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg . $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ’ $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit I____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from ohginal application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (■*• consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule' -V V. /i //i€J i Mil .. . Ji ----1---- o+so »!-- nt - -10 0^43.10 ■-r-r£j;-"Tr.:^:j.. JO •JO — •Jl 0+*40 0+35 94 ----------4--------,--------: r ujt.— 5 sr-^-^--aia T^-rr „r. t»t=- ---f" 0+30 — 4 — .n:-—"ti 0+20 ----4 ----------r- ir -b: ijj *»■ w. wo —- 0+10 ........—4 — —' nt M Ut I Mil 0+00 •\i3 iSi aa-Uj-.i«-B« ua,L:r?1:;-:r:r.-d«• • ' -r* ~ —I Mlr :Ti“ — 1 + 03 SM JbMM Btf > /M ___ruan iwar___ rwtfturw tnnm ___iwn________ CIT /SI cor mi cor m »*00 COO too t It too *M 000 0««0 »0Y 000 1 M 001 101 DOS ••M IM oit OH oto tot 021 0*10 0«0 Oft*0*1 0X7 111 e«s »*JtM ov 1 n OM OM It*Ots »+«0 001 t 04 ON Oil 101 on »+«liO OM on 0.J1 OM 4 It 000 0*W 1 SI OH ? 44 04»470 14X 0*M 1 «7 1 jj 0 M 1 00 417 111 0*10 oso 41*o*x 1 01 s-so *11»*«otl #1*otl 1 00 401 tio 0*N IM an 007 000 in • 1« 0*M1|XM 110 010 ou til ISOo-*»m ie«1 n 0 t'0*1 040 OlO »«tl44 so 111 otl 0*0 in Itt 1*00 XM on 1 090 tee 7 10 AM —U a—OM •:4 IM. ^2 — AACAf nttMT ctmaitm miam cnn 9WH ___>»/n _______ CCT ni err mi on eet in 004 OM 000 OM 01} OP n nn OM non tn on tk • ■O M 070 0 '4 on on 1 M OXJ OP 0 *4 017 1 »OM on oil 1 II 111 oil err S«*140 OH OM 4 If 1 77 1*1 «0«1 It 111 1 M OM tn ioi b«0 tot 1 «4 xei OH toe • 44 ICl C7.01 e February 18,2004 To: Orono City Council and Planning Conunission From: Greg Gappa, Director of Public Services Subject: Big Island Lake Access “C” Road Lake access C is located oa the northeast side of Big Island and is a 90 ’ wide platted City Righ: of Way with flat topography and is currently undeveloped Almost the entire widdi of the access is a Type 1 wetland that was formed by an ice ridge that impounds surface water drainage. This area usually contains water during spring the spring snow melt or very wet periods. For many years access to the island in this area was on private land adjacent to the nonh of the access, the property owner has now blocked this access road. Since the dry land access area on private property is not available, there is no longer a good access point for the properties on the northern area of the island. The only other access lanes D and H that have suitable topography for reasonable access are located further south on the island. In 2000, the City granted approval for the property owner of 220 Big Island, a landlocked parcel, to have a seasonal dock on access C. Information on this approval is anached. The property owners on the northern area of the island are concerned about access, and we have had discussions and several site visit; to the island with property owners to view opuons for bener access to the island. An optioa for consideration is the construction of an access road on lake access C that would mstore ccccss comparable to the historical access that was lo:a*.ed on private land. Attached is a plan showing a 10 ’ wide crushed rock access road on the southern edge of access D. The plan shows a road extending from the lakeshore to an existing access padt on the Lawn Avenue Right of Way. Construction of the entire 180 ’ of road would require about 60 Cubic Yards of rock. The proposed plan is to place the crushed rock or. top of geotextile fabric placed directly on the existing ground. This should be adequate cor.sidcring the low level of usage for this road and will minimize the amount of excavation required. There will be a sm?!l amount of excavation required to remove the ice ridge near the lakeshore Construction of the road across the wetland will require about 300 s. f. of wetland impact. Minnesota Rules provide for a ”de minimis” exception for impacting less diaa 4C0 s.f. of wedand in the shoreland area. To obtain the de n:*iniiris exception a permit application has to be submined to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for approval by the Board cf Managers. No wetland mitigation is required fer ±e de minimis exception approval. Page I of 2 Construction of this road will require a Conditional Use Pcnnit from the City for grading and filling more than 10 c.y. in the 0 ’ to 75’ setback zone. Approximately 25 C.Y. of cmshed rock will be placed in the 0 to 75* setback zone. A variance will also be required for 750 s.f or 12% of impervious surface in the O' to 75’ hardcover zone in which no impervious surfaces are allowed. Page 2 of 2 ony HARDC;QyER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZON& (CIRCLE ONE) 75-2S0' 250-600' 500-1000* gXISTINQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Houm B Oarage C. Driveway 0 Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Q. Retaining Wans H. Other UngSi waa\ X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AR^ IN ZONE PROPOSED HAWnCOVER IN ZONE A. House tanoth B. Oarage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Ptastic G Retaining Wails KOthef IS - e 61^0 WiCUl xlOO TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY IN ZONE ♦ B ISO ISO SF. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. • S.F. .SF. SF. .SF. S.F. ,SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. .SF. .SF. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F S.F. i f>l 50 xlCO SF. SF.tmi. COMBINED JOINT NOTIFICATION FORM • WATER RESOURCE APPLICATION Uw this foctn to notify/opply to the Mjnnehah* Creek Witcrshcd District (MCWD). their engireenrg coniulaiu. the DNR. and the Hennepin Conservation District of a proposed water/vkctland project or work which may fall w.thm their jurisdiction. These agencies should advise you of their jurisdiction or permit requiremerts within 10 days. Fill out th.s 'form completely and mail a copy, with plan. maps. etc... to the MCWD. 182C2 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven. MN SS391 Keep a copy for your records YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED AUTH0RI2ATT0NS BEFORE BEGINNING W ORK______________ Applicant* I Nam (Last. First. MI) >pncs . frraci Addrut uirc^ Rto T BwTa. City, State. Zip) Pb a..v> gfc . , MA/. <*5^ ‘8-00^ f Phone No ZH^ - *l6ec 2. Locatioa of proposed project (Attach drawing w/dirtctions to site); COUNTY QTR SECnON(i) S^ON($) TOWtjSl^i) CITY: Ore^O H€n/\epii\ PROJECT ADDRESS R^SCgrt Lee Block. Subdivision LENGTH OP SHORE AFFECTED (in feety VOLUME OF FILL OR EXCAVATION (Cubic yards) /1. ZC ^ V' AREA FILLED OR EXCAVATED IS Acres. OR Squxe Feet F' ^ H 4. TYPE OP BEINO APPLIED FOR; (Cisak all chat t^lyy. □ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ® FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION □storm SEWER OUTFALLS □ice ridge REMOVAL □bridge Sc CULVERT CROSSINGS GoHORBLINE IMPROVEMENT a. JRIPRAP b , SANDBLANKET cOretaininowall C2 WETLAND ALTERATION C EXCAVATION (DREDGING) WILDLIFE navioahon cQ BIOENGINEERING OTHER (DESCRIBE). 4a. APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: (Licensed Conoactor. Engineet. etc..) Include name, iddreu A phone number . 273S- Uifl- j 5~f Po.^1 MA/ S^lf^ PURK)J3. PROJECT PURPOSE (why is this project needed • what benefits wilt it provide?) 6. ALTERNATIVES (desenbe any other sites or methods that could be used to achieve the purpose of >our project while aioiJiig or nnitniatngwater/wctiandunpacts. Attach additicnal sheets, if needed. 7. DATES: Proposed start of activity: (Identify any completed wo^ on irjched drawing) Preposed completion I. N^MK A OF^JODvTNG PROPERTY OWNERS (Atach list if mere) 9 PERMITS HAVE bilEN RECEIVED (R) OR APPLIED FOR (A) FROM; _ _____COUNTY_____CTTY_____MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY .D.VR. , AR.MY CORPS OF ENGR I hereby notify the recipients of this fonn of the project proposed herein and request I be sdvised of any permits cr other determirui.'ors concerning this project that I mustobum. I unijerstand that proceeding with work before all rtquued audicriziticns are obuineJ ina» be subject to Federal. Sute and/or local admimsirative. civil and'or criminal penalties Simature of Person Proposing Project or Agent INSTRUCTIONS . PT FART? PFAD CAREFULLY A copy of this fonn, with copies of ail plans, drawings, etc... should be sent to each agency indicated below. Please check the appropriate spaces below to show everywhere you are sending this form Remember to keep a copyforyourrecords. -)C The LCXTAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (LGU) city, county o(water mansgemeat organization The SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V^HENNEPIN SWCD___CARVERSWCD MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR) Regional Office JC US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE) at; Dept of the Army, Corps of Engineers. St Piul District. ATTN; CO-R. 190 Fifth St. East, St. Paul. MN 55101-1638 Note: The above agencies rruy provide a copy of your completed form to the Minnesota Pollution Cortrol Agency (MPCA). MPCA water quality iuues may apply to your proposed project ATTENTION fFrom USDA3; Any activity including drainage, dredging, filling. leveling or other tnampdations. Including maintenance, may affect a landuser's eligibility for USDA benefiu under the 1985 Food Security Aa as amended. Check with your local USDA office to request and complete Form AD-1026 prior to initiating activity. IMPORTANT: Some agencies, including the Corps of Engineers and the MDNR accept this form as i permit application form. If you wish this form to constitute an application to the Corps and/or MDNR for any necessary permits for your projects please carefully read the following informahon and sign where indicated. Application is hereby made for a permit to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the infonnadon contained in thia application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undeiuke the proposed sctivtty or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Date Signature of Agent DateSignati^of Applicant vU Ncte: The application must be signed by the person who desired to undertake the proposed activity (Applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorize agent if the infotmation requested below is prouded. Agent’s Name It Title: ^ UJaIc ^ Agent’s Address: ^ T/ . ^ Agent’s Telephone: (^57 ) ______ 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United Sutes knowingly and willfully fa’sifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent submenu or representations or makes or uses any false vmting document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than SIO.OOO or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. I.i Wounivl Conservation Ac’ A im*'" iIkh * I( I CK'itifiCrTlr- of No Loss or C*empsoii* APPLICA!^ AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION Qiet GiPt». City of Orono NiOie(i) of Applicant POB0X66 Street Address Ok«q. MN City. State. Zip Code f9S2I249-4600_______(_ LGU:Minneheht Creek Watershed Distnct Project Location; 1/4_____l/4_____S23T117NR23W UTM Coordinates; X____Y______ County Nsme/Number Hennepin| Minor Watenhed Nanie/Number_ Sire of entire wetlaad:0.12 acre actes Telnhone (Day)(Evenina) Wetland type: Grculai 391____; NWIPEMA_______ Check one: g] < 50%. □ 50% - 80%. ocD>80% Check one: □ Agricultural land [3Non-ag land PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Docribe the nature and purpose of the proposed projectCuneRily accesses to Big Island as well as internal roads are not contained within plated easements or city owned property. This project will provide a public road for foot traffic and vehicles (typically during ice conditions) to access this island and help eliminate crossing on private property. («adi a44l4oasi ptm If Hcdoti Timetable: project will begin on 03//04 (mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 05/ The wetland activity at dtc above site qualifies for the following under the Welland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one); O No Loss DctcnnliialioD (attach plans) g| ExcsnplioD # De minimis (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: AppUcant is responsible for submitting the proof rxecessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed) Dcscriptioa of Exemption Cletmed: Project impacts less then 400 square feet of wetland. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The information provided for this detenninairon is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining, excavating, or filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken 10 prevent ledimenution of the water, the drain, excavation, or fill wii; not block fish passage; and the drain excavaLon. o: fiil aaivity will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, ircltding best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minaesou Statutes. Chapter 103H BWSRJortn_W C A_E*emption_2( App_fer_C*rtif_Np_Lcu) Page I of 3 %<Apnl 2003) Not*: This approval Is not tjfgetivt until tht tignaturts btlow art compltt*. No tvork should btgin untilth* 30-day apptal window has laptod, or, in tht tvtnt of an apptal, until tht apptal has bttn finaliztd. FOR LGU USE ONLY A.) LGU hu received adequite documentation for claim of No-Loss or Exemption, iind approves this certificate as outlined above. This certificate expires.. (Date) (LGU Official Signature) (Date) > If this cenincite applies to 8420 0122. Subp. I or Subp. 2B, then Item B belov^ shall be completed ird signed by the LGU > If not, the LGU shall write "Not Applicable* m signature block below and die certificate is complete. B.) LGU has received evidence of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Impacted Wetland Under Agricultural Exemption (BWSR Form B): (County where recorded)(Dale recorded)(Document # assigned by recorder) (LGU Official Signature)(Date) •APPROVAL OF THIS CERTIFICATE ONLYAPPUES TO THE WCA. Permiu from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check wish the appropriate aushorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form can be used for this purpose. Notice of the above decision must be mailed to the following parties wlthio 10 working days of the dcciilon: 1. Landownec/AppUcant 2. Members of the Technical Evaluation Panel 3. Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable) 4. Department of Natural Resources Regional Office 5. DNR Wetlands Coordinator 9 Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St Paul, MN 55155 6. Corps of Engineers Project Manager O Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. St Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St Paul. MN 55101-1638 7. Members of the public who have requested to receive notice. 8WSg_Fona_WCA.E»«tnpcionJl{AppJi>r.C«rt!LNo_l.on) Page 3 of 3 lApnl 2003) m. Wetland Community and Hydrology Summary City Of Orono Minnehaha Creek Watershed District t¥ell»n4ID O-117-73-22-O10 0-117-23 22-012 ; 0-117 23 22^14 0-1172Va4)18 0-117-23-22-017 Subwttenhe^ Lake MmnelonU Lake Miioelonhe Lake MMwalonka lake kAonelonka Lake ».**¥ietanka WeittnJStie (•crtsi 020 0.31 06 0J5 TiT Wtltand Typt Cawardin PC MB ■ptkS* PEMB.PEMA P£M8 PCMA Circulars? Tjl»«2 Type 2 Type 2. Type 1 Iype2 Typel Plant Community Stage kteadow Sedge Meadow FreV) (Wei) Meadow. Seasonaly ftoodedBatm Fiekh (W»l) k4aadow Seatonaiiy Mooded BatMi Hydrologic Setting Depceswnal Oepreswnai Oeptesstonal Oepresnonat OepfBSMmal Topographic Setting Isolaled iMiaiBd laoiaM Lake kwnneionka Type 1. Type 2 rtuodptam Forest. *■ ,sh (Wei| Meadow Oepress<onal IsoUied 0-117-Z3-23-009 Lake k*nn« tonka 0 2i t'tkio lypei ?il7-23^ 23^10 Lake kAnnelonka 0 31 1 pssm ■ Types ai 1623-304)03 ! 1 1 Long Lake Oeek 1 1 017 ■ nUBF.PFOlA Type 4. Type 1 I 0^1102626006 • 1 Long Lake Oeeh 121 PCkic Type 3 0-118 23 26042 Long Lake Oeeh jL_.”PEMO.PfOIA. PUBGk Type 2, Type 1. Types Dll033-2S-b43 Long Lake Creek 05 PFMA Typel ~ D-11033 2S0«4 Long Lake Creek ' 025 PEMA Type 1 0-11023-76045 Long Lake Creek ~ 0 21 ' PEMA Typel _____1 ____________ ____ k iesr> (wei) Maaoow btope SttfViOCarT Oepressonal I^M Oe^MarsO Fioodpla<nForesl Depresvi«>ai IsUaled Snaitow Marsh Oeprssstonal IsoteM Fresh (Wet) Meadow FloodpMei ForesL Shallow. Open Watef CorTMTHrmtes Oepressonat ^^ IsoUied Seasonally Floorled Batm Opressional isolaM Seasorvply Ftooded Hasm Depresvonal IsoiaM Seasonally Flooded ^sm Oepresskinal IsoMied • '•I*' • ^ a . ^ - .e Ittanday, Jammry 23, 2003 Page 17 0f 40 \ ZONING REGULATIONS » 7B12I6 St*ir»-tyt. hfti ind Uad;ng» n-.iy be ei ther constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, pro vided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil ero sion Stairways. liila and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, ak viewed from the sur face of the public water, assuming sum mer. leaf-on conditions, whenever practi cal (6l Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, pronded »*.the dimen sional and performance >• .'V.ar:s of sub- sections (1)—l5i of this ». ■ * '«• we com pleted in addiuon to the omenta of the Minnesota Rfgulati' ••.h'tpier 1340. (Ord 1992) A building peim-l slia.l -^'.#,-ted for construction of .tairways. , • a.nd land ings regardless of .*.( ther improve ments are constructed above, at or below grade. No 101 2nd series. 4 UlO 56a6:<F». 2-24- Sec. 7S-1283. Steep slopes. Sec. 7S-12B4. Height of structures. No structure within the Shoreland Overlay District shall exceed the height limitaiions set forth in the lUndards for the underlyir.g toning district (Ord No 101 2nd series. $ 1(10.56(16HH)). 2-24- 1902) Sec. 78-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a) No live tree within 75 fret of the shoreline or within the bluff impact ran* writh a diameter of SIX inches or more (or 19 inches in drcumfereniv cr greater) measured three feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city ataff. premded that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those remok'ed 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 art dead shall not require a permit, but such trees must be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. Any applicant requesting a permit for construc tion of sewage treatment systems, roads, drive ways, structures or other improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to al low the city to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility &om 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 vegetation screening of struc tures. vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. (Ord. No. lOl 2nd senes, 4 I 10 56(16XG)J. 2 24- 1992) (b) Intensive vegetation clearing witbin 75 feet of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact tone within the Shoreland Overlay DUtnet IS prohibited Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and tnmmir^ of trees cf any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picni; areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the acrcerung of st.'ucturca. vehicles or other farilitiea as viewed frem the water, assuming summer, leaf on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (Ord. No. lOl 2nd series, 4 l(l0 5€a6Xl)t, 2-24- 1992; Ord No 127 2nd series. § 7. 7-11-1994) --------------------------------------------------------------------——C"- Sec. 78-12S6. Topographic alterations/jp-ad- ing and filling. (a) Grading and r.ll-.r.g and cxcavattrns neces sary for the ccnstrucUon of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under vaLdly issued construction permits for these facilities dc Susa Ne 1 CD78.19’. «7ft-12M OBONO CITY CODE Dot requirt the iiiutnce of a leptraU grading and filling permit. Kowaver, all grading and filling activity approved permits lor constructicn of struc tures. lewage treatment lystems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this article. (b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in sectioo 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to ot^r pertinant sections of this chapter. (c) Public and private roads, driveways, park ing areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 76 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard toning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following conaideraUoas: (1) Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum icreen- ing from view from public waters. (2) All roads and parking areu shall be de- eigntd and constructed to minimize and control croelon to public waters consistent with ths requirements of all agencies with Jurisdictio-r (d) Except for those projects requiring permits fer construction of structures, sewsge treatment systems and drivewtys. a land alteration permit be required as follows: (1> For movement of one through 500 cubic yards of matarial anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay Distria, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required (2) For naovsffitnt of mors than 500 cubic yards of materisl within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. (e) The following considerations and condi tions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditicnsl use permits, variances and subdivi sion approvals (1) Grading or filling m any type 2. 3.4.5, 6. 7 cr 8 wetland .must be evaluated to determine hew extensively the proposed activity would affect the fellowing fiinc- tional qualities of the wetland a. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention. b. Stc.'ags of surface tmmS to prevent or reduce flood damage: c. Fiah and wildlife habitat, d. Recreational use: c. Shoreline or bonk stablliratlon; and f Noteworthiness. Incljdmg special qualities, such as historic signifi cance, critical habitat for endan gered plants and aainals, or outers. This avaluation must also iacludc a deter mination of whether the wetland slur- ation being proposed requires pennits, reviews or approvals by other lo^ state or federal agencies including but not lim ited to watershed datricu. state depart ment of natural resources, or the United States Array Corps of Engineers. (2) Alterations must be designed and con ducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is ex posed for the shorteit time possible. (3J Mulches or similar materials must ba used, where neceuary, for temporary bare toil cov*erage, and a permanent vegeutm cover must be tsublishtd si soon as pcs- sible (4) Methods tc mici.miu soil erosion and to trap sedimeou before they reach any but- face water feature muat 1m used. (51 Altered areas muat be stabilized la accept able erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the 4r Supp Na 1 CD78.192 ZCNINO REGULATIONS f 7i-:tt8 local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unsta ble slope. (7) Flans to place fill cr excavated material on steep slopes roust be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Sut. } 103G.246. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, includ ing associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is per mitted if the finished 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 above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. A riprap permit shall be obuined per the requirements of section 78-969. (0 Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoon* and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level Such excavations below the elevaticn or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agencies with concur rent jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, 5 1(10.56(16KJ)). 2-24- 1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 8,7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, 5 3. 12-8-1997, Ord. No 171 2nd series, § 2, 4-4-1998) Sec. 78-1287. Stormwater management. The follow'iag general and specif:: standards shall apply in addition to those standards ficuad in article VIII of this chapter and secdon 82-222: (1) N^’hea possible. existing natural drainageways. wetlands and vegetated soil lurfaces must bs used to convey, store, filter and reuin stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters (2) A development must be planned and con ducted in a manner that will mi.nimize the extent of disturbed areu, runoff velocities and erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities cr methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) ^^■hea development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation condi tions are not sufficient to adequately han dle stormwater runoff using natural fea tures and vegeution, various types of ccnstructed facilities, such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways and ponds may be used. Pref erence must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltra tion rather than buried pipes and materials and facilities. (4) When constructed facilities sre used to perform water management, documenta tion must be provided by a registered professional civil engineer that they are designed and irjtalled consistent with the field office technical guide cf the local soil and water conservation district. (5) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters .-nust proride for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skim ming of surface debns before discharge. (Ord. No. lOl 2nd series. $ 1(10 56U6XK)). 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shsll be placed, located or constructed within 75 fret of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. Supp. So I CD78;193 5. Wetlands Management ^5.1 General As described in Section 3. tne formation of the icndscope m Orono hos resulted in the creation of many wetlands. The City recognizes o variety of functions ond values provided by its wetlands, including : <• Acting as part of the natural surface water manogement sys*em • maintenance of water quality • flood attenuation • erosion and sedimentation reduction ❖ Providing habitat for a variety wildlife •:* Preserving open spaces and natural landscapes <• Contributing to on enhcriced overall quality of life Orono's leaders formally recognized these volues In the 1960 ‘s and adopted the Qty's first comprehensive wetland protection ordinance in 1970. Based on various water quality/quantity studies that supported the 1974 SWMP. Orono adopted odditional ordinances in 1975. which prohibited filling or dra’nirkg wetlands, and required a 26-foot setback from a wetland boundary to any cor'kstructlon or grading activity. This section of the SWMP describes the City's multi-faceted resource management approach to maintaining or improving the City's wetland resources. Stemming from the gools and policies of both MCWD and Orono. the following process serves os the backbone of O.'ono s weticrxt r^anagement plan: ❖ Discussion of impacts to wetiarxJ resources (Section 5 2) ❖ Inventory wetlands likely to be affected by runoff (Section 5.3) Assessment of weticrxj functions and values (Section 5.3) ❖ Determination of a runoff susceptibility rating (Section 5.3) <• Develop protection strategies to minimize impact (Section 5.4) • classify wetlands by required level of protection • volume and rate control (quontity) to manage bounce • phosphorous limits to maintain or Improve water qua'ity • buffer strip standards for quantity ond quaiity <• Plan for enhancement or restoration of wetlands (Section 5 5) • Idenflfy candidate wetlands • aeote an improvement plan for each Otyof Orono ^ B.2 Impacts to Wetlands With the passage of wetland protection leg-slation. arxj construction of ponds for runoff rr^anogement. the rote of degradation from urban development has been greatly slowed. However. wi-h intensve land development, ogriculturd production, and housekeepng practices m developed areas, degradation of wetlands continues The focus of recent wetland legislation, poitcy. and prac^ce has oeen to peserve the functions, values, and overall qual.ty of wetloncs by mmimizng poor woter qual.ty cr<j unmanaged quantities of runoff associated with oaro- urban impacts. ^ 5.2.1 Water Quality Impacts W^er quanty plays a significant role in me overall quality of o wetlcnd ^n the qualily of incoming water Oedlnes. the plont community mov degrade to fewer of species arjd retain only species tolerant of high nutrient and sediment loods A degraded plant ccmmurnty results o less voluobie ecosystem in terms of biodlverSty, habrof, and oesthetics There ore two primary factors that offect the quolity of runoff entering o wettona and therefore to overall water qualify within the wetland; 1 . phosphorous, os the pimory nutrient of concern 2. sedimentotioa resulting from erosion of soil. 5.2.2 Water Quantity Impacts Recent surface water management plans hove protected weriancs ^rom n^ents but not from fluctuotion of water elevation (bounce) or durcnon of inundotion. in fact, it was common to use wetlands to reduce flooding potential by s’ztng pipes to maximize bounce end duration. The flnoings of the (State of Minnesota) Storm Water Advisory Group we'^ published in a document called Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands (1994). The f ndings Indicated that there is a broad range of tderance to bounce and duration among different wetland types. And to a lesser extent, the ^g^n wetod^^ ^ attributed to the characteristics and quality o* Some wetlands (e.g.. bogs and fens) are sensitive to any disturbance and will show signs of degradation with even low-level Inputs of runoff Conve^ly. wetlands (e.g.. floodplain forests) are better adapted to handle fluctuating water levels often associated with runoff OtyefOnno ^ 5.3 Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands 5.3.1 Wetland Inventory As stated earlier, the City's objective is to protect, enhance cr,d/or restore wetlands that may be directly affected by runoff os development and redevelopnrtent occurs Therefore, only those wetlands locoted within 20 feet of a proposed or e»sti 'ig stormwater cutlet pipe we^e inventoried and mapped os port of the SWMP. This inventory a'so se-ved os the base of information for deve'opment of other parts of t^e weiana monogement plan. The wetlands Invonforted for mis SWMP ora lated in Appendix i and a-e shown on the SWMP System Mop. 5.3.2 Stormwater Susceptibility Assessment The Guidance For Bvatuanng Urtxin Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands was the source material for rating a wettarxJ's susceptibility to runoff. Potential impacts ossodated with storm and meltwoter runoff include fluctuation In water levels (bounce) within the wetland, the duration of inundation at the varying bounce elevations end the quality of the water being directed to the wetland. A given wetland's susceptibility to runoff Is dependent on the wetland type, end the characteristics end quality of its plant community. As dn exomple, a sedge meadow, which likes a particuior hydrologic regime is much more susceptible than o floodplain forest, which depends on fluctuating levels of water cssociafeo with seasonal flooding A'sc o wef meodow with a vorety of grasses and flowers is more sensitive than one dominated by reed conary gross. The runoff susceptibility ratirg for each of the evaluated wetlands is indicated by coior-ccdsng on the system map. The ratings described in the guidance document ore ^ Highly Susceptible ^ Moderately Susceptible ❖ Slightly Susceptible ^ Least Susceptible. Further discussion on susceptibility and associated wetland community descriptions, modified from the Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetiands. is presented in Appendix H. Each susceptibility rating category describes different wetland types, including plant communities and hydrology. atyofOrono 5.3.3 Functional Assessment Orono'5 1900 Community Mcanogement P!on arttcu cr^ed *he general Doss for wetland protection, but lacked a functiorol assessment of tne volues attributable to each of its protected wetiar»os. Sucn an ossessment was needed to be able to develop protection orenhoncement strategies for individual wetlands. The New Hampshire Method, slightly modified for cord tions m Orono. was used for the functional ossessment of wetlonds The Vinnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) was also mod fied. and used m conjunction with the New Hampshire Method. The intent of comaming these methods was to allow for city staff to assist in future assessments of wetlands. The New Hampshire Method is desigried to be ‘user frierxjly' and Is specIficaOy set up so that norvsdentlsts con fill out the method. MnRAM is 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 odequately address floral cSversIty, (on important factor with regard to runoff protection and buffer strips). The New Hampshire Method allows for a comparison between wetlands within a project boundary. It Is one of the few methods that gives an actual rMjmber ranking. This ollows for comparison of functional values The method addresses up to 14 functional values of wetlarxis, which are listed in Table 5.1. Ecological integrity Water-based recreation ; Shoreline anchor.ng Wildtife habitat Flood control potential Urban quality of life Fish habitat Groundwater use potential Urban quality of life Educational potential Sediment trapping Noteworthiness Visuat/aesthetic quality Nutnent attenuation Of these 14 functional values, the Oty chose the fonowing three for assessment of the wetlands identified for the SWMP: ❖ Ecological Integrity determines the degree of human hfluence. ❖ mdife HabitatQssBssBi the overall suitability of a wetland for widlife typically associated with wetlands. ❖ Visual/Aesthetic QualitY ranks the wetland's scenic beauty. Functional value indices for each wetland a*e presented in Appendix I. Inducing the MnRAM rating of a wetland's florol diversity/integrity. Oty of Orono MCWD Assessment As of the approval dote of this SWMP. Minnehaha Creek Wo^rshed Distnct was in the process of completing a function end value assessrert of wetlands in the District. It is anticipated that thet project wli be completed and a final report will be published in the near future. The Clt/ of Orono will refer to MCWD's data for the following considerations; 1 . Source of data for wetlands rot inventoried for Ororo S\A'M? 2. Cross^-eference with Oono SWMP data 3. Gain perspective on the wetland management strategics set forth in the Orono SWMP S.3.4 Non-Inventoried Wetlands Understanding the value of an inventory and evoluation of all wef ana resources, the Oty wfl take the following general approach to achieving a complete data set for remairvng wetlands; V Inventory ond assess wetiorxds os cost-sharing opportunities become available •> Incorporate data from similar projects by other agendas. notebV the MCWD wetland assessment project Require data from any land dsturbing antivlty near a wetland The lost of these w ll hoppen when there is development of land neor an/ wetlands that have r.ot been accounted for in c previous effort. When c preliminary plot Is received by the Oty. proidmity to wetlands Wll be among the review iterrs If a neaby wetland has not been accounted for. the developer of the land will be required to have a runoff susceptibility evaluation connpieted and submitted to the Oty. The develooer may request that the evaluation be done by the Oty, jn which cose a fee will be ossessed. By requiring this, the plot opprovol process will take into account the quolity and sensitivity of a given wetland cs well os add tnct wetlono-’o the Oty’s database. ^5.4 Wetland Protection The goal of this monagem.ent strategy Is to maintain or enhance the ecoiogicai integrity of wetlands In the Oty during site developrrert. Gven the voriebity of the type ond quolity of the wehond communites c two- step wetond protection process has been developed Wetlands subject tc runoff must Initially be classified os to the level of protection recuired. From there, an oopropriote protection strategy con be planned for each wetlarxt OtyofOrono Information needed to form a wetiar^l strategy for each wetland w'll be derived from one or dl of these sources 1. Wetland inventory and assessment ccrrpieted os part of this SWMP 2 Wetland inventory and assessment completed by MCWD 3. Non-inventoried wetland procedures detai'ed in Section 5.3 4 5.4.1 Protection Classification Orono's wetlord protection classifications ere based on a wetland's susceptibility to impact from runoff (see Section 5 3.2). Because the runoff susceptibility rcstirtg con be used os on Indicator for the overall quality of most wetland types, it can also serve as the basis for determining the level of protection to be afforded to a given wetland. In some coses, wetlands with a “utilize" classification can actually be enhanced when used for runoff management, by reusing water levels or by excavating. In other situations, restoration of Protect II or Protect III wetlands may provide treatment for downstream waterbodies and improve the habitat and aesthetics of the subject wetland. Protection Classification Susceptibility Rating Description Protect I Highly Susceptible Highly suscepbb'e to both quanbty and quality .mpacts from rvnolf; have the highest degree of protecton. | Protect II 1 Moderately Suscept-bie 1 Moderately suscepbble to quanbty and quality impacts; ' proteefion is less strngent than Protect I, provtdes protecCon to maintain thCT charactensbcs ! i Protect III ;Slightly Suscepbble Less stringent protecbon than Protect U weOands; maintenance of characterisbes is desirable ; Utilize Least Suscepbble Wetlands are significantly degraded (e.g., cultivated or ! canary grass monotype) or lack wetiand characteristics; not typicaBy impacted by runoff; rvj quanbty ard only limited quality treatment of runoff is required 5.4.2 Protection Strategies Existing federal arxJ state regulations address potential Impact to the “orear extent of wetlands from placement of fill manorial. In concert with MCWD. the Oty also intends to protect the overall ecological integrity of its wetlond corrvnunities. The protection strategies in Table 5.3 were developed to address potential Impact to the type, character, and qudity of a wetland community, from runoff. The Protection Strategy for each wetland is based on its Protection aossificotion. Oty of Orono Cor^idertng !hct runoff reaches a wetland bom from a storm sewer ond from adjacent up:ar>di me following mree issues will be managed to minim-ze impact from runoff: ❖ Bounce - deals wim the vo'ume of stormwater input, in terms of the change in water levels and the duration of mat change. PorcJs will be designed to manage bounce associated with runoff from sto^m sewers Bn.sert nninr»ff ion ______ — — w/vui wiin runon rrom STO^ sewers Based a runoff event with a 100-year recurrence interval. <• Phosphorous <P) - addresses the amount of phosphorous being delivered to a given wetland via runoff from storm sewers Buffer - addresses both me quality ond quantity/rote of runoff entering a wetland os surface flow from adjacent upioncs. Protection Classifkation Protection Strategy 1 1 BouiKe: Maintain bourcc at or Detow cxsong conOiDons Protect 1 P . Umt loacings to predevecpment loadirg (O.H Lbs/Ac/Yr) | 1 Buffer. SO feet wide | j Bounce. Maintain bounce at or below exlsbng condibons olus 0 S foot Protect II P: Umit loadings to predevelopment loadings Omes 2 (C.28 Lbs/Ac/Yr) Buffer 35 feet wide 1 Bounce: M.aiPtain bounce at or below existing conditions olus l 0 foct ! Protect III P: Limit concentraOon to predeve'coment corcentratons (200 ooOi J 1 Buffer 25feetw'de * 1 1 Bounce: No quanbty rectiremert 1 u&iizei 11 P: Limt concentration to 225 ppb I 1 ^ P ■ t»OSOhorou8 1 Buffer IS feet wide The City of Cfono has taken a somewhat different approach to the sizrg and location requirements for wetlarxj buffers, for a coupie cf reasons;--------------- w . ..M IV. vTWMVji njr sj UUUUk© Cl r0Q I. It is generally known that, assuming all things equal, a larger waterbody has a greater assimilative capacity than a small wetlor^. 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 wetland's runoff susceptibility rating is a good ncicotor of it's overall quality in terms of its functions and values. Sensitive communities wim a diverse cssembicge of plants, provide scarce and/or high qua?*y hobitat (re.T.ember, Protection Cicssif.cations are tied to runoff susceptibility). I- i OtfoTOmno Buffert It should be noted ot the outset of any discusson on butters, thot ths requirernent is not the sarre os a ‘setbock* requirement m tQct. tre teginrkng pont for a setback requi'ement mcy ac*ucliy be the buffer s up-gradient edge. The Oty will adopt the buffer strip widths irxiicatea in Toble 5.3. along with other buffer guidelines discussed below, with approval of this SWMP. During implementation of this SWMP. the City wi'l include these requirements end guidelires in on appropriate 0'’d ncrce A buffer (or buffer strip) is an orea of undisturbed vegerar\on sur'oundma o wetland. It can consist of trees, grasses, shrubs, lowers, or ony ccynbinohoa os long os It is the vegetation (or enhancement oO that is m place and well estoblished before any grading activities begin. An undsturbed buffer can reduce impact to o wetland by: Keepng soil stabilized to minimize erosion Ritering nutrients and sediments from overland runoff Slowing and/or retair^ng overlond runoff Providing habitat adjacent to wetlands Dufl^ constfuctlon. o buffer i$ an area in which mere will be na vehicle o- ar^lpment traffic, stockpiling of soil, or staging of any type of construction material. After construction, these guidelines should be followed; No mowing, fertiliang. or other mdntenance • manogement of native or natural vegetetion is OK »:• No placement of lawn clippingi leaves, etc • limited brushpiies may be OK. check with City* No srieds or reaeational features No trampling or paths, except as dlowed. check with Cih/ • paths should be parallel to the wetland edge • access to wetland should be meandered •cyushpies may serve 3s hcofcr for wldife if cJone propery ^5.5 Wetland Restoration/Enhancements Four wettond complexes hove been identtfed os bgn o.-iorty :estoratton/ enhancement sites. Additional wetlonds wSI likely be identified dunng the implementdtion period for this SWMP. Fundng sources for the weticrw resroration/enhfficemenf sites con come from o verie-y ct sources, discussed further in Section 7.7.4. ❖ ❖ OtyofOrono A summary of each of fhe wef and restoration/enhancemenr stes foi'ov/ Enough informoticn was collected to beg.n the process of oppiy.ng for grants, ihe cost shown in the tad'es below ere approx'rT'a*e ana may modrfied if odditionai infomnotion becomes cvcilcble. cr for cost Increases. 5.5.1 Wetland PC-L-31 Approximate Site Size; 10 acres Township 118N Range __23 W Section 31- -------------w- ------J! Watershed Nanne: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #. 2C City Watershed Nome: Painter Creek Genera! Description of Site This wetland io located in the upstream portion of the Painter Creek watershed. A tribLiary of Pdnter Creek bisects the wettend VcCullev Road IS located at the south end of the wetland. Approximately 85 percent of the wetland is a wet meadow and 15 percent is a wp swamp. The wet meadow is dominated by reed canary grass with patches of willow located in the mioae The lowlond hardwood swamp is dominated by willow and cottonwood. The Painter Creek tributary has been ditched through the wetland A lateral ditch connects with the Painter Creek tributary. These d*ches have partially drained the wetlond and contributed to the dearaded condition of the basin. ” Restoration Objectives and Proposed Construction This site is high profile due to its locotlon odjocent to me Luce Une T-cil and within lond pubiicly owned Oy the Oly. The goals tor wef ond restoration will include the following; • Control runoff rates to Painter Creek • ReSore native diversity of wetland vegefofion. Inciuair.g wet meadow and emergent marsh plant communities ■ Entoce me wildlife and csesthetlc viewing of the wetlond for the public using the Luce Lne Trail • Enhance the Pointer Creek wildlife corrdor Steps in the proposed wetland restoration include the following: 1. Construct Q series of low be-Tris across the ditch to eliminate the scope and effect of the ditch. OtfofOrvno 2. Complete two controlled bums of the site to old in control ino reed canary gross. Provide o spot treatment ct t'er&ic de to furt.-'er control reed canary gross 3. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses and forps Table 5.4 Project Cost for Wetland PC-L-31 1 Tasks 1 Description : Approximate j Cost ! 1 Son/eys Feld an<3 topcgraphic sur^iey of site 5 3.CCC1 Design Complete site design mcltdirg craft pan and Final construction docunerts 5 8,000 Meetings Meetings with Cty staff and surroundirg landowners S 1,300 i Permits i Obtain recessary permits ^ S 2.0GC i Restoration 1 Complete two prescribed buns and scot terbiode j Ireatrrent to cortrol exobes 1 s 2,000 j 1 Seed with wet meadow mix $ IS.OCX) 1 !Corst.'-jcticn cf bw bems across ditch s 30,000 ' !Approximate Project Cost $ 62,300 5.5.2 Wetland PC-M-31 Approximate Ste Size: 13 5 acres Township __ ] 18N Range 23 w .Section 11 Wc*e'5hed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) v;a*ersned tt 20 C•^/ Watershed Nome: Pointer Creek General Description of Site This wetland is located in tne upstream portion of the Painter Creek Wotershed. A tributary of Painter Creek bisects tne wetland. McCuIlev Rood IS icccred at tr^e north end of the wetland. I he weticrxj contairTs the following communites end speces • CO % shallow marsh - cattail, lake sedge, water plantain'^ • 20 % shrub S'womp - willow The Painter Creek tr butory has been ditched through the wo»fond a l^^eral ditch connects wth the Painter Crook tributary along tr'e trail. .ese ditches nave Dcrtially drained the wetland end contributed to the degradeo condi^-on of the bash. OtyofOrre L r. Restoration Objectives and Construction Proposed This site is high profile due to lo'-ation adjacent to the Luce line T'-ail and within land publicly ownpd by the City. The gods for wetlard restoration will include the followir^ • Control runoff rtf es to Painter Creek • I5estoro native diversity of wehand vegetation, including wet meadow end emergent marsh plant commuaties • Enhance the wildlife and aesthetic viewing of tne wetland for tne public using the Luce Line Troil • Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corndor Steps In the proposed wetland restoration include the following: 1. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland sto to aid in controlling the reed canary gross and cattail. Provide a spe treatment of herbicide to fijrther control reed cancry gross. 2. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses and foros In the wet meadow. 3. Construct a control structure at the ouhet of the wetland. Tasks 1 ---------------------------------- 1 Description Approximate j Cost ! Surveys ' Field and topographic survey of Site s 2.00C . Oesgn • Complete site design ir.cludir>g draft plan and final ‘ • constAJCCon documercs s 4.0C0 Meetngs Meetings with Qty staff and surrounding i landcjwners S 1.300 Permits OCtain necessary permits 5 2,000 i ; Resoraaon » : Com .jlete 2 prescribed bums and spot nerticde i : treat'j.ent to control exobes !S 3,000 1 ; Seed with wet meadow mix S 7.5C0 i t Construction of control structure $ 15,000 ‘ 1 Approximate Project Cost;$ 34,800 i 5.5.3 Wetland LL-C-26 Approximate Site S?e: 14.5 ceres Township _ nSN Rcr^e __23 W , Section 26 Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 City Watershed Name: Long Lake (DNR 834W) C'tyc^Ofono General Description of Site This wettand is locored in the Long Lake watershed just upsTream of Long Loke. This location provides on excellent opportunity 'or wcter quciity treatment. It has a ditch that is approximately 10 fee: wide througn its center Wa*er flows through the ditch rather than across the ent.re wetland, creating a cond'“nn In which the wetlarxt serves a limited nutrient function. This wetland is not under Oty owr^rship. The topogrcpnic re"e* of the wetland v.-ould confine the limits of the project to the wetland The wetland is a shallow marsh/wet meadow dcmmoted Dy reed conory gross and cattail. Restoration Objectives and Construction Proposed • Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a control structure at the outlet (may require a berm upstream, dependent on driveway elev.). • Provide water quality treatment for Long Lake. • Enhance the wildlife arxj aesthetic functional values of the we'iond. • Restore the plant community along the fringes of the weiond Table 5.6 Project Cost for Wetiand LL-G-26 Components Description Approximate Cost Surveys Field and topographc survey cf site S 2,000 Design j- ' Complete site design Indudirg draft plan ana 1 final cof^njcton documents s s.oco 1 1 . Permits i! Otxain necessary permits s 2.0CC Meeongs 1 Meetings witn Gty st3ff end surrounding 1 landowners Ii S 1,300 Land and Legal Purchase of easements around weCand or access to cont'ol structure $ 9,300 Restoration Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot nerbiode treatment to control exebes S 3,000 1 Seed and/or plant fringe areas $ 7,5C0 Constructioo of control structure $20,000 Approximate Project Cost $ 50,100 CtycTOfxy'o Steps in the proposed wetland restoration include the fotiowin' 1. Construct o control structure a* the out.et. 2 Complete two controiieo oums of the wettonc ste to oa in controlling the reed canary gross and ccttol end increase tne nutrient uptake of t^e wetlcnd with new growth of vegerotion. Provide a spot treohnem of herbicide to further control reed cancry gross. 3. Seed and/or emergng plants along the fringe 5.5.4 Wetland SB-E-31 Approximate Wetland Sze; 65 acres (Restoration Ste • 35 acres) Township __118N & 117N Range 23 W Section 31 &3 Watershed Norre: Misassipp Rver (Mefro) Watershed tt: 20 City Watershed Nome Stubbs Boy (DNR 140P) General Description of Site This wetland is located in the lower portion of the Stubbs Bey wote'Shed just upstream of Stubbs Boy and south of the Luce L ne Troil Th.s iocaion provides an excellent opportunity for water quality treatment end enhanced aesthetics and wiidife haPtat for users of the Luce Line Trail. It currently has a moir ditch with two laterals that hove ocrtlclly drained the wet meadow portion bi the wetland. Water flows through the ditcr r jther than across the entire wetland, creating o condition m which the wetland serves a limited nuf .ent removal function. The portion of the wetland tnot should be considered for res*Cfor'cn s a 35-acre wet meadow community that is predom.nonry reed canary grass. There are currently isolated pertons of highe' q jclity sedge meadow that centon lakeoonk sedge, blue joint g'css. joe pyeweed. and boreset A tarrxarack swc.nrp s located h tne northwest perton of the wetlcnd at a higher elevation (opproximateiY 833 - 836) than the wet meedew (933) Raising water leve'4 to restore the wet meadow would need *o be llrTjted to the 833 elevation to protect the tcmorcck swamp from inundoton. Permanent inundation m tamcrack s'.vam.ps con cause mortalty. I he we^and area is not urtder pubic owrtershio and on© dnveway crosses the wet.ond ’o gan access to a house that is located between h*e Luce Line Tfol and the wetland. OtyofOfonp Restoration Objectives ana Construction Proposed • Provide water quality treatment for Stubbs Bay • Enhonce wildlife arxd aesthetic functional values • Restore the wetland plant community within the reed canary gross portion of wetland ■ Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a series of ditch dIocI<s and 0 berm with a control structure. Steps In the proposed wetland restoration Include the following: 1. Construct 0 berm ard outlet control structure. 2. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland site to aid in controllir^ the reed carxary grass ard inaeose the nutrient uptake of the wetland with new growth of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary grass. 3. Seed selected portions of the wetland with wetlard grass ard forbs. Table 5.7 Project Cost for Wetland SB-E-31 Components ;Description ^ 1 Approximate Cost Surveys held and topographic survey of site j $ 3,000 Design Complete site design including draft plan and final : construction documents S 9,000 Permits ! Obtain necessary permits 5 2.SOO I Meetings Meetings with Oty staff and surrounding landowners \S 1,300 ; Lar^d and Legal Purchase of easements around wetland or access to | conbol structure. Easements should already exist along public road for access to control structure. ! ; 1 1 $ l,SO0 ! 1 Complete 2 prescnbed bums and spot herbiode treatment to control exoUcs $ 5,000 Restoration Seed and/or plant fringe areas $ 7,SO0 i Constnjcbon berm, ditch blocks and control structure $ 35,000 Approximate Project Cost $64,800 Ot/oTOrono /'/ received MA»I 3 2004 QTYOFORONO ^ Sa^p ^s dz. 1 M V^ fvti- u'e iid^€^ .oc^ A ^ TTA^z ^ (6^ e^.c^t2,c^ A'xfpz.t^HA’ ^ )L^4t^j. <l'/ZA A^y^-d-UAA „0>Ac. ^ y^Ad^ yd<^A’'9^tAtA-^. .AA d't^ <<?S-ei.C*^ A. Ac r\A' •' ¥ ly. , ^ ______ <JyZd^cJi <2>u*i> dAd"7tt, — y^ dAyy^A: y^!r'-rt<^. ^t* tvL-0-«^ /O^AtL>/Ld>>*^ t/^ J -;^.*^D,^m.2^ 'P'>rdtJA/t^ y/z^ ^ <r KdtyfyZ y^ aA*^ < ./.^. /y^.-Cc^^AA-'d-UtJ /£ytjL ^£A-c£Ai,y 2* dC^ydA^ y?^ . UyAA ytAd ^^y-yy(ziA * /cyc, yly y^: /aJ^^A jU Ad>>ZZ, ^ d^ey AUav^z ^i^ «Z^*-s^«/ .Jji^ y'J^S<jji 4I S'tyUff^, V yt!r?C^ dod ^/t*A ^yuA:/ty. 3Ca%c^ r^zT '2c/ a^ AJ^’^ti^^ZJ ’TZ^ ycyty ^.''y'z^cJjf ,y?'2^*iU ^ . ^?nu (L^y^y^^y^y^ . ^ ^‘J4. c^^'iLdyLciAj> y<f /ti.^L c-AeA txZ" y^> 7#£» _y^7f <^<t ^ *- "^25^ ^3/ ...-______ Monday March 8,2004 Received CITYOFORONO To: City ofOrono Planning Contmission Members 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN. 55323 From: Robert Floyd 960 West Femdale Road Wayzala, MN. 55391 Dear Planning Commission Members, I am vsTiling as an Orono resident and lakeshorc owner to ask that some very specific questions please be answered and addressed on the official record of your Planning Commission meeting for variance request and conditional use permit # 04-2997 being requested by the City of Orono for properly located on Big Island. I am sure that all lakeshore owners will want to know many of the following questions in order to evaluate what is and is not reasonable and allowable in fill situations near the lake and wetlands. This is an ideal opportunity to provide many answers since all of these arc issues that must be considered for this application. Exactly what, in detail, is the hardship or hardships being claimed by the City of Orono for these requests and w ork? Also, exactly w hat criteria and reasoning is being used by the Planning Commission and City Council to decide if the hardship is valid and sufficient for such a request, whether this work is necessary, is the optimal solution and preferable to all other alternate solutions, and whether these requests will be granted? I visited the City offices and discussed <#04-2997 with Mr. Gaffron in detail. He was very helpful, but cannoi answer all of these questions as these decisions are yours and not his. I have ^en told that there are alternate existing public uccesr< sites in a number of other locations on Big Island and that many properties also have direct access from Lake Minnetonka itself. A number of properties have steep r.i hills and various other topography which limits vehicular access to some lots. Also it was explained that the various paths between the other existing available alternate public access sites on the Island and this eastern portion are diftlcult because of low lying land, steep hills, and marshes. Is the desire to access all portions of property, especially with vehicles, and difficulty in using currently existing access options and paths a sufficient hardship to justify this work and the granting of these requests? Exactly who is using or reasonably going to be using this improved access and for what purposes to justify this requested work and variance and conditional use permit? How is the Planning Commission defining what is and is not adequate access in this situation? For this particular portion of Big Island? How many access sites are needed to service Big Island and what is the criteria and reasoning being used to determine these questions? Exactly what criteria is being used to determine if the existing interior paths from the alternate access sites to this area are sufficient or not? Normally the City and City staff are extremely stringent in forbidding any such work within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka and/or within any protected wetland. How is this work different from similar work frequently desired and proposed by private lakeshore and wetland property owmers? Exactly what mitigation is being proposed and/or required regarding this work? What criteria is being used to evaluate this mitigation, especially how much mitigation is necessary? What is the exact timing sequence of the corresponding mitigation and permit work being proposed (what happens first, fill or mitigation, second,etc.)? What grading is being requested, and what is the claimed hardship that requires grading, and what criteria is being used to evaluate and decide this grading portion of the requests? How sleep is acceptible, etc.? What alternate methods of dealing w ith the various claimed hardships have been explored and why are those not being pursued rather than these requested actions? Since the City and City staff have chosen to vehemently prevent exactly similar work by private propeny owners, 1 request that these questions be addressed in detail to clarify how and under what circumstances such work is acceptible and necessary. This will help provide some basis for equal application and enforcement of the relevent niles and requirements. Thank you P. for your cooperation in clarifing this for all property owners knowledge, potential plans, and future reference. Sincerely, Robert Floyd P.3 •04-29r March 15.2004 Page 4 of 0 delineated as well as the 929.4 elevation to be located, all to confirm that the lot can meet the 2 0 acre requirement of dry buildablc land. StafTs preliminary review also indicated that there are potential bluffs located on the property, which require a 30* setback from the top The Planning Commission could discuss whether this should be considered bluff as it drams to a wetland first, then eventually into Lake Minnetonka. The septic site will also need to be revised to meet a 20* setback from property boundaries. From staffs preliminary analysis, this lot may not be achievable due to the issues that need to be achieved on the lot to the west. Also, the Public Services Director has preliminarily indicated that an additional access onto Fox Street at this location would be looked at negatively, as this lot could not be accessed off the private roadway proposed. In general, it appears that many of»’ lots are borderline accepuible, especially lots 7 and 8. Further refinement of lot lines may alleviate some of the borderline lot wndth and 2.0 dry acre issues, however a few lots may need to be eliminated. Also, once the wetland delineations have been conducted and the 929.4 elevation has been located, it will be clearer whether lots will be lost or not because setbacks can then be confirmed, Septic reports must be conducted to confirm suitable sites. And lastly, a bluff analysis should be conducted on lots 7 and 8 to determine the extent that they exist and to determine where the 30* setback should be measured from. All of these exercises w ill help conclude how many conforming lots can be created. lliiad Layout and Standards iiie proposed road corridor is SO feet in width with a 100* diameter Lul-de*sac as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and the CMP for a local private road The standard paved width for this road would be 28 feet with a 50 ’ diameter cul-dr.sac. Street design information would be required at the umc of preliminary plat for the City Enginr ;r to review. The City would expect that the existing cut for the current driveway at Fox Street could remain as the access for proposed lot 1. however, the remainder of the driveway, not located within proposed lot 1 or the lot which will contain the existing house, would have to be removed. Staff would be hesitant to approve an additional access at Fox Street, beyond the existing cut a.nd the proposed private read, for proposed lot 8. Park/Trail Easement or Dedication Needed Ihc CMP indicates a future trail along Fox Street. The CMP has not indicated which side of the road the trail is planned for but it does indicate the trail would be on the shoulder ot separated In an effort to plan for the future construction of this trail, stall would recommend that a 10* trail Cusement be dedicated along Fox Street and that all setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the trail easement. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The City wi., require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over the pnvatc road, which should be platted as an outloi. The City would also require standard perimeter and *04-2981 March IS. 2004 Pa|cSef« drainage easements around all property boundaries as s^cll as consersation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Development of the property will likely require creauon of a NURP pond to collect, at a minimum, runoff from the proposed pnvatc road. The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, established currently at S2.700 per acre for the 2* acre zone. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by septic systems and private wells. All septic systems must be located 100 ’ from the 929.4 elevation, 20 ’ from all property boundaries. 10* from structures, and 26 ’ from the delineated edge of wetlands. Private wells shall be setback 3’ from structu.’cs and 50* from septic systems Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity with Shoreland Regulations The property is essentially a large peninsula with well over 3.500 feel of shoreline. Although the property abuts a 929 4 elevation, the properties do not have riparian rights, meaning 2 and lake accesses of any kind or prohibited. Because of the proximity of the property to the body of Lake Minnetonka and Long Lake Creek, all shoreland restrictions apply. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The only apparent wetlands on the site arc those in the northeast corner of proposed lot 8 and the northwest comer of proposed lot 1. The preliminary plat application should include a completed wetland delineation report to verify that no other wetlands are present and to verify the boundaries of the known wetlands. As mentioned earlier in this report, the City will require a Flowage and Conservation Easement o\cr all wetlands designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the City's LGU for administration of the Welland Conserv ation Act rules Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The sue is somewhat wooded wiili a variety of Ucc species. Orono does not h,avc a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75' or 0-100 ’ lakeshore setback zone, where clear-cutting and removal of trees 6 ” or greater in diameter is prohibited The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. Archaeological Site Proximity or Study Needed Given the unique namre of the site with its rolling topography, potential bluffs, and its proximity to Lake N!innclO''ka, the developer is advised to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. •04-29t ’T March IS. 2004 Pa|c S of 0 drainage easements around all property boundaries as well as conserxation and flowage easements over the delineated u-etlands Stormwater and Drainage Improvements Development of the property will likely require creauon of a KURP pond to collect, at a minimum, runoff from the proposed pr.vate road. The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, established currently at $2,700 per acre for the 2- acre zone. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by septic systems and private wells. All septic systems must be located 100’ from the 929.4 elevation, 20* from all property boundaries. 10’ from structures, and 26’ from the delineated edge of wetlands. Private wells shall be setback 3’ from structures and 50* from septic systems Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity with Shorcland Kcgulations lire property is essentially a large peninsula with well over 3,500 fed of shoreline. Although the property abuts a 929 4 elevation, the properties dc not have riparian rights, r..^u*.mg docks and l^e accesses of any kind or prohibited. Because of the proximity of ine property to the body of Lake Minnetonka and Long Lake Creek, all shorcland restrictions apply. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The only apparent w etlands on the site are those in the northeast comer of proposed lot 8 and the northwest comer of proposed lot 1. The preliminary plat application should include a completed wetland delineation report to verify that no other wetlands ate present and to verify the boundaries of the known wetlands. As mentioned earlier in this report, the City will require a Flowage and Conservation Easement over all wetlands designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the City’s LGU for administration of the Welland Conservation Act rules Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is somewhat wooded with a variety of tree species. Orono docs not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75’ or 0-100’ lakeshore setback zone, where clear-cutting and removal of trees 6” or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. Archaeological Site Proximity or Study Needed Given the unique nature of the site with its rolling topography, potential bluffs, and its proximity to Lake Minnetonka, the developer is advised to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. •04-291? March 15.2004 PagatofO BlulT Impacts There are two potential bluff areas on the properly. The first is located on proposed lot 7 and the second is in the northwestern comer of proposed lot 8. The developer shall determine if those areas meet the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of bluff prior to preliminary plat review. Bluff areas have bluff impact zone protection standards and a 30 ’ structural setback from the top of the bluff. Issues for Discussion 1. The irregularly shaped lots, as currently laid out, potentially create very restrictive hardcover standards for a few lots. 2. Proposed lot 2 must meet a 200’ width requirement at the private drive, resulting in width problems for the other lots which front the private road on the west side, as they barely meet the 200’ width requirement. 3. Proposed lot 6 automatically requires approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. Is that acceptable and could that vanance approval be mcluded within the plat process? 4. The owner is proposing to keep the existing caretaker house which is assumed to have kitchen facilities. The lot proposed to house the existing main house and caretaker house does not meet the double acreage requirements for guest houses/caretaker houses with kitchen facilities. Should the caretaker house be required to be removed if it has kitchen facilities? Could a CUP for plumbing in an accessory building be approved if the kitchen were removed? 5. Septic sites are not shown for proposed lot 7. 6. Proposed lot 8 would access off Fox Street. Is the Planning Commission okay with 2 additional accesses off Fox Street where there is currently only one? 7. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this applic rtion? Summary The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The above “Issues for Discussion” reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding the plat. During the sketch plan review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present particular problems, so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval or denial of variances to code standards can be addressed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. Application # Date Received y Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address /7*/S Property Identification Number (PID) g3-//7-?J - yy» Please check one • Property X abstractor toirens? J-//« gad/ Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name__ Address City__^ ^-arUC=, »W *3T Phonefli V.1 7- N \ Phonethomc)_C-_fiiJ^ii^ oc»c» <:. , Zip Phone (work) Oi 1 ^c2~ c> o «» r. OWNER (if different than applicant) ('kx .tV iA Name /O VA<Vrt. Address \ -rv4g=> City. -EVJC—^sc- 7_frc=T/\ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 3 Development Size 23. / 3 ¥.8 _______Phone (home) C-/z>«-»3 j_ a. T. Zip !>^y;iPhone (work) 6 t ^ ^ ? 3^-^ Z- 2. "L J7. 9 Present use (check) X Present Zoning District AK.~jJi Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential, no. of units J. Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Existing Units A c^ifUktAt/^sfj^ New Units Total Units ^____Units per <^7. y4\crc$ 1 MDilMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payraeat of fees (refer to "ippUcaiioa fees” luted below). 2. Cotapletcd appLcatioo foim. 3. PrelimiDaryplatmformatioaonCertincsteofSurvey. 4. Cemned Propeity Oween Lat of owaen within 350’ (you oiist obuin iis lat from Henscp js County Depirtsent of Finance A-603 Govt Center 612*348*3271). 5. Aj an addfndmn to this appiicatioQ. please arach a separate lut of any other persons you wah oottfled of thu aeplicanon Zoning OfriciaTs Signature_________________________________ MLNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payout of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of fcrxal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Euemenls, coveaanu, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Officuls Signature____________________________________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to cheek [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (aass I, n AIH) S273.0O - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 - Subdivisioa Applicatioa (Clast IAII) S400 00 _____ Preliminary Subdivuion AppUcatJon S400.00 S30.00/lot (Class ID A all non-res idettul) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) 5250 00 ■ ■ ■ Legal Review and Filing: ■ Subdivuion only 5100 00 . Subdivision w/easemenu and covenants min S200 00 Totals Park Fees (to be devnnined per Section 82-227) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as tncurred)fca04^ wsvtcw rccs KlkUiTCaj Renewai of Class I and II Subdivision AppUeanon 5200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class IH. Preliminary Subdimion Application 5200.00 (No change from onginal application) Renewal of Final Claw lU Subdivuion AoDlicatiaa 51 SO 00 rv« /-v.— ____•__i__ ■ w. <>ppuc«aoa acuu.uu cnange from onginal applit -------- Renewal of Final Claw lU Subdivuion AppUcaboa 5150 00 (No change from ongiaa; applicatKc) B. Special Improvement Fees: Prop<^ Private Roads 5650.00 ♦ S JO/lineal ft.;_____hit ft. x .50 - $ Proposed Public Roads 5950.00 $ 50/ltneaI ft.;_____lin. ft. a .50 - $ Request for City to Accept Existing Pnvite Road 5950 00 Proposed Sani^ Sewer Main Extension $275.00 * 525/stiib Projxued Watefrnam Exteruion 5275 00 * 525/ttub Proposed Storm Sewer System (exchidinf cnlvetts) 5250 00 Oa*Site SyttCRv Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision ipnhcations) $60.00/per lot x _____new lots C. Flexible AppUcatioo Fccs/Misc. Feet _____ Variance 5250.00 (550.00 per each idditjonil variance) _____ Easement Vscatioe Auociated with Subdivuion S100.00 ____ PRD AppUcatioo with Subdivuion 535 OODwelling Unit ^e applicant hereby agrees to provide aU infotmauon rcquued or requested by the Zomng Administntor, City Engineer City Attorney wSfe ^ Counciln^ry to process this spplicsr.oa ted further agrees to pay all addmonal fees’estiushed by Applicant’s Signature Owner’s Signature _ t <} X S..-'H HUH-T •CMS M rm #2987 1/BJ04 ^hSS ?toPE(iTy WETIAHP TO PEUMEAT&D fuauineD SET*,wy, • Access off Fov street •HAM)C0Vtp RtSTWcTlOAlS ,/VWSr COCATE <?w.»/ »se^nc' ^ites shau - bc lOO' FWM THE 6t/ATEMT LOCATIOK) SUMti )S TIftHT- »iv>‘ setBAwt' REaumtD FW)»A V0ETUAflT> edge ) LOT Z.\ SKETCH PI SUAD AZHARI & 0. ^ IN SECTIONS 3 fSoMTAftE OM fjbVATE WAO w/a V HENNEPIN COUNT SftAU. BE dtVAEO TO 6t MO'- K off Trtt Off PtlV'.ATP goAD • M£6TS lA^fSHopE 4. MOM~ lAK6St«ft.E WavMIL5/n£jOTj rtWUJM)V6»- «.STPACT<0A»^ APPL-Y • /AU5T uotAte lt«til . !>ic&U3U.'i &)<i4>^Me6 SHAU- ^ A^MoveD MR'( (JEEP T» EE A0)»St60 1® M(Of''OPAtE LPT TO MOtCTH floT »n •^LUcVi MOST CfiMg bFP LFAO- IN TO TBE COL-OE'SAC BVbbLE SHAU- RE LOCATfD . riARpcovetz- pcst Wuidajs AfPL.y * FMaITA^C /must M 2ice»' NT tHB PWVATe PDAD-omc Y WAP-EHT u Y SH«waJ » 2-00 WtY ACAES witl. Be CU)SE llriiJSS? yPWPEATYuA/es VV-S/^ N y*.irVliig? giOW^'^ k----.. ~‘-t--aTBy^m___-----Is.' l- • 0 ^ / !'•: tv/v ; 'I: ■■ i/;rf;;; 7/; «'t':i •..■i.'''.jl *lA«SHoftE un- u,l ^ •L«T Ai SHivvAj ftetfc .,,,, «sT.ur,« HA.cc^-er'^ i ♦ veHY «Sr»lltTlv6 HARPCOt/CR, WAJE • fU;4T BE L06AT6D 'SepTic sires s«/«u. be i^' fpoM turtle D -----------------------------\ ' ! ' ■"' \’"'LAWiHo/ie U)T- ( 200' Ncrr NceoeD® po^D ,fii/eiLMa& MKESHttlE SETBWC Y^'AMte VOOVLO HAd/E Tb RC ApPpiWBD RlA A U hiIcle ^ -o^wipucreti. H#'>se u L.(fT ul i /’ ' 1 .V X SV r // ??^V.‘--------- //, N V .W 7i fes /JTj '■^^H r 7~'*-X* ‘ -V.' : -^ *• - • _ *• ^ ,r -s - »//* -// ■:- - V- - // [•liXAfe primary i AtrERA/ATf 6EPT<6 ! 6ITE5 I ^AtRE/<j) 211:f '*^^‘*' '.'^•^ *v^ 'v'^I ''' V.N'.'. ^ 1 v:^:' S'^'.'N S'. ' ' • ^•^'.''.''cV oVM» '. *.S V ' ?3'\\IVOE' Aas; «ep V.' j 1 ■^'.''.'•S-,. -V-''' HARDCOVEfL; P£ST(Ltq'l»jflS ? • potential fcUuF|i= AREA - 3o' «TBA^ fey FROM TOP Of &UijFF PCaOMlCp j •EXiSTiWtj paiVEwKyWTt»jl t/MOsi’PC 0WT^»IDE UfT wol/LPI BE ■^^^.■.v ^®“''''R€P FOIL R emovalS* ABUKHADRA -23 ]SOTA •tax TD BC McessED pPV fo/ £.T(Z.eeT. pnopef^T'f Uiwe5 ?>a;FF/<t€A' 3d* SETE-^^-K- fdCM TOf OF BLUFT- :-------/aAf-J^pBL-wr ------ I/NBWIIPABLE W6TUAWO "TO BE PEUWEATEP -2b' stTMtK Atavneep FR.OM toat- >S€PTI^ SITES SHAU- BE ZP' fA0^^ PRbPtftTY tooiJDiA^Y 4 loo' Fl«»A . • W.^ 40 BE located Dale Application RcceUcd: 2-20-04 Dale Application Conildered ai Complete: 2-20-04 00-Day Review Period Eipircs: 4-20-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director March 12. 2004 #04-2998 Henry Lazmant, 120 Brown Road South - Sketch Plan Review Zoaiog District: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential. 2-acre min. Lot Area: 20 acres Total, 14 Acres ±_ Dry Buildablc Application Summaty: This is a sketch plan for a proposed 7-lot residential plat or PRD of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek. Five concept plans have been presented for consideration. Each proposal includes development of a pnvate cul-de-sac road accessing from Brown Road South, plus extensions to serve various outlying or back lots. The property is u; tlie Mcmjpolitan Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines The site is w ooded and contain.^ an existing single family residence constructed m the 1920 ’s. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by tlie Planiung Commission and Council during the period 1999-2001 . A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposcu, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The owners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts, have taken legal action to ha\e their existing easement declared as usable for s^ens to the property. The City Attorney is still reviewing documentation provided to him, but his initial conclusion is that the 4(T eascnicit docs in fk:t provide the applicant with the right to create a road to serve multiple lots over that easement. Henry Lazniarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres. He apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this. Staff Recommendation: \V'hilc no formal action is required, this memo will provide a number cf issues for discussion or to be addressed when the formal application is submitted List of Exhibits A - Application St Letter of Request B - Concept Plans A-B-C-D-E C • Plat map D - Airphoto of Site E - PRD Zoning Code Standa.»ds «04.299l March 12,2004 Pafc2 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Orooo Community Management Plan (CMP) The property is guided for single family residential use at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. Four of the five proposed layouts contain 7 lots on 14.1 acres. Based on the City ordinances that exclude road right-of- way &om a calculable area, the only way the code density requirement could be met for 7 lots is via a Planned residential Development (PRD). The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be developed usingmunicipal sewer and private wells. The proposed use for residential purposes would be in conformity with the CMP as long as density standards are met, 2. RelatioDShip to Surroundiog Development The property is abutted on the north by the City ofI>org Lake, with housing of significanUy higher densities than allowed in Orono. The south boundary’ of the property abuts the Luce Line Trail. Property to the east and west is developed generally at a 2-acrc density. South of the Luce Line, the Fox Ridge neighborhood is zoned for 2-acre lots but was developed prior to the 1975 rezoning, with 1 acre lots. In general, the proposed layouts create lots that vary in their degree of consistency with surrounding development. 3. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential use, with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. None of the five proposals have all their lots meeting the 2.0 acre minimum lots size. Each proposal has at least one lot of less than 2 acres in area. The ability to achieve the densities and lot layouts proposed relies solely on the City acceptance of the PRD development process, and relaxing a number of lot standards. 4. PRD Process, The PRD process “is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive stnicture to ncighb^ood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents.” (Section 7S-601) 1104.2991 March 12,2004 Pate 3 The PRD process allows the propeity owna to submit land subdivision plans for any ’‘R** District without adherence to minimuni lot size requinments for each building lot, provided that the total number ofbuildin^ lota, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or unita permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district. The dwelling units pennitted may be, at the discretion ofthe Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, anached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance ofopen spaces created by the application ofthe Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed nccessarv'by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes, such as easements or other forms of dedication, covenants, etc. The City CouiKil has bioad discretion as to whether a property will be allowed to subdivide using the PRD process. The PRO should be considered when unique land configuration or natural amenities can be best protected and preserved by relaxing the lot subdivision regulations. The nanire of this property is such that a relatively small portion of the 20-acre total is suitable for actual construction, due to the existence of wetlands, drainage wa>s, the creek, and steep slopes The property is a candidate for development as a PRD, in staffs opinion. 4. Site Layout and Lot Standards A few general and some specific comments arc offered here regrading the various concept plans. 1 . Each of the five plans show a lot along the Luce Line, requirmg a creek crossing and yielding a very narrow and limited (but perhaps highly attractive) buildmg site very near the Luce Line Trail This lot in each case is served by a driveway within a narrow comdor between or adjacent to other lots, making it by definition a back lot. It is not clear whether the area calculations yield 2 acres of dry buildable land. Staff would suggest that the setback along the Luce line must be considered as a rear lot line for this property and subject to a SO* setback, not 30* as shown. This leaves a buildable area of about 7500 s.f., mosUy situated on a steep slope (perhaps bluff, perhaps not) overlooking the creek. Staff w ould strongly recommend that this lot not be created as a building site, and that it be preserv ed cither as parkland adjacent to the Luce Line or via some other restrictions. Suffwould suggest that preservation of this area ofthe property and avoiding any vehicular creek crossing to access it, should be a primary goal of the City m allow ing development of this property. MM-299S March 12,2004 Page 4 The various concqpt plans presented have been developed generally using the City's 1 -acre zoning standards, in terms of setbacks, lot widths, etc. In the context of a PRD, this maybe ^propriate, as long as the overall density is maintained. However, in a number of plans the narrow corridor leading to the southerly back lot yields potential building sites very close to the driveway serving that back lot, not meeting the City’s goal of retaining greater open space in back lot situations. 3.In all plans, the narrow comdors leading to back lots are shown as either part of the main road system or as part of the lot they serve. In no cases are they shown as separate narrow outlots as our code would require. StafTwill be prepared to discuss additional details related to each concept plan for .Monday's meeting. It may be a lair statement that the plans provided have been de\ eloped with the PRD concept clearly in mind, as noe would be devoid of variances under standard platting... S. Road Layout and Standards The proposed road corridor within the site is 50* in width as required by the Subdivision Code and CMP for a local private road. The standard paved width for this road would be 24-28’ depending on the configuartion and number of lots served by each segment. The use of the front/back lot configuration as opposed to continuing the cul-de-sac to serve the end lou is a key elenr.cnt of some of the applicants proposals Lot 2. is worthy of discussion. The subdivision ordinance regarding applicable uses of the back lot states: Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a “front lot" and a back lot w ithout requiring an area variance w hen the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. A fronLl)ack lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line t.han a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. •04-2991 Marck 12,2004 Pages 6. Pirk/Trall Easements or Dedicatioo Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that specifically require dedication of land from this property. However, the southerly part of the property abuts the Luce Line and would make a nice addition to the trail corridor, with potential walking access to the creek. This unique configuration should be looked at by the Park Commission to determine whether the dedication of land could result in regional trail access to the creek. While this might not be withm the property owners’ expectations for the property, the City does have an Park Dedication requirement and the public benefits of such an access must at least be coiuidered. Absent dedication of land for parks, the Park Dedication Fee would be expected tobethe maximum fee which by ordinance is capped at S5,S50 per new lot. 7. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The City will require Road, Drainage and Utilities Easements over the private roads, which should be platted as outlets. Accesi to Brown Road. In addition to the 40* easement shown on the applicants drawings, an additional 10 road easement exists along the north 1 O’ of the plat of Kallestad Acres. The total corridor width is 50, and the road should be located to make use of this width. The City will require that the current dnveway be upgraded to City standards all the way out to Brown Road. 8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed Development of the property will likely require creation of stormwater management fac i lities which may include storm sewers, swales and nmoffrate/quality control ponding within the site. The property wi II be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Tnink Fee, established currently at $2700 per acre for the 2-acrc zone. 9. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by private wells and municipal sewer. Municipal sewer w iih capacity to serve the small numberofunits proposed is bciieved to be available in the Long Lake system into which Orono lines in this area discharge. These added units will have to be discussed w ith and approved by the City of Long Lake. 10. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Whether a sewer unit connection charge for use ofthe existing sew cr system would be required of this new development, has yet to be detennined. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with bringing sewer laterals to serve the proposed new lots, as well as for obtaining appropriate easemenu as required. #03.299t Marthl2,2004 P«tt( 11. Coaformity with ShoreUnd Regulationi The setback to the creek bank for Long Lake Creek for this sewered property is 75’ Wetland setbacks of 26' must be adhered to. The MCWD may require greater setbacks for this wetland. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The wetlands on the property were delineated a few years ago to help determine the amount of dry buildable area. The City will require a Flowage and Consovation Easement over all wetlands designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the City’s LGU for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act rules. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impncu The site is heavily wooded with a variety of tree species. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75* lakedxxe and erode setback rone, where clearcuning and removal oftrees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer may be required to provide bou'.evard trees along the private road at appropriate locations. The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. 13. Archaeological Site Proximity' or Study Needed Given the unique nature of the site in its proximity to Long Lake Creek, the developer is advised to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. 14. Poteotial Bluff Impacts While there are steep slopes on the site, none appear to meet the criteria (o be considered as bluffs; however, staffhas not done a detailed analysis, which should be completed before any conclusions are reached. Summary The goal of this review is to provide die developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the propos^ plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of the various proposals. The above comments reveal a number of issues for subdividing this property, and also suggest some oppoitunities for preservation of unique amenities associated w ith the site. During the sketch plan review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present particular problems, so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval or denial of variances to code sUndards can be addressed by the Planning Commissioa Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. minimum MATERtAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCAT1QN 1. Payment of fees (refer to ‘application fees'* listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3 Prelirrinary plat information on CeiHficate of Survey Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hemepin County Depa'tment of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6** Street. Minneapolis, teiephone 612*34^5910). . As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any ether persons you wish notified of this ^ application MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copes of forma! plat 3. Title opinion 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (X] those which apply) A. /^plication Base Fees: W^Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) $350 00 ____Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600.00 ____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $600 00 ____ Prelimir^ry Subdivision Application $750 00 ♦ $30 OOflot (Cass III & all non-resldenfial) ____ Final Plai Application (Class III) $250.00 ____ Legal Review and Filing ____ Subdivision only $140 00 ____ Subdivision w/easements and covenants mrir^um $280 00 ♦ any additional costs ____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 62*227) ____Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ____Renewal of Class I. Ii. & III Subdivision and of a Lot Lme Rearrangement Application $300 00 B. Special Improvement Fees: ____ Proposed Private Roads $650 00 ♦ $ 50 per lineal fooL ____Proposed Public Roads $950 00 ♦ $.50 per lineal foot TOTALS _lin ft. X 50»$ lin.flx.50a$ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950 00 ____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mam Extension $275 00 ♦ $2S/stub ____ Proposed Watermam Extension $275.00 ♦ S2S'stub ____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 ____ Onsite System. Site Evaluation Review (applicab'e to rural subdivisions) $C''/oer lot x__new lots C. Flexible Application Feea/MIsccllaneous Feet ____Vanance $600.00 ____Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting property ($600 minimum per app'ication) ____ Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdrvls*on $100 00 ____ PRD Application with Subdivision $35 00 per dwelling unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all irformation required or requested by Planning Department Staff. City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Appllcanfa Signature: ___________________ Date: Owner's Signature:_________________________________________ Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the City Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting. U . .7,? • I V .J ■V \! ^•*^*.>1 r:A'i- SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 120 BROWN ROAD Homes By Desigii is interested in the development of the 20-acre parcel located at 120 Brovi'n Road. It is understood that the City has considered the development of this site previously but the issue on access was never resolved. Tliis issue has now been resolved and access to the site via a public/private road &om Brown Road is now possible. With a road now possible, Homes By Design has prepared several concept sketches on the potential development of this site. The sketches range from the city standard 2-acre lots to several options utilizing the PRD cluster development. Due to the many natural amenities within the site (especially the wetlands and natural corridors) and the surrounding neighborhoods the ability to cluster some of the sites is appealing for home placement and environmental sensitivity. Site data that were made available to us from previous reports include: • Total Area 20.7 acres • Upland Area 14.1 acres dry buildable • Wetland/Creek 6.6 acres, the creek divides the south from the north • Zoned RR-IB (2-acre lots) • Luce Line Trail to the South • Sewer services are available from Long Lake or along Browm Road. • Long Lake abuts to the north with sewered small lots. • The Fox Ridge Subdivision is just south of the site and contains 7,1 -acre lots. The sketch plans are being presented to demonstrate that although a six-lot 2-acre subdivision can be achieved to meet the current zoning requirements, that the site is best served by being developed as a PRD. It is our intent to preserve the wetlands and the naniral corridors that exist in and around the site. The home placements will also protect these corridors and match tlie surrounding area. In preserving these amenities we are requesting that the city, under the PRD standards, support a development using a cluster design that incorporates seven lots. With over 14 acres of dry buildable land, seven lots appears to be a reasonable request since there is enough dry land for 7 two-acre lots. There are three distinct buildable areas withm the site. 1. The northeast corner. This area is next to Long Lake smaller lots. The knoll in this area provides a nice view over the wetland to the south and east. 2. The central area. This is where the existing home sits. It consists of a large kitoll that provides beautiful views in all directions. There is room for several walkout style homes with easy access to Brown Road. IT is far away from other surrounding homes to create its own sense of a neighborhood 3. The southern knoll This site offers a majestic view with an element of privacy due to the creek to the north and the Luce Line trail to the south. It is a premier lot within the site. See the attached aenal showing optimum building sites. ••9?^i J Eadi of the concept plans provides their own unique qualities. Following is a breakdown of each plan. Concept A. • This shows how the site can be developed under the RR*1B standards. • Each lot has a generous building area with a nice view. • The street location is not best suited for the neighbor to th.e NW. • Does not preserve any natural corridors or greenways. • Requires the removal of the existing home. Concept B. • All lots average 1 -acre in size. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • Creates uniformity throu^ut the development. Concept C. • Clusters smaller lots near similar size lots in Long Lake. • Transitions into larger lots in the central and southern end of the site. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • However, the street to the north dissects this open space. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Concept D. • Clusters 1-acre lots in the central area as a unifoim neighborhood. • Separates the smaller l-acre lots with standard 2-acre lot to the north and south. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Concept E. • Clusters six small lots in the centml area. • Preserves all of north side as open space. • Creates a distinct uniformed neighborhood. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Homes By Design appreciates your comments and guidance m the development of this site. The lot is a unique site t^ provides great opportunities to creatively design a development that preserves its* natural features and its’ transitional location between Long Lake, the wetland, the Luce Line Trail and siurounding homes. A cluster development would provide a nice transition between the small lot single-family homes to the north and the l-acre single-family homes in the Fox Ridge Development to the south. The vast buildable area within this site allows the development to appropriately place new homes to blend nicely with the existing homes to the west. We look forward to working with the City on our development plans. ( \ \- ; •• ''"A coNcerT fzn BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD; SIDE YARD: BACK YARD: 50‘ 30* 50* V//y/A - WETLAND/CREEK Cot^CBFT 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD:35* SIDE YARD:10* SID' YARD:35* (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD:30* V/yy/A - WETLAND/CREEK ~CONCBVT SCALE FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 35' 10' 35' 30' V////A - WETLAND/CREEK III* I is ia jaflU SCALE BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (AOJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: V////A - WETLAND/ » 'mm. 'f:-'.1mm ■ wmm-ii m • >Ji.. * mm> y-t'^v;/.M .1 ■ >• -.rV-V/' “v^ ZONING REGULATIONS 178409 DIVISION 10. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 8«e. 78^1. PurpoM. This plan is available to land subdividers sub* Ject to council approval, as alternative to stan* dard minimum lot sixe subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan ie to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congeetieo and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recre ation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of dty residents. (Code 1984. i 10.32(1)) Sec. 7S-608. Submission of plans. Landowners may submit land subdivision plans for any R district without adherence to minimum lot sice requirements for each building lot, pro vided that the total number of building lots or dwelling units shall not exceed the number of such lots or unite permissible under the minimum lot sixe requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. (Code 1984, i 10.32(2)) Sec. 784M8. Council discretion. Dwelling units permitted may be, at the discre tion of the council and subject to the conditions set forth by the council, in detached, attached or multiple-family dwelling structures, subject to the limitations provided for in each xoning dis trict (Code 1984, i 10.32(3)) Sec. 78-604. Open cpece. The dedication, ownership, use end mainte nance of open spaces crested by the application of a planned residential development shall be sub ject to conditions deemed necessary by the council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. (Code 1984, 9 10.32(4)) Sec. 78-605. Dedication of open space. The dedication and ownership of the open spaces referred to in section 76-604 may be through: Homeowners' sssocistion; Landlord maintenance; Special service district Municipal ownership; or Any other method deemed appropriate by the council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. (Code 1984. | 10.32(6)) (1) f2) (3) (4) (5) Sec. 78-606. Site plan. Tha proposed site plan, including location, spac ing and buic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of open space available for park or recreational purposes shall be eubrait- ted for approval by the planning commisaioo and the council. (Code 1984, 9 10.32(6)) Sec. 78407. Hearinge. The council may direct that a public hearing be held to review plans governed by this division. (Coda 1984, 9 10.32(7)) Sec. 78408. Final approvaL Final approval of plans governed by this divi sion shall not be granted until all conditions set by the council are met, and, further, the council shall not approve any such planned residential development prior to the legally binding estab lishment of the open apace dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means latis- factory to the council. (Code 1984, 9 10.32(8)) Sec. 78-609. Subdivision requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure eeub- lished by chapter 82, except as modified in this division, shall govern applications under this plan. (Code 1984, 9 10.32(9)) CD78109 >.--- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17, 20()4 o'cI(K'k p.ni. ROLL The Commission mel on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Jeanne Mabusth. Commissioners Cynthia Bremer. David Rahn. J. Mark Frit/Ier, and Li/ Haw n; Representing staff w ere Planning Director Mike Gaflhm. Planners Melanie Curtis and Janiee Gundlacb. and Revorder Kristi Andervin. Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioner Stephanie ZugsehwtTl. and ('ity Council liaison Bob Sansevere were absent. Acting Chair Mabasth called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. CONSENT AGEND A JEFF MARTINEAt', 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,•(«H) iV04-298l VARIANCES Frit/lcr moved. Acting Chair Mabutih leconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2981, approval of a hardcover variance to reduce the hardcover within the 0-75' setback /one by 52 s.f. for the residence at 2565 North Shore Drive. N OTE; Aye* 5. Nays 0. OLD Bl SINESS (#2) #04-2969 TERRY AND GREI CHEN BLOt NT, 1.490 CHERRY PLACE, N'ARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT (6:07-6:15 P..M.) Grelehen Blount, the applicant, was present. Gundlacb e.xplained that the applicants have decided to apply for a simple interior n.*modeling pc*rmit: thea*foa*. would not be needing the lot area and lot w idth variances o.s originally expecled. Ilte applic'ants wish to be given a hardeovcT variance to ^construct an existing rotting deck and average lakeshure setback variance to allow the comer of the deck to encroach 4* into the average lakeshore setback /one. Gundlacb pointed out that neighbi>ring views would not be i»bsiructeil by the replacement of the deck, since the grade changes are dramatic. She suggc*sleil the Commission table the conditional use permit request to allow lorulscape restoration in the 0-75’ /one until more detailed plans can be submitted once weather permits for review and appnival by the C'ity EnginecT In ordc*r to meet hardcover restrictions for new cun.struction. the Blount's believed the design had become aesthetically unattraciive and not worth the investment to build new construction. Although they would have preferred a front porch and first tlovir bedriKim. Ms. Blount staled that they will remodel the e.xisting cottage instead of build new. PAGE I of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. («) MM-2969 TERRY AND CRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY^PLACT„^ VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Hawn moved. Bremer seconded, lo recommend approval of a deck replacement in the 75 ’ - 250’ zone for Application #04-2969, granting a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing rutting deck and average lakeshorc setback variance to allow a 4' encroachment of the deck into the average lakeshorc setback. In addition, tabling the conditional use permit for landscape restoration in the 0-75’ zone until weather permits the applicant to submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (postponed after Item #4) (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHW AY 12, PUD REZONING, CO.MPREHENSl\ £ PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIMSION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW' (6:15-7:43 P.M.) John Trautz., Reliance Dcselopment, and Steve Johnston, the Applicant’s Representatives, were present. GafTron explained that the applicants propose a commercial retail otVicc development on Outlot A of StoncBay. The proposal acquires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) lo allow freestanding retail uses that ua* not directly assttcialcd with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rc/oning via the Planned Unit Dcsclopmcnt (PUD) process from RR-IB (SFR. 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commeaial Di.strict). The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site in*.- building lots as follows: •xpuale Lot 1: 1.53 acres - lO.(KK) s.f. offlcc'retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acre.-* ^.(MK) s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 a.'O - »-\490 s.f. Walgreen’s retail pharmacy building GalTron poinic’d out that, w hiit ^ if supports the Compa*hensivc Plan Amendment, the rezoning lo B-6 PUD, and propo.^*d nix of retail and office uses, staff has been w orking w ith the applicants regarding ongoing revisions to the site plan and circulation. He explained that there are two spcxific areas of the current plan which staff would recommend revisions. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission lo reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment, review any rezoning concerns or stipulations they wish to place on the PUD. and spend time reviewing the development aspects of the site, providing staff with any cxincems lo be addressed regarding building design and styling, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. PAGE 2 of 19 MINUTES OI THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17.2(MM 6:00 oVlock p.m. (M) #04-2974 REUANC'i: DEVEI.OPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12. PCD RE/ONING. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SI BDIVLSION. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) In mldiiion, based on comments received from Phil C'arlsitn. the City’s Planning Consultant, GafTron suggc*sted the Commission handle the Land Use Plan amendment first and separately. Since this would be an amendment to the ('omp Plan. GalTron lelt that stvmcdiscussion of the ovcTnII intc*nt and character U» be achieves! should be made. GalTron indicated that, if the Planning C'ommission w ishes to take a step toward approval, it is slafl's axommendation that an amendment to the Land Use Plan should include the following: Alh*w serv ice retail u.ses. such as a phannacy. bank. colTee shop, dry cleaners, and similar neighKnlHHHl and community scale uses (uses can he further defineil if you wish), with the following charactcTistics; 1) 1 he development plan shall irKorporate exceptional design, integrated into the site and surroundings, and featunng high quality building materials and architectural detailing. 2) No single use shall occupy more than 15.(HK) square fevt i»f ILhu area, 3) ThtTC shall be generous, well-planned green space, landscaping, and bulTenng throughout the entire site, excxxxiing the minimums in the Orono Code tor similar developments. 4) There shall be a clear, well-designcil conncctmn and orientatum to the pond west of the site, such that patrons can see the pi*nd from the development, pedestrians can easily walk to and an*und the pond, and adjacent uses will orient w indows. outdtHtr seating areas, and other elements t»»vv.iid the pt»nd 5) There shall be clear, well-designed sidcnvalk connextions Ihnii the sidewalks and trails surrounding the site (on Kelley Parkway. Willow Drive, and Highway 12) to all points within thedexelopmcmt. espcxially from access points that serve the residential development to the north. 6) The scale and t>pe of uses, and the design of the site, shall be such thal overall tratfie into and out of the site will n*>t be more than under the previously assumed office use designation in the Land Use Plan. PAGE 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17,2(K)4 6:0U o‘cl(Kk p.m. (M) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PCD REZONTNG.< OMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND C OMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW - Continued) 7) The site plan shall be designed to pnu ide clear and sale IralTic nHuements within the site fur all internal mmements: entrances, exits, parking areas, drive-lhruugh lanes. loading service areas, and driveways. 8) The overall site plan shall be dt*signe<l 'uch that the onent.ition of buildings is not mainly to Highw ay 12. but alsi* ca-. »e' a significant sense of place internally in the site 9) If ownership of the site is to be div ided among two or more lots w ith more than one owner, provisions shall be made for adet|uate handling ot accc'ss. parking, landscaping, niuintcnance, and other rcaM*nable site condititms in a manner that cun be guaranteed by the City Furthermore, if the Planning C'ommission recommends approval for the Land Use Plan amendment, w ith or without any of the aKwe sptx'ilic etmditions attacheil. a recommendation for approval of the re/oning to B6-PUD could also be made, assuming the Commission is gencTally satisfic'd w ith the current plan. Galfron pointed out that the other option would be to not rcxommc'nd approval f«>r the re/t>ning until the Commission has sex'n a plan with which they are complc'tely satisfied. It is suggested that a recommendation regarding a rc/oning should include development parameters that will bcx'ome zoning requirements for the properly, and include the folittwing: Recommend approval of a re/onmg to PUD for Stonebay Marketplace, w ith the follow ing conditions: 1 ) Development on the site must follow the design for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all other site leaturcs illustrated on the submission for Stonc*bay Marketplace by Landform for Reliance Development, shexis x-xx. dated x-x-x. No deviation from thc'se designs shall be allowc*d w ithout approval of an amendmemt to the PUD by the Orono City C’ouncil. except for mino'- adjustments to be approvc*d by City stafl’. at the discretion of the Development Review C'ommittex*. 2) The orientation of the Walgrecn's building and parking areas shall be changc*d to place the mam entry in the southw c*st comtT of the building PAGE 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMiay. Februar>' 17. 2CKM 6;(K) o’clock p.m. («^) #CM-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OE WILLOW DRIVE AND IIICillWAV 12, PCD REZONINC;, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SCBDIVISION. AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW - Continued) 3) (ireen space within the site w ill increase as follow s in the ft*lh>w ing locations:.... 4) The amncclion and oric'niation to the pond w est of the site w ill he changed to.... 5) 'Hie applicant shall enter into a development agrevinemt with the C ity to insure adequate provision *'or acce^ss, parking, landscaping, maintenance, and other reasonable site conditions, including ..... 6) All buildings and improvennents show n on the submitted plans will he e-ompleted by x-^-x (date), and if ntU. the ivmainder of the site w ill be sodded (exmdition of all aanis of the site if let) unde*\ eloped |... With regard tt» pemiitted use*s m the U*(> District. (talVron stated that these > s. and professional idVices; banks and financial insiiiutii*ns; libraries; ami motei. > i.-. in addition, retail use*s are allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development prt»ce*ss. Re/»>ning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the “Spevial Requnemeiits for Re/oning m the Highway 12 (’omdt»r Study Area" of zoning e*ode Sevtion 7S-I(K»5. and was anticipated during the approval of the Stone*bay plat. B-6 is the appri>pnate zoning for the pn>p«>sed use. Since Sevtions 7H-643 thru 7S-7V3 additionally contain a numbeT of development standards applicable to this site Gatfriin sugge'sted the C'omtmssion rev lenv the peTiiiitted. conditional, and accessory' use's allowed in B-l and B-b zoning regulations. In te*rms of use's. Irautz questiimed whether a PUD with B-l zoning would K* more appropriate to the site. While he belie*v ed 5 of the 6 unde*rl\ing conditions as revon'mended by staiTto be re*a.sonable. Trautz found the re*quiie*ment of Walgree*n's to be rcorie*nted to place the main e'ntry in the southwe*st comeT of the building a concc'm to this reiaile'r. He asked for Mime flexibility on i\is point. Johnston distributed a revised site plan, vc'rsion 17. since the work .session the past vve'ek. which showed a dexrease in impervious surface and an increase in green sp.icc to 26.5®o He pointed out that many sidewalks conne*ei to the site and buildings and agre*ed that the only issue may be the Walgrecn’s orie*ntation. .\ctmg C'hair Mabusth asked the C'ommissioneTs how e'omfortable they we're with approving the change's to the amendment w thuut having final plans in hand. She was uncomfortable proceeding w ithout final plans. PAGE 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. Fcbruar>’ 17. 2(KM 6:(K) o*cli>ck p.m. (#4) #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD RE7.0NING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND.MENT, PREUMINARV SLBDIMSION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW - Continued) GalTron stalal that, if the Commission wished to restrict the type of restaurant uses they would or would not allow, the Commission would neeil to identify aspects of what they will and will not allow. Rahn stated that, currently, any a'staurunt with a drive-thru would have to be approved via a CUP. Atiing Chair Mabusih suggested the PUD be wntten that any proptised change in restaurant use be subject to re\ ie^v by the City. Bremer proposed the colTec shop be viewed as dri\ e-lhru with incidental hnnl use. She suggested fiHHl prcp is.sue*s be the triggeT to treat use*s dilTeTemtly. Hawn questioned why the City just di>esn’t make the profK»sed cofrex* shop a dri\e-lhni with a (’UP which the City grants. Gaffron cimenirred. .staling that all re*staurant uses could be CUP. entitling the C'ity to grant the^se they find more palatable than olheTs. 1 raut/ sugge'sled the colVex* shop apply for a CL P ba.sed on the fact that the fiHHl pap is not performed on site. With agard to the orientation of the Walgrexn’s. Bre'ineT stated that she liked the orientation as pn>posed. Rohn concurred, staling that he did not w ish to ca*ale unnexded parking issue's with the ax ised onentation. As proposed, parking was short 26 space's on site and Rahn did m>t wish to sex' the situation worsen. Jiihn.stiin staled that Walgrexn’s has estimated, through their east retailing evperieiice. that they need 60 spae'cs for this si/e liKation. Although Galfn>n staled that he would nexd to run the lale*st plan past the tralTic planner for fexdback. he did not fex'l the parking situation for the Walgrex'n's retaile'r to be a proble'in. He did point out. howcee'r. that the amount of parking de'pcnds on the spex'ifie use of any particular site. He pointed out that the City di>es not liave the luxury of oee’rtlow parking at the'se site's. PAGE 7 of 19 MINUTES Of THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4) 404-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, N\V CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONTNG, COMPREHENSI\'E PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Rahn staled that he did not uish to cTcale another parking scenario us the pn>blc*tn luccxl by Ottc*n BruthcTs and the Karate studio where o\erlap of classes has w reaked ha> uc on the parking supply. Acting Chair Mahusih asked w hether the structural cover was an issue. Gaffmn stated that, although the proposal is ovct on structural chwct. the City has allowed up to I6-I8*.* structural cHiver at other sites. He asked w hether the Commission could allow this as a trade-olTifit belieses this to be a benefit to the community. Tliere were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she. Uxi. would prefer to wait to make a comp plan amendment until aRer the Commission hod met w iih the Long Lake Planning Commission. Gulfron .stated that they could invite the Commission to Orono's a*gular work .session scheduled for March 2(Ki4. Hawn staled that she fell version 17 was far belter than what had previously been propt>sed by the applicant. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn icconded, to table Application 404-2974, StoncBay .Marketplace, .NW Quadrant Hwy 12A\ illow Drive, a Proposed Commercial PUD Development, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Re/oning. Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Subdivision in order to invite the Long Lake Planning Commission to join the Orono Planning Commission for a work session with the applicant to review the proposal on March X 2004. VOTE: Avrs 5. Navi 0. NEW BUSINESS (43) 404-2971 HICKORY FINE IIO.MES, INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (7:4.3-7:54 P.M.) Steve Bohl. representing the Applicant, was present. Gatfrun explained that this is a pmposed 2-lol residential re-plat of properly liKated adjaccml to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990. the City of Oa»nt» approved the plat of Senn Oruno Addition, cieating Lot I (324U Watcitown Road). Lot 2 and Ouilot A PAGE 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERT03^’N ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - Continued) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Granting of a hardcover variance for the drivew ay creek c-rossing. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot I. Requirement of 35* vegetative buffer'casement along Kith sides of the creek. Submittal of final drivew ay design prior to issuance of building permits. Driveway width subject to approval of Fire .Marshal. Subject to all recommendations mned in the City Engineer’s letter of 1-22-04. plus any drainage pr»>visions deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommiHlate drainage from the ea.st. Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee. Subject to the area southca.st of the creek w ithin Lot I w ith slopes of IK*« or greater being dcx*mc*d as non-buildabic. Final plat approval shall not be grunted until MCWD pemiits have been approved. Acting Chair Mabusih stated that she felt it was important to point out to the applicants that this is the only access that will be allowed over the creek for a driv eway crossing. Gatfron stated that staff would draff cov enants to reflect that sentiment. Although this would be left to the City Council to decide. Acting Chair .Mabusth staled that she believed it would he unfair to ask the applicants for additional park dedication fees. Hawn concurred. ThcTe were no public comments. Bohl statc*d that the applicants were comfortable w ith the nonbuildable dc*signations. Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approv al of Application #04-2971, Hickory Fine Homes request for a lot line rearrangement and preliminary plat subject to: 1. Granting of a hardcover variance for the driven ay creek crossing. 2. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot I. 3. Requirement of 35* v egetative buffer/easeroent along both sides of the creek. 4. Submittal of final driv ew ay design prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Driveway width subject to approval of Fire Marshal. 6. Subject to all recommendations noted in the City Engineer's letter of 1-22-04, plus any drainage provisions deemed necessary by City Engineer to accommodate drainage from the east. 7. Council to determine applicability of Park Fee and Storm Water A Drainage Trunk Fee. PAGE 10 of 19 r MlNUTtS OI-THt ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. Fcbniary 17. 2004 6;00 o’clock p m. #1)4-2971 me KORY KINK HOMES, INC„ 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRAN(;EMENT - Continued) 8. Subject to the area southeait of the creek within Lot I with slopes of 18% or xrcater being deemed as non-buildable. 9. Final plat approval shall not be granted until MCWD permits have been approved. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECTITENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (7:54-8:05 P.M.) James and Jean Echtenkamp. the Applicant, was present. GafTron slalcti that the applicant requests CUP appn*\ al for filling w ithin 75’ of the lake to avoid construction of a retaining wall at the 75' setback line adjacent to the driveway. Briefly, this pnipcrty was granted hardcover variances in 2(K)2 for a a4>uild. The basis to allow the hardcover excesses was phmoniy related to the peninsula shape of the lot. Ic*aving about 1.5 acres of the 2-aca* lot in the 0-75' /»»ne; and the placement of lu»usc and driveway which allows for an unusually substantial area of lawn in the runotT flow path for infiltration. In order t«» avoid filling in the 0-75’ A>ne to acct>mm«Hlate the dii\eway. the applicant was approved for a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. Now that the house is completed and final grades established, applicant has amcems aKiut the nexessary height of the retaining wall. From stall's perspexiive. safety is the primary factor which suggests that eliminating the wall may be appropriate. 11ie wall as approved was right at the edge of the driv ew ay. w ith an immediate drop of 2.5*. then a I: I dow nslope fi*r another 3-4*. w ith gradual slope afier that. The driveway functittnally is about 6* aKive original grade at this point, and filling grading would have stoppcxl at the 75' setback line. Fhis immaliale grade change in an urea that will have peilestriun trafVic, children playing. «.*tc is less than ideal. The visual impacts of the w all w ould he pnmarily o.s it is v ic*w cd from the laginm. Grading the slope and vegetating it would prxivide a sofler and more natural view from the lagiKin than a 64' long. 2'-6" high wall. The dnveway itself will not be very visible from the lagoon regardless of whether the w all is built. Applicant has suggested that creating a slope from the drivev . ;e!ev 942') to the existing gradc(934') w ould eliminate 64'of retaining w all, or approxi ' '0-60s.f. of hardcov er, which would allow for a bettcT situation in term.'. run% ^ The trade-off is that rainfall that would have fallen on a relatively flat lawn surface &i Ific ba.se of the wall, w ill now fall on a slope and be somcnvhat more prone to run off than S4»ak in during cc*rtuin Sturm ev ents. It’s paibobly an cven trade. PAGE 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMlay. February 17.2004 6:U0 o’clock p.m. (#5) #04-29*3 JAMES AND JEAN ECIITENKAMP. 2*00 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) City code requires finish grades to be 3:1 or flatter in a situation such as this. Thcrerorc, the 8 ’ total drop translates to a 24* wide slope. The driveway is about 79* from the shoreline, so the toe of the fill area will be approximately 55’ from the shoreline, and the filled area will be about 80* in length. Total fill needed to do this is estimated by stuff at approximately 250 cubic yards of material The fill will eo\er approximately IWK) s.f.; about 2 3 of this in the 0-75' /one. Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval of a variance and CUP to allow the fill as proposed in the 0-75* zone, to allow for elimination of the prc\ iously approved retaining w’all, based on the plan increasing safety of the site, reducing the negative visual impacts of a wall at the 75' setback, and resulting in maintenance of an equivalent level of stormwater L'catment. subject to: 1. Final grade of slope to be established at 3:1; and 2. E.stablishmcnt of a 5-10* w ide unmow cd vegetated buffer (rainganlen) for infiltration at the base of the slope. Jean Echtenkamp stated that the originally proposed retaining wall wituld Imik fur more unnatural than a gradual slope. James Echtenkamp agreed, stating that the wall was. not only unsafe, but also the runoff would he handled better with a natural amenity. There w ere no public comments. Hawn suggested they incorporate a small swale or bump into the slope to sUtw runof)'. She felt this to be a better solution that the retaining wall. Mr. Echtenkamp stated that he would incorporate a small furrow at the midpoint w ith possible plantinipi subject to staff appn>\al. Fritzler urged the applicant to stay abreast of the amount of fill added to the site in order to avoid any misconceptions as to the approved amounts and the potential of having to remove fill at a later date. Bremer moved. Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2983, approval of a variance and CUP to allow the fill as proposed In the 0-75' zone, to allow for the elimination of the previously approved retaining wall, based on the plan increasing safety of the site, reducing the negative visual impacts of a wall at the 75* setback, and resulting in maintenance of an equivalent level of stormw ater treatment, subject to: 1. Final grade of slope to be established at 3:1 ; and PAGE 12 of 19 MINUTES OI THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. Fchruar>' 17. 2004 6:(K) o'cliK-k p.m. ((H5) #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECTITENKAMP, 28IM) PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - C ontinued) 2. Eslablislinicnt of a 5-10* Hide unrooHcd vcftelatcd buffer (rainxarden) for infiltration at the base of the slope. X’OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRICTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW, (folloHS item #7) (#7) #04-2985 TOM CLLLUM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, %’ARIANCE (8:05 - 8:18 P.M.) Tom Cullum. the Applicant, was present. GafTnm explained that the applicant requests varianee appnn al f\»r filling of a small portion of a City-protected wetland located mostly within applicant's properly but partially within the neighboring properly. The fill is intendcxl U> allow for the establishmcnit of woody vegetation along the western propierly bi>undar>. The 2.1s.f fill area will convert approximately l()®o of the existing wetland fnnn a shallow open water wetland to a wetland with saturated Mtils. Bevause the project will also involve excavatiitn of adjacent upland to create new wetland (requiring a CUP), the projevt is being treatcxl by the Minnehaha Caxk WatcTshcxi District as a No Loss situation, and as a wetland restttnition ba.sed on reducing the impacts of wciland excavation that occurred in the 1950’s The property contains a small wciland which was moditic'd in the I950’s (based on airphoto cv idciice) by dredging to make it dcvpcT. I he wciland since that time has gciicTally had the charactciisties t»f an open watcT pond. A lesidcmce has existexi on the property since 196.1. undergoing numerous rcmuHlels and addititwis since its original construction. As a aiiult of lc*gal vegeiation lemovals by the neighboring property owncT to the wc*st. GatVron statcxl that the applicant's view ovct the pond aaxt has changcxl. and mm he vic*ws the neighbi>ring residence rather than a wikh Icx I area. Bevause the far shore of the pond is on the neighboring properly, applicant is proposing fill in a portion of the pond just inside his propcTty Kiundary to create a ”bc*rm". which w ill allow the establishment of wihh Icx I vegetation to regain stime of the wmided character of the lot and pr»»v ide a buffcT to the neighboring property. It may 'oc somemhat ironic that the neighKir may have removexJ the v egetation to gain a view of the pond, and the current pniposal w ould tend to negate the impacts of that activ ity With passage of the WCA. the Minnc*haha Creek \S atc'rshc'd Distnci wis desigruted by the City as the responsible Lieal Govc*mmc*nt Unit (LGU) for administering the \S’CA PAGE 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TiK»day. February 17.2004 6:(K) o’ckK'k p.m. (#7) #04-2985 TOM CITXUM. 785 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE - Continued) rcgulatiuns. These regulations provide degrees of Ilexihility for certain tvpes of wetland alteration activities which an.* seen as positive rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts whc*n they are unavoidable. The WCA regulations also pnividc standards and oppHniunitics for wetland restoration, where prior human activ ity has changcil or dcgradcti a wetland and it is possible to bring it hack to nearer its original conditions. On the other hand, Gaffnin indicated that Onino's ordinances have nev lt been spccitically rev ised to accommixlate the WCA regulations; the Zoning Code still simply prohibits tilling within a wetland (requiring a variance and showing of a hardship) and requires a cxinditional use permit for land alterations in. or w ithin 26' of. a wetland. The Zoning Code provides virtually no specific standards for when a wetland alteration should be allowed, and in the Shoreland section merely suggests a list of factors to be con>idcrctl; however, the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in Section ^ “Wetlands Managcmcnt"docs establish a detailed management approach to maintaining or improving the City’s wetland resources. GalVron pointed out that the applicant initially contacted stall regarding this projext a year agi>, and has engaged a v arictv of professii*nals to design a project that w»*uld meet the WCA guidelines for a wetland restoration. No-l.oss status. The MCWD as the designated l.GU for Ortmo has approved the pri>ject with certain conditions. ITiis application was directed by staff to John Smvih. WatcT Resource Specialist w ith lionestrvHv & Associate's, the City’s cnginex*ring and e*nv ironme*ntal exinsultants. His favorable comments rellect that the* projext will result in an overall improvement to the wetland. He note's that the additional wetland to be created will mexi the WCA replacenne*nt guideline's. He also notes that this projext could in fact be consideTe*d as a restoratii>n. and he rexommends approval conditionctl on I) that the City rexeive a cop> of the execute*d bufler preservation dexlaration require'tl by the* MCWD. and 2) that the Citv be* provided w ith the re*quire*d ongoing monitoring re^ports StalTis satisfied that the basic amsideTations regarding the functions and value's of this wetland hav e he'cn taken into consideration by the varie*ty of rev iewers of this proposal, all of whi'm have rexommended or grante*d approval. Stall'rexommends approval of the variance and CUP to allow the wetland atte*ration pmjext including filling t>f a porlH»n of the we*tland and excavation within 26* of the wetland. peT the plan approvexl by the MCWD and subject to the* conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions as rexomme*nde*d by the ( ity we*tlands consultant: PAGE Hof 19 MINUTtS OFTHb ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. February 1 7. 2004 6:00 o*cIiH.'k p.m. \m) #»4-2985 TOM CCLLDM, 785 FERNDALE ROAO NORTH, VARIANCE - Continued) 1) that the City receive a copy of the executed hulTer pa’servation declaration requiaxl by the MCWD. and 2) that the City be prov ided w ith the requiretl ongoing immitoring reports. Stair w ould further recommend that the applicant be required t»» execute the st.indard Flowagc ami Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD-required bufTers. Mr. Cullum statcxl that the original pond was a spring fed pond which was dredged and excavated in the l95U's and has dric'd up to some degree since; therefore. rc*quinng him to circulate the water w ithin the basin. Rahn staled that he was satisfied that the applicant had gone to great lengths to achieve his goal. There wen: no public comments. ActioK Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2985, granting approval of the variance and CL P to allow the wetland alteration project including filling of a portion of the wetland and excavation within 26* of the wetland, per the plan aoproved by the MCWD and subject to the conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions as recommended bv the City wetlands consultant: 1 ) that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration required by the MCW D, and 2) that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Staff would further recommend that the applicant he required to execute the standard Row age and Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD- required buffers. \’OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) 804-29IM MCCARTHY CONSTRICTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, CO.M.MERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW, (8:18-8:40 P.M.) Bob Rillcr. ApplicaniN repa*scnlalivc. was pascnl. Gundlach stated that the applicant a*quests a commercial site plan review- in order to obtain a building permit to construct a 36.(NH) square foot medical otVicc building. In November of 2(X)2, Professional Properties of Orono. Inc. received approv.vl for the dental olTice building that exists just to the west of the applicant’s property. During this time the applicant's prv>pcily was platted and given an address with the expectation that the site PAGE 1 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMiay. February 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6) #04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRI CTION ON BEHALF OF BERSHIRE PROPERTIES. 2745 KELLY PARKWAY. C OMMERC I \L SITE PLAN RE\ lEW - Continued) would develop as Phase II. The applicant's current pn»pt>sal is in accordance with th»»se expectation.s aiKl is proposed as a medical olTicx* building to be krnmn as Onmi> Professional Medical Building II. Gundlach explained that the properly i> surroundal on the east and west sidc> by properties zoned B-f>. The properly has frontage on Kelley Parkuay to the nt»rih (zoncxl Rc'sidcntial). and Wayzata l^iulevard to the s«iuth (zoned Industrial). I1ie setbacks f»»r parking shall be 20' at the fronts and 5* for interior side yards. The proposal meets the 20' setback to Kelley Parkway and the 5* setback at the interior easIcTly yard. I hcTe is a shared parking arrangcmienl with the dcrnlal building to the uc*sl. so the construction of the parking lot will appear contiguous of the parking lot to the wc*si and a 5' parking setback would m>l be aiiuircd. The site plan d.»es not meet the 20' required parking setback al»»ng Highway 12. nie applicant must revise the site plan to sh»*w a 20 ’ setback to Highway 12 prior to City Council rev ievv Number of Parking Stalls, Rc*quired = I per2(K)s.f. oflliHiraa'a (Nti 36.0(X) s.f. - 10*. = 32.400 s.f. 0(H) 162 stalls required) Total stalls required = 162 Total stalls pn»posetl - 157(5 are priHifof parking) To meet the 20' requianl yard at Highway 12. mentioned above, the parking w ill be a*ducx*d by 3 stalls. The applicant has stated that 3 pn»of of parking ean he incorporated into the rev ised plan. SlalT finds that an additional 3 priMif of parking stalls is acceptable to achiev e the 20' rc'quirc'd parking yard 5 priHtf of parking stalls are proposed in total and 157 stalls will be constructed. Stafl'fmds the 5 proof of parking stalls is acceptable and the>e parking stalls would tmly be a»nstructed if ncxcssary i»» incxi parking demands. Gundlach noted that the applicant submitted a Grading. Drainage. Erosion Control and Utility Plan for review by the City Hngincx*r. along with a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations. All storm watc*r w ill be diax'ted. via pipe, to the storm watc*r reiemtion pond to the east, llie City EngmexT has re\iewc*d all plans os they a*late the storm watcT and finds thc*m to be acceptable. While the applicants have submitted a landscape plan, the plan propoNCs 5 maple's. 4 ashc*s. 8 spruce's, and 8 crabapple trex's to be distribute'd around the pe'rime'teT of the site (25 (rex's total). Goldtiamc Spia'a. a landscape shrub, is pmpose'd along the building and within the landscape islands. Sex'tion 78-797 (8) lays out spex'iftc landscaping re'quireme'nts for properties liK'atc'd with (he B-6 zoning distrie't. llie follow ing is a list of rcquireme*n(H which need to be inexirporated into a levisc'd landscape plan prior to City Council approval: PAGE 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TucMiay. Fcbmar> 17. 20(M 6:(K) o’cIiKk p.m. (#6) (»04-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRLCTION ON BEHALF OF Bi^SHIRK PROPERTIES, 2745 KELLY PARKWAY, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) • An underground imgulion syslans shall be installed and maintained. • Titc trash rcceptaele shall be seaxmed. • 11 Uecs ft at least 2 '/it inches in caliper shall he ineoiporated into the landscape islands. • A landscaping estimate shall he submitted ii> the City in on amount equal to the percentage requirement oullinctl in Section 78-797. and • A landscape perfonnance security shall be required. pri<»r to Council approval, at an amount c*qual to I '/: time's the value of the landscaping. Gundlach statc'd that stalTn.xommc'nds appnn al of the c*ommcTeial site plan a’vicvv subjext to the following stipulations: 1. A rev ised parking plan shall be submitted show ing a 2(t* parking sciback from Highway 12 and the a’vised parking stall arrangement required ii» achieve this, prior to City Council av ievv. 2. Submittal of the shared parking and access arrangc*ment documents prior to (*ity Council review. 3. A rev isc'd landscape plan sliall be submittc'd pnor to City Counc;i rev ic'w vv hich incorpv>raies the follmving; a. An underground irrigation systems shall be installed and mainlained, b. The trash rcxc'ptacle shall be screeneil. c. 11 trees of at least 2 ': inchc*s in caliper shall be incorporatc'd into the laiklseapc islands. d. A landscaping estimate shall be submitted to the C'lty m an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Sevtion 78-797. and c. A landscape pcTformance sevunty shall be rc'quired. prior to Citunci) approval, at an amount equal to I '; times the value of the landscaping. Ritter questioned why this property requirc*s a 2tF separation from the parking lot to Highway 12; whereas, their adjoining property was recently approved at 15*. GatVron indicated that 15* was adequate and the 20* requirement wnuld be eliminate'd fn>m the application. Rahn askc'd if the architectural features on the nH>f could exceed the 30* height requirement. PAGE 17 of 19 MINI riis OF Tin: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Ml F.TING Tuesday. February 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («6) KW-2984 MCCARTHY CONSTRl CTION ON BKIIALT OF BKRSIIIRF PROPKRTIKS. 2745 KKI.LV PARKWAY. COMMFRt'lAl. SITK PLAN RKYIKW - Continued) GulVron slated that the t'euiures were allowed and added to the aesthetics ot the building. He pointed out that it would be hard to ha\e a pitched riMdline and me*ei the 30' height require*mcnt. Acting Chair Mabuslh asked what M*r« ol ofTiee’s w«iuld house m this building. Rittet staled that it seems the dennand will be med***al. and pefhaps include a 24 hour urgent care cenleT. as well us. gemcTuI olVice. Gatlron stated that the Fire .Marshall would review the plans. Fril/leT asked if the building materials would be similar to the Phase I building. Rittef .staled that they pn>pt>sed red bnck and stone hH»k libe*rboard. Hawn moved. Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application A04-29K4 a Commercial Site Plan review on behalf of Berkshire Properties, subject to submittal of the shared parking and access errangcmcnl documents and revised landscape plan submitted prior to City C'ouncil rev.‘?w which Incorpor if(*s the following: a. An underground irrigation svstems shall be installed and maintained, b. I he trash receptacle shall be screened. c. 11 trees of at least 2 'A inches in caliper shall be incorporated into the landsrape islanus. d. A landscaping estimate shall be submitted to the City in an amount equal to the percentage requirement outlined in Section 7K-797, and e. A landscape performance security shall be required, prior to C ouncil approval, at an amount equal to 1 'A times the value of the landscaping. \ () I F: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMKNTS (#8) RKPORI OF PLANNING CO.M.MISSION RKPRKSKNT AHA fcS ArrFNDINC; C Ol sc ll. meetings of jam ARA 26,2UU4 A ND FEBRl ARY 9. 2(NM (ijtVron stated that, on February 9. 2<HM. the Swii/ applicatiim was nbleil i»»r further hardcover reductions 1 he Pierpont application was ulst» tabled and the Dayton application was approved as recommended by the Planning Commis.Nion PAGE ISof|9 r. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23.2004 7;00 o’clock p.m. (2. USDA KOBUCK COVSTYCOMMISSIOSER- PRESESTATIOS, Continued) pay lanes. She asked the Council to jnstder a friend on the Board and encouraged them to call her with their initiatives and resolutions. White thanked Koblick for maintaining the current number of water patrol deputies committed to protecting Lake Minnetonka and its users He stated that this was a criiic.il concetti fur the Cit> of Orono. Koblick. in turn, thanked the Council for the Resolution w hich nude it possible to present the need to the Board White commented that the City is expecting great things fur tha Pakota Kail Trail and felt the appointment of Larry Blacksledt as ^air of the Three Rivers Park District to be a judicious choice. He stated that they would be proposing a Resolution to move the Dakota Trail forward in the near future. As a large employer. Koblick commented that Hennepin County employs over 12.500 individuals Sansevere asked Koblick if she was in support of increasing the tax levy to construct a new Vikings or Tw ins stadium in Minneapolis. Koblick was hesitant to comment on the issi however, stated that she believed in the public prvKCss and w ould expect public hearings to be held on the nutter. She indicated that if the Slate seemed more w tiling to commit money to the initiative, she could sec more agencies expressing a willingness to partner. The County Board did. however, pass a Resolution stating that ii would participate with the government requests. Sansevere asked how much she felt the County should put into it. noting that Minneapolis would be getting the most from a stadium downtown and commented that the proposed S7 million price tag to be absurd. Koblick agreed, stating that the Minneapolis iiKtro area would benefit most. She stated that she was concerned by a public entity piivatcly owned, and questioned why the Pohlads would not be required to provide greater support. Koblick stated that she did no( vote to support the stadium resolution on the agenda, since it takes funding and attention away from impoitant nutters like helping the needy, the disabled, and the elderly trying to care of their aging grown special needs children Sansevere asked what the timeline for the hot links traffic solutions would be. Koblick Slated that the feasibility studies were being performed and the intent is to institute the program by December Sansevere ^sked where she stood on the advent of gaming in Hennepin County as a funding option PAGE 3 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23. 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m (2 USDA KOBUCK, COVSTY COMMISSIOSER - PRESESTA TIOS, Continuedt Kobiick slated that, while Hennepin is the largest County, it is also the most in need, which may warrant consideration of funding alternatives She indicated that they are investigating this as an option, while not imposing on Native American rights Murphy thanked Kobiick for supporting the hot links project, noting that the east coast had initiated this program long ago. On the other hand, he discouraged her from suppi^ning ownership of the program by the contractors, since this selling off of infrastructure can be detrimental to the public. In addition. Murphy asked Kobiick where she Mood on tlK conceal and carry legislation Kobiick stated that she had voted against the legislation as related to the County. Murphy questioned why local police departments cannot access who has conceal and carry permits. Police Chief Good staled that permitting most often occurs at the Sheriffs level, however, the intent to set up a statewide database for this information has not come to fruition to dale. Kobiick recogni2cd that there are many problems w ith the conceal and cairy legislation .She stated that she was adamantly opposed to it. especially since it imposed additional cost constraints upon the County. Once again, an unfunded mandate that local governments cannot control and contains many holes Kobiick stated that she would look into database access for liKal authorities Moorse thanked Kobiick for her support in retaining the Ridgedale coun facility. Kobiick stated that they were able to get additional funding to keep the Ridgedale facility open Once again, she stated that !L\>r**utions from local communities I.* ip to retain that service and other* Kobiick notified the Council that residents wiHjId be feeling 2004 budget cuts far more than those taken in 2(X)3 as additional dollars need to be iritnmed from the budget. APPRO\ Al. or • lIM IlJi •s. Regular Council .Meeting of February 9.2004 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of January 26, 2004, af presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andress McDermott Cltatr McDermott reported that the Way/ata Heritage Preservation Society would be holding a seminar the nest weekend for communities interested in pieservalien. He indicated that he would try to attend and invited Council members to meet him McDcrriH>tt stated that the Commission was striving to rank park pnoniies and improvements using a contrived mairis with assigned values to help the Ciiv ^ouncil to plan for future improvements. He added that the Commission was contemplating holding an abbreviated spring park lour followed by a work session. PAGE 4 of 14 ____'.^1 MLNUTESOFTHE ORONO CITY COLTv'ClL MEETING Monday. February 23. 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PUBUC CO\f.MESTS, Continued) Kellogg stated that they had developed a suney plan for a more permanent solution if and when the funding became available, however, had not put together a short term plan. Mayor Peterson suggested Public Works provide the Nusbaums with a stronger more efncienl pump to move water from the garage. Sansevere suggested some sandbags be used to divcit water from the garage and still maintain access. ZO.MNG ADMINISTRATOR S REPORT 6. #04-2976 JAMFiv AND JUDITH PEIRPONT. 1801 WEST FARM ROAD - Cl P As the applicants were absent this evening, the application was tabled. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to table Application #04-2976 in the absence of the applicants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •7. #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENCAMP, 2800 PIIE.VSANT ROAD - CUP -RESOLUTION NO. 5117 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RFiJOLUTION NO. 5117 Kranting a variance and conditional use permit for land alterations within 75* of the shoreline for James and Jean Echtencamp at 2800 Pheasant Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #04-2985 TOM CULI.UM, 785 FERNDALE ROAD N. - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5118 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5118 granting a variance and conditional use permit for land alterations within 26* of a City- protected wetland for Tom and Michelle Cullum at 785 Ferndule Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #04-2981 JEFF MARTINEAU, 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5119 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO 5119 granting a hardcover variance in order to replace a grade level deck with a smaller stone patio for the residence located at 2563 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 0. PAGE 9 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG Monday. February 23. 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 10. #03-2«3 STEVAN WAG.NER. 3W9 SIIORELI.NE DR1\ E - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Curtis explained that the applicant was requesting a commercial site plan review in order to construct a 1.770 s.f. addition to an existing building. The application would consist of the following: 1. Comt.iercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2.310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4.080 s.f. building. 2. Sign setback vanance in order to allow the existir g sign to he refaced and remain at its current substand-’rd setback. The sign is setback 8’ from the front property line where 10’ is required. The signage will extend an additional 4’ into the setback area for a sign setback of 4’ where 10’ is required. 3. Hardcover vanance in order to construct a 1.770 s.f. addition to the existing building. The expansion will be constructed over existing hardcoser. Having met with the Planning Commission dunng its November work session. Curtis slated that the applicant has since received approvals from the Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct. On January 20. 2004. the Planning Commission voted 6 0 to recommend approval of the application bused on staff recommendations and that it be put into record that the extenor storage and use of the site has reached its maximum capacity and ihc exterior sior.ige and use should not be allowed to expand in the future. Curtis indicated that staff would recommend approval and await direction to draft a Resolution for adoption ul the March 8'^ Council meeting subject to the conditions that: 1. The applicant implement the City Engineer’s recommendations. 2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls. 3. Compliance with City Code 58-I(a) Maintenance of Private Property pnor to issuance of Ceiuncute of Ckcupancy .Mr. Wagner stated that he has worked diligently with staff to meet all recommendations and improve his sue and building. Engineer Kellogg slated that it looks as if the City has received what it needs. White complimented the applicant for his efforts, proposed improv ements. and good operator practices. Sanseverc moved. White .seconded, to direct stuff to draft a Resolution for adoption ut the March 8** City Council Meeting. N OTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 10 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23,2004 7:00 o'clock p m. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT McMillan reported that she and Murphv had attended the initial turnback meeting regarding Highway 12 to set the stage for starting this process. She indicated that they will meet again next week to discuss 3 plans - the Long Lake Master Plan, the Oruno Comp Plan, and the Hennepin County Plan for the turnback. Murphy added that, the mote discussion that took place, the more issues that arose for further dialogue. He assured the Council that he and McMillan would continue to inform them of developments and expand the size of the meetings as ne ‘d warrants. McMillan stated that she had attended the Minnesota League of Cities Conference for Newly Elected Officials the past week and found it to be a helpful training sesMon. Sansevere suggested the City Council review the practicality of the urban, rural, and lake definitions as set forth by the ordinance regarding Planning Commission membership. While he commended the new ly appointed Navarre fire fighters, he commented that, at some point, acknowledgement should be given to Gabriel Jabbour for his dedication and contnbution to the construction of the Fire Station Murphy stated that he had attended the public meeting with Gen Olson and Steve Smith held last week and was surprised by the standing room only crowd assembled to discuss public funding of education. He was impressed by the school related support expressed by Orono citizens during the meeting. McMillan commented that, because the Stale and Federal branches of goveimi.cnt have taken away so much control from kval municipalities and schixil boards, the access to local government and financing is cntical. She pointed out that the need to regain local control and rights was one topic discussed at the Mn. League of Cities meeting she had attended. Murphy pointed out that it was apparent to him that the Metro a*ca schools arc faced with one set of problems, the rural another, which squeezes suburbs, such as Orono. in the middle. The suburbs, which laisc the most amount of money, are not getting their fair share back. On the other hand. Murphy questioned the relevance of Gen Olson'.s comment that every dollar citizens raise locally, they keep, versus having to share that via redistribution. While he acknowledged that budget pioblcms exist every whcic. White questioned the never ending succession of unfu(- ‘ .nanviaies passed on to local municipalities In addition, he commented that he. too. attended the LMCD dinner with McMillan and found It to be an enjoyable event PAGE 11 of 14 MINUTES OF Tlih OrONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23. 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. {MAYOR/CITYCOVsen REPORT, Continued) With regard to the turnback on Highway 12. While encouraged the Council to identify the current features, via an inventory, that would be worth preserving once the outcome of the project IS complete. He suggested holding 1-2 community vision town rneciing.s for the comdor. Murphy concurred, staling that the City needs to inventory where they arc and where they wish to be at the completion of the project. He suggested that a public process would be appropriate Gaffron staled that the bowling alley application in Navarre was put on hold at the lequcst of Mr. Keaveny until the status of the liquor license can be resolved Moorse stated that a public heanng was scheduled for March 22*^ 2004. to discuss the liquor license. Murphy asked if stuff had icccivcd any lesponsc from Mr. Thomp.son. Gappa stated that there hud not been a response yet. however, he was expected in town the end of .March. Mayor Peterson rccogni/cd the Orono I'mancc Departnwnt. under the leadership of .Mr. Kuehn. for their Cenificaie of .Achievement ftvr l-\cellence in Financial Reponing. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR S REI»ORT • 11. SClIKDLLED ASSF2vS.MK.\T HE.ARI.Mi - WEST F.VR.M SKWtR PROJECT - RESOLITION NO. 5120 and 5121 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5120 declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed as.scssment for the West Farm Sanitary .Sewer Project \ OTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 0. .Murphy moved. Mc.Millun seconded, to approve RESOLU'I lO.N .NO. 5121 for hearing on pro|>osed assessment for llie West Farm Sanitary Sewer Project \'OTE: •Ayes 5. Nays 0. CITY AD.MIMSTRATOR’S REPORT M2. CHANGE ORDER #7 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Murphy moved. McMillan secondi^d. lo approve Change 0»-der til to the l ong Lake Fire Station construction contract, in the amount of S23.110.00 \ OTE: Aves 5, Nuvs 0. P.AGE 12 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. February 23.2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. •13. FUNDING OF ASSESSMENT FOR LOGIS POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to rescind the 2003 budget adjustment in the PIR Fund related to the LOGIS Police Records System assessment, and to adjust the 2004 PIR Fund budget to reflect the initial payment to LOGIS in the amount of $48300. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 •14. SUPPORT OF CDBG GRANT APPLICATION BY THE WEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TRUST (WHAHLT) Murphy moved, .McMillan seconded, to reflect Orono ’s support For the WHAHLT CDBG grant application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • 15. SUPPORT OF CDBG FU'NDING REQUEST BY WeCAN Murphy moved, .Mc.Millan seconded, to reflect Orono ’s support for the WeCan request for CDBG funding. VOTE: Ayes S, .Nays 0. •16. DECLARATION OF REIMBURSEMENT INTENT FOR POLICE VEHICLE COSTS AND PLTBLIC WORKS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTS - RESOLUTION NO. 5122 Murphy moved. Mc.Millan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5122. a Resolution Declaring Intent to Reimburse Police \'ehicle Costs and Public \\ urks Capital Equipment with Equipment Certificate Proceeds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett hod nothing new to report. •17. LICENSES TE.MPORARY ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE 1. Orono Rotary Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 .North Shore Drive SPECIAL EVENT 2. Applicant; Peter Erpcnboch Event: Fred Kurz Memorial 10 Mile Run Location: Luce Line Trail Marling at the W'avzala .Middle School - approximately 4 S miles out and back Date: Saturday. April 10. 2004 Time: 8:30a m - 11:30a m Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve all licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5. .Nays 0. PAGE 13 of 14 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 ROLL Th»- rtHjnciI met on the above mentioned date with the following members present Major Barbara Peterson. Council Members Bob Sanseverc. Jim Murphj. Jim \M>ite. and I.ili Mc.Millan Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, l*larner Melanie Curtis. Planner Janice Gundlach. City Attorney Tom Barrett. City Engineer Tom Kellogg. Public Services Director Greg Gappa. and Recorder Alivsa Wintemheimer Planning Diieetor Mike Gaffron was absent. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appro\i7Amend Items II. 12. 14. and 15 were added to the Consent Agenda Item 10 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, and While seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0. PRESENTATION 2. Safe and Sober Program Giant Chief Stephanie Good introduced Bob O’Unen. the Safe and Sober Liaison for the Stale Department of Public Safely. Mr. O'Bncn put together a fact sheet, which he passed out to Council that .showed car accidents in Orono in 2002 cost almost S4 million. Car accidents arc the number one rca.son cause of teenage deaths He stated that Orono has an excellent police department and their efforts in the community have made an impact on Orono's safety statistics. Safe and Sober believes m engineering, education and enforcement. He repealed that Orono's police department docs an excellent job of education and enforcement in the community. He presented OffTccf Famiok wiih a * pvirtablc breath tester, a $400 item. Chief Good thanked Mr. O Br.cn for hts work with the police foicc and for helping them with giant applications She asked Officer Eamiok to name the other officers involved in the pmgram Officer Famiok named Chns Fisher. Jeff Johnson. Bruce Anderson. David .McNichol Mayor Peterson thanked Chief Good for the work the police force dues for the community. She stated Council is proud of the dcpar.ment. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. FEBRUARY 9.20W APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of Januars- 26, 2004 Murphy nMved, and White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Reguiar ('ouncii Meeting of January 26.2004. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—RICK RICE. REPRESENTATIVE See comments fuliuwing Item 4 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—JEANNE MABl STII, REPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #03*2958 Judson Dayton, 2885 Little Orchard Way—Variances—Re.solution No. 5110.' Gundlach stated that the onginal request was for renewal of a \anance that allowed a bam to remain on the propeny absent a principal structuTe With the'ongfiTalTaiTanceThtn'jrh'’ was to be te-IiKated to the tear of the lot However, the barn was never moved, and the applicant applied for a renewal vanance to again re-locate it. which was denied by the Planning Commission. They felt the circumstances under which the onginal vanance was approved were no longer valid. Onginally. the vanance was approved under the condition that a pnncipal structure would be built. The applicant indicated he would not be building on the lot. Instead, the Planning vTommission approved two new vanances to allow the bam to remain, contingent upon the applicant combining his two lots at 2885 Little Orchard Wav and 825 Old Crystal Bay Road S. by July 31. 2004 Tliat way the bam would have a pnncipal structure to be accessory to. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9.2004 The vananccs allow for one o\crsizcd accessory building (any structure over 1,000 s.f.) beyond what the ordinance allow s and for the total square footages of all accessory structures to exceed what the ordinance allows. This was allowed because the ordinance doesn't specifically address totals for accessory structures on properties of over 9-acrcs. Mr. Dayton’s main parcel is over 2 1 -acres. If the table were extended out. accessory total limits would allow the bum. The resolution grants approval of two vanances stipulating that the properties be combined and the bam moved to the location shown on the plans, and that this work is completed by July 31.2(X)4. Should the applicant choose to not relocate the bam. or combine the lots the bam would need to be removed in its entirety by July 31. 2004. Mr. Dayton stated that the process has been more complicated than they had thought it would be. They are comfortable with the request to combine the lots, and intend to move and renovate the bam. Steve Hoyt of 2865 Little Orchard Way staled that the original variance was granted to the developer of 7 lots. He sold the lot to someone else, who then sold it to the Davlons. The bam has sat there for l(X) years without anything being done to it. The variance has expired. The only hardship is the neighbors who have to look at it. None of the neighbors support the maintenance of this nonconforming bam. The covenants that govern the properties do not support it either. The development covenants stated that no lot shall be used except for residential purposes, and no storage is allowed w hich is untidy or obnoxious to the eye. Also the covenants stated that no bom shall be used as a residence. Mr. Hoyt stated that if the covenants and ordinance are to be respected, the bam should be removed. Sansevere stated that the City did address Mr. Hoy t’s concerns in the resolution particularly regarding the extenor appearance of the bam He stated that the bam was present when the neighbtsrs built their homes. Mr. Hoyt stated that the properties were marketed with the understanding that the bam would be converted into part of a large home. Murphy slated that if the lots aic combined, then the bam will confonn wnh the ordinance. Sansevere asked what Da>ton's plans are for the bam. Mr. Davton replied that he intends to move it away from the lot line and repair it. It could be used for storage of vehicles, or os an office space. In the subdivision of the neighborhood, the Ancorp people placed a lot line so close to the bam that they had to tear off parts of the bam. creating some of the disrepair Mr. Hoyt complained about ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Sanscvcre asked if he had made a decision about combining the lots. Mr. Da>lon staled they had been ssailing to hear from the City, and realizes that if they decide not to move the bom or combine the parcels, they will have to remove it. Sanscvcre stated that he appreciates the bam as a piece of Orono’s past, and feels it docs not detract from the ncighborhood Mr. Hoyt stated that the bam is a fire and safety hazard. Murphy asked if he objected more to the location or condition of the bam .Mr. Hoyt stated he objects to both. Mr. Dayton stated that he has never had complaints about the bam before. Thnr proposal would take care of these complaints, mo* mg and renovating the bam. Mr. Hoyt stated he had lived in his home for 3 years and was one of the first to move into the neighborhood. They were told the bam would be incorporated into an 8.000 s f. home at the time they purchased their lot. Sanscvcre asked about requirements the City could place on the barn’s renovation Barrett stated that Council could acquire as a part of the variance that after it is moved. ,t be brought into a suitable, or leasonable. condition. Moorse stated it was up to Count il how to define a reasonable condition. Mr. Dayton stated that he would move the bam away from the ncighbonng properties, turn It and land.scapc around it. Mabusth slated that Mr. Dayton would be required to get a building pennit to re Uvale the bam. That process would allow some involvement of the City. He stated the Daylon*s accessory structures are well kept. She noted that the Planning Commission had wanted a deadline of July 31, not July 21** as it appears in the Resolution. Mr. Hoyt stated that if Council allows the bam to remain, he would like a lime limit placed upon it Barrett .‘aied that the structure would never be allowed to be used as a residence. He stated iha when the building is moved, it will need to be made structurally sound at that time. Mabusth stated that the Planning Commiss.on wants the loti combined and the bam moved by July 31. 2004. or the bam will have to be destroyed by that date Once the building permit is issued, it is valid for one year ___ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9.2004 Murphy asked Dayton if he moves the bam. would he immediately work to make it prescniable. Barrett suggested changing the language in item 3 on page 3 of 5 to include. **appllcuni shall move and renovate the barn pursuant to building code." In item 5. he suggested that "if the conditions of the resolution are not complied w ith.. the applicant w ill remove the bam in its entirety by July 31,2004." Moorse stated that the building code does not deal w ith aesthetics. He suggested including something in the motion that deals with the estenor appearance. Barrett suggested adding to item 3 that the extenor "shall he brought up to a reasonable standard of appearance.” Mr. Dayton asked for clanfication on the deadline. Ma>or Peterson stated that he would need to combine the lots and move the bam by July 31. 2004. Once the building permit is issued he would have 1 >ear to complete the renovations—until July 31. 2005. Samevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5110 granting variances to Orono Municipai Zoning Code Section 78-1434(1) & (2) to allow the existing bam, currently located at 2885 Little Orchard Way, to remain in its current size of 1,252 s.f. subject to it being moved and renovated as described in the resolution with the language changes to Items 3 & 5 of thw conclusions. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION—RICK RICE, REPRESENTATIVE Sansevcrc stated that it was nice that Mr. Pasck pointed out that Orono has one of the lowest tax rates in the county of 1.057^. He noted that the memo suggested they raise Orono taxes in order to fund park services. He polled the residents at the meeting by asking who would like their taxes raised, then noted that nobtvdy raised their hand in favor of a lax increase. Rice stated that the Park Commission had discussed the status of the Lunon property, Miwrsc Slated they had now settled with MrvDOl. .Murphy asked if the Commission discussed the memo Council received that proposed they ' petition ihc State of Minnesota to allow Orono to increase its real estate lax rate and levy ceiling." Rice replied they did not know if that would even be possible, and that the proposal was not unanimously agreed upon. ORONO CITY COtNCTL MEETING MONDAY. FEBRUARY 9,2004 Sanseverc staled that the Park Commission should petition Council \%ilh such ideas before proceeding \Mth them. McMillan asked about the Saga Hill land transfer. Moorsc replied that the DNR is totally on board. They need to uritc a revised agreement that desenbes hou the exchange will occur. The closing should be scheduled within a few weeks. The pnee differential had been worked out. Murphy asked if the memo about taxes was representing the opinion of all members of the Park Commission, or one perstin. Rice replied it was not the position of all of the Commission members Rice stated that he regretted missing the November joint work session. White stated that Rice brought a good perspective to the Commission and the last meeting he'd attended had been the most productive he ’d .seen in a long time. White slated that only 2^^ of Orono’s property is industrial/commercial, so any lax increases hurt the homeowners. A lot of jKopIc can't afford the incieascs Raising taxes is not a cieativc solution Sansevere staled that even if the taxes were raised, the pnonty level of parks would nut change. Safety issues related to the parks are a high pnonty. but other improvements tome after general safety issues. Rice asked if there could be a line item donation to fund parks on the taxes. Barrett stated this could not be done. Mayor Peterson slated that the Commission has tned some fund raisers in the past that have not proved very fruitful. She felt the Commission should fivus on the trail from the Dakota line to Navarre Park. Sansevere slated that Council made it clear months ago that they will not have an ice nnk near the fire department, and the Commission needs to move on. Rice asked if they were wrong to advocate for funds as they did in the memo Sansevere and Mayor Peterson staled it was not their role to pursue funding through laves. White stated that there is a grant that expires in October for S200.000 that noKnly is apply ing for. If they have a clean-up project, they should apply for the funds. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. FEBRUARY 9.2004 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT—CONTINUED 5. #03*2962 Robert & Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road—V'ariances— Oundlach stated that the applicant redesigned the home m an effort to meet zoning ordinance requirements. The new plans met the footpnnt requirement, and are at the maximum of 1S9f. The applicant requested a vanance for lot area to rebuild on a lot of 0.47 acres in a O.SO acre zone, and a vanance for hardcover to allow in the 7S-250' zone when currently exists and 25*^ is normally allowed. The applicants would be removing 2.050 s.f. hardcover from the 0-75’ zone Hardships regarding the hardcover vanance consist of the shallowness of the lot and the need for a backup apron. Gundlach stated that the hardships are legitimate, but the .18.6% hardcover was an inflated number because the applicant muxed out their structural coverage at 15%. Staff recommended approval of the lot size vanance and a hardcover v anance. but encouraged Council to consider if hardcover of .^8 6% was extreme. Mr. Switz stated that they aggressively worked on the plans for their house to bnng them into conformance. He felt everyone’s best interest would be served by approving the application. Sansevere slated that in his memo, Gaffron recommended not allow mg over .13.6% hardcover In the 75-250’ zone. Gundlach stated that the real issue was if the applicant should be allowed to max out structural coverage at 15% thus creating the need for a greater hardcover vanance. Mabusth stated that this is the hardest type of application you get because the lot is currently completely covered In structure. They’re at 22% in the 0-75’ zone, and the applicant would get rid of all that. Because of the lot shape, the applicant doesn't get the full benefit they might on a normal lot—the hardships should bnng them to about 33-34% hardcover. Mr. Switz staled the lot is over 60% hardcover now , and they’d make significant improvements. Mc.Millan stated she was tom because the existing house covers the entire lot and is so far out of conformity. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9.2004 Moorsc staled m the mid 90’s they were happy to grant applications lhat brought aft improvement. The cuiTcnt philosophy is to only gi\c vananccs on valid hirdships. Staff couldn't find a hardship for coverage over 349^ based on the irregular lot Unless the property is unique, they would set a precedent by allowing the 38.6^ hardcover. Gundlach state d that the dilfcrence between the 33.6'r and 38 b'T is 8UU s.f. Mr. Swit/ stated that if their application is denied, they risk the lot slaying exactly as it is for any number ol years. White asked if they could install porous paving material in the driveway Mr. Switz slated he was willing. Sansevere stated the matenal is too new to be tested fur longevity, and allowing lhat as a hardcover reduction would set a precedent. Murphy moved, and White seconded, to approve the application. Moorsc stated that if Council approved the application, they should make the situation us unique as possible to avoid precedent setting, and note the amount of hardcover removed from the lot. Mayor Peterson stated she would vote against the application because she felt they had to require valid hardships for vananccs. She slated she did apprccuiie the improvements proposed. McMillan stated that she agreed with the .Mayor and would vote uguinst the upplication. Sansevere stated that if Council voted. Mr. Swiiz may not get approval. He asked if there were any more hardcover reductions they could make Mr. Swii/ replied there were not. and they would choose to not buy the property. Moorse stated that the Planning Commission really wanted to make the application work, but there is no other hardship in the application. If there were, the Planning Commission would have found it. Sansevere asked Mr. Swiu if he would like the application tabled He stated he would only allow him to discuss it with his wife. Barrett recomriKnded Council deny the resolution unless the applicant signs an extension by February IS*". ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Murphy u^ithdrcw his motion. >^liite moved, and Murphy seconded to deny the request for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Scions 78-350(B), 78-282, and 78-1288 to altoH construction of a new residence, unless the applicant signs an extension of (lie deadline to table the applicatitm before February 18. 2004. Vole; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mr. Snvuz stated that he wished staff had been ir.orc forthright at the Planning Commission so that the application had not needed to go that far. *6. #03-2965 Scott Sennes of Sennes Design Build on behalf of Franz & Kerslen Jevne, 819 Brown Road North—Variances—Resolution No. 5111 Murphy moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5111 granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow a new residence to be constructed on a lot vtith substandard area and v%idth, and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B io allow a side yard setback of 24* where 30* is required. Vole: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #04-2967 Sharon Rae Cuimond, 2900 Watertown Road—Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 5112 Curtis slated that the applicant w as requesting a CUP to construct a 1 .500 s.f. accessory structure on a through lot. The applicant also requested a variance to exceed the ma.ximum size allowed for a single accessory* structure by 300 s.f. for the proposed pole bam. A previously existing bam of approximately 2.600 s.f. and 25* high was destroyed by arson. The applicant would use much of the existing foundation of the previous ham. hut would adjust the bam location to meet a 50’ rear yard setback. Staff found a haidship as the dcsiruciiun of the existing bum was neither the applicant’s intent nor an act of God. Mayor Petersor stated that she kept the application off the Consent Agenda because, while the destruction of the old bam provided unusual circumstances, she fell strongly about rebuilding to meet City requirements. Murphy asked if they could rebuild exactly as the bam was before. Curtis stated that she could not because over 75^ of the bam hud been destroyed. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. FEBRUARY 9. 2004 M$. Guimond slated that they wanted to recreate the old bam with the cement foundation that was there. She had people come out to look at the bam area and all said that she would have to go to a certain size to have the bam be gabled and to recreate the look of the lost bam She stated that they know who set the fire, but are having difficultv proving It. WTiile moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5112 granting a Variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section '^8-1434 Subdivision 2 and a conditional u.se permit for the construction of a 1,500 s.f. detached accessory structurc/barn on a through lot. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Mayor Peterson). *8. 04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road North—Preliminary Plat—Resolution No. 5113 Murphy moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5113 granting preliminary approval of a Class II Subdivision for property locatetl at 440 Stulihs Bay Road North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ♦9. #04-2972 Bob Knuth & Mary Thompson, 2700 White Oak Circle—Variances_ Resolution No. 5114. Murphy moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5114 granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow construction of a covered porch 45* from the front property line and 35’ from the side street property line where 50 ’ setbacks are required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #04-2976 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road—Conditional Use Permit Mr. Pierpont stated that he requested the item be removed from Consent because of the condition that the kitchen be removed. He passed around pictures to show the kitchen in their guest house. It consisted of a mini-fridge. cooktop, and small washbasin-stvie sink. He Slated there is no disposal, microwave, or other appliances typically found in a kitchen. He stated the kitchen was solely for the convenience of their guests, should they want to boil water or keep milk handy for babies. Sansevere asked why the kitchen should be removed when the fixtures in question were smaller than standard size ORONO CITY COUNCIL MELTING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Gundlach slated that the technicality was over conformity because the code does not allow for kitchens in accessory buildings. Mabusth stated that she felt the kitchen should not be removed based on its small scale, however, if the applicant combined the lots, thev would Ih: in compliance and the kitchen would not be an issue Mr. Picrponi stated that they moved the lot line because of a septic issue. They wanted to have two separate salable lots, one of 2 acres and one of 4 acres, lie stated the problem unses with the wetland debate. He maintained that there is no mote than '/j-acrc of wetland on the lot. As a result, they have approximately 3.5 acres of dry buildabic, instead of 4. which results in the requirement that they remove the kitchen. He stated the sink is the furthest point in their plumbing and if they shu, he sink, they would have problems with pipes freezing He asked Council to approve the application w iihout requiring the kitchen be removed Murphy clanfied that the matter arose because of a lot line learrangement issue. He slated he felt It ludicrous to have to remove the kitchen. McMillan slated that the guest house was nonconforming, and removing the appliances was a technicality based on City code, which therefore should be followed Mr. Picrponi stated that the rule about dry buildabic and the confusion about the amount of wetland made his guest htiusc nonconfonnmg. Mayor Peterson asked about the onginal application. Gundlach replied that the 1990 permit for the guest house required the lots be combined If that had happened, there would not be any issue. Mr. Picrponi stated he would covenant that the guest house never be used inappropriately. White asked if they could have a wet bar in an accessory structure. Gundlach stated he could not. The intent of the code was to allow a bathroom only. The issue is w ith the sink and the plumbing associated with it. McMillan staled that the ordinance was designed to prevent renting out accessory structures. They had issues to address and the ordinance was the only way to handle them. While the Pierponis might not cause problems, the anlcs apply to the properties, not the owners. Moerse staled the City could regulate plumbing matters, but could not control appliance use. While staled he would vote to enforce the ord:na:icc. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Sttiucvcrt mo^ed lo hIIoh the kitchen to remain provided it netcr be expanded in any w ay. The motion Tailed as no one seconded it. Murph) asked if there vs as an> resmciion on the Cilv pursuing the kitchen issue because of ihc v%ay it came up: accidentally dunng a lot line rearrangement applicaium. Batrctt replied that there was nothing to prevent the City from addressing the fact that the expected lot combination never happened. McMillan moved, and White seconded, to approve the CUP suhji^t to the removal of the sink, cooktop, and Tridgc, and that a covenant he placed to insure the guest house never be u.sed as a residence. Vole: Ayes 1. Nays 4 (Mayor Peterson. White. Murphy. Sansevere). Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the CUP, aliowing the kitchen to remain, with the guest house being regulated by a standard use limitation covenant. Barrett slated that the applicant has a guest house, not an accessory building with plumbing, therefore the Pierponis should pursue a CIT for a guest house He suggested they convert the application to one concerning the guest house, and then Council move to grant a vanance lo the lot area requirements for the guest house from the 4 acres required to the .1.5 that the Pieqnmts have available. .Moorse stated they were moving quickly and suggested they table the item so that staff could pursue the appropriate resolution. Mayor Peterson added they could not go further in that direction without getting the language down. Barrett stated that they would need a covenant and to find a hardship to allow the 3.5 acres to supjxui a guest house. Changing the application ci*uld raise other issues. At any point, the applicants could opt to remove the kitchen according to the cuneni application. Mr. Picrpont stated they would do whatever is necessary. He stated that the lot was considered 4 full acres before the rule changed concerning wetlands. The guest house existed and was allowed before that lime. Murphy asked if they could he grandfathered in. Barrett replied the guest house never would have been allowed if they had not agreed to combine the lots m IQ^X) Mayor Peterson stated they would need an extension from the applicant to table it Gundlach stated the City could auihonze the first extension, and said she would send the Pierponts a letter to that effect. 12 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9.2004 Murphy withdrew his motion. Mayor Peterson moved, and White seconded, to table the application with an extension or the sixty days. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that he has serious concerns about the direction of the Parks Commission. He fell Council should address the matter soon. Sansevere congratulated Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis on their marriages. Murphy stated that the memo concerning lax increases for the parks saddened him. He felt that Council and Park Commission relations arc failing. McMillan stated that as the liaison to the Park Commission she hears both sides of it. She noted that no one .>igned the memo, and she would speak to Drew McDermott this week. She suggested a joint meeting in Apnl to encourage them to frvus on goals that they can control. White stated that the chair should be in sync w ith the Council, and realize the position of carrying out Council ’s goals. He felt they laid out a great plan, and then ignored it. He stated it appears Orono has an incffcciivc, disgruntled Park Commission. Sansevere suggested Council all attend a Park Commission meeting. Mayor Peterson stated that the Council and Commission goals arc separate and need to be brought together. She stated they arc a voluntary group and are there to ser\ e the needs of the Council. White stated that he drove past four people on his way to the meeting w alking on the road, and none of them wore reflective clothing. He noted the danger to pedestrians and suggested some son of w arning to remind people to be safe. White stated that creosote on bridges pollute the water. Gappa stated that both of Orono's bridges arc being replaced. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *16. licensf:s Special Event I.Applicam: Event: Location: Date: Time: Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Applicant: Event: l.ocation: Date: Time; TOBACCO BrenshcII Homes 2004 Parade of Homes —Spnng Preview 925 Willow View Drive February 14-March 21. 2004. Thursdays - Sundays 12:00 noon - 6:00 p.m. LeGran Homes 2004 Parade of Homes —Spnng Prev lew 970 Willow View Dnve February 14-March 21. 2004. Thursdays - Sundays 12:00 noon -6:00 p.m. Wells Fargo Bank. Wayzata Wells Fargo Half Marathon Begin: Wells Fargo Bank Way/aia I^ke Street to Fcmdalc Road to County Road 15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to County Road 51 to County Road 19 to Cry stal Bay Road to Northvicw Road to Lake Road to County Road 15 to Old Beach Road to County Road 19 to Bcchrle Avenue to Southwest LRT Trail to Water Street. Finish: Wells Fargo Bank Excelsior. Sunday. .May 2. 2004 12:00 noon - 6 00 p.m. Navarre Liquor Inc. Steven Corl 3421 Shoreline Drive Orono Liquor (Narrows Saloon) James Anderst 3380 Shoreline Drive r ORONO CITY COUNaL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 Murphy moved, and White seconded, to approve the above listed licenses. Vole: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •17. BILLS Murphy moved, and White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes S, .Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: f • ✓ . I ji-iL UndaS. Vcc.Ciiy Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor