Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
V‘ oro .no planning commis .sion Monda> April IQ, 2004 6:00PM 2750 Kcllcv Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Jini Murphy AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applieants wiU be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. I he Planning Commission is an adsisory body to the City CounciL If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the May 10,2004 Cits Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1 . 04-3000 S\ as'/aia Country Club. 200 \%'ay/ata Blsd.. Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan (Staff: Janice Gundlach) OLD BUSINESS 2. 04-2Q74 Reliance Dcselopincnt Company. LLP. N\V Corner of illoss Drise N and Highway 12 (Outlet A, Stonebay), Cumprcharsisc Plan Amciuimcnt. Commercial Site Plan Review (Stafi ‘; .Mike Gaffron) 3. 04-2Q77 Mike Keaseny on behalf of Rich.ird M. Keaveny Rev Trust 3425 Shorriinr Drise, Conditumal Use Permit and Commercial Site Plan Resiew (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 4. 04-2997 City of Onmo. Big Island. Conditional Use Pcnnit. N'ananccs (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 5. 04-2993 Chris Valerius. 2377 Shadswood Road. Variance. Conditional Use Permit (Staff- Janice Gundlach) NEW BUSINESS 6. 04-2999 George and Manlyn Milcusnic, 3243 Casco Circle* Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 7. 04-3001 Steven and M.ircia Tiffany. 1325 Rest Point Lane, V'aiiance (Staff; Melanie Curtis) 8. 04-3002 G d: 1. Land Investment. LLC. 740 .North Arm Drise. Variance (Staff; Janice Gundlach) L'^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monda> April 19,2004 6:00PM 2750 KellfV Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Rcprcscnlathe: Jim Muq^hy AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sf^n In for the public record at the fiont podium if you %shh to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to mose to the front table to anssscr questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an adsisory body to the City CounciL If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the May 10.2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 04-3000 Wayvaia Country Club. 200 Way/ata Blsd.. Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan (Stall Jamcc Oundlach) OLD BUSINESS 2. 04-2974 Reliance Dcselopment Company. l.LP. NW Corner of W illoss Drise N and Highway 12 (Outlot A, Stonebay), Comprehensive Plan Amendmait. Commercial Site Plan Review (Staff Mike (iaffron) ?. 04-2977 Mike Keaseny i*n behalf of Rich.ird M Keaveny Rev. Trust 3425 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Site Plan Review (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 4. 04-2997 City of Orono, Dig Island. Conditional Use Permit, \’ananccs (Staff: MikcGaffron) 5. 04-2993 Chris Valerius. 2377 Shady^sood Road. Variance. Conditional Use Permit (Staff Janice Gundlach) NEW BUSINESS 6. 04-2999 George and Marilyn Milcusnic, 3243 Casco Circle, Variance (Staff; .Melanie Curtis) 7. 04-3001 Steven and Marcia Tiffany. 1325 Rest Point Lane, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 8. 04-3002 G & L Land Investment, LLC. 740 North Arm Drive, Variance (Stall: Jamcc Gundlach) 9. 04*3003 Bruce and Kris Paddock. 3250 Fox Slrcet* Preliminary Subdivision (Staff: Janice Gund! iJi) 10. 04*3005 -‘y of Orono. Sections 79-1466 and 79*1468, Rcsisions to the Sign Ordinance Melanie Curtis) SKETCH PLAN 1 1 .804-3004 Bemhagen Development. 1535 Bohns Point Koad. Sketch Plan (Slaff: Janice Gundlach) PLA.NM.NG CO.M.MISSIO.N CO.MME.NTS 12. Report of Planning Commission representatis cs atlcnding Council meetings .March 22, Public Attendance □ Council &CPLANMNG Commission □ Park Commission □ Other _____________ NAMK (plca«c print) Please fii loi ttiie information ri qi ested BEI.OM FOR OI R Cm RECORDS. ADDRKSS PRKSF.NT FOR (from a»cmla) NAMF. OR M'MBFR 1. ( Kf I'i I \V. ■ , 2.. I'*’' f ^ ''I*' t-A_____/ x<>/s»; ivj./ c‘i~ ^ oichi.'l “ r a / 3-a 4. u f i ^.1' ■ T ., ' ri[•lCiInvii . 1 Cl ti ('•* 5. /i"’'*u V' U ‘4.« I6. .L' _o I ■ > J.s <' »’ A .'i V 'f 7'A' ^ f^C' i/ V i) ' , ' 7.( iTT^Jj /Ai;« ^/•.. . •/A;/,,'! .I' O J . *•—------j /l.C-’l ■ C'''.‘A» f ^ m r 1 T r 9. • -V tv C V i • ‘ 10. n . ; A ‘'3.S -\^ u .LV ? '*•/" II. * 1 \i ^ 1 [ L r'.v »A A t <■ lAc P A.: r ^aa ,. ( 12. >i xlw A ‘ tr V iAi,./>.vl V /^//' /'.. , V <u.\ i ’ ^ 13. /h iKf^ /(r>^ ^ ^ ^"S*^ N Ki: K^t r\0*7- j'/vy 14. /j^Vf c*' 1 ---------------- 7V/17 A . ,./A *• A./ - jV ^ ,r'‘ J 15. //'V. Ir '.■'-V /. / /;'./■L’ f ~ U'. P /.N .CL *'Ly*fNifpimr—Mf»Hi —- - T ir K‘'s W 1>A h-'U yjru'i) V A'-^.. ,1^ ^ Kck C^f-2 r'fS»\ ' Me M J~>/; Ci:ss t ORONO planmnc commission Monday AprU l«, 2(^>4 * 00PM Z^SO KtUo Pifk*iy - rotincU Ctaicbm agenda Council Rfprri(niatitt Ji:r VaTJhy AIDIENCC MEMBERS Pirate ii{n m far ihc public record at the front pod.um if yon «»iih to addreii the PtaaniaK ComRuit.3a^ AppUcaatf «iU be asked to *o»e to ibe front table to answer qnettloes w hea the Cfcau aasonocci the application The Planning Commission it an adstsaiy body to ttc City Council If action is taken on any items en this agenda, they wOl bo scheduled far tko May 10,20M City Council mrefing unteii others*itc nolcd by the Chair. c oNsEvr I 04-3000 Wayzata Country Club, 200 VA ay7aU Blsd.. Condsuonal C m Ptnrnl. Corunaaal Site Piars (Staff faaice Gusdlach) OLD BL'SINCSS J 04 2974 Pelii-.:eDe.eUpir,eniCcfnpar>. LLP, N>A Comer of Udlosa Oelso >■ aisJ Highway 12 (Outlot A, Slonebas). Cotrptef.ersise P:»r. Aniendnccii. Coavnncitl SiiePIar. Kes.ew (Suff N!ikeCa!f:cc) 3 04-2977 M.keKeaseny on bebalf cf R it*iafd M KeavmyRe* Trull 342S Shoreline Dtise, Cend tiop.*; L le Perm;’ ar.d Commctcitl Site Plan Review (Staff Jarucc Cundlach) 4 04-2997 CiiyofOorc Big Island. CuiiiVorol Use Permit, Varatues (Suff MJieCaffioa) S 04-2993 Chni Valen-.s, 2377 Shadyweod Read, Variance. Conditional Use Pemiit (Staff Jir.ee Gusd'.ich) .NEW BtSINLSS i 04-2999 Gecrge and Mar.;)n M.Irusnc, 3J4J Casco Circle, Vinance (Staff .Melanie Curtis) 7 04-3901 Steven a-nd V.tccia T.fftr.y. II2S Rest Point Lane. Vanance (Staff McU.*ticCuriitl 0 04-3002 O ALLandlnvettment. LlC.740NonhArmDrl»e,Vaniri» (Suff ianitcOundlach) 9 04-3003 Bruce and Km Paddock. 3250 Fee Street, Pre-imiMfy Subdivuion (Staff Janice Gundlacii) 10 04-3005 City ofOiono.Seetlona 79-14*0 and 7*-»40I.Res.iiicmt to the Odi5ante(SufI Me'.anit Cuftu) SKETCH PLAN n d04-3>*04 llctrh.agen Devcl-V-'W' Bchas Pobt Road, Sketch Plan (Staff Janice Gundiacli) PI ANNLNC commission COM.ME.NfS 12 Repc.l ef P.avung Ccissuths.'t :e;tcstnut.vta aSer.iir.gCc-f.ril meetings Mifch 2L 2:0«afviAFnl 12.2004 13. Othar lawea for d-KuatiOft 14. PlanaiegCom.Tusi;ua tpprcval cf Rinctet far March IS.2004 lS.SclcctiMoftcpriscr.tauvafoc City Covncil mcrtiiigs on Apnl 26, and May 10 ADJOUR iHMLNT *04.3000 April 19.200* Pa|*lof3 Dalt AppUcatloa Rccdvod: 3-16.04 Date AppHcaltoa Coasidcrtd at Coiapictc: 3*164>4 M-Day Itovlaw Period Eipircs: S-lS-04 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Plannee^ Dale: April 15,2004 Subject: 1104-3000, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture/Preservation on behalf of Wa>’zata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard • Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Commercial Site Plan Review, Public Hearing Zoning DbtricI: RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) Lot Area: 8 Total Parcels (including one in Wa>'zata) Total Acreage ■ -165 acres with -155 acres within Orono Lot Width: Approximately 1000 feet Appticadon Summary: Applicant requests an amendment to the original conditional use permit and subsequently a site plan review to allow two minor additions to the existing building, all in conjunction with a complete renovation of the main structure. 5U^Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plaits as submitted. PertincMt Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-418. Conditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditioiutl use permit: (4) Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools scr\ :ng more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, Y^'CA comps, church comps, or private nonprofit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The pnncipal structure for any of these uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an R district, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. Lut of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant ’s Narrative Exhibit C - Site Plans and Roof Plan Exhibit D-Floor Plans Exhibit E - Elevations Exhibit F - Aerial Photographs Showing Additions and Property Boundaries Exhibit G - Property Owner’s List Exhibit H - Plat Map i ll i -Hl i Ji 111 M4.?0M April 19.2MM PattloM BadicrowMl The applicants have met with staff regarding their proposed improvements to the Wayzata Country Club. At that meeting it was determined that, because the building footprint was being expanded, an amendment to the original conditional use permit was required because golf courses/country clubs are conditional uses in the RR - IB zoning district The only changes to the footprint are two minor additions to the existing building, which exists on two parcels, one in Orono and one in Wayzata. The additions consist of doubling the square footage of the dining area, adding storage and loading facilities at the east end of the building, construction of a deck off the dining room addition, elimination of an existing driveway that runs north/south between the bam building to the east, and other site fiinctionality issues on the east end of the site. Because the majority of the site and building is in Orono, the City of Wayzata has deferred all reviews and permitting processes to Orono. LOT ANALYSIS WORSIOXT RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f ( acre)200* Actual 7,187,400 s.f ( acre)-1000’ Setbacks A complete property line survey was not required because the City has one on file that sedMcks coidd be measured from, and because of the property's size it was clear that setbacks would not be an issue. The existing and proposed setbacks below axe estimates and are measured from the closest comer to perimeter property boundaries. RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50’160’NO CHANGE Rear 50’730’ 730' (extending the dining to the existing rear footing line of the building) Ufr Side 30 ’900’NO CHANGE Right Side 30’720’ 665 ’ (extending a loading^storage area -55’ to the east) 1 , i... 1 < t I i i 1 1 J . 1 ; j h i i i i U.ii : l; EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# Data Racalvad_^^S4^ Amount Paid HVZdoyy) PROPERTY LOCATION , , Site Address 2oO Vdug BlvgL . il6d ClType of Application to be Fll6d CUP __________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^4«oot.S ^ oi-in*25*/2.*oooL 34» '118 -i5-4S-bflBI. APPLICANT Name UIULEP^ DOkKOiePi^A4uu4nea"S Phone (home). Address XVk U. 9. City l^f Phone(work) ^^"TiQOoea Zip gy**>o\ OWNER fif different thanjifferent than Mplicant) C lla X «/7J^ ee4w Phone Name Phone (home)___ Address 2d0 fcjfe/r tuku^, Date Property Acquired ' Aunt, Phonefwork) TJ' i9SC City UMt^imA I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Zip myy __(month/year) 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 Commerdal/Industhal 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 original application) After>the*Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHEI APPLICATIONS __$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (•► consultant fees) __$600.00 Vacation __$600.00 Easement Vacation __$1 00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision __$600.00 Rezcning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) __$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment __$100.00 Appeals Other-see Fee Schedule"' i 11 i .ivti h li i i.\ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. y/ Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3- —Certified Property Owners List of ov/ners within 350' 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 Street, Minneapolis, telephone 6l2.34a-SQi m Certificate of Survey (signed_by _a licensetf surveyor) - refer to handout for survey Information. 5. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations 7.:? -iL£ 8. 9. ■--------f-------------------------------------WIIW involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest In the property. Tnis would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owneits). \_1_ Construction plan. If applicable (see staff for requirements). ------As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS submitted. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certificatiori by Clerical Department that Und Use Application Is complete. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. wled^s Applicant's signature Date Jfe ¥ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable ent^ onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. * Owner's signature liAdVrtir^ (iTt Date Plarjnlng Cornmission Me^gs are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to o A j •> I • . I THr • C. . M k... City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be compieted by a City Planner during your pre-application meet rg *) Street Address 2750 Kelley ParVway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P O 00x66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323^066 For Office Use Only City Planner v/j/ ’ /.c e Cyd /I >y /» Main. gS2-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 Meeting Oate/Time. PC Date. What Is the purpose of a pre-appUcatlon meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: UJatn^idL A^/cl • Property Identification NumbertPIN): ________ Zoning District; ___________Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Res. Access Use □ Institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bldg □ Comm / Indust Use □ PRD / PID □ Land Alteration Offlemm Site Plan Review □ Other; CX/P OTHERHNFORMATIOR: f /)l n rufj') . yrTi \ ‘Jr '///.♦ ‘Please note: Your application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:Mur*Date; /^ ♦ t O) r\ . i i i 4 • V • I I A A VI I. EXHIBIT B Project Narrative In April 2003, Wayzala Country Club Initiated the Master Planning process for the clubhouse renovation & expansion. The Master Planning process was based on the Strategic Planning Report, completed in January 2002. The Strategic Planning Report indicated concern about specific areas; the need for increased casual dining space, the condition of the locker rooms, the lack of speed in food service and inconsistency of food qua'ity. the build ng infrastructure and various circulation issues. As the master Planning effort progressed, further issues were Identified and exptored - ballroom circu'ation bottleneck, the exterior deck area, inefficient building servtce/deltvery, lack of storage space. ADA concerns and the roof condition. New Construction New construction occurs in response to needs for improved service/deWeiy. needs for increased casual dining, and increased bar/loungo areas The most significant add ton occurs on the East side of the building and is a 3 story addition which reorients the delivery dock, adds an enclosed stair, elevator, storage areas, relocated employee areas and attic mechanical space. The other new cor^truction increases the casual dining area from a current seating layout of 44 to 88 seats and the bar seating increases from 26 seats to 45 seats. Fonnal Dining is reduced from 90 seats to 70 seats. Major Remodeling The areas of significant remodeling have addressed concerns in the kitchen, the iocker rooms, the existing rest rooms and exiting. The kitchen is currenty over-crowded and the equipment is nearing the end of its use. Tho t'it‘:hon remodeling would be best implemented while the facility operations are at a minimum. The remode'.ing effort is extensive. _ The locker rooms have been reviewed and reoriented. The remodeled locker rooms provide an effiderl layout of lockers and wet a'aas. Also part of this effort will be redesign of the mechanical and electrical systems serving these areas, to gain additional ceiling height This effort is also extensive and best implemented while unoccuped. The bar/lounge area was studied to relieve a couple key issues - the general layout and circulation issues with the existing stair, and the views into the bar from the central corridor. The existing exiting has been revewed and the following changes are proposed; a new enclosed exit stair on the East side sending service/delivery, employee entry, and ballroom egress, a new ADA elevator connecting the second level Administration area with the lower two levels, and enhancement of the existing stair connectng the Main level with the Lower Level serving the Pro Shop, and Locker Rooms. The two sets of public rest roorrs on the Main Level have been redesigned to meet ADA requirements. Roof The existing roof is in poor condition and has Inadequate flashing for water protection. The roof has numerous pieces of mechanical equipment and penetrations that need to be addressed. The current wood shakes are showing signs of detehoration and inadequate fastening. jf) if O •jBuf * •>%J We plan to modify the existing roof layout and construction. This vwukJ allow for elimination of the current 'bathtub' flat area that exists and provide a potential mechanical attic area. The attic mechanical area would provide an area for equipment that is sheiiered. easily maintained and accessible. Mechanical Systems Several modifications to the mechanical systems are planned to serve the existing facility and to acconnmodate the proposed alterations and addi'Jons. These include replacing several air handiirtg systems, such as; the kitchen makeup unit, the units serving the locker rooms, replaong the kitchen exhaust system, and extending the Are protection system, replacing the larger chiller and chilled water pumping/piping system, removing the fan coil units and piping system, and providing a new energy efTident direct digital control (DOC) temperature control system. Electrical Systems Power distribution will need to be modified and extended in remodeled areas and building additions. New receptacles, equipment services and motor power di-Ku-buton will be added to accommodate remodeled areas and building additions. The existing telephone, sound, and fire alarm systems will be mod fled and extended to eooonvnodate remodeled areas and building additions. The electrical utility pad-mounted transformer and pad-mounted generator will be moved to aocomrrxxlate the Casual Dining addition. A relocated electrical utility transformer will be located on the site to re-feed the electrical building service. A new natural gas generator will be located on site to serve the emergency electrical power distribution. Site Work The existing parking area accommodates approximately 270 parking spaces. The estimated future need b 234 spaces. The proposed remodeling and addition will not have a need for increased parlcing. The Cocntiy Qub is a member based use. not an open commercial use. The project does not project an increase in membership. The new service/delivery area will eliminate a substantial amount of paved roadway, which will be converted to green space and plantings. o Vi:.*' o CO o o I ®w N f-- U&\0 . I' 4^ a—SS tr 0&S2-A200 PI Cei(mm H PI r ' ■■■ .•' t ’-.'S ». z mm ■•. ,• atr-'-k:; I V . \ .' ,r.'j .1 • B: . ;.v ”lSw:'ViP*^^ I ►&'■•<■ ■ • ^ •* • ,^.-fB' V 4,'jnyji|B|K ■ v'^ life V. ^fe^M«i «i^Ss5?Sia^ .•♦• ^'Y>^ -V, »•« f /: ^i.<!> fe. •fe c:i!i"v; ‘ ■ ’■g«"’'ife-, C"''“'' jb.z:^J.%.,'f ■ ■' ■•’’'V£r,. ? M - -' <*f^ r- ► * .*' J ^ 7 W 7?^ WJHOATiyyMW n oiiinjiioon MTAOOR 16] WAYZATABLVDW JWNBtNAME WAYIATArAHTNEWLTOrrwSHY FAXTAYER GLASCR flNANCtAL GROUT MC Arm km xmnson 2I77YOUNOMANAVE STTAULMN 33116 99 OlimillOOOl mrAOOR 99 ADDRESSTEMCMMO 3WNBINAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB FAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TO BOX 131 WAYZATA MN 53J9I HENNEPIN COl/NTY PROPERTY INFORMATION JiYJil EM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 99 011173)11002) PftOPAOOft 121 WfSTWOOOLAS OWNER NAME STONEWOOO DCSKJN BUILD LLC TAXPAYER STONEWOOODESICNBUtLOLU: NAME/AOOR 4«20 STONEliNE DR SPRING PARK MN 33)14 99 011172)320002 PROPADDR 2JI WAYZATA BLVOW OWNERNAME JEMAnESONRMCMATTfcSON TAXPAYER MMES E MATTESON NAME/AOOR 10 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 34)91 99 011172)120001 PROfAOOR 200 WAYZATA BLVO W OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAME/ADOR box 131 WAYZATA MN 33291 II )4III2))I0006 PROPAOOR )* address UNASSICNED OWNER NAME STATE OF MINN TAXPAYER ONR REAL ESTATE MOMT NAME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 35135 31 tel 1121310011 mOPADOR 240 WAKFnELORD TWNSRNAME WREFERRIL tAXrkYO. WILLIAM R ELEANOR FERRiL 240 wakcfielo road WAY3MTAMN 53291 31 )6lll23330OIO PROPADOR 20 MYRTLEWOODRD OWNER NAME VERENA L PEARSON jAXT a YER VERENA L PEARSON 20MVRTLEWOODROAO WAYZATA MN 33)91 31 )6III2))IOOI2 PROPADDR 230 WAKEF1EU2RD OWNER NAME PAULBASZUCKJ TAXPAYER PAULBASZUCKI NAME/AOOR 230WAICEF1ELDRD WAYZATA MN 33)91 II )6lll2n)00l) PROPADOR 13 MVRTIEWOOORO OWNER NAME DARREL THILL TAXPAYER DARREL THIEL NAME/AOOR 13 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 33191 )l )«lll2i«)0009 PROPADDR 10 MYRTLEWU'ORD OWNER NAME J E MATTFSON R M C MATTESON TAXPAYER JAMES A MARY MATTl^ON NAME/AOOR 10 MYRTLEWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 33)91 )i loiiiimciou PROPADOR 23 MVRTlJWnODRD OWNER NAME SCOTT R R SARAH R LUSC TAXPAYER 5COn R A SARAH R LUS6 NAME/ADOR 23 MYRTLEWOODRD WAYZATA MN 33)91 rr Xs 53 o M )6III1))4000I PROR ADOR )l AOORSSS unassigned OWNUINAME WAYZATA COUNmV CLUB WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAME/ADOR PO BOX 131 WAYZATA INN 33)91 WAYZATA MN 33)91 14111233400 PROPADOR )t 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNDl NAME SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC NAME/AOOR ATTN ROBERT MADDOCXS TRIAS 4S0 OLD LONG LAKE RO II 161112)140002 PROPADDR M ADDRESSUNASSIGNtO OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA OOUTfTRY CLUB NAME/ADOR BOX 131 WAYZATA MN SS19I 31 361112)340011 PROPAOOR 410 OLD LONG LAKE RO OWNERNAME MACLEJEUNE TAXPAYER MICHAEL LLEJEUNE NAME/AOOR 4B> OLD lONO LAKE RD Wa VZATAMN 33)91 WAYZATA MN 33)91 )611121)400 PROfADDR 38 )l AUORLSS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS A330C TAXPAYER SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC NAME/AOOR ATTN ROBERT MA DOOCKS TREAS 4)0 OLD LONG LARI RO )l UIII2)1400I2 PROPAOOR 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD OWNERNAME PEOER P ENOeBRETSONCTAt TAXPAYER PLDER A LINDA ENGEBRETSON NAME/AOOR 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 33391 a /T*;. —IUNDA1E:Vy200l J| M1II231400I3 WADOfl MO OLD LONG LAKE M> jimNAME MHO«MAWNAf*TAD«TAL ‘AXTAYEK H NORMAN NAPSTAO 4AMVAOOR laiSfSTANOREWSST rancho MIRAGE CA 92270 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTV INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS UST MCE: } ]• 34IIUJMOOI4 fROPAOOR 4M OLD LONG LAKE RD OWNER NAME ROBERT F MADOOCKS TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ROOERTFMAOOOCKS NAME/AOOR OLD LONG LAKE RO WAYZATAMN SSIPI }■ )4IIU1U00IS PROP AOOR 440 OLD LONG IAKE RO OWNER NAME WILLIAM D LARSON TAXPAYER Wr UAM D LARSON NAME/AOOR PODOX200R7 BIOOMINCTUN MN ^^4/0 It MIIKU4I00I0 fiOPAOOR 109 CHEVY CHASE OR NFNCRNAMt HEARNOLDYETAL rAXPAYER HEARNOLDY 4AMBAOOR 10* CHEVY CHASE OR WAY/ATAMN 5S»I II HlinHIOOII PROPAOOR III CHEVY CHASE DR OWHFR NAME THOMAS LCURRY ETAL TAXPAYER THOMAS L CURRY NAME/AOOR III CHEVY CHASE DR WAYZATAMN SM9I M 361IUMIOOI2 PROPAOOR III CHEVYCMASEDR OWNERNAME JDJAMSAAMNIAMSA TAXPAYER XMATHAN A MARTHA JAMSA MAME/ADOR niaiEVYCHASEDR WAY/ATAMN 3SI9I It MIII234IOOII Ir OPAOOR IIS CHEVY CHASE or 3WNBRNAME AMYSCHUETT rAXPAYER AMYSCHUETT 4AME/AOOR I IS CHEVY CHASE OR WAYZATA MN S5I9I It IAIIUI4I00I4 PROP ADOR 117 CHEVY CHASE DR OWNERNAME ALAN JR CAROL K ARTHUR ALAN J R CAROL K ARTHUR NAME/ADDR 117 CHEVY CHASE OR WAYZATAMN S3J9I II MIII2I4IOOIS PROP AODR 119 CHEVY OIASE DR 0W7OKNAME T W FORSTER A B J fORSTEM TAXPAVfR TH044AS FORSTER NAME/AOOR ll*aiEVYCKAS£OR WAYZATAMN 5i»l It MIIIU4I00I6 MOP ADOR m CHEW CHASE DR 3WNBINAME LOUSBOeERHAlSER OLXPAYEl LOUBBOBERHAUSERJR |]l CHEVY CHASE OR WAYZATAMN S«*l It itiitniioois PROPAOOR 114 CHEVYCMASEDR OWNERNAME CALANOOUTHTRUST TAXPAYER CHARLOTTE A LANOCUTH NAME/AOOR 114 CHEW CHASE DR WAYZATAMN 55I9I II 16111214100)6 PROP ADDR 116 CHEVY CHASE OR OWNERNAME R J MCCARTHY ET AL TRSTES TAXPAYER JOYCE E MCCARTHY TRUST Mam F/A PO* 116 CHEVY chase dr WAYZATAMN SSMI II 1611173410047 MOPAOOR JIT NORTHOATERD gWNtRNAMC O STUARTACKMAN ETAL FAXPAYBl 0 STUART ACKMAN I6I4SI3THAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 51447 II MIII2I4IOOII rilOPADOR aso NORTHOATR RO OWNBINAMS HWSEEAOSSEE tAXPAYHl HEMIYAGALSEE H*uf/AfW 220 NORTHOATERD WAYZATA MN MItl II I6III214I004I PftOPAOOR 22J NORTHOATERD OWNERNAME ELIZABETH VEIJE WEBB TRUST TAXPAYER EUZABETHWEBS NAME/AOOR »3 NORTHOATERD WAYZATAMN 55191 M MlltlMIOOSl PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME NORTHGATETWOHOMHIWNERS TAXPAYER NORTHGATE TWO HOMEOWNERS NAMG/AOOR UNKNOWN .-tr^ II J6IIS2MI0049 PROPAOOR 211 NORTHGATE RO OWNERNAME CAROL F A PAUL W REESE JR TAXPAYER PAIR.WREBMIR NAME/AOOR CAROL PRJEBCRO REESE 311 NORTHGATE RO WAYZATAMN 5)191 II 16II1314IOOS4 PROP AOOR 11 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME NORTHGATE TWO HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER NORTHGATE TWO HOMEOWNERS NAI4E/ADOR AOORESS UNKNOWN RUN DATE :VyiOOI )■ 1AIIIU42000] VOPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 3WNBNAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB fA V ^AYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB UMETADOR K> BOX 151 WAYZATA MN 55391 31 36IIU344000S WOTADOR S5 FERNDALERDN IWNBINAME TONYCMERMAXAANHECHERMAK fAXPAYER TONY CHERMAKR ANNE CMERNAK UME/ADOR R5 FERNDALERDN WAYZATA MH 55191 31 3AIIU34400M •norAOOR 90 fcrnoalegrlcn 3WNIRNAME K • SCHERER A O M SCHERER TAXPAYER RBROMSCHERER 9AM&ADOR 90 FERNOALE GREEN ORONOMN 35391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE: 3 31 J6IIS2141000I PROP AOOR 200 WAYZATA BLVDW OWNER NAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAMPyAOOR PO BOX 151 WAYZATA MN 55191 II 36UI2U40006 PROP ADOR 75 FERNOALE RD N OWNERNAME RiBRWKMANACBBRINKMAN TAXPAYER RORY J BRINKMAN NAMC/AOOR 75FERNOALE RDM WAYZATA MN 55J9I 11 Mllt3M40009 PROP AOOR 100 FERNOALE CREBI OWNERNAME R0LAUER A DK LAUER TAXPAYER RONALD UUER A DEBRA KLAUCR NAME/AOOR m PERNOAU: GREEN WAYZATA MN 55J9I M 36III2)440004 PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEL' OWNERNAME STATE OF MtNN TAXPAYER ONRREALESTATtMCMT NAME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE OURTTN 300 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 31 36IIU5440007 PROPADDR TO FERNOALE GREEN OWNERNAME WSTEIHKRAUSADMCMIHAM TAXPAYER WALTER JSIEJNKRAUS AND NAME/AOOR BARBARA MCMIUAN TO FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 55)91 31 3611113440010 PROP ADOR 95 FERNOALE GREEN OWNERNAME JOHN A IRENE HARNETT TAXPAYER »HH HARNETT mvME/APfW 95 PtANOALE ORECN WAYZATA MN 55MI 31 36III234400I4 PROP AOOR 53 FGRNOAU GREEN 3WNERNAMB WAAPOMUELLER taxpayer william a MUELLER 55 FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 35391 3t 161117)440016 PROP ADOR 205 NORTNOATE RD OWNERNAME XIANLARNOLO TAXPAYER JOAN L ARNOLD NAME/AOOR 203 NORTMOATE RD WAYZATA MN 55)91 18 36II8214400IT PROPADDR 211 NORTTKiAlhRD OWNERNAME NORMA R A EDMUND J PHELPS JR TAXPAYER NORMA RR EDMUND IPHttrS JR NAME/AOOR JU NORTMGATE RD WAYZATA MN 55)91 31 3611823440018 PROP AOOR 38 ADDRESS IRIASSIONEO OWNERNAME NORTNOATE TWO HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER NOrmOATETWOHOMKJWNERS NAME/AOOR UNKNOWN 38 341182)4400)1 PROPADDR 18 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME TLANJLAPERRE TAXPAYER TB40TMY LA NANCY JLAPERRE NAME/AOOR 63 FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 55391 SI 3611823440021 PROP AOOR II ADDRESS UNASSIGNLO OWNERNAME WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB TAXPAYER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAME/AOOR BOX 151 WAYZATA MN 53391 31 36IIIU440024 PROPAOOR 13 PERHDALEOREEN OWNER NAM8 JOHN L R ROXAPIN8 J POWERS TAXPAYER KXtlLRROXANNEJPOWERS MAUc/Amw 15 FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA BIN 53391 38 3611123440015 PROPAOOR 7) FERHDAUSORSEH OWNERNAME J O tUVICE A J HAVICE T/09AYER JONATHAN 0RIE2MFER HAVICE NAME/AOOR 73 FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA MN >1)91 18 )4llt»44007« PROPADDR 65 FERNOALEOREEN OWNERNAME TI.RNJLAPERJIE TAXPAYER TIMOTHY LANANCY JLAPERRE NAME/AOOR 65 FERNOALE GREEN WAYZATA MN 55)91 RUN DATE :VynOt HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: 4 OFTIC HEhWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE . OfMVI(NOWUDCEANDBEUEF.^^^._j-:^y- ■■ C, 44- / r r •J *J -.-T ft ftM rw «*d a « M ___ A|)pttcalio« Dale: Dtccmbrr 17.2003 laUlal M*Oa) Roiew Period Eapiraiiea (Sue Plan & PtD Rceonint): Fcbr»ar> IS. 20t4 60-0a)> Cileatton Natiflcatton Fated ea 2>I3*04. Ettention to; AprU IS, 2(HM 120 Day Retie** Ctpiratian (SubditUoa); April IS, 2004 Addilloaal 60 day ctienuon tranicd b> appIKanl April 12.2004 to; June 15.2004 e-f From; Date: Subjrcl: Chair Mabusth & Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron. Planning Dircctor>^>j^<^^ Apnl 15, 2004 #04-2974 “Stonebay MarketpLce”. NW QuaJiani Hwy 12 "Willow Drive - Continuation of Public Hearrg for Pioposed Com.Tiercial PUD Development (CMP AmendmenuPUD Rezoning/Comincrcial Site Plan Rcview/Preliminary Subdivision) Current Status of Application: Tlic Comp Plan amcmlmciuticmcnuifilus application was reviewed at the Match 15 meeting, at \t hich time Planning Commission via a poll vole of 6-1 iccomracndcd denial of the requested amendment lo rc-guiJe Ouilot A to allow pitniaiily tciail use tathci than pnir.aiily office use. On March 22 the Coimal reviewed the requested Comp Plan amendment and voted4-0 to grant conceptual approval of the amendment, directing staff to draft text to be inserted into iltc Comp Plan for implementing the amendment Tliai text w as brought to Council on Aj nl 12 and u it!i minor rev isicns \x a» adopted subject to Mel Council review and approx al, directing slafTto make the appiopnatc submittals to Met Council The text of the amendment as approved by Council is attached as Exhibit A The amendment xxill be submitted to Met Council and to neighboring cities for contmml within the next week PUD rezolung of the site will occur concurrently w iih final site plan and subdix ision approx al Tlic detailed conditions the City establishes for the development of this site xxill be incorporated into the i I'D zoning of the site. The next step is for Planning Commission to review the commercial site plan and building designs in detail to ensure they meet the goals and standards established in the Comp Plan, the B-6 Dtstnet ordinances, and other pertinent regulations The applicants on April 14 submined a revised site plan set for review, but have not submined icvised building designs and elevations. List of Exhibits A - Ccmprchensixc Plan Amendment Text Approved by City Council 4-12-04 B • Applicant's Letter of Transmittal and Revised Plans: Sheet CO! - Title Sheet Sheet C4 I Sheet Cl .I • E\>itinf( Conditions Sheet C5 I Sheet Cl 2 • Demolition Plan Sheet E2 I Sheet C2.1 • Pteliminaiy Site Plan Sheet L2.1 Sheet C3 I -Pielim Grading, Drainage S! eeiL7 | Si Erosion Control Plan • Preli-ntrar) ctlity Plan • Preli’ninif) ptat • Preliminary Lighting Plan - Preliminary Landscape Plan - Landscape Details •04-1974 Slontbay Markri place April 15.2004 Pace 2 C - United Propcnies Letter to Applicant - Propeny marketing discussion D * 60-day Extension Letter 4 -12 04 E - March 26 Lener fiuin Applicant te Re\ isions Addicssmg March 1 Staff Letter F - Compilation of Appropriate Us:s Rcflcciing March 15 RcMsions G - Council Minutes 3-22-04 H-Draft PC Minutes 3-15-04 Commercial Site Plan Review Following is a review of each element of the proposed development of Oiitlot A. The attached set of detailed plans was received on Apnl 14, although staff has had numerous discussions with the applicants on an ongoing basis regarding the site plan, and the current set ;s very similar to Reused Plan *<23 u hich staffhas lud since late Marclt. and «24. w hich arrived about a w cck ago and resolved a number of issues of concern. A few general comments as a starling point: The current plan includes a 14.S20 s. f. Walgreens, an 8.970 s f strip retail building, ar J a 4,960 s.f retail building; total of all 3 buildings is 28.750 s f or 17 9% of the site. Green space exclusive of the trails is 26°b. • The site will be platted into just two lots • one for Walgreens, one for the rctuil buildings. Shared parking & site maintenance agreements will be established by the two owners. - Ihe builduigonaitatioiis hav e been reused to create a much friakHKr entrance from Kelley Parkw ay. w hile maintaining the front facade visib lity to the 12-Willow intersection the applicant feels is cntical to Uic success of the site. At tlic same time, pnmary facades and parking areas are not aimed at the residential portion of Sionebay, in keeping w nh the request of the developer of Stonebay • 'fhe site circulation is \ astly improv ed from earlier plans, and although the angular nature of thcov crall layout leads to sliglit incfTiciencies. the layout maiugcs to provide adequate buiklmg separatK . join the intersecuon to mainlam an opai feel, w hile prov ;dmg subsuuitial green islands within the parking area Tlic westerly building has been onented to take advantage of the stormwater pond as an amenity, and applicant is proposing a landscaped public tenace area near Kelley Parkway that w ill ov crlook the pond. This amenity is w ithin Outlet B, dcdic ' .*d to .MnDOT for pond use, this may be a potential issue StafT supports the slight. oachment of the w cstcriy building on the w cstcriy required setback (20‘ w here 35’ is u.c standard) w hich allows for a more intunaie association wrJi the pond while not resulting in a visual crow ding problem to the w est, as this w est lot line does not abut a road or an adjacent building site. The site wiU hav e only tw o "dn vc-thru ’s” - one for Walgreens, and one serving the w csterly space of the middle building. [■ «r04-3974 Stontba) Markrlplact ApriMS. 2004 Pair 3 1 . Conformttv ulth Comprehensive Plan Please review the Council-approved language of the Comp Plan amendment (Exhibit A). The applicant’s letters ofNlarch 26 and April 14 demonstrate how the applicant believ es this plan conforms with ihc Comp Plan goals and standards for this site The parameters of the CMP amendment include the follow ing: ■ No individual buildings greater than 15.000 s.f. gross floor area. Staff Conclusion: This parameter is met. ■ One building must be a pharmacy /convenience store. Staff Conclusion: This parameter is met ■ The remaining buildings shall have no individual tenant space greater than 7,000 s f. Staff Conclusion: This parameter is not a factor in the westerly building, and can be met via appropriate leasing of spaces in the center building. The applicant has agreed to this parameter. ■ The most westerly building on the site shall be oiientcd and designed in a manner that focuses on the regional pond as an amenity for customers or tenants Staff Conclusion: This parameter has been met via the elimination of roadway between the westerly building and the pond, and the addition of pedestrian amenities in this area. However, the terrace is not within Outlot .-I, which is a potential issue... ■ Buildings on the site slull be oriented w uh a goal of providing an inviting vchic Ic and pedestnan entry from Kelley Parkw ay w ithout creating negat c v isual impacts for the Stonebay residential development Staff Conclusion: This parameter has been partially met by the reorientation of the Walgreens entrance to the southwesterly corner of that building, and witi be completely met by designing the middle retail building to have a windowed front facade at its northeasterly end. ■ .Architectural design and details shall be carefully prepared by any developer of the site to ensure a high quality ofdesign, compatible with tlie qiiality of the office buildings on Kelley Parkw ay, and shall be subject to City approval through the PL'D process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC/Council approval of preliminary budding designs. ■ Building matenals shall be high quality* and durable, shall be compatible with the quabty of the office buildings on Kelley Parkw ay, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC/Council approval of pretiminary budding designs. »04-!974 Sioncba) Markriplacr April IS. 2004 rafc4 2. Conformity to B-61*UD Standards A. Allowed Uses Basc<ionacompilaiionoftheaI]o\vablcuscsinthcB*l and B-6 Districts, Planning Commission has produced a list of permitted and conditional uses that would be appropriate for this site as part of the PUD rezoning process. The list is attached as Exhibit F. The proposed buildings and site lasoui would reasonably accommodate many of the indi\ idual uses on the proposed list of allow able uses. Planning Commission should again review the list to ensure it reflects your intent for this sue B. Lot Area A tfidih. Required area and width for B-6 are 2.0 acres and 100*. The proposed preliminaryplatcieates two lots Lot 1 = 1.98 acres 370 ’. and Lot 2= 1.71 acres and 135’. Both lots arc slightly undersized in area, how ev cr, the sue at 3 69 acres is limited by ha% mg no additional land available Staff recommends approval of the lot area and widths as proposed. C. Setbacks . Setback requirements and conformity are show n in the follow ing tabic Note that for litis PLID rezoning and use conversion, staff early on cstablislicd setback requirements at 35 ’ for buildings and 20’ for parking, based on the B-1 retail standards w Inch are more appropriate than the B-6 office standards for the proposed retail uses. Required Setbacks Front (south)Side Interior Side Street Rear (north) West Building Lot 1 RiSwnI Mrvalrta lusal'nl riafiwe 35*85'>A NA (w)35'(w) 20 *35'42' East Building Lot 1 .■«$•125*to*40'NA NA 35-4»* Walgreens Lot 2 35*itr 10'40'35'40*35-42' Parking* Loti 20*20'5'O'*NA NA 20'20’ Parking' Lot 2 20'20*S'0"20'20'.32*20'20' 'Includes drhing lanes ’This O' selbark Is a runcllon ot ihe shared driveway syslem ’SlatTsupports a 20'Mesl side setback for ihe weMerly building. The alternalivr would be to reduce the oserall length of buildings on Lot I. D. SiteDramaee . The applicants have pro\ ided a drainage plan that includes catch basins and storm sew ers discharging to the adjacent regional pond. Approval is subject to City Engineer review and acceptance of the proposed plans. M4-2974 Sloncba) Marketplace April IS. 2004 PagfO It a;^>ears that the only trees to be planted along the 500' length of Higlns ay 12 fiontage are th.Tie fe^s in the parking lot islands. WTiile it nta> be to the retailers' adv ar.tagc to mainta;r. unobstructed siewsofstorefronts. there should be some trees planted along both tl.eW;lIc'A and ’2 frontages Note that staff has encouraged tite applicants to create a pcdcstr lar. anten'tv that foe uses on the pond- They have provided a terrace seating area at the nonheast comer o t tire pond, although it ispr.marilywitlun Outlet B ofStonebay, not on applicant's site. Hus ma> ultur.ateN be acceptable, and staff would support tlus coneqM as addressing the intent of the CM? amen Jrnent aini the City's goals for this site; but further review and discussion is necessary to ensure that this location is acccptablctoMnDOT.asthis feature on Outlol Bis technically inMnDOT right of-w ay We believe that Outlet B is subject to casements for the trail, but w c need to confinn that the tciiacc area will also be allowed Given the variety of concerns noted above, staffwould recommend that the landscape plan be addressed by Planning Commission and provide applicant direction as to what specific re\ isions arc necessary. Applicant is adv ised to take a close look at the B-6 landscaping standards, especially regarding screening and buffering of trash enclosures G. Architectural Standards. Applicant has adv iscd that he w ill w ork w ith the City to provide a face brick color acceptable to all parties. Applicant earlier provided aboard w ith building ex tenor material samples for review and approval, this will be available at the meeting • stalThas suggestal a darker color brick should be used than those proposed to date, Since rev i.sed elevations of the two westerly buildings have not been submitted. stafTwould suggest that this be further rev lewed upon their submittal. City expectations as expressed to the applicant to date hav c resulted in a high-quality design for the Walgreens; we would anticipate similar architectural styling for the other buildings. Additional Site Plan F.lcments Pedestrian Access. In general, pcdcslnan access and circulation has been refined to a lev el acceptable to staff. Pedestrian access has been revised to provide for attractive and safe access and circulation throughout the site, including three primary connections to the Stonebay residential development, as well as logical trail and public sidew alk connection points. Sidewalk crossings of the parking lot appear to be proposed w ith varied surface textures to identify crossing points. \^hicle Circnlation Shelly Johnson, Orono's traffic consultant with Boncstroo and Associates, has indicated the la>oui is generally acceptable in regards to traffic circulation, w iih a few minor revisions and conditions: The nghl-in, right-out access to Willow is better than prior plans but should be further refined to allow for easier turning access into the Walgreeits drive-thru. Shrubbery at key intersection points must be low level for traffic visibility. r'•04-2974 StOMbav MtrtittpUcc April IS, 2004 PiftT Siielly has suggested an alternative turnaround layout for the dead-end parking lot at the southwest comer of the sue. LotCoverafe. Code Section 78-1 403 limits lots of 0-1.99 acres in area to 15% lot coverage by structures: • Lot 1 (86,268 s.f or 1.9S acres) is proposed uith buildings totaling 13.930 s.foi 16.1%co\erage • Lot 2 (74.428 s f) Is proposed uith buildings toultng 14,820 s f or 19.9% coverage • Overall coverage of the 3 69 acre sue is proposed at 17.9 Vo, not including freestanding trash enclosures. Planning Commission should detennine whether there :s sufi:cicni reason to allow the exccssis e lot coverage for this property and the proposed uses Overall lot coverage of 15®o would >-ield 24.104 s.f as compared to the 28,750 s f proposed Loading Berths Code Sections 78-1536 thru 1542 provide standards forthcicquircmentof loitlingberths for vanous tvpes ofbuildurgs. Any rcta;*. officebuiUnig greater than 6.000 s f floor area requires a loading berth 25' in length. Applicants should define the location and detail of loading berths for the Walgiccns and the ca.sieily retail building. Trash Enclosures .As noted in the landscaping scctionabovc.trashhandling faciliticsmustbe fully OKlusod &oin V icw citlmw iThin a building or in a detached stiuctuic. .Applicants must p:o\ ide detail of how trash handling will be accomplished or. each site. Required Parkin f Based on Orono codes for a strictly retail site, and using a standard 10*« reduction from the gross floor area for stall calculation, tltc proposal requires a total of 11*3 parking stalls. The sue .’Ian pros ides U'7 stalls. iiKluding 145 standards stall.s, plus 5 HC accessible stalls, and P proot wr oatking* stalls lUqMired Slalb Frepofcd Stalls Addt'l. Parking Total Proticicd (by Loll %% sigrmi! (I4J20 If! 0.9/ISO) •<9 (60)*60* (54 on Lot 2) 10 Proof 2HC Lol 2i S4<^ 12-66 Ea«l Rclati BHilding h.9’0»(x0.9 ISO) 54 84 85 (91 on Lot 1) 7 Proof 3HC Lol 1: 91 ♦ 10-10’ V^rtt Mrlail Ru.'dinf (4.960 tlx 0.9 I54M 30 Total! j 173 (!44)«145 22 167 •City con»u!unu lia\c .lai.'jtrd ihji ii Mould be teasonible lo accept the Walgreen! model fo» a 60 iiall renuuemenr W alg-eent *ias lubiunnal experience in deieimining their parking needi The ‘proofofpa-dcing’ stalls are located in landscaped areas where it w ould be p-eferable to not construct them until'unlcss they are needed. With proof of parking, the site is short only 6 stalls bas«l strictly on Orono code. It should be noted that if all proof-of-parking stalls w ere constructed, overall green space would reduce from 26% to 24% of the site. f 004-2974 Stonrbiy MarUelplicc April IS. 2004 Page I Shnoee Proposed signage docs not appear on the current plan set. wit>i the exception that the location of^vo monument signs has been shown along Htghw ay 12 • one for the Walgreens and one for the two retail buildings - as well as the comer STONEBAY monument Detailed, dimensioned elcs ations view s for all monument signage should be submitted Since all three buildings have changed in character since earlier re^ icw s. new plans should be submitted for building signage. Staff early on suggested to the applicants that the Walgreens s'gnage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono cckIcs prohibit the use of illumina'cd scrolling or Dashing reader boards Lighting. The c.xicnor parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2 1. Tire plan indicates 20 "Gardco** 400W luminaires at strategic locations throughout the site, on 20’ high poles The light poles at 20* will likely be lowerthan then peak heights of the buildings Details on the Gardco f.xiures should be provided for rex iew. and thev must be a boxed downcast lighting w nh recessed bulbs Applicant should also provide a plan for building-mounted lighting for rex lew Engineering Matters City EngineerTom Kellogg wxs provided w ith a copy of the rex ised plans onApril ISth.and it is highlyunlikclywcxvill have hiscommentsforthe April 19thmeeting It should be noted that the prex ious comments of the City ’s cnginecnng and planning consultants bjx c been taken into account by the applicant as the plan revision process has moved forxxard Addit ionai Generai Comments. The applicants have been responsive to the City ’s recent requests for incremental revisions to Uie site plan. It maybe fair to say that the current plan is the best proposal provided todate &om staff s perspective. Howex cr. I xx ould also offer the folloxvmg as Items for discussion in considering this proposal: The choractcn/ationon tlie plans of the non-Walgreens bui!duigsb.as cliangcd 6om a 5,000 s.f-BANK”and 10,000s f "OFFICEHETAIL ’to two buildings totaling 13.930 s f shown as "RETAIL”. The potential office cle.nent of this .site muix hax e been subtly lost, and w hilc the Comp Plan amendment does not prohibit the total conversion to retail, it purposefully included language that the amendment". re-guidesOutlot A of Sioncbay to additionally allow for neigliborliood scale letail uses, as an alteniatix c to the office uses for w hich It is currently guided .". The possibility for either retail building to contain office uses still exists. It sliould be further noted that because of the parking limitations imposed by the overall square foouge of retail space on the site, certain elements of the City ’s hopes for this site will not be met While the sue plan will support one or two ’ fast casual' food users (coffee shop, sandw ich shop, etc.) the parking needs for a family sit-dowo restaurant cannot be met. The a^iplicant has proxided infonnation (Exhibit C) suggesting that such a restaurant would not be attracted to the site due to lack of the necessary demographics. It may be •04*2974 StMcbty Markctpitct AprUIS.2004 ra««9 a reasonable assumption that construction of the le\cl of retail square footage proposed will slam the door shut on any future restaurant opportunities should demographics become more favorable as the Orono-Long Lake-Mcdina area reaches buiId-out. Because the retail is split between two buildings separated by a drive-thru. Planning Comrrassion should carefully review w hether the 2(f-4(y separation of the bu:ldmgs, and'or the building design detail, is adequate to break up what mi^t be seen from certain angles as a single 25(7 unde stnp null. From staffs perspective, this is a critical factor in the\tstul impacts of this site. PreHminarv Plat Plat approval wilt include the establishment ofdrainage and utility easements, as well as pa>ment of park fees and stormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. The tw'o-Iot layout and separate ownerships do not pose any foimidable considerations. Shared parking, site maintenance responsibility and similar agreements will be established as a matter of course. Rezoning As noted at your February meeting, the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and will provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. Planning Commission identified a specific list of allowable or unacceptable uses for tlie site in February, and refined that list in March. The list of uses w ill be incorporated mto the PUD rezoning for this site, as will a fairly detailed set of conditions related to the specific jitc plan approval for Outlot A. Staff would uitend to incorporate into the rezoning ordinance conditions of approval that clearly document the approved site layout, buildmg design and materials, signage lightmg, etc. The PUD appru\ al for this site becomes the governing ordinance for the property. Summary of Issues to Address 1 . Plaiuung Commission should again review the list of allow able uses to ensure it reflects your intent for this site. 2. Aooress approval of the lot area and w idths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue. 3. Discuss w hether die 20'w cst side setback for the w esterly bui Iding should be accepted instead of 35 ’. The alternative would be to reduce the overall length of buildings on Lot 1 Also review whether the pedestrian terrace amenity is acceptable at its proposed location in Outlot B. assuming MnDOT has no problem with it. *04-2974 Sloatbay Markrlplacc April IS. 1004 Past 10 4. The City Engineer has not had adequate time to review engineering matters for this new plan set 5. Does Planning Commission have any problems with ilie proposed height of the buildings (all expected to meet the 30’ limit except the Walgreens comer feature). 6. Applicant must address the enclosure and screening of trash facilities. 7. To whai exicni are addiiional trees needed along the Willow Drive and Highway 12 frontages? 8. Applicant must submit revised building elevations and should also provide perspective, oblique views to help PC assess the building proximity lack of separation impacts. 9. Applicant should provide options for facade coloration for review. 10. Applicant should fiirther refine the rigJit-in, right-out acccssand the dead-end parking tunuruund per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 11. Applicant should address the loading berth issue 12. Planning Commission should consider vvhetlicr tite 6-siall parking shortage (b.ised on City Code) isacccptablegiven Walgreens history of parking needs, the proof of parking available, and the current mix ofuses that does not include a free-standing family restaurant, w hich \\ ould have greater parking needs than can be accommodated at the proposed lev cl of retail space (1 stall per 80 s.f rather than 1 stall per 150 s f). 13. Applicant must provide a detailed signage plan for all buildings and for site monument signs. 14. Applicant must provide a plan for building-mounted ligliting. and confirm the design of the parking lot fixtures. 15. PlanningCommissionshouldconsidcr whctherthecombinalionofbuildingproximityvisual impacts, the pcdcstnan tetrace amenity placed on the adjacent NlnDOT parcel, the ov crage in lot cov crage, and other site factors suggest the need for further building down sizing on the west lot. Any other issues for consideration. •f4-2f74 April IS, 2M4 Pagtll ly MaricfpUc* Staff Recommendation Tlie current plans appear to meet the general conditions established by the Comp Plan amendment approved by Council on April 12. Planning Commission should give careful consideration to each of the points noted above, and provide direction to the applicant as to what funher revisions should be made to the plans. Given the lack of certain critical information as noted throughout this memo, this application is not ready to be forwarded to Council. Staff recommends that after pro\’iding the applicant with direction. Planning Commission should table this application to allow for submittal and review of lacking information, for revisions to the plan as necessary, and to allow adequate time for City Engineer review. Staffw ill also draft a PUD rezoning ordinance for this site, to be considered at your May meeting •V Amendment to 2000*2020 CMP Text as Appro%ed by City Council 4-12-04 Part I. The text below is excctptcd directly from the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan as an introduction to the proposed amendment text which follows as Part 2. Deletions and additions to the existing text arc shown in bold strikeout! underline formal Land Use Plan, CMP Section 3B, Pages 3B-37 thru 3B-40 **Urban Commercial Land Use Urban commercial development is limited to two areas w hich are provided w iih all thcnecessarx' urban services and facilities. Tire major commercial center of Orono w ill continue to be the crossroads center of Kavarre. Tliis area w ill provide sufficient opportunity for neighboriiood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to ser\ c the needs of most Orono residents Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family dcx clopmcnis w ill be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial arci The scale and t\pc of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important dcx clopmcnt parameter for the Navarre commercial area The City w ill encourage rcJcx clcprrent of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow for an expanded range of neighboriiood services and local small business opportunities. An additional commercial area is designated along Highway 12 where the availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar commercial dev elopmems in Ororio and Long Lake, make commercial use appropnate. Orono w ill seek to coordinate its conuncrcial development planning related to the Higliway 12 area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown retail aa*a, and toprcvenl limit the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. The retail dev elopment in lire Highw ay 12 area w ill be commuiuty ncighborivx>d scale ratlier tiian ‘bigbox* regional scale development. Thetypesofretailuseswilibctiiosethat focus on providing services to (he residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono, w hile also draw ing from the iraflic stream that will be on cunxnt Highway 12 after the Highway 12 Reroute is open. However, the retail development is not to draw substantial traffic from beyond Orono The development plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally-owned and operated businesses that provide serv'ices to Orono and Long Lake residents. Additionally, :he Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian ,'riendly area. This involv cs providing trails sidew alks along the roadways providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the public.” M04«2974 Stonrbay Oullol A CMP Amendmcnl Tc\( April IS, 2004 Pate 2 •The o commercial areas alo^g Highway 12 wiihn Orono arc idcniiEcd in Map 3B-7 and include the following; 1. Propert>’ abutting the north side of existing Highssay 12 O^as 4ata Boulevard) from Brossn Road North to Willow Drive. P.us area was lev icNved as part ofCompichcnsivc Plan .\inciidincnt No. 2 m 19S9. resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uses abutting Highway 12, with pamary access to a scrv ice road connecting from Brown Road to Willow Dave, and elimination of direct access to 1 ligliway 12. The area is cuncntly bounded on the north by existing residential development at densities ranging from 1 unit per 2 acres to 1 uml per 1.3 acres. The western half of this area has since been dev eloped via PUD as a nursery gankn center with included leasable commercial spaces. The east half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000 s.f. office building, and a vacant 0 5 acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Highw ay 12. The CityCouncil in February 199S adopted a General Concept Plan for development along Highway 12 indicating that the Council's v ision includes community scale retail development (as opposed to regional or ‘bigbox ’ scale development) focused in a more compact area in or near dow mown Long Lake (closer to Brow n Road than to Willow- Drive, at least in the short term) for the follow ing reasons; 1. Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area, and helps preserve owner-operated small serv icc businesses in Long Lake w hich arc v ital to Orono and Long Lake residents. 2. Focuses on maintaining a vital downtown and "sense of place" for both Long Lake and Orono 3. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activ ity, 4. It is easier to plan, coot Jinate and control the dev elopment of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. 5. Focusing dev elopment toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability to obtain desirable development on the north side ofHi^way 12 east of the Oren Brothas Nursery. N04-2974 Stoncbay Outlot A CMP Amendment Text April IS. 2004 Pace 3 6. Enables better contiol over the amount of retail development th.it occurs along Higli'vay 12 7. Provides the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high *ech. medical, etc. 8. A more compact community scale retail area matches the Jesign of nc\v H!gh^^ ay 12 with no interchanges through Long Lake. 9. Lumts the impxl on norti south road\% a>s (i.e. mereosed tralTic and activity lev cIs) as compared to the more w.tcnsc *'big bo.\*' retail uses. 10. Maintains a lower activity level m the area west of Willow Drive 11 . Would create less pressure for providing an access from new Hi ghw ay 12 to the retail area. “2. Accordingly, tlas area should be dev eloped w ith a mix of commercial uses including retail, scrx ’ice and office components. Access via a sen ice road parillcling Highway 1 2 should still be required rather than direct access to Highway 12, since existing traffic lev cIs along Highw ay 1 2 are expected to remain at a level which makes direct all-way .icccss difficult and dangerous. The Highway 1 2 re-route ("proposed Highway 12") w hen com ileted in approximately 2(X)7 will have a significant impact on access for this area, bcc^ sc current Highway 12 traffic levels arc expected to increase between now and 2007, then should drop dramatically when the Bypass opens. However, traffic levels on "old Highw ay 1 2" after 2007 arc expected to again creep upward, and the long-tcmi need for a serv ice road may again manifest itself For this reason, it is in the best interestsof the City and ilic business community to prescrv c at least a partial sen ice road corridor between Brow n Road and Willow for future use, that will provide all properties w iili access options other than direct access from Highway 12. The City supports the development of a "midpoint" connection to Higliw ay 1 2 directly across from Bnmhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right-in, right-out configuration. Further, if and when the scrv ice road is constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should ultimately be removed '* Properly abuttiag the north side of existing Highw ay 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on .Map 3B-7 asthc'comncrciai* portionofParccl Group 1 ) currently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels w ith some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City •04>2974 Stoncba) Ootlot A CMP Amcndmcnl Te\l April IS. 2004 Pite4 guided -he poilion of this area directly adjacent *o the north side of Highway 12 for conuneirial development. At that time, theCity wa' itclcar about the typcofconimercial development that should be plaitncd for tins area 'ntrougii joint discussions w ith the Cit> of Long Lake regarding development along Highw ay 12. tire Cit> has detennined that the optimum de\ clopmntt ui Uus area would be oHicc dc\ clopmcnt Office dc\ clopmenl can provide sers ices for Or one residents, can pros ide facilities for businesses ou ned b> Orono residents, and can pros ide quality cmploywent opportunities. TIk dcs clopinart of this area for office use versus retail use enables the 1 hglnvay 12 retail area to remain a more compact pcdestnan-fiiendly retail area versus a non-cohcsi\ c extended stnp of retail dev clopmcnt Access to all office uses will be via a scr\ ice road coiuiccimg Willow Driv c and Old Crystal Cay Road, with no direct access points onto Highw ay 12. Devclopiiiciit of tins sen ice road began in 1991 with the extension of K.c! ley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay Road. Tlic City’s intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kellc> Parkway and Higliway 12. with pnnunly residential uses north of tire sen ice road. Due to coirstructi ^n of a siomrw atcr retention pond by MirDOT midw ay bci v cen Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow, and the City’s iricnt to develop the area north of tire service road residentially .ni adensity of 2-6 iiints per acre, the opj'ortunitics for large office sites arc liimtcJ. As many as SIX 2-2 5 acre office sites can be dev eloped along tlic Higliway 12 frontage while still allowing Mic mtciided residential development to occur. This area is guided for office use v\iih minor rcia;! and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. "Big box" retail usc»ill not be allowed within this area." Part 2. The above section of the CMP, along w ith Map 3B-7, will be amended to reflect the intended com crs'.on of Outlet .-V Stonebay <Vom piimai dy office use to pnmar.ly reta’l use Tlic follow uig amendment text was adopted by Council at its ,\pril 12 meeting *The portion of Parcel Group 1 betwcai KcMcv Parkway and Hiehwav 12 asdepictcd :n Map ?B-7 is subdivided into four tax parcels for commercial development Fach of tiie four parcels abuts h^hwgv 12 on the south and Kcllcv Parkway on the north The most w csterlvnarccl. at the inicrsectionof Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road, is 2 acres in area and has been developed for dental office u.sc Tlic 2 5 acre parcel directly east of the dental site is cunentlvbc.ng dev cloned for medical office use «04*I974 Sloncba> Oullol A CMP Amendment Text April IS, 2004 PascS The third of the four parcels is Outlot D of Sloncbav. t 3 5 acre p.it eel likc\\ ise ettded foroffice use and amicinatcd to be developed for office use during the period 2Q04»2006. Tltcsciluee abutting parcels arc located acros*> Highway '.2 from theOronoLndusinal Patk xxhich in Ihe past has been u&cd foi nroccssiiu^ard mamifactunl1^ Tlie industnal oaik has potential flu rcdcvclopir.cr.t and IS yuided to cncoungc coi ’.vcrs.on to liyht irtdustnal high tech uses. ,\s xx cK as ofnee-shovx loom Tlte City docs not intend to allow con^mercial retail or service uses wnhin the industnal park The fourth parcel. Outlot A. Stonebav. 3.5 acres in area, is located at the nonhwest qiiadrani of the sicnali/c J Hiehwav 1 2 Wiliow Dnve intetiicciion Oiulot A is rcmoicK located from the tliM three p.irccls, separated from them bv a regional stonnuatcr pond The opposite three quadrar.ts of the 1 2 Willow intellection are dex cloned \xith p*tail uses, the NE quadrant is a ^Mt den center with adfominerct.tiI shone the SF Qiiadrant is an ofT-sale liQuor store and cofTce drivc-thni. and tlic SW quadrant is a conx cir cncc stoi c / serxice station. Outlet A and the three other natccIsbctxxcctiKcIlcv Parkway and Highway 12 arc ':un i.tlx guided Tor office use NX ith minor retail accessory to the office use. Tliepiiqwsc of this ya:dint^ . ; «\oid creatine a substantial retail center with its attendant traffic and visual impacts, arni to avoid l'»c exr.tnsioti of letail substantially westward from its current tenniivjsat the intersection of 12 illovv ;~'r ha.'* been to a great extent met bv the office developments completed, un Jenv av and joticip ,J v. •. •;Vicref*ional storm water pond . Tlic Stonebay residential dev elonmcnt munedi jtciv north of Kc:!e\ Parkw av vv i!l ev e. to \\ mcUide mind, including ample sidewalk and trail connections to the commercial areas to the southeast as w ell as to the City facilities and Orono Schools campus to the w est The Stoticbav residential do\ clopnent will result in a mixed use neighborhood, with residential, office and institutional ii .es Tins mixed use neighborhood would benefit from nearby neighborhood-scale ret.iil uses that would .sciac the reiifhborhood. The retail uses that w c*u!d most benefit the mix ofresidential and non-residaitial u>es m the i chSnhood. vv ou!d be a neiehborhood-scale pltanv.acv com enieiice store and neighborlTood-sc.de food-onerted uses This amendment to the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan re-guides Outlet A of Stonebav to additionally allow for neiiThborhood*scale retail uses, as an a'tcmalive to the office use for which it is ?|gliborhood-scale retail uses" for Outlet A includes tlie fol!ow i parameters which must be adhered to for any retail use developed and maintained on the nronerty: •04*2974 Stoncbay Oullot A CMP Amendment Te&l April 15. 2004 Page 6 No individual buildings greater than 15.000 s.f. j^ross floor area One building must be a phamuev 'convenience store. The remaining buildings shall have no individual tenant space greater than 7.000 s f. on the regional pond as an amenity for customers or tenants. Building on the site shall be onented vv'ith a goal of providm an inviting vehicle and pcdcsinan entry from Kellc\'Parkuav without creating negative visual impacts fortheStonebav residential development - Architectural design and details shall be carefiillv prepared bv anvdcvcioper of the site to ensure a hi^th quality of design, compatible with th: jualitv' of the office buildings on Kei lev Park\» av, and shall be subject to Citv approval through the PUD process. Building materials shall be hit^h quality and durable, shall be compatible with llieoualitv of the office buildings on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subicet to Citv approval through the HIT) process B- I LANDFORM April 14. 2004 Mike Gaffron Cily of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: StoneBay Marketplace Mr. Gaffron. On behalf of Reliance Development Company. LLP. and John Terrence Homes. LLC. Landform is pleased to resubmit Design Development Documents for the proposed StoneBay Marketplace Development for PUD approval. Over the past several months our client has worked with the City. Council, and Commission to revise previous designs for this development The goal was to create a place that each party is comfortable with and proud to have at this prominent corner believe we have achieved this and are ready to move forward wtth the approval process. We have sent letters throughout this process addressing the changes that have been made per City comments. Many of those changes are still incorporated in this latest development plan, but to prevent this letter from being too lengthy we will only address the latest changes that reflect comments in our last meeting. Improvements to Traffic Flow and Pedestrian Access - The pork chop right-in/right-out at the oastorly entrance has been widened to improve flow in and out of the site. The turning radii have also been increased to allow easy maneuvering for larger delivery or trash vehicles. The pharmacy drive*thru has two lanes to prevent stacking congestion. A third bypass lane has also been added to allow vehicles, especially trash vehicles, to get around the drive-thrj during peak hours Where possible, the trash enclosures have been placed to allow easy front-loading access for trash pick-up. There was concern that the turning radius into the drive through at the northwest corner of the second retail building was insufficient for easy access through the drive through. We have since decreased the size of the retail building to allow a larger turning radius. We also felt that bumping the radius out a little •so •utlim HoarM tuiioiia no nasr svckuc hoo’m Ma ss40i 0*ncc tli m tOTO W. «13 2»i OOrt wm.lantffO'm ntt Mr. Oaflron P«m2 R« StonaSay April U. 2004 from the building comer would further improve traffic flow. Landscaping has been removed from the center median of the main entrance off of Kelle> Parkway to allow the public sidewalk to extend through the median. Development Aesthetics > A screen wall extension has been added to the northwest comer of the pharmacy building to wrap around and disguise the proposed trash enclosures from vehicles entering off of Kelley Parkway. We have also meandered the sidewalk on the east side of the development to allow more green space separation between the sidewalk and Willow Drive. The proposed parking was also shifted west slightly to add more green space along the east. A variety of evergreens, taller ornamental grasses and flowering shrubs have been combined to form several hedgerows along the south side of the parking lot. The hedges will work well to break up the expanse of parking, but still allow strong visibility to the various retail users. The retaining wails on the west side of the property that separate the trail from the existing retention pond have been tiered to allow for more creative landscaping, but also keeps the walls below four feet in height for structural and safety reasons. In conclusion, we are confident that these plans are a good representation of all of our efforts to collaborate and provide the best development possible for this comer. We are excited, and look forward to moving ahead with the approval process. Please feet free to call with any questions at 612-252-9070. Sincerely, LANDFORM* Vicki J. VanDell. P.E. mrs COPY: John Trautz. Reliance Development; File ENCL City Submittal Design Documents 650 Burue NORTH BUILOINO 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOUS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.2Sa.B070 FAX: 612JS^9077 ««iM IwvJformjwt :arca location uapc ORONO UN STONEBAY MARKETPLACE :ABBRCVTA-nONS: Ir» i, I i? f **■ :rCVr“ I I lf“ Ii •{« ?. I tk |r' CT-'-------t=_tv.-w«». br pL.. • »♦ •m >• Lt.^t JW *• W_^ gi-r-- ••:/ I 5- I-* i. :V” ;r *< ( £ •m* 1-irn t7 Hr, B;.. &. tr & ?■• li. Ita,»««( I'•• 1 1:--^ss-r- |rr-., •• • l?3- &’***'* &- &?■“ ^Ei.f P’" croRAviNC symbols : » ■»% IM>i E> ®A® :3ITC SYUB018C ♦ -•TE-as— • • • «mm m m ^«««« CrcnUTY SYMBOUm. ■ ,■ , IB» • «»• »««t «B«%4 ^ ■ •• —■ ^ •••!••••■♦ r- — ^•* •• *«'•««« I - ■ ,P^« < •••»»« At ••» %• kiK*** -^T -•• A k m .-90^90 • ••« I •' •• .arw.* ■ ■ ■ «• • ••^*«** «• »»» %tm-0 ac -•. r#.-^ c_ dURvtY sntBCts ^ ^ mr-^ • ^ k-v . ■».»# • • W# • > ► cirsiTt/unuTY coktatwc cawKti 1 . «* ^ «M«-rvtri.-..,rr-*'-‘.•i.*: **••• -.T/j: X.S- •v*. k«cirr,,. r.'^sr *M V IM ••• •:-»• .*•*# cz:Examine legal dcscript:cn:z • rA4«»- :pror <»ed legal oescwptx)? •r« r %.o *•.«•«•• ■» ■»*»» c*^> CZICIDSICR CCXTROl symbols : «BU'% •.’•w C.»<WA •»><« #•••* •kM •< aii»> m09 If C2BENCHMARKSC • xr ircrr-i ,iTcr.r.*T3r^.. CJN(IXTL:AErC3PCn UJ IT MVBOetA »« JOHN Tumc^Hcyisux MkCUi* »•«§««• Rrlijnee Dnxlopiwffii Compinv. LLP !=%> r ls:P- CITV »UOMITTAU ATU.M.20O4 •Kjm STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO. .VHNNLSOI A rra 8*^01 CO.l B‘2. ;aru loc «t»k map ORONO MN -•1 \- 'v rn- 111? ‘ STONEBAY MARKETPLACE BUMCrinLlAOTGWCI' UJ ( rAfsimiATTONs: :{<h i h::- ^;:r g:: ir wlfe.— P^.— «. £ srrt,*-’ •w »• *»• tw* >r, a r— 'm i i C=CRA«IKC symbols :crUTILITY symbols:CirSITt/UnUTY COKTACTSC E> r%. Mia* ••*■1 *m' M«M MB* ,*mt ••-r MB • %'<4* « :snc sruBouic I ? s.- • I h.-*' • •I 5: mlt F :i «■ 5r. i?. & ft- I 3.•9m ::i f ttMC rSBflVBVtt l’-,- — •.T^ J- *•^riTTi:. i nssrcTt . t«B i r;;-vr~' zzri~ fa- g-'— & j=-*5vfr ■f- m m m C. 4L;HVTY 3YV50L5' :cx2rrti«c legal descwfttck : V.r • • M%*’ ••a#^ :Mb*' ^b^^M a*aM^> .•-99 • V :Plt0rO3tO LCCAt DC3CmPTT0?CrZIIi: ^ •«. : v.<^. aMii> ♦««*»• CA^' ^IMV-A 999*^.^ •ft ^*a*«a«*# ««B dEWSlON CCKTROl SVTIBOLS: Ik %B «# «#3 ' i C=BCKCHMARKSC B« ■ 3.?. 17;^^ ■itEr.r',*=ri3» fe.*T7^g;- CA FATC _jCALL ^_CAL I^^10C ^ caa<ai.co JOHNTlRRANaHCMaLLC uxaMSim Rrluncc Doclopiwfni Compant L L r r3=‘^> ? I§S-- CirV OU0MITTAL APtKM.aoo* STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO, MINMbSOI A LANDFORM tSSSr ~SS2* CO. I s HIGH KAY 12 CZODIOUnON XOTtS,--------. , ■ , ] «« K0Km # « Ml tr^ik • «i r» » jrMM •• *4 MMi t •jm • JkM*lv!aA^«Sr* ► « * • :«<r* a »*ai *-« ••• «« • M • >**■%? M f«.«n tt* IMM « ^ir I * *U. •♦ *4 a *»a •*4M« a ncM « te. «r «4»a *n *ib«> -w»«a •« •» rv'*ai< i« *4V > *t a •♦ai *a t«t«t • •««••• a w_ » • ••*-■» M • ssr;!SST,r;T.i;r ^iwr-jr*3 •>«A W. • %.*«« «4 *<••.*«.« *4 Nil *1* I •k»4 «C I k N* •«•««< a»*% »««.«*• i*NI ifc'Ni a >%.•••«»♦ ••NNI • zsc't^^rr “' ----- 'WMmBM¥ • rs:4y5iT^'.v“-t^*.*^ii-..-BMKP'a-^ ^L^. BUkWDPrJMXTCtWtTfU? MStkiOlNlf* M*^4MU»laNMD«* Mi JOHMl?JlA.NCEH(MSliC nmn% SS^-^ Reliance Doclopinent Company LLP. I ils :.-»i=i^= •£^/^ =ri=ri5 zTsr Cirr SUOMITTAL Anu.i4.MOa STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO. MINNt.SOI A LANDFORM aH«c»ia •.xnarr. SMunMrvAM C1.2 K4U w nrr jKonac UICUWAY 12 czsrrt PLAM hOTo: I '# ■ • • •• ^ ^e%m «*«• -« • »«»W • • «M-<V rM • » *<•••• »«M M • • MT * A”« •%$ ■:•• • •*«M0 *«^ *4 • I *m Ak. <V«r^• tm •« f.**M • * f~~* a«-H .AM «»*.T “ PARKING SIWMARY; v-s ^ ^ t «r • ^ • •• ^^9 •A 'VA • M «A* • A • tt9 •• • A* • •. • •• «^l r*^ t t^.%mmA %i# —rntm »%»< ^iMt CDARCA SUMMARYC eijiia(r[WTavtfi.ii? ^ ■ M-^-V *iA«»*Tr JOHMIP.HMI HCMEULC KAU II* nrr ' Reliance De«clopmrni Company. L.LP. r m m^jU9 wMiAOtt rfw atp^*v« iHrrva?=^-= CITV »UO»*<irTAl. AnUM.2004 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE OMONO. MINNUSOI A LANDFORM wniiiaer •niVAN C2.1 r ci: NOTES! :zrcRADisG k Pacing v:Tt3. (M IX '•.« ..••• •«’ t »«/W « •« •■n *•»•« •*#• »*•*‘T,—’ » :.«>-Ci'^ sAj** % ’ HV,':-r-nt .-i:' *' ~ t:'--UU-:^•:.i-i >:-’.r, r.‘ -rus:.: rPEflO^ION CCNTHO:. hJTES~_ »j^i. f •~., ^ ^ ** • v v;:- -• •-• •••'• m%* V *.4 • *i ‘ «'• ■ A* *pL' ill*# gr. W’MWfc*'*'**** t;«ioniu»€nnj#c<'iL» .r ’. JOH>Tl!UliSaHOV£SUjC *t«i« :-*j»*c*«■«»:..«••••••• aoc •••« Wi« XU jHf RHurur fmf Drvelopmrni CompAnv. 11.1’ ==a:h-‘- t|Mi» =£^r;r£s=“- Cirv SUOMITTAL Aft;. VA.20O* ••fAC’ STONtBAY MARKEIPLACE ORONO. N1INM.SOI A LANDFORM scAii w rtrr tS^srr ttOM RtOM. OKAOMO. DtAMAOl. AMP noaot cmnta riAM C3.1 CL^JOTtS: M W*«^ 9*$ •*«>K»r f ••« p^4 » ««*} ■«(T*.- •»»*»«•« •* • mmm ^m *t airrtUTY >»cTts: -M*'** M :/4i > «w 4* t***#^. ^2,:%-; r.rw-;-4*r xi:. ^ • •m :i*::x r-wr-- ri’V. I »• • • •J^-* *. »• • k ^ j^T^'iTTi'/ri^ *V»* • • • •*.•«•»■• * • ;-• • •#•♦• «.♦* •« ji«^i ;jj:r —•' ^ • •> »««:'o« ’• .*v ' w \»% •mm ‘4 <«.4 ^ *c *.* •• ••« cz-srrt/wTUTY contacts cr: Cr:i>TIUT; CKCiStKl.o ' -------: . ---- •- Vi..« r.-,* :r:r-r • •• ramm \ » 4#^ Mt4t •« GOfHERi^ATE ONC^nCALL CAUI^^OUCG tLi*C[tECJ«fTC3f»lfl.!iF iVA*^ >r«a IT mm^xr V AnaM rv^« *a«AJAt Ml JOHNTEmVIK:S'.llLLC iT:sHr:.. OMIM<P<M0< • UP RtllitKf ^ n<»clopnifni Coiiipant L L I* i% •s p?£^-I ft.%- M^jtn MMMIt tMB rj^.--:= =s-i£r^=rr^ CITY* aUDMirr/M. Ain*A2004 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE onoYO minnlsoia 7S^ LANDFORM ftoMNArr rfTwrrnA*i C4.1 SCALE n EtCT STONEBAY COMMERCIAL ■W< -4 ^ • IS^ •»»•*• « •««*■? >1 ■ M* t 4 *« l4-«4al 4MM4 ■••«>• sr.-i'j.- t=;4M4 l.-ldUrr-------------------------------------------------- «l^4• • •!«« (■ U44 •■■ f ■ ••<«••• 44 k- • M«'% •• * H %,0H «• >%«• « iaufCOPL/vroPWLii muamxr^x •*Tm4 *V*^* mm 'cs-ij tr.-?-. jr"T-r-JCHNTEWl^NCE HOMES LC ■■ACL.ttEttBUAtocno Oi • AM Rrlufuf l>oclopmfni Cr.mpinv. LIP »%«>•*'•«ii~ I«; ==r^*- 0t-«CAX»» .T£::r—-—-- CITV eUBMITTAL MTkU.K)0« •txtn STONERAY MARKE'IPLACE 0R0\0 MINNLSOIA LANDFORM hrU: scuc •§ nsT 19 nuiAANArrriAT C5.1 CZ3WU1NA1BE SCHES'JLCC CZJL'JMINAmE stat:stici %m %i •»H tft 3CENEBAL VOl o» <• »\»* ft •• ^ I *r « g- .>»«■*• •*• •—• • .• ftft* »«•« *4.^ ftjm m w • I ftft C ft •• ;« M « ^ ft *>4 ••« ^ft* ft • ft » ftftC 1 *ft «*• BftI ^ ftAftO . Si C5 HfCUllAy 12 h:tom \3t txtx BuecmijBefTw’cifvau? tr ••!»%« »V'*» ft«%AMUi Mi«*U0T« ftftt mNTlRRA?iC£ HOMES UX TlftT Ml Tftit ftAAcrnoM ■ ■tUlt»Mftft*t } SJ Rctuncr Po flopmcni Company. L 1. P. WvftOh**r^ i*iajtci Mftftoif tMft CITV &UI5MITTAL AntltU.2004 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE OKONO. MINNtSOI A A7S^ LANDFORM MiWftfAftOk't »MOCft>H tSaragg -2us«r- itlftiftC MWWJiid nnjietfA oom muANArr UMTMriAN E2.1 • -■- -- - - -r.-.v^.|^if«/-.- . -;.fr»T.4 CH^UNOSCAPf XOTES: ‘ t;;:*z'7:'itj.jitsr.i*"*“•• •“*'■»*•»«**••► • •«•".<t.^.• #-^.v-i«^^••«•*.••*»► — «••• «-• • •«»» •-- ► • »K> .♦•• MHi. «... <..«« ^ ^r.t, -mt «• •<.«• **m • »«• ■> W_ .4 . . .«■ m>M Mr« -^-.t M. «»<» •» .••«.«« '4 W . »-. MM • MJuM . • ••• ■•’•■" •■ *«J* •• **“ r».»« Mft. U E>as.*Si*r-"^.v~ii5.-rr;r.': rt*^’r:. j{ srs.t,'* - ‘'^•*' * •*• •*«— • ^ ** -*'-••*• — - C^^kiM <«■•«« . »■■■« ■»».*• Mi M.. . . MM M *MH ir-i K«i MMT .MUM Mi «k> k k. M. 4k M • ■^ta k. ‘M Mtk ».MM f (MM-* i5A*yr.* iST M M ‘ -»»M »•• • -MM •« M.MM MM %M ,. MM. • «MW k. 4M>M a-M M Mkk MM MM«M •a Mm tMM-a » .» kMJ kMM» kf^ a 4k kkM tkMk M M /« Mi m m»‘ «M M Mk ••« > MMMMM • MM mm m-m M I C3UUfDSCAPE RCqumEMOITSC • • >M ••■ mm mtm» m • Vr iii ■ "MM.MM kM. MMiMt i" iMkak tM«t • >M .M Mf*c" k ii'ik. MMMiM M ki ---, r.4:- I* M M M C30 M C‘2> ••* •*• » ‘ .k kl* M »*k I m CLli«HuFClT.'a»*in,LU MM*.<« 'Mta «r ->i iitMi »\ ^•»<MiaktM»kacik mm m’<:L'ui\>aH0ME3LiiC Rfliintr Df>clopnirni Companv. I L 1* P>\M4i< mu ^ tpS ^ i=£ !-■?- i<^.^ MikMIl Ifvtk {|trio»«i CITV SUBMITTAL ap<l M.aoo* ^ONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO MINNLSOI A landform d=.*=ir.T -srf.?* *r.vc.r -r>-*r fuuMwr LANPKAnflAM L2.1 scALt n ncr I------1 ^ •« mc9m % .t. y /- •••« •« UM :*M/ /. • •• t I* •«.« 0—11^&-^B G> \ r~T • •• • . aj«<M€t »<^ ««k w ^ *^l «4 —I%wit^ Mt J:tP C^L EOiS ^E-- _ ioCCSS ErCi£ ir5=fXi-4s' - ^ '•• ■y 7 / |T«^ Mt^lA**^^*** ]* • m «• ^ v«« ■ #-# «m rmt >*«»*/• •.a^»f MW* 9^ m»» h.S ^ m %M* %««l « «r* * ««• • r* *iA«* »*A«« *-•>*•« M**» •♦ tinf •» PMPM •.«• •• *.-% > • *»,M. f-9 H4 ^%• •» * ^ «•> — e»* 9 • ••• •••«< • I ■«•. •M m Mk. I I------- ^ • »% »^ I—.■■♦ • ..- iMk :^- cgspgpjja TREE *=L-S’ VS cjiCirniFOTcafi'nLf. •va iraa JOHN TtRRAX£HCVES lie lUWaMaj'aoa ■■tuu •»■«••? emo<M«aTaai Rrluncc Dcxiopmrni CompAiit. LLP. ! Ifc. (i> ' P ,■ / / !t mm ••• #a Mr* • r • 7T«IC-L EZ:CtZ ~E’^ . -• Si EE3 L*^£V=^.-t: tM. mt-^ WM ai <MW«' (£>T>P C~L »=£RS v NIAL «>LA\*IVS 41] \ M»f • <«u #*w -r i'r.rurju.,-?-.' ^•r • M % » * «M -t # » ♦-M /<A. ••—'-*^- i •*•- »- -a*- <Ma «M ai>. -i" ^_____. ' //''•,'- / // /•fV' // / I I-----ii£S.*tSi I—I Jnr=Tt^^, ,.„„. (i>ttp cal cec :>jous 'f^E P^A^T.^,Ci ]£7.£-_r^r---rv.-.-:r. rrrir.v: r-r-* ciTV euON4irr>si. Afmi4.20O4 *«ajtt» STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO, MINNLSOI A landform t3!va2r iMnav) vVAJKTr* lAWKAPt CtTAU L7.1 l'HITE 3 FITOre STIES March 25. 2004 Mr. John C. Trautz Reliance Development Company. LLP 527 Marquette Ave. South Suite 1000 Minneapolis. MN 55402 Re: Leasing • Orono Retail Dear John. I received your request to verify leasing information for Stonebay Marketplace. Speof ca ly. you wanted me to determine why there is rot more restaurant interest in this sJe. As you know, we have been marketing this project since the second quade. of 2003 In our marketing process, wo contact as many tenants as possible to see if they would have an interest in the future retail site United Properties is a large company trial represents many landlords and tenants in the Minnesota market. Therefore, we have access to the most current market information and trends, particularly which tenants arc moving or expanding m the Tv,^in Cities. For Stonebay Marketplace, the interest by food users has come from fast food operators (Wendy’s and DQ-Grillo & Chill) that would require a freestanding buildmg with a drive thru Quick service restaurants and sandwich shops, like Subway and Ouizno s. have shown interest as well From food operators in the fast casual category (Chipot e. Noodles. Panera. etc) ana from full service categories (TGI Fndays. Ch.li’s etc). I have heard a variety of reasons why Stonebay Marketplace would not support their business A mam concern of these restaurant operators is the low daytime and evening population density. Because the Orono'Long Lake area is not growing as fart a*, other parts of the metro area, it does not maxe the "immed ate need* l-st for these newly expanding restaurant concepts These and exist.ng restaurant operators in the Twin Cites, are ooKmg for strong daytime population as well as the evening and weekend traffic to support the .-ales they require to operate. Another concern that has been raised is the future Highway 12 bypass and the reduction of traffic on Highway 12 I have attached to this letter a list of the food operators that have been contacted by United Properties for Sionebay Marsetplace. Please contact me with any other questions or concerns Sincerely. Ms. Stefanie Meyer Senior Retail Associate 952-893-7599 3500 West Both Strt«t. Minneapolis. MN 55431 • 752.831.1000 • fax 952 873 8293 • www upropcrties com ChainLinks. STONEBAY MARKETPLACE RESTAURANT LIST Orono, Minnesota Bear Rock Big Bowl Bucca di Beppo Buffalo Wild Wings CaritxHJ Coffee Champps Chilis Chipotle Culver's Green Mill Grille and Chill - DO Houlihan’s IHOP Jamba Juice Krispy Kreme Leann Chin Leonardos Nick -N- Willy's Noodles & Company Old Chicago Outback Steakhouse Pancheros Panera Bread PF Changs Qdoba Red Robin Ruby Tuesdays Wendy's UNITED PROPERTIES Fron:Rai«CE DEVELOPieiT COPAfff 612 338 8971 04/12/2004 13:34 #151.P.002/CC2 D Reliance Development Company April 12. 2004 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55323 Re: Stonebay Commercial City of Orono Zoning File #04-2974 Dear Miko Pursuant to your request and on behalf of Rel'iar^e Development Company. LLP, applicant for the above referenced development. I agree to e .lend the appHcation review period by 60 days to June 15.2004. Sincerely. cc; Frank Dunbar RcOtfxx Devdopment CompMy. LLP. 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis. MN 55402-1327 Telephone (612) 338-1000 FMsknIle (612) 338-6971 1 I ill L LANDFORM March 26, 2004 ■oa^ Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: StoneBay Marketplace Mr. Gaffron, Wo have taken your comments from your March 1.2004 letter and created Site Plan-23 which wo believe moots the goals sot out in your lottor. We have detailed those features below. Focus on Pond as an Amenitv - We have omitted all vehicular access between the pond and the west retail building. This allows the end-cap user to treat the pond as an amenity. We have moved the gathering area to the Northeast comer of the pond to pull it off of Highway 12 and create a more private area with landscaping for the neighborhood and retail patrons to use. This gathering space as depicted on the attached section, will be a seclMojd area with benches and great views of the pond. Wo have maintained the pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Pedestrians coming from the west will enter the site west of the retail bu'Iding and can then move through the site along the front of the retail buildings to Walgieen’s Customer’s entering the Site from the north have an access on either side of tho entrance off of Kelley Parkway. Those entering from tho cast can come In off of the bituminous trail directly to the front of Walgreen's. •S0 luTua lutLO NO Sto riRST AVINlC RORtW ViiNHfVI SS4C3 0'»)Ct •!> ill »oro «13 3»3 MfT ••• fnota'm n«l tand^mn Ertfhnrtng Corrpany doing butkmu at LanJtam Mr. Oallron Pag* 2___ Ra SlonoGay Martietp<aca 26. 2CC4 Development & Oriontation — We have re-oriented the three buildlr>gs arnJ turned Walgreen ’s so that from the entrance off of Kelley ParVway, customers will have Immediate access to the front doors of Walgreen's ar>d one of the retail buildings. This alignment also brirvgs traffic directly to the front doors from the right in/ right out on Willow. This site circulation \wiU eliminate any confusion for the customer. We have split up the two retail buildings and put the drive thru between them to allow the west retail building Immediate adjacency to the pond. We believe this alignment works well since a customer of the end cap will be able to sit Inside or outside and view the pond. Also, this doesn't block the view of the pond from the Willow/Highway 12 intersection. If this site plan is acceptable, we will proceed with building plans that address your concerns with backside of buildings. Parking Layout & Capacity - We have incorporated additional green space In the parking lot from our previous plan. These green islands will have trees and tow plantings, which will enhance the aesthetic value of the development. If we consider Walgreen s requiring 60 stalls based on their studios, then the remainder cf the site is parked at 1 stall per 149 square feet. With the 12 proof of parking stalls, we would have 77 stalls for Walgreen's and 1 stall per 150 square feet for the retail building. It seems better to have the green space today and If needed in the future, put in the additional parking stalls. We feel that the 145 stalls for this development is more than sufficient. Green Space - We have provided 25% green space with this new layout. This is pervious surface only, and does not include the trails. Structural Coverage - We have reduced the square footage of buildings on the site, from 29,620 to 28,880. We currently have 16.5% building coverage for the retail and 19.7% building coverage for the pharmacy. We believe that since we have provided adequate green space and parking capacity that the building coverage should be allowed to exceed 15%. 650 BUTLER NOfTTHBUnOlNO S10 FIRST AVENUE NORTH NMNCAPOUS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.0070 FAX 612.252 0077 wmufUndbrmrM ----------T' \k Mr. G»fken Pag* 3 Ra: StontBay Mart^2« . 2004 Market Analysis — See attached letter from United Properties. Building Deskin & Materials - The building materials and design have not changed from our original submittal. We will work with you to find a brick color that is acceptable to all parties. Sincerely, LANDFORM' ^ Vicki J. VanDeH. P.E. y|v COPY: ENCL: S90 BUTLER NORTH BUILOmO 810 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOUS, MN 85403 OFFICE: •IZ.mfOTO FAX ei2JS2.Wn mtmSanOhm tm Compilation of Approved Uses for Outlot A, Stonebay (March 15,2004 Revision) Permitted Uses A. Retail and Serv'ice Businesses • The foIlo\King neighborhood retail and serv ice businesses supplying commodities or performing a service pnmanly for the residents in Uie surrounding neighboihood: 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, soA dnnks, cosmetics and other usual drug stoic merchandise. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up sutions including incidental pressing and repair. 8. Garden supplies, florist shop (but not home and garden equipment rental). 9. GiA or antique shops. to. 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. Onice supply store. olTicc machine store, copy shop 17. Pipe and tobacco shops. 18. Housewares, furniture, carpet store. 19. Postal substation. 20. Real estate sales. 21. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. 22. Sewing center and yardgoods. 23. Sporting goods store. 24. Tailor shops. 25. Travel agencies. 26. Variety store. 27. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. 28. OfT-sale Liquor Store B. Pennitted B-6 Uses; The following uses as allowed in the B-6 District; 1. OAices (business and professional). 2. Banks and financial institutions. 3. Libraries. 4. Motels and hotels. CoadHtoiil lift 1.Re.:; u • >»nts (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table, or cafetena m / Hr!; food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for coiujinplion Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales arc permitted in Class I Restaurants. Restaurants (Class II). Fast- food, convenience food, coffee shop, dn\ e-in, dnve-througli or liquor store restaurants, which is a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are scrv ed their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed, or a dnve-in w here most customers consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises, regardless of how it is serxed, or a drive-tlirough w here n.ost customers pick up food at a drive-up w indow for consumption on or off the premises; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. The follow ing 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. e. Any of Uic Pemiitled Retail and Scrv ice Business uses when such iiicl udes a drive- through facility. Accessory Uses 1. Signs. Signs, as regulated in the zoning code for the B-1 District. 2. Temporary Buildings. Buildings tcmporanly located for purposes ofconstnictiai on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said constructionw 3. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. 4. Fences. Fences, as regulated in the Zoning Code. 5. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing ncccssarx to conduct a pcmiitted principal use. provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30^ b of the floor .space of the principal building. 6. Public Tclqihonc Booths. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7.00 o'clock p.m. Gaf&on stated that the address could be addressed. Burke responded that he could speakr ^^’lth his partners. Gaf!ron stated in staffs opinion the Sign at 12* or 12' 5 ” is pushing the^l, especially for an office use. V^Tiite suggested making the Orono Professional Center in smaller letters or putting on a lower sign and then the tenant names could be la ’ger. Sansevere stated the sign exceeded and intemptedf the roofline and it would be more visually pleasing if one-foot lower. Murphy staled the Council has gone a long way on previous issues rela ’xd to diis project Applicant Burke also stated they went a long way. \ Murphy moved and Mayor Peterson moved (o deny the application on staffs recommeadation that the sign not exceed the 12' 8" height approved with'tl^e building permit. VOTE: Ayes 4; Nays 0. lit approved with'H^e^^ 11. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., HIGHWAY 12/WlLLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A, STONEBAY) - COMPREHENSIVX PLAN AMENDMENT Gaf&on explained Planning Commission tabled this item on February 17 pending a joint work session with the Long Lake Planning Commission, which was held on March 3. At that work session, the commissioas exchanged information about current and pending activities along the High^^^y 12 corridor, and discussed whether rezooing of this site m PAGE 20 of 29 i .U 11 III III ilii MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mondiy, March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. might impact redevelopment efTorts in Long Lake. Each commissioner in attendance drew his/her out conclusions regarding that discussion. On February 17, Planning Commission also established a list of acceptable uses for the property if it is rczoned. The Planning Commission refined this on March 15, the revised version is attached as Exhibit C. Murphy inquired v^hat the list of uses meant. Gaf&on responded by saying that when the propetty is rezoned there will be a list of allowed uses for this property and if any approved uses on the list bt:comes a drive-thru there would be CLIP on the pe.'mit. On March 15, Plaiaiing Commission concentrated primarily on determining whether to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to re-guide the site to allow primarily retail uses, rather than the primarily office uses for which the site is currently guided. •On a vote of 6-1, the Planning Commission recommended that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to convert from oHice to retail uses; -Indicated that if the CMP amendment and rezoning goes forward, they are in complete agreement with the concepts expressed in the March 1,2004 letter authored by Gaffron; and -Noted that if the CMP amendment and rezoning goes forward, with a minor revision to make all “permitted uses with drive-thru’s’* a conditional use, they agree with the list of recommended allowed uses. Gaf&on stated he included portions of the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March IS for the Council to review their concerns and opinions. PA(S2lof29 tin. ilii 1 ;! H ! i V V V I i 1 t li *j 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Staff recommends that if the goals and parameters of the March 1 letter are met that a primarily retail devebpmcnt would be appropriate for this site. Site plans review to date has not met these conditions. Staff aiul the developer need clear direction as to whetlier the Comprehensive Plan amendment has Council support. If Council confirms it will accept a CMP amendment to convert the site from office to retail if the parameters and goals of the March 1 letter can be met to the Councira satisfaction, the developer than can proceed with further plan revisions and work toward an approvable plait If Council grants conceptual approval, staff envisions the following steps: 1. Suff will, within the next 2-3 weeks, draft text for an amendment of the CMP that incorporates the specific goals and parameters under which retail uses will be allowed for this site. 2. Once Planning Commission and Council have accepted the text, a formal Comp Plan Amendment application to the Metropolitan Council will be commenced. 3. An ordinance for rezoning the site to B-6 PUD incorporating the established parameters for development and allowed uses will be drafted for Planning Commission and Council action. 4. In the meantime, applicant will continue to work with staff to draft a plan that meetings the goals, parameters and conditions established in the March I letter. There have been 22 plans and Planning Commission has not seen Plans 21 or 22. Sansevere asked Gaffron about how we.l the qjplicant has proceeded toward meeting the parameters of the March I letter. Gaf&on responded they have finally come to a plan that dianges the concept of moving (he Walgreen’s around and one retail building will house a bank and he said he hasn’t seen Plans 22 or 23 yet They have worked for the westoly uaera of the site orient n PAOT22 0U9. T , , . Hal ili sililb i! ll iilll MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7.00 o’clock p.m. toward the pond as an amenity. They provided a lirt’.e bit better focus toward the center of the site opposed to totally focusing towards Highway 12. The traffic engineer hasn’t looked the circulation and parking issues yet. Gaffron stiU thinks there is potential for impact on the neighborhood but they understand the need for screening will be cnttcal. The last plan Gaffron reviewed was not complete in many wa>-s and could be changed in a number of ways. Tlie key issue for Gaffron was that they went away from three separate uses, now we’re down to two uses, a drivc-tlvu issue usurping the west end amenity, a pond that sneaks through in-between the two halves of the building. He stated they are getting closer, but not there yet. Plan 23 was introduced to staff and Council and is made a record of these minutes. (and is attached widi my paperwork). Sansevere staled that as far as he is concerned the applicant will proceed further if they keep in mind Gaflron's recommendations. Plan 23 splits one retail building on the west to accommodate a drive-through bervieen the buildings. Murphy noted the changes to the Walgreen site and inquired how Walgreen’s feels about the changes and will they do what is needed. The applicant responded they have seen this plan and turning the building they can accept. This building now has less parking around their front door which they don’t like, but getting a drive-thru on the east side maybe more acceptable. Their pnmary response was that applicant should come back to them after they have something that can be passed by the Council. There is no certainly, but the applicant has confidence. CVS Phannacy may have an interett, but ate not being approached at this time. 1,1 • i * ^^B23of29 iliiiiiilli.iliiyililiiiliili;I14 ;i illli11:. ii :i 1 ii :it 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mondiy, March 22.2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. Murphy stated he likes what is being proposed and are moving way down the path ar.d he is supporting the retail and pharmacy use. but is more concerned that the apphcarU understands the parameters in the March 1 letter and take them seriously. Murphy ftinher apobgized to the applicant for the process. The ^plicant should never have come before Council unul they had gone before the Planning Conmission process and said if the applicant isn't one to give up. neither is he at this point. White agreed with what Murphy stated on the process. He stated the site plan is much better and agrees with GafSron foat it is coining along. White stated he is not opposed to making this site all commercial. Applicant stated there is not a lot of interest from banks. They haven't given up yet and will try to incorporate. They have approached most of the restaurants growing m metro area and they say the day population isn't big enou^ to support a restaurant. In addition, because of the bypass, traffic will be going down. Mayor Peterson took a poll of the Council that indicated all were in favor of moving forward toward a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She also indicated that one Planning Commission member was in favor of an amendment. Mabusth stated that she feels this application started off in the wrong place and that although she couldn’t attend the meeting, the joint meeting with Long Lake was a great step forward and no one said they were against it Mabusth stated she thinks it would be exciting to have a commercial development be in place for our neighboring community as they face re-development and believes there is a spirit to coidinue to work together with foe Long Lake Planning Commission. , t i '■ } & . . 1 j » j 1 . } PAGB24of29 . . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. March 22.2004 7:00 o’clock p.ra. White moved and Mayor Petenoo leconded to fraot conceptual approval for a Comprcbcotive Plan amendment to reflect Che conditions in the March 1,2004 letter. Discussion was opened and Moorse commented to clahfy what the expectations are that: 1) We don't want to say we axe approving 30,000 square feet of retail Instead we want to be more specific and he believes the phaimacy is key to this site and if the pharmacy is gone and we are just trying to fill up the space that is a different plan than is being talked about here. Gafliron stated that the City will establish parameters in the Comp Plan for development of this Outlot A that will include whatever conditions felt appropriate, whether this developer or any developer. Moorse responded to the applicant that we wouldn't amend the Comp Plan to simply say “retail". We amend the Comp Plan to say it’s fine to do retail in this area verms office as long as the retail serves the neighborhood and fits these parameters. One of the parameters Moorse suggests would be it has to be a pharmacy or something that provides the same type of service uses that a phannacy provides. 2) Moorse continued to say that the other thing be would suggest is the fiur westerly space hu to be food oriented if it is all going to be retail because if it's not then we have wasted that whole building. Applicant stated tiiey have to get closer to the PUD using those parameters. Mocrse stated it is not just the PUD. it is the Comp Plan Amendment language where the City would lay out those parameters so it is not a wide-open amendment. Gtffion stated to ipplicaat that the rezoning goes band-in-hand with the PUD. L 11 • , li PAQB23ot» , ; . . illiitlli I ilittlil!lilJl i iiiil IsiI lik jlitsifcliil 11 MINUTES OF THE OROKO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Staff will beg;n drafting text fo: die amendment and begin to draft language for a zoning ordinance to reflect specific uses and bring it back to the Council April 12, 20C4. This item will come back to the Council at die April 12 meeting and then go to dw Planning Commission for rezomng. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues There was no further discussion. VOTE: AYES: 4; NAYS: 0. Mayor Peterson placed Item 21. in front of Item 20 to accommodate the Cbef of Police. 21. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTNERS IN PREVENTION COALITION AND THE CITY OF ORONO Moorse stated this item relates to re-staning the drug enforcement effort and Chief Good has been putting a lot of hours in trying to pull together a grant application to bring money to the city for this project In case the grant is denied, the City may have to use some money out of the forfeiture fund, which came from the drug enforcement effort. Those forfeiture fund monies can only be used for drug enforcement so staft* is asking the Council to give authorization that if the City pulls the program together but don't get the grant then monies from the forfeiture fund could be used to hire seme part-time officers to fill shifts because a full-time officer will have to be pulled toward ’his effort. White thanked Chief Good for her effori. White moved end Murphy seconded a motion to approve a Memorandum of Undcntandlng between the partoera in Prevention Coalition and the City of Orono (Option 2 nbove). Barrett questioned the terms of the MOU and dates involved, bat PAGE 26 of 29 1 i; ii ii kiis !:-I N i i 'i :i 1 }.ii I i li:I. ii i I li f*.C. T the deck not to exceed four feet toward the lakcshorc from the back of the house; and granting a variance to bnild a detached garage under Plan A. VOTE: Ayes: S, nays 2. Motion passed. Gaffron stated to Mr. Mischke that the application will go before City Council Monday, March 22.2004. (#3) 04 2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE”, NW QUADRANT H>VY 12AVILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A, STONEBAY) COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW. REZONING, CO.MPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND SUBDIVISION (6:25-0:40 P.M.) Clinir Smith stated that this is solely a Comp Plan Amendment discussion. Mr. Trask and Mr. Johnson, the applicants, were present. Planning Director Gaffron explained that the meeting packet that Commission received didn't include backsides of pages and there is a new packet in front of you containing the conect pages. Gaffron stated this is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment for a re-zoning of property at the NW comer of Highway 12 and Willow Drive. The applicant has been before the Commission a number of times in the last few months. It was reviewed at the February 17 meeting at which time the Commission concentrated on a list of acceptable uses for re-zoning the property (Exhibit G attached). The request was tabled and a joint work session with Long Lake Planning Commission was held March 3, 2004 where a discussion of current and pending activuies along Highway 12 was held and discussed whether re-zoning this site might impact redevelopment efforts in Long Lake. After reviewing this project over the last few montlts staff concluded that the applicant needed some guidance that resulted in the .March 1, 2004 letter to Uie applicant (Exhibit B). Based on the fact that that applicants have been advised to come up with a different site plan it is critical, from a timing standpoint and for the applicant, that the Commission reach a conceptual conclusion on whether or not the Commission is ready to establish parameters and go ahead with the Comp Plan Amendment and a re-zomng. Formal action is not being sought at this time, but direction from the Commission is needed conceptually, that if the number of conditions you established can be met that the Commission is willing to make that comimtment and that would be taken by staff to the City Council next Monday. March 22. The recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment must be made at this meeting in order to conform to the statutory 120-day review period, which ends April IS (prior to the next commission meeting). Staff recommends that Planning Commiuion: Discusi and make a recomir.indation 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 die following;1. Review and confirm the list of allowed zoning uses you determined are ^ropriate for this property, and Review carefully the dev’elopment goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of March 1 and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. Gaffron stated that site plan issues discussion could be postponed to a fimire meeting. There were no public comments. In regards to the March 1,2004 letter, Mabusth reiterated the Commission’s continuing concerns about the lack of adequate parking felt necessary, the need to take advanc er of providing a \new of the pond with wmdows and everything facing “in” and how' plans from the applicant never seem to incoiporate the Commission's concerns. Mabusth continued stating that the Commission has accepted the 60-foot Walgreen lot and the change to the southeast side. Gaf&on confirmed that is correct for that lot, but for th? balance of the site, city code would pre\'ail. Chair Smith asked what is currently allowed on this site according to tlie current Comp Plan. Gaffron responded that the use is currently for professional offices with ancillary retail that would support the office use such as a coffee shop as an example. Gaffron continued stating when the applicant came to the city with primarily a retail plan with two thirds of the site being retail and that then determined the need for a Comp Plan Amendment. Walgreen ’s is more than one-third of the site. The bank w ould be considered office under current code. Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current plan? Gaffron responded no more than one-fourth can be retail. Chair Smith stated the question for the Commission is whether to deviate from what the Comp Plan calls for which is office and ancillary retail versus more retail and some office. Gaf&on responded that is coaect. Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighborhood. Chair Smith alwrays wanted to see it be more in-service and more related to the rest of the Stone Bay development than is currently proposed. Chair Smith agrees that the March 1, 2004 letter lays out criteria that meet her desires. L Chair Snuth asked the members if there is a compelling reason to move away from the Comp Plan or should they stay with what was put Ln Ac plan not that long ago. If the decision is not to move away from the current plan, then the city should wait unhl an applicant comes before the city with the cunent use as directed in the Comp Plan. A poll was taken of the members: Smith: Interested in retail and services that would serve Stone Bay and the immediate community, and not in favor of a development that veers away from the Comp Plan, especially if feeling rushed. Fritzler: Initially, thinking this was a pretty good use and may be worth making a CMP change, but after meeting with the Long Lake Plaiming Co.mmission and some of the questions and thinking that came out of the meeting it became evident we aren ’t hearing an>thmg from Walgreen’s. Also didn't think the idea of the bank is going to be realized. Rather than seeing the bank comer go to more retail, the idea of keeping the area more ofTice type -se and making the assumption that the residential development is going to flourish quickly it may be a better idea not to deviate from the current CMP with the future unknown. Once built, the developer is out of the community and the city and commuraty has to live with what remaais. If entena could be set, then may be in favor, but not currently in favor. Bremer Not in favor of amending the CMP. The Long Lake meeting was excellent and got a lot out of it. but she is mterested in keeping the rural flavor of Uie city in tact, but it really is a city council decision to change the CMP. If the council decides to change the CMP. then tlie commission could give the council as much guidance as possible by having a list of uses that could be recommended. Zugschwest: Not in favor of amendmg the CMP. Rahn: Less in favor of amending the CMP than was in the beginning. If city were being rushed into making a decision, would be opposed to amending the CMP. Mabusth: Feels commission is being rushed W’hy does it have to be all retail? WTiat can ’t one of the lots be office use - given the right mix of use may be in favor of amending the Comp Plan Berg: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The city just put the CMP together and to make a change we need to look at all the possibihues and w hat exactly we want to see for the city. In favor of amending the CMP: Jearate Mabusth Not in favor of amendmg the CMP: Berg, Fritzler, Smith, Rahn, Zugschwest, Bremer Mr. Trask stated they have review ed Mr. Gaffron's letter of March 1 and fee! confident that the majority of requests can be accomplished. He said that m talking with potential buyers of Stone Bay residential area a grocery store is exactly what they don't want Tliey feel they have come back with retail uses that correspond with other retail use at that intersection. They feel it is a retail intersection. In talkuig about what serves the resident's irantediate needs, office space brings people from out of the area to this site. Mr. Trask feels the cunent site plan being worked on is looking at all the criteria, including having the site face “in”, and to try and find ways to incorporate pond aestlietics can be accomplished. In regards to signing tenants, can ’t move forward to accomplish until the uses are decided. The neighborhood of Stone Bay does support concept and uses proposed at this site. Mr. Trask also fell they were at a positive place five months ago. Chair Smith stated that the applicant has been extraordinarily patient with the commission over the last five mondts. NMien a Comp Plan is put m place, members feel being rushed may feel like years instead of months w hen considering making a fairly large compreliensive change and apologized for not starting here. In regards to reviewing the list of approved uses (Exhibit G\ Mabusih voiced a concern over approving item #21 “Retail food of all varieties and home supplies” that might include restaurants. Gaffion explained that restaurants would be covered under a CUP list. Retail foods would apply to Walgreen's that will sell some retail foods. The question is at what level docs that store become a grocery store and is there some limitation you would like to put on it. The Commission determined that #21 would stay on the list. Mabusth suggested a disclaimer to say they couldn't have a drive up window. GafTion said that the Conditional Use list would be amended and say that any of the uses that are permitted retail and service business uses as well as B-6 permitted uses, if it's a drive-through it's a CUP. Commission recommends applicant go before council, get an opinion, then come back to Planning Commission with a revised site plan, if necessary. Bremer stated, and the entire Commission agreed, that Exhibit G is the compilation of uses for the council to review with the CUP disclaimer addition. The Commission agreed that all points in the letter of March 1 clearly staled the Commission’s desires. No fonnal motion needed at this time No formal minutes fiom the Long Lake joint meeting were taken. NEW BUSINESS 4. (#4) 04-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON. 1398 REST POINT ROAD, AFTER- THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:10-7:15 P.M.) Claryce B. and Lyle K. Johnson, the Applicants, were present L riJ«*04.29TT April 16.2004 pagt 1 oro Date AppKcaHoa Received: 12-17>03 Date Applicaliofl Coaiidered as Complete: 12*17-03 60-Day Review Period Espires: 2-15-04 extended to 4-15-04 i to 6-14-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Gundlach. City Planne^^ April 16.2004 04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive • Commercial Site Plan Review with Variances - Conditional Use Permit • Public Hearing Continuation Zoning District: Lot Area: Frontage: B-1, Retail Sales Business District 1.58 acres (68,897 s.f.) 529 feet Application Summary: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial sue plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. Conditional use permit in order to operate a Class II restaurant (with liquor). Hardcover variance to allow 90"/o hardcover on the site. The improvements associated wnth this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for Structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.* 5) Sign variance to allow the existing sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance to main in its existing non-conforming location.* •Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review 2) 3) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Site Plan Including Parking Layout Exhibit B - Pla-nning Commission Action Notice dated 1-22-04 Exhibit C - Staff Report from January PC Meeting dated 1-16-04 Exhibit D - Minutes from 1/20/04 Planning Commission Meeting Flit ■04-2»77 ApHI 16. 2004 Pa|c2orS Exhibit E - Council Memo dated 3-16-04 RE; Request for Liquor License Exhibit F - Council Minutes from 3-22-04 Meeting RE: Liquor License Exhibit G - Memo to Applicants RE; Staff Concerns dated 4-12-04 Exhibit H - 60-Day Extension Letters Exhibit I • B - 1, General Business District Standards Exhibit J - Public Hearing Notice to Neighbor's \^ithin 3S0' Background This application was originally heard at the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting several neighbors voiced concerns regarding the application and their written comments can be found in the Staff Report attached as Exhibit C. Many of the concerns related to the proposed liquor license which was applied for by the profiosed restaurant owner, Paul Ode. The continued review of this application should be conducted with the understanding that a liquor license will be applied for in conjunction with the uses, however the City Council ultimately determines whether a liquor license will be granted through a separate public hearing. An initial request by Mr. Paul Ode for a liquor license was denied by the City Council on March 22, 2004 (see attached minutes. Exhibit F). Currently, Paul Ode has indicated that a new partner wrill apply for a liquor license, which will require another public heanng by the City Council. The City Council's previous denial was based on false information provid^ on the application by Mr. Paul Ode. The denial was also based on the site's proximity to a residential neighborhood and liquor having a greater potential for more noise, public disturbances, litter, damage to property and calls to police. "nic Planning Commission, at the Jt. uary 20*’’ meeting, moved that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff to draft plans finalizing a number of issues. The application did not go back to the Plan-ning Commission, until njw, because of the uncertainty that centered on appraval of the liquor license. Although staff is fairly certain that the Council will not approve a liquor license, the applicants wish to continue review of their project. Below is a list of items the Planning Commission reouested further review of at the January 20*^ meeting: • revised parking plan incorporating a 10' green space yard along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, • analysis of the current parking demands and the required parking of the entire site. • revised plans depicting areas of loading, • specific signage proposed, • current and proposed lighting locations, and • a landscape plan This report will focus on the issues above and specifically the eHects of a restaura.it with liquor and without liquor. The Planning Commission should review the issues and give the applicant guidance on what the Planning Commission and ultimately the Council might see as appropriate uses for this site. Fite M04-2977 Apr»ll6.2004 Fa|«3ori Parking PUn The applicant has submined a revised parking plan which incorporates 10* green yards along Shoreline Drive (in front of the gravel parking lot) and Kelly Avenue. The revised parking layout of the upper gravel lot contains 32 stalls. From sta^s perspective the plan is ftmctional and is configured to yield the most spaces. In consideration of the parking analysis which is discussed later in this report, staff would recommend that the 10' green spar? proposed along Shoreline Drive in front of the gravel parking lot be extended ftinher west. This would result in green space in between the two site accesses off Shoreline Drive of approximately 140’ in length and 10’ in wiJih in addition to the 110* foot long green space shown on the revised parking layout. Implementation of both these green spaces would yield approximately 3,000 square feet (496 of the entire site) of non* hardcover areas which are currently hardcover. The total number of parking stalls provided on this plan is 104 (97 if the 7 parallel parking spaces are converted to green space). This parking plan is drawn to scale and all spaces and drive aisles conform to City standards. All spaces are 90 degree, 9* x 20’ spaces with the exception of six, 43 degree spaces. The parking analysis section of this report will focus on parking demand and how many sulls should be required Tht Planning Commission should discuss the new proposed parking layout and determine the amount of green space that should be required The applicant should also be questioned on his willingness to create the 10’ green yard along Shoreline Drive west of the existing gravel lot (where the 7 parallel parking stalls currently are proposed). Parking Analysis Staff, along with the applicant, reviewed the site to determine the current and proposed uses and the amount of parking those u»cs demand. The City then determined how many spaces would be requir^ in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and also the amount of spaces required in accordance with two separate published parking studies. The reason the City reviewed these parking studies was to determine how the City's requirements compare to what may be considered adequate parking and because the parking studies gave more detailed parking ratios. The following is list of the uses and their square footages, and the amount of parking required: USES Retail: Champion Auto - 6,912 s.f Post Office - 200 s.f Liquor Store - 1,368 s.f Bowling Alley - 10 lanes at 5,225 s.f Proposed Restaurant - 1,890 s.f Lounge (known as The Crib) - 535 s.f lif^ rite April 16.2004 P«Ct4«fl PARKJSG REQUIRED BYZOSING ORDINANCE Retail: 1/1 SO s.f. - 56 spaces Restaurant: 1/80 s.f. >24 spaces Lounge: 1/80 s.f. > 7 spaces Bowling Alley: 6 spaces/land - 60 spaces TOTAL >147 required spaces 1992 STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE PARKING CONSULTASTS COUNCIL Retail: Auto Parts Store (Champion): 2.S/1000 s.f > 17 Post Office: 3.3/1000 s.f - 1 Liquor Store; 4/1000 s.f >5 Restaurant (family w/liquor): 12/1000 s.f - 23 Lounge (bar): 20/1000 s.f * 1 1 Bowang Alley: .33/persons in permitted capacity - 43 TOTAL > 100 required spaces 1 m STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC I A TION Retail: Auto Parts Store (Champion): 3.3/1000 s.f > 23 Liquor Store; 1/400 s.f = 3 6.5/1000 s.f > 9 3 •*. 1/300 s.f > 8 Post Office: 1/500 s.f >1 4/lOOOs.f >1 Lounge (bar): 10/1000 s.f > 5 1/50 s.f - 11 Bowling Alley: 2/alley - 20 Average > 7 Average » 1 Average > 8 3/alley ■ 30 4/alley - 40 5/allcy - 50 6/alley > 60 Average > 40 Restaurant: 1/150 s.f > 13 1/100 s.f >19 14/1,000 s.f-26 2/100 s.f - 38 1 /every 4 seals » 12 4 4-1 /every 3 seats > 20 TOTAL > 100 required spaces Average -21 After conducting this study staff discovered that the parking required by Section 78-1516 of the Zoning Ordinance is much more than the parking required by the tw o studies. The studies indicate that 100 stalls may be adequate to serve all the existing and proposed uses on site. However, coupled with a restaurant that serves liquor and a bowling alley that serves liquor there is a chance that with liquor comes increased activity beyond the Cities control, which could mean a greater demand for more parking, however this caimot be quantified. Flit •04.29TT AprU 16.2004 PtfiSori Tht Planning Commission should discuss /row many stalls are required and if the information gathered from the parking studies is sufficient to grant a parking variance. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether a restaurant with liquor has the potential to create a greater parking demand, thus making it more difficult to justify a parking variance. Loading Areas The applicant has depicted areas for loading on the revised site plan, attached as Exhibit A The loading area for the upper retail uses is shov^Ti on the eastern side of the building. The applicant has stated that semi-truck trailers do not frequent the site and the area depicted on the plan will support the size trucks that deliver to the upper retail uses. The loading area for the uses occupying the lower section of the building would be at the western end accessed from the lower parking lot. This area of the building is currently used as a storage facility and will support the deliveries that are anticipated for the resuunnt. The applicant has also stated that semi-trucks will not be delivering to uses occupying the lower part of the building and that there is adequate maneuvering room. Finally, the applicant has stated that deliveries will be conducted during off-peak limes so as not to create parking problems. The applicant would also agree to specific delivery times in an effort to not disturb the residential properties to the south. Planning Department staff would recommend that, in conjunction Hiih a site plan approval and conditional use permit for approval for the restaurant, delivery times be limited beyond what the noise ordinance states (weekdays 7am-l0pm. weekends 5am- 8pm). The Planning Commission should discuss the loading plan and determine w hat is reasonable. Signage The iqtplicant has proposed to keep all the existing signage which consists of w:.il signs for the retail uses and the sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. Tne applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue and one above the stairway access from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot. An illustration showing the proposed signs is in the attached Staff Repen from the January meeting. The signs proposed .meet all requirements established under Section 78-1468 of the Zoning Ordirumce. The applicant will be required to obtain a sign permit for the new sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The sign must be locat^ 10’ from all property boundaries and not wtthm the sight tnangle. The applicant is also proposing to keep the existing sign located at the Kelly Avenue entrance. This sign is located approximately 2' outside the property boundary. Planning Department staff would recommend that this sign be moved out of the right-of-way and re-located 10* from the property boundary to comply with Section 78-1468. How'ever. File N04-29T7 April 16.2004 Pag(6ofS due to the existing retaining wail system this may not be possible. Planning Commission should discuss a variance approval to allow the sign to remain in its current location or recommend that it be moved to a location that complies with Section 7S-/-/55. Lighting The applicant has proposed to keep the existing two ligh« located in the parking lot in the rear of the building. The applicant has proposed new lighting consisting of the following; • downward facing li^ts under the canopy proposed at Ae rear of the building so as to illuminate the sidewalk only, and • downward facing lights at the top of the proposed stairw-ay access from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot in an effort to illuminate the stairway. The applicant will be required to obuin an electrical permit from the state for installation of new lighting. City staff will require, at the time of building permit, fixture diagrams be submitted to ensure that the lighting is downward facing. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed lighting and determine if it is appropriate. _________ ^ '/tf I Landscape Plan The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. He has indicated his willingness to implement landscaping into the required green spaces and has indicated to staff that planters will be installed along Shoreline Drive. The Planning Commission should discuss if they would like to see a specific landscaping plan showing plant types and locations or if the conversion to grass is sufficient. Variances Required That applicant is requesting approval of several variances in conjunction with the proposed restaurant The information regarding the hardcover and structural coverage variances can be found in the January Staff Report in addition to the information provided in this report. The Planning Commission should discuss approval of these variances and specifically address the effects of them in relation to a restaurant serving liquor. CendMonal Use Permit The qtpHcant requests approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a Class II restaurant A Class II restaurant is a conditional use. As part of the conditional use rUt ■04-2977 April 16,2004 Page I oft 16H7 5. Should the non-confbnnmg sign st the Kelly Avenue entrtnee receive s viriencc to itey in that location? Do the retaining walls and large right-of- way create hardships to allow it to renudn? 6. Is a restaurant with liquor appropriate? Or, does it have the potential for too many negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood? 7. Would the Plaimmg Commismr>r ■t^'rove a CUP for a restaurant without liquor? t. Are there any other issues wiu. a i plication? Stair Racoramcadation Planning Department staff recommends denial of the request for a CUP and associated commercial site plan review with variances for a restaurant with liquor (Class II)- Staff would recommend that the ^>plicant entatain a restaurant use without liquor (Class I) and that the Planning Commission discuss vdiat would be appropriate under that use. jlTE"EXHIBIT A CO. bituminous X fOItrtTIW- ^*5^ -10 CONVEX ^•CONC. CURB QlUtt^ * NO. JAU foTAL PA|LWnI<5 6TALU5> PROVIDED 15 ROAD pRofewt 0OVHlPAIt.Y l/lAUKre!-----APRU . IWWtiW ilGfl r EXHIBITS aXY OF ORONO ZONING HLE: 04-2977 27SO KcUty Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: January 22. 2004 TO; Michael K. Kcaveny COPIES; Paul Ode 13425 Highway 5 5040 Enchanted Road Young America, MN 55397 Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATIONCoj'*ditio_nal_ysc Pcrnril &.Comni_erc:al_Sitc_Pl^n Re\ icw _ DA FE OF MEETLNC; January 20,2004 Planning CommUtlon recommended as follows: Motion by Commissioner Mabusih, seconded by Commissioner Rahn to fab/e the application. Tlie applicant was instructed to work with staff to complete a parking analysis of the entire site to determine the antount of parking needed to accomnodate the entire building. The plan should locate upper and lower parking lot loading areas, specific signage and lighting locations, and establishment of a 10' green space yard along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The applicant shall also work with staff to develop a landscape plan dealing with the retaining wall area separating the upper and lower parking lot areas and the staircase. The applicant shall also determine how the restaurant will be vented. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for: Plaiining Commission - Tuesday, February 17,2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. rt(« «04.29T7 January 20.2004 Pagtlofll Dttt Apptkotioa Rtctivcd: 12*174I3 Date Application Conildcrtd ai Complete: 12-17-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 2-15-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planned Date: January 16,2004 Subject: 04-2977. Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review - Conditional Use Pennit • Public Hearing Zoning Dtetrict: Lot Area: Frontage: B-1. Retail Sales Business District 1.58 acres (68,897 s.f) 529 feet Application Summary: Tite applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% haidcovcr on the site. The impiovcments associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) Suoictui^ coverage variance to allow 16% strtictural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for contmcrcial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for Structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past * •Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant’s Nanative Exhibit C - Existing Sc Proposed Survey Exhibit D ~ Description of Signage and Lighting Proposal Exhibit E - Existing Signage on Building Exhibit F - Proposed New Signage k Fill *04-2977 Juuary 20.2004 Pa|t2»fll Exhibit 0- ExhibUH- ExhibitU Exhibit J- ExhibitK.- Exhibit L - Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit 0 Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R - South Side Elevation Showing Proposed Entryways and Ax^-nings - Floor Plan of Proposed Eastern Entryway Floor Plan of Proposed Western Entryway Floor Plan of Proposed Restaurant - Proposed New Stairway System - Hardcover Analysis - Parking Plan - Aerial Photograph wiili Topography - Photographs - Bus Re*Location Plan - Property Owners List -Plat Map Background The applicant's intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staH' in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation. Planning Department staff met with the building owner. Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee, Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed improvements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant The property is located at 342S Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Buildiui Setbacks B-1 Required Existing Proposed Front (street)35 ’57.5 ’57.5 ’ Rear (R-Distiict)35'80*76- East Side (street)35 ’123’123’ Right Side (B District)15*<0 ’O' Flit •04.29T7 January 20.2C04 Patt3arn Structural Coveraee j Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage j Allowed: I Proposed: 68,897 s.f. (1.S8 acres)10,335 s.f (15%) 11.032 s.f (16%) Hardcover Calculations Staff did not require that the applicant submit the hardcover calculations :n zones Rather, the applicant had a hardcover analysis completed of the entiie property as the building is approximately 1,000’ from Lake Minnetonka, although the southwest comer of the property is approximately 200’ from the lagoon that extends north of the main water body. Staff concluded that an analysis of the entire property was appropriate as the majority of commercial properties do not meet the hardcover requirements, whether figured in zones or not. Hardcover on the properly consists of the following (see arached Exhibit L for more detailed infomiation)- Total Area of Properly Allowed , Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 68.897 s f 24.1l4s.i (35% assuming entire property | is in the 500- 100* zone) 62,106 s.f 1 (90%) 62,106 s f. (90%) ' NO CHANGES PROPOSED Hardcover Analysis Because the applicant is proposing site improvements associated with the commercial site plan review a hardcover analysis is lequired. As stated above, the hardcover was figured for the entire site rather than zones due to the commercial nature of the property and tlie amount of liardcover tlut currently exists. The proposal doesn ’t include any new hardcover. The major changes that should be noted arc the entryways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover The non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along Uie southern hour. ’ iry of the sue facing residential propeny and a smaller. un>kept landscape area between tl:e retaining walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot (see Exhibit 04). The propc-ed hardcover breakdov n is as follows (see attached Exhibit L) BUILDING 1 1.032 s.f ' LOWER LEVEL GARAGE 2.671 s f. j BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA i1 33.376 sf CONCRETE WALLS |1 2.811 sf j GRAVEL PARKING AREA '11.391 sf RETAINING WALLS 825 s.f 1 TOTAL 90% 1 HARDSHIP The nature of this particular property is retail establishments at the from of the building Fik •04^^9^^ January 20.2004 Paft 4 of 1 1 tnd emertainmcnt oriented businesses (Navarre Lanes/TKc Crib Proposed Rcstauram) at Ihc rear of the building. The grade changes ben^ ccn the rear and front of the building arc quite drastic and cause the need for retaining walls. Parking also needs to be accommodated at the front and rear further lessening potential areas for green space, all of which are hardships which have caused the existing 90®/o hardcover percentage The existing gravel parking area in the noithcast comer of the site is the site of an old gas station and has been the subject of past actions by the Pollution Control Agency in order to clean the site. Those actions have since been closed and there arc no current environmental issu'*s associated with the gravel area. This bnngs the potential for added green space. Tl.;: applicant has proposed a parking plan for the lot, however, no islands have been incorporated into the layout and it doesn’t meet the required setbacks The Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant his willingness to pave, stripe, increase the green space, and/or curb and guner this proposed parking lot. The grassed area along the southern border should remain grassed and the area between the two retaining walls could be better maintained and further vegetated with shrubs. Staff doesn’t see any other opportunities for further hardcover removals without having severe parking impacts. Stniclural Coverage Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordina tce requires that all p.cpenies in all zoning districts be subject to I S% ma.ximum simciural coverage The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural coverage is two entrvAvays and an awning as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the aw ning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern entryxv’ay is proposed at 600 square feet (50’ x 12 ’) and the western cnirv way is proposed at 36 square feet (6* x 6 ). The proposed awning will extend along the south elevation of the building to cover the current sidewalk The structural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be mcluded in tlte buildmg square footage when they are 2’ or less in width. The awnings proposed arc 4’ in width and extend 97.5 feel, adding 292.5 square feel of structural coverage (2’ of awning x 97.5’). This is a total of 928.S square feet (1% of toui) of additional structural coverage, or 16% where the existing percentage is 1 5%. HARDSHIP It isn’t out of the ordinary for structural covc.-age variances to be granted for commcrcit-I properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20°/b or 30% for commercial properties. For example, the Service 800 building on Highway 12 had a structural coverage variance to allow 26.1% The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow for any exceptions for commercial properties however, commercial properties are not seen as critical as residential properties with relation to the 15% maximum. The reasonableness of commercial properjes having to meet this requirement, the impacts of the proposed entrances, and the benefits and/or disadvantages of the entrances should be discussed in riltNM.2977 January 20,2004 PigtSofll dctcnnining whether a variance should be considered for this proposal. Parldog A. Location. Section 78-1511 “Setbacks for Parking ” and Section 78-646 “Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements” limit locations for parking. The following table outlines required, existing and proposed parking oa tire site: Yard Front (Shcrelinc Drivt) Side (Kelly Avenue) Side (B-l Property) Rear (Residential Prooerty) _____ Required Parking Setback 10’ Proposed Gravel Lot Existing Lower Lot 190’ 150’ 85 ’ 3 ’ Existing I Front Lot 123’ 0’ (shared) 167’ The applicant’s property has street frontages on the north and east sides, abuts another B- l zoned property to the west, and abuts a residential neighborhood to the south. The table above shows that some of the required setbacks are not met. either with existing parking or proposed parbng. The front parking lot provides parking for the retail businesses which occupy the front of the building. Currently, a shared parking arrangement with the businesses to the west is happening in this front lot. It should be noted that this proposal will not place any cars closer to the residentially zoned properties The Planning Commission should consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet Uie required setbacks of 20 ’ to Shoreline Drive and 10’ to Kelly Avenue. The 20 ’ required fh)nt yard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. The number of parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, wltich is discussed below. B. Required Number of Parking Stalls. Restaurant Use: Bowling Alley Use: Lounge (w/in bowling alley): 1,890 s f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. * 24 spaces 10 lanes ® 6 spaces/lane « 60 spaces 535 s.f @ I spacc'80 s.f • 7 spaces Total Required Parking » 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces - 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76,9’ '*.0' spaces) As proposed, the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking requirea by Section 78- 1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Sta^ feels that with the existing need for parking and the proposed restaurant use, these 84 spaces will be adequate if not excessive. Fili«04-29r7 January 30.2004 PiSa6afIl These numbers do not lake into account ihc i5 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 1S spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building The upper level businesses are primarily retail uses. Assuming a net floor area of about 8,000 s.f for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall per ISO s.f is about S3 stalls, as compared to the 30 that exist. Because the businesses that occupy the front of the building have prime-time day business hours, a shared parking arrangement would provide adequate overflow parking, should it ever be needed. However, during limes when all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday afternoons), parking could be shon by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. As discussed earlier in this section the gravel parking area doesn’t meet the required setbacks and if the required setbacks a. e enforced the number of sulls wilt be reduced. If a 20* setback to Shoreline Drive and a 10 ’ setback to Kelly Avenue are enforced, approximately 11 spaces could be lost. The Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant the amount of parking that is currently available and whether it is adequate and also how he expects this to change with the proposed restaurant use. Lot Surfacing Section 78-1S15 (B) states that **all of the area intended to be utilized for parking space and dnveways for four or more vehicles shall be surfaced with material to control dust and drainage.” The applicant isn’t proposing to pave the upper gravel lot at this time. Due to its necessity in providing parking for the restaurant, and the need to coninil the number of stalls, staff would recommend that the lot be paved and striped .f this commercial site plan is approved. Surface Water Management Plan The applicant has not provided a full drainage plan but has provided drainage arrows, contours, and elevations for the gravel parking area. There is a wide right-of-way along Kelly Avenue which takes a lot of drainage from the gravel parking area as well as at least half of uc lower parking lot. The western half of the packing lot drains southwest towards a wetland and eventually into the lagoon area of Lake Minnetonka. No hazardous w'astes threaten the integrity of the runoff, other than the normal heavy materials which vehicles excrete, and no vehicles are proposed to be stored outdoors on the site The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and finds it to be acceptable. The City’s Public Services Director has recommended that the e.xisting gravel lot be paved and provided with curb and gutter. The Planning Commission should consider whether this should be required. Road and Pedestrian Access Exterior site access This property has one access to Shoreline Drive, and one access from Kelly Avenue. The access from Kelly Avenue will be the primary access for Navarre Lanes/The Crib and the restaurant. The main access for the businesses that occupy tlic front of the building is the access which is directly off Shoreline Drive. Fit« IKM-J9T7 January :0.2004 PagtTofll Ptdtstrian access. Sidewalks currently exist along the front of the property providing pedestrian connections to the properties east and west in the Navarre area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair system whicii connects the top gravel parking area to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A proposed new stairway system is shown in Exliibit K. Proposed at the top of the staircase is a small sign wuh minor lights providing a safe pedestrian connection from the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot. bowling alley, and restaurant entrances. Signage The subject property is allowed 529 s.f of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468: “Aggregate square foouge of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one sqiare fool for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building ” The frontage is 315’ along Shoreline Drive and 214 ’ along Kelly Avenue, allowing the property 529 s.f of signage Additionally, no individual sign may exceed SO s.f. The exisung and proposed signage on the property is as follows (see Exhibit E & Ft Bumper-to-Bumper (wall sign) I 32 s.f Champion Auto (wall sign)48 s f. Champion Auto (wall sign) 1iHTf Post Office (wall sign)32 sf Liquor Store (wall sign - Shoreline Drive side) 131 s.f. Liquor Store ( wall sign - Kelly Avenue side) 33 s.f. 1 Bowl Sc. The Crib (post sign • Kelly Avenue right-of-way) ’UTl ' 1 TOTAL EXISTISG SIGNAGE 1 341 sf. Proposed sign at top of stairway , 24 s.f. Proposed sign at comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue 1 24 s f TOTAL PROPOSED SIGNAGE 48sf. SIGNAGE ALLOWED BY ORDINACE 529 s f TOTAL SIGNAGE 389 S.F. ; The applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the top of the proposed staircase and one at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and K-ll> Avenue (see Exhibit F), anu no changes to the existing signs (see Exhibit E). The sign at the top of the staircase is proposed at approximately 24 square feet. The FiU «04-29T7 JtAMry 20.2004 rat«S«fll applicant is proposing two light poles (discussed in the lighting section of this report) with the sign connecting them. The sign meets the requirements of Section 78*! 468. but the specific design of the sign and how it will tie into the lighting poles should be discussed with the applicant. The incorporation of stone planters and iron railings, as pioposed, seems appropriate. The applicant is also proposing a sign, 6* x 4* w/a planter box and poles, at the comer of Shcrelinc Drive and Kelly Avenue. The location of the sign may need to be revised should the proposed layout of the existing gravel lot change. This sign will be a multi tenant sign listing the businesses that occupy the front of the building This sign meets the requirements of Section 78-1468 and will be subject to 10' setback. In addition, staff would recommend the following; • The sign be re-oriented to be perpendicular to Shoreline Drive • The sign be monument style (no poles) Lastly, an existing pole sign for Navarre Lanes/The Cnb is located n tlie right-of-way along Kelly Avenue. This sign is in need of repair and currently isn't illuminated. The applicant has expressed his willingness to work with the Planning Convnission and City Council towards a signage plan that would be fimctional and visually appealing. The Planning Commission should consider elimination of this sign and allowing a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue which would iiicorpo.'ate all the businesses occupying the building A new directional sign, possibly 3' x 3’ could be placed at the Kelly A^ enue entrance, out of the nght of-way. The Zoning Ordinance would limit the size of all new signs to SO s.f Currently, 389 s f of signage is proposed when S29 s.f. is allowed, leaving the applicant 140 s.f. to work with. Staff would not recommend that th. Planning Commission encourage the applicant to max-out h:s allowable signage, but there is room to allow for a larger sign at the northeast corner of the site and a small directional sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance. Landscaping Plan The applicant has not provided a landscape plan. The eastern and r.o7thc.m property boundaries abut right-of-way and the western boundary abuts a.nothcr B-1 zoned property, not providing any opportunities for additional landscaping The southern property boundary has a tree line and fence which provides screening to the residential property to the south. The Plaiuung Commission should discuss whether this existing vegeution is adequate for screening (see Exhibit OS). There arc also three other potential areas for landscaping: 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot (see Exhibit 04), 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and. 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast comer of the lot. The Planning Commission should discuss requiring implementation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20 ’/10* green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This Ffte«04.2frr jMaarjr 2a 2004 area has been functionally a **no*man'i land" and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of landscaped space that, at least, approaches City Code Standards. Lighting The applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting (Exhibit D). The lighting for the current lower parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, v^ich the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not recommend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts residentially zoned property. The applicant has also proposed lighting under the proposed awTiing in an effort to illuminate the sidewalk. St^ finds no issues regarding these lights, however, the bulbs must not be exposed and the illumination shall not overlap onto the residential property to the south. BttUdiag Qaality and Materials Attached Exhibit Cl A C2 show the exterior appearances of the proposed entrances and Exhibits Ol, 02, A 03 shows the current exterior facade. The applicant has not indicated the exterior materials proposed for these entrances. City Code Section 78*645 requires that the exterior building materials must be face brick, natural stone, specially designed pre-cast concrete units, factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, or other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. The Planning Commission should discuss what materials are appropriate for the proposed entrances Staff would recommend that the color scheme and materials match the existing facade and that the roof of the entrances be shingled. But Shelter Re-Location The City ’s Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. easement be granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D’vinci’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast coiner of the applicants site. A 10' x 10' easement in tho northeast comer of the site is proposed in Exhibit PI-9. The City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter. The Planning Commission should determine whether this should be included with approval of the commercial site plan review, and how this will impact the applicant's signage or parking plan. Conditional Use Permit City Code Section 78-644 requires a conditional use permit for any B-l district to operate a Class I or Class II restaurant. The notable distinction between a Class I and Class II restaurant, in this case, is the ability to serve liquor. The proposed restaurant will serve liquor and is therefore considered a Class II restaurant. The Zoning Ordinance doesn't specifically outline conditions which the proposed restavuant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community. There was one neighborhood inquiry into what was being proposed, but no negative comments regarding the restaurant. Staff would F)k jMwiry 30.2004 Pagt 10 of 11 recommend thit the Planning Commission consider **Kours of Operation” conditions, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentiary zoned area. The applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle to be used in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. It must be setback 10* from the south lot line and located further west east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened Issues for Dlicuuioo 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-strip^? 3.Should the Platming Commission requite specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrajKes, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the buildmg radter than near the residential lot line? Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours of Operation** be specified for the restaurant? If so. what hours are appropriate? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends the following: 1) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be estabUsbed and the number of new stalls to be constructed. rtli«04-2f77 Janiiary20.2004 Pafallofll b) C) d) e) Th0 building miterinU match the existing south facing facade and the roofs be shingled. If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast comer of the site, the existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place. All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the residential property to the south. The sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument style rather than pylon style (no poles) and not higher than 8*. The applicant shall have the comers of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10* setback. The sign is also limited to SO s.f Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover when 3S% is normally allowed, stipulating the following: a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast comer of the lot, b) The landsc^ing between the retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary. Approval of a structural coverage variance allowing 16% structural coverage in order for the proposed entraiKcs and awning to be constructed. 4) 5) Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. The applicant grants an easement consistent with Exhibit PI to allow re-location of the bus shelter. ______i EXHIBIT A Applkattoo# Date Received Amount Paid LUP CO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION MVIS PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed *^nunM9- tc*^ »» Property Idenlificatioa Number (P.LD.) ^3 M- oa»*/ APPLICANT Phone ftiome) 4.ra-VVi>- VHO Namej^^ao A/. Phone fwork) vva-*- W// Addrmi7/vaf ^ ' City Zio OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Ktetit^ Tmay* - Phone (work) S0m^ Address >yL>^ ^ u ^T?3v Date Property Acquired 7 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Zip ___(raonlh/year) FEES CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - __S 75.00 For each variance request with CXIP application __S230.00 Residential Accessory Use __S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) __$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments __$250.00 Duplex Credit^ldg __$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use __S250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshorc __PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule __$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) __After-ihc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 VacaUon 5250.00 Easement Vacation 5100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #29'T? ' J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 8. 9. Completed Application Fonn. Describe request in detail. Certified Ownen List of owne« within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a Ucented surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on reauire<t gnrt/i»y Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ___ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the / property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ^ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). j/ As an addendum to this application, please attach persons you wish notified of this application. a separate list of any other YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3() COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (II” X 17 ” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SinMimD. (Suit will nquire to scale diawinga of aU documents, plans, esc. to be submitted.) Ihe Applicant and Property Owner must sign this appUcation. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above infotmation has not been included Certification by Clerical Dqiartment that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Sttff: ______________________ Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The appUcant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonlna Admmistrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or tmusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. OWNXR’S SIC.NATURE The owner hwby acknowledge and agrees to this application and fiirther authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City slafL consultanu, agents, commission members, and Council members for puqjoses of investigation and verification of this request -------tr -p-— BuOdug A Zoaiof Office of this ebaage prior to the meedng. ■ #2977 EXHIBIT B L Request for Conditionil Use Permit My request, at this time, is to replace the current entry way to the Navarre Bowling Lanes and to remodel the two neighboring current garage/storage areas to accommodate a “Pizza Factory’* restaurant. A new stairw^ and partial retaining wall would be constructed to replace the old one, but also to make the access to the lower level more inviting and safer. I would like the new entryway to serve both the bowling lanes and the restaurant. That would save on heating and cooling costs but also make both places more inviting and open. 1 would like to add an awning to cover the current sidewalk and enclose the entrance to the lanes and add some recessed lightiiig to iUuminate the sidewalk. There would be a need for a trash receptacle area and the drawings show where we would like to place it. The area would b-: fenced off with a wooden fence to match the current fence along the south property line. The current lightiiig hu been in place for quite a while. It seems adequate. Some li^ts m^ need repair, which will be handled at this time. With the new stairway and signs I would like to install some lights on top of the sign poles to direct people down the stairway and add any necessary lights for safe operation of the stairway. 1 would like to add a sign/planter in the northeast comer of the property with some lighting. The signs would be on poles in the planter and the lights would be shining down or up onto the signs, as required. I have included drawings for reference. My intentions for the property are to have a nice well-maintained attractive building that the City of Orono and I can be proud of and my lessee's can have a great place to operate their businesses. In the &ture I would like to consider black topping the gravel lot and to repair or replace the current wall. Michad J. Keaveny Property Trustee ^ #2977 ; CO.tXHlBtTC KUnu EXHIBIT D /e^Ar p*rk/Af UA *pyvp\ U^hteA !>offl ^ k*€A/ cm-e, A-fi wiM >^«- ar as t\ttb*t> • ■lo /nfh-h tif> UJA.IIC . 'U<. o-fi 'M-e- a/«4 o :E h'fce, '</o fnsntCC. s^w-g. e^/oi^s 4-/-V^X.g. e-fi-'^-a sfaia^ Tai pci-cs H-A^cf- tA^cul^ bt^ use^ V4^ s/fAj^ /ifk’h'Hf >4 y4!e. CkiTomtt^ujch !^ ^cfieJZ. a.s KJe^u^^rc£> u^ecild^ lik<, *afe ^ S^fn ap- i^p> ^7^ V4^ 67W/>t5 /n dyPtk^ ^ iStt^cT^ dushrmek^ v4 (ajou IA. aho >fo pu-h A- <p!^n4^k^ ^pe^ si^n^ tOyjpikrj Iti M>y*fA€as7^ c^rtx^ir- V^e. (^. FI^OlU. >h> ctnu^rti^ /^i^/h^^AL t^/V^ Y^/S r^nep^. 1 idaidik tthiikMais Po»i-il*ra»r>)!c 79?! kfAl/&uK ^ c-c *c«**6#««e »jr«# .-.n - tb HSI %W«- u+- pUhttir /-37/nf >1 (j XI '>•- :( ■'• • *. ' V • •. • 'S' •. : V * ‘ .V •*-.jr * . j; -3 .ii‘^n\Yyyyi ^ ■ o; ^ /oc>f/£A^ /^o(e,/.. ^cvnUJli^t>6LO^ >i 77 j ns ,.. 0, Uufi ^ai 1. TTcAMi «.uJL^b«ur «- ^ bv-:ck ^UI ku ^o^ n ._:i > j)..oja yiAiut^ i^uJl <?Lb<5ar A- 'jtip. 3:v •!<> bwck. uo«ll up ^ o^M ^b6u^ c |kow <^D S^ '/o ^ ** EXHIBIT L »«•» Am C«n»»wcta« C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES. INC. LoiStxxvy* ALlASiifMV*LAND SURVEYORS ■Hy Uc«nMd In MInfWMin (rtd Wtocontln JOHN COULTER PETERSON 1000 EtSt 1«6tn SlrMt Sum 216. MN 5S337-46M (M2)9SS^639 / FAX (9S2) tSS-SOn S«c«on iuboivi—r« Top09r«iruc U«cpn( Ptagping CaniM H APnrnvER & signage calculation worksheet A) BUILDING B) LOWER LEVEL GARAGE C) BnUKONOUS PARKINO AREA D) CONCRETE WALKS E) GRAVEL PARKING AREA 11,032 SQUARE FEET 2,671 SQUARE FEET 33,376 SQUARE FEET 2,111 SQUARE FEET 11,391 SQUARE FEET EUEIAl [G WAIXS fU^llARPWPVT TOTAL EXISTINO HARDCOVER = 62,106 SQUARE FEET PARCEL CONTAINS tt,S97 SQUARE FEET. PARCEL HARDCOVER IS 90% OF TOTAL PARCEL SQUARE FOOTAGE G) COMBINED E30STING SIGNAGE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING CONTAIN 30S SQUARE FEET. H) THE EXISTING SIGN AT THE EASTERLY ENTRANCE ON KELLY AVENUE CONTAINS 33 SQUARE FEET. I hexcby ceitify tliat the ahore Hardcover Calcelatioos and cxisttag Sigaage Calcalatioas are trac aad accarate. SigKdj Cooker Petenoo I Load Sanreyor Liccaie No. 13792 CEC PEOIECT NO. U.M7 FILES^IIA 12/1S/03 Fik.mrdiipl/knvtayl.doc /y UU . ••• « ./ r ■lli^ ‘A i rn'i : m-rm ‘ <^A EXHIBIT P, C9. \S V (I1F . -llTiLK —IH^959.9'\ S ^ 20 Wi ^ ^ . 5|«LT£IL I \ ‘5 0M II x9* :0UC. SLA^ EXHIBIT Ri 1 The Police depanment has contacted Metro Transit about moving the bus shelter, and they are willing to work with the City on moving the shelter. The shelter will be moved to the far northeast comer of the Keaveny property, and this will require obtaining an easement from the property owner. The size of the eascrrent is dependant on the exact location of the property comer. This location will have minimal impact on the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Review the proposed concept plan for relocation of the existing Navarre County Road IS crosswalk and bus shelter to a new location on the west side of Kelly Avenue, and if this plan is acceptable provide staff authorization to begin work on obtaining an easement to move the bus shelter. Page 2 of 2 OlVfctroTransit June 12.2003 Kurt Erickson Orono Police Depattmcnl P.O. Box 86 CrysUlBay.MN SS323 Subject: Navarre: Bus Stop Inbound Near Co. Rd. 1 5 at Co. Rd. 19 Dear Mr. Erickson: There is a suggestion that the eastbound bus stop and shelter prescntiy located two blocks west of the intersection of County Roads IS & 19 in Navarre, be relocated to the municipal parking lot Park & Ride below and behind the Navarre shops on the noithside of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). The idea is for inbound buses to turn left at 3440 Shoreline Drive and wend their way to the Navarre Municipal Parking Lot behind and below the shops. The buses would then exit the municipal parking lot turning right on Lyric Avenue, right on County Road 19 (Shadywood Road), left and regular. Some objections to this proposal disqualify it from consideration: I. From a training standpoint it lus challenges: A) to locate the left turn leading to the unseen municipal lot B) to weave one ’s way through the lot itself, and C) to find and set up the exit turns II. Construction and geometry of the lot would require attention A) parking lots are not normally built for heavy buses B) the available widths and clearances, given legitimately parked vehicles, could easily call into question the possibility of accommodating 40-foot and 60-foot long buses. C) $1 jpe, Southend, would need treatment in ice and snow, and III. It c.*eates a discontinuity in an otherwise straight route ali^ment. Sincerely, Bob Beuta District Supervisor cc: Dick Loefflcr A service of the Metropolitan Council SaOSMhA»wx«Nore< Ntp/AMiMtinakoVan«< o«g MtfircipoL^ Mmoott SS41 l-savt (6iaS49-7400 Into 373-3313 TTY 341-OUO An Equal Oppoma> ty EmptOfar 3445 S^ortlint Orivt P O Bo« 50 Novorr*, MN 55392 (612) 471.8832 £ AHUSIT Pg 2940 N Ric« S'rett LiMl# Conode. MN 55113 (612) 462-1786 PjJJJJgJjyjH 'JXSXr v>S,-r/‘Oe- ^ ^ ' 7~ <3rTT»-*^7^-^'^ /V\ l- B-rV>- -i irCi ^ ___ (i*> FF5r£=- /Wo u3aS. ^ ___________________ ..» t;T-A'2-cr^^ <5 r ff)o0 ^ eovvv^ _ A/-V A '•=■-------ftc..oi"777-I Th--------------------- yj y ^ !,aA<-0 O W» ora locolly owned, larving Your Auto, RV, Boating and Snowmobile Needi Since 1956 T-O CO *p« *g: LT> f '’ Z' (ju fc, ^ / «hibji :p^_ f ^ --2s -a ^ l ------- ^ -- » /(.uZ>-7^^ Cu.<T5^vc^S/ *-/o ^2-/t> , . — ^ __>' _ ' //j-, V<r»-S. ■^:Ss-»--J p+s ^__T'SW v-^c.m^ Cy^c^s /\ /Oe^ ^ ^ "7^/ ^ ----> N ' '—/I.____:r- " ^-C5, ,. 77^ Oy^*?^ : -7“;5ka^ L»-’ / c -ar 'ZJ^TTc,^ b. • <OC.TSu'^ /k^-ZP A A'"<• ✓ Pi/Z£7^^ CJ ^ -uJ<i TyTy^'^’^'^uJ »‘-t--==>^o ^ /^ ,-v\o ^ C-f^. ^‘3 ^ 7^0 *o MINOATB VaOl M l7ll72i«NOtS rMTAOM M AIKMCSSUNASK3NEO OWNEJtNAMB HOMfiTINfORFCITEDLANO TAXTAYEB CmrOfOHOWO H/^giAnn« POBOX66 OtYSTALBAYMN iUU 31 I7II7U4J00M mOPADOR 34U LYMCAVE OWICRNAME flARYAHANSOeROER TAXPAVER OARYAMAKSOrP'lR 3MS LYRIC AVe WAYZATAMN SU9I M I7II72MM0M PROPAOOR M ADDRESSUNASSCNLO OWMERNAME LCSCOrTAIESCOIT TAXPAYER LYUC A JOYCE E scon NAME/ADDR Sni BANTAS POINT lA MINNETONKA MN S3J9I 31 I7II7234XI0M PROPAOOR J4T2 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME LCSCOn AI ESCOIT TAXPAYER LYLE C A JOYCE E scon NAME/ADOR 2M> BANTAS POINT LA MMNETONKAMN SS19I 31 I7II72MK»99 PROP AOOR 3400 SHOIU:t INI: DR OWNERNAME DAUSIOHNSON TAXPAYER C T JOHNSON AO A JOlIPBON NAME/ADOR UllOrmAVCH PLYMOUTH MN S3447 Jt I7II723MOOO* PROPAOOR 2377 SMAtJYWOOORD OWNERNAME MARCEi.SOnTIRICH TAXPAYER MARCEL DITTRICM NAME/ADOR 4JJ5T1ISTW flOl WACONIAMN SUIT HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP-* nr INFORMATION SYSTEM PKOPUTYC RSLISr PA' I M mim4N0E4 PROPAOOR 3E ADDRESS UNASSIONCO OWNERNAME HENNEPMRJRFErTEDLANO TAXPAYER CmOFORONO NAME/ADOR POBOXM CRYS1ALDAYMN SSJIJ » l7ll77Mt0(M7 PROP AOOR II ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME tIENNrJ'IN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CinrOfORONO NAME/ADOR P0BOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN SU2J II ITII7234300EI PROPAOOR 3473 LYRIC AVE OWNERNAME TCAIMFLYNN TAXPAYER TOM C'RIUUEM FLYNN NAME/ADOR 3473 LYRICS WAYZATAMN 5S»I 3E l7ll72J4300a PROPADUR 3477 LYRIC AVE OWNERNAME LCSCOH RI F. SCOH TAXPAYER LYLE C R JOYCE E SCOTI NAME/ADOR 2XW BANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN SS39I 31 I7II7234XR7W PROPADOR 34WLYRICAVE OWNER NAME MARK W SCHMID TAXPAYER MAEKW SCHMID NAME/ADDR 34« LYRIC AVE WAYZATAMN 5SJ9I 31 I7II72J41009) PROP AOOR 34M SIIOREUNE OR OWNERNAME LCSCOnR I ESCOH TAXPAYER LYUCRJOYCEESCOn NAME/ADDR JXM BANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN 33391 31 l7ll7l34XXm PROPADOR 346E SHOREUNEOR OWNLHNAME LBINZELROBENZELIK-SIH TAXPAYER SANDRA HOLMAN NAME/ADOR 3461 SHORUiNE DR WAYZATAMN SS19I IE l7ll7234KXm PROPADOR 3416 SHORUINE UR OWNERNAME CERMTOMPARTNERSHIP TAXPAYER CERM TOM PARTNERSHIP NAME/ADOR CA) COURT MArTARlANE 1107 HAZELTINEBLVOR31S CIIASRAMN 3)111 ?> Q rr Xs C 31 171177)4)0142 PROP ADOR 3440 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME RKIiARDWBL00MQU6T TAXPAYER RJniAROWULOOMQUOT NAMr/AOOR 3333 SHORELINE OR POBOXI2I NAVARREMN SS)92 )l I7II7!14)0IS3 PROPAOOR 3496 SIIO.ULINEDR OWNLR NAME 1 M A M K EKAID^ TAXPAYER THOMASIIIRAHM NAME//MX3R 3103 NORTH SHURL DR WAYZATAMN J3J9I 31 171172)440099 PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSiCNED OWNERNAME CTTYOfORONO TAXPAYER CTTYOFORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 3))7) )| ITM7i)4«0in PROPADOR 33E2 SHOREUN l JR OWNERNAME DONALDF MCCARVILLE ET AL TAXPAYER DONALD MCCARVILLE NAVE/AOOR WARNER RD MOUND MN 3))64 L. r L RUNlMlf; IMVUOl IILNNU’IN LX>UN IY I’KOri k IY INI OKMAI ION SV.S ILM PKOPURTYOWNtRS LIST M l7IITiJ4«M«l rMPADOR 13« StKMaJNeOR OWNBIINAM8 LEROVOAVIUKOEIINtN TAXTAVMI IJJUIVIHMIINIH HAMEMOOR JMOSIKMl-UNklM POBOXa NAVAIUUiMN 3SJM U in 1771440102 nor AOOR Tits shady wuoo ro OWNfJt NAME S II SrilMlUr A S i SOiMllir 1AXPAVIM Ml 1*111 NIIM'IIMIIil NAMt/AUUR fVU IIIUHLANO DLVO MOUND MN Stl64 n 20II721IIOOIS PRUT ADOR 244S SIIA RO OWNFRNAME IS1 NATL DANK Of NAVARPli lAXPAYI K IM NAIt IIAhK NA'.AHHE NAMOAUOE CO HOAD IS A CO HOAD IV NAVARRE MN U1V2 31 Ml 1733110024 PROPADOR 3J» SHORELINEDR OWNCRNAME MOTCOMPANY TAXPAVIR SUPERVAU2STORE5MC ca JN3RATH TAX OLPT PO BOX 990 MPLSMN 35440 31 3011713110032 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKiNI D OWNER NAME 0AVH3 J DELANEY TAXPAYER OAVOI DELANEY NAMiyAinW AWOCASAMirARO EXatSURMN 33331 31 30II72II20027 PROP ADDR 2474 CARMAN ST OWNER NAME WAKUE EDWARDS TAXPAYER WARD L EDWARDS NAM17AUDR 7474 CARMAN SI WAY/ATAMN 333VI 31 MII773I7007I PROP AOOR 2410 CARMAN ST OWNERNAME R A EDWARDS * I EDWARDS TAXPAYER RXniARD A K3HANNA EOWARI7S NAMG/AOOR 2410 CARMAN ST WAY2ATAMN 33191 31 2911723120033 PROP ADDR 3463 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME ALECKOOVEJtSON TAXPAVLR aleck OOVERSON NAMt/ADOR 3623 ALVARADO LA PLYMOUTH MM 33446 PROPADOR 31 20II723I20034 1423 SHOREoNE OR OWNLP.NAME RMKLAVENY FAMILY LIDPTNRP TAXPAYER RJOIARD M KEAVENV NAMC/ADDR REV UVINO TRUST I3403IIWYNO3 YOUMi AMERICA MN 33397 31 20117211200a PROPADOR 11 AOORESS UNASSUNEO OWNERNAME CTTYOPORONO TAXPAYER aiYOfORONO HAME/AOOR BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 29II723I200SI PROP AOOR 2497 KEUV AYE OWNERNAME AUSTIN H EVANS TAXPAYER AUSHNH EVANS NAME/AOOR 74v7 XEUV AVE EXCELSIOR MN 33331 31 20III2II70037 PROPADOR 2499 KELLY AVE UWNEKNAME SYLVIA BERIAGNOU TAXPAYER SYLVIA A 8EXTAGNOU NAMUADOR 24WKEU.YAVE EXCELLSIORMN 33331 II 2011723120033 PROPADOR 2301 KELLYAVE OWNERNAME TU40TNVJTHOELE TAXPAYER TMOTNYJTHOELE NAItE/AOOR 2301 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 33111 31 2011723120934 PROP ADDR 2303 KEUY AVE OWNERNAME M 3 KEIXEN A 8 K WARD TAXPAYER MKTIAELIKELLEN 2303 KELLY AVE fXaiSKJRMN 33311 It 2OIIT23I20O33 PROP ADOR 11 ADDRESS UNASSKiNEO OWNLR NAME KEllY COVE HMOWNRS ASNK3KONO PAUL 2 rt* 5 NAME/X30R TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR KE3J.V COVE HMUWNRS ASNIORONO 249»KEU”»*c CXCEUL^ <4N 33131 31 3OII721I2O063 PROPADOR 2307 KELLYAVE OWN8RNAMI BRAOUEV A HOYT TAXPAVn CONTINENTAI.'ROPCRPOC NAME/ADOR 8RADUVAM0YT 233 LAKE STE WAY2ATAMN 33191 r lUNiMa:'* *'M*MtNNU .N COUNTY PKOPE**-^ INFORM aIION SYSTEMpjujp£JiTYO’ susr I CERTIFY THATTIE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF ITEORMATION AS IT APPEARS TWS DATE ON TTC RECORDS OFTHE ICPf^EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO TUB BEST > / OFMyKNOWLeDCB*NDBEUEP._^^^^_^,^.^^ „y /- i^iSSQBafistej,2Piafi PAOi 1 •• • • p-’u CO ' •t > t EXHIBIT D MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNn^’G COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (W04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) Commission has the ability to exercise some judgment here, in addition, to satisfying ’jic code widiout setting a precedent. While Acting Chair Vabusth stated that the City Council will be given the oppcminity to hear the applicant’s rationale, she believed the Commission would be remiss in approving the application. Rahn moved. Acting Chair Mabusih seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2976, James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, appro\ing the lot line rearrangement, subject to staffs recommendation that the applicant execute the standard 'use limitation’ covenants, and the conversion from a 'guest house* to 'accessory building with plumbing ’ status requires the removal of kitchen facilities including the sink and cooktop, and associated plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hannaford dissenting. Hannaford deferred to his earlier comments. (#16) #04-2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD .M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CO.VLMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:53 P..M.-12:20 A.M.) Mike Keaveny, the Applicant, and Paul Ode, the potential restaurant lessee, were present. Gucdlach explained that the applicant has submitted an appl.cation for a co.nditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial s;te plan review h order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. .As per City Cede Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building penr.it prompts a site review by the Plarming Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to conver. an existing garage area into a restaurant 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover varia.nce to allow 90Vo hardcover on die site The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing • 4) Structural coverage variance to allow l61'o structural coverage when 15®/e is allow ed and 15% currently exists. It is not u.nusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and va.nar.ccs have been approv cd for structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.* •Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review PAGE 40 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6.00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAV K VY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Gundlach continued that the applicant's intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staff in early September :nqu;nng about needed approvals :n order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently ’xnown as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Cnb. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation. Planning Department staff met with the building owner, Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee, Paul Ode to discuss the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed n^ provements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a comir.crcial site plan review and conditional use permit m order to conduct building impro\emcnts and to operate a restaurant. The property is located at 3425 Shoreline Dn\c in the Navarre area of Orono. While the proposal doesn’t include any new hardcover, the major changes that should bo noted arc the cnlryways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site arc a small area of grass along the .southern boundary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot. Gundlach pointed out that Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15% m.aximum sirucmral coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural coverage is two entryways and an awning. The applicant has stated that these entryways arc proposed to help control heating and cooling costs and tr provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the aw ning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern enlryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50 ’ x 12’) a.nd the western entrywr/ is proposed at 36 square feet (6* x 6*). The proposed awuing whll extend along the south elevation of the building to cover the current sidewalk. The structural coverage ordinance allows for overhangs to be included in the building square footage when they are 2’ or less in w idth. The awnings proposed are 4’ in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square feet of structural coverage (2* of awning x 97.5'). This is a total of 923.5 square feet (If c of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16®/o where the existing percentage is 15®/a Gundlach indicated that it isn’t out of the ordma.-y for structural coverage \ ananccs to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20®/* or 30®/* for commercial properties. Gundlach encouraged the Planning Commission to consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet the required setbacks of 20’ to Shoreline Drive and 10’ to Kelly Avenue in an PAGE 41 of 53 r k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMiSSiON MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) effort to increase green space on the s;te. The 20' recutred front yard along Shoreline Drive i$ perhaps the most cntical in terms of visual imparts for Navarre. The number cf parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below. Required Number of Parking Stalls. Restaurant Use:1,890 s.f. (g 1 space'SO s.f. » 24 spaces Bowling Alley Use:10 lanes (g 6 spaces/lane = 60 spaces Lounge (w/in bowling alley):535 s.f. @ 1 space 80 s f = 7 spaces Total Required Parking - 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces = 84 spaces (includes S parallel spaces and 76, 9’ x 20’ spaces) As proposed, Gundlach noted that the applicant is 7 parking spaces under die parking required by Section 78-1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that wuh the existing demand for parking, coupled with the pioposcd icssauraiii Uic, a shaicd paiking arrangement of these 84 spaces would be adequate if not excessive. On the other hand, Gundlach explained these numbers do not take into account the 15 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building. Assuming a net floor area of about 8.CO0 s.f. for the upper level, its parking requirement at one stall per 150 s.f. is about 53 stalls, as compared to the 30 stalls that exist. Because the upper level businesses arc pnmanly retail uses that occupy the front of the building and offer pnme-time day hours, a shared parking arrangement would provide adequate overflow parking betw een the restaurant and retail uses, should it ever be reeded. However, it should be noted that during tim.es when all businesses occup>ing the building arc at prime business hours (possibly Saturday afternoons), par’xing could be short by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. The parking required by the zoning ordinance should be discussed against the acmal need of parking on site With regard to pedestrian access, Gund'.ach stated that sidewalks cumently c.xist along the front of the properly providing pedestrian cormcctions to the properties cast and west in the Navane area. The applica.nt is proposing to remove the existing stair system, which connects the top gravel parking area to the low'cr parking area, which is how- the bow ling alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A new stairway system is proposed wnth a small sign and minor lights at the lop of the staircase providing a safe pedestrian connection from PAGE 42 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2004 6;00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building cede requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed w alls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a ftinctional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bow ling alley, and restaurant entrances. Gurallach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f The applicants proposed signage meets all the city code requirements. Wliile the applicant has not provided a landscape plan, Gundlach pointed cut that there are three potential areas for landscaping; 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and, 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the nonheast comer of the lot. She recommended the Pla.nning Ccmm.ission discuss requiring implcm.cntation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on the property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20710’ green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This area has been functionally a “no-man's land" and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that, approaches City Code Standards. With regard to lighting, Gundlach stated that the applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting. The lighting for the current low er parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not reconunend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts rcsidentially zoned property. In addition, the City's Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. easement be granted to the city to allow the cunent bus shelter near D'Vinci’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast comer of the applicant’s site. A 10’ x 10’ easement in the northeast comer of the site is proposed. WTiile the City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission determine whether this should be included with approval of the conunercial site plan review, and how this will impact the applicant's signage or par’idng plan. While the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed PAGE 43 of 53 • -rfii »- -r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENV REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRI\T, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Plarciir.g Commission consider “Hours of Operation" conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in ccnjuncticn w ith the proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10' from the south lot Ime and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. I: should also be sufficiently screened. Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Pla.’ming Corrunission: 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a fonnal green-space yard? If so, w hat is appropr.ate? How many parking stalls arc needed lo adequately serve the site? 2. Snould the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and sthped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be .mplcmcntcd along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the budding rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer r f Shoreline Dnvc and Kelly Avenue, which w ould incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer cf Shcrclme Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled or.entation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours of Operation" be specified for the restaura.nt? If so, w hat hours are appropriate? PAGE 44 of S3 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CO.M.MERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) 9. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? In conclusion, Gundlach stated that the Planning Departir.ent staff recommends the following: 1) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed. b) The building materials match the existing south facing facade and die roofs be shingled. c) If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast comer of the site, the existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected m its place. d) All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the residential property to the soudt. c) The sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument style rather than pylon style (no poles) and not higher than 8’. The applicant shall have the comers of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10 ’ setback. The sign is also limited to SO s.f 2) Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover when 35% is normally allowed, stipulating the following: a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast comer of the lot, b) The landscaping between the retaining walls show n in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern pro/erty boundary. 3) Approval of a structural coverage variance allowing 1 6% stnctural coverage in order for the proposed entrances and awni.-.g to be constructed 4) Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant 5) The applicant grants an easement to allow re-location of the bus shelter to a lO’XlO* northeast comer of the site. Mr. Keaveny stated that the bowling alley has been closed since su.xmer and this new proposal allows the applicant to incorporate the current bowling alley with a restaurant and lounge. PAGE 45 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, Jar.uary 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND C0>LMERC1AL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, the nearest neighbor to the south of the bowling alley, voiced numerous concerns; 1) As Kelly Avenue ts a residential street, he found the additional traffic worrisome within a residential neighborhood. 2) The fact that the restaurant and lounge w ould have a liquor Lccrj^c w as a concern, especially since the neighborhood is kept up at night from the commotion at the Narrows currently. 3) He questioned whether there was adequate space for restaurant use and the parking to accompany it. 4) The City cannot ensure how long the Pizaa Factory w ill remain, and the City would lose control of wrhal type of restaurant or lounge occupies this space in the future by allowing this today to go forward. 5) The traffic exiting onto County Road IS would make a dangerous situation and intersection w orse. 6) Evans cautioned that relocation of the bus shelter at the junction of Kelly Avenue and County Road 15 would be far more dangerous than where it is currently. Encouraging pedestnans to cross 2-4 lanes of traffic between cars stacked up for the light would be hazardous. 7) WTiat would the impact be to Lake Minnetonka from this additional development merely 200 ’ from the lake. Might people try to snow mobile or obtain boat access to the restaurant. 8) 68% of the little proposed landscaping at all is located pnmanly in the rear where few see it. Ln fact, no landscape plan has been provided. Reminded of the Navarre Town Meeting a year ago, dunng which residents asked for additional landscaping along County Road 15 in Navarre. 9) The proposed parking facilities are incomplete and inadequate. While 53 spaces arc required, contrary to zoning regulations, the proposal ofTcis a mere 30 spaces for a 75 scat restaurant. The additional use requires 91 total spaces, shon 7 in the proposal, w iih no setbacks or greenspacc provided. 10) This approval would increase the use of the lot to 16,(X)0 s .f of retail space, w hich required by zoning should assume 1* of lot area per 4’ of retail space. Evans maintained that by approving this request the City will continue to perpetuate an urucceptable plaiuiing stare of affairs for Navarre. 11) In the Navarre Town Meeting several points were echoed by the residents. Since Navarre is considered Orono’s town center, why not make it more like Wayzata or Excelsior with additional landscaping, street lighting, and updating facades of the businesses in the area. Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to give senous consideration to denial of this applicant’s request and recommend the owTiCr address alternative uses for the site. He PAGE 46 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) maintained that Orono is at a crossroads of determining which direction to take the Navane business district Sylvia Bcrtagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, a resident of 10 years, asked whether it was too much to expect to have a nice home and quiet street to live on. She did not wish to see the additional noise and traffic this proposal would allow at all times of the day and night. Barb Ward, 2503 Kelly Avenue, asked if the Plaruting Commission were familiar with the proximity of the homes to this business location. She stated that the current level of noise and smells from the Navarre area is horrendous and feared this would only perpetuate with this application. Ward encouraged the Commission to demand a new face be put on the Navarre town businesses which started with Rick's and should continue with this she. In addition, she stated that it would not be appropriate to have this business facing a residential area. Mike Kellen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, questioned what sort of element the City would like to promote in the Navarre area. He suggested the Commission focus on fixing up the buildings and the overall appearance of Navane. Kellen discouraged the Commission from allowing a business to go in facing this residertial area. Paul Ode, franchisee of the Pizza Factory, stated that it was his intention to improve the area, make significant upgrades to the buildings, and dress it up with this proposal. Kc indicated that the Pizza Factory would be a restaurant for families to gather in Navane Acting Chair Mabusth inquire whether a full liquor license was necessary. She asked whether improvements were going to be made inside. Ode stated that the combination of full bar, bowling alley, restaurant is w hat makes the operation successful. He indicated that bowling alleys have not kept up with what clientele want and have since failed across the nation. He noted that the restaurant w ould be added to the cast side of the bowling alley, replacing the current garage storage area. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether additional parking could be placed above the garage. Keaveny stated that he was unstne whether additional parking could be added above the garage. He stated that improv’cments would include painting the back of the building, repairing lights, improving or repairing the stairwell, and overall cleaning the place up. PAGE 47 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6;00 o'clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Bertagnoli intetjected U:at the Navarre area provides family restaurants ViS Culvers, the coffee shop, and D’Vinci's. Fntzler asked if the upper lot would be paved. Keaveny slated that this could be done. Acting Chair Mabosth stated that any approval would include up^ades and asked how the City would deal with the applicant's destre to upgrade and renovate the site. Keaveny indicated that he would wish to add retaining walls, plus additional green space along Shoreline Drive. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the City Engineer had seen the proposed parking plan. Gundlach stated that the City Engineer felt the plan was adequate with paving and stnpmg. Keaveny reiterated that the retaining walls would be repaired, more green space could be provided, and the brick work would be repaired and matched to the front of the building. Bremer asked w aat the proposed hours of operation would be. Ode stated that, generally, the hours would run until midnight or bar time of I ;00 AM. Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the City doles out liquor licenses. Caffron stated that the City has the ability to dole out 7 licenses in the Orono area; however, to date has only one. He indicated that Mr. Ode was currently going through the review process of obuirung a liquor license. Gaffron stated that, since the application is a CUP and backs up to residential neighborhood, the Corunisston can put reasonable standards on the application. While she was sympathetic to the traffic concerns on Kelly Avenue, Bremer w as also concerned about the proposed re-location cf the bus shelter a: Kelly and County Road IS, closer to the dangerous intersection. Gaffron stated that the police depanment has been looking into moving the crosswalk, and felt this location might be a safer alternative for the shelter. He indicated that, new discussion of this subject this evening, had caused him to think twice about moving the crosswalk to Kelly Avenue. PAGE 48 of 53 MINtJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Keaveny mentioned that he’d suggested to the metro transit authority they actually pull into the park and ride to pick up and drop off cn Shorelme Drive to avoid having pedestrians cross traffic. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she agreed uith the neighbor’s comments that the City- needs to take this opportunity to get the upgrades in Navarre as the opportunities present themselves. The rest of the Commission concurred. Gundlach indicated that they are uncertain exactly how much square footage of retail exists in the building until doing ftirther examination She pointed out that the site would lose an additional 10 spaces if the City requues 10’ and 20’green space yards along Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive respectively. Qaffron cautioned the Commission from allowing too linle green space, as had occurred on the Snyder’s site which required only 10' setbacks. Gundlach agreed that little opportunity presents itself, rc-.tcrating that the establishment of yards will cost the loss of 10 spaces; whereas, this plan provides 40 stalls Rahn stated that it was difficult to gauge what the balance between parking and green space might be with the lack of a landscape plan. He noted that he would like to sec more green space, and acknowledged that the plan requires additional parking With regard to the issues for discussion, item 2, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she believed the existing upper gravel parking area should be paved and striped. Hannaford pointed out that the access to the bov^-ling alley has always been off of Kelly Avenue. Ward asked if the proposed size of the striping on the top lot would match the stall size below. Gundlach slated that the stalls are the same size on the top or bottom of the lots She added that signage would be added on the upper lot near the stair to direct patrons dowx the steps to the restaurant. Gaf&on suggested that the applicants make it more inviting for people to park above and use the covered stairwell versus parking below. He asked what type of screening was proposed near the trash enclosure near the south end. PAGE 49 of 53 Lyi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEH aLF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST. 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIE\\' - Continued) Keaveny indicaleJ that the ;cceptacle was proposed for the southeast comer and would be fenced. Gaffron believed the applicants could find a bener location for the trash receptacle, further away from the access and neighborhood. Keaveny stated that he would propose placing a monument sign and planter box directing people on Shoreline Dr. to the Pizza Factory and bowling alley off Kelly Avenue. Gundlach pointed out that the sign located in the right-of-way of Kelly Avenue would be removed in conjunction with a new sign to be erected in the northeast comer of the lot Smaller directional signs would be placed below to mark the access. Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged tlie applicant to talk to the Public Works department about the proposed location of the signage and monument sign as they might interfere with sight lines. Gundlach noted that the lighting plan would include illumination for the stairwell and staff would recommend that all lights be shielded and directed downward elsewhere on site. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would support a monument sign at the northeast comer of Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive versus a pole sign. Fritzlcr pointed out that a pole light would interfere less with si^t lines at the comer. Keaveny agreed that a pole sign with a planter and signs on it would be less obtrtish'c. Gaffron acknowledged that a monument sign would have the potential to cause problems In reference to the ’hours cf operation’, Bremer questioned whether delivery would be envisioned in the plan. While he anticipated it could be planned for at a later date, Ode was unsure at this time whether delivery times would be an option. He indicated that his preferred hours of operation would be noon - 1 :00 A M. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that there were many other open issues as w ell, including resolution of the bus shelter location. Fritzlcr acknowledged that patrons may decide to use Kelly Avenue to cut over *die County PAGE 50 of 53 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Road 19 versus trying to access Shoreline Drive to reach County Road 19. He maintained that Kelly Avenue was not designed to handle a lot of traffic. Bremer asked if the proximity to Lake Minnetonka was a concern. Fritzlcr stated that he could cnviston people trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to access the restaurant via boat or snowmobile. Rahn asked how the City would be able to deal w ith the additional noise levels once the license has been issued. He noted that this is the same t>pc of issues faced by residents living near Al & Alma’s and admitted it is a conditional use which is allowed. Ke believed more thought needed to be devoted to the consideration of hours of operation. Fritzlcr stated that it is difficult to regulate how loud the use is, since the violations follow the individual and not the facility. Gaffron indicated that the negative impacts can be reduced with a CUP. If it is allowed, the City can place certain limitations upon it up front, and then have to live with their decision. Keaveny reminded the Commission that it is not their intent to attract the same audience as that of the Narrows Saloon. Gaffron asked if bowling would be available during other hours than the restaurant. Ode stated that the two operations would have separate entrances a.nd closed o^T from one another. Bremer referenced the old adage, ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’, referrir.g to the fact that if the City wishes to improve the site it must also be willing to accept what comes with it. Evans asked what provision for parking of delivery trucks and what procedures would be followed in the proposal. Keaveny stated that he had referenced where the delivery trucks would be allow ed in his propos^. Evans pointed out that the lane provided for delivery tnicks should be revised, since the plan also identifies these as parking spots as well. Keaveny mentioned that the loading area could be in the back near the storage to the west PAGE 51 of 53 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.n. (MIKE KEAVENY on BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEANENY REV. TRUST. 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out were accurate. Rahn stated that the plan doesn't reflect w'hat’s precisely required for parking and landscaping to determine whether these are adequate and requested funner information. Evans noted that stafThas merely estimated a reduction of 1 1 spaces to allow’ for green space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces above for a total of 147 spaces is what IS required by zoning ordinance. Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that a further detailed study would need to be provided to determine specific amounts, which would enable the Commissicn to base its judgment. While not uncommon for commercial pioperty, Gundlach recognized that a parking variance may be required, especially, m light of the differences m the hours of operation of all the individual businesses on site. Although a parking variance might be four^ acceptable now, Evans encouraged the Commission to consider what the future use of this site m.ight be. For instance, if used as retail the site might require even more additional parking. He nuinuincd that, when he and his neighbors purchased their hones, there wp„s simply a howling alley with limited use which resided at this location, he never would have imagined a full liquor licensed restaurant use would move in next door. As the next door neighbor most affected, Bertagnoli a.s'iccd where the venting for the restaurant w’ould be. Keaveny stated that he would work with the franchisee and the City cn the ventilation and air conditioning placement. Ode reiterated diat, in order to be successful bowling alleys need this combir.aticn of services; restaurant, liquor license, and bow ling alley. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application «04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit., subject to receiving a complete site plan, parking plan and analysis of needs, locate loading areas, ty pe of lighting, signage locations, minimum green space of 10* along both avenues, landscaping plan, staircase repair, ty pe of exterior materials and elevations, proposed improvements to the structure, and exhaust fan location. VOTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 0. PAGE 52 of 53 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION EXHIBIT E Cry ^ ^^04 DATE: M*rch^ttf ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:f\Agenda Section: City Admun^tratoi's Report Item Description: Paul Ode Applicitioo for an On-Sale Liquor License at 3425 Shoreline Drive-PublicHearing Backcround Mr. Paul Ode has applied for an on-sale liquor license for the property at 3425 Shoreline Drive. The liquor license is proposed to be one element of a pizza restaurant and bowling alley concept in the lower level of the “Keaveny" building. The on-sale liquor license application requites a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments rcgaiding the application. Order of Business The following is the suggested order of business for this item: 1. presentation by staff 2. presentation by the applicant 3. open the public hearing 4. receive questions and comments from the public 5. close the public hearing 6. Council deliberation City Review The City’s authority and concern in its review of the liquor license appliratioa is the pro’xctioa of the public health, safety and welfare. The City’s review of the application has addressed this concern in iw-o ways. One is through a background investigaiicr of the applicant for the liquor license. The second is through a review of the impacts ca the area properties of granting the oo- salc liquor license. The Police Department has conducted a background mvrstigaticn of the applicant. Based cn the results of the investigation, the Pdice Department is rccommcndmg denial of the liquor license. A memo &om the Police Chief icgatding recomme.niation is cr.ached The key issue in the review of the impacts on the area properties cf grar.tl-g the on-salc liquor license is the proximity to, and orientation of the entrance and parking toward, the adjacent low- density residential development Please sec the attached map showing the relationship of the L buildiag and parking to the adjacent neighborhood. density, residential development A with liquor require, > conditioMl um peratiL This memo doe, not eddreo the condWoial use pennit for , cUs, II resuurmt. hut only .ddresses flie impacts of an on-sale Uquor at this location, tegudleu of whether a lestaurMt is opened »t this location. Tmpjiet< and Compatibility eremes a newT^^T^r^otenilLll^^ and»n«m,. On-sate liquor bring, thejmten;^ increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that arc incompatible with low-density residential development Staff Recommendation COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to wrove/deny the Paul Ode .pplicafion for an on-srie Uquor license at 3425 Shoreline Drive. riittk EXHIBIT F MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. WEST FAJU^f HOMESTEAD SASITARYSEWER PROJECTPLBUC HE4RjyG, continued) project ends at the homeo^^•neT’5 property line where there will be a curb stop and a shutoff, like you have on your water system, and that is what your assessment covers. From that point, the homeowner’s responsibility is to hire a plumber to install a line from the property line to the home, dig and sink a grinder pump, a can sysiera of typically a t\^o-fDot drameter tub usually, and finally some elcctncal work of wiring to the pump nmII need to be done Installed prices typically are somewhere in the range of S8.000 to SI0,000. The homeowner is then responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the grinder pump from this point forward. Mayor Peterson closed the public assessment hearing at 7.25 p m. White moved, Murphy seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 5132 adopting the proposed assessment roll for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project. VOTE; Ayes 4; Nays 0. Murphy moved. Mayor Peterson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 5133 accepting the quotation from Red Pederson Utilities, Hopkins Minnesota in the amount of S34,914.50 for the West Farm (Homestead) Sanitary Sewer Project. VOTE; Ayes 4. Nays 0. 3. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ODE AT 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE (NAVARRE LANES) Mayor Peterson asked how many of the audience members were from the Navarre area. \ large number of the audience was from Navarre. Mayor Peterson then stated she would like to sec all of them ot the dedication of the new fire department on Saturday, March 27, 2004. Mayor Peterson asked if the Affidavit of Publication had been satisfied. The Recorder responded affirmatively. Moorsc explained the purpose of the public hearing staling Mr. Paul Ode has applied for an on-salc liquor license for the property at 3425 Shoreline Drive. The liquor license is proposed to be one clement of a pizza restaurant and bowling alley concept in the low er level of the “Kcaveny” building. The on-salc liquor license application requires a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the application. The suggested Order of Business is; 1 . presentation by staff 2. presentation by the applicant PAGE 4 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. March 22,200-1 7 00 o’clock p.m (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA VARRE LANES continued) 3. open ihe public hearing 4. receive questions and comments from the public 5. close the public hearing 6. Council deliberation The City’s authority and concern in its review of the liquor license application is the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The City’s review of the application has addressed this concern in two ways. One is through a background investigation of the applicant for the liquor license. The second is through a review of the impacts on the area properties of granting the on-sale liquor license. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation of the applicant. Based on the result of the investigation, the Police Department is recommending denial of the liquor license. A memo from the Police Chief regarding the recommendation was attached in the Council packet. The key issue in the review of the impacts on the area properties of granting the on-sale liquor license is the proximity to, and orientation of the entrance and parking toward, the adjacent low-density residential development. Moorse showed the Council maps made part of the public record showing the relationship of the building and parking lot to the adjacent neighborhood. The bowling alley is a use that, in itself, can produce a level of traffic, noise, and activity that is not ideal adjacent to low-density residential development. The addition of on-sale liquor to this equation creates a new level of potential i.mpacis and concerns. On-sa!e liquor brings the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential development Staff is recommending denial of the on-salc liquor application based on the denial recommendation from the Police Chief, and based on the potential for increased noise, traffic and safety concerns, and activities that are incompatible with low-density residential development. Attorney Tom Banctt stated that, in addition to staffs recommendations, that the City ordinances, Section 34.68 make it unlawful to make a false statement or willful omission on any application form and that the consequence of that is an automatic refusal of any application for license. Chief Good and Sergeant Erickson w ere asked by Council to give them background on their investigation. Chief Good read their memo of March 19,2004 regardi.ng results of the investigation into the public record. PAGE 5 of 23 I I i\'\ Tfl MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22.2004 7:00 o’clock p m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ODE-^NA V a RRE LANES continued) Mr. Paul Norman Ode, 5040 Janet Road, Mound, MN stated he had a few staierr.ems to make. He continued by saying ^^hen he picked up his application for the license he reviewed it in the office w ;th City Clerk Lin Vee. Then he left to fill it out and returned to the City and the City Clerk with questions and at that time she informed Ode that Uus was the first time Orono had processed an application for this type of liquor license Ke stated she took the application and stated that if there were any questions the City would get back to him. He said that he didn’t think traffic related reviews weie to be reviewed in the application because he knew it would be reviewed and didn’t think he had concealed that fact. In regard to late items, he stated he provided them as quickly as they could be received and provided to the City. The moment he was aware that they wanted bulk information he requested it immediately within a day or two but at least ten days or so before the heanng He got a confirmation from the insurance company that the insurance information would be provided but they were not able to send the Certificate of Insuiance. but they had all the confirmations in the papcrwoik. Mr. Ode feels he got off on the wrong foot from day one. He continued that he feels die location is an opportunity to make some changes and said die bowhng alley hasn't changed for 50 years and has fonctioned as a "set-ups” liquor establishment He wants to iinprov c the property by adding a restaurant and offer liquor to the patrons Mr. Ode asked what the City would permit in this location. He also stated he can step down as license holder, but would like to see the project go on and feels it would be a successful project and serve the community well. It is a very small lounge and bowling alley It is expected that the area would hold 45 people between the restaurant and providing seats m the bowling area. He would like the site to be a community unit where families can come and enjoy something to eat and a gome and a cocktail. Attorney Barrett again stated that the purpose of the public hearing this evening is the application for the liquor lice.nse and the Council should make a record tonight in regard to the application and does not necessarily involve the question of the restaurant or other things that may be separately addressed with the Planning Commission. Sanseverc stated to Mr. Ode he w as confused because when he came before the Council before the first of the year or thereabouts, he told the Council he had to have a 3 2 liquor license to open by January 1 .2004 because of deadlines. Because of the urgency , the Council did something unprecedented by acting on it in a work session because he absolutely had to have the 3.2 license and the site is still not open. Sansevere added that now he is coming to Council requesting a full liquor license and does not understand what the motivation was in asking for a 3.2 and then coming back for a full license. Sansevere asked if this was a way to receive a little and then purh for the full license and why the establishment isn’t open? PAGE 6 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7 00 o’clock p m (4. OS SALE LIQUOR LICESSE PUBLIC HEA RISC - PA UL ODE - SA VA RRE LASES continued) Mr. Ode explained that it uas due to the uming of when the license actually canie and the work that was being done. Because of the other factors involved he wasn't able to open until around February totally missing the bowling leagues and any opportunity to participate :n that area. Sansevere asked Mr. Ode why the urgency. Mr. Ode indicated he thought that if he could get open before the first of January it would be an opportunity to move forward at tlut time, but there was no way to get it done. He continued by saying the infonnatior. that he discovered and found later relative to what was necessary to ha\e a successful bowling alley indicated that a full liquor license would be necessary. Mayor Peterson indicated that legal counsel has stated that this is strictly for a liquor license public hearing, and opened the public hearing at 7;SS p m. Sansevere asked Chief Good if there is a lot of room for “gray area" on the application-if a person has been convicted is it clear you have been convicted and if you have been arrested is it clear you have been anested regardless of the traffic anest or any type of arrest Chief Good responded tliat she does not know kow she could make it any clcaicr. Phyllis O’Malley, 2740 Kelly Avenue, resident of 45 years, moved to Navarre fro.ni Long Island, NY because of the tranquil, free from major industry, good education for children, safety, low or no crime and reasonable traffic. Except for the number of residences increasing and level of traffic everything else has pretty much rcrr.air.ed the same She stated that she believes that Navarre is a bedroom community. Mrs. O’.Malley believes die full liquor license and restaurant will generate more traffic and noise and a possibility tliat because Kelly Av enue is a shortcut from County Road 15 to County Road 19, that it will be a safety issue for children due to increased traffic and speed David Hardin. 25IS Kelly Avenue, resident of 10 years, is against the restaurant/bar because of the exit onto Kelly a residential street, and the resulting traffic issues and sigtuficant noise. When you dnve into Orono and see the beautiful Navane sign and drive into this restaurant and see the Caution Children sign and then the bar sign right next to each other sets a bad image for Navarre and Orono. He stated that another bar restaurant already exists and Navarre doesn’t need another so close to the lake, close to other homes with entrance and exit difficulty, and with parking inadequate for what is proposed. Jim and Sue Schmidt, 2585 Kelly Avenue, resident since 1948, stated that since the Narrows bar opened there has been a huge mcrease in the amount of trash. Her husband just picked up 12 cans of beer on the side of the road on Kelly Avenue. They don’t bear the noise PAGE 7 of 23 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7 00 o’clock p.tn. (4. Oy SALE LIQUOR LICEySE PUBUC HEARJSC - PA UL ODE - ,\A VARRE LANES continued) because they arc located up on the hill, but the exit and entrance onto Kelly Avenue will be used as a shortcut to County Road 15 and that is an added safety concern Evonne Paige, 3493 Crystal Place, said witlun a 2-3 mile radius, there are fixe liquor establishments - two in Na\arre and tlirce in Spring Park. Spring Park was all liquor establishments when she was growing up which was good for Spring Park in the summer. Now people use establishments all sear round. For policing and for residents of all ages, she does not tliink we need another liquor establishment. Chnstin Hardin. 2515 Kelly Avenue, has a safety concern for her two small children and that since the Narrows has opened tltc traffic situation has gotten to be so bad that she had to call the police department to do a uaffic study on Kelly Avenue In one week there were 4.000 cars and she believes another bar will increase traffic and cause safety concerns. Sherry Volkmar. 2640 Kelly Avenue, resident of 12 years, stated the Narrows bar restaui am has caused motorcycle noise at 1-2 a.m., trash, and speeding has gotten excessive Sylvia Benagnoli, 2449 Kelly Avenue rose to speak. Mayor Peterson stated that her letter of March 14, 2004 would become a part of the public record. Mrs. Bertagnoli called over ICO people and can document 98 people she talked to and put the summation in the March 14 letter and all but two people are extremely opposed, tlirce businesses are undecided and tiu ee businesses are in favor of the project. She also stated there would be a lot of people at this meeting except for spring break with children and people w intenng in warm weather Mrs Bertagnoli had a long conversation with Rick Bloomberg, Rick’s Super Value and his question was why do we need to have a bar. She asked the Council to ask Mr Ode if he has applied for a pizza factory franchise as he said he was going to do and if that was a Minnesota or California franchise Rick Edwards. 2480 Carmen Street, resident since 1955, and is 400 feet away from the bowling alley. Mr. Edwards believes one saloon in town is enough. In the winter time residents put up with the snowmobiles and they w»U find a way to cross vour property, music, traffic, drunken driving He also has counted 30 motorcycles in l^ror.l of the Narrows at one time and Harley Davidson motorcycles are noisy. Sometimes they have to close their windows at night because of the music from the Narrow s - they open their doors when it gets hot inside. He continued saying his neighbor who lives on the comer of County Road 15 and Carmen Street is selling his house because of the traffic and the safety concerns for family. Ward Edwards, 2474 Carmen Suect, stated they built their home in 1990. He agrees with everyihing many of the people have already said. There is considerable noise from the PAGE 8 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22.2004 7:00 o ’clock p m. (4. OS SALE LIQUOR LICESSE PUBLIC HEARI^f^- PAUL ODE-SAVARRE LANES continued) Narrow's and with windows open in the summer, there is no choice but to listen to motorcycle noise and drunken driving Charles Nadler. 2509 Kelly Avenue, a resident since 1987 and located 351 feet from the property in question didn’t receive notice because notices go out to people within 350 feet. \\Tiat troubles Mr. Nadler is the left turn off of County Road 15 onto Kelly w ith a hidden intersection coming out of the bowling alley and it is easy to get hit at that intei section. In addition Mr Nadler is concerned about the increased traffic Austin Evans, 2907 Kelly Avenue stated that a lot of people spoke tonight plus 91% of others are opposed to this liquor license as cited by Ms. Benagnuli. Mr. Evan reiterated parts of his letter of .March 18. 2004 Mr. Evan’s letter of Match 1 8, 2004 and his ar.orney’s letter of March 22, 2004 become a permanent part of the public record. There will be an increase in traffic, hardcover and parking. He is requesting the Council to partner with staff by denying application. He stated tliat the front door of the establishment will be as near to his front door as the space between second base to home base Cars will he able to park as close to his house as the pitcher's mound is to home base and is concerned about the shutting of car doors and the loud, shouted goodbyes at 1:30 in the morning He asked Council to deny the application. Mike Kellen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, resident over 20 years agrees with all residents that have previously spoken and requests the Council deny the application because of the background of the applicant and safety issues Mike Keaveny represented the property owner which is his family. Mr. Keaveny grew up in his father’s phannacy 44 years ago and the family has owned the building since 1965 The Scheivcr family has run the bowling alley and in June 2004 they arc planning to close the place Mr. Ode is interested in operating the bowling alley and between Mr Keaveny and Mr. Ode thought a restaurant and bow ling alley would be a nice addition to the community for a family entertainment center. Mr. Ode thought it would be a good idea to offer someone an alcoholic beverage when they have their di.mer It is something SS^/e of all bowling alleys offer their clientele It was not their intention to set an>ih:ng up *o be like the Narrows. It is designed to be a family cnteriainmcnt center. Setups arc offered now and there is no control over how much alcohol a patron consumes. If a full liquor license was instituted it would be easier to control consumption. Mr. Keaveny ;s interested m improving the looks of the neighborhood by fixing up this site. His father was ill for a long tim.e and is no longer alive so it was difficult to keep up the site previously Brad Hoyt, 2507 Kelly Avenue, a resident of 25 years. Mr. Hovt stated he owns thicc Harleys and understands the noise can be very- bad and the propensity to rev the engine increases logarithmically with the total amount of beers one has had. He stated they can’t PAGE 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. Or^SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARISG - PA UL ODE - VARRE LASES continued) open windows in their home because of the band music bouncing off glass in the windows. Mr. Hoyt thanked Mayor Peterson for speaking w ith him o%cr the weekend and apologized for d sturbing her solitude. He doesn’t believe this site is viable because of the intersection of County Road 15, the exit and entrance to the site and speeding down Kelly Avenue. He would like to know what the vision is for this building and the area. This building in question is a blight and the non-conforming use of the basement is no longer going to be in operation and is an opportunity to see what else can liappen on the property going forward. Mr. Hoyn suggests that if the ordinances need to be changed, change them. Y^u just can’t grant variances without a hardship There is no hardship here. Mr Hoyt also stated he was the one person that called on the CUP after receiving the public notice. Also he stated there is a gravel driveway and the parking lot has never bee t improved Mr. Hoyi said he is a real estate developer and suggested adopting a moratorium to study what needs to be placed at this site. There are now multi-million dollar homes in the immediate area of this site and attractive retail should be placed at this site and in the immediate area to serve the residents. Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 8;2S p.m. Murphy thanked everyone that appeared tonight and stated that Council needs to restrict their discussion to the application before them tonight. To Mr. Ode he said that he always seems to say it is someone else’s problem and he is not prepared to support the application. The police department has put in long hours of work on tlus application, but his denial is not solely based on the applicant, but all the other pieces the staff and communitv have stated here tonight. Sansevere indicated he supports the residents in the neighborhood most closely rtssociated with the project location in opposition. He quoted Mrs. O’Malley when she said Orono considers its residents fust ateve projects and that is what this meeting is about. The public spoke out 13 to I (owner of building Keavency in support) in opposition to the liquor application and one of the people that spoke had talked to 90 people in opposition by petition. Mr. Ode also submitted a letter dated March 17, 2004 from the Dowling Proprietors Association of Minnesota stating that a high percentage of bowling alleys now have liquor licenses, but Sansevere doesn’t believe a large number of those establislunents open up into a residential area. He also asked legal counsel what the Council can do to stop any future liquor licenses at this site and wants to move to rescind the 3-2 liquor license currently :n place based on the police report. Attorney Banett said in respect to the first question the council’s authority under state law provides that it may issue a liquor license within that language which is permissive. He PAGE 10 of 23 MI>mTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,20C4 7.00 o ’clock p m. (4. ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARING - PA UL ODE - NA yARRE LANES continued) stated he has advised Council that they have the right to dctcnnine that other health and safety impacts may occur and that it’s on that basis that the staff report talks about that there arc impacts on the neighborhood and the traffic and would be a basis on wh.ich the Council could deny. Witli respect to the larger question on the use of the property, he has not recently heard a developer like Mr. Hoyi offer a moratorium, but at some point the City may wisli to take a look at how that area is zoned and how it zones its liquor license applications There is not currently a lot of zoning dealing with liquor licenses and the Coxicil may w ish to consider that. Finally, in regards to the 3.2 liquor license cuncntly in place at this site, under state law at this time, it requires an independent hearing examiner be appointed and if the Council made a resolution for staff to prepare a Complaint or an effort to withdraw the 3.2 liquor license than it would be a requirement that the City identify and hire an independent hearing examiner, have a hearing in front of the examiner, and have a report come back to the City Council under which it could make a decision. Sansevere stated to Mr. Ode and Mr Kcavney that he would have no problem w ith the bowling alley opening with a pizza factory or any kind of pizza. He continued by inquiring if the City has a requirement to prevent a liquor license being utilized at that site in the future. Attorney Barrett stated he is not sure he knows the history of the setup liquor license and can’t advise Council on that question at this time. White stated home is where the heart is and the community is where the home is and it is not surprising that all these people turned out this evening. He stated he couldn ’t think of a worse location to have a liquor license. He is opposed and agrees with the residents >^Tiite also said he is concerned atout the applicarlon process indicating the City is very tough with residents that have a small amount of hardcover and we find out when w e measure that the whole thing is a parking lot. We make them remove that hardcover. When an applicant comes in and signs a liquor license application and it is submtned to the Police Department and the application has obvious enors and falsehoods, then the City has a real problem. WTiite would support getting a hearing examiner to look at this whole issue We are lough on honesty. He is opposed to this application. Mayor Peterson indicated she is opposed to this application for a liquor license not only for the health, safety and welfare issues that have been brought i^i this ev enir.g but also because a full liquor license is not an appropriate use for that location She stated she and Mr. Keavney are schoolmates and she ^wled as a teenager at this bowling alley back in 196S PAGE 11 of 23 r'"MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p m. (4. OS SALE LIQUOR LICESSE PUBLIC HEARISG - PA UL ODE - SA VARRE EASES continued) when that was probably an appropriate use for this building when traffic and resident counts were low. Today she agrees with Mr. Ho>t that maybe something else needs to be placed a: this site. She has an issue with the way the Navarre area has developed. There are many more families there than in 1965 and she can appreciate what Mr Keavney’s father had there at the time - it was a viable establishment Moorsc stated that if the motion were for denial he would suggest directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and bring it back to the next .nccting. Sansevere moved and White seconded a motion directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and bring it back to the next meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Murphy moved and While seconded a resolution to engage a hearing examiner to open Mr. Ode’s 3.2 liquor license. Attorney Barrett is in agreement with the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. A break was taken from 8:30 to 8:47 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *S. Regular Meeting of March 8, 2004 Murphy moved, Sanse^ VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. >nded, to approve the Minutes of 8. 2004, as presented. Council may have. PARK COMMISSION COMMEV Pauline Bouchard had left the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMME> Jeanne Mabusth stated she was presentj^nswer any quesT? PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *6. «2587 KRIS ON BEHALF OF RICHARD RUDD, 4575 WAYZ.4TA BOULEVAR^^XTENSION OF EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PRELl.MIN.ARY PLAT APPROVA^RESOLUTION NO. 5134 Murn^f^moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5134 e.\tending the efU^e period of final plat approval to July 31,2006 for Richard Rudd and Kris Rudd ^thc property located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 12 of 23 EXHIBIT G Memorandum Date:April 12,2004 To:Mike Keaveny Paul Ode From;Janice Gundlach, City Planner RE:Restaurant With or Without Liquor This memorandum is intended to confirm our meeting on April 14. 2004 at 10 30am The primary reason for this meeting is to liave a joint understanding about your application, and for City staff to advise you on that application. The followng is a list of issues that you must be aware of when applying for a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with or without liquor: • In order to continue the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant you must decide whether you are applying for a restaurant with liquor (Class II) or a restaurant without liquor (Class I). The effects of a Class 11 verses Class I restaurant differ and City staff. Planning Commission, and City Council need to be aware of this when reviewing the site plan • The City Council, at its March 22, 2004 meeting, was clear that it will not support liquor of any kind with a proposed restaurant. I’ve attached those meeting minutes for your review. If you propose a restaurant with liquor (Class II), City staff very firmly believes the application w ould be denied. • If you propose a restaurant without liquor (Class I) it cannot be attached to the bowling alley while the bowling alley/The Crib has a liquor license (3.2% or setup) m effect. OUicrwisc, the only access to the restaurant can be through an exterior door. This issue is not negotiable due to the City's inability to control liquor moving between the bowling alley/The Crib and a restaurant that has an interior connection. • The following are all additional components that need to be apptoved in conjunction with approval of a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant: o Approval of a Commercial Site Plan Review o Approval of a Hardcover Variance o Approval of a Structural Coverage Variance o Approval of Parking Variances (to « of stalls and possibly setbacks to properly lines) • The property is currently far out of compliance with zoning requirements. Based on the Council’s concerns regarding the impacts on the residenual neigh’oorhood of expanding the intensity of the use on the site, the Planning Commission and Council may find that the site is already at or beyond its full capacity. Planning Department staff will work through the application to assist in a plan that gets as close as it can to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, which ultimately determines whether approval for the restaurant use will be granted If you have any questions regarding Uiis information, please bring them to the meeting scheduled for April 14, 2004 at 10:30am. The City’s goal for this meeting is for all parties involved to be clear on the application that is proposed and to provide you with realistic expectations for the outcome. We look forward to meeting with you. EXHIBIT H CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTIccs Sutft Address: 2750 Kaliey Pirii*i| Orono, VN 55356 MaiNni Address: PO. B<n 66 Cmstil Bay. MN 55323^066 February 5,2004 Michael K. Keaveny 13425 Highv-^y 5 Young America, MN 55397 RE; 60-day Review Period Extension Project #04-2977 DeauMr. Keaveny: State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and tltat this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on December 17, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on February 15, 2004. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission at the January 20,2004 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day review period ends. Therefore, the 60- day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to April IS, 2004. Your application is scheduled to be heard at the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you and please call me at (952) 249-4623 should you have further questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Janice Gundlach City Planner TMtphooa(yS2)24M600 • fhi (9S2) 24M41C - ! City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 April 12. 2004 To: City of Orono Planning Commission, Regarding my conditional use permit # 04-2977,1 would like to extend the sixty-day review for an additional sixty days. Thank you, Michael J. Keaveny 3425 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 mm EXHIBIT I Sec. 78-643. Permitted uses. Within any B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the council; Retail and service businesses The following ncjghbo.'hood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a ser\'ice primarily for residents in the sunounding neighborhood: b. c. d. e. f. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. 0. P- q r. Arts and school supplies store. B.inks and insurance companies. Barbershops and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, record shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drugstore merchandise. Dry cleaning and laundry pickup stations, including incidental pressing and repair. Garden supplies, florist shop. Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. Jewelry shops and repair. Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio. TV. appliance sales and repair stores. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store. Pet shop. live emenainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. Restaurant (class II), i.e., a fast food, convenience, dhve*in, or liquor store restaurant, which is a restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food to be consumed at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or a drive-in where most customers consiune their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainmenL Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another B or I district and is in the same ownership as the land in the B or I district and subject to those conditions as set forth in article X, division S, of this chapter and such other conditions as found necessary by the council. Public service structures, includmg but not limited to electric transmission lines and buildings, such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevatwd tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commeicial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Day nurseries, provided not less than SO square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Sec. 78>€46. Area, height, lot width, setback requiremcnU and design requirements. (a) Area. In any B-1 disinct, the minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet (b) Lor widik The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. (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 10 any R district shall be 15 feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet (e) Setback requirements No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across ^e street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. (f) Fencing Wherever a B-1 retail sales business district abuts an R district, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than SO percent opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along ihi — lines except witl^ the required front yard. (g) Building design and construction. In addition to other restnctions of this chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: (1) All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: a. Face brick; b. Natural stone, c. Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; d. Factory fabricated and finished meul framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted in subsections (g)(I)a- •c of this section, or e. Other materials as may be approved by the council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. (2) All subsequent additions anJ itbuildings constructed afrer the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural lesign and general appearance. (3) No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during Ote construction of permanent buildings. (h) Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permined that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer before submission to the platming commission and council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff, whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must be in compliance with the surface water management plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or provisions of this Code and subject to the approval of other agencies ha\’ing jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. (i) Height. No structure or building slull exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78*1366. /EXHIBIT J CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing which was tabled on January 20, 2004 regarding application iV04-2977, Richard M. Keaveny*s request for a commercial site plan review, conditional use permit to operate a restaurant (Class II). a hardcover variance and a structural coverage variance for 3423/342S Shoreline Drive. The public hearing will take place: Monday, April 19,2004 Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway Meeting begins at 6:00pm This item is currently scheduled as Item 2 on the meeting agenda and is expected to be heard early in the evening. All persons wishing to be heard should appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director 1 iCi V \ ri 5? . ialli. Date Application Received: 2*23>04 Dale Application Coniidered as Compleic: 2-23-04 60-Day Review Period Evpires: 4-23-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabuslh and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, Cit>' Administrator Mike GafTron. Planning Director April 16, 2004 ' «04-2997 City of Or^no - Access Between Lots 38 & 39. Morse Island Park (120-140 Big Island) • CUP and Variance for Wetland Alteration - Continuation of Public Heanng List of Exhibits: A-PC DraH Minutes 3-15-04 B - Notice of PC Action 3-22-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 3-12-04 Application Summary: As a result of numerous requests from properly owr.ers on Big Island, and as a result of the prcsiously used adjacent access road bejng convert^ to lawn by its owner, the City is requesting a variance and a conditional use permit to allow the fillingof a small portionof wetland and floodplain to allowr construction of a new driveway for vehicular access from the lakeshore to the mtenor platted road system. Current Status: This item was tabled on .March 15 because Public Services Director Gtcg Gappa was not present. Planning Commission recommended that this not be brought back until staff meets with the residents of Big Island and can present a comprehensive plan for cstablishing/'upgrading all three potential access points. Staff Recommendation: StafT recommends approval of the proposed w ctland alterations absent the suggested meeting w ith residents. The Council has indicated no intent at this time address further access issues or proceed toward opening a third access point. Background In March of 2003, the Council invited a group of Big Island residents to a work session to discuss the access issue. At that meeting, the consensus of the residents, and of the Council, w as that the access Ians that was closed by Mr. Uran should be replaced on the adjacent City right-of-w ay lane Since that time, the Council has authorized a w etland delineation and a feasibility study in preparation for construction of the access. These have been completed. The only step remaining is the (TUP for filling in the 0-75 lakeshore zone. Most recently, the Council discussed this issue at its April 8.2004 work session. The Council confirmed its stqjport for the access lane. The Council also indicated its intention to limit the number of access lanes open on Big Island to the minimum number necessary to proside minimally adequate access. Minimizing the number of access lanes will minimize the amount and impacts of motor vehicle usage on the Island. MM*29f 7 Big Uluid Acccu ApriM(,2004 P«ic2 At the PCs March 15 mcctmg, a variety of conflicting opinions were cxpresscdby various owners of property on Big Island, ^'hile staff does not object to eventual consideration of a third access point, that access point would require substantial excavation within 75' of the shoreline, and w ould result in even greater pressures to allow uee removal in right-of-ways to create easy, direct travel routes through the island. This w ould requue substantial public discussion, has no support from the Council currently, has no funding support, and would have the potential to create a significant change in the characterof the island. The current proposal is to merely replace on public right-of-way the long-established access that was rccentlyeliminated from Ute adjacent private property. The proposed wetland and floodplain impacts arc minimal. While the abutting neiglibors may not approve of the proposal, the City recognizes an obligation to re-establish this acc^ and is going ^ut it in what staffbelieves is the least impact method given the limited options. Staff RccommeadatioD Please review the memo and exhibits ofMarch 12. Staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26* of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75* setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the w etland, and subject to MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15,2004 6 00 o ’clock p.m. A («13. ^04-2996 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, STREET VACATION-Continued) 2. The vacated property shall be legally combined wuh the adjoining three tax parcels: (02-117-23 43 0002,02-117-23 43 0004,02-117-23 43 0006) Mabusth moved and Rahn seconded to approve Applicatioo ^04-2996, Bob Carlson, Jyland Homes, 1070 West Ferndale Road, requesting a vacation of an un-named road rigbt-of-uay created in the North Shore Cottage Acres. This approval is subject to the applicant granting general utility casements over any of the utility company'i lines and need to confirm easements and also vacated property shall be legally combined Hith the adjoining three platted parcels. VOTE: .Ayes: 7; Nays 0. 14. ili04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PER.M1T, VARIANCES (10:48-11:25 P.M.) Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, was not present .Mike Gaffron reported in his absence. Gaffron explained the application request and indicated that Greg Gappa, Public Services Director was unable to be present at the meeting He asked that the commission please review Exhibit C, the memo from Mr. Gappa, which explains the need for this project and the characteristics of the project. Gaffron noted tliat Uic wetland in question is nei on the City’s 1974 wetland inventory, and therefore is not defined as a “City-protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Welland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District administers on the City’s behalf. The City has chosen to make the applications for vanance and CUP although it could be argued that this wetland does not fall strictly under the City's ordinances. The project is being proposed under the WCA “dc minimus’’ rales because it involves less than 400 s f of wetland aiea being filled This means that the amount of fill and the impact of that fill IS so minor as to not require mitigation The proposed filling is 21S s f at the SE comer of the wetland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has slightly relocated the proposed driveway fill so that there will be no filling closer than 6' from the property line to the south This complies w ith City requirements that do not allow filling w’lthin S’ of a lot line The filling will impact a 12 cubic yard area of flood plain An equivalent volume w ill be excavated adjacent to the NW comer of the floodplain area w ithin the r.ght-of-w ay as equal mitigation. The proposed driveway will be 10' in w idth and 180 ’ in length, and will provide a dnveable access pomt for the north half of the island. This access will replace the access dnve that was Page 40 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p m_____________ («14. #<04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Continucd) formerly used on the north side of the wetland. That access w as on pr.\ ate properly, and the owner recently converted it to lawn area The City has long held that the City has an obligation 10 provide reasonable access to the interior roads on the island for the occasional serv ice vehicle, and for the needs of the few inland properties that do not abut the lakeshore The driveway will constitute filling of 25 cubic >'ards of grav el m tlie 0-75' zone, requiring a CUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s f or 12*;* impervious surface in the o*75’ zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been niininiized by limiting the width of the dnvew ay to 10’ With passage of the WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District w as designated by the City as the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering tlie WCA regulations. These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain t>pes of wetland alteration activities, w Inch are seen as positive ratlier than delnmcntal, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts when they are unavoidable. The appropriate applications are being made to the MCWD before the project may commence. MCWD approval shall be required Gaffron noted that this application w as prepared by Public Serv ices Director Greg Gappa w ith the assistance of John Smvih, W'atcr Resource Specialist wit’.i Boncstroo & Associates, the City’s engineering and environmental consultants Because wetland alterations are not allow ed by Orono CcKle except by variance, the activity is required to be justified via tlie demonstration of a hardship. The commission w as asked to review the hardship statements w ithin the application packet The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardship that supports this variance request. The locations of the few access points to the island were platted a century ago, before motorized vehicles were common. The access points generally were platted at low points in the topography, for obvious reasons This is one of the only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed w ork is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to prov ide access to mland lot owners Access cannot be provided wiihoui work in the 0-75’ zone. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the w etland, excavation withm 26' of the w etland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conserv ation and Flow age Easement over the w etland, a:^ subject to MCWD permit approvals pnor to commencement of constiucuon activities. Page 41 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS, 2004 6 00 o’clock p m (#14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Coniinued) Chair Smith asked for clarification on that the property owner was reclaiming his pn\ ate property that had been used for public access Gaffron responded affinnatively Gaffron further stated thrs property ow-ncr suffered the public’s use of his property for many years. Chair Smith confirmed that there is access elsewhere, but doesn’t provide for access to this pa.n of the island and that is why this is needed Gaffron stated tha' these access points were dedicated in plats 100 years ago and generally they are at the low points in the topography so that people could drive their horse and buggy up to the low point at the bluffs and that is probably w hy this one is located at the low point here. For whatever reasons it has become a wetland. We don’t know if n has always been a wetland. It is not on the city’s protected w etland list or map. Because of the w etland delineation process, however, the area is wetland. Public member Sheryl Uran, 120 and 140 Big Island, ow ns property on either side of the wetland. She thought v/ctlands were ’’sacred cows". She spoke to the MCWD and they say a wetland can’t be filled unless there is no other viable alternative and every alternative should be exhausted before a wetland is filled in. She said her properly has been surv eyed three times in the last four years for this particular road and the stakes have been moved every single time To her knowledge, the other roads have not been surveyed So the wetland has always been looked at and not the other accesses. One inland property ow ner has asked for access. She spoke to Greg Gappa and he stated he has no plans to do anvnhing for the roads It is the furthest pomi away for any of the inland properties. There are other access roads that can be used. For example, the road by Gabriel Jabbour’s property is partially paved and goes to all the inland lots. The one that is on cither side of Bruntjen’s property has never been looked at as viable where rush and small trees are the only thing standing in the way of access Chair Snuih inquired what other accesses have been given consideration. Gaffron responded that the city has considered two other potentially viable access points. 1 West side next to Jabbour’s property, w hich is used by evcrvbody on the island 2. DowTihill from Brunijcii’s propcity Gaffron then stated there are other properties that need to get access and lhc> have potential of going in on the w est end, coming around the side of the large w etland. There are trees m the right-of-way and »he city has told people not to cut trees in the right-of-way. Some of the right- of-ways are located next to wetlands and the city normally doesn’t like trees being cut next to w'etlands. Staff believes people should develop on the island in ways that do not require they Page 42 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 6 00 o’clock p m_____________ («14. «04 2997 CirV' OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Continucd) have constant and total use of right-of-ways. From a safety pcrspectiN C there is a need for access. Gaffron noted he believ es the city should potentially be developing three access points on the island and named them on the map. However, it should be noted that the city doesn't have the dollars to develop them all at the same time so they are proceeding to improve one access at a time. Tins one has gotten started at the request of more than one neighbor and letters are in the packets applauding the city for trying to get something useful. Gaffion agrees with having more accesses, but tlic city is limited to what they can afford in a time frame that works Public member David Lovelace. 220 Big Island explained the access situation on the island and admitted he started the whole access issue and wants all three access sites developed. At the Bay Place location the lake levels comes up various years that makes access difTiculL Mr. Lovelace suted he would bear the cost of the gravel w ith his neighbors. Public member John Uran, 120/140 Big Island who has lived on the island for 30 years asked Lovelace where he is building his house on that property and how close would it be to the access? Lovelace’s preference is to have his dock access near to where he will have his cabin or house. He has a covenant restriction with the owner that he purchased the land from. Uran asked Gaffron why the city would fill a wetland at this point to provide access when you have two other places to provide access. He suggested the whole island be surv eyed. Lovelace stated he is not askmg to fill the wetland Public member Valerie Walsh, 180 Big Island is located five properties down from property access and didn't receive any public heanng notice Gaffron stated notices are required to go to residences within 350’. She wants all three accesses developed. Public member Dorothy Parsons agrees with Ms. WaUh. She stated her son earned 20 sheets of plywood up to her home because they don’t have va 1 re cess. She also said the alley nc,xt to Parson’s home is not accessible. A septic system m go in and they need access to the back of the property. Chair Smith suggested this item be tabled and suggested ihat Greg Gappa meet with all island homeowners to come up with an access plan She also appreciates hemeowners are mterested in helping out financially and with letting the commission know what access points would be desirable to them. Public member Parson asked what the city needs from them. Chair Smith responded that having all of tonight’s participants make sure they sign in on the atteiidance form and note that they are Big Island residents so that Greg knows who was here tonight. Page 43 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6 00 o ’clock p.m (14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIO.NAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-^onCinued) Smith moved and Mabusib seconded to table .Applicalioo #04-2997, City of Orono, for a CUP to provide vehicular access from the lakesbore to the interior platted road system between lots 38 and 39 at Morse Island Park on Big Island. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0. SKETCH PLANS 15. #04-2987 HASHE.M BUKHADRA, 1745 FO.\ STREET SKETCH PLAN. Gundlach reported that the applicant was not present and tlie commission temporarily pul this item on hold and moved to the next item. 16. #04-2988 HENRY J. LAZNIARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH. SKETCH PLAN The representative, Hcnr>’ Lazniarz, and his builder, Toni Goodrum, were present GafTron explained this is a sketch plan foi a proposed 7-Iot residential plat or PRD of propc.rty abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek Five concept plans have been presented for consideration. Each proposal includes development of a private cul-dc-sac road accessing from Dtown Road South, plus extensions to serve various outlying or back lots The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines The site is wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1920's This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Pla.nning Commission and Council dunng the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site The ow ners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts, have taken legal action to have their existing casement declared as usable for access to the property. The City Attorney is still review mg documentation provided to him, but his initial conclusion is that the 40’ easement does in fact provide the applicant with the right to create a road to serve multiple lots over that casement. Henry Lazniarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres He apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this Gaffron review ed the points m die staff memo relating to the property Tom Goodrum handed out colored rendenngs of the five concept plans. GafTron noted that applicants have ptovided the commission w ith a number of concept plans and most of them could be done in a planned residential dev elopment w ith a standard plat The Page 44 of 48 L. Ditc Application Received: 2<23>04 Dale Application Conilctercd ai Complete: 2*23«04 60-Da> Review Period Evpirrt: 4-23-04 Chair Smith and Planning Conunissioncrs Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffion, Planning Director March 12.2004 #04-2997 City ofOrono - Access Between Lots 3S &. 39, Morse Island Park (120-140 Big Island) • CUP and Vanance for Wetland Alteration - Public Hearing Zoning District: RS Seasonal Recreation District, S-acre min. Access Dimensions: The nght-of-way pros iding access is appro.ximately 90' in width at the lakeshore and at the rear, and is approximately 170’ in depth. Application Summary: As a result of numerous requests from property ownei s on Big Island, and as a result ofihe prev iously used adjacent access road being cons etied to law n by its ow ncr. the City is requesting a variance and a conditional use pennit to allow the filling of a small portion of sx ctland and floodplain to allow construction of a new dns cw ay for x chicul v access from the lakcsliore to the interior plan^ road system Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed wetland alterations PertioiDt Code Sections: 1.Section 78-1112: Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically pcmiittcd. no filling, grading, dredging, cxcav alion, luidcov cr. temporary or pennanent structures, obstructions, septic systans. w ell or other construe non slull be allowed w iihiti the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conserv ation Area; nor on any lands w ithin 26 feet iliercof; nor on any land w ithin 75 feet of the ordinary highw ater elevation of any lake shoreline. Sections 78-1113'14(2b); “All dredging or excav ation of matenal from any lake bed. pond or w cUand or fiuni adjacent land thereto" is a conditional use within the Floodw ay and Flood Fnnge Districts. This wetland (as all w etlands) includes areas w ithin those tw o Distncts os defined in Section 78-1108 3. 4. Section 78-1117; Section 78-1286; (Standards for floodway and flood fnnge conditional uses) (Shorcland standards for topographic alterations, grading and filling) *04-2997 March 12.2004 Page 3 The driveway will constitute fillingof 25 cubic yards of grave; in ‘Jie 0-75' zone, requiring a CUP, and will constitute approximately 750 s.f. or 12% impervious surface in the o-75 ’ zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been minimized by limiting the width of the driveway to 10'. With passage of Uie WCA, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City as the respor-sible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the WCA regulations. These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of wetland alteration activities which arc seen as positiv c rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts when they are unavoidable. MO'D Approval Required The appropriate applications arc being made to the MCWD. MCWT) approval shall be required beficre the project may commence. City CoDSuUaot Review This appU<^^ . vas prepared by Public Serv’ices Director Greg Gappa with the assurance ofJohn Smyth, W; *’t. ■ scialist w’lth Bonestroo & Associates, the City’s engineering and environmental consUiut.. Hardship Statement Because wetland alterations are not allowed by Orono Code except by variance, the activity is required to be justified via the demonstration of a hardship. Please review the hardship statements virithin the application packet The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardship that nipports this variance request. The locations of the few access points to the island were platted a century ago, before motorized vehicles were common. The access points generally were platted at low points in the topography, for obvious reasons. This is one of the only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to provide access to inland lot ownffs. Access cannot be provided without work in the 0-75* zone. Issues for Consideration 1. Arc there any aspects of this project that will be dctnmenlal to the neighborhood? 2. Is Planning Commission satisfied that the project is appropriate? 3. Docs Planning Commission have any oAer issues or concerns with this application? W4-2997 March 12.2004 Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff reconmends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteaiion and driveway construction project, including filling of aportion of the wetland, excavation within 26’ of the wetland, and filling and hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone per the revised plan, subject to cstablishmeat of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland, and subject to MCWD pennil approvals pnor to commencement of construction activities. City of Orono Variance Application A'f Sfreef Actfress 2753 Ke':e/ Far'o.ay Cfono. WN 55356 Main. 952-243-CS:C fax 952-249^^5 Maiting Adiress P.O. Bax 66 Crystal Bay. .MS £532:-:CS3 Application # r.j.2.^,0'7 Cate Recc'ved £ Amount Pa’d Staff; Fee:560C Renewal: S30C A**.er•t^o-fact S1 230 Dau; e gg« This application fcrm must be ccT.pieted in f r App'car.t wli be rct/eo within 15 days as to toe status o* the appicauon. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; B\Lak*. \OC AiA lid M ^ 0 Property Identificatron Number (PIN); 'Kl A, ^ (Attach legal description to application if not irc’uded on tne survey.) ------- Dale Property Acquired (monUi/year); \^\ Q □ Yes. I own the adjacentparcels. Present use of property: □ Residential [&Xhher A Zoning District; Sg.ajr»\ft\ f ^ ®PLICANT INFORMA^TION; (Complete legal na~s5 and marita' status repu.red for each interested pah\l •ime; C. rtNy c \ o f'O f\ (7 • G-r^r, G/7fp/7 (horneV Pnone (work): ^572- ;c; g|> 4-<C Address f O tOX tVlk\ SS'^lT -------------- ^ la ^ fi? C I . T\ rv-l A n rv» I » C » Oa v- IEmail:^ fg C l. O ry:ing/. rVin. Lt; *HSl- OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each Interested cart/) Name: C\\\^ 0 roAO ' p t\Ar..>r^<c________________________________ P^orie (home): Phone (work). S Z ‘ Address: y.O, ihoX ^6> CrysAAl bay fVVU SSIZI T itvn r. f.-ct7w r \ r^W.lAr Fax: H $ Z' fe U. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost S ^60C Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessa.7): Vt\ri > r.r) f Q h aVc V S f Cc.^fi No \c\o. VV^ C»\v M'i^.0 (jKnr\ip/. A., t/nfr-irtn r7 .^P-r \^0 ^ \ d< lfv\y£.V\rrar’^Su.r(rvrc’tn rtW _SgAk/u.V- define r^/UA9 . Kir yv^r^^ Ag ,/t r ^ Wru', A If ql\piA/f/-l flAy rn,i^ i rU«?VArtt Wcwj ov\ rr < •/• :v " ' tj .V .- :-T.i. •7 n ...u REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All cf the following Informat'on must be subrrir.ed by the application deadline date In c'der 'oryo app'ication to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Appi cation Meeting Form, ccr.ple ad by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Fo'm Certified Property Owners List-owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and p'atrnap. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of F.nance. Government Center. A-603 3C0 South 6‘‘‘* Street, Minneapolis, teIep'no"e 612-24S-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) rr.eeting a'l the requi*enerts listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17‘ for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11* x 17‘). Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Flannir.g 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 inforratlcn suppled Is tme and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solelv responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, t' staff has no alternative but to reject It unlit it Is complete or to recommend the request fo. denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature: A (C<vnnPate: 7." ' 0 ^ Applicant's Signature: ^ ^ ‘Date OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further autho-izes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, co/iiiiltants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of Investigation sj\i veriricatiop^d^s request Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: Date: ^^ Date: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Conrr.ission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each rorth. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Corr.mlsslon and Council. If an applicant Is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend In place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. .*• r .'• A • ./ Km Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form it a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application I will not be considered complete or placed on a~y meeirg agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. i/’nnesota State Statue Sect.on 294 27, Subd vision 7 requires that a ha'dship te demonstrated In order for a variance to be gra.nted. The hardship must te unique to the property as variances run with the land and net the land owner. Parsonal and eccr.orric situations an net considend valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Comr.lssion and City Council a hardship having merit must te demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 po ’nts outlining the basis City staff uses to detormine if a hardsh.p exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding conmunlty. To prove a hardsh p. address all the relevant points listed below and answer tnem as clearly as posslb'o. 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 recommendaticn. If you leave somethlrg out it will net be cons ’dered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they re'ate to the request (seme nnay not apply): 1. 4. The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowedly the official contreb.* . , i ^ , 1h\f <;fJi y/A\j t\ Q I rw YIP .-V \ ^ k to r n,\ l\/z ratn/J rn ^ r f I ~ i ^ s p r r 'ic ^prf 'JV'A. V S i f •'Vt f (A r p 0 <Tf fMS? Ol Hmr PrnfXMv SlmiT o <Tf f The plight of (he landowner is due to circumstarces unique to his property not created by the landowner.: rL>^W\ d-f Ulf tfncrv \s a C.\rcurnj\ai(\rf In o rr r "{n prr.^r\\^f The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the local ty.’ cn ?? 4 iO Uy\/A r \ n "tKi d "{ M/ovy u>tU if\ r/\ »• rtK* /<t <. 'T\ r,«*r^ ^y •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue ha'dship if reasonable use for the property exists urvlortha terms of the Zoning Chapter." if a’"s t Vs O Page 3 of 3 12. The granting of such ^«ria^.ce will net merely serve as a ojnvenierce to the ^ipplicant but Is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* tr a ^Tr.r-*i\nv Pt'^ \ 1/^tr »*>t a ^Tr.r-n\rt« ( 1*^ Pf*ol*?/n< p/ublU fnr\l’aciAy p ci^n\ fh ti 4\‘)t O Wv p\ r^VV/il \\ i n 4 Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): Application# c:^A-^QQV Date Received 2 2 \-ct-r Amount Paid ___________ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Lr-}j^ .Dcorr ^ Type of Application to be Filed CUf G tilhrc, Q'l S' xar,K Property Identification Nurr.ber (P.l.D.) A ^ _________ APPLICANT - . ^ ^ Name ______C iT\ (/* C'r f/%{^ G r^f> CQ Phone (home)Phcinefworki 1 • *4-S^ I Address P /9. &/>. I f r.»-YSA<^l City Iv/iTj Zip S S OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____Ci^ y r? / O^nrU' lL/*<h i\/\r.>>rS< Phone fhomet Phone (work)^IU- Address ^ O G/^Jl "i- / City l\AK^ Zip. ■>5^_i >2..7»- Date Prooeity A^uired I h^* WfJ pLlrl/tA r> fDate f^ooerty Acquired I iLirlAi I (do) ^onof) also own the adjacent parcels of fand. 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 uand Alteration Permit [____Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $600 00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation $600.00 Easement Vacaton $100.00 Easement Vacaton With Subdivision $600.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule . : i.-; M/ Aset REQUIRED SUEMITTALS 1 • ____Completed Application Form. 2. ____Descrbe request in detail. ____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Goverament Center, A-603 300 South 6* Street, Minneapofis, telephone 612-348-5910). ----Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suveycr) - refer to har.dcut for survey information. __Attach legal description to application if net incLded on required survey. -----Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations Involve changes in elevaton (grades). -----List of the legal names (include marital status) of al persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appl:cant(s) if not current owner(s). ___Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). -----As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of th'is application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date ____ 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses Incurred In review of this application, and certfies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature ^ ^ of\ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appHcation and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members forj^p^s of invest'gation and ve.'ificaticn of this Owner ’s signaturegOiVliintuiC - - y m- - - »___________ DatG ^ at an scheduled review meetings of the Plannlr^g Commission and Council. Ifan appiicant is unable to IS;"..,!. *7«>9®mento to have en authodzed agent aSend In yourand advto^^Bujding,» Zoning Office of this chaai^r io the meetino Tf 4 ZONING REGULATIONS IIM2S6 (41 Stairwtyt, hflt and landings may b« ti- thtr constructed above the grouiid on posts or pilinp or into the ground, pro* vided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil ero sion (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the roost visually inconspicuous portions of lou, as viewed from the sur face of the public water, assuming sum mer. leaf-on conditicns. whenever practi cal. (6) Fsdlities necessary to provide shore area acceas to phyrcally handicapped pcriona shall be allowed, provided that the dimen sional and performance standards of sub sections (li—(5) of this section are com pleted In addition to the requirementa of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of atairwaya, lifts and land ings regardless of whether such improve ments art constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd scries. 11(10.S6(16XF)). 2-24- 1992) Sec. 78-1283. Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construc tion of sewage treatment systems, roads, drive ways. structures or other imprevements on steep slopes shall provide adequate infcraation to al low the city to evaluato possible sod erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be at- uched to asued 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. 101 2nd series.« 1(10.56(16X0), 2-24- 1992) See. 78-1234. Height of structures. No structure within the Shoreland Overlay Distr.ct shell exreed the height limitations lot: forth in the standards for the underlying zoning d.strict (Ord Nc ICl 2nd senes, f :(:0.SGC6'(H)). 2-24- 1992) Eec. 73-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a) No Uve tree within 75 feet of the shoreline or within the bluff impact zone with a dia.*neter of SIX tnchea or more (or 19 inches in eircu.mference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit ffom the city staff, provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a nze and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the taxe setback ftrom the shoreline as those removed Appeals cf staff determinations at to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the co'undl. Removal cf trees that arc dead shall not require a per.’nit, but such trees must be inspected by city staff pr.or to their removal. (b) Intensive vegetation cleari.-ig within 75 feet of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact tone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide s view to the water from the principal dwtlUcg site and to arcemmodate the placement of permitted stairways and laadisgs. picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitud lockboxes, pnv'ided that the screening of structares, vehicles cr ether fanlities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, I l(l0 56il6Xl)l, 224- 1992; Ord. No 127 2nd series, h 7. 7-11-1994) ------------------------------------—--------------------------------------------------------- ■ Sec. 78-1286. Topographic altcrations/grad- ^ log and filling. (a) Grading and fUUng and excavations neces sary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construetbn permits for these facUities do Sapp. Ne. I I CD78:191 17|.tIM OaONO CITY CODE Bot r«quii« thB istuinei of b lepartu piding ocd fiUmg ponxut. Kowcvtr. all cndinf and Slling activity approvad ptnaita far eonstraction sf atrus* turea, atwagt traatatat lyataos, and driveways •hall adhtra to tha gradisg and ^ing ataadards of this article. (b) Cradiof. {Uliagomcavatiagofffiore thaa ten cubic yarda la pcbbibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high watar level of tha public watera caumarated in aectioa 78*1217. Grading, filling or eacavatiag of tan cubic yarda or laaa shall require dty ataff review and permit and be subject to ot^r pertinent aectioaa of this chapter. (c) Public amd private roads, driveways, park ing areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shaU net be constructed within 76 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If txo c'tsrnatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard toaiag variance review procedure, and such review sh^ take into account the fallowing considerations: (1) Such improvements shali be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum icreen- lag from view from public watera. All roads and parking areas shaU be de- signed and constructed to minimixo and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with Jurisdiction. (dl Eaeept far those projects requiring permits far construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and drlvawsys, s land alttration permit will be required as fallows: (1) For movement of one through SCO cubic yarda of material snywhtrt within the Shertland Overlay District, a itsff-iuued land alteration permit shall be required. (cl The following eonsidcrauons sad cead;- tioss mutt bo aihsrod to during the Itsusnce of comtruetioa permits, griding and filling pemita, conditicrtal use permits, vanances and lubdr^v lion approvals: (2) For movomont of aort than 500 cubic yards of mstsrisl within tha Shcrelsnd Overlay District, coaditionsl use permit approval by the dty council is required in addition to tha requited land alteration permit. Grading or filling in any type 3. 3.4,5. 6, 7 or 8 wetland mutt be evaluated to determine hew extenslvfly the proposed activity would affect the follcwicg face- tionsl qualities of the wetland: Sediment and pollutant trappinf and ze tendon; b. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; e. Fish and wildUfe habitat; d. Recreational use; e. SheroUne or bank stabilitadon; and Noteworthlneos, including epodal qualidos, ouch aa hlatorie eicrufi* canco, critical habitat for endan gered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a deter mination of whether the wetland ilter- ation being proposed requires permiu, reviews or approvals by other local state or federal agencies including but net lim ited to wstershed districts, stats depart ment of natural resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (21 Alteratisna must be designed and con ducted in a manner that ensures only the emallcst amount of bare ground is ca- posed for the shortest tune possible. Muldxes or similsr nsterials suit be used. nccesssiy, far tsmporary bare soil oovsrags, and a psrsanect vegetatiea cover must bo estabhshed as so oa as pos sible. •use N*. i CD78:19a 4^ Methods to micimUt soil crcsica and to trap sediments befbts thay reach any sur face water fasturs must h* used. (5) Altered areas must bs stsbilixsd to accept- able etosioa control standards consistent with the field office tedmicsl guides of the L. ZCK»\'C REGULATIONS f local leil and wattr »}nservatioa districti and sht Unitad Suttt Sod Ccnservatioa Scrvicf. (6) Fill or excavated zaaurlal cuat not be placed la a maoaer that creates an unsta ble slope. (71 Plant to place SU cr excavated material on steep ebpes must be revievred by the dty engineer for continued slope stability and must cat create hnished slopes of S3 percent or greater. (8) Fill or excavated material must net be placed la bluJT impact tones. (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high waUr level of public waters must first be authorized by tha commisaioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat | 103G.246. (10) Alteratbns of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. (Ill Placement of natural rock riprap, includ ing associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is per mitted if the (Iniahed slope does not ex ceed three fleet horizontal to one foot ver tical. the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of tha ordinary high water level, and the height cf the riprap above tha ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet A riprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969. (f) Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level Such excavatiens belew the elevation or the ordinary high water level are auhject to approval of the department of natural resources and ether agencies with ccncur- rent Jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 101 2nd scries, f 1(10 56a6XJ)), 2-24- 1992. Ord. No. 127 2nd sexiet, i 8.7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, f 3, 12-8-1997: Ord. No. 171 2nd seriee. ft 2. 4-4-1998) Sec. 78-1287. Stormwater znanagemcat The fcllowing general and ipenfic smndards ihall apply in addition to those standards found in article VIII of th-s chipter and seruoc 82-222; (15 When poiiiblt, esisUng natural drainageways. wetlands and vegcuted soil surfaces most be used to esnvey, store, filter and retain stormwater runeff before discharge tc public watirt (2) A development must be planned and con ducted in a maniur that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities and erosion potential, and red-uce aad delay runeff volumes. Disturbed areas must be subilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or roethedi used to retain esdiment on the sits (3) When dcvelcpment density, topegraphie features, and soil and vegeution condi tions are not sufficient to adequately han dle stormwater runoff using natural fea tures and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities, such as diversions, settling basine, ekimming devices, dikes, waterways and pondt esay be used. Pref erence must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegeution. and infiltra tion rather than buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities. (4) When constructed facilities are used to perform water management, documenta- tion must be provided by a registered profeseional ei^ engineer that they are designed and installed consisteot with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation district. (5) New ceastructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skim ming cf surface debns befere diKharge. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, ft 1(19 S6(16xKl). 2-24- 19921 Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover cr impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of tha ordinary high water level of any lake cr tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxei as regulated elsewhere in this Code. 8usp. No. 1 CD78:193 5. Wetlands Management ^ 5.1 General As described in Section 3. the fonr.ct.on of the landscape in Ororo ncs resulted In the creotion of rrcny wetlands. The City recognizes o vcrieN of functions or»d values provided by its wetlands, inciudng: ❖ Acting os part of the rxaturol surface water managerr^en^ sys'e.Ti • mointerxip.ce of woter quality • flood attenuation • erosion and sedimentation reduction ❖ Providng hobitat for a variety wfIdSfe Preserving open spaces and natural landscapes ❖ Contributing to on enhonced overall qudity of life Orono's leaders formally recogrtzed these vaues in the 1960‘s and adopted the Oty's first comprehensive wetland protection ordinance in 1970. Based on various water quality/quantity studies that supported the 1974 SWMP. Orono adopted additional ordinances In 1975, which proNbited tilling or draining wetlands, and required o 26-foot setback from a wetland boundary to any construction or grading activity. This section of the SWMP describes the City's multi-faceted resource management approach to maintaining or innproving the City's wetland resources. Stemming from the gods and policies of both MCWD end Orono. the following process serves as the backbone of Orono's wericrd management plan: Discussion of Impacts to wetland resources iSection 5.2) ❖ Inventory wetlands likely to be affected by runoff (Section 5.3) ❖ Assessment of wetland functions orxj values (Section 5.3) ❖ Determination of a runoff susceptibility rating (Section 5.3) <• Develop protection strategies to minimize Impact (Section 5.4) • classify we**ands by required level of protection • volume ono rate control (quontity) to manage bounce • P^tosphofous Hmits to mointoin or Improve weterquaiity • buffer strip stendards for quantity and quality <• Plan for enhancement or restoration of wetlands (Section 5 S) • Identify candidate wetlands • create on Improvement plan for eoch Ot^o^Onono ^ 5.2 Impacts to Wetlands with the passage of wetland protection legislation, ofxl cors^fuctjon of poods for runoff rnorxjgemenr. the rate of degradatlor from utxan development has been greatly slowed However, witn iotonsive land development, ogriculturol production, ond housekeeping practices m developed areos. degrodation of wetlonds ccntnues. TT'e focus of recent wetlord legislation, policy, ond practice hcs been to preserve the functions, values, and overoll qual*ty of wetlands by fnhirrizng poo- woter quality ond unmonaged quantities of runoff cssocicted w *h ac'o. uroon impacts. ^ 5.2.1 Water Quality Impacts Water quality plays a significant role in the overall quality of a wetland ^en the quality of incoming water declines, the plant comm jnty may degrode to fewer of spedes and retoin only species tcierort cf high nutrient and secflment ioods. A degraded plant commur^ty results o less valuoble ecosystem in terms of biodiversity, habitat, and aesthetes. There are two primoiy factors that effect the quality of runoff enterlnc wetlond. and therefore to overall woter quality within the wetand: 1. phosphorous, as the primary nutrient of concern 2. secHmentatioa resultir^g from erosion of soil. 5.2.2 Water Quantity Impacts Recent surface water management plans have protected wetlands from nutrients but not from fluctuotion of woter elevation (bounce) or du'crion of inundation, in fact, it was corrwDn to use wetlands to reduce floodina potential by sang pipes to maximize bounce and duration. The findings of the (State of Minnesota) Storm Water Advisory Group were published in a document called Gdoance For Fvahjot'ng U^n Sterm Water and Sryowrr^t Runoff Impacts To Wetlands (1994). The findings Indicated that there Is a broad range of toterar.ee to bounce and duration among different wetland types. And to a lesser extent, the ^ attributed to the characteristics and quality of Some wetlands (e.g.. bogs and fens) are sensitive to any disturbonce and vnll show sgns of degradation with even low-levei inputs of runoff Cc^verseiy. some wetlands (e g., floodplain forests) ore better adopit to handle fluctuating woter levels often associated with runoff aiyofarono 5.3 INVE.VTORY AiND ASSESSMENT OF WETLA.NDS 5.3.1 Wetland Inventory As stored eofiier. the City's objective is to protect, enhonce. ord/or wthn 20 feet of a oroposed or exsting stormwater outlet pipe were inventoned end mopped os port of the SWMP. This inventory c'so served os the base of information for development of other ports of the wefond management plan. 5.3.2 Stormwater Susceptibility Assessment ^ Gu/ctonce For Evaluating Urtxjn Storm Water and Snowmett Runoff Impacts To We//onds was the source materia: for rating a wetlond's susceptibility to runoff. Potential Impacts ossoadted with storm and meltw(^er runoff Include fluctuation in water levels (bounce) within the wefl<^d. the durotion of Inundation at the varying bounce elevations '^oter being directed to the wetland. A given ' wetlo^ s susceptibility to runoff Is dependent on the wetland type, end the charocterlstjcs orxj quality of its plant community. As on example, o sedge meadow, which likes a particular hydroioo c wet meadow with c variety of grosses end flowers's more sensTtive then eorh nMh Susceptibility rating foreach of the evaluated wetlands Is Indicated by coior-coding on tne system map. The rotlrgs described in the guidance document ere •> Highly Susceptible ❖ Moderately Susceptible « Slightly Susceptible ❖ LeostSusceptible. Further tfacusSon on susceptibility and ossodofed wetland communiv descnptlons. modlied from the Guidance For Evaluating Urban Starrn Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetlands, is presented In Ap^ndx H. Each susceptiblity rating category describes different wetland types, including plant communities and hydrology. OtyofOnno 5.3.3 FunctionarAssessment Orono'5 1980 Community Monogement Plan artlcu cted *ne general boss for wetland protection, but lacked a functions assessment of the values attributable to each of its protected wetlands. Such an assessment was needed to be able to develop protection or enhancement strategies for individual wetlands. The New Hompshire Method, slightly modified for conditions in Orono, wos used for the functional assessment of wetlorxds. The Minrkesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) was also modified, end used in conjunction with the New Hampshire Method. The Intent of combining these methods was to allow for city staff to assist In future assessments of wetlands. The New Hampshire Method is designed to be "user friendly* and is specifically set up so that non-sdentlsts con fill out the method. MnRAM is a technico method that needs to be filled out by a wetland scientist, it wos rvecessary to Include MnRAM because the New Hampshire Method does not odequotely address floral diversity, (an important factor with regord to runoff protection and buffer strips). The New Hampshire Method allows for a comparison between wetlonas v/ithin G project boundary. It Is one of the few methods that gives an octuol number rankiryg. This allows for comparison of functional values. The method addresses up to 14 functional values of wetlands, which are llst^ In Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Functional Values Under the New Hampshire Method Ecologicai integrity Water-based recreation Shorerme anchorlr.g 1 Wildlife habitat Flood control potential Urban quality of life 1 Rsh habitat Groindwater use potential Urban quality oMife EducaUonal potential Sediment trapping Noceworthiness VIsuat/Besmetic quality |Nutrient attenuation Of these 14 functional values, the City chose the following three for assessment of the wetlands identified for the SWMP; <» Ecologfcol Integrity determines the degree of human Influence. ❖ \MldSfe Habitat assesses the overall suitability of a wetland for ‘ widlife typically associated vyflh wetlands. ❖ Vaual/Aesihetic Qua% ranks the wetland's scenic beauty. Fur^ctiond value Indces for each wetland or© presented In Appendix indudhg the MnRAM rating of a wetland's florol dlversity/infegiity. OtyefOeno MCWD Assessment As Of the opprovol data of th:s SWP. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was in the process of conrpleting a funct.on and voiue ossessrr^ent of wetlands in the District. It is aniicpoted that that project will be completed end o final report will be published in the r<ecr future me City of Orono will refer to MCWD's data for the foilowing consideratons: 1. Source of data for wetlands not inventoried for Orono S\.VM? 2. Cross-reference with Orono SWMP data 3. Gain perspective on tr.e wetland monegenenr strctecies set *orth in the OroTio SWMP 5.3.4 Non-Inventoried Wetlands Understondlr»g the value of on inventory and evduanon of oil wetland resources, the Oty w3l take the fO!owir>g general ooprooch to achlev/ng a complete data set for remoining wetlonds; ❖ Inventor^’ and assess wetlands os cost-shoring opportunities become avoilable ❖ Incorporate data from similar projects by other agencies, notobiy the MCWD wetland ossessment project ❖ Require data from ony land disturbing octivlty near a wetland The lost of these will happen when there is development of lord near any wetlands that have not been accounted for in a previous effort. When o prellmlnory plot is received by the City, proximity to wetlands will be among the review items. If a r«arby wetland hes not been accounted for, the developer of the lend will be requ'red to hove a runoff susceptibility evolucrtion completed end submitted to the Cty The developer may request that the evaluation be done by the City. In which cose a fee w!H be ossessed. By requiring this, the plat ooproval process wi take into account the quafity and sensitivity of a given wetlona os well as odd that wetlord to t.he Gty's database. ^5.4 Wetlapo) Protection The god of this monagement strotegy Is to mointdn or enhance the ecologicol integrity of wetlands in the Oty during site development. Given the voriablity of the type and quotity of the wetland communites. a two- step wetland protection process hos been developed. Wetlands subject t* runoff rrxjst Initially be dossified os to the level of protection required. Frorr there, an appropriate protection strategy con be planned for each wetland. Otyof Orono Information needed to form a wetland strategy for each wetla-d win be derived from one or dl of these sources 1. Wetlord inventory ond ossessment completed os part of this SWVP 2. WetiarHU inventory end assessment comp'eted by MCWD 3. Non-inventoried wetland procedures detai.ed in Section 5 3 4 5.4.1 Protection Classification Orono’s wetlorxJ protection classifications ore based on o wetiono's susceptiWity to impact from runoff (see Section 5 3 2). Because tne runoff susceptibility rating con be used cs ar> indcotor for the overoll quolity 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 cases, wetlands with a •utilize* dassiflcation can actudly be enhanced when used for runerf monogement, by raising water levels or by excavating. In other situations, restoration of Protect ll or Protect HI wetlands may provide treatment for downstreanr. waterbodies ond improve the hobtot ond aesthetics of the subject wetland. Table 5.2 Weidantf Protection Oassifications Protection Classification Suscoptlbility Rating Description Protect I Highly SuscepObie Highly suscepbble to both qcanbty and quality impacts from runoff; have the highest degree of protection. Protect II Moderately Suscepbble Moderatehr suscepbble to quanbty and quality Impacts- proteebon is less stringent than Protect I, provides i protection to maintain tfieir charaaerisbes , Protect n.I Slightly Suscepbble Less stringent protectKio than Protect n wetlands; [ maintenance of characteristics is desirable UWze Least Susceptible Wetiands are Ugnifcantly degraded (e.g., cuitvated or canary grass monotype) or lack wetland characteristics; not typicaly impacted by njnoff; no quanbty and only limted quality treatmert of njnoff is required 5.4.2 Protection Strategies Wsting federd and state regulottons cxjdress potentld impoct to tne •ared* extent of wetlands from placement of fill materid. In concert with MCWD, the Qty also Intends to protect the overoll ecdogied Integrity of its wetland communities. The protection strategies in Tabe 5.3 were developed to address potenfid Impact to the type, character. arx3 qudlty of a wetland community, from runoff. The Protection Strategy for each wetland is based on Its Protection Oosslflcalion. a^afOvn Cons{der!ng n^ar runoff reaches a wer.and bom from a storm sewer and from Qd;acent upiards. the following tnreo issues will be ncnoged to mininrVze impact from ajnoff: <• Bounce - deals with the volume of stormwater input, in te-ms of the change in water levels and the duration o' *nat change. Ponds w ii be desigr^d to monoge bounce assocated with runoff from storm sewers. Based a runoff event w;th a 100-year recurrence mtervc!. <• Phosphorous (P) - addresses the amount of phosphorous oe^ng delivered to a given wercnd via ajnoff from storm sewers <• Buffer • addresses bom the quality orTd qucnnty/rote of runoff enterfrg a wetland as surface flow from odjocent upionds. Protection Classincation Protection Strategy j Protettl Bounce: Maintain boonce at or below existing cenditiors P‘: Umit loadings to predevelopment loading (O.W Lbs/Ac/Yr) 1 Buffer 50 fzzt wide h Bounce: Mainta n bounce ac or below tidstlnfl condioors olus Q.S foot Protect II P: Limit loadings to predevelopment loadings times 2 f0.2B Lbs/Ac/Vr) Buffer 35 feet wide Bounce: Maintain bounce at or below eidstno conditions olus i.o font | Protect III1 P: Limit concentration to predeveicpment concentrations (200 opb) | 1 Buffer 25 feet wde Bounce: No Quantity retjuirement Utilize P: Limit concentration to 225 ppb ^ P ■ phesphofous Buffer 15 feet wide * The aty of Orono has taken a somewhat different approach to the sizing and location requirements for wetlarxj buffers, for a couple of reasons 1 . It is generally known that, ossurnng dl things equal, a Jcrgef waterbody has a greeter assimilative copodty then a small wetlor^. l.e. some given amount of phosphorous con be more easay "absorbed' by a 14 ocre marsh than by o 0.8 ocre fen. 2. A given wetiorjd's rur»off susceptibility roting Js a good ihacctor of it's overall quality in terms of its functions and values. Sensitive communities with a diverse assemblage of plants provide sco'ce and/or high quaSty habitat (remember. Protecticn Clossiflcotions ore tied to runoff susceptibility). atrof Orono Buffers L jnera It should be noted at the outset of any cfscussion on buffers, rnot tris requirement is not the same cs a ‘setback' requ 'emert m fccr. tne ^ginning point for a setback requirement may cc^oCl:y be the butter's In irvdicateaIn Table 5.3. olong with other buffer guidelines discussed below, with approvol of this SWMP. During impienrentotion cf this SWMP tne Ctv w II include these requirements and guidelines in an appropriate ord nc-ce, A bu^er (or ^ffer strip) is on oreo of undrs/urbed vegetation su-ouno ng a weflond. it con consist of trees, grosses, shrubs, flowers, or any combinoti^. as long os it is the vegetation (or e.v uncement oQ tnat is m place and well estcbllshed before ony grading activities begin. An undisturbed buffer can reduce impact to o wefland by. ^ Keep'ng soil stabilized to minimize erosion ❖ Ritering nutrients arxi sediments from overland runoff ❖ Slowing ond/or retaining overland runoff ❖ Providing habitat adiocent to weflands f”"?® a buffer Is an orea in which there will be ro vehicle w. "le “*'• *’°Sing Of ony type of conltrucHon moteriol. Arfer construcfioa these guidelines siould be followed; ■» No mowing, fertlliang, or other montenonce • monogement of native or natural vegetation is OK <• No placemen? of lawn clippings, leaves, etc • limited brushpiies may be OK. check with City* « No sheds or reaeational features « No trampling or paths, except os cllowed, check with City • paths should be parallel to the wetland edge • access to wetland should be meandered •bfiahpiei fTXjy serve cs hcbftot for widife if done property ♦ 5.5 WETLAND HESTORATION/ENIMNCEMENTS cSscussed furtherin Section 7.7.4. ^ atyoronno A summary of eoch of the wetland restorction/enhancemenr sites foiIo Enough information was collected to begin tre orocess cf applyno for * grants. The cost shown in the tobies below are opprcximote end r^av t modi.,ed if odditionci information beccm.es cvoiiob'e. cr for cost 5.5.1 Wetland PC-L-31 Approximate Site Size: 10 acres Township _118NI Range 23 W Section 31 Watershed Name: Mississippi Rver (Metro) Watershed tf. 23 City Watershed Nome: Pointer Creek General DeecripUon of Site This wetland is located in the upstream portion of the Painter C^eek water^ed. A tributohr of Pa ’nter Creek bisects the wetland. McCuHev Road IS located at the south end of the wetland. Approximately 85 percent of the wetland is a wet meadow ana 15 percent s a low'a.^c swamp. The wet meadow is dominated by reed cenary aro' with patches of willow located in the middle. The lowland hardwood swamp is dominated by willow and cottonwood. ^0 Painter Oeek tributary hes been ditched through the wetland. A lateral ditch connects with the Pointer Creek tributary. These ditches have portlolly drained the wetland end cenhbuted to the dearcdeH condition of the basin. cegrecea Restoration Objectives and Proposed Construction This site is high profile due to its location adjacent to the luce Une Trail and within land publicly owned by the Cty. The goals for wetland restoration will include the following: • Control runoff rotes to Painter Creek • Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corridor Steps in the proposed wetJartd restoration include the following: 1. Construct a series of bw berms across the ditch to eii.minate tne scope and effect of the ditch. OfyofOrono 2. Complete two controllecj bums of the s ’te *o o'd in cont'Diirc reed canary gross. Pravide a spottreotTent of he'bicide to furthe- control reed canary grass. 3. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses cp.d fo'ts Tasks 1 Description Approximate Cost Surveys Fieid and topographic survey of s.te s 3,000 ! Design : Complete ste design irrcluding draft plan and final construction documents 5 B.CCO I Meetings i Meetings vwth Cty staff and surrounding landowrwrs i S 1.3C0 j Permits i Otitain necessary permits 1 $ 2.000 1 RestoraDon 1 Complete two prescribed bums ard spot hc-ijiode 1 I treatment to oortrol exotics j $ 3.0CC j 1 Seed with wet meadow mot ;5 IS.OOO 1 . ConstructJcn of low berms across ditch ;S 30.000 1 Approximate Project Cost | 1 $ 62,300 S.5.2 Wetland PC-M-31 Approximate Ste Sze: 135 acres Township _ nSN Range _23 W . Section Watershed Nome: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #; 20 City Watershed Norme: Pointer Creek General Deacription of Site This wetland is located in the upstream portion of the Painter Creek Watershed. Atributary of Pointer Oeek bisects the wehand. McCulley Rood is located ot the north end of the wetland. The wetland contains the following connmunities end species: • 40 % shallow marsh - cattoil. lake sedge, water plantoin • 20 % shrub swamp - willow The Pointer Creek tributary has been a'tched through the wetland A I^rol ditch conriects with the Pointer Qeek tributary dong the troll, wse cStches hc^ portiolly drained the wetlond and contributed to th degraded corrdilion of the basin. atyefOrone RBStOfMtton Obj9ctlve8 and Construction Proposed This site is high profile due to its location cd^ccent to the Luce Line Trail and within lend publicly owned by the City. The goals for we*lond restoration will include the following; • Control runoff rotes to Pointer Oeek • Restore native diversity of wetland vegetation, including wet rreoaow and emergent norsh plont comnnuniries • Enhonce the wildlife and aesthetic viewing of the wericnd for tne public using the Luce Ur>e Trci! • Er^honce the Pointer Creek wildlife corridor Steps In the proposed wst/and restoration include the following: 1. Complete two controlled dims of the wetland Site to c’d m controlling the reed conory gross ond cattail Provide a soct treatment of herbicide to further control reed cor cry gross. 2* ^nt^verse mix of wet meadow grasses erxj forps In the wet 3. Construct a control structure at the outlet of the wetland Table 5.5 Project Cost For PC-M-31 Tasks Description Approximate Cost i Surveys i Fieid and topographic survey of s.te 1 * 2,coo” Design ♦ Complete site design ircudl-vj draft plan and final * construction documents * 4.0CO Meetinos Meetings with Qty staff and surrounding i landowners ;1 s :.30o . Permits exxain necessary permits S 2.000 i I Restoration i : Complete 2 presented bums and spot hertiode ! treatment to control exoOcs S 3,000 ! Seed with wet meadow mbc $ 7.500 1 : construction of control structure $ 15.000 1 Approximate Project Cost $34,800 5.S.3 Wetland LL-C-26 Approximate ate Sze: 14.5 acres Township __118N Range 23 w Section 26 Watershed Nan>e; Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 City Wotershed Name: Long Lake (DNR 834W) OtyefOrono Gemrat D^MCfiptlon ot Sit9 This wetland Is located In the Long Lake woters^'.ec just upstream of Long Loke. This locotion provides an exceHer^t opocrruntY fcr water quality treatment. It has c ditch that isopproximotely 10 feet wide through its center. Water flows through, the ditch rather than ocross the entire wetlarxj. creating c condition in which the wetland serves a limited nutrient function. TNs wetland is not under Gty ownership. The topographic relief of the wetland would confine the limits of the project to the wetiorxl Tn© wetland is a shallow marsh/wet meadow dominG*ed by reed cc.ncry grass orxj cattail. Restoration Obiaetlvai and ConsirveHon Proposed • Restore hydrology to the wetland basin vrith a control stnjcrure of h- e outlet (may require o berm upstream, dependent on dnvewcy elev.) • Provide water quality treatment for Long Lake . • Enhonce the wldHfe and aesthetic fur^onal va ues of the wetland . • Restore the plant commuriity along the fringes of the wettono. Table 5.6 Project Cost for Wetfand LL-G-26 Components Description Approximate Cost Surveys Field and topographic survey of site S 2,000 1 Design ^ ■ ! Complete site design Including draft pan and ! Aral construction documents j S 5.0C0 i 1 . Permits i Obtain necessary permits s 2.0CC Peeongs Meetif^gs wDi Qty saff a.nd surrxrdmg landowners $ 1,300 Land ard Lega Purchase of easements around wetland or access to control structure $ 9.300 Restoration Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot heroiode treatment to control exotics S 3,000 Seed and/or plant fringe areas $ 7.500 Construction of control structure $20,000 Approximate Project Cost $ 50400 OtyoTOroro StepB in th§ propoBBd wtland restoration Indude the teUowir^g: 1. Construct o control stajcture at the outlet. 2. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland ste to od in controlling the reed canary grass and cottail and increase the nutrient uptoke of the wetiond with new growth cf vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canory gross. 3. Seed ond/or emerging plants along the fringe. 5.5.4 Wetland SB-E-31 Approximate Wetland Sze: 65 aaes (Restorotion S*e - 35 acres) Towr^ip 11BN&n7N Range 23 W Section 31 &3 Wotershed Nome; Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed #: 20 aty Watershed Nome: Stubbs Bay (DNR 140P) General Description of Site This wetland is located in the lower portion of the Stubbs Boy w ate:s.hed just upstreom of Stubbs Boy and south of the Luce Une Trail. This location provides an excellent opportunity for water quclity treatment end enhanced aesthetics and wildlife habitat for users of the Luce Line Trail. It currently hos a main ditch with two laterals that have portially drained the wet meadow portlon'of the wetland. Water flows through the ditch rather than across the entire wetland. creotlrTg a condition in which the wetland serves a limited nutrient removal functon. The portion of the wetiond that should be consdered for restoration is a 35*ocre wet meadow community that is predominantly reed canary grass. There are currently isolated portions of Ngner quality sedge meadow thot contain kJkebank sedge, blue jbnt gross, joe pyeweed. arxj boneset. A tonrxarack swamp Is located in the northwest portion of me wetland at a higher elevation (approximately 833 - 836) than the wet meadow (833). Raising water levels to restore the wet meadow would need to be limited to the 833 elevation to protect the tamarack swomp from inundation. Permanent Inundation in tamarack swemos can cause mortality The wetland area Is not under public ownership ard ore driveway crosses the wetland to gc’n access to o house that is located between the Luce Une Trail and the wetland. OtyefOtene r- k R9Stor»Uon 0bj9etiv99 and Construction Prepos9d • Provide water quality treatrrtent for Stubbs Boy • Erjhonce wikfife and aesthetic functiorkol values • Restore the wetlarxj plant corrmunity within the reed ccnoy gross px)ftlon of weilarxl • Restore hydrology to the wetland bosn with a senes of a<tcn pioc;<s and 0 berm with c control structure. Stops In ths propossd wottsnd restorstlon Include the following: 1. Construct o berm and outlet control structure. 2. Complete two controlled bums of the wetland ste to aid in controllino the reed carory gross orxi increose the nutrient uptake of the wetland wttn new growth of vegetotton. Provide a spot treotment of herbicide to further control reed canary grass. 3. Seed selected portions of the wefond with wetland grass orxj forbs. Table 5.7 Project Cost for Wetland SB-E-31 Compononts j Description Approximate Cost Suiveys Field and topographic survey of site $ 3,000 Design Complete site design mdudlng draft plan and Final construction documents $ 9,000 Permits ! Obtain necessary permits $ 2,500 Meetings Meetings »vlth Oty staff and surrounding landowners ji S 1.300 i Land and Legal ^ Purchase of easements around wetland or access to ; control structure. Easements should already exist along pubitc road for access to control struaure. $ 1,500 Restoration Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot herb ede treatment to control eteUcs $ 5,000 Seed and/or plant fringe areas $ 7,500 Construction berm, ditch blocta and control structure $35,000 Approximate Project Cost $64,800 atycrome REcnveo HAR 3 2004 CiTYOFOflONo y^4j' J<^ ^Saytk/ /' C-, 7^ /fciU / •/—»' '*. * / /Jf ^ ci-c,<t-(Z,^*>' „>c^4/-^r^t~Lci ^jLt, .✓if^^- itfcJl ^ Xl^^rufULuu^ ^p^L^yu^^Zt-X^ \)UcJ ^>z,x^yUJ^ a^/i^ *x>t-^ ,„^i. *i^xxx.Z. ^<y’Zrf,Zi^, ..z^x-y^ Ziix^ <Z. *^-^.^u.Trt^<,wZ^ yi^cZZu-^ ZZi^ )^cpZ^ ^>Zy^^.2i.rxMJ, Zy^iciJi y ^ZTlC' ^</«ye7Z%x A-Z^ — ^ /0iZl:y.^A^ <Ai^ ^ '^yLXx:C^ '9‘9'r^i.X^A^ d4ir^ e.ZZ.»L^ ti^0tU j^/t^i^ ^c^£7 c y*-yj ^ .ZJti-- d£<L<^*ty.. ZJZZZ ^ycy^ZsZ. •rz^j yt^ (,J^t*ZJ ^ ^ d^ U..^-u^J .Jx^ d'X-^^Z Stdu^/^, y dZncZZ^**' XyZLZd^ 3Cx%c!^ )/ccZ- ?'■ 4 M dju^ i^TT^ ^ :I52 o' ^ ,^c-fc^ ^:-'P'3<t-t. ci^ . /2^/zt-U^ £d^“tiT9^ /1?^z/d‘ y?^ C^£^^OA>k^ . ^ i’J^. yfM^y ,t* Jit.' yu^ i Add. oT 7s6d. C^ Jy> tcy<L- ^ d3! ^33d* S^Ji. ^4/t^^yyuy \^i0uy>^hLd^ dd. L * • •. **ECEn/tt “*» ,»20di .. cirrwoflONo • r I SlMquicgWTKWM.iAt. . . •. V "r*•;. r' C54BRATE iMyEABSdFHlJTOIW!. V'. f. *• * . • '• » ?*..• ••*••'*■* • .. * ^ • •• • * .*•* .:l. •, •A: ;:'-. J-/-V-:'• ^^'■^:; Monday March 8,2004 received V i!tlO< CITY OFCR0.\o To: City of Orono Planning Commission Members 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 From: Robert Floyd 960 West Femdalc Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 Dear Planning Commission Members, 1 am writing as an Orono resident and lakeshore owner to ask that some very specific questions please be answered and addressed on the officiat record of your Planning Conunission meeting for variance request and conditional use pennit # 04-2997 being requested by the City of Orono for property located on Big Island. I am sure that all lakeshore owners will want to know many of the following questions in order to evaluate what is and is not reasonable and allowable in fill situations near the lake and wetlands. This is an ideal oppoitunity to provide many answers since all of these are issues that must be considered for this application. Exactly what, in deuil, is the hardship or hardships being claimed by the City of Orono for these requests and work? Also, exactly what criteria and reasoning is being used by the Planning Commission and City Council to decide if the hardship is valid and sufficient for such a request, whether this work is necessary, is the optimal solution and preferable to all other alternate solutions, and whether these requests will be granted? I visited the City offices and discussed #04-2997 with Mr. Gaffiron in detail. He was very helpful, but caimot answer all of these questions as these decisions are yours and not his. I have l^n told that there are alternate existing public access sites in a number of other locations on Big Island and that many properties also have direct access &om Lake Minnetonka itself. A number of properties have steep M mi hills and various other topography which limits vehicular access to some lots. Also it was explained that the various paths between the other existing available alternate public access sites on the Island and this eastern portion are difficult because of low lying land, steep hills, and marshes. Is the desire to access all portions of property, especially with vehicles, and difficulty in using currently existing access options and paths a sufficient hardship to justify this work and the granting of these requests? Exactly who is using or reasonably going to be using this improved access and for what purposes to justify this requested work and variance and conditional use permit? How is the Planning Commission defining what is and is not adequate access in this situation? For this particular portion of Big Island? How many access sites 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 sufltcient 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 owners? Exactly what mitigation is being proposed and/or required regarding this work? What criteria is being used to evaluate this mitigation, especially how much mitigation is necessary? What is the exact timing sequence of the convsponding 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 steep is acceptible, etc.? What alternate methods of dealing with the various claimed hardships have been explored and why are those not being pursued rather than these requested actions? Since the City and City staff have chosen to vehemently prevent exactly similar work by private property owners, 1 request that these questions be addressed in detail to clarify how and under v^t circumstances such work is acceptible and necessary. Ihis will help provide some basis for equal application and enforcement of the relevent niles and requirements. Thank you P.2L for your cooperation in clahfing this for all property owners knowledge, potential plans, and future reference. Sincerely, Robert Floyd P.3 <*4-29»3 Afrtn3.200« "" ratal of4 Dslt Atplkatioa lUctivtd: 2-11-04 DtteArpUnttoaCoMldtrtduComplatt: 2-lO^M 40-DtyRtvtewParlo^ Eipirct: 4-10-04 einadtd to 0-17-04 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ Dale: ApriM4.2004 SabjKtt 04-2993, Christine Valerius & Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, • Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover & Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Pennit - Public Hearing Extension ZoaiBf Dbtrict: B - I, Retail Sales Business District Lot Area: 0.24 acres (10,350 s.f.) LotWhUh: 90 feet AppUemtiom Siutmwy: Applicant requests the following in order to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant: 1. Commercial Site Plan Review in order to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to the existing home and to convot it from a residential use to a commercial use. 2. Parking setback variance to allow a drive through lane and parking spaces to be located within the required 30' rear yard and within the required 20* front yard. 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24* when 35* is required and 24 ’ feet currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to permit 56% hardcover in the 500*-1000* zone when 35% is normally allowed. 5. Conditional use permit in order to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant. Suiff MecemmeHdatioH: Staff recommends denial of the application as the site cannot support the requested drive through which also creates the need for approval of an urmecessary front yard parking variance and hardcover variaitce. Staff would support q;>proval of the alternate plan that doesn't include a drive-through stipulating diat the 3- season porch be removed in an effort to reduce non-conformities. ExhibHs Exhibit A < Exhibits- Exhibit C- ExhibitD Exhibit E- Exhibit F - ■ Site Plan and Associated Hardcover Calculations ■ Alternate Site Plan and Associated Hardcover Calculations. ■ Proposed Elevations - Aerial Photograph of Property > Memo to ^plicant Regarding Follow up Issues dated 3-26-04 Notice of Plaruiing Commission Action dated 3-17-04 I. i i; «M-29f3 Pt|t2tf4 PcrtiBtBt Zontog Ordimuicc ScctioDS Sec. 7S-642. Pennit •pplicttion. All applications for a building permit in any B*1 letaii sales business district shail be reviewed by the council and may be referred to the planning conunission for review. Sec. 78*646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Frontyar^. 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. (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 3S feet to any front lot line. }5 feet from any rear lot line, IS feet from any side lot line, or 3S feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; exeqn abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditiorui 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 constimption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. Backgronnd This application was originally heard before the Planning Commission at the March IS, 2004 meeting. The applicant presented three plans, all with drive-through facilities, one of which was passed out at the meeting. Staffs recommendation was for the applicant to work on a plan that doesn't incorporate a drive through, which is presented as the alternate plan in this report The applicant still is pursuing a drive-through and has presented a plan that hu been reviewed by an engineer per staffs recommendation (see Exhibit D). The details of both plans are discussed below. The ^iplicant also met with Building Official Lyle Oman to discuss the issues of converting the residential use to conunercial. No issues, other than the handicap ramp, were fSKtors to be considered when ^iproving the specifics of the site plan. The applicant also met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which is not requiring any on-site mitigation for storm water. Site Dctaib of Drivc-Throagh Plan NEGATIVES The same safety and fimetiorudity issues still exist with this plan, although at a lesser extent frtan the previous plans. The exit for the drive-through aisle remains very close to the intersection of Lyric and the City owned parking lot's drive aisle (I S'). Under this plan the ^jplicant is proposing 2 parking stalls, which are forced to back into traffic when leaving the site. I i .lii m4-m3 AprU13.N04 Paft2of4 PcrtiDiot Zoaiog Ordioanct Sections Sec. 784S42. Pcimit application. All applications for a building permit in any B-1 retail sales business district shall be reviewed by the council and may be referred to the planning commission for review. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Frontyar^. 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 (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, IS feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; except abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditional use permit: (3) 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. Background This applicadoD was originally heard before the Planning Conunission at the March 15, 2004 meeting. The applicant presented three plans, all with drive-through facilities, one of which was passed out at the meeting. Staffs recommendation was for the applicant to work on a plan that doesn’t incorporate a drive through, which is presented as the alternate plan in this report. The applicant still is pursuing a drive-through and has presented a plan that hu been reviewed by an engineer per staffs recommendation (see Exhibit D). The details of both plans are discussed below. The applicant also met with Building Official Lyle Oman to discuss the issues of converting the residential use to commercial. No issues, other than the handiciq) ramp, were fretors to be considered when approving the specifics of the site plan. The applicant also met with the Miruiehaha Creek Watershed District, which is not requiring any on-site mitigation for storm water. Site DetaUs of Drivc-Throu^ Plan NEGATIVES The same safety and functionality issues still exist with tlus plan, although at a lesser extent than the previous plans. The exit for the drive-through aisle remains very close to the intersection of Lyric and the City owned parking lot’s drive aisle (15’). Under this plan the applicant is proposing 2 parking stalls, which are forced to back into traffic when leaving the site. •04-2995 A9rilll,20(M Pat*3of4 Because the drive-through aisle is brought around the front of the lot, an additional variance is required. A front yard parking setback variance is needed to allow the drive- through aisle to be within 10* of the front property line. Under Zoning Ordinance regulations, a 20 ’ unobstructed front yard is normally required. Lastly, a h^cover variance is also required under this plan. Attached are the proposed hardcover calculations, amounting to nearly 56% when 35% is normally permined in the 500’-1000’ zone. POSITIVES From the applicants’ standpoint, a functional drive-through facility can be utilized on the site. Staff is satisfied that the layout of the drive-through will work, as far as vehicle maneuvering, and that curb and gutter are proposed to control drainage on the site. The applicant has also proposed to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effort to gain some of the rear yard back from the City owned parking lot HARDSHIPS The Planning Commission should weigh the positives and the negatives of the plan and detennine if hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested variances. It is staff’s opinion that no hardships exist and that variances should not be granted on the basis of accommodating a drive-through facility. Drive-through facilities should be permitted only if the site can support them. Site DetnUs of NoB-Drivc-Through Plan NEGATIVES From staffs perspective a negative of this plan is the 3 parking stalls that will be forced to back into traffic when leaving the site, however it is diff„;ult to design it any other way. To meet parking requirements the applicant has rights to use the main City owned lot. Elevations showing proposed exterior finishes have also been prov' '*ed. The applicant is proposing white chilton stone and hardy board plank siding. Hardy board plank siding is not specifically allowed under the B-1 standards, therefore the Planning Commission should discuss if they want to permit it using their ability to permit exterior finishes which are not specifically noted in the Ordinance. Lastly, the applicant would like to keep the 3-season porch if a drive-through is not approved. Staff feels it would be best for the site if it is eliminated because it adds to the excessive non-conformity of the side street building setback when coupled with allowing the building addition. It should be noted however, that hardcover and structural coverage requirements can be met allowing the porch to remain. POSITIVES Staff feels the overall site layout achieves the goals of a property zoned B-1. The proposal needs ^proval of a building setback variance to Lyric Avenue and a parking setback variance for the rear yard, which the Planning Commission at the March meeting agreed with in concept The applicant has incorporated a walk-up window and a sidewalk where patrons can p^ their vehicle and access the walk up window. The i,U 13. X0«4 Pagt 4 of4 applicant is also proposing to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effort to gein some of the yard back, which in staffs view is a good way to control what is happening on the site and gains more non-hardcover areas. HARDSHIPS This plan requires approval of a rear yard parking setback variance and a side street building setback variance. Staff feels there arc valid hardships to approve these variances for the following reasons; • The applicant’s property was reduced when the City owned parking lot was constructed, whereby the drive aisle of the City owned lot makes it vimially impossible to construct parking stalls that do not back into traffic, a The existing building is non-conforming and the addition doesn't increase that non conformity. The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel these are valid hardships to w'arrani variance approval. BnikUBg Desifii Proposed elevations are included in the packet and color renderings will be available at the meeting. The qiplicant is proposing to brick the entire front of the facade with white Chilton stone and extend the stone along the bottom on the two sides and recr. Two different patterns of hardy board plank sivling are proposed for the rest of the facade finish. The color will be a tanish-brown to compliment the white stone. The applicant has proposed a pitched roof on the addition to run opposite the roof line of the existing house. The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel this design is appropriate for a commercial building. Issues for CousIderatioB 1. Can the site siq)port a drive-thruugh? 2. Should variances be granted merely to serve a drive-through? 3. Is the addition acceptable? Is the roof-line? 4. Are the exterior finishes acceptable? 5 . Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the on-site parking stalls exiting into traffic? 6. Are there any other issues associated with this application? Staff Rccommeudation Denial of the proposal that includes a drive-through facility as no valid hardships were presented. Approval of the plan without a drive-through, which includes approval of a conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, with the stipulation that the 3-season porch be removed in an effon to reduce the non conforming side street building setback requirement CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALER n IUS IN LOT 5. BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LAWGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .................... «nnm.Y iM or tCMcrw awn STATf »t> MGHlfAV MOL It. rukr M Ir-«rST LM or LOT X OLOOC ■> u MH > .1 •I L CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .•••*** .......... acsT L*C or LOT ^ moot Ji mwM serMcKs J • I / / ^04 y-/^•ov ww • ^W4S%WA^ Wl^S*/ EXISTING HAJIDCOVEB Iff fCfj A. Houu Unflh WidlH 500-1000' 92 y SF SF .SF. .SF. B JVyf^ C. Drivcwiy C/^r r/*^/»T _£5L_ SF. SF _______SF E. Patio/Deck F. Landscap« Underlain By Plaiiic Or Fabric /2/ SF. ______SF. .SF. .SP. .SF. .SF. SF. 0. Otkcr total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ♦ B xlOO PRQPO.SED HAnncovBn v ZQpqg A. Koiuc _ /9/r S.F. JSA S F. .H-U.Sl A^^*r*0AJ Lenaih __iLJL.Zo -gg7 S.F. SF. .SF. .SE. B. Oarage C. Driveway 0044 4A£A.Z7SO_______.S.F. _£T^SF D. Sidewalk rt000j 400*0 E. -P«i«/Deck yp^js X 90 S.F. SFH F. LandKape UoderUin By Plastic Or Fabric .SF. SF. .SF .SF SF. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ ♦ B XlOO - S‘7€y SP. yo. JS0 S.F. ■%SS. 04 ikSMA. A LT€AA/4 rf CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY v FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5, BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LA^GDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA : -^4*1* WCSttK-V IMC cr MMOW OOUNTV STMC «D Ma 1^ MAT M ^ At OURHDm.T VTAMS ft OOOIMD •> CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY v FOR CHRIS VALERIUS IN LOT 5. BLOCK 3. TOWNSITE OF LA^GDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA hl\ FARK iuKi SErs^KS / SKTD a CK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HAJlDChvgn IM A. House ^erPiOA/^ Ti ^4^ HARDCOVER CAJL<5uL%foN WORKSHEET 0.75'75-250 ’250-500' w,d-A gro-iooo'O 9^ V S F. ST. ST. ST. B. «mntX//€Q_2S ST C. Driveway C/ry i»r 7Pe S T. _______S.F. D. Sidewalk /t l4^UJiLH E. Patio/Deck _____________ 13d — _______S.F. .ST. ST. T. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric SF. SF. .ST. 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B xlOO /9/f SF. ISA S F. PROPOSF.D HARnCQVER IN ZONE ./p. n A. House Uncih a Wiith 2o 9zy SF. .SF. SF. SF. B. Garage C. Driveway Tr»A^j D. Sidewalk Vtf t- J2.C A JKO SF. SF. PO .SF. SP. E. Patio/Deck SF. SF. F. Landscape UnderuiA By Plastic Or Fabric SF. SF. .SF. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B XlOO - _ 7SS€ SF. ^0.3SC SF. A B A D IdiMUiAk .WEST LLEWKTION . • XK&T timfXOH n Outs Valerius and Phil Rs East and West Elevation ScA:i/r>r4r OwmvNMi Omt OtnMlf iMt^rOwdTItMpHa Chris Valerius and Phil Fisk North and South Elevation^ leak ut*a t*-<r tksiii«|MailK« »MM»r Hiiiai 0».WWw ifii w". It f\1 *1 . i .1’:1 •>.' V ' ■ .uyTt*^- *- EXHIBIT E Memorandum Datt: March 26.2004 To: Christine Valerius & Philip Fisk From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ RE: 2377 Shadyerood Road - CUP and Commercial Site Plan Review This memo is intended to follow up on our meeting of Wednesday. March 24*'. Below is a bulleted list of the issues that need to be resolved prio* to the April 19*' Planning Commission meeting: • Meet with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if on-site stormwater treatment would be required. • Staff would like to again stress cur position that the site cannot support a dnve-through facUKy. If you decide to rc'^ inue with a drive-through plan have your surveyor and/or engineer confirm turning raduses for the drive-through larte and its overall functionality. Any plan incorporating a drivethrough will have to be confirmed by an engineer pnor to the Planning Commission's review of it. Also, be advised that your most current drive- through plan would require a hardcover variance and a front yard parking vanance in addition to tha variances already applied for. • Submit more detailed plans by an architect for your proposed addition. A color rendering showing all existing and proposed building materials would be most helpful. Staff has also indicated that some kind of pitched roof clement should be included with the new plans. • Examine the issue of extending the grassed rear yard in an effort to gain more of your rear yard back from the existing drive isle of the parking lot. This would halp to somewhat improve the safety issues of car traffic at the rear of your sita. • Consider a paved S' sidewalk against the rear of your proposed addition to allow pedastrlana using the on-site parki^ spaces to more easily access the front door and to prevent the posaibilNy of cars bumping into your building when entering the parking apaces. • Set up a meeting with Lyle, our Building Official to ensure there are no major s.te issues involved with the conversion of residenbai struAure to commercial • Submit a revised survey which details all sidewalks, retaining walls, curbs, and which areas will be grassed and/or landscaped and which areas will be paved I'd also lika to reiterate that the Planning Commission at their March meeting indicated they would support the building setback variance, the CUP request for a coffee/bakery use. and a rear yard parking setback variance. Please submit all revisions by April 12** at 12:00 NOON in or^r to be heard at the April 19*' meeting. Thanks and ploase call with questions. EXHIBIT F CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. B ok 66 ZONING HLE: 04-2993 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: March 17,2004 TO: Christine Valerius 5488 Tonkawood Road Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TY?t OF APPLICATION;ConditioBal Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Building A ParluBg Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: March 15,2004 PU db Ibi CoBimUtion recoaiBieBded as follows: Table. The revised plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment and the applicant shall woik with staff on the following issues to be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Proposed exterior wall finishes of the new addition. Review by the Fire Marshall, Turning radiuses on the lay out of the drive-through lane, An alternative walk-up window as opposed to a drive-through, and Estimated traffic counts on Shad>’wood Road. VOTE:FOR a AINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confinned as: PlaBBiag ComBiissioa - Monday, April 19,2004; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gur.dlach at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period ExtensioB. State law provides that Cities sha'I make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the dale of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your appliraticn was received on Februa^ 18, 2004 arid the 60-day review period would end on Apnl 18. 2004. However, bixause your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the Apnl 18*^ meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Thtrtfortt the 60-day review period u hereby extended an additional 60 days to June 17,2004» FILE •04-2VM 13Aprtl20O4 Pagt 1 o< 4 Dtft Application Received: 03-CS-04 Dait Applicailofi Conildcrcd a» Complete: 03*2544 60*Day Review Period Espiree: 05-25*04 From: Dau: Sabject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis. City Planner jjC/ Apnl 13.2004 04*2999, George & Marilyn Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle - Variance - public hearing ZoBing District: LR-1C, Single Family Lakcshorc RcsMeatial, Vt acre niUilmam Lot Area: 0.361 acre (15.741 s.f.) Apptieation Summary: The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to r^uild their 483 s.f. deck which is rotted and to add a screened porch beneath the new deck. The application consisU. of the following: Hardcover variance of 31.05 % where 25% is normally allowed and 31.05% currently exists. Staff Recommmdathn: Planning department staff recommends approval of the variance as requested with the following stipulations: > Removal of all fabric and plastic in landscape beds. Hardship: The deck as it currently exists constitutes hardcover in excess of 25%, there is a hardship to allow the applicants a variance to rebuild their existing deck ___________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections See 78-1288. Hard cover limitatioos. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater tha>i 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 feel of the OHWL there shall be 1.0 greater than 35 percent hardcover. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Survey/Sitc Plan D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations FILE104-2M0 13Aprt2004Pae«2or4 BickfrovBd George and Marilyn Mileusnic own the property at 3243 Casco Circle. The existing deck is rotted and the applicants feel that for safety reasons it should be replaced. The applicants would also like to screen in the area beneath the deck for a screen porch. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Let Area/Width: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100 ‘ Actual 15,840 s.f. (0.36 acre)60’ Setbacks; Stnictural Coverage: LR-IC Rcqntrcd Existiag Proposed Rea$30’r>Carage No change 10*12 ’-Deck No change 10’14.5’-Deck No change Laka^' v *e 75 ’110’No change 1 Average L^sahore Not affected Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15,840 s.f. (0.36 acre)Allowed: 2,376 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,386 s.f. (15.1%) 71 FILIiM-2flN 13AprtM04 Pa^4of4 Itt«fs for CoBfIdcratloa Are there any other issues or concenis wi A this application? Staff RccoawMadaCloa Plaanint Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested provided the applicanu City of Orono ^ Variance Application Stn%tAMntr 2750 Kcllty Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4€:0 fax: 952-249^16 MaShg Addnss: P.O. 66 Crystal Bay. MN 5532^66 Applkatton# OH' DataRacalvtd.~0'% \o^'~ Amount Paid:Cl iO>0D _______ Staff: Fae: 5600 ' Rene*A»!; After-tna-fact 5300 ______________ 51.200 Double Fee * This appGcation form must be completed in fol. Appxant will be notified within 15 days as to Ihe status of the appHeatfon. Incomplata applications will not be placad on Planning Commiaalon Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Addrstf: JKW1AIlun: /V ri l “I A±C O \ ClProperty Identification Number (PIN):____________________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) bate Property Acquired (month/year): -^/n \ □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential ' □ Other_________________________________ Zoning District \ (*C__________ APPLICANT INFORMAT^N: (Complete legal nares and marital status required for each interested party) Name: ________________________________________ U - CVrxT547<a .Phone (home): Address Phone (work): ■ ^,^4 » ;^l ~) yh Fax: -Email: /jt) nrv?^h^t.ccm OWNER INFORMATION: (C^^te legal names ard marital status required for tach intarested party) Name: iiDAPhone (home; Address: Email: ^AiiU 3^ ~ ^ Phone (work): <gc»n Oi\ »7j Far . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ^>1^ ~T N «>-t . V, rv . A- ^ ‘ ^i]f ^ <y»l V. ^ (^\(K ■ ~ fair a7\ert)f ii-lnAtf “ST’ rVAM T o p^n/rPfh 41 o r\ >-r>, VT .! Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a rsquirsd submittal for ALL varlancs appllcatient. An applicaton will not ba considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Sub^sion 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as varianoes nin with the land not the land owner. Peraonal and economic siuat/ons ere not consfderad valid hardships. In order for an appTicatlon to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Coundl a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form hat 12 points outlining tha basis City staff usaa to detarmlne V a hardship axista and how the variance will effect the surrounding communRy. To prova a hardship, address ell the relevant points listed below end answer them at clearly as poasibte. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance to Justiftod. 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 thaae hardsNp criteria as they relate to tha request (some may not apply): f. *Tha property in queation cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under cg^ltlone aRowed by the official controls.” ' Ih^ndowner is due to circumsTanoes unique to his property not*The pQght of the craatod by tha landowner.” . mif rt/iAS.g<i ^pr^\^pf’•^<-1 \/\ . jprg ' b^i,pc* l?i • 4.^ "The variance, if granted, wni not alter the essential character of the locality .” u^vv^ rig*gir, rjiuriw riPck- LyK».^e. nJnd "Economic vdbnsiderations alone shall not constitute an undue hardsNp if reasonable use for the property exists under the tenns of tha Zoning Chapter.” ____________________________________________ O QiT fimi <tJ i a i 1.1. r\. V’ V' * ' * Page 2 of3 'Undue hardship also includes, but b not Ifmrted to. inadequate access to direct sunOght ter solar energy systems. Variances ahaa be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. eihen In harmony urith this Chapter.* __________________ 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Coundl may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted urtder this Chapter ter property In the zone whM the affected person's land is located.- '^e^amllvdJelll^**^^ P«hnit as a vadanoe the temporary use of a ______ ®* op^cial conditions applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar 11. ***]Rc^ Immediately adjoining pro|»fty.- wtltoMSton! to oOwf land or UniclurM In tho diotrici In xiC-jej&o jryrw A-g \ npilVw , an and ^oyi -■ W-V CVQrtf rind r.r. led variance v«ll ?foi in anys^y impsir health. p™.«v«io« ««l oN<o»m.nt ' vccsr CVortP ^.t granting of the propose variance Vflirffoi iri'any^y impair health, safety, amort, morals, or in any other respect be ccnlrary to the Intent of the Zoning C006. MA #2999 i I Page 3 of3 Tho QTtnllnfl of tuch vorianca will not maraly tarva as a convanianoa to tha joDticant but it nacaasary to aHavfata damonitrablo hardship or ^cuKy." “ ~r> A^rrt vA^j Vyvtyo uf^'CcutAf'^ rr>i VVciOv^u. f*r*a-5‘Tft! Hardship Statamant ^ ^ ^ u. Should you fM tha hardship cannot fully be described in tha above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property condWona pravantInQ compliance wHh 2onlr>g Ordinance raquiramenta In the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): #22989 i. U i ! I r amirC^ HAMIKAJ VKK i;ALuULAllUi tlTBACICZOta: (CDK3X01fl) ^wnwnHAmmvmwiOfni A. nanm . aaficits3sr 2SM0' S.F. B. Ginfi C. Drivrwy D. SUmfc jr**t vfc. a Odvr TOTAL KARDOOVER IN ZCMB TOTAL PROfBRTY AREA IN ZONE A 7/9 A B. Omfi C Dri»twiy 0. Sidc««k E.r«ioMc ByPiMile 4s-ao xioo xlOO 0. Olhr AbJ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER Q4 ZONE TOTAL FROmiY AREA m ZONE A •Z-'Tq ♦ B 4-900 XlOO SJ. [si. .SI. SI. SI. 2/9 SI. [si. SI. SI. SI. 'si. SI. ^SI. 20^riK RF. A SI. B H S.F. SI. [SI. .SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. .SI. SI. SI. •> •l .IF. A .RF. B tr-1; 0c.p /taABDCOVlRCALCUlATk^.«WOU / IRBACKBQNIt (CBCLIOND M* fCU/ ^ • N UfAf(^ immntgowK 4 PCcT< 0 Fr*/9f ». Qrnm 24 C Mmmy ___ * /9 / 7^>t/g»r _______ X __ D. Hinnk E. PMMKk ___ C/« F. •y 43-- O. 4J_ TOTAL HAKDCX>VEIl IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY“WE A ___________ ♦ B B Jl'^40 xlOO xlOO QQf0mj[ABfii2flX] A. Houm _______ imwam wm % C DriVMMQr D. SMmmIc E.PMM>Kk TOTAL HAKDOOVn IN ZOm TOTAL PtOPBKTY AREA IN ZONE A_____________B XlOO }Q^O,Z %3. Wi SJ. RP. SJ. 0 RP. RF. !rf. RF. !rf. ,SJ. -Sp. Jl^ ,SI. SP. / _RF. SJ. ZA f RF. A RFt B hyjf^ ,S.f. RF. RF. RF. RF. ■rp. .RF. .RF. .SF. RF. RP. A RF. B > •v fe: ■ ■ ^ . *.« u * \:--v pey% ^ ' - r •Y^.'.' . ■‘ •■ \i’ /. t' , [ \ \ !'>••■? . « C-"H:-' fe *' '» * i ^ V r „ /l.v^jOr^ VfSpKjwj: ar”BWia ycr^^ 'i ^3- ^.v ^.-»v;. jaSES-i: ■•":^;i l»*- ^ s • *>1m.-.. m «" **• ■>'-• ■'■•'vw. _ ij.-j n|ttfl>-^A \ fw™ ^ -•-'’ -rr?^ ri . liilM •>-'--:• ;-‘l' ”■ * '\* - - • • . . .^ ‘ ■ • I - .*i^'A l;- 1.;. •. N 0.*ry^^ .4 ^^UiK\{f.»0ftl ► w r*4 ■ ^ r^^.‘ PESF”r~.i UiP li.li' .S?*W8 Flt£a04-3001 13 April 2004 1 0(3 DIP AypMrptf— Rtcdw4; OMT-M Dip Ap^prtw CiwiiMfrf< M CoM^lfte; M-Oay R««irw PPrM Eifim: §5-25-M To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis. City Planner Dale: April 19,2004 Sabjcct: 04-300 1, Stc\ cn & Marcia Tiflany, 1325 Rest Point Ln. -Variances - public hearing Zob Ibr Mftrict: LR-IB, SIbr Ic Family Lakniiorc Rctidcalial, I aere minimum Lot Area: OJS acre (15.425 s.f.)‘ AppHcmtion Summary: The tqipiicanls are requesting variances for lot area, lot width, and side street setback from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new single family residence on a lot 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre) in area where 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) is required. 75* in width where 140* is required and setback 29* from the alley where 35* is required.___ Staff RecommendaHon: Planning iX*partment StaiT recommends approval of the variances as requested._______________ _________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sectioas Sec. 7S-330. Area, hciglit. lot width and yard requircmenta. (a) Height. No .structure or building in an LR-1B district shall c.xcecd 2 I '2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obserxed: Ux Ana (atnr) UMWuiih (fcii) tniol Yani IfccO Sh Ic Yonl AdjiKcnl lo Amnhcr U k (Icct) Rctr Yiird (fert) Side ^ jni AdjJiTnl li> Street IfccO 1 140 35 10 30 35 Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B. Ha^hip DiKumentation Form Existing & Proposed Sur\ey/Site Plan Proposal Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Site Photos Property Owners List Plat Map Letter from City Engineer dated 04-13-04 C. D. E. F. G. H. I. niEiO«-3001 13A|>rt200« Pagt2o(3 BackgmiM^ Steve ind Marcia TifTony are the propcily owners of 1325 Rest Point Lane and have proposed a single family residence for this undeveloped lot. In order to build a new home on the properly lot area and lot width variances arc required. This lot has been assessed for municipal sewer service. The applicants have proposed to construct a geodesic dome which will meet all the district requirements with the exception of the required 35* setback from the alley right-of-way. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lt Area/Wtdth; LR-IB Lot Area LatWhHIi Required 43.560 s.r ( 1.0 acre)140- Actual 15.425 s.f (0.35 acre)75' SHbacks; LR-IB Required Proposed Front 35*35' Rear 35'35'^ NE Side 10'10' SW Side (alley)35'29' FILEM4.-3001 1SApnl»0« ^ PagtiofS f Date AppHcatloB lUMivtd! 03-174M Date A^lkalloB CoBsMartd m Coapltte: 03-2S-04 «0-Day Rtvtaw Ptrtod Eiplrci: 0S-2S^ To: Chair Mabtuth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Frta: Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: April IS, 2004 Svbject: 04>3001. Steven & Marcia Tiffany, 1325 Rest Point Ln, •Variances • public hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Faniiy LakcsiMre Residential, 1 acre alninina Lot Area: 0.35 acre (15,425 s.f.) Applkatiom Sumimuy: The applicantt are requesting variances for lot area, lot width, and side street setback from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new single family residence on a lot 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre) in area where 43,Sb0 s.f. (1 acre) is required, 75' in width where 100' is required and setback 30’ from the alley where 35' is required. Rtcomimmdation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. _________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard rcqnirenents. (a) Htight. 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. Lots. The follow!ing minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Am {•at) Lot Width (tat) Front Yard (feci) SitiC Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (feet) RaarYard itm) Side Y«d Adjacent loSttcci(fea) 1 140 33 10 30 33 LbtofExhibitt A. Application Hardship Documentation Form E* isting A Proposed Survey/Site Plan Proposed Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Site Photos Property Owners List Plat Map Letter from City Engineer dated 04-13-04 B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. F 1 .iaii i . 1 FI1EC04-9001 l3Apr«2004 Pa«t2or3 BsckfitMiiBd Sieve and Marcia Tiffany are the property owners ofl325 Rest Point Lane and have proposed a single family residence for this undeveloped lot. In order to build a new home on the property lot area and lot width variances are required. This lot has been for municipal sewer service. The applicants have proposed to construct a geodesic dome which will meet all the district requirements with the exception of the required 3S* setback from the alley right-of-way. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LoiAreaAVidth; LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.560 s.f. ( 1.0 acre)140’ Actual 15.425 s.f. (0.35 acre)75 ’ LR-IB Required Pfopoicd Front 35*35’ Rear 35’35*+ NESide 10*10* SWSide(aUey)35*30* Hardeovar Caieulationi! Hardcover Zone Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75-250 15.425 s.f.3,856 s.f. (25%) 7300 s.f. (14.9%) 1 3 Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre)Allowed: 2,314 s.f. (15%) Proposed; 1018 s.f. (6.6%) ,ii J fUfiOOOOl 13Apf1200« ^3of3 Side YaH Satteck Vartaac* The qipUcants are requestins i S' variant from the required side street setback of 3S\ The side street setback is due to a platted alley right-of-way along the southwest property line which serves merely as a private driveway for the property owner to the nor^west This alley is paved and a wooden retaining wall blocks the alley from through tra£Bc from North Shore Drive. The existence of this alley right-of-way causes a greater setback requirement for the applicants* property. Hardihip Statement Applicant hu completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, axxi should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysia AieMi Sf rnpitomaM/ir Mrtaaof; /tamiar C’oamtolNi lAaff OMjMrr «/!*« MfteMt ipM aaaM, aafbp lifiar cwMMMip. cxlMi^f antf antfcpaMtf iredir OMimiMW. i%af fllr, a«««r qr/lna /ha $0 tktpmkUea^tfr, vchut St Ikt ana. Tha Haaalat Caaamtuha $kaU eoatUtmeammamOat appnvai for nHaaea /^aai Aa HuntpnfMaatafAaZaaiag Coda la laaaaea$»kantkalr$trta%.-’/arcaaiaittwoatilcaa$a amdaakaid$klpkaeam$aafelnamaiaaeaaaiUqma$adlab$dMdaalpnfartfaadarcomildamlom,aad aaUncaaaaamd^^nvataafywhaalilidaaioailnladtkanaekmtalcaawHtkalakaaplaiwMtha $plHiaadla$aiH/dlaOnaaZaaiagCoda. This property has very challenging topography, and with the setbacks there is only a long, thin buildable area. Staff finds that there is a hardship to justify granting a street setback variance for the applicants' property. Hardcover and structural coverage are considerably under the allowed limits, and the fact that this lot was assessed for sewer makes the lot width and lot area variances a formality in this situation. As can be seen from the plat map, the lot size is similar to that of many other developed lots in the neighborhood. Isaaca for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommeadatioa Planning Staff recommends ^)proval of the variances as requested. City of Orono Variance Application esofhsr A StTMf Addnss- 2750 Keney Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mam: 952-249-4600 fax 952-249-4616 Mailing Addns<- P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Appiicatior# Qij • f Data Receved. _ ilot-l Amount Pa Staff Fm seoe Rontwal; S300 After-tf e-fact t1.200Do^;b e Ff This applicatkan form must be compietad in full. App'cant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of thst application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: ^ ^ , Site Address: /?^5’ ^csT rb/*iT Property Identification Number (PIN): Ov- 117 QOS'S (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): II-oy □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential JSO-Jier vacokiT* LK-15_________Zoning District: APPLICANT INFORMATION: tCompleta legal na.-es and marital status required for esch interested oaity) K. Tirr^qny . Aferc/g Z.. ^ Morrier f________________Name: ____ Phone (home)________ 6 /Z - 72 /» 37^ Phone (work): Address: S sg-5^ Frnail: fief* OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names e*.d marital status required for each interested party) Na*ne: ______________________________ Phone (home); Address: ___ Email: Phone iwork): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:Estimated Project Cost $ 120,0^0 Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): aAg ^ 4/^tYus>n^ /UlOMAU: Q Ut Xl O.ySH oeASi. 7S' 1 e<A£ i^O*U4Hdit . A& 44*e g_ 4/a/Ua/tt€t ^ ^ rtj it g/ ^AoXUyn^cJL at Me seeelSVn # c O ^ • Jli t . 5 i i I i . i ^ t 2 I i . I i % I« t I t- i -V' I v; ■ •"1 ■y** '. • - □□□□ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: application to'be submitted by the application deadline date In order for your 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 obtairi^ from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6 “’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ® licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements 11^*^x 17Mor reproducer hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5“ x 11* or Completed hardcover i^lculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). oM1^^17M«3T^repr^^^ proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" 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. • APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: application being aware that upon failure to do so. the ro?tSo poSmerir'*'*'" •“ '•“"""o"'' □□ □□ Date: Date;3-/6.-^ A/ Arjllcant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: ~7Ug>i/v:» ^ rV OWNER S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: ^ application and further authohzes reasonable entry onto fte property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of Investigation and verificabon of this request. iviemoers ror Owner's Signature; Owner's Signature; ------------- ■ap:' Ss^gnl'toTorp'rojeT ”" applioant^nd advise the crPlanner Date: Date: 7-U-6H- sj Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM IT This form i« a roquirsd submittal for ALL varfancs ippllcattons. An application I will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting 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. Parsonal and economic sHuationa ara 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 ths basis City staff uses to detsnmine if s hardship exists and how ths varlanoa win affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearty as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance la Justifiad. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval rscommsrKiation. 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. "Tha property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditlorts allowed by the official controls.” ^ . CM4^ 4 "The pflght of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner/ ^ , "The variance. If granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.* "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for tha property exists under the terms of the Zoi.ing Chapter.” /V/A _______________________________________ 1. i Vo%j'U\ ^ili 8. • * * .• • * Page 2 of 3 •Undue hardship stso indudes, but b rot limited to, inadequato acrats to direct sunliflht for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered conslAJCtion as defined In Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* ^ dijt4Aa/il •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vsnance sny use that Is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." ___________________________________________________ "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.' ______ ^ question are peculiar —A The conditoM go nofppiy generally to other land or structures In the district in wnicnJ^id land is located." m. z4%g ^JjUjf ^ ^ f ^ appOcation is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial proper^ right of the applicant" ^ /<<scarf¥^<W 4*1 4r «»W i^Sic •The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way Impair health, safety, cojnfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Vt #01 ji^—iBjiv ■<■■ I ■K-flien C£/rr/f/c/ir£ SF/mv: a^wnmej O Dtifofes i^0f^ •RLS i9i^Z. • Dtnohs ^oiiitd /rcn Area * /S, S/n 3f^. O^BSiJtc. PARCEL DESCRIPTION: Lot 74. TONKAVIEW GARDENS. Heinqnn County, Nfinnesota. M- .w ^L / ' / rgRTIFtCATtOM / I iMr«, »•< »* arMn pm m J '■»«< *«• frmrnml *f mm m -rntm mt t ■I mm »m» I m* • M. ••«««• tt^rntmT tirntmi »>• >mmt *• W« tUU mt W ^Li^ai^t-£8-2oey t>N b* 1|1(] MVI1KM Ar; Sitt/mfOUretti Ty/'/tnQ /3ZS J7ts^ Pb/n* lie Oraea, AtF _____ S3 9m>l SA </2S-3g?f ^ i i n • I; I ' i { ! i i i /w«^r-v-s - 9ZS.(^/^r Rim « HO' Stj) 4»/ Aiky^ g?XW/ Ufxe ^ dtAcfas tXf'ifinj f^tmd £x»nfj 6ui6h.s fr^fefsJ £Us/^di'c*% ® O€nod€,s Stf iron ifLS i9i<it. • CcAo/€s /ron ^itfdsod co^yoor PARCEL DESCRIPTION: Lot 74, TONKA VIEW GARDENS, Henoepki County, Manesota. 3CS Oosc. '/ - ^ i l4r«ky ««t<f|p M Wt ar wt w r^rt »» •• • t0mr -r •«» «M »« I ■■ a otf La>a Waiar wMv IM a« M Hat# W m»a Mia. — -- tt - ~--------•arlaa C. M tm IM at*^ Ha. IttU ■ - L-f1 1 11 1 1 ■ ■* 1 csaiTi'1^ ~pi»> w. ^ard£li£ ^, Henntp/n Co, /^25' /v//vr |77 17 | ^ Orono i /Hinm, I t n C£^T/f/c/ir£ SF/mVy Kiwvo^ 4^tf a^stimed O Defi^fes //v/f nt^Z • Dthohss /ron Arex * /S, S//.7 o<r O.SSi^c. PARCEL DESCRIPTION: Lot 74. TONKAVIEW GARDENS. Hennepin County. Mknejota. M.^1 m ^ \\ / k ' / ^•ypTiyirATiQif / (iw«ky Hrtijr M Mi W / n»«r< mm M ir *y —M ^ IM !.«•»•.• «-u .1 •wMn ft «Mva MM fta^ H* lilt} • 1 m m.M1«■V •mum m Mvi«n /Jj25 l^j?-J Otd/16 i _________I" I Ahrtns fih. , S3 SA rn ^ttf Mihhfn€3t}Alf/s'S¥S^ . t * i irrr •A W * ?• i :,jis to' 1325 ni^TT fOiArr LANS .w hardcover caisulation worksheet . tCTlACKZONI: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-Tr >' TEEfV S UO-EOC •tO-1000' gmiTiliQ HAWnCQVgR IM ZONE A. H oum _____________ B. Garsg« C. Drivtwsy 0. SUmralk E. Pttk)/OMk F. Landscape Undartain ByPlaslie G Retaining Wall ROOmt TOTAL HAROCO«/ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____^-----------♦ B xlOO PHQPQSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A H«« 19' y . /(?/8 CS^S X X B. Garage C D. Sidewalk E Patjo^eck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Retaining Wals KOthtr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Z900 ♦ B l\2.0 Z}O0 .SF. .S.F. .SF. .SF. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. SF. .SF. .S.F. .SF. .S.F, S.F. .S.F. A .S.F. B O X100 itf.f f S.F. SF. SF. SF. A 08.F. SF. SF. S.F. .T ,SF. SF.S . SF c c /r t ' V i .’SF. SF. SF. SF. A S F. B I i y !i L 'j I ii f .t J L____ • • ••• •• ^ KAUDCOVER ORDINAL t5- In 1975, the Orono CKy Council adoptod an ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with bnpervlout turfboe C’hard cover**) such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1.000 foot of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water In the lake. The Intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run^ will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages: Hardcover Indudee: 0-75 0% 75-250* 25% 250-500* 30% 500-1000* 35% V* Roofs, ^ Sidewalks, ^ Paved or gravel driveways. ^ Patios & decka Ondudes slatted decks). ^ Tops of retaining walls & rock walls. ^ Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric, or ^ Any other surfoce that does not aOow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setoack zone (0-75*. 75-250*. etc.) the calculation is for. 2. For each Item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up alt the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. 4. Divide by the totai area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. 5. If changes In hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before** worksheet loi "after worksheet If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planningl ; I 1 n < . i : I t I i 1 » ♦ • 1 ! I.( t i i i t I t PHitTTi 1PHPrti 1 •W' V / ' »; '1' - •; • •• V* ? WWn' fell : to •■■^►•* .’»> r A •«•• • A** V- ■•'^r^SfittKE:v-^•‘j;^ ...V.: mm W' t ■■■< msm' V ^ K.iiitmmti LL SS?5 :r-7^. =^im K Jt»',;;S!K:.. ;■ -f . •;■•■*• ^--icH' .•X' pm^- mM •. j;i: x.4'^^ <1- Vt P^oe^e\ V f'' ,;• ■w:;,i:i ^rW'’’) lrV.;-'-5i4i w ■ '%:?>,'■>•: • • JSy.-.NiVNi’ V.’•*:•.•• > fc <5vv^/'.. \vl iSS prawwl;f-lii ;kl^R' Ai r# mHmmm ■ '.•> :j'■M<: cv'i-'- ■.!*■?■'S-' P'^AM > .-SJ, • '*’* I :• ' • ■' i ‘■•?-’.■• • •• ■ • •■•■■. . I i . V...: 4^ t i..«.. • •-[/' \ \ 1 ^ I •»■ , •^^V /.: f:/ ‘••>1 \/./. •• ;•'•' •'• ir/ • ;^:-.s *i- •. ' t' .-rr. *'X-■'■■'•v:;-X J ' i-,A ,iv '■< V •. ■' ■ V‘ ^:.x.,. :-• I*•* * ■•. •*• ^ I* ***' • * ,'* •' ■"• •.* 'V » • r •- f• I # - • V • ■« fwdfe^ "to vi\c<ttit • • RUNDATC-.VnOM HENNEPIN COUNTY WOrEmr INTOMIATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST MGI f n trimsiMoa MPAOOR IMORESTPOMTIA nmcRfMllfi JHMOUIMAWAKJHOOTMAH TUPAVER JHHOUTMANAKJHOimiAN 1340 REST POOfT LA MOUNOMN 5S3M M 07ll72SJMn5 PROPAOM 40IS TONKAVCWLA OWNERNAMI MCHARDGA AUCAROeXlfS TAXPAYER RICHARD GRJUUE A ROOJOfS NAMWAOOR 4U5T0MCAVIEWLA HOOUNOMN S53M PROPAOOR M 07II7211J0020 4424 TONKA VIEW LA OWNCRN a ME JRARRAHAMS0«M)ABRAHAMS0N TAXPAYER IAMESRROAWNAIRAHAMSGN NAME/AODR 40» 70NRAVIEW LA mound MN }MM 31 0711723330034 ROPAOOR 1363 RESTPOMTRD IWMRNAME THOMAS NICHOLAS BERSCNEJD AXPAYM THOMAS NICHOLAS BERSOCIO ^fAmtAtwrn 1363 REST POBfTRD MOONDMN 3S364 31 0711721320031 PROPADOR 1373 RESTPOOfTRO OWNERNAME IHHOU1MANARJHOUTMAN TAXPAYER JAMES H HOUTMAN NAMEMOCM 1340 REST POINT LA ORONOMN 33364 31 07II7211200M PROPAOOR 4610 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME DENNIS A MEYER TAXPAYER DENNIS A MEYER NAME/ADOR 46» NORTH SHORE OR MOUNOMN 33364 V} 31 07lin33]0032 TM3PAOOR ISIS REST POWT LA JOMRNAME RJ GROVER A SKOROVER taxpayer REVWIOROVERAHO IAMETADOR SUSAN KOROVER 1313 REST poorru MINNETRSTAMN 33364 30 0711733320033 PROPAOOR 1323 RESTPOWTLA OWNERNAME S TWPANV A M TRY ANY Ta JCPAYER STEVE A MARCIA TR7ANY NAME/ADOR 4ttS NORTH SHORE OR MOUNOMN 33364 31 0711723320034 PROPAOOR IMS RESTPOI74TLA OWNERNAME N2SHUA DURAN TAXPAYER JOSHUA URAN NAME/ADOR I345RESTIOINTU MOUNOMN 33164 ■ >.• t 30 0711713320036 •tor AOOR 4613 NORTH SHORE OR INNER NAME HOLLY J A RICHARD R SCMAAO taxpayer HOUYJ a RICHARD RSCilAAD 6M1 NORTH SHORE OR MOUNOMN 33364 30 07II733J20036 PROP ADOR 4705 NORTH SHORE OR OWNERNAME AHATKRASCHER TAXPAYER ANDREW HA TRACY KRASCNER NAME/ADOR 4703 NORTH SHORE OR MOUNOMN 35364 31 0711723320034 PROP AOOR 464) NORTH SHORE OR OWNERNAME STEPHEN C A JOANNE A WARD TAXPAYER STEPHEN C WARD NAMFyAOOR 46*3 NORTH SHORE OR MOUNOMN 33364 r M 07lini3M06l •ROPADOR 1371 RESTPOtITU ____ SWNERNAMfi KBfflETH WARBCEOKXXRT TAXPAYER RENNCTHWARENCEGGOaCRT 4AMOAOOR 1)71 REST POINT LA MOUNOMN 1)164 -t- & I cEurnsv thatthe facts represented are an accurate and nUJEREPRESBi^A^^ONOFI^fORMA^^ONAS IT APPEARS TJflSD ATE ON THE RCCORDS OPTW MEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DCPARTMEWT, TO TUB BEST OPMV KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ ^ BYn«*3:£ WeWT, IVP WflttlfBOl \ t /^.)TLn af /&/3 (prifUnmd)] Ipffnl addM] h«»ti»v<p»id»rplin8foff»propo —dlmpfB¥i>ni <y pfo p ott dw of tf^propty betted M fti\f ^^■tooflfTi Uo —Landll—AmiteaiionMo /ny * I (wo) undortland Ihil in mailing Ihio o clcnowiodgomon l, I (wt) am (an) not aakod to lolvt appreMl or dtoapproMi of «w pfopofiy or UM bui moioly to oonflnm tor tw Cly Counel tttol I (Mto) ofn (■o)‘oimn of Iho iropnWotnoni ptom and fwl Pw propoood noigHto(*t prp)oct or tiM roqMlroo Cound approval. ff 5!C~Proporty Ownof Ropofty Oumor Doto h i I IM M AOMCENT nioranv OWMEItt'ACKNOINLHMiaKNT FORM ■ 1.^1 <?etj CWifetsTR»iyc»j ^ <J<i.Shogg_Lfc. [print nanM(t)](print addren] hav* at laravlawadt^ planttart'iapropo^improvamantorpropot^ uaaoftN prop^ located also ralsrrad to as Land Usa Application No. / • I (ws) undar atand that in asacuting ttet adm oiirtedginwnL I (ws) am (ara) not askad to dadara approval or dteapproval of tha proparty or uaa but maraly to eonfinn for tha Cdy Council that I (tea) am (ara)' awara of tha improvarnant plana and that tha pr opoaad naigttoor^a protact or uaa raquiraa Coundl approv^ vt.LcLI;^ fnaoiV '^/d\j(H PropartyOamar l(«te)0<^3*l(;</ T), l/ron /■)*/? fa/tf! [print nama(a)][print addrass] propoaad imp rovarnant or propoaa d uaa located I (wa) undaratand that In aaseullng this acknowladgamenL I (ws) am (ara) not askad to daolara approval or disapproval of tha proparty or uaa but maraly to oonflnn for tha City Coundl that I (wa) am (ara) awrara of tha improvarnant plana and that tha propoaad neighbor's pro^ or uaa laquirao Cound approval. Proparty Otenar o.LVv^-T 2J-AV Proparty Oamar If you hava any information that may assist tha City in tha raviaw of this Land Usa AppHcaiton, pteM submit your commanta to tha Building & Zoning Ofltoa at least 10 daya prior to tha achadulad moating date. u^aata Rihltoif <TH- ^ . ■ Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ■« V ^ Pareef/nfoniwttoii' IjParMi ID 0711723O;ip^| . ^HOUM NMWlbW L± • it. i- Bonestroo Roscne Anderms, Associates EngiriMri 4 Archittcti prHk M AlMClMVl. me. I* «n AHwmMtw OMirtuwWy iMplar*' Mi*^ On* a •WWW'** rt . !«'««« Pt • 0«m«I Cm»^ Pf. • aMtHO jrry A ■ot^MA.ac • Mar* a mmaa Pt Ufppf Cp0mtnpM% Pmpn W PamimPt .MwpnC AaMaa afluAMS M . Vajp I* 0*f»A C »A AiiacM* «#«IA A Ge*«OA H • ■«M*i ■ M • »•<**»• • r«Mt« H • Op*>P 0 l«*ew Pt • T Pt • *. P*M. Pt • «a<v«m p AnaerMA N • Mar* ■ Pt • 0a»>« A aonnirOO MIA i a «kw.«"MA Pt.i.1 • AflnaiM mi a . Mtn Ph% uropm Pt • TAa«a» w a«*»»a" at . ■ MaM a* . w.«t A tpnttn Pt • I awa» OraMt «a at . Om>p> J Ipgp’ion. at . >i>f>aat Maaawi. at . Tfiaisa* A IfflAat • lwaia»« t Ja<»*ta>* • Oa^ a Cfo«« *1 • H«a»Aa» A a^finv ai . aaoart j OMry a| oaftcM U PmA M CiawA aaentwa' ppp waMtar MN. »x<r»>A#a <an . c>^afo ■>. *»5C5lVeo V"t?‘ : CirvoFofto^o April 13.2004 Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re* 1325 Rest Pnirt I-xne File No. 139^000 Plat No. 04-3001 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the application for the new home construction at 1325 Rest Point Lane. Wehave the following comments with regards to engineering matters; • The gradi ng plan should incorporate side yard swales to convey storm water southerly along both sides of the home. The swales should be constructed so water is not discharged onto the neighboring properties east and west of the site. • An erosion control plan should be incorporated into the grading plait Silt fence should be heavy duty type with steel t-posts. All silt fence and erosion control measures shall be iiutalled, inspected and proved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTRCX). ROSENE, ANDERIJX St ASSCXIATES. INC. Toro Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono HISWlMtHlf|nMyS6«Sl.Peyl.a(M Sift|«4Sf4J4<4400«Pa>:4Si*4S4-un ^i n i am 19.2MM Datt Applet*®* 1*17-04 Dttt AppIkAtkM CMuMMvd as CoaipiMa: 1-17-04 M-Day lUvkw Period Capirts: S-IO-04 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Memfaen Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Plannei;^ Dale: April 15,2004 Subject: #04-3002, G & L Land Investment. LLC. 740 North Arm Drive -Variance - Public Hearing ZonlBg Diftrict: LR -1B One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.81 acres (35,400 s.f.) Lot Width: 153’ at Shoreline; 134 ’ at 75’ Setback Applicant requesu a variance to allow an existing no^ conforming accessory structure, known as a boathouse, to remain on the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of the principal structure. Su^tf Rtcommendotion: Staff recommends denial of the application as the applicants have presented no valid hardships to allow the boathouse to remrun. Pcrtineiil Zoning Ordinance Sectioni Sec. 78-72. Lots of record, (exempts the property from a lot area or witM variance) (b) \ lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in an R district, which docs not mwt the requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single-family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: (1) /n /I districts of one acre or less and with public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within 80 percent of the requirements of this chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 78-281. Setback regulations, (a) In any LR-IA, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district the setback from the shoreline for lakesbore loU shall be 75 feet for all structuies; except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lockbox not in excess of 20 Aii.a i i 41 ^ i 11 i i 4 141 • Mill . i 4 «It I Uii Arri 19.20M hoilofS squttt feet in aicA and 48 inches in height is allowed on the likeahore poition of the lot and requifcs a building pennit from the chy. (b) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshtm 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 sectioa Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations, (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. Sec. 78-1281. Water-oriented accessory structures. The only walerohented accessory structure allowed to be located nearer the ordinary hi^ water level than the normal structure setback as specified in this article shall be a lockbox no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height Such a structure requires a building pennit from the dty. Sec. 78-1432. Time of construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit D - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Roor Plans St Elevations Exhibit F - Photograpits Exhibit O - Sewer Easement Diagram Exhibit H - Neighbor Commeius Exhibit I - Property Owners List Exhibit J - Plat Baekgroaad Planning Department staff had initial conversations with the realtor regarding the non conforming nature of the boathouse at the time the property was for sale. It has been re iterated to the realtor that any rebuild of the lot would require elimination of all non conformities, including the boathouse. Planning Dq;Milinem staff then met with the current applicants to again indicate that the boathouse would have to be removed at the time the lot was rebuilt The applicants were advised how a viriance review would be conducted specifically relating to the boathousr so that the applicants could submit a complete applicadon. ii i. i.il. . ;illlil \\ ill i i Affil 19.2MM ratisars LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET IM AfCfl/Width (a lot nea and lot width variance is not required per Section 78-72 noted above due to the property mcetins the 80V« area lequirement of 34,848 s.f. where 35,400 s.f. exists and meeting the 80H width requirement of 112 s.f where 134 ’-153* exists.) LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (1 acre)140* Actual 35,400 s.f (0.81 acres)1S3’at Shoreline 134* at 75’Setback SetlMcks LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear (road)30*100* (house) 10* (garage)114* UR Side 10* 72’ ^ouse) 10 ’ (detached garage) 100 ’ (boathouse) 35* 100* (boathouse) •detached garage to be removed Right Side 10* 2* (house) S* (shed @ lake) 19 ’ (boathouse) 10* 19*(boatbouse) shed @ lake to be removed Lakeshore 75*140*113’ Average Lakeshore 104* (house) 98* (grade level decks) 140*113* Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 35.400 s.f (0.81 acres)Allowed: 5,310 s.f (15%) Proposed: 3,490 s.f (10%) Hardcover CalculattoM Hardcover Zone Total Area la Zone Allowed Hardcover Existiag Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 11,100 s.f 0s.f (0%) 2,050 s.f • (19%) 530 s.f (4.7%) iiii i totsom A»ril 19.2004 ri««4efS 75-250 5,350 s.f.5,350 s.f. (25%) 7,580 sf (35%) 5,255 s.f. (24.6%) 250-500 2,900 s.f.870 5 f. (30%) 1,000 s.f.* (33%) 865 s.f (299%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Noo-CoBfoniUBg Accctsory Straclnrt (Boatbonsc) The applicants are proposing to keep the non-conforming 2-Ievel boathouse located 10 ’ from the 929.4 elevation. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit any structures within the 0-7S* zone. Further, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit any hardcover within the 0-7S* zone unless it is an access to the lake, a 32 s.f. landing, or a lock-box meeting specific standards. The boathouse, acting as structure and hardcover within the 0-7S* zone, does not meet the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordiiuuice. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing house, detached garage and small shed located near the lake as well as removal of the patio and deck attached to the boathouse. In the City ’s view the lot is being rebuilt and is therefore subject to all standards within the Zoning Ordinance. This requires removal of the non-conforming boathouse which contributes to excess strucnire and hardcover within the 0-7S* zone. It should be rx)ted, that the applicants have contributed the hardcover associated with the boathouse to the 75*-2S0* zone and still fall within the alloned 2S% hardcover for that zone. Also, the 530 s.f. boathouse was also figured into the structural coverage requirement putting the lot at 10% structural coverage when 1 S% is normally allowed. HarddiJp StatcsBcat Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analytb Ih comaidertmg tpfaemiMU/or ik* PUmmimg Cammk tim $kttt comUer tkt efftcl oftkt ptopetei MVtefice mpom Ufa ktaltk, $^tty and wetfara oftka ca$mmtiHl9, cxtntef and aatklpaied eondkhnt, i^kt and air, daagar o/flra, rbkiaiha pmbtk safety, and tke effect oa valma of property la tka tttrroamdUig area. 7k# Ptamahtg Cooumbshm shall eoastder raeommemdiag approval far variaaeas from the Uieral provbloas of the Zonhtg Code bi bistaaces wkare their strict atfforcaataat woedd emasa aadaa hardship haeoasa elrema uta a eas aalgaa to the ladhidaal property uader eoaridaradott, aad shad recoaame a d appromJ oaty whea h Is daatoastratad that sack aetloas oUl be la kaaplag wM the spirit aad lateai of the Oroao Zoalag Code. Staff fmds that no hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested \ariance. Although in good shape, the boathouse is clearly non-conforming. Stafif and, under most circumstances, the PU^ng Commission have consistently recommended removal of any non-conformity at the time the lot is rebuilt In the City ’s view, this is the only opportunity for non-conformities to be eliminated. This structure has no historical value nor does it architecturally match the proposed house. i ! I i j l: ■04-J0Q2 April 19.20M r*t«sof5 ArgvaicaU to be Dbpntcd Topography - Some may consider the topography a hardship due to the steep slope. This is disputed by the fact that a defined access pi^way from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope has existed for many years. This access is due to the City ’s Public Works need to ac cess the City sewer line which rxins along the shore past the boathouse (see Easement Discussion below). The applicant does have the ability to construct a detached building on the top of the slope and use this access to move things from the detached building to the shore. Also, a lock-box meeting Zoning Ordinance standards would be permitted. Damage to Sewer Line - The I4)plicants may argue that there is potential to damage the sewer line with demolition of the structure. It is staffs opinion that this should not wrigh in on the Planning Commission determination of hardship. The structure can be removed, without heavy machinery if required, and any damage to the sewer line would be the applicants ’ responsibility. Access Easement - The applicants may feel a fair compromise would be to allow the boathouse to remain in exchange for an ofHcial easement to access the sewer. Staff would Ag*‘" argue that this should not weigh in on any determination of hardship. The access around the north side of the lot originated many years ago in order for a previous owner to access the lake with a golf cart, most likely before the sewer was installed. Since installation of sewer the City has used this access for maintenance purposes (without an easement). Until this time the City was not aware that an easement didn’t exist. Regardless of this application the City should purstic this easement Eaaemcat for Sewer Maiatcnaaee After initial meetings with the realtor and current applicants it came to the City ’s attention that an easement does not exist for access to the sewer. Planning Department staff dten spoke with the Public Works department and concluded that this access to the sewer is required for maintenance purposes. The sewer line runs alo ’ the shoreline, and because of the steep slopes that exist on properties to the south, the Public Works department has indicated that it is one of the only places to access the shore in the immediate area. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this easement should be pursued and if the applicants are agreeable to it. Isaacs for Coasidcratkm 1. Do any hardships exist to warrant approval of the variance? 2. Does this structure have any negative impacts when viewed from the lake? 3. Should the City formally punue an easement per Exhibit G? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RceoniBicadatioD Denial of the requested variaiKe. The Plaiming Commission should indicate if the epsement along the shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in conjunction with a building permit to construct a new home. I 1 11 iL I 11 Clty ’^Orono Variance Application StnetAtJdnu: 2750 Kelley Parlovay Orono. MN S53S6 Main 952-249^00 fax: 952-249>4616 Mailing AddrwiM: . P.O. Box 66 Cfyatal Bay. MN SS323-0066 Appllcabon# Date Received: Amount Pa^: dVctf Sttff: JMTcE Fee:S600 Renewal: S300 After-the-fact II .200 Double Fee ThiS application form must be completed in Ml. App'xant will be notified widiin 15 days as to the stais of the appicatksn. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: IHo KJAr-^U Aftw Property Identification Number (PIN): _______________________________________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the su rvey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): □ Yes. I cwn the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: E) Residential □ Otfier *____________________________ Zoning District _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complata legal naraa and marital status required for each interested party) Name: L La-wA. ______________________ Phono (home): rc» t ^ tn Phone (^ork): Q\ Address: 84, Email: ra-ir-tk^ rVNNJ S-TKHl Pax: rou - R A. OWNER INFORMATION: (Comptete legal names sro marital status require for each interested party) Name: als qlU buc . Phone (home): ________________________ Address: ______________________________ Email: Phone (work): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ Describe the request In detail (attach additonal sheets if necessary): _________________ f-*_VYV *.1 fV li £ -1 i Ifi Mtl. i'Ti REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Infonmetion must be submitted by the application deadline date In order for your application to be processed. Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150* of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance . Government Center. A-S03 300 South 6*' Street Minneapolis, telephone 612-348.SQ1Q Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting alrthe foquirements listed within this packet including hardcover calculations. Also provide or>e copy 8.5" x 11" or ✓ 11"x 17" tor reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Os Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X17" for reproduction. □ Skaters or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 171. □ Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project • APPLICANrS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Planning Department agrees to pay additional foes (staff time not covered In the original tee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and conect to the beat of hlsmer knowledge. The applicant raeognUea that he/ahe is solely responsible for submitting a complets application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no alternative but to reject It until It Is complets or to recommend the request for denial of the requeat regardless of Ha 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 verifiqption of this request Owner's Signature: Owner’s Signature: ind verifitttion of thU\(l Date: Date: ^klo ^Iieanl must tw e an submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plannh Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Appllcanta muat. a praaant at all aehedultd review meetinga of tha Planning Commisaion and Council. If an applicant is unable to attervJ a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend In place of the applicant and advise tha City Planner assigned to your project 5002^ t.\i .. i • . I . j * i k il EXHIBIT B HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Ptfe lof3 [This form It ■ roqulrod lubmitlat tor ALL varianet applleatlena. An application wili not ba considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order fora variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as varianoss run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situaOona ere not conaidered valid hard^lpa. In order for an application to be heard by the Ranning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW OOI 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 ali the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearty as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance le Justified. The information the City receives is what is used >r ^fetermining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will no; be udered. 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.” ”The plight of the landowner is due to drcumstances unique to his property not create by the landowner.” 3. ”The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” \ t* *L»i*<><«>■ • 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” ll. ■- ‘ . •', ili , « I Page 3 of3 Tha grsnttno of tuch varianca will not manly aarva aa a oonvanlanoa to tt)a af^ilcant. but ia nacaaaary to allavlata damonatnble hardahip or dHRcufty." __________\‘4aiYa ^ R I____-___________________________ Hardahip Statamant Should you fdal tha hardahip cannot fulty ba daacrfbad In tha above critarla. daacrlba tha uniqua hardahip, pnctical difficulty or unuaual property conditiona prevanting eompiianca with Zoning Ordinanca raqulramanta in the following tinea (attach additional shaata if ;ililiJtl^30 .OiSi'Jim I EXHOITC CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Elnar HagDarg of Lot 4, Auditors Subdivision No. 362 Hennepin County. Minnesota fmt£Arts //iMv^kWbr ^er.fll0m»0to • -/r'amro */a.a-7>$ •'» v-4 *7/00 tf h-.'t 9£.7«¥00 rj^^- 0-0m,*70.f ft 9, t fM i#.« H *00t/t^ ! I . G7 saxes atm UY. MMiL 5532} #1346 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 362, according to existing eonumentatlon for said Auditor's Subdivision, and of all existing buildings, hardcover, and a proposed storage garage thereon. It does not purport to show any other inprovemencs or encroachments. COFFIN A 6R0NBERG, INC. __ _ _____erg nn. lic^ no. Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: I" > 30' Date.; ?.-P-88 ........... q: Iron Marker' i iX ij.i iilii exhibit D L HARDCOVER CALCS. MARCH 15. 04 REV 3/16/04 AREA MAXiC EX5TNG PROPOSED .0-75 11100 SF 0 \ ^Vi^ ?8t2::5’ig/4.7* PATK) - 200SF STAH - 2S0SF DOCK - 80SF GR 0RIVE-85OSF TOTAL- 20S0SF/18X /N \ V ^ .V \ 75-250 21400 SF 5350 SF 7560 SF/34.9X HOUSE - 2835SF (&0XL0T DECK - 125SFFSTEP - 85SF WALK - 80SF V' I I .DRIVE - 1600SF \ » \ > V ITOTAL - 4725SF/22.1X j ^ (> / I .(.Y / sNW'^.l /Vv 4> 0-75 HC TOTAL - 5255 SF/ 24.6X ' A 250 4- 2900 SF 870 SF 1000 SF/33^X DRIVE - 865 SF/ 29.9X / PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR-969.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION -96^8 LOWEST FLOOR-960.0 -^BENCHMARK TOP WELL ELEV - 968.3 ^ - EXBTNG SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ^ •.... « ORECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, AUDITORS SU0D. 362 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. ADDRESS 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE V i i i i r:—rrr^ ■. -r* L V;-/:.€> EXHlBtTE m:-, § : ir- • -t- , il siiT'/ i . ' i f iL'iililiii 'i : I tel . • •• l ii®liii^feiii V; ' • ’■ •' V c Cir ;. •; t,' • DT LU m ■w 0 n If- ‘ r\ liUBIliwIiVLJ Wk m s; Qi O ijEEI r ■i: ♦iii cl'll ?>W ! mr- i Mi ,'' ®;>- v £--\ %y ... f I. FF.- ’ • * r .*> , '^ ' V ,>” Sr T ' --U y : ‘ -Tr *■ TvT ^ i: l-r ,!M%pi.- ‘■»' i'll -4^S?^W^- A .V-•A"-. Xr'J ‘W^rr^’ rd 5^*:. IV ; . f.>- .'. ,..j 4, '>: . fm•iicas :-.m ‘^V.<^5K:.T; '>• ■ ■■»i>W’rJ W‘4 i-. •. • • • • ^ '*1. - f*,v^!L^'. I \JtC^)OhJ Of 6/5£>HgA/T - HOT(JtHSlPB9Bl> W^COyJEfi- HARDCOVER CALCS. MARCH 15, 04 R£V 3/16/04 AREA MAX>!C E)CISTINC PROPOSED D-75 11100 SF 0 (fOA Stv»EA /«\A|MjE/^AJ6e WA^S OHVi / BOATH - 530SF BOATM - 530SF SHED - 1O0SF total - 530SF/ 4.7* PATH) - 200SF STAR - 250SF DOCK - BOSF CR DRIVE-8S0SP TOTAL- 2050SF/18X ^ 75-250 21400 SF 5350 SF 7580 SF/34.9!I HOUSE - 2835SF (8.0RLOT DECK - 125SF FSTEP - B5SF WALK - 80SF V ■ 1 DRIVE - 1600SF \ » TOTAL - 4725SF/22.1X j ♦ 0-75 HC TOTAL - 5255 SF/ 24.6X 250 -f 2900 SF 870 SF 1000 SF/33.0X DRIVE - 865 SF/ 29.9X EXHIBIT G - ' T y PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR-969.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION -96^8 \ LOWEST FLOOR-960.0 i;a;i nrr BENCHMARK TOP WELL ELEV = 968.3 S-*cn . . - EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) « PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, AUDITORS SUBD. 362 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. ADDRESS 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE m I. 11 ; Z' \ I i )l I HTT . It i; . J 1 i. .. I ' 1 I Upt lyiEXEOmVE AVIATION i 052 052 0275; EXHIBITH Apr-13-04 10:20;Pag« 1/1 Apiil 12,2004 GlyofOloiM Attondflo: Jonis Guidloch 2750KslloyPkwy OconoMN RB: 04-3002 Zoning ComniifAioncn oocm TCMonablo to allow thorn to Imp ihe botfhoiMo. Thookyi^ KiHcOttoioa . .. .-c:ri. i t i i i fWar-v 1.^00 MiiMarftfiw . EXHraiTJ Hennepin CoUn^^^f Taxpayer Seivicee toepirtnierit ■ I0«00«3 April 19,2004 r«g« 1 of 4 Ditc AppHcatlMi lUetWcd: D*M AppIkaUoa CotuMcnd at Coapktc: 4-14^ 120-Day Rcvkw Nriod Eiplm: i-12-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Dale: Subject: April 15.2004 04-3003. Bruce and Kris Paddock and George W. Stickney, 3250 Fox St. • Preliminary Plat • Public Hearing Zoning Diitrklt Lot Area: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (2 acre min.) 14.830 acres (645.995 s.f.) Applicafiom S$uHmary: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 3 lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell ^y Estates._______________ Staff Recommemdation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Only two new driveways are proposed on the private section of Fox Street and proposed lot 3 must use the existing driveway that exists outside the Fox Street gates. 2. Proposed lots 1 and 2 must utilize the septic sites on the street side of the proposed house pads rather than the lake side sites. 3. The average lakeshorc setback line shown on the preliminary plat shall be the line used to determine the average lakeshorc setback for all 3 lots, not an average setback that is determined by when which lots construct houses. 4. If the existing mound is proposed to stay during the interim period, a temporary easement, expiring at the time of site grading for proposed lot 1, may be permitted but only by approval of the City. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Submission and approval of the (Inal plat Payment of standard fees and dedication of required easements. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. PcrtUicnt Zoaiuf Ordteaacc ScctioM Sec. 78-305. Area, height. lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1A district shall exceed 2 1 tl stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots The following minimum requirements shall be observed: « i I I I I n i i t r, 111i, Afril lf.30M rafcSofC LolArM(Mft)Lot Width (feet)1 Front Yard (feci) 1 Side Yard(fea)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (fen) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 I SO 30 SO SO LUtofExhibHi Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C - Profxned Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Septic Plan Exhibit D - Dni^ge Areas Pre and Post Development Exhibit E - Memo from Septic Inspector Matt Bolicrman dated 3-2S-04 Exhibit F - Wetland Boundary Map Exhibit G - National Wetland Inventory Exhibit H - Hennepin County Soil Survey Exhibit 1 - MCWD Comments dated 1-22-04 Exhibit J - Resoltition Denying the Request to Conduct an EA^' Exhibit 1C - Aerial Photograph Exhibit L - Neighbor Comments Exhibit M - Property 0\«ier’s List Exhibit N-Plat Map Bachfronnd This site was given preliminary approval by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2003. The plat preliminarily included 6 lots with a private roadway meeting all Zoning Ordinance regulations. As part of the Planning Commission's recommendation final engiiieering approval would be required prior to City Council review. During that period in between Planning Commission's approval and City Council review the neighborhood petitioned the City to require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (known as an EAW). The applicants then withdrew their application for a 6 lot plan due to the nei^bothood resistance and, in turn, the neighboriKKxTs petitioner with^w the EAW petition. As a formality the City denied the request to conduct an EAW based on the findings included in the resolution attached as Exhibit J. including withdrawals by both parties. The applicants are now proposing a 3 lot plan with private dnveways instead of a roadway. The application has been given a new number and is considered a new application because the applicants officially withdrew their 6 lot plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS iBtrodttctioB and CoBforaance with Coaprehensivc PlaB Bruce and Kris Paddock along with George W. Stickney are requesting preliminar)’ plat approval for a 3 lot subdivision at 3250 Fox Street. The property is located at the southwest comer of Fox Street and Leaf Street. The current zoning on the property is LR - lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential District which requires two acre minimum lot sizes. The property is guided for Rural Residential in 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of two acres. CoBforBUBce with Zoning OrdlaaBca The proposed lots meet all Zomiig Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and ) i i I . I i J lit i. 1 II I t m diBBiiH •04-3003 April 19. lOM Patt3 efft setbacks. The following uble outlines setbacks from the proposed building pad locations (future huytrs wilt not bt required to use the exact building pad locations shown on the plans, but rather the City just wcmted confirmation that reasonable sized homes could fit on the lots): LR-IA Required Lot 1 (building pad: 45x100) Lot 2 (building pad: 50x100) Lot 3 (building pad: 50x100) Lot Area 2.0 aces 5.00 acres (all dry)* 5.34 acres (all dry)* 4.13 acres (.13 wet, 4.00 d^)* Lot )Aidth (at road) ____N/A 209 ’261 ’ Lot Width (at shoreline)200 ’217’217’200 ’ Street Setback 585’170’780 ’ Lake Setback 500’365’215’ *the dry vs. wet acreage tvill have to be amended so that the area in the dry pond below the outlet level is considered wet. This will not affect whether the lots are conforming in area as they are twice as large as the Zoning District requires. Surrounduig DcvclopBeal The preliminary plat to be known as Maxwell Bay Estates is surrounded by residential property in all directions with Maxwell Bay of Lake Minnetonka to the direct south. Two acre minimum lot sizes with LR - 1A zoning are to the west, east and northwest with two acre minimum lot sizes with RR - IB zoning to the northeast. A church is located two parcels to the north. The applicants ’ property is located off a private section of Fox Street with lots larger than two acres, although existing two acre lots can be found to the northwest and northeast. Lot Layout and Standards The plan in Exhibit C shows driveway locations in relation to the proposed property line layout Three lots are proposed to be served off individual private driveways. Proposed Lot 3 will use the existing driveway that exits just outside the entrance monuments to the private section of Fox Street and proposed lots 1 and 2 will be served off the private section inside the gates. The driveways for proposed lots I and 2 are located within 40’ of each other due to site distance issues. Due to the low volume of traffic on this portion of Fox Street staff docs not fmd that this will be of issue. The future buyers wall not be required to use the exact driveway locations for proposed lots 1 and 2, although the 20’ setback for septic sites to driveways and the topography uf the lots, the driveway locations will very close to those shown on the preliminary plat plans. Proposed lot 3 will be required to keep the existing driveway cut that accesses onto the public portion of Fox Street Although, ideally the driveway would be best served inside the private gates, the topography, drainage of the lot and existing wetland make the existing location most suitable. Future bu>*ers should make attempts to locate the drivewrays in a manner that minimal ly disturbs the existing trees. 4 i « I i S n •CM4003 AprU 19,2004 Pagi4»r< The plan in Exhibit C also shows building pad locations in relation to 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. These lots meet all required lot standards as shown in the table above and actually Cu exceed the required standards. The plan in Exhibit C also shows the average lakeshore setback line. Due to the location of die existing houses on both sides of the lot, the three proposed lots will be subject to a strict average lakeshore setback. The average lakeshore setback ranges from over 400 ’ on proposed lot 1 to 13S* on proposed lot 3. The building pad locations have been determined in relation to this setback line. Staff recommends that this line be adopted as the average setback for all 3 lots and that the issue of which home gets built first will not affect the average setback for the rest. City Engineer Tom Kellogg has not submitted written comments regarding the proposed plans at this time. The City Engineer has been in contact with the surveyor regarding the methods of rate control of stormwater pre and post development and the methods the miplicants are proposing to collect stormivater from the site and has preliminarily approved the concept. However, the applicant will be required to meet all recommendations of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. Raqvircd Eascmesls The ^iplicant must dedicate the following easements: • Conservation and Flowage Easements over all delineated wetlands. • Drainage Easements over all proposed storm water ponds and stormwater collecuon areas (including the dry ponds proposed). - Standard draiiuige 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, Drautage, .lad Erotioa Control The applicant is proposing a dry pond with a small berm and draintile approximately 80 feet from the lake on both interior lot lines. All lots will meet the required 2.0 acres of dry with these collection areas. All storm water will be routed to these areas through the method of swale construction along the property lines. The neighbor to the east submitted a letter expiessing concerns regarding drainage (see Exhibit K). Also, attached are per and post drainage area maps showing the distribution of stormwater (Exhibit D). The City Engineer has not submitted written comments regarding the storm w'ater and drainage plan at this time however, the applicant will be required to implement all recommendations of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. The applicant has also proposed temporary and permanent erosion control measures which must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. At a minimum, silt fence will be required. The subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City of Orono Subdivision Application EXHIBIT A StTMf Address: 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono. MN 55356 Appi;cat)on« Date Received:± 'M Main 9S2-249-4600 fax; 052-249^16 MsiUng Address P.O. Box 66 Cryetal Bay. MN 55323-0066 This application form must be completsd In full. Amount Paid: P.ri ... . Staff: ~r^, r. i __________ Fee;. A Renewal: i -i- PROPERTY INFORMATION: ^ Site Address:O/*' w ii // Property Identification Number (PIN); (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (monthfyear): _________□ Abstract or □ Torrens, please check one Present use of property: □ ^sldential □ Other _____________________________________ Zoning District: ________________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION:, (Comple Name:?r'u*‘g C Phono (home); Address: :I (Complet^lcf^l natryes and martal st^s r^uired for eai^^teoested party) irtr i j • l(._________y I f • V*’ / ■7 6 > 7 Phone (wofk).L-» cy~ ^ c/ •? '6--j K ^r*-/ •Z.r<=tr- .>o /)/ EmaU:Fax;<</S OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: Phone (home): Address; __ Email; Phone (work); EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size: / / T. 6 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land / W ■ 1?Acres TOTAL, all parce's Present Use (check one) Present Zoning District 'S'□Residential; Number of Units: / -//d Ai ^ Other (Specify) /_A~ f ff Proposal: □ Division for Tax Purposes □ Lot Une Rearrangement Only (no new building sles) S Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units , _ Units per Acres □ L Residential Other (specify) -10. Square Feet Dry Buildable Land ^L./> MtMIMUM MATEMAL KgOUMtEP FOU COM»LgTg ^UgLIMIMAWY AP^UCATIQM 1. Payment Of (ms (rater to "tpfiiication fBet'listad baiow}. 2. Completed eppRcaten form. 3. Preliminery plat Information on Certificate of Survey. . Certfled Property Ownera Uit of owner* within aso* (you muit obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6”* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). . At an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you w’sh notified of this ^ application. MINIMUM MATtWAL REQUIWED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1 Payment of fees (rater to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2 Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3 Tide opinion. 4 Easements, covenants, etc. S. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit APPLICATIOW FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Baaa Fees: ____ Sketch Plan Review (Ctese I. II & III) $350 00 ____Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600 00 Subdivision Application (Clau I & II) $600 00 yC Preliminary Subdivision Application $750 00 ♦ $30 OOAot ;Class III & an non-ratldentiat) ____ Final Plat Application (Class ill) $250.00 ____Legal Review and Filing; ____ Subdivision only $140.00 ____ Subdivision w/eesements and covenants; minimum $250 00 ♦ any additional costs ____Park Fees (to be determined per Seefon 82-227) ____Legal and Engineering Review Feet (as incurred) ____ Renewal of Class I. II. A III Subdivision and of a Lot Line Rearre ^cment Application $300 00 B. Special Improvement Feet: ____Proposed Private Roads $650.00 ♦ $ 50 per lineal foot_______lin. ft x .50 * $_____ ____ Proposed Public Roads $950 00 $.50 par lineal foot______Hn. ft x .50 ■ $_____ lOT&U ___Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950 00 ___ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 ♦ $25/stub ---------- ___ Proposed Welermain Extension $275 00 ♦ $25/stub ---------- ____Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 ---------- ____On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (app'tcabie to rural subdivisions) $60/per lot *____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Miscallaneoua Feta ____Variance $600,00 ____Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting property ($600 minimum per application) ---------- ____ Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdivision $100.00 ' ____PRO Application with Subdivision $35 00 per dweling unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by Planning Department Staff, City Engineer, City Attorney. Planing Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrpes/) p^y j|l additional fees establish^^rdinance. Applicant's Signature Owner’s Signature: , City Anorney, Planing i her agree^ payIII addi* 15^ Oats i^ata: 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 orior to the meeting. r.#I DAU'^If flC IVAiO riiULIUV^X\ OF TRACT E. R.L.S. NO. 1360 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ! u t I I - > ► » 200 LAKE MINNETONKA S : H I OD t UCAL KSCfIPTIGN OF PRTMSES: Tract C. Way«tar>d Land StTvay No I3M. Un of Rt^tror ol Titin. H«incp«i Cotfily. Mmnoto sri h-1—MV. r”.“S 1 I1______ - — 1 fat iTbTVt ■MW imn w uMH » i« tiM V wnw _____ GRONBEKG k ASSOCIATES, INC. am ncnniiia u«o mwmtm. urn) pumnis 44f> N WI!,1.0W DRIVE LONG LAKE. MN &S3JW • r. I’AX ww-4-ri . . LAKE MINNETONKA 60s LLl,AL DtSC»W>t»ON cy P»<tuus TmkI r. R»9»l*«*d lood Vufvty Mo iy>8. (•lei Ol RC9*ltfO» 0l Hffirrp-n ClM^tr. I*nr«iol0 .’ fgw0»ir» c«o/f**« «|t bw* KOI Ml lUi^ 1c?.?i?v:as.-swy 9iS"wJ«mt« Mil M IMI 9 M vtl« 9 Mint ^;^H^^S£^£MjSSJSiSLSiSt3uUm le .ISESSSE 445 N WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, WN 55350 PHONE 052-473-4141 ______FAX 052-473-4435 PRELIMINARY PLAT MAXWELL BAY ESTATES PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR BRUCE & KRIS PADDOCK OF TRACT E. R.L.S. NO. 1358 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA it* t.' U/i AVJ?UTMMTTTnKTk' A - a V 200 LAKE MINNETONKA iccAL ccscrption or pwtusrs 1*<Kl f. li^ '3M. (fkt ol Reqittrar ol I>lktv Co««>ty, Umctolo • faotttft tm^Po^A |!3. —^00OtP0 Cm^rstAA Ml l»l MM MkMr UMnnirjM imui 7i3 «jNiic* Mi* 14 ••« itm m iMWiWM- fSrtBTD « Mi* i<< ••« itlU • IM .Y^'0k mm lOM ^^/AfACe ^AAYf, AfT€A CAA/0 fT/0H/S —a—vi>5* iw**" o>-a«M eCRONyUHC Jk ASbiOUAl'Kii. INU. avn. DTCiKKm umo suR»r.YORs. land pumnirs WII LOW DKIVJ: LUtin lake un &035O PHONE 9i>g-<73-<l<l________t'AX yi2-473-<«3S EXHIBIT E €ITYorORONO MwridH OflkM SirMtAMrfU: 2750 Kcltty Paftiity OraM. m 553M PA In (6 CmtH liy. UN SS323«6C TO: Janice Gundlach FROM: Matt Boltennan, On-Site Systems Manager. DATE: March 25,2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Maxwell Day Estates (3 lots) The property is proposed to be split into three lots. One of the lots has an existing house on it and the other two lots are vacant The lot with the existing house currently has a code septic system that will be half on lot 1 and lot 2. If the current house will be continued to be lived in they will have to put in a new septic system that is on their property. The new septic system can be reused if they rebuild the house a future time. I recommend getting the septic sites as far from Lake Minnetonka as possiUe. Loti The two septic sites by the lake should not be used. There is a site located on the north end of the property and testing should be done to find another site either just south of the building setback line or find another site north of where UiC house will go. Doth sites north of the building setback line would be preferred. Ut2 The two septic sites by the lake should not be used. There are 2 septic sites located north of the existing house that should be used. The septic site located furthest from the house must be centered on the knob. Ut3 The only septic locatious on this lot are the two near Lake Minnetonka. Septic code requires septic to oe at least 75 feet from Lake Minnetonka. Doth septic sites meet this requirement. ‘MtphoMffSD MMiN • 1 . t i J iili i Miiiti I I ■ rt8ISjT> ' *• ’ •^t: "■-1 1. ' I -— ,K I • USVOBODA Approxirn:ite Wetland Boundary Overlayeci on 1991 Aerial Photo r* Alt ♦ i „ -> ; . f . ■!• ' -r, TTi- T— V ■■ '• ■■ Tv. 4^ :.•-.. ,..V.v9yi>r- Ki issr 3NI^*- \ K-" 5^ ......... .■v.v.,r^. '’’,'yl ■ J k-:'i' ., -:f £'- ■} I ?»- IV) 4.- V I»r Nationial Wetland Inventory ''•'kSVOBODA Overlayed on 1991 Aerial PhotoI'.' <t{ ■ :.coIoi;Kal R.tsourct‘i •:. .. -« : t (Tt:‘ ‘■r re; T <iiii{ii (;mmm\ W-' mkmm^-mm ^ ~rt.^ * A-- vA 7- T'^-. pS'-!r' ■ s V 1^' -tw :#'J S!», \ • x" ..s 4 ^ih-y-ii I . - v:--^ ^i'V^' ? V 1 o 4 .- V: I ,»> I VaSVOBODA T{ •■ LColot;icai Resourcts Nationial Wetland Inventory Overlayed on 1991 Aerial Photo 1 <'.il < : 0\ ;'•> :> .% / * 'X m u nmm t:- ■ m . - ■ y ?-t .••''^- - 0 -- Tv V- . rr; mj>-'mmmm 1 Janlct Gundlach - 3250 Fox Str—t From: "Rena# Claf‘« T,*dafk®mlni To; -Malanki hoVr. cmfothOd.i <MGAFFRON®d.orooo.r.;n j»r- Data: 1/22/04 ueri^ Subjact: 3250 Fox Street Melanie and Mike. The Ctty of Orono sent MCWD a preliminary f mentioned property in November. My apologii MCWD staff reviewed the wetland delineation found It acceptable. MCWD Rules which appi • Rule B. Erosion Control • an erosion co must be proposed * Rule D; Wetland Protection >8 16 6«fbc proposed around the wetland • Rule N; Stormwater Management • run quality, and best management practices appi Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Renae Clark District Technician 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 65391 Ph. 952-471^)590 Fx. 952-471-0682 1 Janict Gundlach > 3250 Fox Str<i»t Ifyiram From: *Ronae CUici "'tIarkQminnohafiacreek.org> To: **Maiana Fof* "•iTifbthQd.orono.mn.ua>, ”‘Mlka Oaffron" <MGAFFRONQd.orono r'r Data: 1/22A)4 i.ioPM Subject 3250 Fox Street Melanie and Mike. The City of Orono aani MCWD a preliminary plat for comment for the above mentioned property in November. My apolo^ea for the delayed comments. MCWO ataff reviewed the wetland delineation for this site last fall and found It acceptablo. MCWO Rules which apply to this project are: * Rule B Erosion Control - an erosion control plan for the site must be proposed * Rule O.Wetlend Protection-a 16 6-fbot wetland buffer must be proposed around the wetland * Rule N; Stormwater Management • runoff rate control, water quality, and best management practices apply Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Renae Clark District Technician 18202 Minnetonka Bivd. Deephaven.MN 65391 Ph. 952-471-0590 Fx. 952-471-0682 111 4 It ii I i i.iIlI Li'.i.i)i EXHIBIT J CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R I ^ A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY BRUCE AND KRISTINE PADDOCK AND GEORGE STICKNEY HAS NO POTENTIAL FORSIGNinCANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND DENYING THE CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) •HLE #03-2964 WHEREAS, the City of Orono C’City") is s municipal coiporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) hu officially notified the City of a petition by a group of citizens represented by lack Y. Perry of Briggs and Morgan requesting the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed developrcent CTbe Development ”) by Bruce and Kristine Paddock and George Stickney (the '‘proposers’*). City of Orono planning and zoning application File #04-2964; and WHEREAS, under EQB Rules 4410.0S0O, the City has been desisted as the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine whether an EAW is required. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The City Council finds that the Development does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4300, Subpart 2 through 37, and does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4400, Subparts 2 throu^ 24. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment Worksheet nor an Environmental Impact Statement are mandatory for the Development under EQB Rules. The City Council finds that the Development falls within Part 4410.4600 Subpan 2(B) in that all governmental decisions have not been made, aitd fadls within Part 4410.4600 Subpaxt 12 because, while 3 lot development does not exc^ the threshold of 20 dwelling units for a fourth class city, the Development is within a Shoreland Area as defined in EQB Rules 4410.0200. Therefore, the City council further finds that the Develoment U not specifically exempt from EQB Rulea 4410.0200 to 4410.6SOO. Pagt 1 of 3 tf i »1 i i i i illIh GlTYoTORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. M J i> K 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. EQB Rules 4410.1100 Subpart 6 provide that the RCU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persons or otherwise knov.n to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City Council has reviewed the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persona as well as other infoimstion of record pertaining to the d^ebpment. The Citizen Petition for an EAW has been fonnally withdrawn by the petitioners and due to the petition being active for one year the City has determined diat a decision shall be made regarding whether an EAW shall be required of the qjplicants. The Citizen's Petition was reacting to a 6 lot proposal and such proposal has been withdrawn and a 3 lot proposal has been submitted which is looked st favorably by the pedtionera. The proposal for s 3 environmental impacts. lot subdivision significantly reduces (he potential for aignifiemt The environmental iasues raised by the petitionen do not pose the potential for significant environmental eflecta. as discussed in the City Council mexnoramduox da^ March 4,2004. The City Council finds that foe concerns raised in the Citizen Petition have been and will continually be addressed as the applicants continue through (he subdivision process and preliminary and final ^jproval will not be given until all issues are settled thxouih the Planning Commuaion and City Council approvals. i i. I. I 1 jtirJ* iii li U •. Ik. Paga2of3 j r. I i ll ili €lTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. R S X NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Orono, Minnesota thit the Citizen Petition to the EQB by Jack Y. Petty of Briggs and Morgan, it hereby denied and notification of such denial shall be fbrwexded to EQB staff, to the proposer, and to the petitionees' representative within S days per EQB Rules 4410.1100 Subpait 8. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesou this 8*^ day of March. 2004. ATTEST: Linda S.Vee, City Cleik Barbara A. Peteraon, Mayor I- •. '4 r K M. '•N.> '4- . .ifejK ‘' .*'* 5:--r>>n../7 . _JiKJ •:^ .V.Ji'i'.S. ^ J1 -‘Xr srs;ft"li r^v-#-’ -■ . •>•> ' ''' 1^ m ” “V-.v EXHIBIT L D «i A MAAtS. ULC I'O IIO\ I>»i !.«>%<. I AKI . At Nowmber 13,2003 MilwQamon Oiractof of Planning and Zbning 2750 Kelley Partcway Orono. MN 55356 OMrMr Gafliron: bjen^tly purchased by Bruce end Chris Paddock, and I. In the process of b.inT!luM?vidj; of our property which collects beldra had any portion of our driveway wash out. wa are ^L 7T^ "»!» concOT 10 th, Impaa upon our uws Th. ex«iln, drtv««, into a«v«lO|)^ propyn »«q, doMl, ponUol. our lol im.. tiuing u Fo. SIruli. aTZ^n s:: zrjss So toZSLl? that a tree which has been harmed may not actualy dto'fc? I . .iiiidi., iiilii liii F h 1 -2-Ncmnib8rl3,2003 Wte ari aumn that lh« CMy of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Wattrehed OteWct impose aaingentregulMioRs to proiBcictty land and Lake Minnetonka. We appfeciato tfioea efforts, but to statoour pareonalctoftoarnawkh regard to diispofliculardeveiopnient Thankyoutaf your oQMtton lo ttiit fnin§r« SinoarMy. Da«idA.Maoae WNMIlrMaOM M Miimisaoi] WASM SaSUBEXClR JWNERIMMI KIFAaOLAATDFASOLA rAXPAYW UNNCTNI*T0<LEVOFASOtA ssstusmoR long LAKE I4N SUM M •illTUJIiOII WADOR 3I2SPOXST TWNWNAMB BPSULUVAN am SULLIVAN rAXFAVSA BBIANF A MABIA SULLIVAN IIISFOXST LONOLAKEMN SSSM J| 0511723410037 PMFAOOR m OXFOADRD OWNUNAMO SMCLLVSANfMeROSTOOOl rAXPAYEA SHELLY SANOAEAGSTOK-H AOOHiONCAOFTRO WAVZATAMN 51301 N OSII72JM0004 PIK3FADOA 3250 fOXST OWNEANAME WUCIGFAOOOCK TAXPAYEA BHUCEGFAOOOCK IISOFOAST LONOLAKEMN SSSM 30 0SII723440HI rMPAOOA S3M FOXST Q(NNBAMAME MAKNA W HJLLEATON TAXFAVIA MAONAWFUUEKTON 'NAMEMOOA 33S0FOXST LONOLAKEMN SSSM MNNIflNOOJggmCgag^^rAUfc:l » 0UI7U330MS FAOf ADM S7S SUSSEXOA OWNER NAME HANS C KILUNOSTAO ET AL TA3CFAVER HANSC A ANA KILUNOSTAO NAMEIAOCM CM LONOLAKEMN SSSM 31 OSII7334IOOM FEOPAOOO S2SLEAFST OWTtERNAME NEWTHOUOUTCHKELSCIENCE TAXPAYER hew THOUGHT CHURCH OP NAM&AOOR REUQIOUSSaQCE SIS LEAF LONOLAKEMN SUM 31 OSI1723410021 FOOPADOR SOS LEAFST OWNER NAME M R KOSCAAOZKI0 J M K FOX TAXPAYER MRK08CRAOIKIAJMKFOX NAME/AOOA MSIEAFST LONOLAKEMN S33M 31 0SII723440006 PROPADOR 32*5 FOXST owner NAME KYLE FAMB.V LTD FIRNSMF TAXPAYER KYLE FAMAV LTD PTRNSHP NAMVAOOR II40TO»RCARD LONOLAKEMN S53M 31 OSII72J44I009 PROPADOR 3120 FOXST OWNERNAME PNAOORSKE A LA NAOORSKE TAXPAYER PAMELA A LYNN A NAOORSKE 42I7PWCVCWLAN PLYMOUTH MN SS443 30 O4II7USMOI0 PROPADOR JITS FOXST OWNERNAME D AMAASS A A HMAASS TAXPAYU DAVID A ANN MAASS NAMETADDR POBOXJ*2 LONOLAKEMN 55JM 31 05II7234I0026 PROPADOR 53*OXfORDRD OVWERNAMf DJKNUOSONAMFRNUOSON TAXPAYIR DOUGLAS IKNUDSON NAME/ADDR SSOOXPORDRO LONOLAKEMN 553M M 0511723440003 PROPADOR 3310 FOXST OWNERNAME WLIKUMCK A J W TRURBCK TAXPAYER WKJJAMLAIUOITHWTRUBa NAME/ADDR 3300 FOX ST LONOLAKEMN 5S3M 3S 0511723440007 FROFAODR 3345 FOXST OWNEKNAME X3LLEY FULLERTON WHITE TAXPAYER 30OEY FULLERTON WHITE NAME/AOOR 217 GOLDEN GATE AVE BELVEDERE CA 94920 JS 0511723440010 PROP ADDR 3t ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNERNAME X3LLEY FULLERTON WHITE ET AL TAXPAYER JOLLEY WHITE 2I700L0ENGATEAVE BELVEDERE CA 949M ■ ) v ‘ • J % • ■':) wmmniytm HBNNfMNCXMJNTY fHOTEHTV INroRMATION SYSTCM ntcratTYOWNSts usr ICOmFYTmTTHE fACIS RBMlESENrED ARE AN ACXMIATC AND lRUEREfM9a«rA'n0N0Fn«<0flMAl1ONAS fTAffEARSTWS DATE ONTW RECORDS ORTWIWWBWN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMBKT. TO THE BEST ^ MCI: I .'■i EXHIBIT N M*niiipm Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department . . vW V . Parc^ infohfmtion 4'-^, Thklgnatai % mradrntm r ,• i i: ( I FILE0O4-3OO5 April 15.2004 Pao*ioM To: Chair Mabutsh and Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis. City Planner ^[1/ Dale: April 15,2004 Subjccl: <#04-3005. Code Revision, City Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468 - public hearing ________ Stummarv: Definitions for p>1on and monument signs have been added. Language regarding the signs allovv-ed vvithin Business and Industrial Districts has been amended. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forw'ard to the City Council. Pcrtiaenl Zo«^ Ordtaaaec Seettens ^ 78-1466: Signs as accessory use ^ 78-1568: Signs in B and 1 Districts List of Eahibits A. Proposed Ordinance B. Existing City Codes 78-1466 and 78-1468 Backgroand As the Highway 12 corridor is developing more rapidly than the planned update of the current sign ordinance, the proposed amendment is an interim solution, or tool, for the City to use when faced with the inevitable upcoming monument sign proposals. At the last Planning Commission work session the Planning Commission discussed amending the Sign regulations (78-1466). Out of that work session it was determined that the code sections regarding sign regulations do not address the monument signs which are becoming more increasingly proposed by developers, businesses and sign contractors. This proposed amendment will allow the City to provide developers with the City's standards for monument type signs and provide for a smoother permit approval process. Issues for Considcralion Are tliere any other issues or concerns with this proposed amendment? Staff Rceouinendaliou Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. ORDINANCE NO___THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 7S-1466 AND SECTION 7*-l56« REGARDING SIGNS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows; Section I: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows: (9) Pvlon Stun A sign supponed bv a post or posts so that the sign and suorwrts are finished to grade bv encasing the posts in a material consistent with the sign and where the base width dimension is a minimum of 10% UP to and including 50% of the greatest width of the siun. (10) Sfonument Sisns One monument sicn. limited to two (2) faces is allowed per frontage per orooertv. with a maximum of two (2) The areas of sign base, the supporiinu background structure, and the sign cons shall be combined for determining the total square footaec and the hciuht of the monument siun. The total allowable square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet per side The ba.se and supporting material shall constitute at least 25 percent of the total souarc footage. The base width dimension is 50? > or more of the greatest width ofb. c. d. e. f. the sign, The sign copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 inches above ground level. The sign conv area shall be completely enclosed within the monument materials No portion of the sicn or siun structure shall exceed 10 feet above ground Icscl. The monument sign base slull be constructed of materials similar in annearance to those of the principal structure and shall consist of brick, natural stone, stucco, textured cast stone, or integrally colored concrete masonrs' units The structure surrounding the face of the sign from the base to the ton of the sign must be solid, continuous, and consist of the base materials or complementary materials that match the appearance and color of the principal building. The 200 square feet of ground area around the base of the monument sign shall be landscaped with shrubs or perennials. The et fwfartt language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Pace I of 2 Scctkw 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78*1468 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78.1468. SigM is B tad I dbtricts. Within the B and I districts, nuiflata sina . wall and monument sims-aiid Mmumpm are permitted subject to the following regulations; Sccthm 3: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this vole of___ayes and nays. day of.,.2004 by a Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Lindas. Vee, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of..2004. ilanauaBBtidaleladithe undariined lanauaaeiaiMeited. Page 2 of 2 I iiiiidhm rtii siaBiin i rr i DIVISION 4. SIGNS S«c. 7S>1466. Signs as accessors- use. Signs are a permitted accessory use in all districts subject to the following regulatiorts: (1) On right-of-way. Private signs are prohibited within the public right*of* way or easements, except that the council may grant a conditional use permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the right-of-way under their jurisdiction for a specified time not to exceed 90 days. No conditional use permit for such a sign shall be issued by the council if a conditional use permit or temporary sign permit had been issued in the previous 24 months to that property. (2) Flashing Illuminated flashing signs shall not be permined in any district. (3) Beams. Illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays of light shall not be permitted in any district. (4) Sales signs. For purpose of selling renting or leasing property, a sign not in excess of ten square feet per surface may be placed within the front yard of such property to be sold or leased Such signs shall not be less than 15 feet from the right-of-way line unless flat against the structure. For the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of six or more dwelling units, one sign not to exceed 48 square feet; a commercial area of three acres or more, or an industrial area of ten acres or more, one sign not to exceed 96 feet of advertising surface, may be erected upon the project site. Such sign shall not remain after 90 percent of the project is developed. (5) Existing signs Signs existing on September 14,1967, which do not conform to the regulations are a nonconforming use. (6) Traffic interference No sign may be erected that, by reason of position, sh^ or color, would interfere in any way with the proper functioning or purpose of a traffic sign or signal. (7) Building wall signs Signs shall not be painted directly on the outside wall of the building. Signs shall not be painted on a fence, rocks or similar structure or feature in any district. Paper and similar signs shall not be permanently attached directly to a building wall by an adhesive or similar means (temporary use of such signs is permitted per standards set forth in subsection (8) of this section). Signs shall be considered as a stniciure or fastened to another structure. (8) Temporary signs There shall be no more than four iemporar> business signs issued per calendar year, and for a period of not more than ten days per lime or of the duration of the event promoted by tiic sign message, tvhichever is less. The sign (including banners or balloons), sign supports or portable stand shall be removed from public view at Uie end of the period. Total area of the sign shall not exceed 32 square feet per surface (64 square feet total signage allowed for two-sided portable sign). Advertising balloons are not subject to area restrictions but must meet all applicable federal and state standards. There shall be no more than one temporary sign in any required yard area, and, if separate multiple signs are proposed, the total area of the signs shall not exceed 32 square feet. Temporary business signs require a building permit from the city. No such permit shall be issued by the city if a conditional use permit under section 78*1467(1 )c has been issued to a residential property. No temporary sign shall be allowed in residential zones unless permitted as election or sale signs under this section. Multitenant buildings shall be considered as a single property for purposes of subsection (8) of this section; aitd the use of the single temporary business sign by tenants on the property shall be the respon^bility of the property owner or designated manager, who shall erulorse in writing all applications for sign permits. The owner or manager of the sign and the owner of the property shall be equally responsible for the proper location, maintenance and removal of the sign. All temporary signs shall be located on a property so that they do not imp^e safety by obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. (9) Election signs Election signs arc permitted on private property in any district, provided such signs are removed within 30 days following the election as related to the signs. No election sign shall be permitted in any R district sooner than two months preceding the election relating to the sign. (Code 1984, § 10.61(1); Ord. No. 97 2nd series, §§ 2.3.8-26*1991) Sec. 78-1467. Signs la R dbtrlds. Within R districts, the following signs are permitted: (1) Nameplates. One nameplate sign for each dwelling, and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constnicted as to have more than two surfaces. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to liave more than two surfaces. One nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by conditional permit oth^ than residential, and such sign shall not exceed 12 square feet in area per surface. Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures and integrated architectural features on noniesidential buildings may be illuminated by floodlights provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public righi-of- way or adjacent residential district. Setbacks. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be set back at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height abo^e the average grade level. Signs ntay be illuminated, but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect. (4) Home occupations. One nameplate sign containing name and address but not to contain business name or type of business, and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per surface, nor contain more than two surfaces. (Code 1984, § 10.61(2); Ord. No. 221 2nd series. § S. 9-23-2002) Sec. 78-I46S. Signs ia B and 1 districts. Within the B and 1 districts, nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations; B-l. B-2 and B-4: size. Within the B-l. B-2 and B-4 districts, the aggregate square foouge of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. (2) B-i: size. Within the B-3 district, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a LJ building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. (3) 7. size. Within any 1 district, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exce^ the sum of four square feet per &ont foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exce^ 100 square feet. (4) 5-7. B-2 and B-4: height. Within the B-1, B-2 and B-4 districts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building, nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line; except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any requir^ yard area from the principal building. (5) B-3 and I: height. Within any B-3 or 1 district, no sign shall extend in hei^ more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parqxt of any principal building. No sign shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line, except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. (Code 1984, $10.61(3)) April 19, tm ra«iior4 Dtit Appikatto* lUctiirtdt 3-17*04 Date AppllcalloB CoaiUtrad at Coaiptelt: 3-2S4M 120-Day Ravltw PBrlod Explm: S-24-M To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Froa: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^(r| Date: April IS, 2004 Subject: 04-3004. Bemhagen Development, IS3S Bohns Point Road -Sketch Plan Zoning District: LR - 1 B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: S.518 acres (240.308 s.f.) Appiiauiom Summivy: This is a sketch plan for a 3-lot residential plat of property abutting Lake Minnetonka. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and is currently served by City sewer. An existing single family residence is proposed to be removed with the creation of 2 new lots. Rtcommmtdatiom: While no formal action is required, this memo will provide a number of issues for discussion or to be addressed when the formal application is submitted. _________________________________________ Pcrtlacat Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Heigh. No structure or building in an LR-1B 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 observed; Lot An«(aa«)Lot Wi«a (feci)From Y«e (fat)SidiYwe Adjac«aito Another Lot (feet) Rear YirU (fat)StAcYtrdAAacaMto Sireot (fleet) 1 140 39 10 30 35 UstofEihiMts Exhibit A - Application Exhibit D - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C - Aerial Photograph SKETCH FLAN REVIEW Coofonnity with 2800-2020 Orono Conimuaity Management Flan The property is guided for single family residential use at a density of 1 unit per acre. The proposed plat conforms to this use. The property is located wi&in the MUSA and is served by City sewer. The proposed use is in conformity with the CMP. If. 2M4 Nfi2or4 RcUlkNuhip to Surrovniiiag Dcvciopncat This property abuts Lake Minnetonka placing the property within the Shoreland Overlay District. Smaller lots and commercial districts exist on the north side of North Shore Drive where the majority of the properties on Bohn’s Point arc developed at 1 acre sizes. CoaforaUty wMi Zoaiag District Lot Rcquirraicats The property is in the LR - IB. One Family Lakeshorc Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of one dry buildable acre. Each proposed lot is in excess of one acre total area and appears to contain the minimum of 1.00 acres of dry buildable land. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Currently, there is one base lot containing one home, which will be removed if the applicant goes forth with the platting of 3 lots. The lot layout is as follows: LR-IB Lot Aria Lot Width (at shoreline d 15 setback) Side Setback Street Setback Lake Setback (from 929.4' elevation) Average Lakeshore Setback Required 1.00 acres dry 140'at shoreline A 75' setback 30' *110’ Loti 1.77 acres (all dryl ____ 150' at shoreline 140’ at 75* setback 75' -110’ Lot 2 1.81 acres (1.63 acres dry) 157’at shoreline 152 ’at 75- setback 75’ 75’ setback is more restrictive due to lagoon Lot 3 1.83 acres (1.53 acres dry) 179’at shoreline 165’at 75* setback 75* setback is more restrictive due to lagoon In general all the lots will easily meet the Zoning District requirements. The lagoon will exist on lots 2 and 3 and is taken out of the acreage totals as shown in the above table. The location of the lagoon will have a different effect for hardcover and average lakeshore setbacks for lots 2 and 3. For example, all 3 lots will have a 0>75, 75’-250 ’, 2S0'-50O', and 500’-1000’ hardcover zones however lots 2 and 3 will have smaller areas in these zones and the 75’ setback will be more restrictive than the average lakeshore setback for lots 2 and 3. This is because the 75’ line is measured &om the edge of the li^oon on these lots, not from the natural shoreline. (Overall, development of large homes on these lots will easily meet all requirements. Lastly, all three lots will be subject to the 15% Lot Coverage by Structures ordinance per Section 78-1403 because aU lots are under 1.99 total acres. i ill AfHI 19. m* Acccst lot would htve its own driveway access off of Bohn*s Point Road. Park/Trail Eascaacnt or DcdicatioB Needed The CMP does not indicate any future trails : .v .ioiin’s Point Road therefore, no trail or paric easements would be required. Howevei, iwo park fees would be required to be paid for the 2 newly created lots. Those fees are ngural by 8% of the fair mvket value of the land or $5,530 per lot as a maximum. Assuming the lots are subject to the maximum fee at $5,550 per lot, a total park dedication fee of $11,100 would be required at the time of final plat. Elements Needed The applicant must dedicate the following easements: . Standard drainage and utility easements along all lot boundaries. This consists of 10* around the plat boundary lot lines and 5’ on the interior lot lines. StmranraCer ud Drainafc Improvemcati Development of the property may require creation of a NURP pond to collect runoff from the three lots. The applicants are advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if this would be required. The property will also be subject to the City ’s Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, established currently at S3.S10 per acre for the 1-acre zone. The total fee would be $18.989.10-$3,510 x 5.41 acres. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served City sewer and private wells. Private wells shall be setback 3* from structures. The property was frilly assessed for seuer in 1965. Two stubs exist to serve the property. The developer u^d be responsible for installing an additional stub. Laketborc Proximity and Coafomiily wltb Shorcland Regulations The property has approximately 486* of Shoreline on Lake Minnetonka and all shorcland restrictions apply. The applicanu are advised that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has jurisdiction over dock requirements, and if a permanent dock is proposed a City and LMCD permit is required. Summary of Fees Preliminary Plat - $750.00 $30.00 per lot = $840.00 Final Plat - $250.00 Legal Review and Filing - $280.00 ParkFees-21ots-$n.l00 Engiiieering Fees as incurred Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee - $18,898.10 AyHIlf.MM ratt4»f4 Imitf for CvMidanitiMi 1. The lots appear to easily meet nil requirements. The Planning Commission could confixm that the applicant understands the process and fees that would be required at the time of platting. 2. Arc diere any other issues or concerns with this plication? SuuMiy 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 prop^. Staff finds that the plan appears to meet all Zoning Ordmance requirements however, the Planning Commission should identify any areas for discussion and advise the applicants. The applicants will be required to submit a preliminary and fiital plat, including application fees and the fees discussed in this report. ^ Lii h \ if4 'k i 1 1 if i « I 4 }i i I i 1 ^ i 4 1 ♦ v *• ffrf 111 f f f R City of Orono exhibit a Subdivision Application Str§9t Mdnis: 2750 Keiisy Parkway Orono. MN 55356 AppJicaton# Main 952-249-45C0 fax: 9S2-249-4616 Mailing Addrass P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 This application form must ba complstad In full. Date Received: Amount Paid; Staff: Fee Renewal ?>S‘0 JAntct^ 35;/) oo PROPERTY INFORMATION: Sita Addrwa; Property Identification Number (PIN):'//7 ' ^3- (Attach legal description to application if not included oruhe survey.) Abstract or □ Torrens, please check oneData Property Acquired (mornh/year): Present use of property: ^^Residential Zoning District: ______ □ Other APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Completa legal names and mantaJ status required for each interested party) Name: PkrUzl^/^idnuT-'_____________ Phone (home); ^~2. -¥^/~ Phone (work). Address: Email: OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names ano mantal status required for each interested party) Name: A. _______ Phone (home): Address / Email: 0/t4T iZC. Phone (work): EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size: Present Use (check one) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land 44*7 Acres Wet Land W-. y Acres TOTAL, all parcels Ja^ Residential; Number of Units: □ Other (Specify) _L^/&____ Propoaal: □ Division for Tax Purposes □ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subcfivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density ^ Minimum Lot Size .Proposed Use (check) Z. * ‘rliLili Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres j ^uara Feet Dry BuildableLarvi •! . Vfl * SJeKwi-;- iiil.S ifi 1 If nif I iii mnNHUM MATERIAL REQUmgT COMW-ETg PWgLIlilMARY APPLIC ON 1. Paynwnt of fMt (rtfor to “apviication fMt' Uted b«iow). 2. Comptstad application form. 3 Praliminaiy plat information on Certificate of Suaey . CartHlad Property Ownen Lift of owner* witnm 350’ (yoj must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center. A-603 300 South 6 ” Street, Minreapolis. telephone 612-348-591C), g As an addendum to this application, please attach a seoarate :.st of any other persons you virsh notified of th s application. MINIMUM MATEWIAL REQUIRED FOR CQMPLgTE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fee* (refer to P-e' minary SutxJivision Approval resctuton and parit fee* if applicable). 2. Signed Certi^te of Survey or mylar ccp es of formal p.at 3 Tide opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, ate 5. Davalopers Agreement and Letter of Cred t APPUCAT!ON FEES (Zoning Adm-nistrator to check (X) those mticH apply) A. AppOeallon Bass Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & 111) S350 00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600 00 Subdivision Application (Class I & li) $600 00 Preliminary Subdivision Appkeaton $750 00 ♦ $30 CO/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) Rnal Plat Application (Class III) S2S0 00 Legal Review end Filing; ____ Subdivision only $140.00 Subdivieion w/eesements and covenants, mmimun $260 00 ♦ any adddena' costs Parti Feet (to be determined per Sect on 82-227) Legal and Engineering Review Pees (as incurred) ___Renewal of Class I. II, A III Subdivision and of t. Lot Lire Rearrangement Appticalicn $300 00 B. Special hnproveeaant Faaa: ___Proposed Private Roads $650 CO ■» $ 50 per imaai foot Proposed Pubic Roada $950 OO $.50 per lineal foot ,Iin. ft X £0 = $ lin.flx.S0»$ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950 00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Men Extension $275.00 ♦ $25/stub Proposed Watarmain Extensor $275 00 * S2Sl%luti Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 ____On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applcabie to rural suboivlsions) $60/par lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Feee/Mieceileneoue Feee ____Variance $600.00 - Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefitirg property ($600 minimum per appEcation) ____Easement Vacation Associated with a Subd vison $100 00 __ PRD Appkeation vrith Subdivision $35 00 per dwelling unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all informat on required or requested by Planning Department Staff, City Engineer, City Atto^ey.'yian^iffg Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agps« tp^^^^^cbtional fe^festablished by ordinance. Dll.! 1-1^/Applicant's Signature: Owner's Signature:As Data: 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 arvj 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 assianed to your prpiect of this change prior toth«mM«ng. ‘ 1 1 L M- : i T ' i Vn y r i P ^ J f l: £. 1 J ! * V i * ® * • *» •• Mitlili EXHIBIT B SKETCH PLAN FOR BERNHAGEN DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1. BETH AND BRIDGET HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA t S •••40'M- C 8TM7 LAKE MINNETONKA « 12 ' 7 /' / / : rr-w-o^s \ ■'■"vXm.'.'' ’• tiiaiJi *• suRvn: \ LfC i«£zsrsLiiMr CRYSTAL BAY ; v'v\\ / • ''x '0\ \ » \ \ O / OOSTINC MOUX \ N V V \ \ ' ' 2. ( TO BE REMOVED .^// * '» 44 '* '» V • I '» ^ ___A/ \ ^ V \ \ \ \\ 'V*^; 5;-±: ’«fi PROPOSED DIVIDING LINES ; : 2tLr:3r,sli>A:^ ^ ' V M ^'11-'sil .'-V J.• V^. <•£ .f ■ ■ ■ ; • 4 • f,/ «r -|, . ,>. ,'fc^'i •>»:•’,r »• ‘ V- v'^ f 1 iV'w,- e ■ 11^ ■ - M ■li'S^'WSr;C.is\*>, f. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15.2004 6 00 o’clock p.m. __________ ROLL The Commission met on the aboN e mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith; Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, David Rahn. J. Marc Fntzlcr, Stephanie Zugschw ert. Jeanne Mabusth and Alternate Janice Berg; Representing staff were Planning Director Mike GafTron. Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach. and Recorder Joan Ellis. Chair Sandra Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. 04-2986 JEFF NUTE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS CORP. ON BEHALF OF SHAWN VAILLANT, 847 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of AppHr9(ion MM-2986. Natural Environments Corp. on behalf of Shaw n Valliani, 847 Tonkaw a Road, granting a Conditional Use Permit subject In the follow ing City Engineer's recommendations being met: 1. The proposed waNs wiil not exceed 3-fcet in height and will be screened with vegetation. 2. Walls are to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specificalions provided. 3. Heavy-duty silt fence with steel t-posls must be Installed and remain along the shoreline through out the duration of the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilised and vegetation is established. \‘OTE: Ayes 7, nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. »03-2928 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SIIADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (6:05-6:24 P.M.) Mike Mischke. the applicant, was present. Planning Director GafTron explained that this item was tabled at the Commission’s August 18, 200,'t meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to re-think his attached garage & second story addition project. Great concern was expressed about adding a second story that will be so close to the house to the north. It was noted specifically that encroachment of both side setbacks was not reasonable, and applicant needs to keep one side open for access alongside the house. The proximity of the garage .addition to the neighbor’s garage to the south w as also a concern. There was some support for encroaching the 0-75’ zone with garatje in order to maintain an open south side. Page I of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock pm_____________ (#2. #03^28 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SHADY\%’OOD ROAD, VARIANCES, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINi;<Coafiaiicd) Variances required include 0-75’ and 75-250’ hardcover, sireel setback, lake setback, and side setbacks. The magnitude and hardcover zone balance differs between the two options. For either option. lot coverage is proposed at 1490 s.f. just under the 1500 s.f. limit for this small loU Applicant has considered a variety of options for expansion of the house itself and has given up for now on those additions. Mr. Mischke provided two potential revised site plans for a detached 20 X 20’ 2-stall garage for consideration. Plan A and Plan B and is requesting to be able to build a lO’xlO’ deck on the lake suli of the house, 42’ from the lake at its closest point. Plan A IS applicant’s preferred option. It places a detached side-loading garage 13’ from the house, 5’ from the north lot line and 7 ’ from the street lot line. It open? to the south, and leaves an area of about 20’ x 25’ for on-site parking and maneuvering allowing two large vehcles to be parked outside the garage without hanging into the street. Plan A results in 0-75’ hardcover of 26.6% and 75-250’ hardcover of 57.3%. Ov erall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2378 s.f. or 34.4% of the entire lot. Plan B IS an alternate suggested by staff to reduce the hardcover. It places the garage 10' from the house, 5’ from the north lot line and 9.8’ from the street lot line. It opens to the street, and leaves a depth of I0’-I8’ in front of the garage for parking of one smaller vehicle and one larger vehicle, and includes a 20’xl0’ side apron for additional parking for complete on-site parking. This plan leaves the entire south 15’ of the lot in yard area. Plan B results in 0-75’ hardcover of 31.3% and 75-250’ hardcover of 38.3*'». Overall hardcover, including the 10x10 deck, is 2285 s.f or 33.0*/o of the entire lot. The applicant’s primary intent at this time is to remove the existing deteriorated detached garage and replace it w ith a larger detached garage. With the new proposu:.>. the main entry to the residence will remain as the door at the SW comer of the house w ith the existing stoop. Applicant still proposes to add non-hardcover w alkwaya and non-lined landscape beds around the residence (see site plan). A condition of approval would be a stipulation that these remain as non-hard surface areas, not paved and without fabric or plastic undcrlavTiient. Applicant is also requesting approval for a 10’ x 10’ main floor deck \tending from the existing door at the lakeside of the house. The deck will be 42’ from the she nc. and in itself w ill constitute approximately 2*b hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. This deck u clearly fur the convenience of the applicant, and staff does not see a hardship that supports it. The second story is not proposed with this application. Gaffron reported that staff would recommend approval of the setback variances for the detached garage in either of Plans A or B as presented and approval of a hardcover variance for either Plan Page 2 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March i5, 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m._____________ #03^28 MIKE MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING-Contlmicd) A or B, but not tor the 10* x 10* deck; and with appropriate conditions placed on use of non- hardcover materials for walkwa>’s. Structural Coverage. Structural coverage on the property will increase from 1333 s.f. to exactly 1490 $.f. as allowed by code. The result is that 21.5% of the lot will be coN cred by structure. Hardcover. Hardcover on the prop ity in both 0-75* and 75-250’ zones with either plan will be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The trade-off between plans is that the hardcover is greater in the 0-75* zone with Plan B. but its overall hardcover is 93 s.f. less than Plan A. There were no public comments. Ralin ami Fritzler agree that Plan B makes vehicle turnaround difficult. Mabusth complimented the applicant on the planned landscaping of the project. Gaffron stated he has no problem with cither Plan A or B. Chair Sandra Smith moved, Mabaslb seconded to recommend approval of Application #03-2938, Michael Mlschke, 1972 Shad>^ood Road, granting a variance for the deck to incorporate both of the landings and the stairs not exceeding 100 square feet with as much of that square footage to the side of the house; and granting a variance to build a detached garage under Plan B relative to hardcover, and relative to ease of getting in and out of the property. Motion was amended to add that the deck cannot exceed a four-fool projection toward the lakeshore from the back of the house. Bremer asked if this motion would only allow Plan B. Chair Smith lesponded affirmatively. VOTE: Ayes: 3, nays 4. Motion died. Bremer moved, Zugsebwert seconded to recommend approval of the same Application #03- 2938, granting a variance for the deck to incorporate both of the landings and Che stairs not exceeding 100 square feet with as much of that square footage to the side of the house and the deck not to exceed four feet toward the lakeshore from the back of the house; and granting a variance to build a detached garage under Plan A. VOTE: A>rs: 5, nass 2. Motion passed. Gaffron staled to Mr. Mischke that the application will go before City Council Monday, March 22.20^4. Page 3 of 48 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m.___________ 3. M>4-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY “STONEBAY .MARKETPLACE**, NW QUADRANT HMY l2A%'ILLOW DRIVE (OtTLOT A, STONEBAY) COMMERCIAL SITE PI.AN REVIEW. REZOMNG. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND SUBDIVISION (6:25-7:05 P.M.) Chair Smith stated that this is solely a Comp Plan Amendment discussion. Mr. Trauti and .Mr. Johnston, the applicants. ere present. Planning Director Gaffron explained that the meeting packet that Commission received didn't include backsides of pages and there is a new packet in front of you containing the correct pages. Gaffron stated this is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment for a re-zomng of property at the NW comer of Highway 12 and Willow Mve. The applicant has been before the Commission a number of times in the last few months. It w as reviewed at the February 17 meeting at which time the Commission concentrated on a list of acceptable uses for re-zoning the property (Exhibit G attached). The request was tabled and a joint work session w ith Long Lake Panning Commission was held March 3. 2(K)4 w here a discussion of current and pcndii-g ac.u .•i'*s along Highway 12 was held and discussed whether re-zoning this site might impact redevelopment efforts in Long Lake. After review ing this project over the last few months, staff concluded that the applicant needed some guidance that resulted in the March 1,2004 letter to tlie applicant (Exhibit B). Based on the fact that that applicants have been advised to come up with a different site plan it is critical, from a timing standpoint and for (he applicant, that the Commission reach a conceptual conclusion on whether or not the Commission is ready to establish parameters and go ahead with the Comp Plan Amendment and a re-zoning. Fonnal action is not being sought at this time, but direction from the Commission is needed conceptual!), that if the number of conditions \ou established can be met that the Commission is willing to make that commitment and that would be taken by staff to the City Council next Monday. .March 22. The recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment must be made at this meeting in order to conform to the statutory 120-day review period, which ends Apnl 15 (prior to the next commission meeting). Staff recommends that Planning Commission; D iscuss and make a recommendation to Council as to w hether the CMP should be amended to re-guide the site from pnmanly offiee to primarily retail uses. I.If you recommend in fas or of the an..rMlmcnt. you should also do the lollowing: a) Review and confirm the list ' ulowed zoning uses you determined arc appropriate for this property; and b) Review carefully the dex elopment goals and parameters laid out in the staff letter of .March I and confirm whether these are conditions that should be incorporated into the text of a CMP amendment. Page 4 of 48 r. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m._____________ (#3. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE", NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY I2A% ILLOW DRINT lOUTLOT A, STONEBAY" COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Conlinucd) GafTron stated that site plan issues discussion could be postponed to a future meeting. There were no public comments. In regards to the March 1,2004 letter, Mabusih reiterated the Commission’s continuing concerns about the lack of adequate parking felt necessary, the need to take advantage of providing a view of the pond with windows and everything facing “in” and how plans from the applicant ne\ er seem to incorporate the Commission’s concerns. Mabusth continued stating that the Commission has accepted the 60-stall Walgreen parking allotment reorientation of entry to the southwest side. GafTron confirmed that is correct for that lot. but for the balance of the site, city code for parking requirements would prevail. Chair Smith asked what is currently allowed on this site according to the current Comp Plan. Gaffron responded that the use is currently for professional offices with ancillary retail that would support the office use, such as a coffee shop. GafTron continued suting w hen the applicant came tc he city with primarily a retail plan w ah tw o thirds of the site being retail, that resulted in the need for a Comp Plan Amcniiuir'^v Walgreen’s is more than one-third of the site. The bank would be considered office under current code. Chair Smith asked what would be acceptable under the current Comprehensive Plan language. GafTron responded no more than one-fourth can be retail, in his opinion. Chair Smith stated the question for the Commission is whether to deviate from what the Comp Plan calls for w hich is office and ancillary retail versus more retail and some office. GafTron responded that is correct. Chair Smith stated that what the applicant proposes makes some sense for the neighborhood. Chair Smith always wanted to sec it be more in-scrv ice and more related to the rest of the Slone Bay development than is currently proposed Chair Smith agrees that the March 1,2004 letter lays out criteria that meet ha desires. Chair Smith asked the mc.nbers if thae is a compelling reason to move away from the Comp Plan or should they stay w ith what w as pul in the plan not that long ago. If the decision is not to move away from the current plan, then the city should wait until an applicant comes before the city w ith the current use as directed in the Comp Plan. Page S of 48 iHu MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS, 2(H;4 6:00 o ’clock ^m. ____ ____ (W. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE**, NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY I2AVILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOT A, STONEBAY** COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Coationcd) A poll was taken of the niembers: Smith: Interested in retail and services that would serve Stone Bay and the immediate community, and not in favor of a development that veers away from the Comp Plan, especially if feeling nished. Fritzler Initially, thinking this was a pretty good use and may be worth making a CMP change, but aOer meeting with the Long Lake Planning Commission and some of the questions and thinking that came out of the meeting it became evident we aren't liearing anything from Walgreen’s. Also didn't think the idea of the bank is going to be realized. Rather than seeing the bank comer go to more retail, the idea of keeping the area more ofllce type use and making the assumption that the residential development is going to flourish quickly it may be a better idea not to deviate from the current CMP with tl.e future un'anown. Once built, the developer is out of the community and the city and community has to live with what remains. If criteria could be set. then may be in favor, but not currently in favor. Bremer: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The Long Lake meeting w as excellent and she got a lot out of it, but she is interested in keeping the rural flavor of the city intact, but it really is a city council decision to change the CMP. If the council decides to change the CMP. then the commission could give the council as much guidance as possible by having a list of uses that could be recomntendod. Zugschwest: Not in favor of amending the CMP. Rahn: Less in favor of amending the CMP than was in the beginning. If city were being rushed into making a decision, would be opposed to amending the CMP Mabusth: Feels commission is being rushed. Why does it hav e to be all retail? What can't one of the lots be office use - given the right mix of use may be in favor of amending the Comp Plan, Berg: Not in favor of amending the CMP. The city just put the CMP together and to make a change we need to look at all the possibilities and what exactly we want to see for the city. In favor of amending the CMP: Jeanne Mabusth Not in favor of amending the CMP: Berg. Fntzler, Smith, Rahn, Zugschwest. Bremer Mr. Trauiz suted they have review ed Mr. Gaffron’s letter of March 1 and feel confident that the majority of requests can be accomplished. He said that in talking with potential bu>%rs of Stone Bay residential area a grocery store is exactly what they don't want. They feet they have come back with retail uses that correspond with other retail use at that intersection. They feel it is a Page 6 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. ___________ (#3. #04-2^74 RELIANCE DEVELOPiMENT COMPANY, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE”. NORTHWEST QUADRANT HIGHWAY 12/WILLOW DRIVE (OLTLOT A, STONEBAY” COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW', REZOMNG, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION-Continued) retail intersection. In talking about what serves the residents* immediate needs, office space brings people from out of the area to this site. Mr. Ttuk feels the current site plan being worked on is looking at all the criteria, including having the site face “in”, and to try and find \va>i to incorporate pond aesthetics can be accomplished. In regards to signing tenants, can’t move forv^’ard to accomplish until the uses are decided. The neighborhood of Stone Bay does support concept and uses proposed at this site. Mr. Trautz also felt they were at a positive place five months ago. Chair Smith stated that the applicant has been extraordinarily patient with the commission over the last five months. When a Comp Plan is put in place, members feel being rushed may feci like years instead of months when considering making a fairly large comprehensive change. In regards to reviewing the list of approved uses (Exhibit G), Mabusth voiced a concern over approving item #21 “Retail food of all varieties and home supplies” that might include restaurants. Gaffron explained that restaurants would be covered under a CUP list. Retail foods would apply to Walgreen's that will sell some retail foods. The question is at what level that store becomes a grocery store and is there some limitation >ou would like to put on it. The Commission determined that #21 would stay on the list. Mabusth suggested a disclaimer to say they couldn't have a drive up w indow. Gaffron said that the Conditional Use list would be amended and say that any of the uses that are permitted retail and service business uses as w ell as B-6 permitted uses, if it’s a drive-through a's a CUP. Commission recommends applicant go before council, get a conclusion on the Comp Plan amendment, then come back to Planning Commission with a revised site plan, if necessary. Bremer stated, and the entire Commission agreed, that Exhibit G is the compilation of uses for the council to review with the CUP disclaimer addition. Tlie Commission agreed that all points in the letter of March I clearly staled the Commission’s desires. No formal motion needed at this time, given the clear direction of the polling. No fomial minutes from the Long Lake joint meeting w ere taken. Page 7 of 48 r • 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m.___________ NEW BUSINESS 4. »04-29S2 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD. AFTER- THE-FACT VARIANCES (7:06-7:25 P.M.) Claryce B. and Lyle K. Johnson, the Applicants, were present. Curtis explained that CIar>ce and Lyle Johnson are the properly owners at 1398 Rest Point Road. The current use of the property is for rental and in the summer of 2003 did some interior re modeling and constructed the grade level deck at that time. As they did not require permits for the interior improvements, the applicants believed a pcmiil was not required for the deck. Tonight they arc requesting an aflcr-the-fact hardcover variance for the 0'-75* in the 75' to 250' /one and an aAer-thc-fact lake setback variance for the deck. The hardcover level in the 0'-75' zone is 1.14%; the 75'-250' zonewiih the deck is43.2% hardcover. Without the deck, the 75 ’-250’ zone was 41.3% and the 0*-75 ’ was zero. The after-the-fact lakeside setback variance for the deck which is located 70' from the lake where 75' is required. Planning staff recommended denial of the after-the-fact variances as no hardship has been identified to allow this 60 square feet of hardcover within the 0'-75' /one and for the 114 square feet within the 75'-250* zone or the five foot encroachment to the lake setback. Chair Smith clarified that this request is to replace an existing deteriorating deck although no photos have been found to substantiate that there was a previous deck. A|H)licant stated that the original deck existed in the 1940's. In 1963 that deck w as replaced and enlarged and the most recent deck would be the third replacement. Chair Smith stated that normally the commission is sympathetic to rotting decks but the commission needs something to indicate that it is a safe setting for the homeowner. The commission also needs substantiation that there w as a deck previous ..nd w ithout it makes the decision to approve new constniction a lot harder. Applicant had in her possession this evening a picture of the first deck built in the 1940's and offered it to Curtis. Chair Smith asked Curtis if the photo shown this ev emng made a difference in her recommendation Page 8 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m._____________ (M. MM-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, I39S REST POINT ROAD, AFTER- THE-FACT VARlANCES-Co«tinued) Curtis stated that the deck in the photo actually looks like a landing. She stated she talked to the assessors about how big they would have indicated, a deck versus nothing on the property that just would have been a landing. The assessor responded that if the object were a landing it would not be indicated on the assessor’s report. Chair Smith stated the photo looked like a landing. Applicant stated they called it a porch in those days. Chair Smith also indicated that to the commission, a landing is important for safety. Hennepin County Assessor visited the site in the summer of 2000 and a deck was not noted on the site plan (Exhibit E). Applicant stated this is a floating deck and they are amenable to amending the deck. Chair Smith stated the current deck is I4-I/2* by 12*. Bremer asked what the si/c was before 1963. Applicant responded the deck was 12’ x 5’ and that the lakeshore has eroded over the >'ears. Chair Smith asked staff what would be allowed today as a landing to provide a safe entrance and exit to this property. stated that a 3* x 3* landing is considered safe for building code standards as a minimum including steps. Mabusth stated that the neighboring homes extend a great deal towards the lake. Staff iiKlicated the current deck extends 14-12’ bc>ond the home five feet into the 0-75* setback. Audience member Ralph Kemp, 3675 Togo Road, stated the deck should not extend beyond the 75* and in looking at the photos the house next door does protrude well beyond the deck. Chair Smith asked staff what size that would make the deck. Staff responded 12’ x 9-1/2*. Mabusth slated that this is not an average lakeshore situation in temis of blocking the view from each other. Chair Smith informed the uppheants that 25% hardcover is allowed on the property and this property is at 43.2% hardcover in the 75’-25* zone and asked staff if here are any hardships that Page 9 of 48 iffrtiliihiiiiii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#4. MM-2982 CLARYCE AND LYLE JOHNSON, 1398 REST POINT ROAD, AFTER- THE-FACT VARIANCES-Conltattcd) should be considered. Staff responded that the road is difTicult to park on and get in and out and that the driveway is not excessive in size. Mabusth stated this is a hardship lot It has the 0-7S* on both sides indicating a peninsula. Rahn stated that no steps should go into the 0-75* so steps should be on the side of the house. Mabusth noted there is no hardcover in the yard and as long as the deck part is removed it is zero percatt in the 0’-75’ zone. Bremer asked applicant what they think about reducing the deck to 1963 size. Applicant said they wish to keep the deck large enough to place one or two chairs because as people get older they arc not as active getting around. Applicant stated they had no problem in reducing the deck to meet the 75* setback including steps to the side. Rahn stated he would be satisfied with a 50 square foot deck or 5* x 10*. big enough for two chairs. Applicant again asked for 5* x 12* deck. Chair Smith asked staff to sketch on the plan what that size deck w ould look like - a grade level deck that would not extaid into the 0'-7S* setback with steps to the side. Steps that extend tow ard the lakeside but do not extend into the 0-75* w ould be approved as w ell as long as the deck is not made any w ider. Mabusth moved aad Chair Smith sccoaded to approve the after-the-fact variance applicatioB for #05-2982 for Clar>ce and Lyle Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road allowiag the existing deck to be altered to a S* x 12* diroeasioB, stairs to be constmeted towards the lake side but not extending into the 0*-75* setback area and be three feet in width. %'OTE: Ayes: 7 nays 0. 5. #04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE. AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:24 - 7:43 P.M.) The applicants are requesting the follow mg variances: 1. Aftcr-lhe-fact hardcover variance w ithin the 75*-250* zone to allow 58.2^i hardcover where 25% is allowed and 52.2‘e was previously approved. 2. AOer-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*. Page 10 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m.____________ (#S. M04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY. 60S PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE -CoaliBiied) 3.Aftcr-(he-fact average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 3.5 ’ into the average lakeshore setback with the newly constructed deck. 4. After-the-fact structural coverage variance to allow 2 1.4% structural coverage w here 1.500 s.r. (17%) is allowed. Hardship: Staff does not find liardships to support the after-the-fact variances. The applicants, Sean and Leah Daly, arc the property owners at 605 Park Lane. This property is .2 acres. The applicants arc requesting after-thc-facl vananccs in order to allow newly constructed decks to remain, arid allow re-construction of a new 2"’’ story deck. After purchasing the propc.ty the applicants removed the existing decks that were rotted, unsafe and not functionally efticient 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 w ere required, the applicants replaced the decks. The applicants arc also requesting to replace a 2"*‘ story deck (36 s.f) on the lakeside of the property. The existing house is set back 3.2* from the side property line where a 10' setback is required. The deck, which was replaced, encroached equally into the side yard setback. The applicants, in rebuilding the deck, have maintained the setback at 4.2 ’ from the side lot line where 10* is required. The previous owners received variance approval for a garage addition in 1986. which limited the 75’-250* zone to a total of 52.2% hardcover, and the 0-75 ’zonc to 2.5% (sec Exhibit J). Since 1986, a shed, decks, driveway, and additional hardcover have been added to the property without City approval. The applicants have removed approximately 142 s.f of hardcover from the 75’- 250* setback zone, including a paved sidew alk 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 properly would have been reviewed and the new, un-permitted. 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 v^erc reconstructed by the applicants Histoncally, in review ing similar applications, staff has consistently applied 0-75 ’ setback zone hardcover overages to the 75’-250* zones. This property currently has 10.17% hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone where none is allow ed. Consequently, the 420 s.f of hardcov er m the 0-75 ’ zone shall be applied to the 75’-250 ’ zone, which brings the hardcover level for the 75’-250 ’ zone from 58.2 % to 67%. Page 11 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m._________ («. W04-29U SEAN AND LEAH DALEY. 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE -Contiaiicd) The level of hardcover and the substandard setbacks are not uiKommon in this neighborhood where smalt lots and lack of on-street 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 tlie 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 legally request^. 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. Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Staff 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. Howev er, due to the fact that size and location of the decks (which were replaced) were not approved by the City, there are no hardships for which to justify allowing bigger decks than were approved to remain. In addition, to base subsequent hardcover levels and approvals on unapproved decks would not be in keeping with the City's practice. Therefore staff does not find that a hardship exists to allow the current level of hardcover on the property. A letter from the applicant’s neighbors, Shane and Kris Rud* ^>1 ? irk Lane is included in the packet supporting the reconstructed deck because of increav. ‘ -sr y and in receiving an after- the-fact variance for both the deck and the side yard setbacks (a •ched). Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, and average lake setback variances. Applicants stated they were concerned that the existing decks on the property when they purchased the home were rotting and the second story deck was ready to fall off the house with large gaps * le deck boards that were dangerous for their children. The sellers did not tell them Page 12 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#5. #04-2988 SEAN AND I.LAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE -ContUiued) that the decks were non-compliant. Applicant was told the square footage on the home w as the maximum allow able footprint as long as you stay within the existing footprint with improvements. They started simply trying to repair the decks, but that turned into having to replace the decks. Chair Smith slated that if permits had been properly applied for that the commission likely wouldn’t have granted them at the time. Applicant asked what is the diTrence between repair and replacement. Chair Smith stated that the decks installed by Ute pre\ .,> iS owners shouldn't have been there in the first place. Chair Smith answered the applieant’s questions by slating that the commission could allow for safe lan>'::igs out of doors, but not allow ing for the reconstruction of the deck in its full si/e. as it previously existed before it started to rot. Gaffron said that the building inspector would likely go out and view the deck with the applicant or his builder and look at w hat n^s to be replaced, w hat can be salvaged and normally if it looks like it will be more than what can be costly replaced the inspector w ill consider it a total re build. Gaffron funher stated that in many circumstances repairs do turn into re-builds. Rahn asked how many square feel in the decks? He voiced concern on how the square footage went from 110 square feet approved in 1986 to 259 square feet currently. Zugschwert asked for the current deck size today? 225 square feet total, including the stairs (not the upper deck). (Exhibit B). The upper deck is over the lower deck. Rahn asked if the sliding doors on the home at the upper deck w'crc always there. Applicant confirmed the doors were always there. Rahn inquired about the shed. Audience member Shannun Berger. 594 Parkway, moved in five years before the applicants aiuJ the stated that the shed was there. Berger stated that the deck was very unsafe for young children. Audience member John Erickson. 1620 Shadyxvood. stated he believes applicant should be able to replace the old decks because the real estate agent represented the property as conforming They are trying to retain w hat they have. Curtis stated the gravel portion of the driveway is 220 square fed. A 599 square fool dnveway with backup apron w as approved in 1986 and the hardcover today includes the current blacktop driveway of 573 square feet and gravel portion of 220 square feet totaling 793 square feet. Page 13 of 48 Mm MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. .March 15. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (OS. «04-2988 SEAN AND LEAH DALEY, 605 PARK LANE, AFTER TIIE-FACT VARIANCE -Continued) Rahn stated there is recourse against the previous owner. Tite shed needs to be re-located out of the 0-75’. Howev er, applicant may not be able to re-locate to be out of the zone, so may have to be removed from the property to be conforming. The deck should meet the average lakcshorc setback Rahn moved, Zugschwert seconded approval of #04-2988 After-the-Fact variance for Sean and Leah Daly, 605 Park Lane to remove the shed out of the 0*-7S* zone, removing portions of the deck that encroach In the average lakeshore setback and no more than 36 square fool second story deck so as to not increase hardcover. Chair Smith asked Rahn if an amendment to the motion could stale that this property has reached Its maximum hardcover. Rahn stated he doesn't like to predict the future. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0. Five minute break. 6. #04-2989 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD, PRELl.MINARY SUBDIVISION (7:91-8:00 P.M) Christopher Dicsen. the applicant, was present. Curtis stated that Christopher Dicsen is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision at 1100 Townline Ro?-.. The property is located on the east side of Townline Road between Watertown Road and the l 'u^lington Northern Railroad. On the west side of Townline Road is the City of Independence. The current zoning for the property is RR-l.X. One Family Rural Residential District that requires fivc-aerc minimum lot sizes, llic property is guided for Rural Residential in 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of five acres. The 13.79-acrc property contains wetland and has areas of challaiging topography to the cast. Lot 1 (Tract A on overhead) has total of 6.14 acres w ith 5.985 buildable acres. The wetland is to the front of the lot along Townline Road. Lot 2 has 7 65 acres with 7.58 dry buildable acres. With the exception of the vanance request for a lot width, this lot meets RRIA standards. The applicant is proposing the side-by-side subdiv ision as opposed to the back lot due to the topography of the eastern portion of the property and the proposed 220 feet lot w idth for Lot I and 270 for Lot 2 have been deemed satisfactory by staff. Reasonable building envelopes have been determined and all setbacks w ill be met for buildings w ithin the reduced lot w idths. No vanances w ill be needed. Feasible, preliminary and altcnuie septic sites hav c been identified and approved by the city by the septic inspector. Both lots arc proposed to be served by the existing dri\ eway w ith access easements. Based on the information provided, the preliminary Page 14 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS. 2004 6:00 o’clock p m. __________ IV04-2989 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD, PRELIMINARY SLBDIVISION-Coiitinurd) plat meets city requirements and the planning dcparlmcm recommends approval of the application. Chair Smith inquired about the letter from neighbor Dick Rudd and if there was any impact on this application. GafCron stated the neighbor to the north was concerned if the surv cy was correct. The survey has been deemed correct. The property has been torrensed and where the lot line is indicated is correct. The fence is on the applicant’s lot line. No comments from the public. Mabusih moved, seconded by Fritalcr the approval of Application it04«2989,1100 Townlinc Road, approving a 2-lol subdivision of some 13.79 acres within the five-acre loning district of the city. Each lot meets and exceeds the area requirement except for the lot width and the lot wridth has been found to be adequate by the staff. It is on a dead end road aad consistent with the lot widths of the adjacent properties w ithin the five-acre cone. Also, this approval is based on findings of satisfactory septic testing for these two rural lots, having both the primary and alternate site. This approval is subject to the following conditioas: 1. Implementatioo of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Implementalion of the reconimendaliotts of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submbslon 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. No trail is shown on the roadway. VOTE: Ayes: 7; nays 0 7. A04-2990 PATRICK AND LORING KAVENEY, 1444 BAl.DtR PARK ROAD. variance (8:00 - 8:05 PM) Patrick and Loring Kaveney, the applicants, w ere present Patrick and Loring Kaveney arc the property ow ners of 1444 Baldur Park Road. The property is 0.19 acre located within the LR-IC half-acre zoning district. The applicants arc requesting lot area, lot w idth, and hardcover variances in order to construct a new residence at 1444 Baldur Park Road on a lot 8600 square feet in area and 47 feet w ide w here 21.780 square feet of area and 100 feet of widdt are normally required. Hardcover variance is requested in order to construct a 1,500 square foot home, 582 square foot driveway, 127 square foot sidewalk, and a minimal 121 square foot deck. The lot area and lot width variances are a formality in re-builds Page 15 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (»7. PATRICK AND LORING KA\ ENEY, 1444 BALDL'R PARK ROAD, VARlANCEConttautd) where Ihc lot of record docs not conform to the requirements of the zoning district. The hardcover variance is not an uncommon request for this neighborhood. The city code 78-1403 allows the applicant structural coverage on iheir lot of 1 5% or 1500 square feet, w hichever is greater. The 1 500 square foot footprint consists of 29**o hardcover within the 75’-250' zone. With the addition of the driveway, minimum sidewalk and deck all meeting setbacks of the zoning district, this brings the property to 44.98*!o hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone with having zero percent hardcover in the 0'-75' zone. As the size of the lot serves as the hardship in this situation, planning department staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Chair Smith said it looks like driveway access looks adequate and is asking Cunis if she agrees. The property has reached maximum hiudeover and the city doesn't want applicants coming back asking for more driveway. Staff responded that it is a two-car wide driveway that tapers at the road. There were no public comments. Bremer stated this application should be used as a model. Bremer moved, Ralin seconded to approve Applicalion W04-2990, Patrick and Loring Kaveney. 1444 Baldnr Park Road approving the requested v?( W .v.,. area, lot width and hardcover and according to the application nnmbers and find nPn> iw. Hardship here is the lot width. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0 8. 804-2991 PAT FLEMING,4760 NORTH ARM DRIVE W. N’ARIANCE (8:05-8:10 P.M.) Pat Fleming, the applicant was present. Curtis staled that Ihc Fleming property is located within the RR-IB. two-acre minimum zoning distnet. The applicant is requesting variances from the 50' front yard setback requirement as well as a variance from City Code 78-1435. which requires detached garages and accessory structures to be located behind the principal building setback. A creek bed runs down the side of Ihc “L” shaped property with the home and the e.\isting driveway on the eastern half Septic systems soil treatment areas arc located directly behind the home to the north. Therefore, due to topographic features, the location of the septic system and the orientation of the home on the property satisfy that there is a hardship to allow for the detached garage to be located in the front of the principal building. Staff, however, uoes not find a hardship for the encroachment of the required 50’ front yard setback. Page 16 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS. 2004 __________6:00 o’clock p m._____________ (M. «04>2991 PAT FLEMING, 4760 NORTH ARM ORl\'E M. VARIANCE-Coaliiued) Planning staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the detached garage to be located closer to the street than the principal structure and denial of the request for a reduced front yard setback. Applicant has agr^ to meet the SO* front >'ard setback in discussions they had tonight w ith the planner. Applicant confirmed he agreed to meet the 50' front yard setback. Chair Smith asked the applicant ifhe is w ilting to shield the view from the golf course to the south with additional trees. Applicant responded that he is willing to shield with additional trees but asked how many and what type. Staff will work with applicant to give him some direction and not be over burdensome. GafTron asked the number of acres of this property. Applicant responded l.S acres. He asked if horses would be on the property. Applicant responded no. Commission staff members agreed that the new configuration works better for this property site. Applicant stated that Curtis W’as very helpful in re-thinking the design on the garage to meet the SO’ setback requirement. The applicant will turn the garage so the garage door and entrance face the east and the gable end garage door goes away and gable end will now face North Arm Drive. There were no public comments. Fritder moved, hlabiisth seconded to approve the variance request for #04-2991, Pat Flemiag, 4760 North Arm Drive, aotiag that the property* b now conforming on the street setback and changing the angle of the garage rotating it 90 degrees and working with staff to shield the view from the golf conrse to the south with trees. \'OTE: Ayes: 7; nays 0 9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SIIADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCFS (8:12-8:50 P.M.) Ron Potas, the applicant, was present. Gundlach indicated that the applicant requests the follow ing variances in order to replace an c.xisung */i story w iih a full 2"^ story and to change pieces of the roof that arc currently Hat to pitched, all while staying within the c.xistiiig footprint' 1. Side setback variance 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-confomiing setback are a current flat roof w ill convert to a pitched, hipped roof 2. Average lakcshore setback variance to allow an encroachment of 10’ into the average lakcshorc setback when a 10’ encroachment currently exists. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 42‘?i liardcovcr in the 75’ - 250’ <tonc when 25% is r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m.__________ («9.1^04*2992 RON POT AS. 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES^oatinucd) Gundlach indicated that the existing '/i story will be tom off to constmet a full second story, and the sections of roof that are currently flat will change to pitched, all while sta>ing w ithin the existing footprint of the current I '/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 w alls of the first floor as w ell as the foundation, flooring, and existing grade level deck, which got variance approvals in I992. In staffs opinion the work proposed doesn’t seem to reach the 50f <» \olumc or value threshold and therefore isn’t being reviewed as a rebuild. However, Gundlach indicated it is important to discuss the particulars of w hat is being removed and what is being proposed as new and the comparison of before and after appearances of the exterior envelope of the home. Gundlach went on to discuss the changes to each floor as follows: The applicant has stated that an interior remodel of the first floor is proposed. 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 w ill remain w ithin the first floor but w ill be remodeled. All perimeter walls will remain as well as the flooring and deck on the lakeside, w hich again, receixed approval in 1992 through the variance process. The '/i story w ill be taken off and replaced with a full second story. Currently, dormers make up the '/a story. The section of the house encompassing those dormers will become a full story, where the current angled walls w ill become straight w ith a pitched roof above. The areas above the garage and the northeast comer of the home w ill not become a full second story, but the flat roof w ill be replaced w ith a pilch. A panial basement exists as well as craw l spaces that were added after initial construction of the home. These spaces w ill not be touched w ith 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. Gundlach continued that current setback on the northw est side of the lot is confomiing at the house (21.5 feet) but is only S 6 feet at the attached garage. The applicant isn’t proposing a full story above the garage but a flat roof w ill be replaced with a pitched roof and become a Vi story w ith w indows 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 would encroach less than the overhangs of the flat roof. Gundlach indicated that all of the proposed changes will take place w ithin the 75’ - 250’ zone. No new hardcover is proposed and the changes will take place within the existing Page 18 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 ____ 6:00 o’clock p m. ______ (»9. #04-2992 RON POT AS, 2190 Sll ADVWOOD ROAD VARl ANCES-CMtinHcd) footprint of the home. A hardcover variance is required because the existing hardcover is non-conforming at 42% when 25% is nomially allowed. One minor change, not in hardcover but llie envelope of the existing home, is that 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 S' or 32 square feet. This does not constitute additional hardcover but it is changing from merely hardcover to structural coverage. Gundlach added an average lakeshore setback xariance 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-confonning setback a variance is required. At the comer where the greatest encroachment into the setback is occurring, a full second story isn't proposed as illustrated in the elevations. However, pieces of the home that were currently flat or a '/< 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, w as rebuilt in 2002 further from the lake than the past home creating the change in the average lakeshore setback line causing the applicants home to become non-conforming. Gundlach continued by addressing the hardships with each variance. Staff finds that a hardship exists to warrant approval of the side setback variance. The original home was constructed sometime in the 1940's w ith the attached garage constructed in 1973 at a setback 5.6 feet from the property line. Sometime shortly after that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted requiring a 10’ setback. Where this non-conforming setback occurs the applicant isn’t proposing a new story but rather a hipped roof where a Pat roof exists. The Planning Commission should discuss the effects of going from a Pat roof to a pitched roof in this non- conforming setback. Staff finds a hardship exists to also grant the hardcover \ anance. The property is currently at 42% in the 75’ - 250’ zone when 25% is nomially allow ed. Tlie applicant is proposing changes to the envelope of the building but not new hardcover where non-hardcover currently exists. Variances were granted in 1992 to allow construction of the lakeside deck and no illegal hardcover has been added since those variance approvals. The only notable change is that approximately 32 square feet of roof will be added oxer existing hardcover to create a covered entry. The Planning Commission should discuss adding structure where hardcover currently exists, and if any removals should be required to account for that change Lastly, staff also finds that a hardship exists to grant the requested average lakeshore setback variance. The northeast comer of the home encroaches the furthest into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant isn't proposing a full second story at this comer but to change to a pitched roof w here a Pat roof currently exists. The house, at this comer tapers w est to an encroachment of 2 feet. This piece of the home w ill go from a '/j story to a full story but any views the neighbor may have, if any, arc minimally impacted. APer conducting a site visit, staff Page 19 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15.2004 ___ 6:00 o ’clock p.m._____________ {W9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHAOYWOOD ROAD VARlANCES-Coatfai«cd) has detennincd thal 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 alTcctcd by the improvements constructed a new home in 2002 further from the lake than before, which in turn made the applicant's home non-conforming and thus creating a hardship. The Planning Commission should discuss the impacts of changing the envelope of the structure at this comer and whether views are obstmeted. Gundlach recommends the commission discuss the following: 1. 3. 4. Is the Planning Commission comforubic reviewing this as improvanents rather than a rebuild? Is the Planning Commission comfortable accepting a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists, which increases the envelope of the structure, in areas w here setbacks are non- conforming? Arc there major issues going from a Vt story to a full story on a lot that’s at 42*/« hardcover? Should hardcover reductions be required? Possibly the non-conforming shed by the attached garage? Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Gundlach stated that staff recommends approval of this application but encourages the commission to ask for further hardcover r^uctions in consideration of the issues just mentioned. Chair Smith asked staff if they are absolutely sure the foundation is of suflicic it constitution to take on the addition. Gundlach responded that the applicant has addressed those issues and is putting in special trusses to support the second story. Applicant responded that the architect has not verined this. The existing house is 1 8" block (18 ’ x 8’ x 12’) and the ne-A' addition is ail 16" block. Architect will sign off, but hasn’t yet. but he will before final drawings. Gundlach spoke with the building inspector and he indicated that special tmsscs should suflicc. .Mike MiKhke. 1972 Shadywood Road, believes this is a great addition to the neighborhood. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road can’t determine where this property is located. Applicant responded that it is located south of the Super American station. The neighbor to the north also thinks it is a great addition to the neighborhood. Tom Stokes, a building contractor, has been to the property and believes this structure is sound Rahn inquired if the second stor>’ floor was staying or going. Page 20 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m._____________ (#9. W04-2992 RON POTAS, 2I90SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Conlinued) Applicant said the floor system is going because they are removing the part of the wall on the inside and that gives a new load structure and a steel beam would have to be put in plus roof (floor) trusses become the ceiling of the lower level. Rahn questioned if there is a S.6' area with a 4* jog. Elevations don't show that 4* jog. Afler discussion, applicant finally indicated the survey is correct and that there is a 4* jog (not perfectly square) in this shop area that is adjacent to the garage and they do not intend to fill that in. It will remain. Rahn further indicated this is a major renovation clearly not a re-build. Applicant stated moving the house to the southeast would affect the front entry of the home and re-doing the garage would be a huge issue for them. Commissioner Rahn confirmed ceiling heights with the applicant. Fritzler stated that he felt the project was well beyond the 50% threshold. Chair Smith continued by noting the location of three sheds: 1. Lakeshore 2. South of garage - smaller 3. Garage further down from the smaller shed Applicant stated the sheds have been there 23 years. Bremer stated that the home has also been there that long and the applicant is changing the home. Bremer asked what the applicant could do to take aw ay some of the accessory structures in exchange for encroachments. Chair Smith would like to see all three accessory structures removed. Bremer inquired if two small sheds were removed, not including the garage, how much hardcover would be gained. Gundlach responded a total of 83 square feet (60 square feet outside the 0'-7S* and 23 square feet inside the 0'-75 ’). Additionally, if >ou remove the two sheds in the 0 ’-75 ’ you go from 1.3% to 1% and if you take the shed out of the 75 ’-250’ you go from 41.9% to 41.5Vo. Bremer stated >he would approve the application if the two small sheds were removed. Fritzler staled he would vote against the proposal unless it included the removal of the old garage out by Uie street because tlicrc is a lot of hardcover there Uiat could be given up. Page 21 of 48 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6 00 o’clock p.m. ___ (#9. #04-2992 RON POTAS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Coallaiied) Ralph Kemp, 3675 Togo Road, suggested making the new two car garage a three car attached garage and eliminate the other garage that would remove '/j of the hardcover and reduce the circle driveway. Applicant said they store a boat and other things in the detached garage. Bremer staled whether the applicant really needs a four-stall garage. Berg stated the commission shouldn’t be designing this property. We should be review mg what is before us. Applicant stated it would cost approximately S50.000 to add tw o more garages. Bill Tiller, property owner to the north, is concerned about the view that he would see as a neighbor of a four-stall garage. An informal poll was taken and all but one commissioner would approve the application with the rcmo\ al of the tw o sheds. Applicant was reluctant to remove the shed near the lakcshorc. The shed is 6' x 3* w ith 6* height. The Commission informed applicant he could have a 4’ x S* lockbox (20 square feet) on the property and remove the shed. Mr. Mischke (#03-2928) indicated he is interested in ha\ ing a lock box on his properly as well. Commission responded he may have one. Berg moved and Mabusth seconded to approve Application #04-2992, Ron Potas, 2190 Shady wood Road approving the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Side setback variance to allow a west side setback of 5.6* at the garage when 10’ is normally required and 5.6* currently exists. I - -hanges al this non-conforming setback are 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 variance to allow 42% hardcover in the 75* - 250* zone; however, this has been reduced to 41.5% because of the removal of the shed and the additional removal of the second shed al the lakeih re. %'OTE: Ayes: 6; nays 1, Friukr dissenting Chair Smith indicated to the applicants that the c .non scrxc.s as a recommending body and that the City Council has the final detennination on ihe application. Page 22 of 48 iiilifciiiriii r, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m._____________ (M9. #04-2992 RON POT AS, 2190 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES-Conlinued) Applicant inquired whether the motion included his ability to re-side the garage located near the street. Chair Smith indicated the applicant doesn't need commission approval and just needs to put that information into the building pcmiii request. 10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP (9:51-9:30 P.M.) Chris Valerius, the applicant and her husband, was present. Gundlach explained the applicant is proposing to convert the existing residence located at 2377 Shadywood Road to a coffee shop with bakery and restaurant tvpe uses. The current residence is a non-conforming use as the property is zoned B-1. Retail Sales District. Hie applicant’s 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. Gundlach continued stating that 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 business (requiring a building permit). A.« ncted, many of these improvements require a building permit that in turn requires a cc -nmcrcial site plan review. The purpose of a commercial site plan review is to allow the City to complete a comprehensive review of the site in an effort to bring it closer to conformance. Gundlach indicated the applicant is proposing a building addition to follow the same setback on the north side of the lot (along Lyric Avenue) as the existing structure. The existing structure is non-conforming at this setback with a setback of 24* when 35’ is required. 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 bnnging this side of the lot somew hat more towards conformance. Gundlach continued that the applicant has proposed a dn\ e through and parking stalls in the rear of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires an unobstructed rear yard of 30 feet. This includes all pavements for parking, drive isles, and sidewalks. With the applicant’s proposal a rear and north side yard parking variance is required to accomplish the drive-through and parking stalls showit on the submitted surv’ey. Page 23 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 1S. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m._____________ (#ia M04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADY%^OOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP -ConlinHed) Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing a cofTee shop with a bakery and restaurant. This is classified as a Class I restaurant under the B - 1 conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Class I distinction doesn't specifically address additional requirements but the proposed use must comply with the general conditional use permit standards dealing with the health, safety and general welfare of the community or neighborhood. It is 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 be required in conjunction with the restaurant use Tlie applicant has preliminarily indicated to staff that it will be a deli style food service. Gundlach explained that few hardships exist to warrant approval of the requested building and parking setback variances when in conjunction with a drive through. Gundlach continued that a drive-through is not an automatic allowed use, but rather a use that is allowed should the site be large enough and configured such that a drive-through could be accommodated under the official controls of the Zoning Ordinance (i.e. within setbacks). Therefore, staff would not recommend approval of variances merely to accommodate a drive-through facility. Gundlach staled that stall also finds that a variance should not be granted to allow’ parking stalls to be located up to the property line in the rear yard when 30' setback should be required. The location of these stalls forces customers to either cross traffic entering the stalls or backing into traffic leaving the stalls. This is due to a drive aisle serving the City owned parking lot located behind the applicant's property. The City Engineer has rev iewed the plan artd his comments are attached as Exhibit K. He concludes that the site "does not lend itself to a drive through operation". Gundlach concluded that staff docs 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 ow ned parking lot, which lessens the amount of buildable area on the lot. However, a building addition of the same size proposed by the applicant could be constructed within setbacks, but there may not be enough room to accommodate parking. Staff w ould recommend that the applicant explore a site plan that doesn't include a drive-through and variance requests could be entertained at that point. Gundlach stated that an alicmaiivc plan is included in the report regarding a drive-through coming off of L>jic Avenue and exiting 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 arc concerned as the proposed plan. Gundlach continued that staff onginally encouraged the applicant that if a drive-through is a must, to keep it off of the Lync Avenue side of the lot in an effort to eliminate intersection safety issues at Lyric Avenue and Shadywood Road. Page 24 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o*clock p.m._____________ (#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP >Conttn«cd) Unfonunaiely, neither plan achie\ es the safety or functionality standards the City should expect with a drive-throuijh facility. Gundlach noted the following issues for consideration: 1. Can the property support a drive-through? 2. Does 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. Does the Planning Commission feel any additional conditions must be associated w ith approval of the proposed coffee shop/bakery/restaurant 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? Gundlach stated that staff recommends 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 arrangement so that customers arc not conflicting with the drive aisle of the City owned parking lot. Gundlach also noted that a new' plan has been passed out tonight by the applicants show ing a new configuration for a drive through. However, the new plan creates a give and take situation. It doesn’t need a parking setback variance for the rear yard, but rather a front >ard parking setback variance. Because they arc proposing to bring the drive aisle through the front yard, additional hardcover is required causing the property to need a hardcover variance. Chair Smith clarified that Gundlach would look favorably on the application except for the drive through. Gundlach affirmatively confirmed. The applicant stated she was the ow ner Lake Country Corfee in Long Lake and another shop in Mound. They now want to concentrate on one shop in this beautiful home built in the I930 ’s. Applicant further stated the busiest hours of operation arc betw een 6 and 8 A.M. and that traflic thcrcaflcr is 1-2 people everyj hour. The applicant stated she conducted a study of iralTic through the parking lot for three days and is included in the packet. Page 25 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. ___ _____ (410. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP -Coatioucd) The applicant continued that a drive through is important for the disabled so they don't have to get out of their cars and for parents with children, and a variance is not for parking stalls, but for pavement and stall location and for the location of the drive through aisle. Chair Smith inquired whether applicant w ould consider a carhop serv ice for those people who don't want to leave their car. It w as conflnncd that they did that at their Long Lake shop. Applicant said they know their customer's needs because they arc regular customers and they arc only stopping for 1.5 to 2 minutes. Their customers have asked for a drive-up service, however she would also consider a car hop or walk up service if a drive through were not approved. The applicaitt continued that they are offering to take down two existing structures, one attached, one detached to make this process go smoother. Chair Smith indicated she thinks the structure is very charming. The applicants added they propose grass and landscaping to include vegetable and flower gardens to give a family feel, like a home. Bremer inquired about how traffic flow s after people back out of their parking stalls. Gaffron responded that you back out into traffic and can go either way. The main exit is out to Lyric Avenue. Bremer stated the new plan indicates a third planned drivcw ay. Gundlach responded that was an alternative before discussions were held. It became a safety issue at the intersection of Lyric and Shad>'wood rather than the driveway itself. Applicant said three parking stalls would suffice rather titan four. Rahn stated that accessibility to those stalls means people have to cross the drive-through. Applicant stated ail drive-throughs arc that way and cited Dairy Queen and Culvers os examples. Gundlach said that a traffic analysis hadn't bem done and stat^ that possibly the traffic frequency isn't such a concern, but rather safety and functionality issues are most important. A car would enter the driv e-through at the comer of L>Tic and the drive aisle for the city ow ned parking lot and exit onto a main drive aisle. In regards to the parking stalls >’ou back into a drive aisle in the parking lot and when you park in a stall >t>u have to cross over the drive-through lane to get to the door and those are the issues the city engineer placed in his March 9, 2004 letter (attached). Page 26 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#10. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHAOYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP -Continued) Audience member John Erickson. 1620 Shadyv^ood Road, suggested eliminating the parking stalls and just provide the drive-through. If someone is going to walk into the store they can park in the big parking lot. Traffic is in and out of the parking lot all the time. Applicant said that is why she is offering two to three parking spaces tucked up near the home and would like to keep at least two spaces. Rahn suggested the city engineer review the new plan presented this evening. If commission prefers the second olan. we can table this item until the city engineer can review it. The applicant is fine with tabling the item. Guffron stated that commission needs to look a; the buno- g design and extenor materials so that the commission is proud of this new addition to the Nav ai.v neighborhood and secondly that it meets our code in terms of exterior w all finishes, for instance, it has to be face brick or natural stone or specially designed precise concrete units or factory’ pre-fabneated finished metal frame panel construction or something else >*00 can approve. Gaffron suggests looking at the building elevations to make sure the commission understands that the budding is a square box attached to a house with a steeply pitched roof with dormers. Mabusth asked if the Bl residential ceases on this property. Gundlach responded in the affirmative and stated that no one is presently living there. There is currently a second story on the home that will remain and be used for storage and office. Mabusth stated to the applicant that the new plan presented to them tonight will be tabled until the city engineer can review it. It is important for the applicant to have detailed plans on the extenor finishes and the elevations completed so that when the applicant comes back to the commission cveryihing is ready and causes no further delay for them. She suggested that the current home looks like a residence and the commission would like it to look more like a coffee house - a cottage type structure but a commercial structure. Rahn asked if the roof was flat on the addition. The applicant responded affimuiively. Gundlach slated that she has spoke w ith the building inspector and he indicated there are several issues to discuss in conv erting residential propeny to commercial and can be handled under the building permit phase because that would require the completion of some detailed plans. Page 27 of 48 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o'clock p m. ______ («10. M04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS. 2377 SHAL VWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP -Coalinued) Frilzlcr said Ihcre are a Tew issues to consider by the next meeting: 1 . Traffic flow from a safety point of view at L>Tic and County Road «19; There could be cars with boat trailers attached coming around a turnaround drive-througii and into that busy intersection. 2. As far as the building itself looking like a home it will still look like all the other homes and if Navarre’s plan is implemented the question is will the home conform to Na\arre’s improvements. 3. This building w ill contain a kitchen w here baking occurs which could be viewed os a restaurant and there are possible fire department issues to address like sprinklers Bremer asked for the commission to confirm that they are comfortable w ith the setback issues: 1 . Side setbacks, parking setbacks, building setbacks 2. CUP The commission agreed they are comfortable with all except the dri\c*through. Applicant asked if they could approve everything except the drive-through this evening. Chair Smith responded that relative to w hat is before the commission they arc comfortable w iih: 1. CUP 2. Building setback variances 3. Parking setback variances except for the drive-through lane, and these items should be approved together. Items added to the list for further review arc: 1. Have the city engineer review the new- drive-through as indicated on the new plan the commission received tonight 2. Applicant to supply building elev ations 3. Applicant to supply more information on the exterior finish 4. If this building is deemed a restaurant, what kind of fire controls need to be in place Overall direction is being given tonight, but detailed review will have to be done at the next meeting once all the information is supplied to the city. The commission agrees that the use of the property is good Mabusth asked what would be the hours of operatton. Applicant responded that the Long Lake shop was open S A..M. - 5 P. M.; shop in .Mound is 5 A..M. to 11 P.M. and think the new shop m Orono Navarre would be open 5 A.M. to 10 or 1 1 P..M. at the latest seven days a week. It really depends on the public's demand. Page 28 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 _____________^6:00 o'clock p.m.______ (#10. ^. 29vJ CHRIS VALERIAS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES FOR A COFFEE SHOP -Cooiinued) Mabustb moved and Smith seconded to table Applkatioo #04-2993, Chris Valerius, 2377 Shadyv.ood Road, providing app*'cant additional time to work nlth the city engineer regarding drive-through aisle through the property, parking on the site and preliminary review with the building inspector about a fire suppression system, exterior materials, and building elevations, \'OTE: Ayes: 7 Nays 0. 11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERX O DEVELOPMENT, 875 \V. WAVZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDME.NT (9:30-10:25 P.M.) Tlie applicant. Steve Johnston, was present. GafTron explained the property is located on the S\V side of Highway 12. just south of the Luce Line Tiai! in the northeast quadrant of Orono. The property is bounded on the west by the new Higiiway 12 / Railroad corridor, on the east by existing Highway 12, on the south by the Summit Park Cemetery in Wav-rata; and on the north by the Luce Line Trail (developed lots north of the Luce Line are in Long Lake). The property was vacant until 1987. at which time a day-care center w as constructed. It has been operated until recently pursuant to the conditions of a Conditional Use Pcnnit per Resolution No. 2075 dated 11-10-80. The day-care building is currenily vacant. Orono property to the west and cast is guided and zoned for single-famil> residcntia ’ use at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The property west across the railroad has been developed for low - density SFR uses for many years. The property across Highway 12 to the cast contains a church building that has undergone a vancly of tenants. The cemetery property to the south in Wayvata is guided for institutional uses and is zoned for Low Density Residential. Lots to the north of the Luce Line in Long Lake are guided for single family uses (R-1) with a minimum lot area of 10,000 s f and 75’ width, i e. SFR at t units per acre. However, the existing single-family lots abutting the north side of the Luce Line in this area range from ' * acre to 1-2 3 acres in area The property is zoned RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, which allows the dexclopment of single family homes at a dens.'v 1 unit per 2 dry buildablc acres. Other peniiitteJ uses in RR- IB include munieij il buildings, and public parks or playgrounds Conditional uses allowed within RR-IB include public pmale parcnrhial schools, nursery schovds (day-care); chi-rches, golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, camps, prisate parks playgrounds, commercial greenhouses; private recreation areas of various type.^; Planned Residential Developments I PRD) limited to detached SFR at one-unil two acres, apianes. public stables or bams; riding academies; hospitals; and libraries. Page 29 of 48 r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. Mar.h 15, 2004 6;00 o’clock p.m. («ll. H04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON. REPRESENTING SWERVO DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD^ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AM ENDM ENT-Continued) The pi^ficrty is within the defined Rural Area of Orono as shown on CMP Map 3B>2. The property is mapped and guided for Rural Residential Use. 2-acre mimniuin lot size in the 2000- 2020 Land Use Plan. The property is about 1 2 acres to start with but will be reduced to the new Highway 1 2 right of way takings. There are just under 4 aces of wetland on the property to th. south tow ards the cemetery. The wetlands are approximately one mile from Lake Minnetonka, and drains ex entually to Brow n’s Bay through a senes of small creeks and w etlands. The location w ithin the watershed is not a significant factor in whether this propeny should be re-guided. The dry buildable area of the propeny is about six and one-half acres. Gaffron stated that the applicant requests an amendment of the Orono Community Management Plan (aka “the CMP” or the “Comprehensive Plan”) to allow dexelopment of this 6 5 acre site at an Urban Resideiaial density of up to 6 units per acre, with txvinliomcs or tow nhomes. He noted that the proposed use would require the follow mg actions by the City: • Amendment of the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan to conxert the status of the property from Rural to Urban (i.e. this application); • Establishment of standards w ithin the CMP for future use and development of this propeny (to be draAcd if amendment moves forward); • Rezoning to allow high-density multi-family development (probably to RPUD), and • Approval of a RPUD dex elopment plan, subdivision and development agreement Gaffron stated that the conxcrsion from Rural to Urban status would require the extension of urban services to this site, including municipal sewer and water. It is unknown whether the current water connection to Long Lake is viable for such a dexelopment. Gaffron reviewed the 2000-2020 Comp Pl.rn areas identified for higher density development. The applicant’s property is not among those identified for such a change Gaffron noted a number of factors to be considered for this property: 1. The property is to some extent ,m "orphan”, with relatively little relationship to tlic development that surrounds it 2. file day-care use at the site apparently has not had much success in recent years, due to factors not fully known to staff but potentially related to vehicular access difficulties. The range of potential uses w ithin the existing RR-IB Rural Residential zoning for this) site include the dexelopment of single-family housing (up to 3 homes at a 2-acre density) as well as a vanety of institutional, public or pnvate uses. 3. Page 30 of 48 r.MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15.2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. ____ (#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM^ STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVU DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A5IENDMENT-CoatkiHed) 5. The property is at a highly visible location to traffic entering Orono from the east. Development at this site might be coitsidered as a ‘main entrance’ to Orono. and as such will inherently set a tone as to the character of the City. The property abuts the l uce Line Trail, which as it traverses Orono has a completely differcni feel than it docs in Pl>Tnouth to the east; a rural feel rather than a suburban feel. Due to topographic constraints, development of a multiple family residential use on the site will likely be in close proximity to the trail, and have a potentially negative impact on the rural character of the trail. Attached multi-family housing, and such housing at the densities proposed, would be 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 1 unit per acre. Gaffron suggested the commission consider the following questions to be answered to assist in I'ctcrmining whether the proposed amendment should be approved: 1. Is the properly currently guided in a manner that allows the ow ner some reasonable use of the property? 2. Docs the unique location of the property suggest certain t>pcs of uses may be more appropriate than others? 3. Would rc-giiiding the properly tend to promote some specific goal o' .he City in tcniis of land use? Given that the areas recently re-guided for higher density housing have not yet developed, isn’t it premature to consider additional areas for higher density? Wouldn ’t it be more appropriate to wait until those areas have developed, then consider whether additional such areas are warranted? Similarly, if in the future the areas to the north in Long Lake are redevt loped at a higher density, would that be a more appropnate time to consider higher density at this site? Gaffron bnefiy explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as stated in detail in the packet. Page 31 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m.____ _____ (#1 1. M04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO DEVELOP.MENT, 87S W. WAYZATA BLV CO.MPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-Comiaucd) Reinhart also stated that coming home headed west in the evening, traffic would have to make a left hand turn across eastbound traffic Applicant responded that there is not a lot of eastbound traffic to cross in the evening. Public member Roland Jurgens. 340 Tumham Road, is in favor of the project and feels it would be aothetically pleasing and a nice entrance to the city. Resident at 91S W. Way?jita Blvd. is opposed to the project It would add to the congestion and we don’t know most of the trafTic w ould turn cast and we don’t know that for sure He also staled the proposed plan means up to 36 homes equals 72 people equals 1.45 cars per home. Applicant mentioned that proximity to retail is right in the area where in fact it is not. Homeowners would have to travel to Wa>7aia or Long Lake for scrv ices. He doesn’t feel there is any benefit to the project. Traffic problems arc prevalent in the area; it won't help traffic on the Luce Line trail, nor the impact on the w etlands. Public member Susanne McRunncl. 915 W. Wa>*zata Blvd. is concerned about w hat land will be available for the animals if developed. Chair Smith responded that they w ish they could leave the property as a park or a preserv e forever but that probably w on’t happen. Chair Smith questioned the opposing public members in the audience regarding the optimum use of the property. Reinhart answ ered by telling the commission to leave it rural at a two-acre minimum. Public member Darrell Anderson. 920 \V. Way^ata Bl\d. said to keep it zoned at a two-acre and three houses. Applicant stated he is interested in hearing what neighbors in the area think about this project. MNDOT took '/i of Uic two-acre lots to build roads, which disturbed much of the lot to the west of the day care facility. With one day care facility on site a factor of the sanitary sew er is important - still need to do some kind of system with a lift station and whether you leave the site as two-acre or something more in density the site will need sewer. Reinhart stated the city should have one house per acre. Do what is best for the city and residents. Hr doesn’t want high density right when you drive in' the city Chair Smith thanked the audience for their comments. Page 33 of 48 -------- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.tn._____________ (#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING S\^T:RV0 DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BIA'D., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A^IENDMENT-Coitinued) FriUlcr staled he doesn’t see this as a pressing issue to re-zone. Any construction on this site would be going on while Highway 12 is being constructed and would create more of a traffic problem. Applicant responded about the difTiculty of how to engineer the site with steep banks to the Luce Line. MNDOT is trying to find a place for all the dirt that will come from Highway 12 construction and he would like to put the dirt on this site Chair Smith stated dial if the two-acrc minimum remains, that the dirt placanent still could happen in conjuiKtion with the development of Highw ay 12. Chair Smith determined a poll of the commission w as needed. Berg said she finds the site hard to see as a two-acre site and thinks it is a site for higher density but doesn't know what density. Docs not see 6 units per acre for sure as that is too dense. Applicant wants to table the application, not w iihdraw the application. He said his client is not interested in a two-acre site. His client is not any hurry to develop the site and can come to the city every six months. Gaffron staled that if the council denies the application, the aonheant couldn't come back to the commission for six months. If the commission tables the application it would be useful to provide applicant w ith some guidelines for what the commission would like to see for this site. Gaffron also asked if the commission w ould like to look at tlie project again in a .nionlli or two depending on the applicant's needs. Chair Smith indicated that it seems five out of seven commissioners w ould like the property to stay at a two-acrc minimum for the foreseeable future so it may be better to deny the application. She doesn’t see what would change in a month or two to change the commission's stance. Gaffron asked if the project had been brought to you at two-uni:s per acre would that have changed any opinions. Chair Smith asked if this was an opportunity for cluster housing. Gaffron responded affinnatively. He continued by saying three houses could be placed clustered together via a PRl at a low density that doesn’t laice up the whole sue. Yo * could locate them on some portion of the site that is efficient and save more of the w etlands. (Thair Smith said the Fleming property is cluster housing around a wetland. The applicant stated the cluster system needs more than the one septic system. Page 34 of 48 r k... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March IS. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. ____ (Mil. MM-2994 LA.NDFOR.U STE\ E JOH.NSTON, REPRESENTl.NG SWERVO DEVELOPMENT, *75 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIV E PLAN AMENDMENTCoatinyed) GafTron stated that cluster housing could be done under the current two-acre zoning Three houses could be put in one clump in one comer, save the rest of it and that wouldn ’t require a C.MP amendment. It’s the density, the total number of units on the site that requires a CMP amendment. He continued by saying we make a C.MP amendment when we see a huge benefit to the city for some need that’s not met. GafTron stated he has gi\ cn the commission a long list of reasons not to re-guide the property at this time. An unidentified public member asked if an AUheimer Care Center would work on this site. The commission responded that an institutional use would be possible. Reinhart asked about the sewage issue with three houses on a uvo-acre site GafTron responded that you would need city sewer. Smith moved and Mabusth seconded a motion to table Application M04-2994. Landform Engineering Company on behalf ofSwervo Development Corporation, 875 W. Wayiata Blvd. reqnesting an amendment of the Orono Commnnlty Management Plan (aka **the CVIP" or the ‘*Comprehensive Plan**) to allow development of this site at an Urban Residential density of up to 6 units per acre, with twinhomes or townhomei. VOTE: .Ayes: 7; Nays 0 12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HO VIES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES (10:25-10:45 P.V1.) The applicant. Bob Carlson, was present. GalTron explained the applicant is applying for a lot area and w idih vanance to construct a new single family lesidcnce on this property that abuts Fcmdale Marsh. A permit for removal of the existing residence was applied for in February of this year. The property has contained a single- family residence for many decades. Applicant was advised during the building pcmiit review process that while this property exceeds 2 acres in gross area, it is less than 2 acres in dry buildable area and is within the 2 acre zone, subject to Zoning Code Section 78-72(BM2) as noted ibo\ c. It should also be noted that until May 1998. when Ordinance No. 176, Second Series was adopted, rebuilding on this !ot would not have required an area variance, as it would have received credit for all of its w etland area. Page 35 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS, 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (»12. W04-299S BOB CARLSON, JYLANO HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES - ContiBued) GalTron noted that the sur\ cy presented docs not match the tax parcel dimensions shown on County plat maps. The northerly pan of Lot 4. all wetland, is owned by the Nature Consen ancy according to Hennepin County. A revised, corrected survey will be required, or evidence that the survey is correct. Gaffron noted that the need for a lot width variance was idcniified by staff during the vanance review. He explained how lot w idth w as measured for this oddly-shaped site. Gaffron indicated that the wetlands on the propeny arc shown based on the City’s 1974 wetland 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 w inter conditions. The wetland boundary shown on applicant’s suiv ey appears to be consistent w ith the topography of the site based on the ity’s topo m:q>. The c.xact area of w etland cannot be determined unless or until a w ctland delineation and surs cy is completed. The exact location of the w etland boundary and the exact area of wetlands is probably not critical to the application, in that whether the site contains 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 acres dry buildablc. it is still ‘buildablc’ for residence pur]H>scs in stafTs opinion. Howo ’cr, at any location where construction approaches less than, say. 40* from the perceived wetland, it would be critical to know the exact boundary. A w etiand delineation should be conducted as soon as w eather pennits to allow for verification of the boundary However, I do not believe it is necessary to delay this vanance application process for the delineation. Gaffron noted the reasons why this property is considered as abutting a w etland and is not considered as lakeshc;c. He notes that 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 w ithin 26’ of the wetland. Most of this encroachment is proposed to be eliminated, by removing the driveway and relocating it inland. However, at the point where the driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26* setback. He suggested tw o options to consider: A) Grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain, or B) Require that all portions of the drivew ay, including that portion in the alley to be vacated, be relocated to meet the 26’ setback. Because the MCWD requires a 35 ’ buffer, it would be appropriate to move the dnveway so that it meets a 35 ’ setback from wetland at all locations. Gaffron stated that Staff would recommend Option B. Tliis w ill avoid the need for a wetland setback variance. The applicant should be asked whether there arc any reasons this cannot be accomplished. Gaffron summarized the hardships that support the lot area and w idth variancc.«!. However, he noted that Staff does not find any hardship that would support a wetland setback variance to continue the driveway in its nonconfomiing location, and would rccominend its relocation to avoid the variance. Page 36 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March IS, 2004 _____ 6:00 o’clock p ti.______ _____ (Ml 2. M04-299S BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES - Continued) Applicant stated he is requesting a wetland setback variance because he is interested in saving the mature hardwood trees which would be lost by moving the dri\ c\say closer to the neighbor. The trees and existing vegetation provide a privacy buffer. He also stated a wetland setback variance was received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Gaffron stated that the property is providing some mature trees for screening and city staff w ould like to work w ith the applicant to try to avoid trees being disturbed. This is an existing situation that for the most part is getting better because this drivew ay currently hugs the edge of the wetland and now will disappear because of the reconstruction and w on’t be os big an impact. Topographically, there is a hill and if the trees w eren’t there the question is would the hill be problematic or would you just cut through it. Chair Smith asked if one of the conditions would be to protect those trees if drivew ay slays where it is. Gaffron responded afTirmaiivcly. Chair Smith said the commission had just received today a letter dated March 12. 2004, from Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale Road who staled he is opposed to the project. Chair Smith read the letter into the record: “Commission Members: In regards to Item 12. 04-2096.1 disagree with the requested variance. The property is across the street from my home at 1055 West Femdale Road and the variance could affect the future value of my residence. Thank you. Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale Road, Orono.” There were no other public comments. Chair Smith said he gave no reason for why it would affect the value of his property. Applicant stated Mr. Gaffron did a fine job in explaining the project. Gaffron stated the wetland delineation couldn’t happen until the beginning of May. Staffs specific request on this application is that we not issue a building permit and or we not do a footing inspection until wc have the w etland delineation in hand for the purpose of measuring setbacks. Road restrictions will also come off at that time and ever>ihing can get done that first week in May. The question is will the wetland delineation show the location of the wetland as being very near the existing driveway. If the wetland turns out to be 10’ from that driveway, is the commission more uncomfortable than if it is 25’ instead of the required 26’. Mabusih inquired w heihcr the drivew ay has been in its current location for a long time. Gaffron responded it has been there for 40 years or more. Page 37 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday.March IS.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#U. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON, JYI.AND II05IES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES - CoatiiHed) Berg made a molioa and Mabnstk wcoaded Application #04-2995, Bob Carlson, Jyland Hornet, 1070 W. Fcmdak Road to approve the lot area and Id Midth variances to allow constrnction of a new residence on the properly tnbicct to the follow lag conditions: 1. Applicant to provide a snrv ey prior to bsnance of bnildiag permit, that contains complete topography for the site to satisfy staff that wetlands w ill not likely be encroached. 2. Applicant to provide wetland delineation snrvey to verify no wetland encroachment and confirm the actual dry buildable area of the site. This should be required prior to footing inspectioa. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall provide evidence that legal combination of the three tax parcels and the vacated road has been completed. 4. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall either provide a survey that reflects Nature Conservancy ownwrship of northerly portion of Lot 4 per Hennepin County plat maps, or shall provide suitable evidence of applicaat ownership of that property. 5. Applicant shaH protect the trees near the driveway during construction. 6. Applicant shall relocate all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the rt^way to be vacated, to meet required wetland setback and/or .MC*VD buffer requirements, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. VOTE: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES. 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, STREET VACATION (10:25-10:45 P..>L) The applicant. Bub Cailsun, was present. GafTron explained the applicant's request is to vacate the portion of nght-of-way whi.h was dedicated as public roadway on the plat of North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka in 1902 (See Exhibit D). This right-of way is functionally a private driveway today, although in 1902 it serv ed as an alley for dry-land access to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of North Shore Cottage Acres. Lots 4 and 5 have ^ince been the subjects of subdivisions to create additional small parcels on each side of the alley. These small parcels w ere at some point in time acquired by a prior owner of Lot 4, and have become pan of the 3-parcel grouping proposed for construction of a home at 1070 West Page 38 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15,2004 6:00 o’clock pm ___________ (#13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSON, JYLAND HOMES. 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD. STREET VACATION-ConiiiiMcd) Femdale Road. The parcels have never been legally combined; legal combination should become a requirement of this vacation and the related \anancc request, application #04-2995. GafTron noted that Zoning Code Section 78-9 governs the vacation of streets, alle>^. and public grounds. He indicated in past vacation requests, the City has determined that vacation may be appropriate when: 1. The vacation docs not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as rood except for utilities and access purposes. 3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists sci »cs no public purpose. He indicated it is staffs opinion that these three conditions arc applicable to the segment of right- of-way proposed for vacation. The only City utilities in place w ithin this right-of-way are a gravity sewer line and manhole that only serves the applicant’s property. Because the City may need to maintain this line and manhole in the future, an easement for utility purposes only should be granted over the roadway being vacated. Other utilities potentially using the right-of-w ay likely use it only to serve the applicant’s property. The gas. electric, telephone and cable T.V. utilities have been notified of this vacation request; no response has been received as of this writing, however, similar casements will be required if needed by the utility companies. Staff wants to hear from the utility companies before taking this request to city council. No properties will have their legal access affected by the vacation of this rieht-of-w ay. The portion of right-of-w ay to be vacated docs not provide access to the lake, nor to any other properties. It serves no apparent public purpose. The vacation will result in the entire segment of riglit-of-way reverting to the ownership of the applicant. A condition of approval w ill be that the v acated right-of-way be legally combined with the other three tax parcels to create a single tax parcel for use os a building site. A neighbor to the east has w ritten a letter that appears to support the granting of the vacation request. There were no other public comments. Gaffron indicated that staff rcconimciid approval of the vacation of the portion of right-of-way as requested by the applicant, subject to: I. General utility easements to be granted if any of the utility companies confimt the need for easements. Page 39 of 48 V^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15.2004 6:00 o'clock p m. _______ (#13. #04-2996 BOB CARLSO.N, JYLA.ND HOMES. 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD. STREET VACATION-Conliaucd) 2. The vacated properly shaU be legally combined with the adjoining three tax parcels: (02-! 1 7-23 43 0002.02-117-23 43 0004.02-11 7-23 43 0006) Mabmlh moved and Raba seconded lo approve Appltcalioa #04-2996, Bob Carlson, Jyland Homes. 1070 M est Ferndak Road, requesting a vacaiioM of an on-named road rtgbt-of-May created in the North Shore Cottage Acres. This approval is subject lo the applicant granting general utility easements over any of the utility company's tines and need to confirm easements and also vacated property shall be l^ally combined nith the adjoining three platted parcels. VOTE: Ayes: 7; .Nays 0. 14. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO. BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL LSE PERMIT. VAR1A.NCES (10:48-11:25 P.M.) Greg Gappj, Public Works Director, was not present Mike GafTron reported in his absence. GafTron explained the application request and indicated that Greg Gappa. Pu’olic Services Director was unable to be present at the meeting. He asked that the commission please review’ Exhibit C. the memo from Mr. Gappa. which explains the need for this project and the characteristics of the project. GafTron noted that the wetland in question is Qot on the City's 1974 wetland inventory, and therefore is not defined as a “City-protected Wetland"; however, it is subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, which the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District administers on the City's behalf. The City has chosen to make the applications for variance and CUP altliough It could be argued that this wetland does not fall 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 w etland area being filled. This means that the amount of fill and the impact of that fill is so minor as to not require mitigation. The proposed filling is 215 s.f at the SH comer of the wetland. A revised plan submitted on March 12 has slightly relocated the proposed dnveway fill so that there will be no filling closer than 6' from the property line to the south. This complies w ith City requirements that Jo not allow filling w nhni 5 ’ of a lot line. The filling will impact a 12 cubic yard area of flood plain. An equivalent volume w ill be excavated adjacent to the NW comer of the floodplain area w ithin the ngia-or-way as equal mitigation. The proposed dnveway w ill be 10' in w idth and 1 SO' in length, and will prov ide a dnveablc access point for the north half of the island This access w ill replace the access diive that was Page 40 of 48 ..aoiiMII MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15.2004 ___ 6:00 o*clock p.m._________ {H)4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO. BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. VARIANCES-Coaliaurd) fonncrly used on the north side of ihc wetland That access was on private property, and the owner recently converted it to lawn area. The City has long held that the City has an obligation to provide reasonable access to the intcnor roads on Ihc island for the occasion il ser\ ice vehicle, and for the needs of the few inland properties that do not abut the lakeshore The driveway will constitute filling of 25 cubic yards of gravel in the 0-75 ‘ zone, requiring a CUP. and will constitute approMinatcly 750 s.f or I2'^* imperMous siuface in the o-75' zone. These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide suitable access, and have been niininh/cd by limiting the width of the driveway to 10'. With passage of the WCA. the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was designated by the City os the responsible Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the WCA regulations. These regulations provide degrees of flexibility for certain types of w etland alteration activities, w hich arr seen as positive rather than detrimental, and they provide for mitigation of negative impacts when they arc unavoidable. The appropriate applications arc being made to the MCWD. MCWD approv al shall be required before the project may commence. Gaffron noted that this application was prepared by Publie Services Director Greg Gappa with the assistance of John Smyih. Water Resource Specialist vMth Bonestroo & Associates, the City’s engineering and environmental consultants Because wetland alterations an* not allowed by Orono Code except by variance, the activity is required to be justified via the demonstration of a hardship. The commission was asked to review the hardship statements within the application packet. The need for access to inland properties is a valid hardship that supports this v ariance request. The locations of the few access points to the island were platted a century ago, before nioton/cd vehicles were common. The access points generally w ere platted at low points in the topography, for obv ious reasons This is one of the only potential access points for the north half of the island, and the proposed work is necessary from a public a safety standpoint, as well as to prov ide access to inland lot owners. Access cannot be provided without work in the 0-75' zone. Gaffron st.itcd that staff recommends approval of the variances and CUP to allow the wetland alteration and driveway construction project, including filling of a portion of the wetland, excavation within 26* of the wetland, and filling and hardcover w ithin the 0-75' setback zone per Ihc revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conserv ation and Flovvage Easement over the wetland, and subject to .MCWD pennii approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. Page 41 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15, 2004 6:00 o’clock pm. («»I4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO. BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PER>UT, VARIANCES-Coolinvcd) Chair Smith asked for clarification on that the property omier was reclaiming his private property that had been used for public access. Gatfron responded affirmatively. Gaffron further stated this property ow ner suffered the public’s use of his property for many vears. Chair Smi»h confirmed that there is access elsewhere, but doesn’t provide for access to this part of the island and that is why this is needed. Gaffron stated that these access points were dedicated in plats 100 years ago and generally they are at the low points in the topography so that people could drive their horse and buggy up to tlie low point at Uie bluffs and that is probably w hy this one is located at the low point here. For whatever reasons it has become a w clland. We don’t know if it has always been a w etland. It is not on the city’s protected wetland list or map. Because of the wetland delineation process, however, the area is wetland. Public member Sheryl Uran. 120 and UO Big Island, ow ns property on cither side of the wetland. She thought wetlands were “sacred cows”. She spoke to the MCWD and they say a wetland can’t be filled unless there is no oihcr viable alternative and every alternative should be exhausted before a wetland is filled in. She said her property has been surv eyed three times m the last four years for this particular road and the stakes have been moved every single time To her know ledge, the other roads have not been surveyed. So the wetland has alw ays been looked at and not the other accesses. One inland property owner has asked for access. She spoke to Greg Gappa and he stated he has no plans to do anything for the roads. It is the furthest point aw ay for any of the inland properties. There are other access roads that can be used. For example, the road by Gabriel Jabbour’s property is partially p.ived and goes to all the inland lots. The one that is on either side of Bruntjen’s property has never been looked at as v lablc where rush and small trees are the onl^ thing standing in the way of access Chair Smith inquired what other accesses have been given consideration. Gaffron resjxindcd that the city has considered two other potentially v lable access poin’s: 1 . West side next to Jabbour’s property, w hich is used by ev cry body on the island 2. Downhill from Bruntjen’s property Gaffron then stated there arc other properties that nec*d to get access and they have potential of going in on the w est end. coming around the side of the large wetland. There are trees in the riglit-of-way and the city has told people not to cut trees in the right-of-way. Some of the right- of-ways arc located next to wetlands and the city normally doesn't like trees being cut next to w'ctlands. Staff believes people should dev elop on the island in ways that do not require they Page ^12 of 48 MINUTES OF THF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 ___ 6 ()0 o’clock p m _____________ (>>14. *04-2997 CITY OF ORONO. BIG ISLAND CONDITIO.NAL ISK PERMIT, VARIANCF.S-Conlinued) have constant and total use of right-of-ways. From a safety pcrspcctiv c there is a need for access Gaffron noted he believes the city should potentially be dc\eloping three access points on the island and named them on the map. However, it should be noted that the city doesn't have the dollars to develop them all at the same time so they are proceeding to improve one access at a time. This one has gotten started at the request of more than one neighbor and letters are m the packets applauding the city for trying to get sometliing useful Gaffron agrees with having more accesses, but the city is limited to what they can afford in a time frame that works. Publie member Dav id Lovelace. 220 Big Island explained tite access situation on the island and admitted he started the whole access issue and wants all three access sites developed. At the Bay Place location the lake levels comes up various years that makes access difficult. Mr. Lovelace stated he would bear the cost of the gravel vv ith his neighbors. Public member John L'ran. 120^140 Big IsKind who has lived on the island for 30 years asked Lovelace where he is building his house on that property and how close would it he to the access? Lovelace’s preference is to have his dock access near to where he will have his cabin or house. He ha - i covenant restriction with the owner that he purchased the land from. Uran asked Gaffron why the city would fill a wetland at this point to provide access vshen vou have two other places to provide access He suggested the whole island be surveyed Lov dace stated he is not asking to fill the wetland Public member Valeric Walsh. ISO Big Island is located five properties down from property access and didn’t receiv e any public hearing notice. Gaffron stated notices are required to go to residences w ithin 350’. She w ants all three accesses dev eloped. Public member Dorothy Parsons agrees with Ms. Walsh. She state«l her son carried 20 sheets of plv-wood up to her home because they don’t have road access. She also said the alley next to Parson’s home is not accessible. A septic sy stem needs to go in and they need access to the back of the property. Chair Smith suggested this item be tabled and sugge.sted that Greg Gappa n.ect w nh all island homeowners to come up with an access plan She also appreciates homeowners are interested in helping out financially and with letting the commission know what access points would be desirable to them Public member Parson asked what the city needs from them Chair Smith responded that hav mg all of toniglu’s participants make sure they sign in on the attendance form and note that they arc Big Island residents so that Greg knows who was here tonight. Page 43 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6 00 o'clock p m _____ (14. «(y4-2997 CITY OF ORONO, BIG ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES-Continued) Smith moved and Mabusih seconded to table Application #04*2997, City of Orono, for a CUP to provide vehicular access from the lakevhore to the interior platted road system between lots 38 and 39 at Morse Island Park on BIr Island. VOTE: Ayes 7; nays 0. SKETCH PLANS 15. #04-2987 IIASIIEM BUKIIADRA, 1745 FOX STREET SKETCH PLAN. Gundlach rq>oncd that ihc applicant was not present and the commission temporarily put this item on hold and moved to the next item. 16. #04-2988 HENRY J. LAZMARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN The representative. Henry La/marz. and his builder, Tom Goodrum. were present. GafTron explained this is a sketch plan for a proposed 7-Iot residential plat or PRD of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek. Five concept plans have been presented for consideration. Each proposal includes development of a private cul-dc-sac road accessing from Brown Road South, plus extensions to serv e various outlying or back lols. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Sen ice Area but docs not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site is w ooded and contains an existing single-family residence constructed in the 1920's. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Commission and Council during the period 1999-2M1. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The owners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts. have taken legal action to have their existing casement declared as usable for access to the properly. The City Attorney is still review mg documentation provided to him. but his initial conclusion is that the 4U‘ casement does in fact provide the applicant with the nght to create a road to serve mulinic lots over that easement. Henry La/niarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres. He apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this. Gaffron reviewed the points in the staff memo relating to the property. Tom Goodrum Itanded out colored rendenngs of the fiv c concept plans. GafTron noted that applicants have provided the commission with a number of concept plans and most of them could be done in a planned residential development w ith a standard plat. The Page 44 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 15. 2004 6:00 o*clock p m._____________ (<^I6. II04-2988 IIF.NR > >Continaed) i.AZNIARZ. 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN commission is looking at a vancly of variances for lot widths, perhaps for lot areas. Tlicre are some back lot situations tiiat arc potentially difficult and it might be worth our while to start talking through them and that v\ ill hring up specific issues to address GafTron explained each of the five concepts. See Exhibit A-2 for each of five Concept Plan A-E. In review ing Concept Plan A. GafTron noted the creek is an amenity whose value can't be judged. There are wetlands on the properly. There is also the Luc.- Line Trail along its south boundary. GafTron noted once the required setbacks arc put in. as this is a back lot. we arc looking at I50*i» of the standard* so instead of the 50* there w ould a 75’ setback from the trail. You start to look at the real build.ability of this site and what docs it do to the character of the Luce Line if this is built. He continued by saying if we arc to give this applicant one unit per tw o acres through a PRD one of the things we ought to be pushing for is to not let this area abuliing the Luce I ine be buildable, and either acquire easements over this or hav c this as part of their park dcd:cation Chair Smith staled she is familiar with this site and can't envision a house there and asked if this meets DNR setbacks. GafTron responded that DNR doesn't give the city specific setbacks from Ihc trail, and the creek setback is 75’. He continued by saying the DNR hasn’t dcx clopcd a specific setback from the Luce Line and city code says that if this w.is a side lot line we would ha\e a 30’ setback. An accessory building that was (airly small could get as close as 10’ to the trail boundary. Access to the lot abutting the trail is by crossing the creek somewhere, md will require some sort of bridge and that means the DNR and MCWD w ould need to gixe approvals. Bremer .iskcd how that w ould afTect fire drpariment access. GafTron stated that w ith any of the properties with I.OOO’ long dnvrx-.uvs that are 12’ wide it is difficult to sometimes get fire trucks to the property. This property would not have city water, but have private wells so there is an issue Ibr the fire department having to bring water in to the property to fight a fire. Applicant stated he is interested in dedicating the area from the creek to the Luce Line and wants sexen properties on this site. GafTron concluded with Concept A w ith sa>ing this is a series of lots essentially coming off a single road s>*stem where >ou are parallel and potential issues where a home might be built. GafTron explained that Concept B has the same comdor to get to the south end. perhaps some “gcrT>mandercd" lots at the end of tiic cul-de-sac to gel out to Uie properties up by Long Lake. Page 45 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m.____________ (#16. #04-2988 HENRY J. LAZMARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SKETCH PLAN -ConUnued) nicrc is a cul-dc-sac in Ihis area u ilh some smaller lots on either side of it taking advantage of the walkouts to the southwest to the southeast and puts the cul-dc-sac in a fairly flat area of the property. Gaffron noted that Concept C has smaller lots up against the city boundary \Mth Long Lake. Lots seem to match those lots to the north in Long Lake. There are larger lots to the south with the cul-dc-sac and taking ad\antagc of some areas for walkout houses. Applicant is sensitive to not placing houses on top of an existing house nearby. Doing more w ith the large area, five small lots, one lot is an outlot and this area is one of the potaitial areas for stomiw'ater ponds. Somewhere on the property there will have to be a sloimwater pond to take the drainage from the road. There is access to the outlot on the north. Regarding Concept Plan E, Gaffron noted that it clusters six small lots in the central area, preserves all of the north side as open space, creates a distinct uniform neighborhood and places the newr road on top of existing drivew ay. Chair Smith inquired how the city can set aside forever preserving outlols when the city docs clustering. GalTron responded that the city has a variety of options including easements, land trust ownership, etc. He noted the city hasn’t done any cluster housing in the past. Mabusth suggested the city should think about N’orthgate or Sugarwoods w ith 2-acre densities with clusters, one road so you won ’t impact that property or the dnveway-s Gaffron said this option has the highest intensity use. leaves the outlot alone and the wetlands could be protected by a conserv ation easement for unbuildable area east of the project and south of the project from the creek to the Luce Line. Builder is interested in considenng putting another lot in the public roadw ay systan w est of the outlot area and leave the outlot area alone. Chair Smith asked Gaffron about setbacks. Gaffron stated that if you do a cluster development the city should establish special setbacks for this plat that match the zoning. Also, look at w hat kind of housing the builder wants to place on the property. Gaffron explained that Concept D clusters one-acre lots in the central area as a uniform neighborhood. It separates the smaller 1 -acre lots w ith standard 2-acre lot to the north and south, preserves open area greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. Fntzler stated his concern for fire safety. Fire department would have to bring in drop tanks; there are no hydrants and no way to run a line. Page 46 of 48 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 15, 2004 6:00 o ’clocko.nv_____________ (#16. #04-2988 HENRY J. LAZMARZ, 120 BROWN ROAD SOLTH, SKETCH PLAN -Coalinucd) GafTron asked ihc builder what kind of housing he is planning lo place on ihe properly, single family residences versus attached The applicant stated he is interested in this plan for detached single-family as it allows for larger lots in one area. Could place smaller instead of larger homes on these lots from 4.000 square feel down to 2,000 - 3,000 square fool homes. GafTron noted if cluster housing is used the road should be private and asked about any other common spaces other than the road, or will the rest of it becomes platted as individual lots. Open spaces would be maintained by an HOA. It could be that the builder docs a development where houses are on pads and all the open space around it is maintained by an association cr houses on pads and la>% ns are maintained by the homeo>« ner. Mabusth suggested a 50' setback adjacent lo the existing two-acre single-family residential sites. Exterior homes should conform lo this requirement. Audience member. Chuck VanEeckoui. seller of the property, indicated that the two lots in question are both heavily w ooded lots. The Planning Commission members noted they generally favor Plan E. Berg inquired whether there would be a trail down to Ihe Luce Line. The applicant thought possibly a trail casement. Fritzler wants to make sure that the trail is not snowmobile accessible. GafTron stated there should be a review of possible bluff sites on Ihc property. There should be an archeological significant review by SHPO. The applicant should look for tree andbr woodland buffers within the property boundaries where there is high density along there lo keep buffers from the neighbors and tree preservation is important and protective covenants can be put in place. Applicant stated he will come back to the commission w ith a plan. 15. #04-2987 HASEHM ABl’KHADRA, 1745 FO.X STREET, SKETCH PLAN Applicant or surveyor was not present. Bremer moved aad Fritzler sccooded lo Uble Applkatioii IKM-2987 lo the next meeting. \'OTE; Ayes: 7; Nays 0. Page 47 of 48 rAA •WJJWoawi SIEOCL MILL lOui'Z .A«( o*»ie<» SiCOCL. 0RU.L. CREUPNCR, OUFcr fc roSrtR, P.A. #Vt ^ *4 ft rw^*'* «CCO • r9ft*«« .« *»r«*^ft • ft «•» C-« t*3*«(* •«• ^ ft*CC«<4 • »f*«**^ .dIMftAM W •!« ft* •».A« t MC*ft*c»r >OC N0’O*4 ftO.AMt . MOTON < ftOiiT«- MINMCAPOLIS. MifiNCSOTA S540i ttC«C4. •«••••%» .*»tt A -•le-'iat.i i«i* 'i*'PMC i .d«C* •M»M rM«a«r* ■ao0CM»t MrfteaMVM .»««»• •w •( ti> 'ti'oa *• m ,MW«C( •»**♦«»*•« CCMC «M«* • •• • M* • ««tjMac March 22, IWU 23.751-T(i Mayor Baibara Pcimon City Council Ciry of Orona 2750 K«lly Parkv'zy IVO Bo%65 Crs'slil B-i>, 5532J iU: A|»plktil«« fof 0»-Salc U«|Mr Lktn«« 4i 3425 Sftor«ltat Urhe. N«varre Dear M» Peterson and City Council Ai the rc^ue5t of Ausi;n Evai.s. Charlea Nailer and some of tne other ncigbfccn of Jte site referred lo above, we have reviewed Uic appiicancn by Mr. Paul Ode for an on-salc Iiquoi iiceme. As we underuand it. the liquor license is proposed to be one clcmcni of a piua lestouraoi And bowling *lley concept to the lower le»cl ot the "Kcaveny Building- Ai. we understand the facts, the sue is in Lne B-1 iomng disuicl. The existing bow ling alley is a non-conforming use m ihai cone. If this is noi correci. please let us know umncdiatsly because our opinion is based upon these iacts Wc art also given lo understand that the restaur am and bowUng alley will be operated us one use According to the mjiuies of the Orono Plannmg Commission rneetin„ of Tuesday. Innuary 20. 2004 (page 47). Mr. Odc Stated. “. .that the combinnticn of lull bar. bowling alley, restaunoi is what makes the operauon successful He tndicat^ that bcwlmg alleys have not kept up with what ciieniele want and have since failed across Uie naiion He noted that the restaurant would be ------------a 3$CUt4. WUIO.4HWW4 Page: March 22.2004 added to the ea» nde of the bowling alley, replacing the curreal garage sicimge area." AccoMini to the pending applicaiion for conditional we permit for this site, a new. single entryway would serve both the bowling lanes and the restaurant and Uie two would be operated together as a modem bowling center including the combined restaurant with i\iU hyuor license based upon the above, ii is our opuuco. that the requested gwi of a liquor license foi this establishment would be illegal under Orono’s Code of Ordinances. We detail our reasons for that opinion below I. /i Uquor lictnt€ OMuier be grmmtti if the premi%ts do net tempfy nUh city zoning regmloiions. Under Orooo Section 34>S3: ‘No license shall be grar.iei fur use in any prcnuscs that does net or will nci comply with the Cit>* s zoning re(rularinn< set forth la Chapter 7g." In addition. Orono City Code Section 34.122 pro\ idci "Notwithstanding any section in this chapter to the contrary, alt premises that are licensed must be located m zoning dudricl m which they are permitted and must be in compliance with the eoning negulauons set forth in Chapter 7g." Does Ibo bowling center, as proposed, comply with Chapter 78? If not, then the two code sections quoted above, prevenl Uie issuance of a license. 2. The proposed bonding eenter^resfemnimt use nouid be an extension of m non- conforming use and tllegoi under Orono Ctty Code The remodeling of this Site to add a restaurant to the bowling center would ettend and intcnsiiy an existing aon-confcmnrg u^ This IS illegal under ihe common law and under Orono’s Code Orono Code Section tg'J provides. ‘‘Non-Conforming Usaa. Any land or building which were actually and iegally devolad to a non-confomung use on January 1. 1975. may be continued in the non-eonfomung use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as specifisd and subject to the foUowing pro vitionr. (I) The non-eenformtng use mny not be chunged to onotker non-conforming use. i 2497 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN SS231 Trt: fS2 - 471 f |7t F*«; 951 - 471 IIM February 10.2004 City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway P O Box 66 CrNsial Bay. MN 55323 Re: ApplicatioB MM-2977 - Coadilional Uic Permit for a Restauraat RcqacaC to delay aay farther heariagi aatil a proper aotke hat beea pahNthed It has come to my notice that a number ofpeople had not realized that the above proposed restaurant intends to be fully licensed for the sale of liquor Exhibit B attached to the SiafTs report dated January 16.2004 in respect of this application (Applicant's request for a conditional use permit) only requests a **Pizza Factory" restaurant and makes no reference to it being licensed. Throughout the Sttff report reference is made to a “Restauranr c.xcepi in the pcnuliimate paragraph on page 9; their recommendation « 4 on page 11 only stales “Restauranr Under Section 78 - 644 there are 8 uses for which a conditional use permit is required Use it 3 is 'Resuurant (class I)”, and use « 4 is “RcsUiirant (class ID" Both these uses are dirferent to each other, restaurant (class ID being a licensed one The public notice sent to Property Owners within 350 feel of the subject propertv notifying the public hearing, incorrectly states that the application is for a **restanraar wHh no iadicatioo of what ty pe. Sectioa 78 - 915 reqnircs that sach notice shall iadicatc the proposed condilioaal use. If the conditional uk is for a Ikcnaed rcstanrant then the notice should have staled "Restaurant (class lip. The same section does not include the use of what Staff and the applicant refer to as a “restaurant" The notice is therefore incorrect and misleading and has left people with the wrong perception of w hat is proposed I therefore request that the planning commission delay any further hearings on this matter until a corrected notice has been published in strict accordance with Zoning Regulations Youre truly. At'STIN H. EVANS 24t7 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 5S3J1 Td:9S2-47l 1170 Fat: 952-471 Ut4 Febniaiy 10.2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelky Parkwty P O Box 66 Cfy^tol Bay. MN 55323 ARcntion: Planning Director, Planning Commissioners and City Council Members Re: Application #04-2977 - Propoied RcatauranI at 3425 Shoreline Drive, Navarre. Under Section 78-916 of the Zoning Regulations the planning commission may recommend and the council may grant a conditional use permit IF . the city makes certain findings, which include the following contained in sub Para, (a) (2). 1 That the proposed location and use would not be detnmenlal to the public health. 2 That the proposed location and use wtwild not be dctnmcntal to the public safety. 3. That the proposed location and use would not be detnmenlal to the public welfare. 4. That the proposed location and use would not be maicnally injurious to propcnics or improvements in the vicinity It would seem to me that these issues go to the core of whether a conditional use pennit for the above application should be granted. II b therefore of great concern to nie that I can not find in the Staff Report to the pbnning Coambsioa dated Jaanary 16, 2004 in respect of the above appikatkin that any of these issues have been addressed. Instead there b on page 9 a rather dbmissive slaleineat that **lhe Zoning Ordinance doesn't specifically ontliae conditions the proposed restaurant mast meet, other than itenu whkh protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding coniHiuaily*'. No mention b even made of material injury to properties in the vicinity. Before you can mahe your recommendation to the City Council you have a duty and an obii^tion to determine that thb use b not detrimeaul to the puhik hcakh, public safety and pubik weffare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vkinity. I must bring to your attention that the use will be dctnmcntal to my health, and my neighbors. Every night until 1 30 AM wc will be awakened by the slamming of car doors and loud talJung as patrons who are in a "merry *' state leave the establishrncm Our sleep will be disturbed on a constant basis to the detriment of our health. There will be cars parked within 55 feet of my house (less distance than between the pitcher’s mound and home base). How can I not be awakened when cars arc so close? In the summer nxMiths I am constantly awakened by the roar of motor cy cles leaving the Nanows. I shudder to think what it will be like within 55 feet of my house. This increased traffic in the early hours of the morning will mean that it will be impossible to sleep with my %vmdows open. IN support of this point MY SON uill submit to the aty a lener indicating the detrimental effects of the noise upon his family whenever they stay with me Public safety \mII be affected in a big way Cars traveling south from the establishment will use the quiet residential street of Kelly Avenue The extra traffic generated by this use will compound the aiready very dangerous exiting on to County Road 1S. In addition patrons will be tempted to find a parking space on the lower le\el which if full will force them to return to County Road 15. The community expressed their traffic concerns at the Orono Navarre Town Meeting held on March 13. 2003 where 11 statements were made about the danger from current traffic volume This use will only increase traffic coming from other parts of the Twin City Area and contribute to an even greater danger to the safety of the public. Attached to this letter is a copy of the Town Meeting where I ha\e indicated in the nght hand margin all 11 statements that were made The location and use will be very dctrimenul to public welfare in five ways In thf it instance it will only increase run off water into Lake Minnetonka While the upper car park is technically “hardcover” at present, the hardtopping of it is bound to increase the run off water into Lake Minnetonka I am astounded that a commercial site such as this within 2(X) feet of a Lake Minnetonka lagoon is permitted to have a 90*i hardcover whereas the city stringently enforces the hardcover regulations in respext of residential property . Why do we have to perpetuate and compound an already sorry state of affairs? Secondly Navarre has one liquor bar and restaurant at present (I he Narrows) which is almost opposite this site Two such csUiblishmcnts so near to each other arc not in the best interests of the public welfare Neighbors are constantly grumbling and complaining about the nmsc element from the existing establishment. More importantly is there a need for one? Thirdly a second establishment consisting of a bow ling alley will attract an clement of patronage which will be irresponsible and rowdy When the bow ling alley was in operation, then every spring I would have to collect empty beer cans, bottles and other garage which regularly filled a garbage container, items Juowii over my fence by customers of the bowling alley How much w orse will this be when because of a full liquor license the profile of the patronage will in all probability be much worse Fourthly the cooking smell that will emanate from this establishment will be unacceptable WTien the wind is blowing from the North or liast we currently have to endure Rick’s Supermarket cooking of chickens. An additional smell is detnmental to the public welfare Finally I would point out that the community had many strong statements ( see copy of minutes attached where I have indicated at least 7 suitements so made) to make at the Town Meeting about improving Navarre, planning proactively for the future, and working to create a Navarre we could all be proud of Public welfare depends on a good environment and the graming of this conditional use permit will be very detnmental to that environment. The last issue is the most important one: material injury to property and improvements in the v icinity. My house is only approximately 130 feet from the subject building (about the same distance between home plate and 2*^ base by way of a straight line). I have been informed by experienced Realtors that a licensed bar and restauram so close will severely affect the marketing of my property when I come to sell it. Estimaies of a price reduction over its current value of up to SSO.OOO would have to be considered, particularly in a competitive market The same factors apply to the other 3 units in the Kelly Cove Homeowners Association. I would raise the questiofl of why should the owner of the subject proper ty financially benefit at a major and material cost to myself and my nei^bora? It is my understanding that the new residential property on 2S0S Kelly Avenue has received an assessed value of some S3.500.000 Is it wise policy to grant conditional use permit to the above property for a fully licensed bar and restaurant which is only 80 yards from a S3.S0O.O0O home? What will be the reduction in value to this property? Based upon the above forts and evidence H seems to me that all 4 tests are not met There b no way la whkh one can say that this proposed tocatten and ase woaU not be detriamatal to the pnblic healtit safety, aad wcifore aad would not he materially iajnriotts to properties and improvements in the vkiaity. The planniaf commissioii therefore has ao alternative hat to recommend denial to this applicatioa. ■ou. •®wmorTHE ORONO NAVAMie TOWN MEETINC ••■f'cfc I), 2MS S«K«r, ^ c.» Ad«««o, Mqw PMcm opaMd tht mwinif M 7:04 pj^ n !«I».T!u *•SJn5SS^‘i5 ”-ITiii^' *’™;*''"' ?“'>'« '■tai »boui 't/BUC COMMENTS //3t/ ................ wnm ^ bccontaainluNtel providId7N«vwrey5jSSl!SS!fi ^ n*i|hbofhood fed WnW Mr, Ericm tolliwr ihe Snydw, „ n .vkt . ^ „ (N«.: M,. En.«, M ^ «!.■>» «« ^®ho Elick- 3703 ammi wc^vt dunpina «h*i on Q^I'SJS’lilSd '•»^“*« tnd ^I»wht or ihrCiiy could clew *'« on thoi« i.tes>«*»«•«• ipMd Inifnpt doni hu loi^y ^ ^ *^‘*'*‘ «l«md hjs de.,r* foe *imifiai MkBd Moorw to adOrtn die dnn^nug inue FAOB I efto L MDfirmorTHi TOWN MimNC '“** **^ ^ *”*"»*•« <W. FWidid th, Ciiy wwto w,* him IB do M *CTi»l. y»££r£;i!sS';i£iiSirrrii ’“ ”•mmA ” ** conunupity She did not:rsr- “ ”“•=••»« O’""’ SFS2S5:S3S|^S (fiS-'JT"* ---------— T2 Vi.*- t«€« f'? '• VTf) colwiilS tw, i'SSir •••^ '•“«•«* ^ I */a»^ C VUv4 •# r4»%. ^ E2215I* ■ »_ -T===^!;^S££llig*jlwot produce this plmn wirtiotrtciuzcn jfinl «Mi —- s^iT>’ ff»f ofN iYiiaatntinmmufetrgid >ov« of '^»M> expressed h.« ^ed to b< carcf.it not to j t* PA(»2oriO A ***‘”SL'*^^^TOwWtixc ____»i«*iNlI?,Ii**** zs'Kgg^yAiairi^.i;^ g=^pSaK;TZ^.rS ^£»fy."i^ ^ m'"* ■ I Mfi I III liTM^SShJ^^ \ klmm,m, ^^-ilii_,_ '“'^•^*^»feri»«dfBti .... ^srKSia!“e~'i'52sas2^j:s^^ aagsras.aa^ra-a:;::Lg:s^:;ug •t iivtfig tn ^AU*3oflO SXSSiV^^-S ^^VSSZ^ Nwin» M (i tlSSEirJfiL^^?*^ <•»<.•»*»«*«, coiWMBiiiM Uck chuicuc. ««MAulti»ttt ■*■»<«■ rlKHi l^l■y|^J^^*‘i|,y**^ *“>^»»i»l»o«WD»ii effaf L».».w .j. - *— __• ... . > for itt floww la^ SiS5S25SS‘‘-**‘*j‘^iisa2UE" “”jM!$55«!fcg'«0'»i»m OT miu«d>-^- iMIlkli't •s« ■sjaaiL _ Mmmsorm mono IfAVAUtt TOWN MBBTING 7:«f*clMkM. My w b„prti^ ..th i«,«l» *, taj tta **^.*^“*^ ——” ■ *»»* <” <« >«oj«diay. He mM Ihu «»»< ky «» Miwneal. BcKk eomnunity.sjssj^rcsnsrjsscirsiirr,^ W •• «wniio<u imnity 10 die inm iBd Mite . wiitai Nriine. S#n«i IMt. Moiwl. end Mne«Lto Be«:h *M ne «oP*d tiK Luce Low n§ p«blk i^liudiil Mr. Jibbovr'f and tbt Ciiy ’tMIbiu. Mr. Wolfc irtMd if lh« >»»1 cottld |KH«mitHy let M a MiM rail eoniiior «ir> ** Miuneapolu light rati trail plan. tr«il 10 be tha tta drat liiik. th, of ,11 .K, u..rnmmumiiiaMgathci. OarardwithcL«k«SiaBriarT»ii wima*.w.._______.*. MMOdlOl I the Ukt Si^aior Trail. While beltevcd tfau ttail would be ^rw»eitodlf«»««Mp«rf,.TO„U»li,uorilo»w.,c»M«ii«.i«|«p«nereel MikeCeaeai eao. Keia4ieeiedll'irM^tIiI!!rfiJ'*"'**"*“T’’'''''*"''**^®“'™*'9-*>y«en UOfl !251^2d!rStlS;r^Il^neZi^zr^ Upk Kea^ leHeimd te, vkUe I ■»— *e locel leniiiii ewi _ __ Moane aakid fer any Mar connaati. If iheie «ew phM wlMli w«M wlude edd«, •cMowoktt.m. w arroinmoda*iuii.«atttuiLoegUke and that Mound haa plan* tt> Tamara ana. lahhflur poimad out that buildaiaoialaawall. wouidtocowa^^ SSr^^eSlT ” Navarra, one that . pubteaadCa»mcawto,panop«,raind.lL^Sl2SS^U ^ , FAQBSoflO ____________ ^^^“^ewwMttiy. .*l2LfJ« ««*«««•iwnVfi wOl bt wKt It Mnpi,!, i,mmLuuy!ZSlTL^^^!j^ «htt < •wiM I» tlt^ CSKl?* "* *^** "^ *•“**•“■ •“ iSSbStli'^ “■'■^ oto.«« *„ a» iid,^ IW^.^----- -------- t«1tM»a»».MMi^»___*yj»/ *rt.fire- is2jr!.’5* ■»*»>»««» ■wT^SSmSI'^'J;)!?,* tt* ““I" ^"> n**»». .•» w«K#.J700rrtIyA*wy. I1!*jr^““* ^ N«i^ **• '•»« «* WW b* me, ,f pMpte *!jf»fcViilrI 24S0 CtevM lwtc22ll ' •dillJIiSSLJlISfc* <1^^ **•*00 M It i«Ads yr aloM *<«n>Qr ito fMiiM •» <*> At «•«■ niM^ . . «• AAcuk, : % FILE COPY Juiuaiy 16.2004 >J4Hgo City of Orono 2750 Kelly Paikway P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 cirvop Attn: Planning Director, Planning Commissioners. City Council Members To Whom It May Concern: I am writing with regard to Planning Commission Application #04*2977. It is my understanding that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant for which a liquor license will be requested on the lower level of the building containing the bowling the alley located at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Please note our strong objections to this application based on the following: 1.The access to this property is not off of a commercial street, i.e. Shoreline Drive, but rather off of a strictly residential street, Kelly Avenue. The doors to this establishment face directly at and immediately adjacent to townhomes and single family residential. The noise from these est^lishments has been shown to be excessive. By w'ay of exan^le. The Narrow’s Bar is the site of so much noise that we are unable to sleep with our windows open in the home. Not only can we hear the bands and crowds when the doors are open to the bar, but the symphony of Harley-Davidson music that commences from 10 PM until well after 1 in the morning awakens us from a deep sleep even when the windows are closed. The noise pollution is astounding. Kelly Avenue is strictly a residential road that was never intended for corxunercial use. The City has previously closed roads that had excess traffic funneled through residential nei^borhoods (Old Orchard Road). A commercial use that will generate commercial traffic, particularly traffic that has been consuming alcohol, should not be allowed in a residential street CityofOrono Page 2 January 16.2004 The use u inconsistent with the residential zoning of Kelly Avenue. The use is not located on Shoreline Drive - it is located on Kelly Avenue. Parking is inadequate Based on the foregoing we strongly object to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit or for the consideration of a subsequent liquor license ^iplication for the subject property. We urge the Council and the Planning Commission to deny the applicants request Very truly yoy^ Doris Schlampp 2507 Kelly Avenue Orooo. MN SS331 i ■i 3. GrMn spaca ifi the dty of Navarra is alto of great concam at it it practicably non- axittent. A. If Navarra it really the’Canter” of OrofK). it really needs to be cleaned up! If the goal it to look good, like Wayzata or Exoeltior. then instead of allowing another butlneaa ettablithniont in an already crowded strip mall, additional green space should be contidered. B. Thera are alto apartments in the strip mall that produce a lot of noise, including incessant dog barking, and have police ceils. As a matter of (act one day last summer, we were out on the lawn and two police omoers with a dog were searching our woods for something or someone. This did not give us a very comfortable feeling. 4. The residents in Orono v4k> live on the lake pay a premium in taxes. MikeKellen has been resident of the City of Orono for over 20 years before moving onto Kelly Avenue. All lake homeowners also hope that their home site is a good investment. Noise and criminal elements are not conducive to a marketable piece of property. 5. We have received a copy of the letter sent to you by Doris Schlampp and agree with all of her concerns and those of Mr. Austin Evans, who addressed the Council Tuesday Jan. 20^2004. We also have signed a petition to object to the application. 6. The Planning Committee's own Mr. Rahn made reference to the many issues brought by concerned neighbors living next to or near by existing establishments such as AI&Alma's. The MM and Fletchers. Every cor^aint brought to the polioe or the city need to be dealt with and consume a lot of time and money. These issues can be entirely eiiminaled and wiU not occur in Orono if the Planning Committee votes against the proposed application i04 ’2977 for a Conditional Use Permit and Commercial site at 3425 Shoreline Drive. Very Sir>oerely Yours. Michael J. Kellen and Barbara Ward 2503 Kelly Ave. Orono, MN 55331 J«nto»Gundl>ch»Applc«bow •04-2977 Ffwn: To: Ooli: ChoriM Nadter <grooWayCfninn ^ <igundlocli^ orono. mn.ut> 1/20/04 5 03PM Appilcotky) f04>2977 lwn«rMidontofOronoat2509KollyAv«fluo.Todt/ Ijuttbocamo mtnn that thtfo is a propoMi to allow a rottauram sdjooont to tfio bowling aloy to ba oporalad and that lha restaurant ittanda to serve liquor. I am sorry I could not ba in attandanca tonight but I could not change prior comnMmanta The purpose of this a^ad is to lat you know I am adamantly against allowing this^Nhalhar or not liquor is served. Evan though the restaurant is ratadvaly sman. any abdibonal traffic althaintarsoctionofKeVy and Shorellna Drlwe is urscceptabla from a saMy parspocdva I baieve that the cky should tab's any considaration of this conditional use permit unbi the mpact on the existing traffic is thoroughly reviewed I drive every day at that inlareaction and can attest that avan a smaH increaia m cars coming on and off Shorellna to and from Kelly Avenue adds exronential rrA of accidents Currently there are competing left turn la*ss on Shorekna just east of this intersection which compounds the d*:btam. In the event the Ptwming Commission is not willing to delay this application to datamkna the level of negative impact on the safer/ zt the residenU that uaa KaOy and Shoreline Road every day. it shoe d require the Owner as a condition of approval to create access to the lexer parking level on the West sida of the building and dose the existrg curb cut from Kaly into the lower parking level of that building That would effectively move the traffic created from the new use »turn left frjrlher west of the Kelly intarsacbon. (and not incidertally west also of the CR19 Intersection) I know that there is quite a grade difference but that does not mean that it should not te requiradat whatever the cost to the owner if fSasibia Kelly is a residantial street-not a commercial one-by a quirk of bad poor planning a commerciai use has baan parmitled in the past- but to expand the commercial nature of the lower level without ramovrg the additional traffic compounds prior mistakes and increase the risk of serious injury to the residents of the area. Raspactfrjfly Submitted ChartM E Nadlar 1 2497 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Ttl: 9S2 471 ||70 Fat: f52 471 IIS4 fPOQ^ Febniary 7.2004 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attention: Planning Director. Planning Commissioners and Cit>' Council Members Re: Appikalioa MM-2977 - Proposed Restaoraat with Liqiior Lkeosr al 3425 SiMrriioe Drive., Navarre. I write to confirm my comments made at the Public Hearing in respect of the above application held on January 20,2004 My comments were made in the capacity as the nearest property owner to the subject property and as a concerned citizen of the City of Orono. As tbe Marcsl acifbbor I commeated as follows: a) 1 strongly backed and endorsed the concerns and objections of Mrs Dons Schlampp which raised concerns that: i) access to the car park is off Kelly Avenue - a residential road; ii) The noise element that will be or could be generated will be untenable (her remarks about the Narrows are understated); and iii) The amount of traffic that will use Kelly Avenue to travel South and also avoid the tortuous access to County Road 15 b) The current use. while not ideal or desirable is one which I have learnt to live With But then it does not have a full Liquor license, it is not a 2.000 square foot Restauram with possible sealing for 75 pa;.ons; and It does not generate some extra 50/75 cars per night if we assume turning each table over 2/2 5 times per night c) The applicant may say it is only to be a Pizza Factory - But what guarantee do we have as to its future use? d) Such increase in tiafTic will onh* compound the dangers of turning on to County Road 15 as they compete with traffic exiting from Rick's Supermaiket. The Liquor Store, Champion Auto Store, the coffee Shop Building, the Cilgo Service station, the traffic coming fro the East on 15 and the traffic turning both ways from county Road 19. As a dtizca I coaaeatcd as follows: I reminded the Commissioners: a) That the subject propertv was a 1 6 Acre site within 200 feet of Lake Minnetonka Water and HAVING 90% HARDCOVER b) That the applicam has not provided a landscape plan and ihat the present landscaping is only 6.8% of the total site area. c) That the application provides no setbacks whatsoever in its parking plan. d) That according to the City’s Zoning Ordinance the combined use of the Bowling Alley and the proposed Restaurant requires 91 car parking spaces but the applicant only proposes 84 and that at the cost of ao setbacks or grcca area. 11k parking situation is further compounded by the existing number of parking spaces for the retail space of only 30 whereas the Ordinance requires S3. e) There is no provision for garbage containers and loadings unloading areas which would fintha reduce the number of parking spaces possible Approximately a year ago there was a Navarre Town Meeting (I was not present) but from watching a video of the proceedings on the Cable Community Channel I seem to renKmber the following points being made: i) Navarre is Orono ’s town cemer and belongs to its citiaens; ii) Why cannot there be more landscaping to make it more pleasant like Wayzata and Excelsior, and iii) whv cannot the buildings be updated If this application is approved then: i) are we not as a community perpetuating what is at present a very unsatisfactory slate of affairs'’ ii) are we not increasing the active use of this building at the expense of regulations designed for the safety and enjoyable use of the community'’ iii) are we not prolonging the life of this building with uses that flaunt the planning regulations and only serve to delay a ’‘Planned Unit Development'*, which was considered as a possibility within 2 years, at the Town Meeting*’ When the amended plans are submitted for the continuation of the Public Hearing then I shall be commenting further on this application Yours truly. iifUL ^ t-t- t Austin H. Evans March 14.2004 City ofOrono P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55325 For thiriy-Sve years I have been a home owner m Orono. Ten years ago I . purchased a home on Kelly Avenue I have sacrificed a lot to live here for the peace and serenity. I know you all have a difficult job to do and it might be hard to put yourself in my shoes But I wish you would do so at this time. I am sorry, but I feel you owe me prote<^on on ray investment. What might be a more common sense question, "Do I not have the riglit to peacefully enjoy my propeny?" That is the question truly in your hands I have the faith this council will not put a full liquor license bar next to my home or would it YOURS. I bought this hone believing that nothing like this would ever happen If so, it is clear that I would not have ever made that decision to purchaU this property The factors of having to live with closed windows in the summer so that the noise of cars doors slamming, loud good byes, motorcycles starting up ib just too much to contemplate Besides all this, the traffic would then exit onto Kelly and presumably drive through the residential area. 1 just do not get it!! I have spoken to over ninety people and all but two showed concerns for this project. The following illustrate some of their comments 1) People walk on Kelly (no sidewalks) with children going to from the parks and beaches. They should not be confironted with additional bar traffic. 2) You must give ail these people credit. They know how this is going to Cusionwi. w».v ------------- nuu u mu, aim in«i try to drive to the upper level parking making an impossible left hand turn onto County 15. Thereafter, at clos'mg, customers will leave and drive down Kelly to avoid police and other traffic 3) There is absolutely no buffer zone between project and immediate adjoining property. 4) What planner would allow tlus bar project whhin 300 feel of a 3.5 million dollar readential home.*’ 5) Some buancsses expressed concern that our town (Navarre) could turn into a bar town like St Booiftdous. m 6) Many neighbors are concerned that there will be snowmobiles trying to trespass wooded areas to reach the bar. 7) Perception of "why do we have to pay'> * Bar owner gets rich and we lose propeny value. 8) Realtors have suggested that the yearly average increase of Lake Minnetonka home values (6-10%) will not be realized and in fact could suffer actual lose of viluatioa 9) Some are concerned with the lack of a bonafide business plan. No applications for the "Pizza Factory" could be found. Is the existing bowling ally really a good investmentT Might it be scuttled and a general enlargement of the whole square footage into a bar really be the plan? 10) Many have concents about the potential exhaust vending and odors and noises associated with the project. 11) Why does a "Family'* restaurant need a foil liquor license? 12) Mr. Keaveny (deceased) put his support and foith behind all busmesses that promoted health and wellness. In the recent Town Hall meeting, it was stated Navarre could be the shining spot of Orono This project would be against his wishes. 13) Who puts baby buggies, small bikes, and children on the same street as a bar? The above represents my views and thoughts on this proposed liquor license and project in general. Other conunents only echo my concerns. I trust you will aU take them seriously and make the right decision on this maner. auuituitcu Sylvia Bertagnoli 952 471-8540 6) Many neighbors are concenied that there wiU be snowmobiles trying to trespass wooded areas to reach the bar. 7) Perception of"why do we have to pay ‘> ’ Bar owner gets rich and we lose property value. 8) Realtors have suggested that the yearly average increase of Lake NCnnetonka home values (6-10%) will not be realized and in fact could tu&r actual lose of valuation. 9) Some are concerned whh the lack of a bonafide business plan. No applications for the "Pizza Factory" could be found. Is the existing bowling ally really a good investmentT Might it be scuttled and a general enlargement of the whole square footage into a bar really be the plan? 10) Many have concerns about the potential exhaust vending and odors and noises associated with the project. 11) Why does a "Family" restaurant need a foil liquor license? 12) Mr. Keaveny (deceased) put his support and foith behind all businesses that promoted health and wellness In the recent Town Hall raeetins. »t was staled Navarre could be the shining spot of Ot ono This project would be against his wishes. 13) Who puts baby buggies. sraaU bikes, and children on the same street as abar? The abwe represenu my views and thoughts on this proposed liquor license and projea in general. Other comments only echo my concerns. I trust you will all take them seriously and make the right decision on this matter. • suuiiuticu Sylvia BeitagnoU 952 471-8540