Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-09-2003 Council Packet
JliN 9 2003 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDA^lJrt^^^MTMa, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1. Councilmember Interference with the Duties and Supervisory Capacity of the City Administrator CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 3. Regular Council Meeting of May 27,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDermott, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) 4. David Gardella Request for Assistance Regarding Mn/DOT Right*of-Way Taking ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 5. #02-2843 Professional Properties of Orono, 2745 Kelley Parkway - Rezoning - Ordinance 6. #03-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth, 1280/1290 Spruce Place - Variances - Resolution 7. #03-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place - Variances 8. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Concept Plan Approval 9. #03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith, 4195 Highwood Road - Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Resolution 10. #03-2896 Brude Boeder on behalf of Franciscus Bastiaens - 665 Femdale Road North - Conditional Use Permit and Variance 11. #03-2901 Denali Custom Homes, Inc. on behalf of Melinda Lee and Thomas DeVeau, 680 Tonkawa Road - Variances * 12. #03-2902 WJM Properties LLC, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Conditional Use Pennit Resolution * 13. Joint Use Dock License - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14. Seasonal Employee for Golf Course CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. Award of Bid - Navarre Fire Station Construction 16. Accept Donation from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Asibciates, Inc. T t ^ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 9,2003,7:00 P.M. v ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA \ 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Temporary, Part-Time Employee to Assist the Planning and Zoning Department Park^ 0pm Space and Traits Commission Appointments Accept Resignation - Paul Theisen Amend 2003 Fee Schedule - Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit - Resolution Opposition to Weapons on City Property - Policy Statement CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT * 22. LICENSES * 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2m 06/07 - Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 8:00 a.m. - Noon 06/09 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 06/16 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 06/23 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 07/04 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Independence Day 07/07 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. 07/09 - Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 07/14 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 07/21 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 07/28 - Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. . -A.- ' ’ f- i '. ■■ O, ■■ ♦ 1 ' i t: t ; A I Public A ttendance Meeting Date ~ 9 ~~ ^3 l^^COUNCIL ■— □ PLANNING C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please ntLOUTTHE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. (j/g^ 7^U-ir/\ .< 7dit .0/^_______o% I 'Tci'L _______•ay// 0^ - 10. 11.. 12. 13. 14. 15. W:u4nMHt«g.t *w*o0 mw»< P. ' :I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUN 9 2003 CITY Or omwiwU \ DATE: June 5t 2003 ITEM NO: | DcpartncBt Approval: Naait RonMoone THk City Administrator AdmiolstratoeRcvicwcd:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Rqxirt Item Description: Council Member Interference With Duties and Supervisory Capacity of City Administrator Attached are materials related to an incident that occurred on May 2,2003, involving interference by Councilmember Nygard in the duties and supervisory capacity of the City Administrator. The Council attempted to address this matter with Councilmember Nygard, and provide him with an on>ortunity to respond, in an informal setting during a work session. But Councilmember Nygard did not attend the woric session. So the Council will address the matter as part of the regular Council meeting. This is an opportuiuty for Councilmember Nygard to respond to the information regarding the incident. The Council will then determine what action, if any, to take regarding the matter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion regarding action, if any, concerning the above matter. ’.*r^ ^5 : • S-71 ORONOCnVCODB means available to gather at the city hall. If safety or convenience dictates, an alternative place of meeting may be designated. Those g«.ih- ered shall proceed as follows: (1) By majority vote of those persons present, regardless of number, they shall elect a chairman and secretiuy to preside and keep minutes, respectively. (2) They shall review and record the specific facts relating to the nuclear attack or natural disaster and ii\juries to persons or damage to property alieady done, or their imminence. (3) They may, based on such facts, declare a state of emergency. (4) By majority vote ofthose persons present, regardless of number, they shall fill all positions on the council, including the office of mayor, of those persons upon whom notice could not be served or who are unable to be present. (5) Such interim successors shall serve until such time as the duly elected official is again available and returns to that posi tion, or the state of emergency has passed and a successor is designated and quali fies as required by law, whichever shall occur first. (c) Dutle$ of the interim emergency council. The interim emergency council shall exercise the powers and duties of their offices and appoint other key government officials to serve during the emergency. (Code 1984, f 2.10) Sec. 2-72. Workers' compensation. All officers of the city elected or appointed for a regular term of office or to complete the unexpired portion of any such regular term shall be included in the definition of employee as defined in state law relating to coverage for purposes of workers' compensation entitlement. The term "employee" shall include, but not by way of limitation, police reserve officers. (Code 1984, fi 2.16) Slate law reference—Autliority to expand worken' com- peni.ntion covrrttfe to penona elected or appointed for rcgulor terui of ollice, Miun. Stst. 1176.011, eub^ 9(6). Secs. 2*78 —8*9S. Reserved. DIVISION 2. CITY ADMINISTRATOR Sec. 2-96. Position established. The position of city administrator is estab* lished. (Code 1984, i 2.06(1); Ord. No. 182 2nd series, i 1(2.06(1)), 1-2S-1999) Sec. 2>97. Appointment and removid. The city administrator shall be appointed by the council for an indefinite term. He ahall not bie removed except by affirmative action taken by the council twice at two regular meetings held within 60 days. The action taken at the first such meet ing shall be an expression of intent to vote thereon at the second such regular meeting not to be held sooner than ten days thereafter. If, at any time after the administrator has completed six months of continuous service, the council takes such ac> tion, the city adminikrator may, within 30 days after written notice of removal, request a public hearing which the council must grant and which must be started within 30 days after the request. (Code 1984, i 2.06(2); Ord. No. 182 2nd series, 9 1(2.06(2)), 1-25-1999) Sec. 2«98. Qualifications. The city administrator shall be selected solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference both to his experience and formal education, as well as knowl edge of accepted practices pertaining to the duties of the office. (Code 1984, 9 2.06(3); Ord. No. 182 2nd series, 9 1(2.06(3)), 1-25-1999) Sec. 2-99. Deputy city clerk. The city administrator shall, by virtue of that position, be a deputy city clerk. (Code 1984, 9 2.06(6); Ord. No. 182 2nd series, 9 1(2.06(6)), 1-25-1999) Sec. 2-100. Duties. The city administrator shall be the chief ad ministrative officer of the city, and he shall be CD2:6 1 ADMINISTRATION 12-101 responsible to the council for the proper edminis* tration of all affairs of the city and to that end shall have the power and shall be required to: (1) Supervise the administration of ali depart ments, offices and divisions of the dty except as otherwise provided ^ law and cany out any other responsibilities placed under the administrator's Jurisdiction by this chapter or by subsequent council ac tion. The administrator shali interview and screen ali prospective city employees as permitted by law and may make rec ommendations to the council before the council makes any appointment. The ad ministrator, with the concurrence of the council, shall appoint department heads, who shali be responsible and accountable to the administrator. All personnel shall be responsible and accountable to the administrator. The city administrator may suspend any emplt^ee until the next coun cil meeting. If the city council does not act to modify or rescind the suspension, the suspension shali be deemed ratified by the city council. (2) Develop and issue all administrative pol icies, rules, regulations and procedures necessary to ensure the proper function ing of ali departments and offices under the administrator's jurisdiction as permit ted by law and council approval. (.3) Prepare and submit an annual budget to the council and keep the council advised of the financial condition of the city and make such recommendations as may from time to time be determined desirable and necessary. (4) Attend and participate in discussions at all meetings of the council and other offi cial bodies as directed by the council. The city administrator shall also represent the city at all official or semiofficial func tions as may be directed by the council and not in conflict with the prerogatives of the mayor. (5) See that all laws and provisions of this Code ere duly enforced. (6) Make or let purchases and contracts when the amount does not exceed $S,000.00 and receive estimates, quotations, sealed bids, purchases or contracts in excess of 95,000.00 and present them to the council for official action. 8Uto Uw rtfertnce—Contmte, Minn. But 1471.348. (7) Recommend from time to time the adop tion of such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient for the health, safety and welfare of the community or for the improvement of the administra tion. <8) Perform such other duties as may be required by the council and consistent with state statute and this Code. (Code 1984, i 2.06(4); Ord. No. 182 2nd series. 9 1(2.06(4)), 1-25-1999) Sec, 2-101, General supervisory capacity, Nojnember of the council shall in anv manner interfere with_______ or prevent the city administrator from exercisiM the ad^nistratoi's own judg ment in the administration of the city B; the purpose of inquiry, no member of tha^mj^ii shall deal with or exercise control o ver the admim istratlon of the cltv: and no member shall give toi orders to any dy^ment head or employee oftne city, either publicly or privately, except tfirough a majority vote of the council. give ftae (1) If a councilmeraber receives information regarding a matter of concern related to the administration of the city, the councilmember shall forward the informa tion to the administrator at the earliest possible time. The administrator shall then forward the information to the other councilmembers. (2) If an individual councilmember directly contacts a staff member for the purpose of obtaining information, the information shall be provided to all councilmembers and to the administrator, if the staff mem ber contacted is other than the adminis trator. If the response to a councilmember's in quiry will require significant time and CD2:7 t \ ' - ■ i 1i IS401 ORONO CRY CODE •ffort, tht staff psrson shall rsli»r ths couneilmsmbsr to ths sdminUtrstor to dstsrmins whsthsr ths rsquest can bs accommodatad within ths cuRsntworidosd priorities. If ths request conflicts with other workload priorities, the administra tor may refer the request to the fliU coun cil to determine whether the request should displace other council priorities. (4) Concerns raised hy city employees regard ing the administration of the city shall be addressed through the chain of command. The city's administrative policy shall set out the process to be used for addressing a concern through the chain of command. (6) Concerns raised by city employees regard ing pay, benefits, and other employment- related matters shall be addressed through the grievance policy set out in the city's administrative poliqr. (Code 1984, ft 2.06(7); Ord. No. 182 2nd series, 11(2.06(7». 1-25-1999) Sec. 8>108. Acting administrator. The administrator may appoint an acting ad ministrator to dischorgs ths duties of the administrator’s office when the administrator is on vacation, sick leave, leave, or out of the area on business. If the city council does not rmcind or modify the appointment at the next cify council meeting, the appointment shall be deemed rati fied. If the city administrator no longer holds the position, the mayor may appoint an acting admin istrator subject to concurrence of the council at their next regular scheduled meeting. The appoint ment shall state the powers and authorify granted to the acting administrator. (Code 1984, ft 2.11) Secs. 2-103 —2-18S. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. DEPARTMENTS Sec. 2-138. Fire department, (a) E$tabli$hed; chief. A fire department may be established by resolution of the council. The size and composition, including members, shall be established by resolution of the couneU, whidi may be changed flrom time to time by a subse quent resolution. The council shsll also establish and, from time to time, revise and amend written rules and regulations of the department, includ ing, but not limited to, its internal structural organization and compensation. The chief of the fire department shall see that all property used and maintained for the purposes of the fire de partment are kept in proper order, and that all rules and regulations and all protons of the laws of the state and this Code relative to a fire department and to prevention and extinguish ment of fires are duly observed. He shall super vise the preservation of all property endangered by fire and shall control and direct all persons engaged in preserving such property. (b) Council may contract for services. In lieu of the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, the council may contract with one or more gov ernmental units for fire protection for all or a portion of the city, and, in such case, the following shall be observed: (1) Fire service di$trict$. The city •hall be divided into fire service districts corre sponding to the areas of the city which are provided with fire protection by separate fire departments as established by mu tual agreement between the city and one or more contracting municipalities. Estab lishment of such districts shall not pre clude or otherwise affect mutual aid agree ments between fire departments. An official map shall be prepared and kept current to show all fire service districts in the cify. Protected areas. All land within the cify shall be included in one of the fire service districts established in subsection (bX 1) of this section and shall be provided with fire protection service by the fire depart ment having contractual Jurisdiction there for, except that land on Big Island, Mohpiyata Island, Deering Island and other areas not accessible by land or bridge shall be excluded from fire protection. (3) Jurisdiction. The fire department of the cify is the fire department having Juris diction in each of the several fire service CD2:8 TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor Peterson and Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator May 5,2003 SUBJECT : Concerns Regarding Council Member Interference with Personnel Meeting On Thursday, May 1,2003, the City Administrator provided an update to the Council on a personnel matter. The update included advising the Council that the City Administrator would be involved in a meeting regarding the personnel matter early Friday morning. May 2. Council member Nygard missed that update because he left the worksession early. On Friday morning. May 2, Council member Nygard called the City Offices to talk with the City Administrator. As the City Administrator was in the meeting regarding the personnel matter. Council member Nygard spoke to Denise Leskinen, Administrative Support Assistant. She told Council member Nygard that the City Administrator was in a meeting. Council member Nygard indicated he needed to speak with the City Administrator immediately. Ms. Leskinen interrupted the meeting to tell the City Administrator that Council member Nygard wanted to speak with him. The City Administrator indicated he could not be disturbed unless it was an emergency. Ms. Leskinen relayed this information to Council member Nygard. When this information was forwarded to Council member Nygard, he indicated that if he was not allowed to speak with the City AdminisL'ator on the phone, he would come up to City hall. Ms. Leskinen indicated the City Administrator could not be disturbed. Mr. Nygard then came up to City Hall and insisted that he be allowed to talk to the City Administrator or he would interrupt the meeting. Ms. Leskinen then talked to Lin Vee, City Clerk about what to do. Because there were members of the public in the lobby area, Lin Vee, City Clerk, escorted Council member Nygard outside to explain that the City Administrator was in a meeting regarding a personnel matter, and could not be disturbed. Council member Nygard indicated that if Ms. Vee did not get the City Administrator out of the meeting, Council member Nygard would interrupt the meeting himself. Ms. Vee then interrupted the meeting to tell the City Administrator that if he did not talk to Mr. Nygard, the Council member would come into the meeting. To prevent this, the City Administrator left the meeting . The City Administrator told Council member Nygard that he was in a meeting regarding a personnel matter. Council member Nygard indicated he needed to talk to the City Administrator. To avoid a discussion at the front counter, and to try to get back to the meeting as quickly as possible, the City Aministrator met with Council member Nygard in the City Administrator's office. The reason for Council member Nygard's need to meet was his concern about how Mr. Jabbour had been allowed to participate too much in the discussion of the Big island Access issue at the worksession the previous evening. The City Administrator listened, and concluded the meeting as quickly as possible, so that he could get back to the meeting regarding the personnel matter. L *.• It was very unfortunate that the meeting regarding the personnel matter was intemqjted. All continuity of the previous discussion was totally lost when the City Administrator returned. It is also unfortunate that Council member Nygard determined that his need to immediately discuss his concerns regarding the worksession superceded the importance of allowing the City Administrator to continue his meeting uninterrupted. Both Council member Nygatd’s insistence on interrupting the City Administrator ’s meeting, and his conduct in relation to the administrative staff are of concern. According to City Ordinance, an individual Council member may not provide direction to staff (i.e. insist that the City Administrator interrupt a meeting, or demand to participate in a meeting of the City Administrator) unless a quorum of the City Council have authorize such action. The conununication channels between the City Administrator and Council are very open. The City Administrator alwiys tries his best to accommodate requests by Council members to meet. But this needs to be a two-way street. There are times when it is not possible to meet immediately with a Council member. All Council members need to respect and be considerate of those times While two different administrative staff advised Council member Nygard repeatedly that the City Administrator could not be disturbed, he would not be put off. He indicated he was a Council member, and he was going to talk to the City Administrator. This put the administrative staff in a very uncomfortable position. The administrative staff did very well in trying to deal with him in a professional way, trying to maintain the decorum of the office. But they should not have to be placed into that position by a Council member. MEMC).......... From: Denise Leskinen RE: Jay Nygard incident on Friday May 2,2003 On Friday morning I answered an incoming call. The caller asked for Ron Moorse, I told him that Ron was in a meeting but I could give him voice mail. The caller stated: **this is councilmember Nygard, get him out of the meeting I need to speak with [Ron] right now.” I put the call on hold and interrupted the meeting. Ron asked me to tell Jay that he was in a meeting and could not be disturbed unless it was an emergency. I relayed that message to Mr. Nygard, he stated that “[he] is an elected official of this City, if Ron will not t^e his call than [Jay] will just come down there and speak with him or sit in on the meeting.” I q>oke with Lin about the phone call and discussed the best way to handle die situation should he actually show up here and Ron was still unavailable. Jay Nygard did show up a short time later. Ron was still in a meeting and could not be disturbed. I told Jay that Ron was still unavailable but he was welcome to wait. Jay stated that he had better things to do than wait, he wanted to see Ron right now. I told him that I was sorry but I could not interrupt the meeting unless it was an emergency. Jay stated “[he] is an elected official of this city and that [he] had every right to speak with Ron right now “. I had told him no less than four times that I could not intemqit Ron unless it was an emergency, I asked him if he could tell me the nature of the emergency, he went on to insist that I either get Ron or he would go find him himself and sit in on the meeting. He made a point of saying that “it’s not you, it’s all me”, in other words that it would not be me interrupting the meeting but him. At this time thWe was a gentleman from M^OT who was waiting for Ron and Jay had his little daugihter with him, although he did not raise his voice or become outwardly disruptive, it was obvious to me that he was not going to take no for an answer. Rather than stand there and with him I asked him to wait a moment and 1 went to consult with Lin about what to do. Lin came out and took Jay outside to speak with him (by this time there were people coming out of a meeting with Lyle). A few minutes later Ron came out to speak with Jay, before he left [Jay] thanked me for “putting up with him’*. r t» To: From: Date: Ron Moorse, City Administrator 0 Lin Vec, City Clerk May 5,2003 z• Subject: May 2,2003-Situation with Jay Nygard Denise told me about a call she received from Jay and that he was coming over to City Hall. She was concerned dx>ut how to handle the situation when he arrived if Ron was still in his meeting. When he arrived, Denise told me that he was here and insisted on interrupting the meeting to talk to Ron. I decided to also talk with Jay to see if I could persuade him to wait until the meeting was over. When I went out to talk to him, there was a gentleman from Mn/DOT in the entry waiting to see Ron and 3 men were leaving from a meeting with Lyle. 1 asked Jay to step, outside so we were not discussing the situation in front of others, including Denise or Rachel. I told Jay that Ron was in a meeting regarding a sensitive persotmel issue. Jay stated that he was an elected official and had every ri^t to be in any meeting that involved the City. He indicated that he had been embarrassed at the woric session the previous evening and wanted to discuss it with Ron immediately. He had checked Ron ’s calendar and since there were no meetings scheduled, he stated that Ron should be available to talk to him at any time during the day on Friday. He indicated that if I did not internq)t the meeting and ask Ron to talk to him, that he would go and sit in on the meeting until it was finished. I told him I would see what I could do. I then intemq;>ted the meeting a second time and explained to Ron in the hallway that Jay insisted on seeing him immediately or he would come back to sit in on the meeting until it was finished. ' - f- 'r i.-i '■ ■'"5' V , ■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. CO'**— JUN 9 2003 CITY or ortwKiO ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Jim Murphy, Jim White, Jay Nygard, and Bob Sansevere; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Engineer Tom Kellogg. Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/AmcBd Sansevere added items ^11,12.13,14, IS, 17-26, and 27 A and B to the Consent Agenda. Saasevere moved. White seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Aves 5, Nays 0. OATH OF OFFICE There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Special Council Meeting of May 6,2003 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special Connctl Meeting of May 6,2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na)? 0. *3. Reconvened Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of May 13,2003 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the Board of Appeal and Eqnallzation Meeting Minutes of May 6,2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. Regular Council Meeting of May 12,2003 Sansevere moved, W’hite seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 12,2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson Halvorson had nothing new to repoit, however, would be available for questions. Mayor Peterson stated that the Council had coinpleled ihe thice PaiV Commissioner interviews and would be choosing two new appointees by June 9 v>on thereafter scheduling a joint work session. PAGE 1 ofl 1 f i J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • Elizabeth Hawn Although she had nothing new to report, Hawn asked the Council for their suggestions with regard to the Commission’s lengthy meetings. She stated that the Planning Commission had been subject to meetings which were extending into late hours, which she felt was unfair to the later applicants, and to the Commissioners. Sansevere encouraged the Commission to tow the line on a time limit and not to spend so much time trying to assist applicants in identifying a hardship. He acknowledged that everyone would like to be a good neighbor and give applicants the opportunity to share their case, but the Commission needs to move on in many of these proposals. As a recent liaison. White stated that the agendas have become very cumbersome and he was concerned that some of the good representatives on the Commission might get burned out. Murphy indicated that, as the latest liaison, he noticed that the first applicant ate up 1.5 hours on old business, while little new information was shared. With full support of the Council, he pointed out that the Commission should limit the presentations of old business to only new information. Murphy suggested the Council and Planning Commission meet to discuss the hardcover and hardship ordinances and philosophy. He maintained that, much of the problem continues to be, too much house proposed for too small lots. While Mayor Peterson recognized Gaffron and Chaput for their efforts to express the limitations to applicants prior to their meeting with the Commission, she questioned why the applicants continue to push the envelope. She pointed out that the City was spending far more time and money working with the applicants than the permit fees covered. Sansevere questioned whether the City could have more than one Planning Commission meeting on alternate weeks to hear the applications. Attorney Barrett explained that the City could form a subcommittee to hear the applications which would then be reviewed by the Planning Commission, if they felt they wished to add another level to the process. Murphy believed that if the Commission could indicate that there was a time limit to share new information, and stick to it, the meetings would be more reasonable in length. Gaffron agreed that time limits could be imposed to a degree to hold the applicants to; however, the biggest problem has been the evolution of complex issues related to new construction versus remodels with regard to hardcover. Murphy added that, in one case in particular, one applicant insisted repeatedly to sfia.-e a powerpoint presentation under old business that had been shared its fust time around. After denying him the opportunity to repeat the presentation, as a public body, the Commission allowed him to share any new information within his presentation that might be deemed useful by the Commission. PAGE 2 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p,m. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. RECOGNITION *5. ORONO ‘‘SPOUT OF COMMUNITY” AWARD - RECOGNITION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS Mayor Peterson congratulated two Orono residents with the Spirit of Community scholarship awards and asked them to tell the Council about their future plans. Dane McFarlane, Orono resident and Mound student, stated that he had been taking college level courses at the University of Minnesota during his junior and senior years of high school and thanked the Council for presenting him with this great opportrinity to further his studies in the fall at the University in Electrical Engineering. When asked how many college credits he had accumulated thus far, Dane replied that he would be virtually entering college as a sophomore with 36 credits. Krista Carlson Parupsky, a senior at Orono High School, recently joined the National Honors Society and conqjeted for DECA at the Nationals. She planned to pursue business at Arizona State. White indicated that he had known Krista's family for years and that he believed her family embodied the spirit of the award and of Orono. *25. CONSIDER EXECUTION OF A GROUND LEASE AND A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE BY THE ORONO HRA OF ITS PUBUC FACHJTY REVENUE BONDS - RESOLUTION NO. 4987 Sansevcrc moved. White seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4987, a Resoluttoa setting out the City’s agreement to enter into a ground lease/purchase agreement with the HRA to finance the construction of the Navarre Fire Station. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The City’s Bond Consultant, Caroline Drude, presented the results of the bond sale, noting that Harris Trust and Savings in Chicago provided the best bid at 2.97%. She indicated that the projected interest of $596,140 over the life of the bonds, was over $300,000 less than originally planned. To the credit of Orono, its bond ratings is very good, as Moody renewed its AAI rating, just under the highest possible AAA rating. She was very positive and stated that it w'as a great time to sell bonds if the City had a project ready to move on, as in this scenario. Murphy stated that he continued to be amazed at what Orono has been able to achieve, he credited Administrator Moorse, and in-house staff, for achieving this excellent rating and keeping the City’s ‘house in order'. PAGE 3 of 11 . : i I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *26. CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE SALE OF S885,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS - RESOLUTION NO. 4988 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4988, a Resolution regarding the award of the sale of General Obligation Sewer Improvement Refunding Bonds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Caroline Drude, bond consultant, explained that 6 bids were collected, and one chosen at 1.77% from United Bankers Bank. She stated that the total savings net of all costs of issuance, was better than first estimated, with a savings of roughly SS6.977. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. #2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3532 IVY PLACE - AUTHORIZE LIS PENDENS Gaffron explained that the Cables had been occupying the residence under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy since April 4,2001, since Resolution 4671 required removal of the ‘ice house’ prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy. After inspecting the home in May of 2003, Gaflron indicated that the home contains additional sidewalks and retaining walls not authorized with the original building permits. Total hardcover as existing today would be 800 s.f. over the 25% limit. According to re-ised building plans, which reduced the size of the house, driveway, and walkways, Gaffron stated that the applicant’s hardcover as approved met the 25 % hardcover limitation. It was concluded that the ‘ice house’ would require a variance to remain since it became an accessory building in the 0-75’ setback zone, and nonconforming. After meeting with the Cables last Friday, Gaffron suited that further removals would be required, remaining issues include; the retaining walls near the tuck under garage, the ‘ice house’, and the driveway/walkways. Gaffron reported that the Council action being requested was to authorize the City to commence legal action to gain compliance, starting with filing of a lis pendens to notify all parties of pending legal action on the property. Attorney Barren added that, because the property is now for sale, the City w ould like any potential owner to know about the pending legal action. He stated that the City sent both the current home owner and realtor notice to this affect, explaining that the lis pendens would be removed once the removals were complete. Gary Cable stated that they went through a long process with the City while planning their home and pared down the lot coverage as much as possible. He pointed out that the structure itself was set back further from the street than necessary in order to save some trees on the site. Mr. Cable added that the ‘ice house’ had some historical significance and many of the neighbors had pleaded with them not to remove it. He asked if they could install pavers along part of the driveway to alleviate the hardcover dilemma. He also pointed out that they hoped to purchase another parcel in the City, from which a great deal of hardcover would be removed. PAGE 4 of 11 igghaiai MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3532 IVY PLACE, Continued) After numerous conversations, White stated that the retaining walls and ice house, were still the issues. Gaflion indicated that the Planning Commission heard a presentation with regard to permeable pavers at their recent meeting and were uncomfortable with calling pavers non-hardcover, in order to allow applicants to build more house or expand their hardcover. He indicated that he had reservations, and believed the City would not be do ng itself a favor by calling pavers non-hardcover. Since the original plans did not include a driveway for the third stall, Sansevere questioned why the applicant knowingly paved driveway there. Mr. Cable stated that he knew the application did not include the driveway, but that there was a great deal of history. Present during the permeable paver discussion, Murphy found the paver system intriguing, but questioned its durability over the winter months and maintenance. Hawn added that most of the documentation provided for the system came from the south. Murphy asked where the ‘ice house’ discussion stood. He belie\*ed the applicants had knowingly installed more hardcover than they were permitted and asked why they shouldn’t be required to return it to the original form of the Resolution. White felt the applicant would be left with quite a mess if they were forced to remove the retaining walls near the drive. Sansevere stated that, if anything, the applicants could file for an after-the-fact variance for the retaining walls, if water erosion proved to be a true hardship. With regard to the ‘ice house*. White stated that he had spoken to people at the historical society and found that Casco Point was one of the earliest settled areas around the lake. Since no surveys have been created, they concurred that the City ought to be careful to preserve these old things, and indicated that they would be willing to come out and assist the City to take a look at the 70 year old ‘ ice house', and other things. Sansevere asked if they could get compliance for the hardcover and note in the lis pendens that the ‘ice house’ was pending investigation. Barrett pointed out that the City had voted to remove the ‘ice house’, adding that a new CUP would need to be filed to reexamine it. Nygard stated that the only issue in front of the Council this evening was to determine whether the City wa.> going to move forwa^ with the lis pendens or not. He voiced his support for the action in order to give the City a legal leg to stand on. PAGESofll 1i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3532 IVY PLACE, Contiaaed) Gaffron recapped that the applicants would need to remove the driveway and walkway hardcover, file for an after-the-fhct variance for the retaining walls, and file a CUP for the ‘ice house’. Barrett indicated that the lis pendens would contain these three items, which could be removed as they were resolved. Murphy concurred with Nygard, suggesting the City take this action ASAP, since the applicant’s home was for sale. Nygard moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize the City to commence legal action to gain compliance, starting with filing of a lis pendens to notify ali parties of pending legal action on the property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, White Abstaining. Barrett encouraged the applicants to resolve the issues ASAP so as not to deter any potential buyers from their property. Sansevere pointed out that they had been, knowingly, in violation of the application for over one year. David Steingas, of Steiner and Koppelman, suggested the applicants remove an additional 110 s.f. from the driveway, rather than lose their retaining walls. Mayor Peterson stated that she believed the City and applicant could resolve the issues if they continued to work together. *7. #03-2883 DENNIS MEYER, 4655-4685 TONKAVIEW LANE - SUBDIVISION/LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 4981 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4981, a Resolution approving a lot line rearrangement between the two developed residential loU located at 4655-4685 Tonkaview Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #03-2891 ERIC AND KAREN PAULSON, 2605 MAPLE RIDGE LANE - VARIANCE > RESOLUTION NO. 4982 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4982, a Resolution granting a variance to permit construction of an in-ground pool that encroaches 32’ Into the average lakcshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #03-2892 DANIEL BARTUS, 1001 WILDHURST TRAIL - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4983 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Adopt RESCH^UTION NO. 4983, a Resolution granting a lot width variance for 1001 Wildhnrst TralL VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 6 of 11 Muuam MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *10. #03-2898 JULIE AND MIKE WHITTINGTON, 1981 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4984 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4984, a Resolution approving the construction of a deck above the existing concrete patio, not exceeding the existing 5,510 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone, and illustrating 86 s.f. of hardcover removals to the west of the road for the residence located at 1981 Eagerness Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. #03-2903, CITY OP ORONO - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE TOWERS AND ANTENNAS - ORDINANCE NO. 226,2** SERIES Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 226,2"^ Series - an Ordinance Amending Orono Zoning Code Sections 10.25,10.27, and 10.28 Pertaining to Regulations for Construction and Placement of Personal Wireless Sersice Antennas and Towers. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere suggested the Council discuss a resolution or ordinance which indicates that people cannot carry a concealed weapon into the City Hall. He felt it was important to post some kind of signage to protect staff and the public. Moorse indicated that it was not possible for a municipality to alter the legislation like that. Barrett stated that the City could not ’enforce’ any sign that they posted. Moorse noted that many of these same concerns are coming up elsewhere, and some cities are encouraging their representatives through resolutions etc. to change the legislation. He believed it could be altered during the legislature ’s special session. While the law w'ould probably not be changed in the special session, Murphy maintained that much would be altered over the next year. He stated that he would support the City adopting a resolution that says, as a City Council, we are interested in protecting our citizens and City Hail, and that guns are not allowed. He felt the City should stand up and say it docs not support this action. Sansevere suggested they post, as City policy, that guns are not allowed. Barrett reiterated that, while the City could make this recommendation, it could not enforce this policy. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4990 stating that while the City will work to see that the legislation is changed, the Council does not endorse carrying of firearms into public buildings. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Nygard and Mayor Peterson opposed. Murphy reported that he had attended, what he described as a disappointing meeting, with the head of the MnDOT right-of-way organization last Friday. He voiced his concern that some of the citizens were not being treated fairly by that organization and also that the values that have been applied to the properties that Orono and Long Lake own, that MnDOT wants to acquire, were not being priced fairly by that PAGE 7 of 11 *.• •• MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) organization either. He indicated that his group would continue to work with the organization, as it has for the past several years, in a partnership way. PUBUC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *12. GOLF COURSE CREDIT AND DEBIT CARD POLICY Santcvcre moved. White seconded, to nntborize the use of Credit and Debit Cards for the payment of Orono Municipal Goif Course fees. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to authorize the use of American Credit Card Services Inc., Mound Minnesota for processing of Credit and Debit Card payments at the Orono Municipai Golf Course. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. SEASONAL EMPLOYEES FOR THE GOLF COURSE Sansevere moved. White seconded, to hire the seasonal employees listed at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PERA roles. 3'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. * 14. MN/DOT TRUNK HIGHWAY 12/OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AGREEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 4985 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 4985, a Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with MNDOT for the Old Crystal Bay Road pavement rehabilitation project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. * 15. MN/DOT TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AGREEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 4986 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 4986, a Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with MNDOT for the TH12 traffic signal improvements. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 16. NAVARRE COUNTY ROAD 15 CROSSWALK AND BUS SHELTER PROJECT Gappa indicated that he would be distributing the proposed sketch to the public and Navarre store owners and if the City received too many negative comments they might have to rethink the design. Murphy suggested that the narrative accompanying the sketch include language stating that, ‘as a result of feedback gleaned from the Navarre Town Meeting ’ or ‘as a result of public comment from the Navarre Town Meeting...’. Nygnrd moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize staff to begin work on obtaining easement to move the bus shelter to a new locatioD on the west tide of Kelly Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 8 of 11 "7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *17. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1 - NAVARRE FIRE STATION SITE IMPROVEMENTS Sanscvere moved. White seconded, to approve Request for Payment Number 1, Navarre Fire Station Site Improvements Project to F.F. Jcdiickl Inc., in the amount of $56,216.25 with the foilowing cost distribution; Fire Station Fund $53,04U5, Sewer Fund $3,175. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *18. NAVARRE FIRE STATION SITE IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve Change Order Number 1, Navarre Fire Station Site Improvements in the amount of $17,250. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *19. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - NORTH ARM PAVING ASSESSMENT PROJECT Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve Request for Payment North Arm Lane Paving Project to Buffalo Bituminous Inc. in the amount of $19,897J1 VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *20. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $164.57 to Earl F. Anderson, and $98.63 to Herc-U-LUt, Inc. to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Account. VOTE: Aym 5, Nays 0. *21. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - NAVARRE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the request for payment in the amount of $22339.11 to BKV Group, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *22. ACCEPT RESIGNATION - CITY PLANNER JEN'NIFER CHAPUT Sansevere moved. White seconded, to accept the resignation of Jennifer Chaput effective May 30, 2003. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *23. AMEND ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5J0, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS - ORDINANCE NO. 227,2** SERIES Sansevere moved. White seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NTJMBER 227,Scries, an Ordinance amending Orono Code Section 530, Solicitors and Transient Merchants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the **Application for Peddler or Transient Merchant License”. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 9 of 11 L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *24. LOGIS POLICE RECORDS ASSESSMENT Sanscvcre moved, White seconded, to approve the payment of the assessment for the LOGIS Printrak System in the amount of $95367 pins 3% interest, to be paid to LOGIS over a three vear period in 2003,2004, and 2005. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to adjust the PIR Fund budget to reflect the initiai payment to LOGIS In the amount of $31,856. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nay 0. 25. Disenuioa Follows Item #5 26. Discussion Follows Item #5 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Anomey Barrett had nothing new to report *27. LICENSES A. GARBAGE HAULERS 1. Baldy Sanitation 5906 Henry Street Maple Plain, MN SS3S9 4.Randy’s Sanitation 4351 U.S. Hwy 12 SE Delano, MN 55328 2. BFI Waste Systems of North America 5 , 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Veit Container Corp. 14000 Veit Place Rogers, MN 55374 3. Blackow’iak and Son, Inc. 1195 Suimyfteld Road N. Mound, MN 55364 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the above listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. B. ONE DAY GAMBLING PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4989 I. Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation 3850 Shoreline Drive June 7,2003,10:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 4989, a Resolution approving the above listed license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 10 of 11 M.t . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. C. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT I. Applicant: Steiner & Koppciman Event: 2003 Luxuiy Home Tour Location: 279S Pheaseant Road Date: June 6-8,13-15, & 20-22 (Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays) Time: Fridays 1:00 P.M.-7:00 P.M., Saturdays & Sundays 11:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M. Discussion surrounding the Friday trash pickup determined that the haulers generally are finished with the neighborhood by noon Fridays. Although Mr. Steingas stated that he wished to be a good neighbor, he stated that the printed material had already been distributed with regard to the lack of Friday shuttle service. He ensured the Council that he would manage the Friday traffic and post signage with regard to parking. Sansevere questioned why they couldn’t piggyback their shuttle service from Fletchers with Kyle Hunt builders. Mr. Steingas indicated that this was not included as part of their printed material, although they could post additional signs, the Hunt property was not located near the Pheasant Road property and would not benefit them. As the Friday hours were limited from 1PM to 7PM, and shuttle service would be provided for the weekends, the Council believed this would not cause too much strain on the neighborhood. Nygard moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the special event penult for Steiner and Koppleman. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nasrs 2, Sansevere and Mayor Peterson dissentlag. Steingas suggested they proceed with the plan this weekend, and if the City or Steiner and Koppelman feel it is too big a problem, alternate plans could be made for the following weekends. Nygard felt they had gone to great lengths to accommodate the City’s concerns. •28.BILLS Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Nygard moved. White seconded, to adjourn the Orono Citv Council Meeting of May 27, 2003 at 8:38 P.M. to the scheduled HRA Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor PAGE II of 11 ,1 i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUN 9 2003 CITY Ur unuwO DATE: June 5,2003 ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: David Gardella Request for A^istance Regarding Mn/DOT Right-of-Way Taking Attached is a letter from David Gardella, of 1230 Orono Oaks Drive, requesting the City’s assistance regarding a matter related to the acquisition of his properties at 1230 and 1260 Orono Oaks Drive by Mn/DOT for the Highway 12 Project, Although the Gardellas have sold their properties to MnDOT they are leasing back the property with their residence on it, while they search for a replacement home. The lease arrangement is on a month-to-month basis. They recently received a notice from Mn/DOT indicating they need to vacate the property by June 30,2003. This would be a hardship on them, as they do not yet have replacement housing, lliey are requesting the City’s help in working out an arrangement with Mn/DOT that would enable them to stay in the house at 1230 Orono Oaks Road for an additional 90 days. A key concern of the Gardellas is that it is not clear that there is a compelling reason why Mn/DOT needs them to vacate the property at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion regarding the City providing assistance to the Gardellas in working out an arrangement with Mn/DOT that would enable them to stay in the house at 1230 Orono Oaks Road for an addiUorud 90 days. iftliAlfcMj David T. GardcUa 1230 Orono Oaks Drive Long Lake. MN S53S6 June 1, 2003 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55356 Attention: Nr. Ron Moorse Dear Mr. Moorse, I respectfully request assistance from the City of Orono relevant to the matter specific to Mn/Dot and properties that I formerly owned at 1230 and 1260 Orono Oaks Drive. As you are undoubtedly aware, as part of the ongoing Highway 12 project, the State has purchased both of the aforestated pr>perties. The 1230 property a residence, has been on a leaseback arrangement since January 1, 2003. The initial term was 90 days, subsequently we have been on a month-to-month basis. On Nay 29th, we received a registered letter from Nn/Dot indicating that we are to vacate the property no later than June 30, 2003. They did so under a 30 day notice provision as outlined in our initial lease document. In spite of our best efforts, which commenced in August of 2002, as of now we have been unable to locate/purchase what would constitute by our measurements, acceptable replacement housing. Our efforts since November 2002 have been concentrated out of state. Yet this month we will be making what will be our sixth trip to search for another home. We have now expended a great deal of time and money on this important pursuit. Through the process we have continued to moderate our expectations relevant to cost, location, size etc.. We are now confident that we can make a reasonable decision and move during the course of this Summer. Nr. Moorse, if at all possible we would like to remain in our former residence for at least the ensuing 90 day period. And at this Juncture the State has yet to provide us with either a compelling or a consistait reason as to why that is not possible. Their contention is principally predicated on the fact that they have the legal right to demand vacation. From my perspective, this currently is less about right, and more about reason. How reasonable is it for the State to demand that a party who is paying substantive rent, keeping their property insured, paying for all utilities and upkeep and in all respects protecting the assets of the taxpayers, be evicted Just be cause they have the right to do so. 1 would lodge that it is David T. Garddla 1230 Oroiio Oaks Drive Long Lake. MN SS3S6 both unreasonable and inequitable. Should the State demonstrate an honest and compelling reason to take Immediate possession, I would be less perplexed then under the present scenario. I would appreciate your immediate consideration relevant o S': ex peditious inclusion of this matter on an upcoming City Ccvn«. I agenda. This might represent the final opportunity to recor.til>* this situation in a non-litigious manner. A Hn/Dot officia.'^ has already stated that if we have not vacated by 6-30-03 thrv •>!. serve me with a "Notice of Unlawful Detainer", requir&u*^ ay ,*>-tjrney to take immediate action. Should you have any questions or comments relevant to any of the aforestated, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours. n ^ j A *r n i -David T. Gardella DTG/bn Home phone 952-475-2086 cc: Mr. Jim Murphy- Orono City Council / ■*: V - " fs; ',V' . i‘ . J "A mmm, 'A*,V f.* i B 3600 3200 2800 2400 G 2000 I I 1200 J 800 K 400 I I I 4 r.voj „ «ru£T nctn. Ut. W1i>V 11 ^jC?3 itiA • N.SJt 03-2^01 I. MrK c3^r ^ 3TSWUT, t4XX ICKNZTWOU Td^i —1200 1 —800 i 3 —1600 -2400 -«00 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 9.2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) Ajlcriik ilcms arc considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Counc under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of Uic Agenda items arc available m U Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL • ^ t aj • * imiI. Councilmcmbcr Interference with the Duties and Supervisory Capacity of the City Adnumstral CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approvc/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 3. Regulir Council Meeting of May 27,2003 Co*'*-- ^ JUN 9 2005 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDcfmq(^f qp^y,nlg)i«A^t,0 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENl^ - Jc*ic Mabuith, Representauve PUBLIC COMMENTS-(LImll 5 Mtaulea Per Penon) 4. David Catdella Request for Assistance Regarding Mn^DOT Righi-of-Way Taking ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT „ • 5. (102-2843 Professional Properties ofOrono. 2745 Kelley Parkway-Rewning-Ordinance 6. 803-2885 GerdaandEdToth. 1280/1290SprocePlace-Vari^es-Resolution 7. #03-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1 300 Spruce Place - Variances 8. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate. IXC, 2060 Wayrata Boulevard West - PUD Concept Plan Approval p. //03-2894 Douglas and Robar. Smith, 41 95 I ligliwood Road - Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Resolution 10. 803-2896 Brude Boeder on behalf of Franciscus Bastiaens - 665 Fcmdalc Road North - Conditional Use Permit and Variance 1 1; 803-2901 Denali Custom Homes, Inc. on behalf of Melinda Lee and Thomas DeVeau. 680 Tonkawa Road - Variances • 12. 803-2902 WJM Properties LLC, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Conditional Use Permit - ^ Resolution • 13. Joint Use Dock License - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 14. Seasonal Employee for Gol f Course CITY ADsMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 1 5. Award of Bid - Navarre Fire Station Construction 1 6. Accept Donation from Boncstroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 17. Temporary, Part-Time Employee to Assist the Planning and Zoning Department 18. Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission Appointments 1 9. Accept Resignation - Paul Theisen 20. Amend 2003 Fee Schedule - Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit - Rcsolutioi 21 . Opposition to Weapons on City Property - Policy Statement CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT • 22. LICENSES • 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2003 06A)7 - Leaf and Gra« Disposal. Satunfay. 8 00 a.m. - Noon 06/09 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 06/16 - Planning Commission Meeting. 6:00 p.m. 06/23 - Council Meeting. 7.*00 pjn. 07/04 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Independence Day 07/07 - Park Commission Meeting. 7:15 p.m. 07/09 - Planning Commitiion Work Scs^on, 5:30 p m. 07/14 - Council Meeting, 7.-00 pjn. 07/21 - Planning Conuntssion Meeting, 6:00 p m. 07/28 - Council MeoUng. 7:00 p m. Co*** REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUN 9 2003 city or ortwMivJ Date: June 3,2003 Item No.: ^ Dcpartineiil Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Pianning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2843 Professional Properties of Orono, 274S-276S Kelley Parkway - Rezoning - Ordinance Adoption List of Exhibits A - Ordinance for Adoption On November 12,2002 Council adopted Resolution No. 4890 granting General Development Plan Approval for the Professional Properties of Orono dental office. Condition 2 of Resolution No. 4890 stated: ‘2.Upon the final approval and execution of this resolution and the Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement, the City Council shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone the Property and the Adjacent Parcel from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Midway Commercial District Planned Unit Development (B-6 PUD), and amending the Orono Zoning Code by adding language c«:tablishing Planned Unit Development No. 3 (PUD-3) to include the property and the Adjacent Parcel.” As of this writing the applicants are preparing to execute the PUD No. 3 Agreement and are expected to be providing evidence of ownership of the adjacent parcel. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached “Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of Orono and Amending the Official Zoning Map by Rezoning Properties at 2745 and 2765 Kelley Parkway from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Highway Commercial District and Adding Section 10.53 Subdivision 10 Regarding Planned Unit Development No. 3", subject to the ordinance not being published until the PUD No. 3 Agreement has been executed and evidence of ownership of the adjacent parcel has been received. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached Ordinance. i i i Revised Draft 5-27-03 ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING PROPERTIES AT 2745 AND 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY FROM RR-IB SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND ADDING SECTION 10.53 SUBDIVISION 10 REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3 - RLE 2782/2842/2843 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. has applied for rezoning of the properties at 2745 and 2765 Kelley Parkway RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Highway Commercial District, such properties being legally described as follows: (2745 Kelley Parkway): Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (2765 Kelley Parieway): Lot I, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Heimepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the rezoning of said properties per the flndings, terms and conditions of Resolution No. 48^ adopted November 12,2002, and the PUD No. 3 Agreement between Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. and the City of Orono executed on __________2003. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO •ES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The Municipal Code of Orono is amended by amending the official zoning map and zotv. ny district boundaries for the property described as follows: (2745 Kelley Pailcway): Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Miimesota (2765 Kelley Parkway): Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Miimesota; and Said property is hereby rezoned from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Page 1 of 2 I ■ ? il ScctioB 2. The Municipal Code of Orono is amended by adding Section 10.53, Subd.l0 to read asfollowsr " • “Subd. 10. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3 - PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO. INC. A.Legal Description. PUD No. 3 is legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. B.Incorporated herein by reference are the PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, INC. PUD plans attached as exhibits to the PUD No. 3 agreement, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File #’s 2782/2842/ 2843. C.Allowaole Uses. The uses allowed in PUD No. 3 are any permitted or accessory uses allowed in the B-6 Highway Commercial District. D.Development Standards. Development standards shall be as indicated on the approved PUD No. 3 General Development Plan as documented within City Council Resolution No. 4890 and the PUD No. 3 Agreement on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File #2782/2842/2843. Section 3. This ordinarKe shall be published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspr^r and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of June, 2003 by a vote of __ayes and ___nays. ATTEST:Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk ■am ■u. Page 2 of 2 f C Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: Extension: 4/1/03 5/30/03 7/29/03 --------------- JUN 9 2003 CITY Ur REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chaput Title: City Planner DATE: May 27,2003 ITEM NO. Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description://03-288S Cerda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B C Staff Report and exhibits of 5/19/03 Planning Commission meeting Staff Report and e.\hibits of 4/21/03 Planning Commission meeting Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99 ’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140 ’ is required; 3. Ill s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 3,303 s.f (30%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted; 5. grading and filling wthin 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted. This application was tabled at the April 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone and sttuctural coverage on the lot. A recommendation on this application was made at the May 19,2003 Planning Commission meeting. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Minimum Requirements: The following minimum requirements for the LR-IB District shall be observed: lot area 1 acre; lot width 140 feet. (Request: To allow a lot area of 18,553 s.f (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required and to allow a lot width of 99 ’ at the 75’ setback from the OHWL and at the OHWL where 140' is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LKO & (2): Hardcover within 75*: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 111 s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lake«hore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Se.'tion 10.22, Subd. 2 and SecUon 10.56, Subd. 16 (LX2): Hardcover within 75* to 250 ’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To permit 3,303 s.f (30%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback J t zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted). 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(2): Grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75’ of the Ordinary Hi^ Water Level of public waters. (Request: grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). PLANNING COMMISSION: Plarming Commission recommended by a 4 to 2 vote to: Approve the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover only in the 0-75’ setback zone, and grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and deny the variance for hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone, with the following conditions: 1. Application for combination of lots 3 and 4 must be r.v de prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; 3. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake; 4. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%; 5. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of which will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City ’s public works department; 6. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on site; and 7. A site plan meeting the 25% hardcover limit shall be submitted and approved by the staff prior to building permit approval. The majority of the Planning Commissioners agreed that no suitable hardship could be identified to support a variance for excessive hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone for new construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. . j U i ( e ( A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5(B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(LK1); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L)(2); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(JK2) AND DENYING AVARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L)(2) FILE NO. 03-2885 WHEREAS, Gerda and Ed Toth, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the properties located at 1 280 and 1 290 Spruce Place, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, SAGA HILL REVISED, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Zoning Code SectionlO.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(l); Section 10.56, Subdivision (LX2); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(2) to permit construction of a new residence on the property with a lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required; a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required; 111 s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 3,303 s.f (30%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted; and grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted, in the LR-IB zoning district; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 21,2003, and again on May 19,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportuiuty to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS Page 1 of6 iilM'ftiiiSi'i'' 1. 2. 3. 5. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2885. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.43 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 2003 crd recommended tabling the application by a vote of 7 to 0 to allow the applicants to reduce structural coverage and hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ setback zone. The application was reviewed at the May 19, 2003 meeting and a recommendation to approve portions of the application was adopted by a vote of 4 to 2. 4. The Planning Commission made the following flndings of fact: A. A new home can not be constructed on these properties until they are legally combined as one lot; B. The removal of the existing house requires grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL; C. Replacement of the existing retaining wail is not proposed in the 0-75’ setback zone at this time and would require a new application in the future; D. The proposal does not require a variance for lot coverage by structures; E. The proposed new construction exceeds the 25% maximum permitted hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ setback zone. It is possible to meet this requirement on the legally combined lot without the granting of a variance; F. Applications for hardcover beyond the maximum permitted proposed for new construction have consistently been denied over the past four years; and G. No suitable hardship can be identified to support excessive hardcover in the 75* to 250’ setback zone for new construction on the combined lot. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances w ill not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of6 J ( f c 6.The City Council has considered this application, including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIOiNS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Municipal Zoning Code SectionlO.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(l); Section 10.56, Subdivision (L)(2); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(2) to permit construction of a new residence on the property with a lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL where 140 ’ is required; 111 s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; and grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and hereby denies a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) for 3,303 s.f (30%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where only 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I.Staff acceptance and approval of an amended site plan, incorporating all of the above-listed approvals, is required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2.Approval is subject to the following conditions: a) Application for combination of lots 3 and 4 must be made prior to issuance of a building permit; b) The grading plan shall show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; c) Grading shall be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake; d) Driveway grades shall be shown on the plans and should not e.xceed 10%; e) There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of which w ill be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and Page 3 of 6 t * *1- jiwmiiiinitlflliiiii J approved by the City’s public works department; and f) Erosion control shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on site. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 9,2004). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) ... ♦ Page 4 of 6 __J d, . .w-.- C STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of June, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public e STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this____ by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. day ofJune, 2003 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,2003, appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of. personally ..a____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of ____________________ credible witness and who executed the foregoing insoument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. C Notary Public Page S of 6 : t' ..V • r T TV ~ k STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of appeared before me. ,2003,j)ersonalIy who is personally known to me whose identity I {Hoved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness ^a and ti^o executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/herAheir free act and deed. Notary Public .M... •1^- t S'- 'd> u I Page 6 of 6 H ( C Application Received; Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: Extension; 3/19/03 4/1/03 5/30/03 7/29/03 TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: SUBJECT: May 14,2003 1/03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 0.43 acres (18,553 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1 . lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99 ’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140 ’ is required; 3. Ill s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 3,303 s.f. (30%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; and 6. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted. The Planning Commission heard this application at their Monday, April 21,2003 meeting. With a vote of 7 to 0, the Planning Commission tabled the application to allow the applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone to “between 25% and 30%” and to no more than 2.783 s.f (1 5%) of structural coverage on the combined lots b> redesigning the proposed home. The requested variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover within the 0 to75’ setback zone and grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL appeared to be acceptable to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The proposed house has been redesigned to reduce the hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ hardcover zone from the previously proposed 4,483 s.f, (38.36%) to 3,303 s.f. (30%). The structural coverage has also been reduced from 3,132 s.f (16.88%) to 2,505 s.f (13.5%), meeting the maximum permitted on the lot. ______________ M03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 5/14/2003 Page I of 5 ..Mi Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Revised Survey, Floor Plans and Elevations Revised Hardcover Calculations City Engineer Memo Stair Report and exhibits of 4/21/03 Planning Commission meeting B C D E Dbcussion: Lot Coverage Bv Structure The existing structure on the 1280 Spruce property is 1,574 s.f. of the 9,253 s.f. Lot 3, exceeding the maximum 1,500 s.f. permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house (on the combined Lots 3 and 4) is 2,505 s.f. (13.5%), less than the 2,783 s.f. (15%) permitted. A variance is no longer necessary for lot coverage by structures. Hardcover 75 -250 ’ Setback Zone There is 11,013 s.f. of area in the 75 ’-250’ setback zone. There is currently 2,538 s.f. (23.05%) of hardcover within this zone where 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) is permitted. At the April meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicants revise the proposal to show between 25% and 30% hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250' setback zone. The applicants have revised their application to 3,303 s.f. (30%) hardcover within this zone, still exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f (25%) maximum permitted but meeting the Planning Commission ’s suggestion. It is important to note that 15% of the total lot area (2,783 s.f) is permitted for structural coverage yet 25% hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone is less square footage (2,753.25 s.f). Therefore, by allowing a home on the lot that meets the structural coverage requirement, the haidcover would exceed the permitted amount within the setback zone. Similar /tpplirations Similar proposals for new construction exceeding the allowable hardcover on approximately'/} acre lak'.'shore lots in the Vi acre and 1 acre zones have been consistently denied over the past 4 years. Applicant Property Lot Width Lot Area Hardcover Soojian 4496 North Shore Drive 100'0.55 acres No hardcover variance granted Twidwell 1865 Concordia Street 102 ’0.56 acres Granted 32.4% hardcover due to tree hardship limiting home placement Lindberg 3440 North Shore Drive 100 ’0.47 acres Met hardcover required Goldberg 1160 Loma Linda Ave 113 ’0.68 acres No hardcover variance granted Cable 3532 I\7 Place 100 ’0.522 acres Denied variances for hardcover exceeding 25% M03-2885 GerdaandEd Toth 5/14/2003 Page 2 of 5 % L 'il A (L C Other Comments: City Engineer Comments received from the City Engineer in regards to this application are as follows: 1. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; 2. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake; 3. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%; 4. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of which will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City ’s public works department; and 5. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on site. Issues for Consideration: 1. The properties must be legally combined ^ :or to issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposal does not require a variance for .ot coverage by structures; 3. The proposed new construction exceeds the maximum permitted hardcover within the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone. It is possible to meet this requirement on the combined lot; 4. Applications for hardcover beyond the maximum permitted on lots with new construction have consistently been denied over the past four years; 5. If 15% of the lot area is permitted to be structural coverage, the hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ setback zone will be in excess of 25%; and 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff would like to reiterate that hardcover variances have consistently been denied for new construction on similar sized (approximately Vi acre) lots in the */j acre and I acre zones over the past 4 years. Staff can nqj support a variance for hardcover in 75 ’ to 250 ’ setback zone for new construction on this lot since, in staffs opinion, no suitable hardship can be identified. Staff'recommends approval of the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone, and grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, with the following conditions: 1. Application for combination of lots 3 and 4 must be made prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; 3. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake; 4. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%; 5. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of wluch H03-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth S/14/2003 Page 3 of S ‘ Jt will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City’s public works department; and 6. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any worit on site. V i) I O 1 ' m-288S Cerda and Ed Toth 5/14/2003 Page 4 of 5 c c c ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR'IB Lot Requirements: *03-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth 5/13/2003 Page 5 of 5 A Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 1280 Spruce PI 1290 Sunice PI 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)9,253 s.f. 9,300 s.f. 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) Combined Lot Width 1280 Spruce PI 1290 Spruce PI 140’ 49’ 50’ 99’ Setback from the OHWL 75’54 ’102’ Rear Setback (Street) 30’94’ (29.5’ at existing garage) 35’ Side Setbacks North South 10’ 10’ 9.9’ ir 10’ 10’ Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 •7,540 s.f.None 895 s.f (11.87%) 111 s.f (1.47%) 75’-250’11,013 s.f 2,753.25 s.f (25%) 2,538 s.f (23.05%) 3,303 s.f (30%) Permitted Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 2,783 s.f (15%)1,574 s.f (1280 Spruce PI) 2.505 s.f (13.5%) 1 I J lU]Iv------- , I 4K ----------------------------------- ./''v 1«» V» 1. I i—. --> ! 1.1 I I I I I I I ' JI / *—• -'-s / >N / / /—/1 I I V /TN ixiwm mac VARIANCE APPLICATION POR ED 4 OERDA TOTM*6 NOME c£^ 1 NAi-K. Kft" • I'-C ocrr i-eveu. plah fe6V: M.oJ •TCfXW HOMfe KVke- c jX) <0 iiiiiiiiiiiiio M l 9f4^~ ,r ^IVHiP^ r^~ Eflittiill, nil{3 Olili teyrH- HoMgi W*' -1-0'' 4£i h» . • t*)P^T P*^ hX R.S'/: S.A.02, -p?rH Home. MA6. A 41 RW: tT5*tl4 Hom& rOM : C ,■ ?i:a:4r t ASSOCIATES c L I « • «« «. : SSS AT3 f.c. SETBACK ZONZ: (CStCLSOl*^ y ISTING HABOCOVER IN A. Koum _____ HARDCOVER CALCULATffiM WORKSHEET 0r7S N X X X B. Otngt • m • C. Drivtway III'X X D. Sidewalk X X E Ptiio/Dack • • • ••• • • • • X X X X X G. Other total Hardcover ik zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSEP HARttyVKyN y-ftAfli • • * • l4X|lk X X X B. Oirige C. Driveway • ••%»*• •• •• •• •• • X X a Sidewalk X X E Pitio/Deck X X Fa Landicapa UadarUia ByPUsda OrFabfie X X X 0. Ctbo*• X 250^00' wuia ••• •• • xIOO WUA . TOTAL H a RDOOVERINZONE TOTAL PROPERTT area IN ZONE .. SOO-1000' 4»2.*7 S.F. - MA/SC XIOO • 5^. SI. SI. S3Z 986 S.F. S.F.- tSrf&r % cone, vy'/eiij S.F.*AmO <T£fS SJ. •lonc.snsfi %4cot< 51. si: • S.F.- S.F. S.F. CO^C 4/C. fAO 112 XMOeO^AwO 5Av| 8J. - » 0/0«M 2SJ9 Z3.0I. SJ. A S.F. B % ^1/9 O 51. S.F. SI. SI. 4 I- i T«6kNi»jpae-iy^ • S.F. IM NOs»6e^^— coi/e^ •71^ SJ. ________&P. • ^4* sp er-b^OOT(bT ■ - SF WttfPripr^ S« ^ SJ. SP. SP. A SP. B 1 r Apr 22 2003 11i32RM B0ME8TR00 R08ENE BNDERLIK 8518381311 . *• •Vf •{ • h • I' «• . •• I . V I Bonestroo i ' ( Rosene WM Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects ■ • April 7,200i • R—w. A#Ml«rilii ane AMeclMs, Inc. U an Afflraiaiiva Action/le*fal Trr^tB^rtf ane Kaiplayag Ownae arinclaalci Otto a aoncstroo. PM • Marvin L. Sorvaia. PJL • Giann « Coaa. a.f. • aeaarc G. Scnumcrtc. pm, • Jtrry A. loordoa PM. • Marti A Hanion. PM. S«nl#r Cansiilcamt; ffoatrt W. ffottne. PM. • Joiaph C Andaritk. PM. • Mchartf f. lUocr. PM. • Susar* M. fa«r k Ajiaciata Frlnci^t: Mien A. Gordon. PM. • Koaert t. Ptttfprfp. PM. • ekhard W Foliar. PM. • Ooaltf a Lotto M . Mkitaai T. lauimana PX • iPd n. Ptmtd. Pi . Kanrsatn P AnOarioa FX • Mart t. Moire. PC. • OaviO A Monaicroo MAa Sidnpy P ArtMamsoa PM. LX • Agnat M Ring, MXA • AMan Rict Schmidt PC. • Thomas W. Facarson. PC. • Jamas M Maianx Pf. • MHas A JansaA PX • L. Phmp Giavti M. PC. • Oaniai J. Cdgart m, PC. • ismaal Marnnai. PC # Thomas A Syffco. PA • SlwMon J Johns on • Oala A Grova. PA • Thomas A Roushar. PX • foMarc J Oavari^ Pf orricas: St. Paul. Si. Clood. Rochascar and Wfllmar. MN • Miiwautaa. Wi • Chicago. IL tMOflla: wwwAonattroo.com A • ^ 9 Jmnifer Chaput Planner ■ 'v •’> ■y'^U ■' '■ 'i• ,: ' , ■ • .'J •? . .CityofOrono ' Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN S5323 .•*< • • . r.• •. , ■ ■ ••• ■. •*. Re: 1280/1290 Spruce Place File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2885 • • a ♦ • • ' • • t ?■ • V- .. Dear Jennifer We have reviewed die certificate of survey and proposed grading plan for the property located at 1280/1290 Spruce Place. The plan proposes to combine the lots and build one new home on the new parcel. We have the following comments with regards to mgin^ng ifutters: • The proposed grading plan should be revised to show a defined swale along the nr^west lot line to convey storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place. • Retaining walb that exceed four feet in height require an engineered design and detaib. • Driveway grades should be noted on the plans and shall not exceed 10%. • 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place have individual sewer and water services. The new home will require one water and one sewer service. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City ri^t-of-way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removab shall be inspected and approved by the City public works department. • There ban application to improve (he adjacent property to the southeast (1300 Spruce Place), grading along the common lot line should be coordinated so drainage from both parceb b directed towards the street or the lake. • Erosion control should be installed, inqiected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Oappa, City of Orono 23lt WVst Highway 36 • St. Paul. mN SSII3 • 6Sh63«-4600 • Fax: *ft-*36-Ulf o c e c e Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 3/19/03 4/1/03 5/30/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE:May 13,2003 SUBJECT:#03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.43 acres (18,553 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required; 3. Ill s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 4,483 s.f (38.36%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted; 5. 3,132 s.f (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f (15%) is permitted; and 6. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lidce Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted^___________________________ Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Sur\ey Site Analysis Hardcover Calculations Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Topography Mjq> Plat Map Property Owner’s List Resolution #2088 Permit Record (including 1975 grading memo) B C D E F G H I J K U03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 5/13/2003 Page I of 6 ’ ...............TTinMpiilni IIr i----rTT|iy||g m Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Minimum Requirements: The following minimum requirements for the LR-IB District shall be observed: lot area 1 acre; lot width 140 feet. (Request: To allow a lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required and to allow a lot width of 99' at the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL and at the OHWL where 140’ is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l) & (2): Hardcover within 75*: Within 75 ’ of the shoreline there shall be no e.xcavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 111 s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LX2): Hardcover within 75 ’ to 250 ’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To permit 4,225 s.f (38.36%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted). 4. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage By Structure: For all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. (Request: To permit 3,132 s.f (16.88%) of lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f (15%) is permitted). 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JK2): Grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. (Request: grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). Discussion: Lot Area & Lot Width Two lots, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, 9,253 s.f and 9,300 s.f respectively, are proposed to be combined with this application to create a lot size of 18,553 s.f where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required. The lots are 49’ and 50’ in width, to create a combined lot width of 99’ where 140’ is required. Since this is new construction, variances are required for lot area and width. Required Setbacks The proposed home is located 102’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, meeting the required 75 ’ setback. It is also located 35’ from the street, meeting the minimum 30’ setback requirement The proposed side setbacks also exceed the 10’ minimum requirement. The architect for the applicants has stated that the overhangs on the proposed home will not encroach more than 1 '/]’ into the side yards. Average lakeshore Setback Considering that the two properties are proposed to be combined, the average lakeshore setback is determined by the location of the existing houses at 1270 and 1300 Spruce Place. The average lakeshore setback line is located closer to the lake than the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL. Since the proposed structure is located more than 75 ’ from the OHWL, it does not encroach into the average lakeshore setback. no3’2835 Gerda and Ed Toth 5.13.2003 Page 2 of 6 m L iitmitiiiiiiii c V. ( |Hc* Th^posed house includes a walk-out level at the 948’ elevation and a first and second Hoor above. The proposed house is 25’ above the existing grade (measured at 956’ elevation), meeting the City’s requirement of no more than 30 ’ and 2 '/j stories. Ix>t Coverage Bv Structure , , j- The existing structure on the 1280 Spruce property is 1,574 s.f, of the 9,253 s.f. lot, exceeding the maximum 1,500 s.f. permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house (on the combined lot) is 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) which exceeds the 2,783 s.f. (15%) permitted. The structural calculation includes a lakeside deck which is not shown on the proposed site plan but was shown on other plans (including the elevation) reviewed by staff. Hardcover 0-75' Setback Zone There is 7,540 s.f. of area in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. There is currently 895 s.f. (11.87%) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The existing hardcover consists of a portion of the existing home, retaining walls, patio blocks, walkway and steps. The proposed home will be located outside of the 0-75 ’ setback zone. The applicants propose to {iig stone retaining wall within this setback zone due to the grade changes, totaling 111 s.f. (1.47%) of hardcover where none is permitted. 75 ’-250 ’ Setback Zone I here is 11,013 s.f of area in the 75’-250’ setback zone. There is currently 2.538 s.f (23.05%) of hardcover within this zone where 2,753.25 s.f (25%) is permitted. The applicants propose to increase hardcover within this zone to 4,225 s.f (38.36%), exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f (25%) maximum permitted. The proposed hardcover is comprised of mainly the house, which exceeds the allowable structural coverage on the property. Grading/Filling within 75* of the OHWL fhe existing house is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling and grading before the new home can be constructed farther back on the property. Since grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’ of the OHWL is prohibited, a variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work within the 75’ setback from the OHWL. Other Comments: City Engineer The proposed plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for review. To date, no comments have been received. U03-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth 5/13/2003 Page 3 of 6 I Docks A dock is proposed on the property. Seasonally installed docks are permitted as an accessory use on residential lakeshore properties which contain a residence. Since a seasonal dock has existed on this property in the past, the dock will not require a City permit. The placement of docks on Lake Minnetonka is governed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. History: 1280 Spruce Place In 1975, the property owner was issued a building permit for construction of a basement under the existing house. Without knowledge of the City, the property owner excavated within the 0- 75’ setback zone as part of this construction, creating a walk-out area for the newly constructed basement door. The property owners were not required to restore the grade (see 1975 memo from Zoning Administrator Hank Muhich). 1290 Spruce Place In 1984, the lot became property of the State due to tax forfeiture. In 1986, the City demolished the residence (as a result of hazardous building action initiated in 1983) and the lot was released for sale to adjacent owners. The lot became property of the State again in 1992, released to the City in 1996 for sale to adjacent owners. Prior to sale, the City Council approved Resolution #2088, stating that the parcel did not meet the applicable zoning standards and was, therefore, an unbuildable lot. The lot has r''mained vacant since that time. Neighboring Properties In 2000, variances for new construction for grading within 5 ’ of a lot line and 2,647 s.f. (43.93%) of hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ setback zone were granted to the property owner at 1270 Spruce Place. The new structure met all of the setback requirements and had a structural coverage of 1.500 s.f. the maximum permitted for a lot less than 10,000 s.f The area of 1270 Spruce Place is 9,850 s.f (0.23 acres). Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The properties must be legally combined prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposed new construction exceeds the maximum permitted hardcover within the 75*-250' setback zone and lot coverage by structures. It is possible to meet these requirements on the combined lot; 3. The variances granted for 1270 Spruce Place were due to the substandard lot size. The combined lot in question is twice the size of 1270 Spruce Place; 4. Removal of the existing house w ill require grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL; 5. Replacement of the retaining wall is not proposed in the 0-75 ’ setback zone at this time and would require a new application in the future; ^03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 5/13.2003 Page 4 of 6 L' 1 c c ( 6. Although there are two doors shown on the lakeside of the walk out level of the proposed home, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors; 7. It is the applicants’ responsibility to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on Lake Minnetonka; 8. Ciher issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff can support the variances for lot area, lot w idth, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone and grading within 75’ of the OHWL. However, staff can not support the variances for hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone nor structural coverage exceeding the 15% maximum permitted. It is the City’s policy that all new construction meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements when possible. Given the size of the combined property, it is possible to meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two potential 50' lots that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single 9,000 s.f lot next door, i.e. 46% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structure. In fact, in 1986 the City declared that 1290 Spruce was unbuildable (Resolution No. 2088) and released it for sale to adjacent owners to make thei~ p’operty more conforming, despite the fact that each of the two lots had been assessed for sewer. It is staff s opinion that comparing the applicant’s double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at 1270, is not a reasonable comparison. Staff would remind the Planning Commission that hardcover and lot coverage variances have consistently been denied for reconstruction on similar sized (approximately '/j acre) lots in the '/j acre and I acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparison with the '/j acre zone is a fair one since the hardcover, setback and lot coverage standards are virtually identical with those of the 1-acre zone. Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002-2003) that compare with the current proposal include: - Soojian at 4496 North Shore Drive (100' width, 0.55 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Twidwell at 1865 Concordia Street (102' width, 0.56 acres, granted 32.4% HC due to tree hardship limiting home placement, no lot coverage variance) - Lindberg at 3^0 North Shore Drive (100' width, 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage limits, no variances) - Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (113* width, 0.68 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Cable at 3532 hy Place (100' width, 0.522 acres, denied variances for HC exceeding 25%) Staff recommends tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardcover in the 75' to 250 ’ setback zone to no more than 25% by redesigning the proposed home. A home located 30 ’ from the street with a 600 s.f driveway and 100 s.f of sidewalk could have a 2,050 s.f footprint. W3-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 5/13/2003 Page 5 of 6 I ^ . ....... ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Requirements: Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 1280 Spruce PI 1290 Spruce PI 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)9,253 s.f. 9,300 s.f. 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) Combined Lot Width 1280 Spruce PI 1290 Spruce PI 140’ 49’ 50’ 99’ Setback from the OHWL 75 ’54’102’ Rear Setback (Street) 30’94’ (29.5’ at existing garage) 35 ’ Side Setbacks North South o o9.9’ ir 10’ 10’ Hardcover Calculiitions: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover 1 Proposed Hardcover 101______17,540 s.f.None 895 s.f. (11.87%) m s.f.(l.47%) 75 ’-250 ’11,013 s.f 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) 2,538 s.f. (23.05%) 4,225 s.f. (38.36«/o) ffOJ-JSiSJ Cerda and Ed Toth 5/n:ooi Page 6 of 6 Permitted Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 2,783 s.f. (15%)1,574 s.f (1280 Spruce PI) 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) i c c CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoiming structures $250.00 Afier-the- Fact Fees (Double application fee) Anoiartfen# Date Received 3 hg / n ^ AmountPakl 2.60*-*0 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 1280 and 1290 Spnice Place - Orono, MN Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-117-23-32-0014 and 0015 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survQr. Date Property Acquired: November 2002 I (Dennis Killian) do (de-net) also own the adjacent parcels of land. - 1300 Spruce Place Present use of property:__jpesidential I ___ether (qwot^)__________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________________ APPLICANT Mr. & Mrs. Gaaisand Ed Totli 2211 Fairview Lane 952-476-6993 (h) Long Lake, MN 55356 OWNER (if different than applicant) 952-449-0226 (home) Killian's Gate LLC (Or. Dennis Killian) 651-645-6111 (woric)_ Address:400 Highcroft Roftu City: Wayzata ^ | DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost: $875,1 See Attached VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width ^Hardcover Setback: Front Side Rear _Lol Coverage Average Lakc^wre Other (specify) _ UARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prevent compliance with Zoning Code requirements: See Attached , r >0 • 1. Ed A Q#rd« Totfi't VarlariM Appileatlan :/V l ' * r r* REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the anniication deadline date it. order for vour aPDlication to be conaidgred comolete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). CertiGcate of Survey(signed by a ’i'teitsed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as requir^. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11" for re production. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be request^ by Ci^ staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATIHE 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes^ofinvestigation and wrification of this request. ^^^wnei's Signature Date "3—y cL 5 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each 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 Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 2. Ed A Q^rda Toth • Varianca AppNcation J V . * •* 4 f ^ ^ Jri ] j c 6^4 Ed & Greda Toth Variance Application 3/18/02 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost; $875,000 We are an '"empty nest” retired couple. We would like to build a lakeside home to live in which is sufficient size for our children and grandchildren to visit us in comfort We have lived in Orono for 13 years and love it here. Our request is that we can build a house, as it is described in this Variance application Additional Background Information We have a purchase agreement to buy the properties at 1280 and 1290 Spruce, contingent upon this Variance application approval, from the Killians who will be our new neighbors. We are extremely sensitive to the delicate lakefront ecology and have worked closely with the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan that will significantly improve the beauty and lakefront en vironment of these adjacent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (Toths ’ and Killians ’) is to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0’-75’ lake front zone. 3,000 square feet is the equivalent of one good sized or two extremely modest homes. The only man made items left in that zone are essential existing retaining walls needed for erosion control, and existing stairs so that we can walk to the edge of the water. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover from 42% to 39% while removing a significant portion of hardcover which is presently in the 0’-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well within present day set backs. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce the size of our proposed home until it has reached what we consider a functional minimum. Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions Response First, we would love to continue to live u: Orono. It has been our home for 13 years and we wish to remain among our friends and neighbors. We also love our garden. My wife’s gardening has been featured multiple years in the annual garden tour. Now, regarding our new home. It is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a time when the city’s lot requirements were much smaller. Subsequently, the area has been re-zoned with much higher minimum lot size requirements. This re-zoning has created a hardship by making historically buildable lots unbuildable. We therefore request that the city grants us a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allowable hardcover for these lots. Because tw o separate sewer hook ups have approved and maintained for many years, the lots could be developed separately and two homes could be built, one on each lot. (See Diagram of Proposal #1, Sheet #3 of attached supporting documents.) as ^ .v" t t M > y t-' ^ii L j An example of this approach exists on our neighbors' property, 1270 Spruce Lane. In 2000 the city granted a variance request for hardcover equal to 46% within the 75' to 250' area for this property. We feel that this density exceeds what is reasonable for this site, and we would n^ like to continue this pattern of overbuilding. Gerda and I wish to build an adequate retirement home by joining the two lots. We have discus;jed our needs for our new home with our designer and they have developed the plan before you. (See Diagram of Proposal U2, Sheet #5 and sketch floor plan of attached supporting documents.) We have met with the City and reviewed these plans on two occasions, each time we have had our plans redesigned to reduce the size of the home and hardcover. We feel that the design of the home as it is now will adequately meet our needs. As we age we fmd it necessary and desirable to live on a single level of the home. We therefore have asked to have a home with a master bedroom on the first floor. Additionally we have a very active extended family that come to visit us often. We are the envy of many grandparents. Our visiting family however, requires sufficient space for our grandchildren to play while we supervise them. For this reason, we have also designed the home with a Family Room on the first floor. By removing the existing home on Lot 3 to build our new home, we will removing 800 square feet of hardcover (or an area of 20'x40') from the lakcfront 0 ’-75' zone. By pulling our home close to the front setback, we have sited the home nearly 120' from the lakefront. This will allow for substantial additional surface area for nm off to be absorbed prior to its reaching the shoreline. In order to compensate for square footage/hard cover demands of the first floor, we have located our garage tucked under the first floor of the home. To reduce hardcover, we have sited the home tight to the front yard setback, thus minimizing the amount of driveway. With these efforts, you have before you a plan in which the ''.ardcover equals not 46% as would be possible with if Proposal U1 were pursued, nor is it the 42% hardcover that now exists as an average of the four lots, but rather we are proposing a hardcover reduction from the existing to 38%. In addition, if we follow the two home development scheme, we would be building two docks, but our proposal is only for one. We know that requesting to build two individual homes, with 46% hardcover each, similar to the variance recently granted our neighbors, as w’ell as building two docks, would ma.ximize our resale value and profit on our lots. However it would not meet our needs for a retirement home where our children and grandchildren can visit. Neither w ould it be as environmentally friendly as building a single home with significantly reduced hardcover on a single larger combined lot. Finally, we respectfully request the planning commission's thoughtful consideration of this variance request so that we might continue our long-standing residency in Orono in our proposed retirement home.* ‘-r? ^ ‘ I* "7* "•t' , A '-r* • • f • • y • * LOT 3 - T5'-25g' ZONE 15'-250' ZONE AREA . &>06 60 FT 16'-?50' ZONE HARD COVER AREA « 2^36 SF % EXIST. HARDCOVER AREA s 46.1% EXISTlNa LOT 3 ENTIRE LOT TOTAL HARDCOVER AREA « 3,433 SO. FT. TOTAL AREA - s;T5 SO. FT. % TOTAL HARDC0VER«3T% LOT 3 - 0‘-T5 ‘ ZONE 0'-15 ’ ZONE AREA . 3,169 SO FT 0'-15* ZONE HARDCOVER AREA « 895 SO FT 15' LAKE SETBACKi LOT 4 TOTAL AREA 9,215 SO FT fzi3 acres ; UNDEVELOPED LAKE MINNETONKA /:f \ 929.4 CONTIUILJC 9VTe ANAlY^S EXiSTiNS t/3C* • I'-C- tlARCM le, 2ecs varfsncm Tor Ed I GmdA Toth*6 Mom» 1200/1290 5PRUCE PLACE • ORONO, MN LOTS 3/4 BLOCK lO - 5AOA HILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • OS-in-23-32-OOI4/IS o fLOT3 1 fLOT 3 1 15'-250' ZONE 0'-15' ZONE ARE A . 5^52 SO. FT,AREA s 3.1SS SO. FT #■ ■ LAKE MINNETONKA DOCK! DOCK 2 AREA = 5.434 6<2. <5’-15 ’ ZONE AREA = 3.013 SO. FT. LOT 4 TOTAL AREA LOT 4 L « S.2S1 SO. FT. ^yi9nKl6r LCT9 SITE ANALYSIS U ' nv K 1/30" • 1-0 “ »“>ARCW to. 2003 vartanc# for Ed 4 6Tda Toth*s l4oiw 1260/1290 SPRUCE PLACE - OR0NO, riN LOTS 3/4 BLOCK 10 - SAGA MILL REVISED P* ■»ERTr ID'S • 06.in-23-32-00l4/16 • *i i '± lb FT. LINE HARDCOVER = 2,523 60. FT. LOT 4 PROPOSED 469i HARDCOVER = 2,523 60. FT. LAKE MINNETONKA PROPOSED DOCK ARE A=3.146 60 FT PROPOSED DOCK 2 EXIST. STONE RETAIN INC UJALL 105 SO FT EXIST HARD COVER C-AREA = 3.312 SO FT ■0 6 lots 3 < 4 PROPOSAL HARDCOVER IN T5’-250' ZONE = 5.046 SO. FT. M6%; . 105 SO FT HARDCOVER IN 0'-15' ZONE PROPOSAL I > V&euoe\^ LOt^ Varfanea for Ed 4 Cterda Tgth'e Moma o 1260/1280 SPRUCE PLACE - ORONO. MN Z' ^ \ ^ LOTS 3/4 BLOCK lO - 6AOA HILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • 08-II1-23-32-00I4/IS lb FT. LINE LAKE MINNETONKA PROPOSED DOCK I fLOT 3/4 1 \ \0'-15’ ZONE AREA = T.540 SO. FT V ^ PROPOSED DOCK 2 LOT 3/4 lb'-2bO' ZONE AREA = 11.013 SO. FT. LOT 3/4 TOTAL AREA a I0.SS3 SO FT. / * I OtWWWEO btftS SITE ANALYSIS 2 l/3«" • l'-0* MARCH IS, 2003 vartanc# for Ed 4 Gfda Toth'» Mom# I2e0/I290 SPRUCE PLACE - ORCNO, MN LOTS 3/4 BLOOC 10 - SA6A MILL REVISED P ’ERTY ID’S • 0S-in-23-32-00l4/15 O •I 5ETEAC< lb FT. LINE LAKE MINNETONKA PROPOSED DOCK 1 ONLY LOT 3/4 O'-lb' ZONE ;^REA s l,bb<i 60 FT 16’-250' ZONE TOTAL *ARBA s 11;013 60 FT TOTAL LOT 3/4 AREA = 18^53 50 FT ^0T5 3/4 PROPOSAL 2 AMARDCOVER IN 15’-250' ZONE = 4>«t60. FT. f3^34^ A','2.2^^^ C till SO FT HARDCOVER IN 0‘-15' ZONE n.41^c.; weoPosfo Wom6 PROPOSAL 2 » On 1/30“ • I’-O" MARC^ 16. 2003 yarianca for Ed i Qerda Toth'e Moma ^ 1280/1280 SPRUCE PLACE - OROKO. MN ^ LOTS 3/-^ BLOCK !0 - 64(SA WILL REVISED f ^ I ^ PROPERTY ID'S • 08-111-23-32-00I4/IS V i *»• ) \ k i4 ..^ ^<^7.-',.'y:. ■ ■U - \ Jpi (D FOR ENLAR3ED P!,-AN SEE SHEET •. ym \'' >■'. .<Sii ■.w:.<-<- \yj> / ^ >»*. • :.^- SEE SHEET ENLARGED P: (D FOR /M PROPOSAL I PROPOSAL 2 PROPOSAL I AND PROPOSAL 2 COrrARISON PROPOSAL 1 PROPOSAL 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 3/4 LOT SIZE S;i5 SO FT S;iS SO FT 1S.553 SO FT NO. OF DOCKS 2 DOCKS TOTAL 1 DOCK O'-15' HARD COVER III SO FT III SOFT 15'-250' HARD COVER 5^46 SOFT so FT TOTAL TOTAL HARD COVER 5.151 SO FT TOTAL SO FT TOTAL V PROPOSAL 1 AND PROPOSAL 2 COMPARISON U*0* • r-0* MAnCH l», 9M> 1 SSS^SS^HRJCE PLAC^^rSS^ET^""" LOTS 3/4 BLOCK lO • SAGA HILL REVISED P^ «ERTY ID'S • OS-in-23-32-OOI4/lS K> ii^iiii ■HL-^ FROM ::.CRGNBERG & ASSOCIATES ( • •••• c SETBACK ZONE: (CXBCLEONE) EXISTING HAUnrftVfcp IM K House e-V2- Nck/. 20 2002 0i:59R1 P2 Lots iO 5a6A >^'VW Pfvilfijo //^S'OZ. EARPCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET f*tVt\hf9\ /K i<A' mm __________ FAX NO. : 952 473 4435 UAr*h X X X B. CftTige • •0 m C. Drivewiy X X D. Side\V4lk X X E. Patio/Deck •■»••• * • • X X F. U Ut yWf . f #, I n By|&;le (^ibiK X X X 0. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B PROPOSED Hardcover in zqnf * A. House UM0h X X X B. Grige C. Driveway ft • •• * X X D. Sidewalk X X £. Pitio/Deck X 0. Other . TOTAL Hardcover D4ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE i-.B r' : 7S«2S0‘2S0.S00' WMih 500-1000* 59^ s.F.«> MUSS xIOO - wuih J___It. IT4- 17 Hi 75<»0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. SI. S.F.-Brt TJ£ yreo S.F.-A^TlO S.F. S.F. S.P.5T«Nf f RATiC S.F .FEntNiNfrHM S r . dORO^R S.F. A S.F. B SI. S.F. SJ. Sf. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. sJ> S.F. KVT'. i.Hl __S.F. -A ....SI. B _____% FROM :• GRONBERG t ASSOCIATES •. • FAX NO. : 952 473 4435 DcnniS Now. 20 2002 02:00PN P3 (^ucjcib SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) gOSTINg HARDCOVER IN rnw A. House HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 5aA4 ^»U. 'RoKjisg^^ 0-75 tBA|lh X X X B. Certge • m * C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Paiio/Deck •• • X X X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY >ilEA IN ZONE ^ ____________ -► B PROPOSED HARDCOVRU 7 QN11 A. House ^ # • •Un|th X X X B. Csrige C. Diivewey X X D. Sidewalk X X E Pitio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Pluac (^Fabric C. Ocho*• V . TOTAL Hardcover inzone total property area in ZONE A 2S0-S0O* WM«h 500-1000* .>> -4Z7 sf. -i m m I* K 100 WlSth ____^ /> ^.^100 m* S.F. S.F. _S,F. 522. 906 - ISD&kS.F. COfiC, S.F.'AwO i-r£p^ S.F. -CflMc.FIFpJ f'**So Wc0*tC S.F. S.F. • SF.- S.F. S.F. C omC A/c PAD V4«N>^A4*0 SBbwi S.F.*»**Uj »0/|rfl|4 2S90 (L<7I3 23.0f S.F. A S.F. B % 5/ ^^2- . ST. V- S.F. SJ. SJ. JkrH _______ S.F. SF. S.F. V4/Pf SF SF. SJ. ST. SJ. JSiA S.F. Ilf'JL S.F. SJ. A B i ‘ I .' * ; ^ I '4 jL>____« ■■.___J V. ■ y ! ( I r-vA^’ @9SP* 4v ■V;-.' i-'\ . ' ^r. ’■ 'V -V- mac aucdoniM and coopiny. VAUMMOI >mJCATION KR « ORNDA T0TH« MOI« V; ' . V mm liSSa • t I ^ 0s^ VARIANCE APPUCATION FOR ED 4 GERDA TOTN'6 NOMEmac niacdoiiild iod compaiiy. LOItBM % gx.-:trr>:t3 if fe • « -I • ,11 iBinai it ■ 'J* 1»«i • , ----- .. r/ * .1 II *• !• •• s^rr: it !• II III'lU ..! 'Ci ;|i:,r:;.^[r.L j£ «• •WTMMMIM@5?S ><r.,.. .-It'-’;? ‘ * - - .« *v %-« - K ^•:£'i*ii;!i!IiiiJ!M. 5hSSiK.. |i l» " till * till! HU i i I i i , i {ttlll- zr-_ar:,. f. ■ >i •'.• ‘ 4 . ..• • ■flfJVMWICK@SS5 K ^ ^ — ^ ► > ' vj’. • ^ ~ •••• V • M wL •••••• •»«••••<••••«•'• ■-m:-- tntM .’31*- 1 mac ■aodooald and company^ I ^ ,. ■' .f t;-i VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR ED < OBRDA TOTW'6 HOME % if A5 i ‘ ■ <■-• TMs:rfi^~\ I ii * * i I \ I 1 I ! ■f— s X / / ) I I I I J 11/ ^ / i \ / r II \ V.«<' \m i.—^ [{'f'?^''P~^-'*i VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR EP 4 OERPA TOTM'6 NOME xl r ( 5 «!• CiS’- //>- S3-C3Z jfr / Ptrc«/WsamMi 14 - f » Parc«l ID 08117233; Noum NumlMr 12 Stmt IkMM SPRUOI PL TM1$ not § legally moonkd m9p. Itfepfeeentee oompae tkmoiinhtme gon hM-ii HiT ■ rfTrifraAiflMLi i ■ II mrni RUN OAH; 2/26/2003 HENNEPIN COUNl Y PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 31 O7II7234I00SI PROPAODR 1303 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME CLAYTON R FUCHS TAXPAYER CLAYTON R FUaiS NAME/ADDR 1303 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 33364 3S 0711723410076 PROPAODR 1234 LOMA LINDA AYE OWNER NAME K L HOFFMANN * L S HOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH L A LINDA S HOFFMANN NAME/ADDR 1234 LOMA LINDA A''E MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723410077 PROPAODR 1234 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME KLHOFFMANNALSHOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH LA LINDAS HOFFMANN NAME/ADDR 1234 LOMA LINDA AVE 640UNDMN 33364 31 0711723410078 PROPAODR 1203 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 38 0811723320008 PROPAODR 1230 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME WALTERWWOLFEETAL TAXPAYER PHYLLIS 3 WOLF NAME/ADDR 1230 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 33364 38 0811723320012 PROP ADDR 1260 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME E A ANDERSON ETAL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER EVAN A ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 1260 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 33364 38 0811723320013 PROP ADDR 1270 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME ELAINE E ERICKSON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ELAINE E ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 1270 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 33364 38 08tr'233200U PROP ADDR 1280 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME KILLIANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUAIfS GATE LLC NAME/ADDR 40011IOHCROFT RO WAZYATAMN 33391 38 0811723320013 PROP ADDR 1290 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME KILLIANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILLIANS GATE LLC NAME/ADDR 1300 SPRUCE PL ORONO MN 33364 38 Ml 1723320016 PROPAODR 1300 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME KILLIANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILLIANS GATE LLC NAME/ADDR 1300 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 33364 38 Ml 1723320017 PR(»AOOR 1310 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME JOHNWWALKER TAXPAYER JOHN W WALKER NAME/ADDR 1310 SPRUCE PLACE MOUND MN 33364 38 Ml 1723320018 PROPAODR 1318 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME PATRICUACROETKB4 TAXPAYER RA.-STT'. A WALKER NAME/ADDR 1310 SPRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 33364 38 Ml 1723320026 PROP ADDR 1330 CHERRY PL OWNERNAME JAMES G BULL JR TAXPAYER JAMES G BULL JR 1330 CHERRY PL MOUNDMN 33364 NAME/ADDR I CERTIFY THATTHB FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TEUEREPRBSENTA110NOP INFORMATION AS ITAPPEARSTtlS DATEONTHB RECORDS OPTIC ICIMBPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICBS OEnumigiLTO TNE BEST OP MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUBF. <9 ^7 9 datbo ^^AQ by H *’***% *•’ •• w ^I' ,. J.*,sr,^ \\ \ < L- C I CITY I 1I URONO I •»•• **"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2088 ) directing the privr TO ABOTTi;-^---- lot 4, BLOCK^^^ LE OF PROPERTY ty owners BILL REVISED Kevlsed co3y'icnol'n 'arr29o'’'spVu« sV £oorpa“r«i of lakeshore land, and uttutipic fhis oarcel of land does not meet the City's area re^arfe^n^to? Zonln, District which U i acre, and WHEREAS, this property at one time had a house that had been ordered removed since 1982, and WHEREAS, this house was finally removed and the site graded by the City in 1985 and 1986, ana WHEREAS, the property as lakeshore property requires t release DTparLeSt o"f Satural Resources, and WHEREAS, such release was given in a letter dated October 27, 1986, and WHEREAS, this parcel "°5 "®“ standards and therefore is an unbuildable lot, an . WHEREAS, abutting property owners have indicated an interest in acquisition of this property, and WHEREAS, outstanding special assessments on this property are $2,955.66, and WHEREAS, the City has V/,*"f ”|eitf“"''‘"® “$1,808.68 subsequent to the property going m - ■ f-.Viler. •• i • %P • • • • e • < a; -c:.r:: ^ . . , •: . ' - .? ‘elj.: .r.-l-Je- 7 Pagft 1 oi 2 . • • *» ••• ar • .•• • • ^ m W • J'./. .y f i* .* • s:.:CitV of ORONO % *1. •• . • » . *•* • _ - ••U* CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2088_________ • • • -»•# - • * .• • % • m • • • ^ ^ ORONO owners# and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the selling price take into account its outstanding special assessments together with recouping of City costs incurred in preparing the site for sale has been determined to be $1,800.08» Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held November 24, 1986. ( Mary'C. ^tler. Mayor N ATTEST; A /Dorothy M-''^llii'7 'llin, 'City Clerk . «• c ->*•» **• ‘ .. .. . . . -—. . r-*iVC^7 .• .. .... ^ ^ ■^ , •• • .* *. — ^ • • •• . •S* . •? * •-. > w-*i 9 4 . •... •* .. ..... 4* / • ‘ • . *. * *••• ..A-.-.. -*—•*"*- S* *. » <• •• • ............ Mim-W* •••• * .* * .' •••* * *““* ^T *.*^*** /••J **T* »C". ** *“** • • vkg% 2'6t 2 • m _____ I r /^io ^rucc. PERMIT RECORD c Permit Mo. _sSZ(____ Date Type of Permit ZL?Jb:JL?.Rg/>K»<r^ y “ ~y - c 3 //'S' s' ^ .,-R<STrtf^ wtfu: <QrU^Mt 5-J7 -^'f 'a^dsJ L i J -] T.T'iTCTr.' *• Tr- rD(>i. »)ATP: RH; Hani '‘iL’iich "iJc ''chellcr Ainni.<t 25, 1075 >Vuil 5.chuller * /»rn'!inp <P^. Tnii] Schuller on Snruce Place was issue.! a nerrit to rlace a hase- rcnt iwdcr hts existinp house, ivhen he finished off the rradine .yoiind !ns house, he did excavate sane in the 75' laic sethaeV. Tt IS nw sodded. Thev clain thev could not keen rrar.s on tho’nrea ’'e.ore due to the steenness of the erade. So wfiat thev did is slowed up the run-off so t!>ev could keep it in lawn. It behooves us to he verv careful w!jen issuing permits to Ir.Ke- ^ fln inspection of the pronertv before isstiine the permit and did not ask for final elei'ations. The people vere si’-nlv not aware that there could not !>e anv alterations in the 75' setl>acV area Should T ask t!»en to clear the upr’^ done or a.sk for a restoration. Th« »* *. W;/ S f'-' V--/’-•A rE i : t’ • ' k • Ji [ v<: i- i.:b t » V* tvi • *.: X- ‘ V ’1 *V:?r L ‘ ^ -*• -- -- -- M ._» V X: !.> A. w A* * ^ '' "h To;Mayor and Council City Administrator From: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director Date:June 9,2003 Subject: #03-2885 Dennis & Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place The Killian’s representative, Gary Peterson, has requested the item be tabled until the June 23 meeting. »■ Vmm.1 —^ L Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: Extension: 4/1/03 5/30/03 7/29/03 ;t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chaput Title: City Planner JUN 9 2003 CITY Or ortw'ivU DATE: May 30,2003 ITEM NO. 7 Agenda Section: ZcMiing Item Description:#03-2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 1300 Spruce Place Variances Exhibits: A B Staff report of 5/12/03 City Council meeting Staff Report and exhibits of 4/21/03 Planning Commission meeting Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone: 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) where 238 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 4. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and 5. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted. This application was tabled at the 5/12/03 City Council meeting at the request of the applicants. The applicants wished to have this application heard at the same time as application #03-2885 for 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, next to the property in question. The discussion regarding this application centered on whether there was a hardship to allow new construction to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone. In the 75’ to 250’ setback zone, only 2,297.5 s.f. of ha^cover is permitted, even though the structural coverage calculations (15% of the total lot area) allows for up to 3,045 s.f. of building footprints. The City ordinance allows for at least a 1,500 s.f. of structure footprint which can still be met with less than 25% hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone.__________________________ PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 3 vote to: Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Grading plans must illustrate proposed contours between the house and the street; 2. Plans should show the proposed driveway location and grades that do not exceed 10%; r 3. Site grading between this parcel and the 1280/1290 Spruce Place lots should be coordinated; 4. Erosion conUol should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on the site; and 5. No additional hardcover for landings, patios, etc. will be permitted beyond what is proposed on the plan. The Planning Conunissioners in favor of the application identified the following hardships: 1. The lot is wider at the OH WL of Lake Minnetonka than at the street due to its pie-shape; 2. More than half of the lot area is located within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is permitted; and 3. Due to the shape of the lot, the smaller portion of the lot contains the developable area, restricting development more than if the lot was rectangular. The Planning Commissioners who voted to deny this application agreed with staffs recommendation that there was no hardship to support hardcover in excess of 25% permitted in the 75 ’ to 250' setback zone for new construction on the lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone, grading within 75 ’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted above. Staff can not support the requested hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone for new construction since, in staff s opinion, no suitable hardship can be identified. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance for hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that the Council take the following action: 1. Approve the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone, grading within 75 ’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted by the Planning Commission; 2. Take action regarding the requested hardcover variance in the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone; 3. Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s action for adoption at the June 23, 2003 meeting. Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 4/1/03 5/30/03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chaput Title: City Planner Item Description:#03*2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 1300 Spruce Place Variances DATE: May ^2003 ITEM NO. » Agenda Section: Zoning Exhibits: A Staff Report and exhibits of 4/21 /03 Planning Commission meeting Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone: 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) where 2,298 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 4. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and ______5. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.____________________ Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Minimum Requirements: The following minimum requirements for the LR-IB District shall be observed: lot area 1 acre. (Request: To allow a lot area of 20, 300 s.f (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l) & (2): Hardcover within 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or pemianent structures. (Request: To allow 274 s.f (2.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover within 75’ to 250’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To permit 3,367 s.f (36.6%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,298 s.f. (25%) is permitted). 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(2): Grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. (Request: grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(5)(h): Filling in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). r PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 3 vote to; Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1. Grading plans must illustrate proposed contours between the house and the street; 2. Plans should show the proposed driveway location and grades that do not exceed 10%; 3. Site grading between this parcel and the 1280/1290 Spruce Place lots should be coordinated; 4. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on the site; and 5. No additional hardcover for landings, patios, etc. will be permitted beyond what is proposed on the plan. The Planning Commissioners who voted to deny this application agreed with staffs recommendation that there was no hardship to support hardcover in excess of 25% permitted in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone for new construction on the lot. The Planning Commission identified the following hardships for this application: 1. The lot is wider at the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka than at the street due to its pie-shape; 2. More than half of the lot area is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is permitted; and 3. Due to the shape of the lot, the smaller portion of the lot contains the developable area, restricting development more than if the lot was rectangular. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone, grading within 75’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted above. Staff can not support the requested hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone for new construction since, in staffs opinion, no suitable hardship can be identified. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance for hardcover in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that the Council take the following action: 1. Approve the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-"; ' .etback zone, grading within 75’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted by the Planning Commission; 2. Take action regarding the requested hardcover variance in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone; 3. Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s action for adoption at the May 27, 2003 meeting. 2 A Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 3/19/03 4/1/03 5/30/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE:April 23,2003 SUBJECT:#03*2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 1300 Spruce Place Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.47 acres (20,300 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property 1. lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f (2.47%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone: 3,367 s.f (36.6%) where 2,298 s.f (25%) is permitted; 4. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and 5. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.___________________ Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Survey Site Analysis Hardcover Calculations Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Topography Map Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H 1 J M3-2886 Dr. Dtnnis and Dkmg KUllan 4/23/2003 Page I 7 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Minimum Reqnirements: The following minimum requirements for the LR-1B District shall be observed; lot area 1 acre. (Request: To allow a lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l) & (2): Hardcover within 75 ’; Within 75 ’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating. Ailing, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 274 s.f. (2.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover within 75* to 250’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request; To permit 3,367 s.f (36.6%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,298 s.f (25%) is permitted). 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(2): Grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinar> High Water Level of public waters. (Request: grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(5)(h): Filling in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). Discussion: Lot Area The existing area of the lot is 20,300 s.f (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required for the zoning district. The existing lot width is 117’ at the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required for the district, meeting the 80% requirement and, therefore, not requiring a lot width variance. Neither the area of the lot nor the width is proposed to change with this application. However, a lot area variance is necessary because new construction is proposed on the lot. Required Setbacks The proposed home is located 80 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, meeting the required 75 setback. It is also located 35 ’ from the street, meeting the minimum 30’ setback requirement. The proposed side setbacks also exceed the 10’ minimum requirement. The architect for the applicants has stated that the overhangs on the proposed home will not encroach more than 1 V^' into the side yards. Average Lakeshore Setback There is one home located to the south of the property and a vacant lot to the north. Since there is only one adjacent neighboring lakeshore home, the average lakeshore setback is calculated according to the setback of the adjacent residence from the OHWL. The house to the south is located 75 from the OHWL. The applicants ’ proposed structure does not encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Height The proposed house is 29 ’ in height from the cxisUng grade of966 ’ with a walk-out level on the HOi-2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane KHIian 4/23/2003 Page2o/7 J .A lakeside and two stories above the original grade. The proposed height meets the City’s requirement of 2 V2 stories and 30*. Lot Coverage Bv Structure The proposed lot coverage by structures on the property is 2,551 s.f. (12.6%). Since the proposed structural coverage is below the maximum allowed of 3,045 s.f. (15%), a variance is not required. Hard< er 0-75 ‘ Setback Zone There is 11,110 s.f of area in the 0-75’ setback zone. There is currently 2,254 s.f (20.29%) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The existing hardcover consists of a portion of the existing home, various retaining walls, stairs and landings providing access to the lake. A steep slope from the house to the shoreline exists, requiring retaining walls and stairs to the lake. The proposed home will be located outside of the 0-75’ setback zone. The applicants propose to keep some of the existing retaining walls and stairs within this setback zone, totaling 274 s.f (2.47%) of hardcover where none is permitted. Stairways within the 0-75’ setback zone are permitted if they do not exceed 4’ in width and are built on the most inconspicuous portion of the lot. The stairs that are proposed to remain on the property meet these criteria. However, they do not reach the shoreline nor provide direct access to the proposed dock. 75 '-250 ■ Setback Zone There is 9,190 s.f of area in the 75’-250’ setback zone. There is currently 2,785 s.f (30.3%) of hardcover within this zone where 2,297.5 s.f (25%) is permitted. The applicants propose to increase hardcover within this zone to 3,367 s.f (36.6%), exceeding the 2,297.5 s.f (25%) maximum permitted. The proposed plan views of the home indicate two doors and an optional lower garage on the walk out level. The applicants are not proposing to have any hardcover landings outside of the doors nor in front of the optional garage (us.ed for seasonal storage only). Grading/Filling within 75’ of the OHWL The existing house is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling and grading before the new home can be constructed farther back on the property. Since grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within IZ' of the OHWL is prohibited, a variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work within the 75’ setback from the OHWL. If any changes to the retaining wi.lls are necessary in the future, the applicants will be required to go through the variance process Tor approval. M03-2886 Dr. Demii and Diane Killian 4/23/2003 Page 3 of? BlufTs Bluff Analysis A bluff analysis was conducted to deiermine if there is a bluff on the property. The following criteria were anal>’zed and all were found to be true: 1. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; Yes 2. The slope rises at least 25’ above the OHWL; Yes 3. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more above the OHWL averages 30% or greater: Yes (92.6%) 4. The slope must drain toward the water body: Yes. Bluff Impact Zones The top of the bluff is located 44’ from the OHWL at 958’ in elevation The bluff impact zone is defined as the land within 20’ from the top of the bluff. Within this zone, no structures or accessory facilities (except stairways, landings and lock boxes) a.c permitted. The existing house is partially located within the bluff impact zone whereas the proposed house is located completely outside of the zone. However, existing retaining w alls and stairs are proposed to remain within ihe impact zone. Grading Within Bluff Impact Zones Since a portion of the existing home is located within the bluff impact zone, some grading and filling w ill be i^uired hen it is demolished. Placement of fill or excavated material is not permitted within b*’ ■ .mpact zones so a variance is necessary. Setback from the Top of the Bluff There is also a structural setback of 30 ’ from the top of the bluff. The existing home is located as close as 6 ’ from the top of the bluff whereas the proposed home is 42’ from the top of the bluff, meeting the required setback. Other Comments: City Engineer The proposed plans have been submitted to the Cit>' Engineer for review. To date, no comments have been received. DNR Since the bluff w ill be restored w ith this application and not further impacted by development, the DNR did not wish to review the proposed plans. Docks A dock is proposed on the property. Seasonally installed docks are permitted as an accessory use on residential lakeshore properties which contain a residence. Since there has been a seasonal dock at this property in the past, the dock will not require a City permit. The placement of docks on Lake Minnetonka is governed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. ItOJ-2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Kiiiian 4/23/2003 Page 4 of 7 \ Ji History: in 1972, variances for lot area and lot width (zoning file #S-57) were approved to permit construction of a new home on the property. Lots 5 and 6 were combined, creating a lot area of 28,000 s.f. and lot width of 65’ at the street and 160 ’ at the lake. The variances were granted because the combined lot was equal in size to most lots in the area. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . llie proposed structure meets the minimum setback requirements, height, structural coverage and average lakeshore setback; 2. The hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone will be reduced from what exists, maintaining a portion of the stairs to access the lake and retaining walls; 3. Replacement of the retaining walls and stairs is not proposed in the 0-75’ setback zone at this time and would require a new application in the future; 4. The proposed home is located outside of the bluff impact zone and meets the required setback from the top of the bluff whereas the existing house does not; 5. Removal of the existing house will require grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL and within the bluff impact zone; 6. Although there are two doors shown on the lakeside of the walk out level of the proposed home and an optional below-grade garage, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors nor driveway extension serv ing the garage; 7. The hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ setback zone is proposed to exceed the maximum permitted; 8. It is the applicants’ responsibility to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on Lake Minnetonka; 9. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff can support the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone, grading within 75’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone. However, staff can not support the variance for hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone. It is the City’s policy that all new construction meet the hardcover requirements when possible. Given the size of the property, it is possible to meet the hardcover requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that the fan-shape of the property is a hardship since more than half of the property is located within 75’ of the OHWL as a result of the shape. However, even though the lot is oddly shaped, there is still a significant amount of buildable area outside of the 75' setback from the OHWL. ii0}‘2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 4/23/2003 Page 5 of 7 f- • Staff would remind the Planning Commission that hardcover and lot coverage variances have consistently been denied for reconstruction on similar sized (approximately '/a acre) lots in the '/i acre and 1 acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparison with the 14 acre zone is a foir one since the hardcover, setback and lot coverage standards are virtually identical with those of the 1-acre zone. Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002-2003) that compare with the current proposal include; - Soojian at 4496 North Shore Drive (100' width, 0.55 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Twidwell at 1865 Concordia Street (102* width, 0.56 acres, granted 32.4% HC due to tree hardship limiting home placement, no lot coverage variance) - Lindberg at 3440 North Shore Drive (100 ’ width, 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage limits, no variances) - Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (113' width, 0.68 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Cable at 3532 Ivy Place (100' width, 0.522 acres, denied variances for HC exceeding 25%) Staff recommends tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardcover in the 75 to 250 setback zone to no more than 25% by redesigning the proposed home. For example, a home set at the 30 ’ street setback with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f. of sidewalk could have a footprint of 1,600 s.f. . U03 ‘2886 Dr. Dtmis and Diant Killian 4/23/2003 Pat$6<ff7 I II iifia liiiiafiiiBi ----~ ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR’IB Lot Requirements; Hardcover Calculations: Lot Coverage By Structure; Setback from Top of Bluff: U03-2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 4/23/2003 Page 7 of 7 A Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) No Change Lot Width 140 ’117 ’ (at the 75 ’ setback) 163’(at the OHWL) 117 ’(at the 75 ’ setback) 163’(at the OHWL) No Change Setback from the OHWL 75 ’42 ’80 ’ Rear Setback (Street) 30’82 ’35 ’ Side Setbacks North South o o25 ’ 32.5 ’ 13’ 10’ Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’ll,110s.f.none 2,254 s.f. (20.29%) 274 s.f. (2.47%) 75 ’-250 ’9,190 s.f.2,297.5 s.f. (25%) 2,785 s.f. (30.3%) 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) Permitted Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 3,045 s.f (15%)1,815 (8.9%)2,551 s.r. (12.6%). Required Setback Existing Setback Proposed Setback 30 ’12’42’ I ?•r r 1 i Rpr 22 2003 11i32RH BONE8TROO R08ENE RNDERLIK 6516381311 P. 1 • • •. Bonestroo fcK. I. «. Op^.ww„ *.1,,^ f Rosene Anderlik & ‘ l|\|^ Associates ..... . •'engineers & Architects • .. • I • r .A -. ^ April7,2003 j;i;;;n's.S2;k%^rs:r>L •■ • “•”* "• «■ «• *•#..« t 0 • .' / laniM CMiuluntc Maft W. •oMna. U. • JoMph C Anaartik.«. . *Khar« I. lunar, n. . |«,iw m Cbaran. C iil'.T**?!*.^*"**^*’ *•*•** ^ Oofoon, n. • losan I. rfarrana. rr. • nchara w rouar n. • dmu a «Sn«f ?' * **”“’'*• A"^toa«f.. Mart a.aoiri. tt . ^ * y**.*- ■*?******• rs. « L ftiwip qiavtt W. PJ: » Oanlal i. lagarton. rx . Mmaai^tlnaLffC.. TMmat A. Srtka. R£ . snaWon a Mnson . oala A, Orota. RI . Ttiomaa A. «o«SiW«t.. aJ!rn.o!^^n orncat; ti. Pau, ti. Oowa. Machaiitr ana «MMiar. MN • aWwaukat, VW • CNcago. A wwwaan gitfooLCom . t * * a • \ T *} . •v;^y • %r:r’:;;v'JroniftrChaput .. • * iBnttcr ■ ■ * • >* V*’’ .. u- • i,*;. City of Oronc ; \-l • v.. .;v* sr'V. • j • a 1. *» Post Office ^K)X W’ i!- '*’ A^;:^_rv; V:. Crystal j^ily, MN 55323 i;*-’'c >•.'.' '• 0 * a***a » • . m 0 0.P l ,**a*4! • • f ».f •'• ’• • 'a •» 2 * *• * Re; I . « 1300 Spruce Pla^ Pile No. 139-03-000. ' Plat No. 03-2886 i *' -*• • Dear Jennifer; -2886 t. • • • a . • < We have reviewed the certificate of survey and proposed grading plan for the properly located at 1300 Spruce Place. The plan propose to reiiMye the existing house and coiutruot a new home on the parcel We have the foUowing commenU with regards to engiheenng matters: t. The grading plan is lacing proposed contours betwe^ the house and the street; plans should be revised to include these proposed contours. • If the plans include retaining walls that exceed four feet in hei^t a separate engineered design submittal is required • The plans should show the proposed driveway location. Driveway grades sitould be noted on the plans and shall not exceed 10%. • Site grading between this parcel and the adjacent parcel to the ncnlheast should be «^«»r^^;pf)tnl Please see our comments for application 03-2885. • Erpsipn control should be mstalled, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. If you have any questioiu please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, * s • » • BONESTROO, ROSENE, AITOERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 1 ■ i 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN S5fl3 • 6SI-636-4600 • Fax: 65l-636-13t1 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATTON Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $ 150.00 (no change from original application) Variance fornon-confonningstnictures $250.00 After-the- Fact Fees (Double application fee) Appialioo# m I^te Received T-/ 9-0 ^ Amount Paid oo PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 1300 Spnice Place - Orono, MN Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-117-23-32-0016. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survQ^. Date Property Acqidred: November 2002 I (Dennis Killian) do (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.- 1280 & 1290 Spruce Place Present use of property: __Iresidential 1 __other (apeoi^)______________ 2U)ning District:_________________________________________________ APPLICANT Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 400 Highcroft Road______ 952^9-0226 ____________Cu) Wayzata, MN 5539f OWNER (same as applicant) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Please See Attached. Estimated Constniction Cost: $750,000 VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area __Lot Width ___ Setback: __Front ___Side __ Other (specify) _________________ ^ Hardcover __Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prevent compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Please See Attached ( \ - t J KEQVIRED SUBMITTALS 1. z 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. & Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you Rlctr6otol;«C^^«!'5,"|?g. of Certificate of Survey(signed by a licensed survQor) and include hardcover calculations as required.. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing anc’ proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, pr .wide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & tic. »>■» m views (provide one (1) copy 8 1/2" x 11") List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the prope^. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this appUcation. Please remember that vour yppliMtiPP is POt complete if the «hnv.> information has not hi.>n APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Tile applicant hereby agrees to provide all infoimation required or requested by the Zonina Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) tmd/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoimation supplied is true apdxorrect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature O'.Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of ip>v^tigation ond verif^ation of this request. Owner's Signature (Yy^tc,Date "S’ Applicant must have ail submittals into the City offices 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 Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ••• •• -J I* t ft ‘. rr-■> • • •/ ' t• ' • •* .k. ^••*N ''\k €. f *. Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian Variance Application 3/18/03 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST We are a couple who are raising our niece in our home. We would like to build a lakeside home to live in which is sufficient size for us to comfortably raise our niece. Our request is that we can build such a house, on our double lot, as it is described in thb Variance application Additional Background Information: (This section was written with the Toths, our new neighbors, with whom we coordinated our home design. So, it is very similar to the description in their Variance application) We own 3 adjacent properties and are planning to build a home for ourselves at 1300 Spruce Place and sell 1280 and 1290 Spruce to the Toths, a very nice couple, for their retirement home. We are extremely sensitive to the delicate lakefront ecology and have woriced closely with the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan, which will significantly improve the beauty and lakefront environment of these adjacent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (Toths* and Killians*) is to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0’-75* lake front zone. 3,000 square feet is the equivalent of one good sized or two extremely modest homes. The only man made items left in that zone are essential existing retaining walls needed for erosion control, and existing stairs so that we can walk to the edge of the water. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover fium 42% to 39% while removing a significant portion of hardcover which is presently in the 0*-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well within present day set backs. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce the size of our proposed home until it has reached what we consider a functional minimum. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNIJSIJAI. PROPERTY CONDITIONS As is the case with our future neighbors, the Toth’s, it is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a time when the city ’s lot requirements were much smaller. Subsequently, tl^.e area has been re-zoned with much higher minimum lot size requirements. This re-zoning has created a hardship by making historically buildable lots unbuildable. We therefore request that the city grants us a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allowable hardcover for these lots. Additionally, this double lot, which we purchased, has a “fan” shape, in which the largest part of the lot is facing the lake. This is one of the things, which made this lot attractive to us. (See Sheet #2 of attached supporting documents.) Unfortunately, this fan shape creates a configuration hardship because the shape of ftte lot places a Ifrgh percentage of the lot area in the 0’-75* setback. At the same time the l»«a njftmik*.- ,'rniru^ml - 1l ■ A \ a i ^ ■'V shiy>e of the lot reduces the area of the lot in the 7S*-2S0* zone. The actual buildable area, within tiie 75’-2S0* zone, comprises a relative^ small proportion of the total lot area. Since Ae plight of the landowner is due to the circumstances hnique to this property and were not created by the landowner we feel diat strict enforcement of die ordinance would cause undue hardship we request a hardcover variance to biuld our proposed home. We are very sensitive to the environmental impact of a new house on a lakefront property, especialty in regards to hardcover and pteservadon of lakefiont For dud reason, we are eliminating more than 2,000 square feet of existing hardcover in the 0*> 75* zone near the lake. (2,000 square feet is larger than die footyrint of our proposed house) Those existing structures shall be demoUshed and be replaced by vegetation. All of our new structure shall be within die 75*-2S0* zone of die lot The overall existing hardcover on this double lot is over 5,000 square feet We are proposing 3,598 square feet of total hardcover, for a reduction of hardcover of over 1,400 square feet (about the size of a small home). Our total hardcover is a significant r^uction over exikirig conditions. Because of our sensitivity to planning and environmental concerns, we have already met several times with planning staff and reduced die size of our house fiom die ori^md plans we discussed. We feel.that now our home plans have been reduced to a minimum. Granting us this variance for site configuration hardship will significantly improve the drainage and ecology of the lakefiont and allow us to build die home that we need for our fiimily. v) .V V '...y * r' "''^ r ’ -V '‘• t i)u . } S-- ■ I 4 P4/'% fi /■ ^■==^liillBiBinBL^ ■i?.«»iiri«witiiiiriyiMiitiniiwirii dtigr-jg »'•»* • • ‘f .SliliiM^'ti! IBilir^Hi liiiiii'^iig t^\v I!-!!*4ie^iSiSi|ki«]H'IGiiiP:tlEBiiriE es llili^c^i ■/• j^ESPgsga I ! ^r.r,:r.L csfi5«="( ?il i^la vJ , • u ( g — -I j- Vmmm % , iiiH, / ; * • ;^ •> •*. . *..?wv;:* -* -*/• * • • ••' - -...V-. ;. • ■ * 4 . •’ . y ,f • -? • •“'% • •'. »t" .*. ' * * / -/ • - • y* }. SnV* ,.v.:^; '; . • \' «• , >• • - • *• v> '>"-Y. ■* %' 7N UJE6T ELEVATiOK Aft JjfV m I’-®* W(0 •V*, y. I 'tfMfrf ftUn i- {>»■ i;.Y4 s£'#* # •*I .*• • j c 11 I ",tffl>ien*y^. •V I*.». .* •*j-sp»a ;1 ■!.%•••‘-/ili-'i ■f.r;v ^ f.’-^V • •;*•-.;-. fr V r • -»\ ?* .*> u: •< iiliri""’ J'^’-'-Vl, X** v *»«T ». *^ ' iB i^'iiaoijf nasGSenliscs) "iSr. llfliiiimliii Vi;Va»3irt..- ^ ’ I t ' • --» ** T Jl^ ... . • .; jlf-...' ■■ • . >* • ':A * . •* •• • —J L-! 1^ «N»n* ”**<■<■«! ^ v^*I.'. ..•1 V v WiV-ii srSHT: ■• /♦.; .«•••%• # i‘^r:pr/l 1®iijni 5-<: .• . •?->7 .‘ .:41 '-•m i’ laV .« i»»,‘. *• ‘i>. .'>•.** m-s: .:.-r^’'-;^r-: •-V *'t>‘I'* ' *-^ • * *>? ' r ^ •»*. # «• edSTNa HARDCOVER RttlARr LOT 5/6 TOTAL EXISTIHO MARDCOVER AREA s 5/035 6a FT. CiIV ■i-r-v- S V. L0TM» TOTAL AWEA Va J ’*%...»•W#‘ 20^ so FT (Abe acres ;<1 ^ !%• if \r, LAKE MINNETONKA variancR for Or. Omm\e 4 Dfano Klltian'* l-loiiio 1300 6PRUCE PLACE - ORONO/1N LOTS 5/6 BLOCK lO - dAdA MILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • OS-in-23-32-OOI6 lb FT. LINE' 15’-250' AREA bQ. FT. mm O'-lb' AREA *11110 5Q. FT. m&m m *m Dd6TMa HARDCOVEReattum LOT 5/6 TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER AREA . 5j2>3S SO. FT. Pr •-. • ijOfTM TOTALAWEA .466 ACRES ^20300 SO ft; f'' ' * A ii^ I •, • *t* f •V- * I DOCK / V-' "X. * • # LAKE MINNETONKA enS^HALTMA I/3<?“ • l'-0" NORTU MARCKI le, 3003 ■0 VtrUmem Ter Dr. Pannl» 4 DUm m KfllMn'e M om 1300 SPRUCE PLACE - ORONO;-IN LOTS S/6 BLOCK 10 - SAGA HILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • 0S-II1-23-32-00I6 r ''fc- EVI i,:yi v« - 4 I ''-^ 0 ‘-lb' AREA .11,110 6a FT. 15 FT. LINE 15'-250’ AREA «9.160 Sa FT. LAKE MINNETONKA 1 .4mfm s-aviji^mm VV.H3 LOTBi* PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREA 15'-250' ZONE • 3361 5a FT.«36^% EXISTING STEPS I RETAINING UiALLS.231 SO. FT. HARDCOVER»2.» c t"--. •. • DOCK /t:*^t«: •'•..'•• V. ^=vr*‘ ft ; •/ '*... •- LOT 5/6 TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER AREA . 5039 Sa FT. “* r' r'* PROPOSED HARPOOve^ RftlARr LOTAAS TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER: AREA.3S9S Sa FT. LOT BAS TOTAL AREA .466 ACRES ^20300 Sa FTJ DIA0RAI1 U3«“ ■ I’-®* NORTW ■0 fUnCM l».2M3 vartanoR for Dr. Damfs 4 Dfano Killian's Mom 1300 SPRUCE PLACE - ORONOMN LOTS S/6 BLOCK 10 - SAGA MILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • 06-10-23-32-0016 m FROM : GRtiNBERG Z ASSOCIATES • > • mum ••• / I •. FAX NO. : 952 473 4435 DfNMIS kltUAKf Nov>. 20 2002 02:0^H P4 Sii>, \0 Sm .wc I?6/IS£0 StlBACKZONE. WORKSHEET EXISTING HAllPgOVgn IN 7.QNg A. Houm erca (&)75.J50'3SO-SOO'SOO-1000' t40|th B. Gvage • m • • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck • iwa* . • F. By^astic C/F\ic G. Ocher X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL Hardcover fn zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA FN ZONE A _____________ B RBOPOSED HARDCOVER IN A. House _____________ LcAflh B. Cartsc C. Driveway X X X .*••• • D. Sidewelk E. Pitlo/Deck F. Ltisdsca^e Unde^in By PHsiic 0/f eWc C. Other X X X X X X X X X r: TOTAL KA.^CO VER (N ZONE ^7TO;fAET^OPaTY:^RE^»tQNE i-w v\_,; Width a xlOO WidO) s 8 8 8 m 8 1044 24i? SF.-Hwsf R.ff.r<£ S.F. S.F.C»M4(U7e f Nfin 170 SF.-oft)vcw/> s.F.-e^i«<frn T» 0AVEW4F SF.-^Hd.VlMUd. 5P /«H0 5TW 24^ I9B SF.-OfcH S.F. ^/tCRfre'^OCR t>gcid ,S.F. S.F. v/adO • S.F.-5Tj^fU«H0*ft DOWN T« $N0<7£ ep _7»<<4»ac K4U 5 p amo S.F. A SF. B 2P.24 y. 51“TP KlOO - zunnsT SI. S.F. S.F. . S.F. .S.F. S.F. , S r .- S.F. C p . -a C ^ / ' / t^QOQ S.F. Kr«^,P(r>0 WMJ tSST" MAUUt ' ^ " <cc^ 5.F. A S.F. B FROM.: CRONBERC & ASSOCIATES • • • •• ./ •» • FAX NO. : 952 473 4435 DrHKI$ No^. 20 2002 02:00PM e^/2. EXISTING HAjpcOVEP IN ^ Q£^ 250.S00' A House ^ors StC , B^oac U SA^tA #Jiut Liflg^ .X X X X B. OiTAgC • m • • • C Driveway X X D. Sidewilk X X E. Piiio/Deck • » • • • • X X F. LiAdicape Underlain ByPIulic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other . total Hardcover IN ZONE total property area in zone A'_____________+ B proposed Ha ROCOVER in 7n|\rp ; • A. House LcneiK X X X fi. Garage C. Driveway 1■sJ X K Sidewalk i E ■.Patio/Deck «• X X f X X Tr.dfflam ly PluUe Ir Fabric f\ -V. - T - ;• |) X X X 0A*f 3 total Hardcover in zone total property area in zone A - _____ ♦ B Width 500.1000* 474 S.F.-Ntfv>£ X 100 width e m 8 ,S.F. SF. S.F. KlOO 2D30 conAaen f S.F.^BiAddwP Owuh S.F. SF. SF S.F.- • SF. SF. S.F. 113 SV^*(/9tU ttMU.! S.F.-A hO 9*AOfaf Z7&9 S.F. A ^i90± S.F. B 30,3' % S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. ft / to SF. SP. S.F. SF S.F. S.F. SF. SJ. S.F. SF. S.F. A 9J. B H / ntn torja « •; » X !'« 7i? • .•■ •* J92f ! r25; 4 V. t» a \ 1y.1 r (-•)»- fjftit /?LS B 8 o 8a»Oft //tJ- ^3- . I \ ^ . y • . * • f ' • • • . 4 N -jr^^rcellnformatlon arc«l ID 0811723320014Pa ? • Housa Numbar 1280.^'; .*•-Straat Nama SPRUC8 PL^{i:;v:: Trni8notalegaayf9cefiMdm»p.Mrvjns»niM»eompBMmoriMm a gan •nddato Aom C/iy, County, tod Stalo rood oulhorillo$ondotlmfoufco$. :.0 • m'M w T V ri4 . * 'T' •■• i.’ H i H t(ff<IMTS:MMOU M «7ll72MIOOlSI raOTADOR IJOSSniUCBPL OWNER NAME CLAYTON R FUCHS TAXTAYER CLAYTON R FUCHS NAMEMOOR IJOSSIWXXn. MOUNDMN SS3M M 07ll72MI007t FROr AOOR I2M SFRUCCFL OWNER NAME HENNEFm FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/ADOR FOBOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SS)23 3t MII72)MWI3 FROPAOOR 1270 SPRUCEFL OWNERNAMB BLAMES ERICKSON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ELAMS E ERICKSON NAME/ADOR 1270 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN U364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 3t 071I72MI0076 PROPADDR 1254 LOMALMOAAVE OWNERNAMB KL HOFFMANN A LS HOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH LAUNDAS HOFFMANN NAME/ADOR 1254 LOMA LMOA AVE MOUNDMN 55M4 3S 0711723410077 PROPADDR 1254 LOMALMOAAVE OWNERNAME KLHOFFMANNALSHOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH LA LMOA S HOFFMANN NAMC/AODR 1 254 LOMA LMOA AVE MOUNDMN 55304 31 0011723320001 PROPADDR 1250 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME WALTERWWOLFEETAL TAXPAYER PHYLLIS i WOLF NAME/ADOR 1250 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55304 31 00II72J3200I2 PROPADDR 1200 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME E A ANDERSON ETAL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER EVAN A ANDERSON NAME/ADOR 1200 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55304 30 0011723320014 PROPADDR 1210 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILLIANS GATE LLC Taxpayer kiluansgatellc NAME/ADOR 400H1OHCROFTRD WAZYATAMN 55391 31 0011723320015 PROPADDR 1290 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILUANSOATEUC TAXPAYER KILLIANS GATE UX NAME/ADOR 1300 SPRUCE PL ORONOMN 55304 PROPADDR OWNERNAME TAXPAYER 31 Oil1723320010 1300 SPRUCEPL KILLIANS GATE LLC KUXIANSGATELLC 3t 0111723320017 PROPADDR 1310 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAMB 30HNWWALXER TAXPAYER 30HN W WALKER 31 Oil 1723320011 PROPAOJR 1311 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAMi: PATRICIA A GROETKEN TAXPAYER PATRICIA A WALKER NAME/ADOR 1300 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55304 NAME/AODR 1310 SPRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 55304 NAML/ADDR 1310 SfRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 55364 31 W1 1723320090 PROPADDR 1330 CHERRY PL OWNERNAMB MMESOBUaJR 4 TAXPAYER JAMES OBUaiR NAME/ADOR 1330 CHERRY PL MOUIRJMN 55304 • I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATK)N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OPTHB HBM4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPAimiENT. TO THE BEST OP MY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF. ,E. PAGE: I iO ii } /• •. i I. V/ ■> % n 4 J SprutC PlAJOu <r PERMIT RECORD Permit Wo.Date •r* m T i-m 9- 3:^-1 a Type of Permit AfSitJ ---------------- 3jir^9' TS-jg^6 SSL/Sf. ‘ ■ J f lirtii ill tIiTmdl niii li iiitifkiiiiii 1 mtAa^ i i Date Application Received: Date Application Complete: Initial 60-day Deadline: 60-Day Extension Notice: Revis^ Deadline: 3/24/03 3/24/03 5/24/03 5/21/03 7/24/03 JUN 9 2003 CITY Of" UhoimU REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 5,2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC - 2060 Wa>'zata Boulevard PUD - General Concept Plan Review / Preliminary Plat Review Zoning District: Lot Area: B-6, Highway Commercial District (PUD) 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Application Summary: Applicant has submiMed an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001 . The proposed use of the 2.6 acre property has been revised to reduce its intensity as it has proceeded througli Planning Commission review. Starting as 13 office units in 3 buildings, the concept has been pared down to two 3-unit office buildings for unit ownership, and a S-unit equivalent building for condo office, i.e. leased rooms with common reception areas, etc. as opposed to owned units. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level. Each unit of the three- unit buildings would have a footprint of approximately 1500 s.f. The intent is to sell each of the 6 individual units into independent ownerships. The S-unit equivalent building would have a single owner, w ith leasable office spaces. Common areas would include shared parking facilities, landscaped areas and sidewalks. Total gross square footage of office space is 42,000 s.f. An ancillary request is vacation of portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were gianted as part ofthe PUD No. 2 approvals. _______ List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-21-03 B - Memo and Exhibits of 5-16-03 C - Plaiming Commission Minutes 4-21-03 and 5-19-03 (Draft) D - ITE Parking Study Excerpts E - Revised Grading Plan F • Building Height Comparison w/Senior Housing JLJL 1. M3-2889 Ravia Real Estate June S, 2003 Page 2 L General information General Concept Plan/Prcllmlnarv Plat Review Process The current proposal is being processed as a new Planned Unit Development proposal for the site, and if approved will result in new General Concept Plan and General Development Plan approvals, preliminary and final plat approvals, as well as a new PUD Agreement. The property has previously been platted, but will be rcplatted as part of the process of creating separate ownership capability for the various units. This application is at the PUD general concept plan/preliminarvplat stage, which requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commcrcial/ofilce development, as well as enhance the quality of such development. Site Background The property was part of a 7-acre tract that was platted into two lots for development in 2001 . The easterly lot (Lot 2, 4.5 acres) was rezoned to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot 1, Orono Ambar, and was rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Lot 1 is the subject of the current application. Development of a 25,000 s.f. office building on Lot 1 was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22,2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 2,\. PUD Agreement No. 2 A established that the only permitted principal structure on Lot 1 is a 25,000 gross s.f. 2-story office building with underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that buiiding are general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a cli.iic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20 V* of the gross floor area of the building. Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the office building, and filed Applicatioi. No. 02-2771 with the City in March 2002, proposing a 50-unit Phase U of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1 . That application resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant opposition to the project based on the size, orientation and intensity of the proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the proposed office project. 4 «. ’W M3-2889 Ravfa Real Eilatc June S, 2003 Page 3 Surroundine Land Utc Directly to the north of the subject pix^ierty is the “Sugarwoods” residential neighborhood. The only buffer ^tween the applicants’ office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40’ wide platted outlet that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2” in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The 40’ buffer outlot is generally wooded. The subject property is located on Highway 12 directly west of the Orono Ambar Senior Housing development. Two parcels that are located west of the subject property are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the west and surrounded on two sides by ^plicant’s property contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop. Tnat property is zoned B-1 Retail Sales Business District. Future redevelopment of the adjacent welding shop parcel is anticipated; both the residence and the welding shop are nonconforming uses in B-1. U.S. Highway 12 is in the process of being relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create a cross intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a signal light will be installed at that intersection. Consistency with Orono 2000-2020 CMP Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 2000-2020 Community Management Plan has guided the propertv for commercial use. This use would ofii require a CMP amendment as the underlying land use designation is for commercial use. The use of the property as ofhee is permitted under the B-6 district. * /V ■ I 4 #03-2889 Ravla Red Eilaie June S, 2003 Page 4 //. General Concept Plan & Site Plan Review The General Concept Plan Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning and development process. A General Concept Plan Approval would be similar to a Preliminary plat approval without actually approving the Preliminary Plat until other issues have been resolved. Review of this application will focus primarily on the following areas: - Impact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design • Landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs - Parking arrangement The 3 proposed office buildings are one-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level. Each of the two 3-unit buildings has a footprint of SO'x 90 ’, with approximately 11,000 s..f of gross floor space in units ranging from 3,000-4,000 s.f. depending on whether they contain usable space in the half-story. The larger condo-office building has a footprint of approximately 50' x 175', with approximately 20,000 s.f gross floor area. The two 3-unit buildings are oriented along the east property line, with parking to the west. The larger building is on the northwest portion of the property, along the southerly property line with parking to the north. For the purposes of discussion, the three buildings witi be referred to hereinafter as West Building (West), Northeast Building (NE), and Southeast Building (SE). A. Site Characteristics. B-6 Conformitv:Reauired/A llo wed ProDOsed Site Area:2 acres 2 64 A.*res Defmed lot width:100’190’ abutting Hwy 12 Parking Setbacks (used stds. adj. to District): (Note: 'Proposed* also accounts for proof of parking areas) Required front yard : 20*19-20’(revise to avoid variance) Required rear yard:10’24 ’+ Required yard adj. to **R*' district:10’17 + Required yard adj. to **D** district:5’12’+ Building Setbacks: Front lot line:35’75 ’ Rear lot line:35’35' Side adj. to *'R** district 35’35' Side adj. to **B** district 10’35* Building Height:30’ (2 'A stories)25 ’ and 27 ’ Signage Allowance:190 s.f,*60s.f. • I I f. per each front fool occupied by building phis i s.f. for each front fool not occupied by buUdins per 10.61 Subd.3A , #03-2889 Ravla Real Estate June 5,2003 Pages B. Parking Reaniremeats Location. Parking areas are required to be set back at least 20' from the front property line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3' of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an “R“ district require a setback of 1 O'. The property is surrounded on two sides by residential property and therefore the required 10' setbacks are critical. No parking areas are proposed closer than 10’ to any lot line. Along the north boundary, the parking setback is proposed at approximately 25'. Parking along the west boundary (abutting the B-1 District) is proposed at approximately 13 ’. The additional yard area provided by these ample setbacks will allow for substantial planting of trees or other vegetative screening along the property lines where needed. Number ofParking Stalls: Staffhad indicated to the Planning Commission that the City Engineer would be reviewing the parking needs for this use. 1 have now discussed the proposal with Shelley Johnson of Bonestroo and Wally Case of DSU. Their comments are noted below. Orono Code requires 1 stall per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office use'*. This is the equivalent of S stalls per 1000 net s.f., which City consultants advise is probably excessive parking spaces, assuming ’net’ is around 80-90% of gross. The term ‘floor area’ for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces as defined in Orono code is “the net usable floor area of the various floors, devoted to retail sales, services, office spaces, processing and fabrication exclusive of hallways, utility space, storage areas other than warehousing.’* The applicants are suggesting that while the new plan comprises 42,000 gross s.f., it contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes. They are showing that much of the space is intended for storage or is common hallway or reception area. However, the City cannot control how the various spaces might be used, and “50% net’’ is unusually low. The City requirement if 21,000 s.f net usable floor area is accepted is 105 stalls. However, using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs for office use are 2.79 stalls per 1000 s.f of gross floor space, yielding a 114 stall requirement. On a per unit basis, if all units were the ‘ownership’ type units rather than condo offices, this is equivalent to 10 4 stalls per unit. Shelley Johnson of Bonestroo (who authored the ITE study the applicants are referencing) has reviewed the proposal for the City and is suggesting that 3.5 stalls per 1000 gross s.f should be the minimum standard for parking for this office use. Wally Case of DSU cautions that we do not want to create excess parking and increase impen’ious surfaces unnecessarily, but he also indicated that calculating parking based on 50% net is probably too low, and 3.5-4.0 stalls per 1000 net s.f using 85% net would be reasonable. #03-2889 iUvia Real Estate June 5,2003 Page 6 SUMMARY OF PARKING STANDARDS Orono Code ® S/1000 net ITE Standard @2.79/1000 gross Shelley Johnson (Bonestroo): 3.5-4.0 /1000 gross WaUy Case (DSU): 3.S-4.0/1000 net @85*/. Ravia Proposal (0-2-03 submittal) Gross " 42,000 s.f. 1 17 stalls 147-168 stalls Net @ 85% 3S.700 s.r. 178 s'alls 125-143 stalls Net @ S0% 21,000 s.f. (105 stalls) installs It should be noted that the Dunbar office plan approved per PUD Agreement 2A did not require a parking variance, had substantial parking underground to reduce the intensity of parking aboveground, and provided for weekend overflow parking for the Senior Housing building. On April 17 MPG visited two similar developments noted by the developer - Fernbrook Town Office Park in Plymouth (west side of Fernbrook Lane 1/4 mile north of Hwy 5S) and Foresiview Town Office Park in Maple Grove (south end of Forestview Lane, 1 block east of Hemlock Lane on south service road of 694/Hemlock eiit). Both sites had 2-les‘el office units similar in size to those proposed. Fernbrook has rear walkouts, Forestview has rear lookouts with no lower level eiits. Parking at Fernbrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at S:15 p.m. There is no on-street parking available nearby, but it didn’t seem to be a problem. Parking at Foresiview (8.2 stalis per unit) was nearly full at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. This site had a parking issue that day, but my subsequent visits found ample parking available during the workday. Staff initially recommended approval of parking at a level no less than 10 stalls per unit, which is about where the current plan sits. The City’s goal should be to provide just enough parking to avoid problems such as overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots, but not provide excessive hardcover in never-used parking stalls. Based on the above, staff recommends that the minimum parking requirement for this proposed office development be based on 3.5 stalls per 1000 net s.f. of building, using 85% of gross floor area to define net s.f. Reducing the gross square footage to 35,000 s.f. and increasing parking by 10 stalls to 123 stalls total is one way this standard could be met. C. Surface Water Management Plan All roof and parking lot runoff will be collected via catch basins and transported via underground storm sewers to the existing stonn sewer system serving the Senior Housing site, discharging to the existing NURP pond located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. Capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha M0J-2M9 Ravil Real Estate June 5,2003 Page? Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for OfHce use under the PUD No. 2 approvals. Revised drainage calculations are required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west should be addressed (applicant’s intent is to have no impacts on that property). D. Topography Impacts Building Exposures . Lx>t 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28* from the southeast comer of Lot I to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1. Proposed walkout floor elevation for the Northeast Building is 1012’ or about 12’ below the high point of t^hill. First story floor elevation will be about 2’ below the crest of the hill, but due to the norther jterly slope, the 48’ wide north facade of NE Building will expose 2 levels of windows and a roof system to residential properties to the north and east. The latest plan has moved the NE building away from the north lot line to decrease the visual impacts on Sugarwoods. The original NE and SE buildings would have exposed 2 levels and a partial half story to the Senior Housing building to the east. The result would have been visually a 270’ long fa9ade located 3S’ from the east lot line and about 90 ’ from the senior housing end units. As a result of plan revisions, the NE and SE buildings will each have only 3 units, reducing the impact of those buildings to a maximum combined facade length of 200'. The grade at the walkout level of NE and SE will be about 8’ above the grade level adjacent to the Senior Housing building. Parking and Drivinn Lane Grades. At the south end of SE building, a retaining wall 3-4’ high will be needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, the south end of the property will include a grassy slope, parking stalls, the ser> ice road, the retaining wall, and the 48’ wide 2-level fa9ade with windows. Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Services Director regarding the grades for the service road and parking areas. The grades recommended by the City Engineer provide challenges for designing the walkout concept proposed. Applicants have indicated that they will accept the ‘approval of the City Engineer’ as a condition of approval. A revised grading plan has been submitt^ which has been reviewed by the City Engineer and appears to generally meet his recommendations. 1 ■ W3-2889 Ravi* Real Estate Juoe 5.2003 Pace 8 The main parking area west of the NE and SE buildings will be two rows of 9*x20 ’ stalls, on either side of a 24 ’ center aisle, at an elevation approximately 8 ’ higher than the welding shop parking lot to the west. Applicants will be replacing the existing retaining walls on the adjacent site, since a handicap ramp is proposed to parallel the west side of the parking lot up to the West building. The West building wa!’- out elevation is intended to be at the same elevation as the base of the welding shop parking lot. This wilt require removal of the existing retaining walls, and obviously the cooperation of the adjacent property owner. North of the West building, additional parking is propos^, one row adjacent to the building, then a center ais1.‘ and a second row about 25’ from the north lot line. This parking would be at elevation 1020’ or ranging from 0-4’ below existing grade to the rear. This 0-4' elevation difference will help to screen headlights from the residential lots to the north. Applicants also propose substantia! new tree plantings at this location for screening. Certain areas within the site will require retaining walls. The most visible of these will be along the west side of the parking lot, and along the north side of the access driveway at the entrance to the site. Planning Commission has recommended that these walls be designed to allow vegetative screening, pertuqrs with vines, to soften their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. E. Sewer and Water Service The property has municipal sewer and water available, which was installed approximately 1 5 years ago. No sewer or water assessments will be due for the proposed office uses, as the property has previously been fully assessed. See the City Engineer’s additional conunents regarding utilities. The portions of utility/drainage easements that likely need to be vacated were granted as part of the site plan approval for the oftice building under prior approvals, and will conflict with the current site plan in certain areas. Those easements contain no utilities at this point, and staff recommends approval for their vacation subject to appropriate replacement easements being granted. F. Road & Pedestrian Access Exterior Site Access. Access to Lot 1 was established during the approval process for PUD No. 2, and consists of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12, and a shared driveway access eastward through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road. Future access potential to the west exists at the northwest comer of Lot 1 where it abuts Sugar Woods Outlot D. Oudot D was platted as a potential service road corridor behind the Orono Shopping Center and Service 800 buildings, with possible connections southward to 12/Brimhall, or west through the Otten Brothers property to Willow Drive. At this time the City has no plans to make use of Outlot D, but it remains available for future use. Development of a connection to Outlot D with this proposal will have significant impacts on screening, buffering and topography north of the building. k! : i #03-2889 Rivia Real Eitale June S, 2003 Page 9 Applicants are proposing an emergency driveway connection to the Orono Shopping Center site, r*.t' ir than a connection to Outlot D. Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Ou;ic Shopping Center and have gained his general agreement to this connection, subject to no runoff additions to the OSC property. The City had not contemplated a full-time connection in earlier reviews of proposed development for lot 1. The ramifications of such a connection would require further review by staff and City consultants to determine whether such a connection should be approved. From a public safety standpoint, the connection is a positive feature. Existing Highway 12 will be turned overto Hennepin County when Highway 12 is relocated. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a semaphore is intended be installed at that intersection. The schedule for iristallation of that stoplight is still being discussed with MnDOT, but it may be delayed until the realignment of South Brown is completed. The City’s traffic consultant reviewed the prior office proposal for a 23,000 office building and 70- unit Orono Woods Senior Housing building in November 2000. Based on standardized trip generation rates, a 70-unit building was expected to generate 120 trips in and 120 trips out per day on weekdays, less on weekends, where the medical office use as approved would be expected to generate 1 30-in/l 30-out weekdays and significantly less on weekends. Total trip generation would then have been 2S0-in/2S0-out on weekdays. The current proposal does not specifically contemplate medical office use, and it does not contemplate any retail use. Absent a further review by the City’s traffic engineer, staffbclieves the proposed oBice use will not significantly differ in traffic generation from the earlier reviewed uses. Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks are proposed to connect between the individual units and the parking lot, as well as a continuous service walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. It would be appropriate to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12. It was determined during the review of Orono Woods that walking trail connections to the northwest comer of the property had little value at this time because they would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. C. Landscaping Plan Develr^ment of this site will be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping. The applicants have provided a revised landscaping plan. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code in referencing the B-1 Accessory Use standards, requires a screen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6’ high) not less than S0% opaque be located along lot lines between coiiunercial uses and residential uses. Such screen might also take the form of a berm or retaining walls where parking lot is recessed. W3-2889 Rivia Red Esiate June 5,2003 Page 10 In stafTs opinion it is most critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. It would seem less necessary to provide such screening along the east side of the NE and SE buildings; a 6 ’ privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. We would rather see enhanced landscaping along that east-facing slope. The B-6 ordinance has table listing the landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project value. The value of the development would need to be determined and then the minimum landscape value is determined. Wally Case of DSU, Inc., the City's landscaping consultant, would complete an estimat e of the landscaping value based on the ordinance. Most of the existing trees on the site will be removed for construction. The plans submitted appear tc have been designed to potentially protect several mature trees that are located along the north boundary, leaving some buffering to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The revised landscape plan proposes that a substantial amount of trees be planted between the office complex and the adjacent Sugar Woods neighborhood. Screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west was reviewed by the Planning Commission, which concluded that the primary screening should be vegetative methods to soften the views of the retaining walls. The trash enclosure is proposed at the north end of the site, 3-sided brick construction with a south facing access door. It should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. This location would appear to be practical and appropriate in the context of the proposed site layout; however, the Sugarwoods neighbors have requested that it be moved further away from them if possible, and that trash pickup be scheduled for daytime rather than nighttime. H. Signage Proposed plans for signage are attached as Sheet A 1.3. The subject property is allowed 190 s.f of signage, based on the Code standards: “Aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building". The front footage of the site is 190 ’ along Highway 12, so the interpretation is that the site is allowed 190 s.f. of signage. No in'^ividual sign may exceed flfry square feet. The applicants have picvided signage plans for a monument style sign of 10' X 6' to be located along Highway 12. The proposed sign location is not apparent from the site plans, but it must be set back at least 10’ from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign deducted from the total allotment of 190 s.f. leaves 130 s.f. for individual businesses to identify them on the buildings. Atotalof 130 s.f. divided by 11 units = 12 s.f. per unit, leaving approximately a 3 ’ x 4 ’ identification sign for each individual unit. In visiting the Fembrook and Forestview sites it was noted that each unit was provided a standard identification sign of approximately 2 ’ x 2 ’, and a few units had additional individual small signs, but in general signage was minimal and not obtrusive. V’ i. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate June 5,2003 Page II 1. Uehtin2 Proposed plaits for lighting are attached as Sheet A1.4. The applicants have provided lighting for the parking area. The applicants have indicated the individual buildings, entryways and walkways will be illuminated to the minimum extent necessary for safety. J. BulMiny Quality and Materials Sheets A2.1 thru A2.11 depict the generalized floor plans and elevations for the proposed buildings. The facades most visible from ofT-site contain substantial aichitectural features to enhance their appearance and break up t'le visual length of the buildings, lire applicants have provided a design that is sensitive to the :-ui rounding nropeities; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, white being the functional rear of those offices, have stonewor*., columns, bays, and styled windows. The 6/12 pHched roofs will have asphalt “shangles" for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock ” and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. The B-6 standards do not specify a percentage of the facade that must be brick; the proposed 2’ high cultured stone base along the entiie perimeter of each building is also a critical enhancement. The middle units (2/5,1/3) of each building have a 6’ deep proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curved window feature of the second stv/ry portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhees the quality of these units. Staff is satisfied that the building design is of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the east. ///. Summary of issues for Council Discussion: 1.How do the visual impacts of this revised office building complex compare with those of the previously approved office building (see Exhibit G of Api«; memo to compare footprints of buildings and parking areas)? Also see Exhibit F which depicts the relative heights of the proposed office buildii gs and the Senior Housing Building as viewed from Highway 12... 2.Is the intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with the previously approved medical office use? 3.Under the PUD 2A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Is Plaiming Commission comfortable with that same standard, or do the parking limitations inherent in the site suggest that ancillary retail use should be further limited? Retail uses require mo.e parking than ofBce uses... r 1 #03-2889 RiVia Rail Estate June 5,2003 Page 12 Is the requested parking plan supported by data that demonstrates sufficiently that there will not be . parking shortage once thi:> site is developed as proposed? Staff will review the gross vs net area requirement with the City’s I'rafnc Engineer prior to Monday’s meeting... Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. 6.Applicant should address the variety of concerns noted by the City Engineer: Provide drainage calculations, drainage area map and storm sewer calculations • Provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Ad^ss potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the inunediate west - The grade of the access road at the southeast end of the site is stilt an issue to be resolved... 7.Does Council wish to consider the ramifleations of a full-time driveway connection to the Orono Shopping Center site? This would require further review by City consultants to determine whether this could be iq)proved or is advisable. An emergency connection only is currently proposed. 8.Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access cormecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalks, as well as a co.'tnecUon to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12. 9. Plans should depict any existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critica. to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. 10. Any other issues Council wishes to discuss... IV. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval per the staff recommendations as outlined in the staff memo of May 16,2001, with the following additional recommendations: 1.Landscaping plans should include screening of the north-south retaining wall abutting the adjoining property to the west, preferably with vines or similar vegetation based on the minimal area available for plantings. 2.Any retail uses shall be ancillary to the ofhee use and shall encompass no more than 10% of the gross floor area. Applicants shall relocate trash enclosure if possible to be further firom the north property boundary to reduce noise impacts to nei^boring residential uses, and shall attempt to ensure trash pickup occurs during normal business hours, not during the night. .M, i 1 h #03-28S9 fitivla Real Eitf fc June 5,2003 Page 13 4.Prior to concept plan approval by Council, applicant to provide a side-by-side elevation and topographical view comparison depicting the proposed buildings in relation to the senior housing building, to illustrate the height relationship between those buildings (Exh. F). 5. Grading, road/parking and other engineering matters to be subject to City Engineer approval. 6.Proposed parking numbers are acceptable based on information supplied to date, subject to City Engineer review and approval; paiking areas shall meet required setbacks. 7.Prior to Council concept plan approval, applicant must demonstrate that the walkout concept is feasible given the parking lot/driving lane grade slope maximums required. 8.Emergency vehicle access to proptrty to the west is acceptable; City Engineer to a'. iew implications of a full serv ice connection to that property. 9.Planning Commission is satisfied with the reductions in the overall development plan intensity and establishment of greater separation and vegetative buffer from NE building to the neighboring residential properties. V. Staff Recommendation: The plan revisions provided for the May 19 Planning Commission meeting addressed most of the major concerns brought up by the public and the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Staff believes the mix of owned/leased office spaces proposed is an appropriate and relatively low- intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character. Based on the recommendations of City consultants, parking should be increased and/or building sizes reduced to meet a standard of 3.5 stalls per net s.f. with net being 85% of gross floor area. The City should consider potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use if anything more than an emergency connection to the Orono Shopping Center site is proposed. The revised grading plan shows that the walkout concept appears to be feasible while meeting the driving and parking grade limits required for this site. Staff recommends conceptual approval of the site plan subject to the various revisions o? recommendations noted above. Approval should also include vacation of utility easements as required. Staff will draft a resolution for Goteral Concept Plan Approval for review and adoption at Council ’s June 23 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Address any issues that Council finds to be unresolved, and direct staff to draft a resolution for General Concept Plan Approval for adoption at your June 23 meeting. ■ ^ 4 A T CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 PHONE:(952)249-4600 FAX:(952)249-4616 ZONING MLE #03-2889 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 21,2003 TO: Ravia Real pstate, LLC c/o Ste\e Paetzl Mohagen-Hanson Architects 1415 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Copies:Paul Karlson Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2420 E. 117th St. Burnsville, MN 55337 Ulteig Engineers Attn. Richard Revering, PE 5201 East River Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance Conditional Use Permit fRenewall X Subdivision X Other - PUD / Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: May 19,2003 VOTE: 6 FOR Planning Commission recommends the following: 0 AGAINST Approval of renewal application as submitted _X_ Approval subject to conditions noted below ___Denial for reasons noted below ___Tabled for reasons noted below ___No action required Planning Commission recommended approval per the staff recommendations as outlined in the staff memo of May 16,2001, with the following additional recommendations: 1.Landscaping plans should include screening of the north-south retaining wall abutting the adjoining property to the west, preferably with vines or similar vegetation based on the minimal area available for plantings. 2.Any retail uses shall be ancillary to the office use and shall encompass no more than 10% of the gross floor area. 3.Applicants shall relocate trash enclosure if possible to be further from the north property boundary to reduce noise impacts to neighboring residential uses, and shall attempt to ensure trash pickup occurs during normal business hours, not during the night. 4.Prior to concept plan approval by Council, applicant to provide a side-by-side elevation and topographical view comparison depicting the proposed buildings in relation to the senior housing building, to illustrate the height relationship between those buildings. Notice of PC Action #03-2S89 May 21,2003 Page 2 5. 6. Grading, road/paridng and other engineering matters to be subject to City Engineer approval. Proposed parking numbers are acceptable based on information supplied to date, subject to City Engineer review and approval; p, rking areas shall meet required setbacks. 7.Prior to Council concept plan approval, applicant must demonstrate that the walkout concept is feasible given the parking lot/driving lane grade slope maximums required. 8.Emergency vehicle access to property to the west is accepUble; City Engineer to review implications of a full service connection to that property. 9.Planning Commission is satisfied with the reductions in the overall development plan intensity and establishment of greater separation and vegetative buffer from NE building to the nei^boring residential properties. You are scheduled to appear before the City Council for Concept Plan review on Monday, June 9, 2003. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. The Council will be asked to review your proposal and direct staff to draft a resolution for Concept Plan Approval which would be presented for Council adoption on June 23. If you have any questions please contact Mike Gaffron at (952) 249-4600. 60-Day Review Period Extension State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on March 24,2003 and the initial 60-day review period would end on May 24, 2003. Based on the April tabling by the Planning Commission and the normal meeting schedules. Council action on your request will not be feasible before the end of the initial 60-day review period. Therefore, the review period for your application has been extended to July 24,2003. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. I ■lyMi 9 Date AppIfntioB Received: Date Application Complete: 60nlay Deadline: 3/24/03 3/24/03 S/24/03 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director DATE:May 16,2003 SUBJECT:#03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2060 Wayzata Boulevard PUD - General Concept Plan Review / Preliminary Plat Review REVISED PLANS Zoning Diitrict: Lot Area: B-6, Highway Commercial District 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Application Summary: Applicant has submitted revisions to the application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, the property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001. The proposed use of the 2.6 acre property is now two 3-unit office buildings for unit ownership, and a 5-unit equivalent building for condo oHice, i.e. leased rooms with common reception areas, etc. as opposed to o’Amed units.____________________________________________________ List of Exhibits: A - Revised Site Plan & Landscape Plan B - Revise Site Plan on Photo Background C - Letter from Applicant 5-15-03 D - Letter from Manager of Orono Shopping Center 5-14-03 E - Letter from Ulteig Engineers 5-14-03 F - Sample Unit Layouts G - Parking Data . k • H - Depictions of Applicant's Similar Projects lA- <6?^ I - Memo and Exhibits of 4-18-03 1 «K)3>28S9 Miy 16,2003 Pate 2 Summary of Revisions 1 . Reduction in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11 . 2. NE Building reduced from S to 3 units, pulling it further south from Sugar Woods neighborhood. 3. Five-unit West building will be designed and marketed as individual ofTice spaces with common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc. These will be leased spaces rather than individually owned units. 4. 5. 6. 7. Additional screening is added along north and northeast boundaries of site to buffer from adjacent residential uses. Applicant is suggesting the new plan has 42,000 s.f gross square footage but contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes. Using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs are 2.79 stalls per 1000 s.f of gross floor space; 2.79 x 42,000 /1 ,000 yields a 1 14 stall requirement. City code for office use would require S stalls per 1000 s.f. of net floor space. City requirement (if 21,000 s.f. net usable floor area is accepted) is 105 stalls. Parking is proposed at 114 stalls, all to be constructed with no ‘proof of parking’ available. Staffhas not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the gross vs. net floor space diagrams in detail, but a cursory review suggests the proposal is reasonable. The City Engineer will be asked to review this information. Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Services Director regarding the grades for the service road and parking areas. The grades recommended by the City Engineer provide difficulties for designing the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant has indicated (Exhibit E) that they wii! accept the ‘approval of the City Engineer' as a condition of approval, we do not have a revised plan that meets the City Engineer’s recommendations. Applicants apparently wish to leave this as an open issue in order to gain approval of the Concept Plan and move forward with their application. Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping Center and have gained his general agreement to a 20 ’ driveway coitnection to the north end of the property, subject to no runoff additions to the OSC property. T 1 i i W3-2M9 May 1$, 2003 Page 3 Sammarv of Inuea for Dlacuatlon: 1. How do the visual impacts of this revised office building complex compare with those of the previously approved office building (see Exhibit G of April memo to compare footprints of buildings and paridng areas)? 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Is the intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with the previously approved medical office use? Do the revisions mitigate such concerns? Under the PUD 2A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Is Planning Commission comfortable with that same standard, or do the pailcing limitations inherent in the site suggest that ancillary retail use should be further limited? Retail uses require more parking than office uses... Is the requested parking plan supported by data that allows Planning Commission to conclude there will not be a parking shortage once this site is developed as proposed? Staff will attempt to review the gross vs net area requirement with the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to Monday ’s meeting... Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. Applicant should be advised to revise the front parking areas to meet the 20 ’ setback requirement. Applicant should address the variety of concerns noted by the City Engineer: Provide drainage calculations, drainage area map and storm sewer calculations Provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. • Address potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west • The grade of the access road at the southeast end of the site is still an issue to be resolved... Applicants should be asked to describe what their intent is for the existing retaining walls on the adjacent welding shop site. Applicants should describe how these walls and the wall north of the main entrance drive will be designed or screened to soften their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. The ramifications of driveway connection to the Orono Shopping Center site require further review by staff and City consultants to determine whether this should be iqiproved. An emergency connection has been discussed as an alternate to full access... Does Planning Commission wish any further information regarding traffic generation for this use? #03-2889 May 16.2003 Page# 10. Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the ofTice complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12. 11 . Plans should depict existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critical to All in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarw'oods neighborhood. What is the potential for relocating existing trees on the site? 12. Is there a need for screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west? What landscaping methods are proposed to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, especially the view of retaining walls? 13. The i^rplicants should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways or walkways will be illuminated 14. Trash enclosure should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. IS. Applicant should indicate the proposed sign location, and indicate the nature of proposed individual unit signage. 16. Any other issues Planning Commission wishes to discuss. Staff Recommendation: The plan revisions would appear to be addressing some of the major concerns brought up by the public and the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Staff believes the mix of owned/leased office spaces proposed is an appropriate and relatively low- intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character Staff is less concerned about the parking needs given the reduction in units and the data supplied. We still need to consider potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use. Despite applicant’s hope that the road grades can be worked out to allow the walkout use intended, the proposed road and parking lot grades are still an issue, and applicant should be advised to submit a revised grading plan addressing the City Engineer’s recommendations. j W3-2U9 ---- May 16,2003 Pages Planning Conunission should address and if possible reach a final conclusion on site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following: a)Is the scale and character of the buildings ^propriate for the site, in terms of: • appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, trafTic, etc. - building setbacks, height, number of stories - basement/walkout exposure and elevation views - driveway layout, site access, interior circulation - building design, facade materials, etc. - any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage b) c) Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public Landscaping, screening needs Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Parking ciqiacity, whether basis for proposal is acceptable Pedestrian access, walkways g) Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping Center site Any concerns about the revised proposal to provide a mix of owned and leased units i) Any other topics of importance Any recommendation for site plan iqiproval should also include vacation of utility easements as required. OPTIONS FOR ACTION Make recommendations on issues relating to the proposed site plan, and take one of the following actions: 1.Send forward to Council with a recommendation for concept plan approval subject to any special conditions that PC feels are appropriate. 2.Table for revisions or additional infrmnation - specify what revisions or additional information is necessary. 3. Recommend denial, state reasons, send on to Council. 4.Other. 5!^ •m PARKING STALLS !l )WS /» V I I HlEB -T_i -{ - Cf -n ton 02 t Z. 5^m'^ / ' ■'"' ''j.. 'V;:|' w* m w 1 \--------b jj^. r C ir I------------- 11 a_ Ji L m m l>* lit*' APPROXIMATE 81 SLOPE CONTINGENT UPON APPROV/fL Of CITY ENGINEER ' n4-. .. I fi r J________ LANDSCAPE PLAN •••JT-0* i I ■■iiir II nfH—■ . - . _ . PLANTING PLAN SCHEDUU ,>'5- VTj m mi MAMPCIMM fmmaatmm commm •P CM tcmgmtm mmtmi OIBBfBB 4 2jr<t IM «IP fUMMHS mmmwmi MMMI UAMP J a*-€B IM BfllMKMB MMBtfBBi mm warn 1 tS*<B IM PBMMOMHI mm. m wmmitmM M S--4MI IM PMABPMM toimmwma 1gf®S»TM»~ »a CM JMimoaoMi WOORMMV II1ggJPar-^;S ~fS5pM IM A ■WTAMf fumr^ac IM r CM ammtmm MMPMM •A COM 118t-€ ML ML irTBrni 'll 1 —RAOl CnPMiB II r r 1 LANDSCAPE NOTES L Ml mvmam pmo ir wa 1 OMMM MIMM M wr «i UMS MPI M MI01S MB 80MII sai M Mi t «M» 1 OMmCIOi Mli CQBMm Ml MB V MS « *K «• eovm Ni W OMin mSMU. ma m (Oml tut ipoh mb IMQH Oi IfOi BBOr Of OMR • Mmiairt PUNTIMMSB8UHa mm r W aiW TMOL MX M 1 SmoTmSSS?SSmimb^SSjb?mmK5 tSSamSSfaSt fSSS!SS\f?SJpnrM R Hi MS MMM BMU K IMP MO IM MM ^ OUIMV Ml IMBO* Mr OBR tR M MUM MR ■ CUMi SIMO BBDHD MOMM BP - MBBMR MV «* TLflMBi Mi MUMP MB tt M BPOBMC RIM LODBM OM irwil Bm M MIMP — MMUIP or M « OMCIP or OM0L SHOT NOTES PKlBt MKMUPMPMB MPMPKBMMR LAKEVCWTOWN OfFKZPARK WAYZATA BlVDt (USHWV.-Q) ORONO»MN ARIM\LLC iru. Mtl<s aa"»■ «B«4ntM r OBBPrjM MM BAR « m mmVSSa SmSP mb •t TSm Vic’S mmSpb * 1H74 1 OPT! M M '» m LANDSCAPE PtAN CITY SUBMITTAL A12 A S^'/i03, K'-.y A '!ef'f ’ ■ '■ > • * ^'i> i rV^'TT', ■ T V./.' j * V -IMF . \j ^ 4m & L» • I ,' » K# *, / .. AO \4^ ■ d • i s'"' • -'’fe V .T v-^ . *1^ -,.>P - ; u . ' >. Vf i.,' : y , ,> : / • ' V.>.'^ / ' m 't.i ^ ‘,;^t V.. '■-> 4' - ” ‘ ‘ <-r'' <,.'V.\- *^'i y-i^'j W.i ■O' miieii w.Illls^-sssw-iJJI.■%fi fc.• ■ !.^Vr •/ ■' ' . . ' ■'» . • * V ^ •4 ’«- . *. ' . 'vr ■ '' . J'- ^ .’i ' 'h:y\ ft T .' ■k Ml s .■■■ *^■ .' •P ■■ ■H ,*'' -1'>i •/ .. >-i I- ^ '1 -•i‘< -. ; <• Ay y x\t ^ m!' 'tt-t '’k '■»#••*-> 4^1 j^jTW *i.m 57s? F /^T- ^fiA «tv..-. f.;-’ ■•’C? f 1 ■V' ' * < > jf* > 7 .,. . v; ^V • ! ' ^-r^ ' K,: S" - |i- To: Mr.Mn»Gafh«ii Oioao City nanning Director 27S0 Kelley Parkway Ccyital Bay, MN 55323 9S2-249-4600 Fax: 9S2'249-4616 Fkom: Paul Kailaoii, Planner Ravia Heal Estate LX.C. 2436 East 117^ Street BittiisviUe, MN 55337 95^707-l«70 Vox: 952-707-1877 c May 15.2003 RE: Lakeview Town Office Park Planning C 11M nissiCMi Meeting Submittal Faxed Tfi littal: Utter of Undent 1-f Ipages ig ShuppingGci on our Ukeview Town Mr Dear Mr. Gaffieo, Thank yon very inuch for yonr time and assistan By now our architect’s reviled rite plan, and our engineer’s letter of compliance should bedeUveiedtoyou. In addiUon, attached please find a letter of understanding fiom our neighbOTtothewest R says Iminteiids to aUow us acceu to htoshuppiuginaU property. Unfertunamly, there is i» existing pavement on his side at die access connection, but we hope to resolve that Issue with liim that in the near future. Wo tried to page die Flee Marshal for his ^iproval, but haven’t yet heard back from him. But if any oonoetnstwiudB by you, the citiaeoe. nr die Planning Co mmisaioB Ihope our {dan can be passed sutajject to their conditions we must meet. If there is any other iiiformation suggested for a positive ontcoine for tile Planning Commission, please let me know. rely. Paul Korlaon, Ravia Real Eototo Planooe / . -li % •••F101r PHOICNO. :14 2BiS eitsam pi 5/14/03 FromiOraBoSbeppiagCaMr Mr.WihwKflWnkic*^ 2l«Wt«WiyxittB»vd. MN 5S356 ^2473-7047 Jtivia Rill Eitrtt I^C. Mr.MKarf«oa^n«Bir 2436 Bltt llTtb Otrcflt Buopnl^MK SS337 952-707.1170 MiyKth2003 To Wliom R Mqr Conon: Rwi» liMl Kiltti U jC tawnd* to purehiie 0» p««P^ •! 2060 W. W^rnlt Bhfd. wIWi mopqty wfli M|thio>y hnpoct Qur poridaj lot Signed sod undcnio^ WdMtJ.Kojfal Oreao lliopMl ud Power oCARocMy tw Mr iiiiu liwinrr mW.Wesr.Owalf CONSULTVIO ENOINCER8 SINCE 1S44 Wff ULTC/C ULTEI6 ENGINEERS, INC S201 EAST RIVEfI ROAOSUTE 30S PHONE: 7CS471.2900 MINNEAPOU8.MN8642t FAX: TSS^MteS WEBSITE: wwwiMgoom OTHER OFFICES: fargo .no BiSMARCtCNO SKXiX FALLS. 80 g_ s'Z-D'i May It.2003 Mr. Michael Gaffion, Planning Director City of Orono POB0X66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Engineering Comments dated April 7 and April 15.2003 Lakeview Town Office Park File No. 1 39-03-000 Plat No. 03-2838 UEI Proj. No. 02-7226 Dear Mr. Gaffipon: I am writing on behalf of Ravia Real Estate, LLC as the project civil engineer to state that we are agreeable to approval of the City Engineer as a condition of approval of the subdivision application. We have discussed the grading issues with the City Engineer and have verbal agreement to redesign the grading with the maximum slopes recommended as our goal but maintaining the workability of the walkout concept. We will also comply with all other comments received. We r^uest approval of the application by the City subject to approval of the final sitework plans by the City Engineer. We will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting on May 19^ to address any other concerns the Commissioners or staff may identify. Very truly yours. Rich Revering, PE C: Paul Karlson, Ravia Real Estate, LLC EOIML OEPOmiMnV BHPUSVIll Lower Level mmism Main Level h ‘- . j l'!- ‘ •• I «#• asp in m i ,opr- (^374#) MM-fl (fUit} ^ iiflilB VJ MR44. srmbvie hwnil^ •V ? frt; »•»’ i itmmt YAWn dB*.L HMI CFp. UiCTPM .1 ,; I » I .'* / » • ','• ! ' ‘ ■! 'i ■!:'l •! > ! ‘I |1' • ni- il-yn 'Hlfr' : r .WU7r *' '. ■ ■ (l5o4i|^ (• I 4 !:; Mezzanine LPel mm 1 JLvw Jl Main Level I-ircrntfi • w ' HVLTI t ‘ I'- _____rl. I hvlti I ' ‘ <Fe- Oso4i(j> ■) P<*^. I i W***. i L-,n- f »< > t - ■*••*. # . * 1 • ,t' .♦ •, 1 i. 1 wTTwf f. - *« .* •i Mezzanine Level ( )"fl| /U) /'//;, ' • •«•* ■•. ^ l'l7'‘MEW//fi7p; T'*/'(W'I <1 Fr>W,f. /<£>Vo ^(= /i,77y- ■Aim TP*-------mi RTlklr BSSlfcilirmirtTr BBC isotrai •MH m 141 m mmtimL t U»m •U m moiitm.•.m .. - 1 ua 11 1 IKM ‘A' im »«• 1 uwr 1HA QfM niim 1PSo xmf IQ ifvim •MO Ni I4f ns ■MifaQ •MM m KJ a •m m U m im o 1 MOH: BOUMC roo*«GO ro» MfitC fOWr 94V 1 [code REVIEW’S’ 1 1 CMN V nn NM t ?MUft — miirai flStai uMPim •M«t m (41 •■IMI 1 UN m 111 a t .m .. 1011 a 1 CMN *r mt NM f UMI9 n«» TP*nfi^F*•(0O m Mi ns ■■(Ml gpMi t i m Ml m IPWIMI 1 V m U m 1 im ■ 1 VOt f WNC NM « UMI 1H* TP"mf SBfiSK 10V (Ml •MO m 141 a ■■(im i tJO m U0 ■VIM •.m .. 1 -I0*C a n v wmam •mm 1 rn.t9m 9jr m t ■ Q SB «» SB n:- - - ■ ■» s «r 35?* SB .f a SB ff &^sa> S'Vj'Su ICSi^aKu^ /^S£Sl& « 0 0. ♦ y(mM ) ] m wt «M «ftU r 1 10 f* r % m. rt ir t to r* •r it to n. fO n rr .sSSiata- riT my sssL.’snA' sa**“7 DOWNSPOIJT DRAIN AOS hUpy/www.ods-pipe.com for HOPE pipe Sc fittings BEDDING DETAIL FOR 4" TO 15" PIPE jo»n m •< ooMnMc*oa mm luct 'W' pi / (7my / r i0»-#nrB«MB» / iim •? BLOCKING FOR WATERMAIN 12" INUNE DRAIN AOS httpy/www.ods-pipe.com O M ICO*. A 10 fiMO Mann I I »>9 a M J, GRADING e BLDG. SIDES m^:kM to« U0M WATER SERVICE RISER 'Mri* ORONO. MINNESOTA kUsH PARKING LOT HANDICAP ACCESS -a? SILT FENCE DETAIL . I ^\X\\N>X\\\VW V\VCV' \XVXX^^V^^V^^^XCCV^^^d CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE -1 i/r •r Ml -r a I mmm 9%tm tmm m • ’fcfcj' ORONO. mmt^k M!iih PAVING SECTION CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION RETAINING WALL SITEWORK ORMVmC ct - mm ca - m tUMir * 0* - inUB *fNM LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Developer; Project Address Orono, MN Project Code CUCNT MmOVAL: ttil t- i //Amm 02002 AnmmakliS: / « A B V^ • •■M * ..V VJTTf ■■ s; urao immun. me. UOt tA$r mtM AOA# sum SOS —ffors SM2I mmcArmec m* «u*ac*e M»«tt4 AJUU e oms SITEWORK INFORMATION k DETAILS CITY SUBMITTAL Cl " ^ V *. r~i~r \~__ V / /' / j ,• / / /' / / /\\\\ \ \ \ \ y 7-^ -r— / i /;/////; »'' /. / / / / / .~ r^\''A,\iA, / / / TY f /7" U/Jj^ ,.^;H>^A\Av\^.;;;../ / il k//// Ji \\\ \ a (X VrriO. '•, ■> • ■, \ \N ^ ■■•-.. ....... ,/ n f V ' A / : •■'•■., \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 •; • \ ■., \ \ I ' \ • I V ' ' \ ^ '.................... _ V » f ' V ' ^ vC Q \ \ • I » \ V % ' i ' V \ ' \ \ * I i i \*‘* *' \ *\ \ ‘ ^ y / •'\n\\\'\\ X V / / w \ .\ \ \ \ \ \' \ *••... /' / V » \ « V < V '. \ W / d* V ' *•- » ff \ \ \ \ \ \ * '» \\ ***** , V\ '*V- i ! * ' \ \ '* '*• ------------------------- •k \ \‘.X \' •• \ \ '* '• '** **7 V« \ » •. ' \ V 'll. \T:rrK!;iT-rrTTr \ / jNi I I 'Jvi I I I 'Sl I » t *>»•••* ,* / •* / / • / / \I I /»#/#» ♦ / • • • / • / / \ I '.S' ' V’ •. 1 { ' ' / ’ ' I ; : / / , !! I *. 5 \ •. •. i / / i {\ I *• * / / »v * » \i. ** \ ** \ ^ » \ « \ 1 / • \ I 5 / ^ ^ / /'7( X \\\\\\ i \ \ \ \ V \ \ \:v..X V-' A^\V- V( ^ •v'X X 1 i>n ''*7\ \K\ \ \ \ X ^ n-V'' IT ‘ • ' « * i'lii;.;i \* \ \i 'll 'Ml'• T ialAiMSilii •' '** \ '• OWSWN COMTML SCHEDULE JSJSSsrsEiS^ssy^gv^^ SSSSES EROSKM CONTROLS «E MSTMIED PER PPPRONCO PMN. 2. IMMEOIMaY FOIURNNC OWOIMO OF SLOPES »l ON CgWp.„.^ KS ssys.*!?®™ JS“.S5!S« K" MO A WMWUM or 4* OP TOPSOC 3 AU EROSION CONTROL INSTAUATTONS SHAa REMAW IN PL^ AND SC MAWTAWEO W GOOD CONDITION SY THECONTRACU^^ T>« SITE HAS BEEN RE-VEOETATEO AT WHICH TIME ff^SHALL BE RCMQVCO. FOR PROPOSED PAVED SURFACE N^ttjT**___.Tiirr CONTRACTOR MAY REMOVEi^CEaS^ SLT FPttWCTO^ ROADWAYS, WHILE MAWTAWWC AOEOUATE EROSION CONTROL W ADJACENT AREAS. 4. SUFFIOEMT TOPSOIL SHAH. BE STOCKPEEO TO y THE REPLACEMENT Of 4* Of TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE REVECaATEO. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRAOWC, WWTX^^.^ WSTAUATIOM AND ROADWAY “**5S2?*!2fl22 SITE CAN BE MULCHED AND RE-SEEDED SOW AfTBROSTUTOANCE. AUL DISTURBED AREAS SMALL BE SEEDED PNO MUU»»WIWW 14-OAYS AFTER COMPITTION Of FINAL CRADINO OR AFTER 14-OAWS Of CRWWG INACTIVITY. LAKEVIEW • TOWN OFFICE PARK Oeveloper Project Address Orono. MN Project Code f \ A ' I “7 A r* *A I\ X \ \ 'a V ' A \ % A • A ^ i\ V\j J N Qr:i::-A .. k ^ \\l \ \ \ I'U\ XI ^ ^ \ saa&tti'xx ; 4^ iir'‘-'-v'.'n'uV;'r‘'''nV.v :V,WT#lj|i;(6VnV-'i'^ f pffh'N •............ ............ •**'•. — •. '*'‘v' V*'! ’.vVC::;.'-- .--■■/;yv > < > / ■"• • tt * t ft t J > *, / / //V. :i'*x Im :-Wl W///> '/^y/y. =7iW>.Jl<rr;iTO!I:iiiri'li I acm PM SIT A 1.U' • 0 0 00 0 00 0/" r *0 0 00 0 *0 EROSION AND SCDRIENT CONTROL MAWTOIANCC PROGRAM I.WSPECT SO.T FENCES WMEOIATELY AFTER EACH RMN^^ AT LEAST DAILY OURWC PRMON^ RAINFALL WMEOIATELY REPAW FARED OR FARWC SRT FENCES. asgg laff&rassiv* removed when oeposrs reach approxwately one - half THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. replacement - FABRIC SHALL BC REPlACOiPROMPTLY WHEN IT KCOMPOSCS OR BECO^Wgre^ BEFORE THE BARRIER B NO LONGER NEEDED. ANY SEOWENT REMAWWO W PLACE AFTO Ty^T FENCE OR FILTER FABRIC S S**"”SHNJ. BE DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXBTmO GRADE. PREPARED. ANO SEEDCT THE APPROPRWTE SEED MM. AS OWECTED BY THE ENGINEER. ittmm ^M9«P*.«WM WMSCBMB «*»•••«• J 3. iT WmMNM TD1MC 4 a-. J m' 0^ WSTMLEO. sirs ■sy«5sS"ff rr7Jt* 4> j i f i / •\ ‘ t ! ' . i C •' '' \ ’• •' \ \ \ ^ » % » \ » » » * ' ' *% •• \\\\\\\\v-av. ■■■•.... ■■■■ // I ;//// .vVi \ I ••■'•'■ ■ \ \- \ '• VA'! \\ \ ............ / I iV / \\\\\ \ ■ \ \ \ \ \ V ^ . \ \ •■■■■» \ \ \ — ................................ , V'./• ' \*. \ \ t\ \ '* *- ^•.\\\A,\ ^ ^ \ ' .............. ,-• * •«I; II»\ I *» .»»• ‘—• I •»* '•««.......... \\7) » • » I I« > <N'vA> } ^ V ji, ‘‘itt —* 'fjI,' intr |l IliPi -'//V;v $»$ n t' ** i J ! t *••y : / v,v >. / / ///,'.' / / U*»0 \ yy^! ' ."'Aj^.''V-' f / Bl' V]M- 1='Si ilkm liP^Ilit isia yuivh 1'^ ?: /.' I IBXM FOR SITENORK ORRMN^S • «IJ — »► — *»» — SfH H ■oH JB5i m •;■■■■:■■, ■■, ;A'li mm. LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Developer: i v< % .J j'i!^;j liji:;~itrs;:^':d^ [7!i: Mi t n iiiii i:^.jTiSiliA i'Miu m —I 8 «4»? CNO ran SnCMONK DWWWMCt r i||| r ^ 3! is- Ifl If;* 6 -I sJliiiP ic!iM’i [p l!'; • '■'ill- ii :m ASs m ■ ip 'l.'H Pir-it ir:‘iii,ijr-Sl P im 'ili!?-li!L'nll-■ 'hVi'Pfiv rir:iiiiv^iifl,,i ig i:! iFHii II ml Piiiiri JAIAP»?r" VrnLemmM “SrSTj yg& r"ILI5III I It ’ ' • t f■ I : ■ CWIf— h -i L ■MiOMNr i0nM •^1 i.LlU±T^ Project Address Orono, M.i Project Code CUDIT APfSOVAL: mitmmmmmm • Sb TS mP • 20D2M :i urm BKmEEn, me. nmuBT rnmn •QAD wm Mf—unme mmuors mut (1£/ mmMnM.ecm M#v ^ *tft«CA> M*«cr«c lev cvtrv «w»« -—.^i^’^-yr-e v I- . irr mu o .»e*C.JbJk Utility CITY SUBMITTAL 8GMUI M Pin NOin* inM ii /TNUWDSDIPMC OITM • f UNff tVrl f f ? ! ‘ u It It y u It It y It It It y It It y y It It y y It It y y It It y y It It y y It It y y r-4*'•n I I ?1? H s^l5r^---i'"^- »-i* i*-»! ...UA, ir-< . r T ^^Yalowhi i£vb » flook plan * * l/f • !•-«'K35 Ei imiiiiii uwBuimnooa WAN SHEET NOTES %.9mm9mmmmam 811!miKEYNOTES 1K1IK©■i HU OP PUM M miflDBM if-r 11*^r-r Tirr —id r-r ir-r rir^ * a—I V w-rm 0 HJ T\ MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN tt/ */•“ • ' /tft 9 «uno« I i t ••1, I-___^--------- mMi tr 9 ___PMHttM w. tt/11 Mr mnr- r:^I ‘I.'! ii ‘ iJfBk — maPttNyt>| I ST\ Tt ^ ^ ^ • ____J-MkU 8 a • tvoi » IT IT VIA • «& «pr. «U/ '.I.)J V rirJSi \ « t«pi.«u/ VrnMi vaft i/r • •*- T\tOOf WAN i/r • r-r lAKEVIEWTOWN OFFKXPARK WAYZATA BIVDl (USHWY.12) OftONO.MN ARIM\UC 17a SlSSSSI t loor cnniT ■« wiRM OtlVOR WMIMP « • •«* • IMP ■WMiW.M> I fli * MV UKMD POMP MP m urn 9 M vm 9 mmMm. 1807# •C PPMP Ml ■ IWMMPJO ^ nSS"* 19M OfTM TRIPLE 48’-0* WALK CMJT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL AZ1 t-V-i F&rM" 4. V - • -------^ /^*T\tOWER LEVEL fLOOR PIAN I ... »,/r • 1 .«•KT? »<MN IfVB. flOOl n>M SHST NOTES ** !WJS5?5«u5S**^ ***'*"mmmmaitmnmmwmm KEY NOTES W M» an RM «■ iW. IMM LAKEVEW TOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA BlVDt (US HWY. 12) ORONO.MN ARIMA.aC 17U AcM ISKI Mh m piiiSS w ATmTm SS ICUW tCMflP 18074 m mm^mujuamB m "STSSi'uTpS fOW (5)48*-(r WALK CXJT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL 1/^ ■ ^'^^r A2.9 r-4*r-r 0-r ir-«* 1 ______1 •V ir-^ II r-^ V )e V>• 03 ■ ITI 1 r-4*r-r 1 r-(* ^ > ■ af.tr UPPER uva aooK pian f# 09000^ iflDm- %un cra -v IM or IMi MLO* -W5rt«/3. » T “ ■■ w r:ni; , ^ f f r.iKi • If- ‘'' "rH. ir #«u • 4i «PI «ii/ •pa i WO MIO tg* (Hi • «i tort HU/ Of a a r P«H 41H oifno J\iOOrfiAH© Mohagan SCK Hmwi |Vmlj||l^ wit 1 «•«§ M to M.«f&«aa M » ito totmiM 1 •awr dJrfrritoB »• w _ SRCvuiDi ot mr9n m mfmp o X <9 WHIP m RHCT KH9HH «H Ml 1 « « MV UCOaO MpRHri (MO nc uas « M sioi or hh v 1 ion MCMCOi H ■cxitontM MHft 18074 «€ m>mv MU ■ HDO »•€ MWI M> oaxis or M9 xsPtcna KHMJP^ or KM <H Ml 4^ «i OOHMI UH SUMOH «• OMP nemo iCMr\ touDM coPHoas or 1 fx OTICXS OOOMPrV 1 MQ OOPHnOW 0«l 1 1 HTtaXTIX WH I !/•• • I Outlol D X__________ SUGAR fsryz--- 'U Ml Of M.t4 5 4^ n^i [£ll AM 1 i|ti;i 1 m-g 41,1 1 na 1---------------------;_______l“j^ '■!' V urttMT MU§ ^ • BUILDING AIULA1K4S , • lit. jrai sr MOVSC > * 10S STMIS BQHC - ai fTAOS STALLS ^ I------ i>•o.it mil tiim •AVI — •MAI MCNIACtr SGN I I mu I •1AM MGNUMCMr DCNfc>Ol -N. I ^1 j-*=IO® ^4 L / V i ■ ^ ■ rr JAM —L__^___ii^y^T iMTi T?T-'«L.J ATMiniCNTS TAMUnCNS Woyzata Blvd. (U.S. Hwy. No. 12) raOPOSEO LEGEND MKMVi •41.—. <v^ir>rv • IS Wnruj tCAU C( RET PUC^ ‘2- ORONO WOODS APARTMENTS CITY or ORONO MINNESOTA MILLER HANSON WSSTERBECK BERGEa INC «KHXrc:rt » ruuocat > vVu'- » FRASA AVO SONS INC GENERAL C0N1RACT0RS RUN OATH :V21/20)3 31 3411(23210002 PROP ADDR 2160 WAVZATA DLVD W OWNER NAME WlUiAM W WEAR A WIFE TAXPAYER WILUAM W WEAR NAME/ADOR 2160 WAY/ATA DLVD #306 LONG LAKE MN S33S6 HENNEPIN COUN IT PROPEim' INI OKMAIiON SYSI EM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 34II8232I00IC PROPAOOR 2107 SUOARWOODOR OWNER NAME TJAVASMITII TAXPAYER THOMAS 3 SMITH NAME/ADDR 2107 SUGARWOOD DR LONGUVKEMN $3336 38 34II8232I00I7 PROP ADDR 2103 SUGARWOOD DR OWNER NAME THOMAS 3 A VIRGINIA A SMITH TAXPAYER THOMAS 3 A VIRGINIA A SMITH NAME/ADOR 2103 SUGARWOOD DR LONGUKEMN 33336 3( 34II8232I00I8 PROP ADDR 2103 SUGARWOOD DR OWNER NAME R3ASG HOGAN TAXPAYER RANDAIX 3 A SARA G I lOGAN N/KME/ADDR 2103 SUGARWOOD DR IjONG1>KEMN 33336 3S 34II8232I00I9 PROP ADDR 2101 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME RICHARD 3 A CONNIE L APPLE TAXPAYER RICHARD 3 A CONNIE APPLE NAME/ADDR 2101 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 34II8232I002I PROP ADDR 2102 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME T M KIMMES A A E KIMMES TAXPAYER TODD M A ANITA E KIMMES NAME/ADDR 2102 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN $3336 38 3411823210022 PROP ADDR 2104 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME CZGILLAFSGILL T/OCPAYER GRETCHENZ A FRANCIS S GILL NAME/ADDR 2104 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 3411823210023 PROP ADDR 2106 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME RMSCHOMMERA EM SCHOMMER TAXPAYER RMSCHOMMERA EM SCHOMMER NAME/ADDR 2106 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 3411823210024 PROP ADDR 2108 SUGARWOOD OR OWNERNAME M L RICKS A 3 M RICKS TAXPAYER MICHAEL L/JACQUEUNE M RICKS NAME/ADDR 2108 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 341182321002$ PROP ADDR 2110 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME GEMILEUSNICAMMILEUSNIC T/OCPAYER GEORGE E A MARILYN MILEUSNIC NAME/ADDR 2110 SUGARWOOD OR LONGUKEMN 33336 38 3411823210026 PROP ADDR 2112 SUGARWOOD DR OWNER NAME K G BERG A K M D BERG TAXPAYER KGBERGAKMDBERG NAME/ADDR 2112 SUGARWOOD DR LONGUKEMN 33336 38 3411823210027 PROP ADDR 2114 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME GJSYMINGTONAJTSYMINGTON TAXPAYER GINGER A GARY SYMINGTON JR NAME/ADDR 2114 SUGARWOOD DR lONGUKEMN 33336 38 3411823210028 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSCX: N/U4E/ADDR C/OREBERS CONSTRUCTION (X) 3323 WEBSTER AVE MPLSMN 53416 38 34II8232I003S PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS PENDING OWNERNAME SIDNEY B A BARBARA REOERS TAXPAYER ORONOAMBARLLC NAME/ADDR C/ODl'NBARDVLPTCORP 3000GU NWOODAVE GOLDEN VALLEY MN 33422 38 3411823210030 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NAME/ADDR C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3323 WEBSTER AVE MPLSMN 33416 38 3411(23210036 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS PENDING OWNERNAME ORONOHSGARDVI^ATHY T/OCPAYER ORONO HSO A RDVLPT ATIIY NAME/ADOR 2730 KELLEY PKWY 0''ONOMN 33336 38 3411823210033 PROP ADDR 2190 WAYZATABLVDW OWNERNAME GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC TAXPAYER GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 800 2190 WAVZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 3411(23220013 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYER CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN NAME/ADOR BOX 249 LONGUKEMN 33336 I V RUNDATi::V2l/20)J 31 3411823220020 PROP ADOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYER CUFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN NAME/ADDR BOX 249 U3NGLAKEMN S53S6 72 3411823240026 PROP ADOR 343 VIRGINIA AVE OWNER NAME D CREAR A M D CREAR TAXPAYER DAN CREAR NAME/ADDR 1980 SPATF^ AVE WAYZATAMN 35391 72 3411823240039 PROP ADOR 2043 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME 3AM INVESTMENTS TAXPAYER J A M INVESTMENTS NAME/ADDR 6341 KINGSVIEW LA N MAPLE GROVE MN 35311 72 3411823240067 PROP ADDR I PREMIER DR OWNER NAME R3R HOLDINGS CO INC TAXPAYER RJR HOLDINGS CO INC NAME/ADDR I PREMIER DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPER! Y OWNERS LIST PAGE: 2 38 3411823240001 PRGP ADDR 2120 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNIUINAME WILLIAM WEAR ETAL TAXPAYER WILLIAM W WEAR NAME/ADDR 36 HACKBERRY HIU LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 3411823240023 PROP ADDR 2043 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME D CREAR A M B CREAR TAXPAYER DAN CREAR NAME/ADDR 1980 SPATES AVE WAYZATAMN 35391 72 3411823240027 PROP ADDR 333 VIRGINIA AVE OWNER NAME KEITH D MILLER TAXPAYER KEITH D MILLER NAME/ADDR 333 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 3411823240036 PROP ADDR 2069 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME HIRAM ENTERPRISES LLC TAXPAYER HIRAM ENTERPRISES LLC NAME/ADDR 1863 WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 3411823240040 PROP ADDR 2063 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME JOHN B DRISCOLL TAXPAYER JOHN B DRISCOLL NAME/ADDR CIO FO 332 MINNESOTA ST #2100 ST PAUL MN 33101 72 3411823240032 PROP ADDR 2083 DANIELS ST OWNER NAME QPN LLC ETAL TAXPAYER QPN LLC NAME/ADDR C/O JILL A HUNZ 7272 32NDSTSE BUFFALO MN 55313 72 3411823240068 PROP ADDR 2073 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME GREGORY M SHAUGNESSY TAXPAYER LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC NAME/ADDR 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD POBOX697 LONGUKEMN 33336 72 3411823240069 PROP ADDR 309 SHAUOHNESSYAVE OWNER NAME GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY TAXPAYER LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC NAME/ADDR 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD POBOX697 LONG LAKE MN 33336 1 CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEWTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATTON OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEP. by i itt MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#6 i/03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) Although the current neighbor did not take issue with the encroachment. Chair Smith believed that at some time a fiiture neighbor might take issue with the encroachment. She questioned whether the applicant should be required to remove the 488 s.f. of driveway. Bremer reiterated that the driveway was necessary for safety in maneuvering and maintained that the past resolution and minutes never required the driveway removals. She agreed that the structural coverage should not exceed 15% and that the lakeside deck should be no closer to the lake than the patio. All but Fritzler agreed that the driveway removals should not be a condition of the approval. Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, recommending approval of Application 1103-2884, John and Cheryl Fiebelkom, 2730 Sbadywood Road, granting variances to replace an existing lakeside deck that does not exceed the 15% lot coverage by structure allowance and does not protrude beyond the paved patio beneath it. VOTE: Ayes 6 Nays 1. Frtizier felt the encroaching driveway should be removed. Recess taken from 7:57-8:08 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. (#11) #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST, PUD CONCEPT PLAN 8:08 - 9:35 P.M. Representing the Applicant were Chuck Alcon- Project Manager, Paul Carlson - Steve Paetzel - Architect, and Rich Revering — Engineer/Surveyor. Gaffron explained that the Applicant had submitted an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wa>-zata Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001 . The intended use of the property is a 13 unit office development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately 1500 s.f. The 3 office buildings would include one 3-unit and two 5-unit buildings. Total gross square footage of office space is 41,000 s.f. Gaffron stated that the intent would be to sell each individual unit into independent ownerships and plat a conunon area to be owned by the building ownership group. The common area would contain the shared parking facilities, landscaped areas, and sidewalks. An ancillary need would be to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals. Since this application is at the PUD general concept plan/preliminary plat stage, Gaffron indicated that it requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential PAGE 17 of 40 tlAjatflMii I mil If niTii lilMlMaiiimlfiitliii Itti . 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (1^11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commercial/oiTice development, as well as enhance the quality of such development. Originally, Gaffron reported, the property was part of a 7-acre tract that was platted into two lots for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2,4.5 acres) was rezoned to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot 1, Orono Ambar, and was rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Lot 1 is the subject of the current application. Gaffron continued with a brief history of the parcel, noting that development of a 25,000 s.f. office building on Lot 1 was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22, 2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established that the only permitted principal structure on Lot 1 is a 25,000 gross s.f. 2-story office building with underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that building are general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the )^ss floor area of the building. Develcoer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the of ICC building, and filed Application No. 02-2771 with the City in March 2002, propo: ing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1. That application resulted in a public hemng during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant opposition to the project based on the size, orientation and intensity of the proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the proposed office project. With regard to the surrounding land use, Gaffron pointed out that directly to the north of the subject property is a residential neighborhood called “Sugarwoods ”. The only buffer between the applicants’ office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40’ wide platted outlot that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2” in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The 40’ buffer outlot is generally wooded. The subject property is located on Highway 12 and the Orono Ambar Senior Housing development is located to the east. Two parcels that are located west of the subject property are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the west and surrounded on two sides by iq)plicant’s property contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop. PAGE 18 of 40 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) As General Concept Plan Approval is required as rart of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning and development process, Gafiron noted that review of this application should focus primarily on the following areas: - Impact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design - Landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs • Parking arrangement The 3 proposed office buildings are one or one-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level, with approximately 3,000 s..f. of gross floor space in each unit (1500 s.f. per level). Gaffion iiidicated that parking areas are required to be set back at least 20* fix>m the front property line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3' of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an “R” district require a setback of 1 O'. The property is surrounded on two sides by residential property and therefore the required K' setbacks are critical. Number of Parking Stalls: Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office use’ (Net = 39,(KX) s.f. + / 200 =196 stalls required) Total stalls required =196 Total stalls proposed = 71 Proof of parking = 42 Total parking =113 (short 83 stalls) Parking spaces required by Orono Code for office use is one space per 200 s.f. of net usable floor area. The proposed plan requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total number of parking stalls shown on the plan, including proof of parking, is 113. Based on these numbers of parking stalls, Gaffion pointed out that a 42% variance would be required for the number of parking stalls proposed. Gaffron indicated that he visited two other similar developments identified by the developer - Fembrook Town Office Park in Plymouth (west side of Fembrook Lane 1/4 mile north of Hwy 55) and Forestview Town Office Park in Mtqile Grove (south end of Forestview Lane, 1 block east of Hemlock Lane on south service road of 694/Hemlock exit). Both sites had 2-level office units similar in size to those proposed. Fembrook had rear walkouts, Forestview had rear lookouts with no lower level exits. Parking at Fembrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at 5:15 p.m. There was no on-street parking available nearby, but it didn ’t seem to be z problem. Parking at PAGE 19 of 40 ■ li MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#i 2 1^03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Forestview (8.2 stalls per unit) was nearly foil at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. In Gafiron opinion, this site had a parking issue. Gaffron reported that the applicants were proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per 13 units or 5.5 stalls per unit, with a maximum potential for 1 13 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit. By contrast, Orono c<^e would require 15 stalls per unit. He maintained that, despite the attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now, staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per unit in order to eliminate the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots. Gaffron acknowledged that the ofllce use would most likely consist of low traffic appraisal or insurance offices, however, one could not be sure this would be the case. With regard to their water management plan, Gaffron explained that all roof and parking lot runoff would be collected via catch basins and transported via imderground storm sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Senior Housing siie, discharging to the existing NURP pend located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. Gaffron pointed out that capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calcu.'ations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewei has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Gaffron noted that revised drainage ealculations would be required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward as well. Gaffron pointed out that the topography of Lot 1 is significantly higlier than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the southeast comer of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1. Furthermore, at the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6’ high would be needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, tne south end of the property would consist of a grassy slope, the service road, the retaining wall, and the 48’ wide 2-level facade with windows. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades are 0% - 5%). PAGE 20of4P JL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Gafiiron indicated that sidewalks were proposed to connect between the individual units and the parking lot, as well as a continuous service walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. Attention would need to be paid to retaining walls near the parking area as well. It was determined that a walking trail connecting to the northwest comer of the property had little value, since it would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. With regard to the overall landscaping plan, Gaffron indicated that development of this site would be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping. He noted that the applicants submitted landscaping plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code requires a screen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6* high) not less than 50% opaque be located along lot lines ^tween commercial uses and residential uses. While such screens might also take the form of a benn or retaining walls where the parking lot is recessed, Gaffron explained that, in addition, a landscaped buffer can soften the views of retaining walls. Gaffron maintained that staffs opinion would be to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighboihood . It would seem less necessary to provide such screening along the east side of the N£ and SE buildings; a 6’ privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. Gaffron indicated that the proposed plans for signage were included in the application and reminded the applicant that the subject property would be allowed 190 s.f. of signage, based on the Code standards. While the applicants would be required to provide further detail, Gaffron acknowledged that proposed plans for lighting were included as well. Gaffron presented the floor plans and elevations for the buildings, as well as, the drawings of the facades. He explained that the facades most visible from off-site contain substantial architectural features to ei.hance their appearance and break up the visual length of the buildings. He believed that the applicants had provided a design that was sensitive to the surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, while being the functional rear of those offices, offer stonework, columns, bays, and styled windows. The 6/12 pitched roofs will have asphalt “shingles” for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plank or equivalent for lo'v maintenance ar.d good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock ” and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. He continued, noting that the middle units (2/5, 1/3) of each building have a 'S’ deep proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the PAGE 21 of 40 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#1 1 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curved window feature of the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhances the quality of these units. Gaffron indicated that staff was satisfied that the building design was of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit uiii the senior housing to the east. In conclusion, Gaffron presented the Commission with 16 issues for discussion and site planning issues a-k for consideration. He stated that it was staff’s opinion that, in general, the office condo concept proposed was an appropriate and relatively low-intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. Staff further believed the design of the buildings were attractive and of a residential character. However, staff was concerned about the parking needs, about potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use, and how this site would visually impact or be impacted by existing surrounding uses. Gaffron indicated that staff also has concerns about the proposed road and parking lot grades, and would suggest that the applicant submit a revised grading plan addressing the City Engineer’s recommendations. Mr. Alcon stated that the 13 units were designed similar to townhomes which would be sold for office use. He mentioned that Ravia had two other developments in Burnsville and at Saunders Lake North and South in Minnetrista for people to view a sample of their work. Alcon noted that Ravia had recently held two neighborhood meetings with the Sugarwoods residents and the public in order to address any concerns in the community. He commented that Bill Wear, owner of the neighboring strip mall, indicated that he would prefer a loop access through Outlot D versus the straight driveway access from their development to his center. While generally in agreement, Alcon stated that the loop would require construction easements etc. He added that Mr. Wear also requested sidewalk access to his mall. During the neighborhood meeting with 4 Sugarwood residents, Alcon indicated that there were concerns with regard to buffers and access. \\Tiile she was quite interested in viewing the landscape plan. Chair Smith asked if the developer could salvage and reuse any of the existing u-ees on the site. Alcon indicated that they would like to move several pines in the center of the property if size permits. Gaffron noted that most of the others would likely be removed. PAGE 22 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Dr. Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, commented that he felt the townhome office development was an appropriate design, however, he did not wish to see the site overbuilt. In excess of 39,000 s.f.of rental space, he was concerned that this small parcel could not support this size of development. As proposed, this development is nearly 50% larger than the 26,000 s.f. design presented by Orono Ambar. Berg asked the City to be sensitive to the fact that this proposal is 50% bigger than that which was previously presented on this mere 2.6 acre parcel. Once again, while he could support the concept, the architectural elements, and low use. Dr. Berg requested that the City require the developer to provide adequr.ie protection from this site to Sugarwoods and reduce the size of the development to b'*ttcr suit the parcel. Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that her parcel backs up to the proposed development where there is a gap in the trees between her property and the site. In essence, she noted there is a virtual driveway to her property and she was concerned that the development would seem pretty obtrusive in back of her. She stated that she, and many others, have concern regarding the safety of the numerous children that live in Sugarwoods. She felt the development had too large a density for the 2.6 acre site. Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, agreed with the other neighbors who had spoken and wished to add her concern for the children, due to the proximity of Sugarwood and the project’s parking lot. Chair Smith asked if fencing the back side of the development fit into the landscape plan. Gaffron indicated tnat the City could require a 6 ’ high privacy fence along the lot line at the rear of the property, however, the proposed loop on Outlot D would impact that option. He noted that the fence could run along the Outlot if it were determined to be City owned. Mabusth asked staff to determine who owned Outlot D. Ms. Ricks asked why Outlot D was necessary for a service road in the first place, if Highway 12 was moving. From staffs perspective, Gaffron stated that Highway 12 congestion will be awful for the short term, in the long run, traffic will be cut in half, before slowly building up again. From a planner ’s perspective, Gaffron maintained that the City does not want to give away its ri^ts to the service road just in case something changes. For instance, he added that, if Mr. Wear wants a loop through Outlot D to provide access to his mail, the lights then become an issue. PAGE 23 of 40 iifi ■ f i! ! : i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#i 1 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Richard Apple, 2101 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that although a 1 story townhome style office complex sounds attractive and minimal in height, he asked how tall the actual elevations would place this project. GafTron explained that, by definition, the buildings meet the definition of a 1 '/j story building with a walkout basement level. This also would include the main level with parking and the added '/j story for a total height of 25*-35 ’ with peaks. In his opinion, the proposal would meet the 30’ height limit, although elevations might give the appearance of exceeding those. As with any growing business, Mr. Apple inquired what might happen to parking if the tenants expanded and grew requiring more employees and space. Having recently been in negotiations with the City himself. Dr. Berg asked if any thought had been given to a more conservative complex whose parking better meets the codes. He suggested eliminating 2 units firom either end in an effort to downsize the project and allow more room for landscaping and parking. He felt the parking seemed more than inadequate for the size of the development. At 113 proposed parking spaces, Gaffron agreed that the development falls far short of the 196 required spaces. With an apparent 60% hardcover ratio uphill, Ms. Ricks asked where the water runoff would go. Gaffron explained that the stormwater management plan indicates that water runoff would be collected in catch basins which would extend to existing ponds on the Senior Housing site. He noted that the City Engineer has asked for confirmation regarding this pond/basin plan. Alcoa indicated tint the end units consist of one unit apiece, with both and upper and lower floor. By eliuiincting the end units they are losing two and not four units. He reiterated that the parking will depend on who the tenants are and pointed out that the code gives a general recommendation for parking, reality could require more or less. Dick Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, asked how many parking spaces were typically required per unit based on 13 office units, with an upper and lower level, and 3,000 s.f of office space. He pointed out that not only will the number of employees will impact parking, but so will the expected number of customers. By Code, Gaffron stated that the City requires 15 stalls per unit. He pointed out that the proposal offers 71 stalls to be built now and an additional 42 in proof of parking. PAGE 24 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (Ml M13-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Mr. Schommcr felt that the development had a greater density than could be supported by the small parcel. Based on staff reconunendations, Chair Smith asked the Commissioners to consider the scale and character of the buildings, in terms of: • appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. - building setbacks • building height, number of stories - basement/walkout exposure and elevation views • parking location and orientation - driveway layout, site access, interior circulation - Building design, facade materials, etc. - Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public - Landscaping, screening needs - Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Hawn stated that she felt the use was too intense and did not provide enough parking. She found the design and height acceptable. While she believed it to be an improvement from the Ambar proposal, Hawn took issue with the parking supply and would rather see too much than too little parking provided. Chair Smith indicated that she would be hesitant to support an access loop that ran outside the development through Outlot D to access the strip m^l. Mabusth agreed that the need to use the Outlot for an access route did not present itself here and she would be interested in seeing a traffic light to help with access to the development. While she would prefer to see an access driveway. Chair Smith inquired how dead ending the parking lot would impact the development. Gaffron indicated that the fire marshal might have an issue with dead ending the parking. Revering stated that the original intent of this rear access to the parking lot was merely to provide an untraveled access for emergency use. Only throu^ conversations with the neighboring business had access to the mall been considered. Bremer stated that she felt the use was far too intense and the only way to gain more parking would be to reduce the number of units. Chair Smith agreed and called for the applicant to deintensify the use. PAGE 25 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (MI #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued)------------------------------- While he was fond of the looks, Rahn concurred that the scale should be reduced. Mabusth asked for comment with regard to the City Engineer’s request to reduce the grades. Gafiron noted that the grades at the south end would change the impact of the development. Having heard from many neighbors. Chair Smith supported the need to control the ingress/egress from the site. Keeping in mind the elevations, Mabusth asked how these would impact the views for Sugarwood residents. In terms of safety, she inquired whether a berm or fence would be most effective near the rear property line. Gafiron believed either a fence or berm would suffice to screen the development fit>m Sugarwoods, and felt there was adequate room to add these things. Revering questioned the grade requirements as noted by the City Engineer, for example the 12% versus 8% driveway grade, and the 4% versus 5% parking lot grades, and requested an opportumty to speak to the Engineer re3arding his recommendations. After speaking to various communities about special use roads, Revering indicated that it was their opinion that these grades should not be a large issue, whereas, they could pose significant cost issues. Chair Smith indicated that if Ravia could satisfy Gafiron and Kellogg, the Planning Commission would be pleased as well. ^ With regard to the parking capacity and whether a variance is supported. Chair Smith asked for Commission comment. Bremer asked what the parking requirement was for Dr. Berg’s proposed medical building down the road. Given the size of each 3,000 s.f. unit, she maintained that it would not be unheard of that a medical office could move into this development. Gaffron indicated that the medical office complex had been required to supply 1 stall per 200 (had it been a retail site, the requirement would be 1 per 150). He agreed that more parking could be necessary, as he ’d observed at the Maple Grove site. Rahn reiterated that the units and parking would be tenant driven, therefore, the Commission should be prepared for the worst case scenario. PAGE 26 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO P1.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Mabusth maintained that the City should not be granting variances for new construction. Chair Smith asked for opinion’s regarding underground parking. Alcon indicated that it was not their preference to provide underground parking. He stated that tenants would be hesitant to purchase the units if they felt parking to be an issue. Paetzel, the architect, indicated that the lower levels of each unit would be typically used for storage, infrastructure, offices, etc. He indicated that the units would not support, for instance, a phone bank tenant there, but instead would be designed to accommo^te 5-6 employees and a few customers at a time. Fritzler asked if the handicap parking requirement had been addressed. Gaflron pointed out that 6 stalls had been proposed with ramps to the lower floor. Mabusth asked whether a variance should be required in a planned unit development in the first place. Gaffron indicated that the Commission needs to be comfortable with a standard requirement which it could relate to other developments, for example the Navarre office site. He asked whether owners would be allowed to sublease their units. Alcon indicated that, typically, that has not been allowed. He noted that people purchase the units to use for their personal office space, generally, lawyers, accountants, insurance providers who wish to be located near their client base. He added that the sublease could be a condition of the plat. Chair Smith stated that she was uncomfortable with the proposed proof of parking took away the planned landscaping. She felt the need to assure the residents of Sugarwood that more landscaping would be required to preserve or protect their development. With regard to access, Alcon pointed out that the neighboring strip mall had requested a sidewalk be constructed which connects to his property. Alcon indicated that the developer had no problem with that. Chair Smith asked if staff were comfortable with the signage and lighting proposed thus far. Gaffron indicated that, in general, the proposed lighting seems to be just enough to accommodate the development and individual entryways. He noted that further details would need to be provided. PAGE 27 of 40 1 i i j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Paetzel stated that each individual entiyway would be illuminated and signified with their prospective signage. Fritzler questioned whether adequate separation existed between buildings for emergency access. While the buildings would be set up for ^rinklers, Gaffron indicated that he would wait for comment from the fire marshal on other matters. Chair Smith asked if the Commission felt there were any other topics of importance for discussion. She summarized the Commission’s position that their biggest concern continues to be density and suggested that the applicant detensify tlic use to allow for additional parking. Furthermore, she encourag^ the applicant to add to the landscaping plan to protect the Sugarwood development. Mabusth asked if they could provide the applicant with further direction with regard to the parking balance. From earlier d 'seussion. Chair Smith felt that staff would be comfortable with 10 stalls per unit. She believed other options for access would need to be examined. Gaffron learned and shared that Outlot D was City owned and would not be contemplating use in the near future. Chair Smith stated that they would prefer the applicant stay out of the Outlets and that they would be comfortable with the applicant working with staff with regard to access. Since the development would be surrounded on twe sides by residential use, Mabusth recommended the applicant take parking, the intensity, and landscaping under serious consideration. Gaffron asked if the Commission and applicant believed they had been provided with enough direction to revise the PUD proposal. Rahn indicated that the applicants hav. been advised that the greenspace and parking needs to increase, and the density decreased. He pointed out that the Commission would not look favorably upon underground parking as an option at this site. Alcon understood that intensity, parking, and landscaping need to be addressed. He stated that they would concentrate on these issues and return with options. He appreciated the valuable feedback the Commission and public had provided them in their process. PAGE 28 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.ni. (#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Chair Smith complimented the developer on their sensitivity and initiative having hosted public meetings to address neighbors concerns in advance. Chair Smith moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate. LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, PUD - General Concept Plan Review/Preliminary Plat Review for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn requested that the applicant provide !ne Commission with additional data regarding current tenants residing in their other developments. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) (#7) #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, 1280 AND 1290 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES 9:35 -10:45 P.M. Representing the Applicant was Peter MacDonald, the architect, JoEllen Hurr. Chaput reported that the applicants were requesting the following variances to pemiit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required; 3. 111 s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 4,483 s.f. (38.36%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f (25%) is permitted; 5. 3,132 s.f (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f (15%) is permitted; and 6. grading and filing within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where neither grading nor filling is permitted. Chaput explained that two lots, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, 9,253 s.f and 9,300 s.f, were proposed to be combined with this application to create a lot size of 18,553 s.f where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required. The lots are 49’ and 50’ in width, to create a combined lot 'vidth of 99’ where 140’ is required. Since this is new construction, variances are required for lot area and width. Chaput indicated that the proposed home would be located outside of the 0-75’ setback zone, however, a stone retaining wall within this setback zone due to the grade changes, totaling 111 s.f (1.47%) of hardcover where none is permitted was requested to remain There is currently 2,538 s.f. (23.05%) of hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone where 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) is permitted. She explained that the applicants propose to increase hardcover within this zone to 4,225 s.f (38.36%), exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f (25%) PAGE 29 of 40 % 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bremer indicated that in Section 2, subsection j, the size of the cabinets is not identified and left vague. She questioned what size cabinets would be reasonable to house new technology. Gaffton stated that language would be added to the section that explains that the size of the cabinets would be determined by the City Council, based on the consultant's opinion. As discussed during the work session, Rahn questioned where the requirement of screening for the cabinets ended up. Gaffton indicated that he would add language addressing the screening of cabinets, at the carrier's expense, to the ordinance. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amending Orono Zoning Code Sections 10.25, 10.27, and 10.28 pertaining to Regulations for Construction and Placement of Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED (#5) #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST, PUD CONCEPT PLAN, 9:15 - 10:05P.M. Rich Revering of Ultieg Engineering, Paul Karlson of Ravia Real Estate, and George VanHouten of Ravia Real Estate, were present. Gaffton explained that the applicant had submitted revisions to the application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001. The proposed use of the 2.6 acre property is now two 3-unit office buildings for unit ownership, and a S-unit equivalent building for f PAGE 23 of 37 rI j ttalih mam 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. condo office, i.e. leased rooms with common reception areas, etc. as opposed to owned units. Gaffion presented a summary of revisions as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reduction in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11. NE Building reduced from 5 to 3 units, pulling it further south from Sugar Woods neighborhood. Five-unit West building will be designed and marketed as individual office spaces with common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc. These will be leased spaces rather than individually owned units. Additional screening is added along north and northeast boundaries of site to buffer fiom adjacent residential uses. Applicant is suggesting the new plan has 42,000 s.f. gross square footage but contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes. Using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs are 2.79 stalls per 1000 s.f of gross floor space; 2.79 x 42,000 /1,000 yields a 114 stall requirement. Gaffron stated that he was comfortable with 10 stalls per unit. Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Services Director regarding the grades for the service road and parking areas. The grades recommended by the City Engineer provide difficulties for designing the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant ha. indicated that they will accept the ’approval of the City Engineer ’ as a condition of approval, we do not have a revised plan that meets the City Engineer ’s recommendations. Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping Center and have gained his general agreement to a 20’ driveway connection to the north end of the property, subject to no runoff additions to the OSC property. J PAGE 24 of 37 /M!?rUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. After reviewing 16 issues for discussion, GaC&on indicated that the plan revisions would appear to be addressing some of the major concerns brought up by the public and the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Gif&on reported that staff believes the mix of owned/leased office spaces proposed is an appropriate and relatively low-intensity use of tliis site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character. Staff is less concerned about the paiking needs given the reduction in anits and the data supplied. We still need to cunside'* potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use. Despite applicant’s hope that the road grades can be worked out to allow the walkout use intended, the proposed road and parking lot grades are still an issue, and applicant should be advised to submit a revised grading plan addressing ihe City Engineer ’s recommendations. Planning Commission should address and if possible reach a final conclusion on site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following: Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of: - appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. - building setbacks, height, number of stories - basement/walkout exposure and elev' on views - driveway layout, site access, interior circulation - building design, facade materials, etc. - any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public c ) Landscaping, screening needs PAGE 25 of 37 J •/MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. With regard to the issues for discussion, item #6, the City Engineer’s concerns. Revering was confident that the concerns could readily be addressed and submitted to Bonestroo. He stated that he had discussed the capacity of the pipe with Greg Gappa and they were boA comfortable using it. <# Gaffifon found that acceptable. Item #8, the retaining walls on the west side would consist likely of one 6’ high modular block wall. Revering added that the landscaping would potentially be made up of vines to screen the walls, since there is little space for shrubs or bushes in &e landscaping. Gaffron inquired whether an emergency access between the site and the adjoining Orono Shopping Center would be acceptable with Ravia. Revering agreed an emergency access siiould be available, at a minimum. Gaffiron and Revering concurred that pedeshian space would be easy to accommodate. Revering indicated that they would be moving certain trees to fill in the gaps between the development and the Sugarwoods properties. Gaffron noted that during the next phase, Wally Case, the City’s consultant, would review the landscaping plan, and make a recommendation which would include a fairly dense buffer. Gaffron also suggested the developer assist the neighbor in filling in the old driveway access area from Sugarwoods. Revering indicated they would be happy to do so. Regarding item #14, Revering indicated that the trash enclosure would be made of the same material. PAGE 27 of 37 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Karlson explained that each unit would diqilay an individually engraved nameplate, with an overall ofiice park sign near the entrance. Gaffion suggested that they ensure the office park sign meets all of the setbacks and does not cause negative visual impacts from Highway 12. He noted that the base would be made of similar brick matching the building and illuminated from within. Hawn asked if the representatives had h eld additional meetings with the neighbors. Gaffron stated that no new comments had been received since the last meeti- .^. Marilyn Mileusnic, 2110 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that, while she was pleased to see that they had downsized the development, she believed that it was still too much for the site. She indicated that she would be interested in seeing the hardcover percentages versus the greenspace. Karlson stated that they had done their best to add greenspace between the center by adding Colorado spruce to block the parking from view. Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that she had phoned Gaffron about receiving the brochure. She indicated that she, too, believed the use was too intense for just 2 acres. Ms. Ricks stated that she would like to see the number of rentals reduced even further, perhaps by two more. As the dumpster was nearest her property, she asked about ite placement and time trash pickup would occur. Karlson indicated that they were open to a better location, however, he could not guarantee pick up at a certain time. Rahn suggested limitations be put on the hauler in terms of pick up times, and believed the PAGE 28 of 37 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. noise ordinances, restricting noise prior to 7AM and after 8PM, would suffice. Gaffion felt they could address this concern by attempting to get a daytime hauler. — Karlson ensured the neighbor that the dumpster location would be completely enclosed and shielded. Ms. Mileusnic stated that she was more skeptical about the elevations, since the construction of the apartment buildings, as they were much more obtrusive than the residents were first led to believe. Karlson stated that it was their intent to be good neighbors and believed the apartment buildings next door would tower over their buildings. Gaffion reminded the residents that the development would be built on higher elevations to begin with and might appear higher as a result. He suggested the applicant put together a side by side elevation comparison between their proposal and the neighboring apartments. Revering asked what the next step would be. Gaffion indicated that, if approval was recommended this evening, Ravia would then seek concept plan approval from the City Council which defines all that is necessary in the final plans. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2889, Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayxata Boulevard, PUD - General Concept Plan Review/Preliminary Plat Review, subject to staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS PAGE 29 of 37 Jun 04 2003 8t37nM B0ME8TR00 R08ENE RNfieRLIK 6816361311 P.2 Thte raport was originally prepartd by ITE Technical Council Committee 5-BB. Members of the committee are: Sheldon J. Johnson (F) (Chairman) Lyle Berg (M) Brian Bochner (F) Thomas Butcher (M) Robert Canfield (M) John Cilo (A) A. Jay Fisher (A) Dennis Hansen (F) Dean Hobson (F) Edward J. Levy (M) John F. May (R Robert W. McBride (A) Thomas E. Mulinazzi (M) Nelson B. Nuckles (A) Don O'Hara (A) David S. Plummer (M) John M. Wright (M) lr-S-03 i ? Members of the Technical Council Department 5 Standing Committee are: Melvin J. Kohn (FL) (Chairman) Paul C. Box (FL) Robert D. McMIllen (FL) Qeorge B. Pllkington, II (M) iNSTrruTe oe TnAWSPonrATiow ENOiNEEns 625 School St.. S.W.. Suite 410 Washington. D.C. 20024-2720 USA Telephone: 202/584-6 0 50 Telex: 467043 ITE WSH a •1067 Institute of imnsportatlon Engineers. All rights reserved. ITE Publ. No. IR-034A Printed in the United States of America p ^.. •; ‘.V ' . .....____ . » ■ ihil-."- . — » . t i ^ ' ‘j •' •* . ^ • V ^ ' ■............ imrr»6 J Jun 04 eooa stavnH bonestroo robene rnoerlik esieaeiaii * p.S LAND USES: 711-716 GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING 711— L«u Than 50,000 Qrosf Square Feet Building Area 712— 50,000-99.999 Grose Square Feet Building Area 713— 1 714— 3 ».«» • • I -299,999 Gross Square Feet Building Area -499,999 Grosy Square Feet Building Area -999,999 Gross Square Feet Building Area 716—Greater Than 1,000,000 Gross Square Feet Building Area •t • • OeSCRIPTIGN Th« gtfwral offic* building catagoriea provide park* ing ratea per 1,000square feet of gross building area and par employee. Nearly ail of the facilities sur* veyed were leportad to be located in suburban areas. A few facNiOee were located in central business dis tricts. A malorlty of the laollitias surveyed were smaller than m,000 square feet; many were between 100,000 and 299,009 square feet; a few were larger thpn 600,000square feet All of the facilities which rsportsd the number of employees were smaller than 8 square feet. I.Ill I t The number of employees per facility was a function of the size of the facility. The number of employees rsportsd ranged from 10 (for a 1,200 squara foot building) to 1,150 (for a 400,000 square foot build ing). MRKINQ CHARACTERISTICS AND DATA UMITATIONS Peak parking was reported to occur betvreen 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The average rate lor general office buildings less than 50,000 square feet of gross building area is slightly less than the historic rate which ranged from 3 to 4 spaces for buildings less than 60,000 square feet in thra.000 to 99.000 IS surveyed which wmrm jn the 60,000 to 99,999 square loot ranoe evhibMad a small amount of square tootaoe per employee end very hioh paraino rated. The data for office buildings between 300,000 and 490,099 square fSet exhibit an average parking rate of less than 3,0 vehicles per 1,000 square feet. More data are needed to Justify the average rate for the size category 500,000 to 909,099 square Iset which is in line with larger office buildings. This need is supported by the range of rates in the sur veys provided. Future sunmy data must carefully reflect occupied square footage and the number of employees. More data are needed for many of the office building size categoriM. OiniraNon, Awsvit IMT/IntMuis of Ifonopertslfen insfnoon ,v. ,'*• i, 9. f I I . .A. 1 ,*a . vy.v ^ U' • ; t • .. 1 t • » ■ 1 J Jun 04 2003 9*37flH BOW68TROO R09ENE flMDERLIK 9918381311 GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING (711-716) PeakTarklng Spaces Occupied On a; WEEKDAY PARKINQ GENERATION RATES /?«n0« o1 RMt9$ 0.76-32.B3 Sttndard 09¥latlon 2.26 Numb9r of Studios 207 A¥orogo 1,000 OSF Building Atom DATA PLOT AND EQUATION X - 1000 GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILOINQ AREA ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.253 R» - 0.870 09fkln9atn^nt^on.Ouom^SS7nnsm^oO^ .r««portmion EnQliww* 104 ■iiaeii iuftiRijiEi • I III lAala ■ « .lie.'U • a IttUMUlMItt i t. Jun 04 2003 8t37AH B0NE8TR00 ROBENE RNDERLIK 6518361311 * p.5 GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING (711-716) • • • Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: EMPLOYEES On a: WEEKDAY = MRKINQ GENERATION RATES Avaf«8«Rang* ot Standard Numbarot Avaraga Numbar ot R«r«Rataa Davladon Studlaa Emptoyaaa 0.79 0.68-1.07 0.14 22 450 ' DATA PLOT AND EQUATION X - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES □ ACTUAL DATA POINTS PITTED CURVE Fitl«d Curv* Equation: P - 0.80(X) - 8.0 R* - 0.005 ^■ III...................aiiMliOiiehiMi. ---—^ ------------------------ ---------------— > V/ r 1 ^'1 OWER 566 so * A>u J iibiib I laTiiil -0. s (T —K lx=L U— ^ c < —'1 MA \ E 785 sq.♦ 6r'2- I > '1^ 4^ J mmm ji 12:27 ULTEIG tf\.S GENERAL OFFICE BUILDINU Peak Parking Spaces Occupied v$: ............ Oo a; WEEKDAY parking generation rates Bate Bang* of Bates Stanaartf Deviation Number of Studies Average 1,000 GSF Building Area 2.79 0.7S<92e3 2.26 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION a UJs: o CA CO (9z S Ui Q. B 0. X ■ 1000 GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING AREA ACTUAL OaTA points ------- CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) - 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.253 R* - 0.870 aaiUng denvtdee. AugwN Ol Tirwortrtlon 6nain«*rf 10« Date AppUcation Recdvcd: Date Application Complete: 60-day Deadline: 3/24/03 3/24/03 5/24/03 OS TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Mem*^rs Ron Moorse, City Administrator FftOM:Wendy Bottenberg, City Planner . Mike GafTron, Planning Director a jA DATE:April 18,2003 SUBJECT: i/03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2060 Wayzata Boulevard PUD - General Concept Plan Review / Preliminary Plat Review Zoning District: Lot Area: B-6, Highway Commercial District 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Application Summary: Applicant has submitt^ an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001. The intended use of the property is a 13 unit office development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately 1 SOO s.f The 3 office buildings would include one 3-unit and two S-unit buildings. Total gross square footage of office space is 41,000 s.f. The intent is to sell each individual unit into independent ownerships and plat a common area to be owned by the building ownership group. The common area would contain the shared parking facilities, landscaped areas, and sidewalks. An ancillary need will be to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals.________________________________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.40 - B-I Accessory Use, Fence Standards Section 10.43 - B-6, Highway Commercial District standards. Section 10.52 - Special Requirements for Rezouing in the Highway 12 corridor Study Area. Section 10.53 - Standards and Review process for Highway 12 PUD Section 10.61 - Signage and Parking Standards I #03-2889 April 18,2003 Page 2 List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Plat Map Application & Supplemental Narrative Applicant’s Submitted Plan Sheets; - Cover Sheet - Cl: Sitework Information & Details - C2: Existing Conditions - C3: Removals and Erosion Control - C4: Grading Plan - C5: Utilities - A1.1: Architectural Site Plan - A1.2: Landscape Plan - A 1.3: Landscape, Signage & Trash Enclosure Details - A1.4: Exterior Site Lighting Plan - A2.1: Triple 48’ Walkout Type Plans - A2.9: Triple 48’ Walkout Type Elevations - A2.10: (5 unit) Walkout Type Plans / Roof Plan - A2.11: (5 unit) Walkout Type Elevations Engineer’s Letters (Dated April 7,2003 and April 15,2003) Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District PUD No. 2 Approved Site Plan (October 2CK)1) Property OwTier’s Notification List General Concept Plan/Prcliminarv Plat Review Process The current propo.sal is being processed as a new Planned Unit Development proposal for the site, and if approved will result in new General Concept Plan and General Development Plan approvals, preliminary and final plat approvals, as well as a new PUD Agreement. The property has previously been platted, but will be replatted as part of the process of creating separate ownership capability for the various units. This application is at the PUD general concept plan/preliminary plat stage, which requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commercial/office development, as w ell as anhance the quality of such development. M3-2889 April 18,2003 Page 3 Site Background The property was part of a 7-acre tract that was platted into two lots for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2, 4.S acres) was rezoned to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot I, Orono Ambar, and was rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Lot I is the subject of the current application. Development of a 25,000 s.f office building on Lot 1 was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22,2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established that the only permitted principal structure on Ix>t 1 is a 25,000 gross s.f. 2-story ofTice building with underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that building are general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the office building, and filed Application No. 02-277 1 with the City in March 2002, proposing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1. That application resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant opposition to the project based on the size, orientation and intensity of the proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the proposed office project. Surrounding Land Use Directly to the north of the subject property is a residential neighborhood called “Sugarwoods ”. The only butler between the applicants' office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40’ wide platted outlot that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarw oods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2” in diameter w ithin the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The 40’ buffer outlot is generally wooded. The subject property is located on Highway 12 and the Orono Ambar Senior Housing development is located to the east. Two parcels that are located west of the subject property are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the w est and surrounded on two sides by applicant ’s property contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop. That property is zoned B1 Retail Sales Business District. Future redevelopment of the adjacent welding shop parcel is anticipated; both the residence and the w elding shop are nonconforming uses in B-1. «03>28S9 April 18,2003 Page 4 U.S. Highway 12 is in the process of being relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the existing 12 and Brown Road intersection. Currently, Brown Road North ends in a T intersection with 12. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create a cross intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a signal light will be installed at that intersection. Consistency with Orono 2000-2020 CMP Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the oflicial Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 2000-2020 Community Management Plan has guided the property for commercial use. This use would not require a CMP amendment as the underlying land use designation is for commercial use. The use of the property as olTice is permitted under the B-6 district. General Concent Plan & Site Plan Review The General Concept Plan Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning and development process. A General Concept Plan Approval would be similar to a Preliminary Plat approval without actually approving the Preliminary Plat until other issues have been resolved. Review of this application will focus primarily on the following areas: - Impact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design • landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs - Parking arrangement The 3 proposed office buildings are one or one-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level, with approximately 3,000 s..f. of gross floor space in each unit (1500 s.f. per level). The units are attached in one building containing three units and two buildings each containing five units. The footprint of the three unit building is 4,608 s.f. The footprint of the five unit building is 7,680 s.f. The three unit building and one five unit building are oriented in a row along the east property line, with parking to the west. The other five unit building is on the northwest part of the property, along the southerly property line with parking to the north. The north end of the easterly five unit building will be immediately adjacent to the Sugarwoods neighborhood, exposing 48 ’ width to the neighborhood. For the purposes of discussion, the three buildings will he referred to hereinafter as ff'est Building (West), Northeast Building (NE), and Southeast Building (SE), M3-28S9 April 18,2003 Pages Site Characterittics. B-6 confornittv; Required/Allowed Proix)sed Site Area:2 acres 2.64 Acres Defined lot width:100’190 ’ abutting Hwy 12 Parking Setbacks (used stds. adj. to “R” District): (Note: ’Proposed’ also accounts for proof of parking areas) Required fiont yard :20 ’19-20 ’(revise to avoid var) Required rear yard:10’24 ’+ Required yard adj. to “R” district:10’17 ’+ Required yard adj. to ”B” district:5’12 ’+ Building Setbacks: Front lot line:35 ’75 ’ Rear lot line:35 ’35 ’ Side adj. to “R” district 35 ’35 ’ Side adj. to ”B” district 10’35 ’ Building Height:30 ’ (2 '/j stories)25 ’ and 27 ’ Signage Allowance:190 s.f.*60 s.f * 1 s.f. per each front foot occupied by building plus 1 s.f. for each front foot not occupied by building per 10.61 Subd. 3A Additional standards required for the current B-6 zoning district appear in Section 10.45. These standards are attached as Exhibit F. Parking Requirements A. Location. Parking areas are required to be set back at least 20* from the front property line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3 ’ of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an "R” district require a setback of 1 O'. The property is surrounded on two sides by residential property and therefore the required 1 O' setbacks are critical. No parking areas are proposed closer than 10’ to any lot line. Along the north boundary, the proof-of-parking setback is proposed at 20-25 ’, with initial parking to be more than 40’ from the lot line. Parking along the west boundary (abutting the B-1 District) is proposed at approximately 13 ’. The additional yard area provided by these ample setbacks will allow for substantial planting of trees or other vegetative screening along the property lines where needed. AMI 4 M3-28S9 April 18,2003 Page 6 B. Number of Parking Stalls: Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office use' (Net = 39,000 s.f. + / 2(X) = 196 stalls required) Total stalls required =196 Total stalls proposed = 71 Proof of parking = 42 Total paiidng =113 (short 83 stalls) Parking spaces required by Orono Code for office use is one space per 200 s.f. of net usable floor area. The proposed plan requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total number of parking stalls shown on the plan, including proof of parking, is 113. A 42% variance is required for the number of parking stalls. It should be noted that the Dunbar office plan approved per PUD Agreement 2A did not require a parking variance, had substantial parking underground to reduce the intensity of parking aboveground, and provided for weekend overflow parking for the Senior Housing building. On April 17 MPG visited two similar developments noted by the developer - Fembrook Town Office Park in Plymouth (west side of Fembrook Lane 1/4 mile north of Hwy 55) and Forestview Town Office Park in Maple Grove (south end of Forestview Lane, 1 block east of Hemlock Lane on south service road of 694/Hemlock exit). Both sites had 2-level office units similar in size to those proposed. Fembrook has rear walkouts, Forestview has rear lookouts with no lower level exits. Parking at Fembrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at 5:15 p.m. There is no on-street parking available nearby, but it didn’t seem to be a problem. Parking at Forestview (8.2 stalls per unit) was nearly full at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. This site had a parking issue in my opinion. Applicants are proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per 13 units or 5.5 stalls per unit, with a maximum potential for 113 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit. By contrast, Orono code would require 15 stalls per unit. Despite the attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now, staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per unit. This may be overkill, but it decreases the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots. Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. Surface Water ManagcincBt Plan All roof and parking lot runoff will be collected via catch basins and transported via underground storm sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Senior Housing site, discharging to the existing NURP pond located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. J M3-2889 AprU 18,2003 Page? Capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals. Revised drainage calculations are required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west should be addressed. Additional comments regarding engineering issues are listed in the City Engineer’s comments attached as Exhibit D. Tonography Impacts Lot 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the southeast comer of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1. Proposed walkout floor elevation for the Northeast Building is 1012 ’ or about 12 ’ below the high point of the hill. First story floor elevation will be about 2 ’ below the crest of the hill, but due to the northeasterly slope, the 48 ’ wide north facade of NE Building will expose 2 levels of windows and a roof system to residential properties to the north and east. Both NE and SE buildings will expose 2 levels and a partial half story to the Senior Housing building to the east. The result is visually a 270 ’ long fa9ade located 35’ from the east lot line and about 90 ’ from the senior housing end units. The grade at the walkout level of NE and SE will be about 8 ’ above the grade level adjacent to the Senior Housing building. At the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6’ high will be needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, the south end of the property will include a grassy slope, the ser\’ice road, the retaining wall, and the 48 ’ w ide 2-level facade with windows. Note that the City Engineer has indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades are 0% - 5%). The parking area west of the NE and SE buildings will be two rows of 9 ’x20 ’ stalls, on either side of a 24 ’ center aisle, at an elevation approximately 8 ’ higher than the welding shop parking lot to the west. Applicants should be asked to describe what their intent is for the existing retaining walls on the adjacent site, since a handicap ramp is proposed to parallel the west side of the parking lot up to the West building. • • •• M3-28S9 April 19,2003 Pages The West building walkout elevation is intended to be at the same elevation as the base of the welding shop parking lot. This will require removal of the existing retaining walls, and obviously the cooperation of the adjacent property owner. North of the West building, additional parking is propos^, one row adjacent to the building, then a center aisle and proof-of parking in a second row about 25* from the north lot line. This proof-of parking, if constructed, would be at elevation 1020* or ranging from 0-4* below existing grade to the rear. This 0-4* elevation difference will help to screen headlights from the residential lots to the north, but may require some additional screening method, such as berming, a screening fence, or opaque vegetation. The ^vest building would walkout to the rear of the welding shop site, and views toward that site from West building would be less than pleasing under the current uses of the welding shop site. Applicants are advised that certain uses of that site may be difficult to eliminate unless the owner agrees to eliminate them... Certain areas within the site will require retaining walls. The most visible of these will be along the west side of the parking lot, and along the north side of the access driveway at the entrance to the site. Applicants should describe how these walls will be designed or screened to soften their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. Sewer and Water Service The property has municipal sewer and water available, which was installed approximately 15 years ago. No sewer or water assessments will be due for the proposed office uses, as the property has previously been fully assessed. See the City Engineer*s additional comments regarding utilities. The portions of utility/drainage easements that likely need to be vacated were granted as part of the site plan approval for the office building under prior approvals, and will conflict with the current site plan in certain areas. Those easements contain no utilities at this point, and staff reconunends approval for their vacation subject to ^propriate replacement easements being granted. Road & Pedestrian Access Exterior Site Access. Access to Lot 1 was established during the approval process for PUD No. 2, and consists of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Midway 12, and a shared driveway access eastward through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road. Future access potential to the west exists at the northwest comer of Lot 1 where it abuts Sugar Woods Outlot D. Outlot D was platted as a potential service road corridor behind the Orono Shopping Center and Service 800 buildings, with possible connections southward to 12/Brimhall, or west through the Often Brothers property to Willow Drive. At this time the City has no plans to make use of Outlot D, but it remains available for future use. Development of a connection to Outlot D with this proposal will have significant impacts on screening, buffering and topography north of the building. J #03-2889 April 18,2003 Page 9 Applicants are proposing a driveway connection directly to the rear of the Orono Shopping Center site, rather than a connection to Outlot D. The City has no indication at this point that such a plan is acceptable to the owner of the Orono Shopping Center site. The City had not contemplated such an immediate connection in earlier reviews of proposed development for Lx)t 1. The ramifications of such a connection require further review by staff and City consultants to determine whether this should be approved. From a public safety and internal traffic flow standpoint, the connection may be a positive feature; its impacts to traffic flow on the Orono Shopping Center site need analysis. Existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County when Highway 12 is relocated. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a semq>hore is intended be installed at that intersection. The schedule for installation of that stoplight is still being discussed with MnDOT, but it may be delayed until the realignment of South Brown is completed. The City’s traffic consultant reviewed the prior office proposal fcr a 23,000 office building and 70- unit Orono Woods Senior Housing building in November 2000. Based on standardized trip generation rates, a 70-unit building was expected to generate 120 Uips in and 120 trips out per day on weekdays, less on weekends, where the medical office use as approved would be expected to generate 1 30-in/l 30-out weekdays and significantly less on weekends. Total trip generation would then have been 250-in/2S0-out on weekdays. The current proposal does not specifically contemplate medical office use, and it does not contemplate any retail use. Absent a further review by the City’s traffic engineer, staff believes the proposed office use will not significantly differ in traffic generation from the earlier reviewed uses. Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks are proposed to connect between the individual units and the parking lot, as well as a continuous service walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. It would be appropriate to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 1 2. It was determined during the review of Orono Woods that walking trail connections to the northwest comer of the property had little value at this time because they would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. Landscaping Plan Development of this site will be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping, attached as Exhibit F. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code in referencing the B-1 Accessory Use standards, requires a screen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6' high) not less than 50% opaque be located along lot lines between commercial uses and residential uses. Such screen might also take the form of a berm or retaining walls where parking lot is recessed. medial 1 M>3*2889 - April 18,2003 Page 10 • ••- «« In stafTs opinion it is most critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. It would seem less necessary to provide such screening along the east side of the NE and SE buildings; a 6 ’ privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. We would rather see enhanced landsciq)ing along that east-facing slope. The B-6 ordinance has a table listing the landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project value. The value of the development would need to be determined and then the minimum landscape value is determined. Wally Case of DSU, Inc., the City’s landscaping consultant, would complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the ordinance. Most of the existing trees on the site will be removed for construction. The plans submitted appear to have been designed to potentially protect several mature trees that are located along the north boundary, leaving some buffering to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The landscape plan should depict the existing vegetation that is to remain. The applicants should address how the proposed plan takes into account at least the following concerns: - screening and buffering between the office complex and the adjacent Sugar Woods neighborhood... - screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west... - potential for relocating existing trees on the site... - landscaping methods to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, especially the view of retaining walls... The trash enclosure is proposed at the north end of the site, 3-sided brick construction with a south facing access door. This location would appear to be practical and appropriate in the context of the proposed site layout. It should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. Site Coveraates, Whilethe B-6 standards do not currently establish a minimum green space vs building vs impervious surface ratio, the site is proposed with the following coverages: Lot Area Building Coverage Area Parking, roads, sidewalks, etc. Greenspace w/Proof-of-Parking 114,792 s.f 20,362 s.f (18%) 38,378 s.f (33%) 56,052 s.f (49%) w/All Parking Built 114,752 s.f. 20,362 s.f. (18%) 45,878 s.f (40%) 48,552 s.f. (42%) #03-2889 ................... April 18,2003 Page 11 Sionage Proposed plans for signage are attached as Exhibit C (Sheet A1.3). The subject property is allowed 190 s.f. of signage, based on the Code standards: “Aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building". I'he front footage of the site is 190' along Highway 12, so the interpretation is that the site is allowed 190 s.f. of signage. No individual sign may exceed fifty square feet. The applicants have provided signage plans for a monument style sign of 10’ X 6 ’ to be located along Highway 12. The proposed sign location is not apparent from the site plans, but it must be set back at least 10' from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign deducted from the total allotment of 190 s.f. leaves 130 s.f. for individual businesses to identify them on the buildings. A total of 130 s.f. divided by 15 units = 8.7 s.f. per unit, leaving approximately a 2’ x 4’ identification sign for each individual unit. In visiting the Fembrook and Forestview sites it was noted that each unit was provided a standard identification sign of approximately 2' x 2’, and a few units had additional individual small signs, but in general signage was minimal and not obtrusive. Ll2hting Proposed plans for lighting are attached as Exhibit C(Sheet A1.4). The applicants have provided lighting for the parking area. The applicants should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways or walkways will be illuminated . The walkways behind the building on the east portion of the property are of particular concern. Building Quality and Materials Sheets A2.1 thru A2.11 depict the floor plans and elevations for the proposed buildings. The facades most visible from ofT-site contain substantial architectural features to enhance their appearance and break up the visual length of the buildings. The applicants have provided a design that is sensitive to the surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, while being the functional rear of those offices, have stonework, colunms, bays, and styled windows. The 6/12 pitched roofs will have asphalt “shangles ” for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock" and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. The B-6 standards do not specify a percentage of the facade that must be brick: the proposed 2’ high cultured stone base along the entire perimeter of each building is also a critical enhancement. The middle units (2/5,1/3) of each building have a 6 ’ deep proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curved window feature of the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhees the quality of these units. Staff is satisfied that the building design is of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the east. ^ « rulm ^ - «03-2SS9 April 18,2003 Pafc12 Summary of Itsues for Discuoston; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. How do the visual impacts of this office building complex compare with those of the previously approved office building (see Exhibit G to compare footprints of buildings and parking areas)? Is the intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with the previously approved medical office use? Ihder the PUD 2A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Is Planning Commission comfortable with that same standard, or does the parking variance suggest that ancillary retail use should be further limited? Retail uses require even more parking than office uses... Is the requested significant parking stall variance (42% variance) supported by data that allows Planning Commission to conclude there will not be a parking shortage once this site is developed as proposed? Staff recommends no less than 10 stalls be constructed per unit, which is a 33% variance from code... Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. Applicant should be advised to revise the front “proofof-parking ” to meet the 20* setback requirement. Applicant should address the variety of concerns noted by the City Engineer: Provide drainage calculations, drainage area map and storm sewer calculations • Provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. - Address potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west The grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. Parking lot grades should be reduced to not exceed 4%. Applicants should be asked to describe what their intent is for the existing retaining walls on the adjacent welding shop site. Applicants should describe how these walls and the wall north of the main entrance drive will be designed or screened to soften their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. The ramifications of driveway connection to the Orono Shopping Center site irquirc further review by staff and City consultants to determine whether this should be approved. Does Planning Commission wish any further information regarding trafHc generation for this use? ( J M3-2889 .................. April 18,2003 Page 13 10. Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the oflice complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 1 2. 11 . Plans should depict existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighbortiood. What is the potential for relocating existing trees on the site? 12. Is there a need for screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west? What landscaping methods are proposed to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed fiom offsite, especially the view of retaining walls? 13. The applicants should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways or walkways will be illuminated 14. Trash enclosure should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. 15. Applicant should indicate the proposed sign location, and indicate the nature of proposed individual unit signage. 16. Any other issues Planning Commission wishes to discuss. Staff Rccomineiidation: In general, staff believes the office condo concept proposed is an appropriate and relatively low- intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character. Staff is concerned about the parking needs, about potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use, and how this site will visually impact or be impacted by existing surrounding uses. Staff also has concerns about the proposed road and paridng lot grades, and would suggest that applicant should be advised to submit a revised grading plan addressing the City Engineer’s recommendations. Planning Commission should address site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following: a) Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of: • appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. - building setbacks • building height, number of stories - basemcnt/walkout exposure and elevation views - parking location and orientation - driveway layout, site access, interior circulation 1 N03-2889 ^ April 18,2003 Page 14 b) c) d) e) 0 Building design, facade materials, etc. Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public Landscaping, screening needs Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Parking c:q)acity, whether variance is supported g) Pedestrian access, walkways Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping Center site i)Any concerns about the method of ownership of units and commons, potential for multiple users and subleasing j) k) Any specific concerns regarding lighting or si;piage Any other topics of importance Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility easements as required. OPTIONS FOR ACTION Make recommendations on issues relating to the proposed site plan, and take one of the following actions; 1.Send forward to Council with a recommendation for concept plan approval subject to any special conditions that PC feels are appropriate. Table for revisions or additional information • specify what revisions or ^ditional information is necessary. 3. 4. Recommend denial, state reasons, send on to Council. Other. -si. '* >> _______ f Dtc-IO-2002 02:SlM Froa-CITY OF OPONO 49S224I4SI8 T-608 P 022/028 F-515 jS'^l AppUcation # 9 Date Received a» Amount Paid oo CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Sitcaddress . f^*^**^ Property Identi£catioaNumber(PID) ■ an ■» ai» 003s Please check one • Property abstract or^ ^ ________ ____torrens? Attach legal description to application, ci, R| AAL. APPUCANT Name , Address 8 4*^ €»»» City . ■ ■ ■■■ O A —■- Phone (home) 2ipI221 Phone (work) ^4I»*474»i %«S OWNER (if different than applicant) Name tcLoA cc< Address ^4t>o ^ uTtSs ___ »A»«4City Phone (home) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 2ip<V>V| Phone (work) 45t»<»44»1i -i.-z. Present use (check) Present Zorung District •Z.T- Acres Dty Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ttfuo ^ Other (specify)4H IroS PROPOSAL ________ Di^dsion for Tax Purposes _ Lot Line Reanangement Only (no new building sites) _ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites O Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ___Units per Z.1- Acres ____Sq. Ft Dry Buildable Land Residential ^ Other (specify) ~TWrA 'tf i r D«c-I0-Z0Q2 OZ:Slpa Froa-CITY OF ORONO ♦9SZZ4946I8 T-808 P 023/025 F-SIS NQNliVIUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1 . Payment of fees (refer to “application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminaiy pUt infotmatlon on Ceitificate of Survey. LaiJiomcS of *i> ipplictaon. MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1 . Payment of fees (refer to Prellmlnaty Subdivision Approval resoluUon and park fees if applcable) 2. Signed CertlCcate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. ^ 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning ORicial's Signature__________________________________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to eheck pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: A Sketch Plan Review (Class I, IIA Ul) S273.00 _____Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I d: H) $350.00 _____ Preliminaiy Subdivision Application S400.00 + $30.00/lot (Class Hi A all non-residentian ____ Final PUt Application (Class III) $225.00 ___ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only SI00.00 Subdivision w/easeroents and covenants min. $200.00 Tottls Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as tncuned) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + S.50/lineal ft.; _____Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. X .50 ■ lin. ft. X .50 » S _____Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 _____ Proposrd Saniury Sewer Main Extension $275.00 + _____ F*rcposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 ____ On>Sits System, Sice Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S60.00/per lot x ____ new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees - Variance S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision S35.00/Dwening Unit ‘2-Z Ac^J <2xi75/A*^ The applicant hereby ogress to provide all infoimation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engineer, City At^e^ *® process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by _______ Date'M'Applicant's Signature Owner’s Sistnanire Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission ir.estbgs are held cn 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 anend a scheduled meeting, please make airangements to have an authorired agent aaer.d In your pisce end to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i April 7, 2003 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN. 55356 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron, City Planning Director Subj: #03-2889 Proposed Commercial Buildings, 2060 Wayzata Bfvd. W.. Orono Ref: a) City of Orono letter dated April 2,2003 End: 1) Purchase Agreement 1. Reference a) requested additional information to supplement the application for the subject commercial development; the responses are as follows: a. Query- Provide a narrative description of your project describing the office condo concept, and your intended market. Response- This project will create “state of the art" town offices in a park like setting providing a comfortable office environment similar to a townhome environment. These offices are speoifically designed to support the requirements of small businesses with professional services. The intended ntarket is small business such a real estate appraisal, law firms, title companies, insurance companies and other professional services with 1,500 to 3,000 square feet of office space required. b. Query- Provide the basis for what appears to be a significant departure from the minimum parking requirements. Response- This development is planned for total of 113 parking stalls and 13 building units or 8.7 stalls per unit. It has been our experience that a maximum of 8 stalls per unit is required for this type of development. Other town office developments with similar parking ratios include: Forestview Town Office Park, Maple Grove, MN- complete •8.2 parking stalls per unit Blackberry Town Office Park, Inver Grove Heights, MN- complete •8.0 parking stalls per unit Fembrook Town Office Park, Plymouth, MN- complete •7.4 parking stalls per unit Champlin Business Park, Champlin. MN- construction summer 2003 •8.4 parking stalls per unit The Pines Town Office Park, Elk River, MN- construction summer 2003 ■niiMit"-— •7.2 parking stalls per unit There have not been any reported parking issues at the constructed sites including the Fembrook Town Office Park (7.4 stalls/unit) which is fully occupied. For this site, we propose to initially install 71 of the 113 stalls with the balance being “proof of parking ” so as :o preserve as much as possible of the natural screening/buffer with the neighbors to the north of the project. We believe from our experiences with similar projects, 71 stalls will provide adequate parking for this project. In the unlikely event additional spaces are require « we would propose to add spaces starting with the southernmost areas, again maintaining the natural screeningA)uffer for the neighbors to the North. c. Query- Provide information as to how the two and three level office layout is intended to function (will some portion of each unit end up being leased?). Response- Buyers of these units to date have purchased space for their use only, noting that any extra space initially is us^ for records or other storage and since each unit is small this discourages leasing within a purchased unit. d. Query- Provide any other information about the project that will help the Planning Commission understand your proposal. Response- The basic concept for these town office parks is to provide reasonably priced office space, with approximately 3,000 square feet of useable space, in outer ring suburbs with convenient locations for employees and customers. e. Query- Provide a listing of similar projects you have completed that City Staff and Planning Commissioners can visit. Response- The most recently completed project which is very similar to the Orono proposal is the nine unit Burnsville Town Office Park at 11990 Portland Avenue in Burnsville (From 1-494 south on 35W to Cliff Road exit, east on Cliff road to Portland Avenue, right on Portland about two blocks, units are on the right). f. Query- Statement as to the ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or?). Response- The purchase agreement for property is enclosed; an extension to the dosing date is in process to account for the date of final city approval. Charles A. Alcon, Project Manger, Ravia Real Estate, LLC Cc: Mohegan- Hansen (Steve Paetzel) w/o Enclosure 1) Ultieg Surveyors & Enginfers (Rich Revering) w/o Enclosure 1) fi J APR.04’20Q3 lls28 952 432 3700 SEVERSON SHELDON DOUGHERTY #6736 P.003 PURCHASE AGREEMENT ^ _ .. . ________________I ^ ^ -----_ ^ JSmSL inctudiM Ftmii I«i>h Wtatota, Itatar Omk^MM Cvpon^ C«wi»elionSSliSSrSjirArti-yttOimTawlilWEi^i.rtN.-^ SpjSpwfJiISpriM «d Fi« Ead pii(j«tCom to cMb. Im«!• wd wratiimonty.«T>*^ «fctaiRt. I. 3. 4. pnMntknprovtmcnU. *»0»Wcw«ncifbrO««d«iOcig<^ AD«dd«omJ€«nMim«iVPiMio8elhrwinb#a»dlled •I ihi elMhii tg*!®** •• i^***fc»** pi^iMi ia tte 3«n •wbieqa** to cIodBi ^ P**^ ^ ®"y*- SPECIAL ASSISSNEWTS. SELLER SHALL PAY oo the dRa of ctofins all lanallaiea*! of ipaeM dRaofcjoringaaydtftnadfealiiMitwaiaripaciaiaiiMaBMBtpayiaaataMdiliiaqMlwdtoaiaialtoffto clottageftiistole. DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY. If Rwa la aay low or diaiaia to the property bcrwMtfwdRabewofUAIfllMRBO iW ^ ——-------------^ - --md tht dttc of closingp f9T tiiy mtoR, *• rkk of loH sh«n bi Ofi the Stiw 15. Tliitpurdiaiatfifeiiwitf heoatfafemupoBCHjrappioval. 1 APR.04*2003 11:31 952 432 3700 SEVERSON SHELDON DOUGHERTY •6736 P.004 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. EXAMINATION OF TITLE. Within t raasonabk lima aftar acceptance of Ihii Agraamcnt, Seiler shall funiish Buyer with an Abstract of Thla or a Reginand Property Abstract certified to date bKludiag proper searches covering bankruptcies and State and Federal ju^Etnants. liens, and levied and pending special assessments. Buyer shall have 10 business days after receipt of the Abstract of Title or Ragisterad Property Abstract either to have Buyer’s attonicy examine the thie and provide Seller wMi writlen objections or, at Buyefs own expense, to nuke an application for title insurance policy and notify Seller of the qtplkation. Buyer shsD have 10 businen days after receipt ofthcconunitment for tide insunoeeiaptovide Seller with a copy of the commitmcin and wntten objections. Buyer ihaU be doomed to have svaived any title objections not made within the qtplkablc lO^lay period set forth above, axcept that this shall not operate as a waiver of Seller's covenant to deliver a Warranty Deed, unless a Warranty Deed is not spocifiod above. If any objection is so made. Seller shall have 1 0 business days from receipt of Buyer's written title objeedeos to notify Buyer of Seller’s intention to make title marketable within 120 days fiam Seller's receipt of such wrhtan objectioa If notice is given, paymenu hereunder requbed shall be postponed pending correction ofthle, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer the parties shall pcrfbmi this Purchase Apeemem according to its term. If no such notice is given or if notice is giveo but tide is not corrected within the time provided for. this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void, at option of Buyer, neither parry shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other wd earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer, Bt^er mid Sellar agree to sign cancellation of Purchase AgrccmenL If title to the property be found marketable or be so made within said time, and Buyer shall defauh in any of the agreements and continue in defouh for a period of 10 days, then and in that case the Seller may termiaaie this contract and on sueh termhutioa all the paymentt made upon this contract shall be retained by Seller and agent, as their respective interests may appat, as liquidated damages, time being of die essence. This provision shall not deprive chber party of the right to enforce the speeifle performance of this contract providod this contract has not baan letmkiatcd and previdod action to enforce such specific performante shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. POSSESSION. Seller shall deliver possession of the property on the date of closing. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Set etiacbed ad< TIME IS OP THE ESSENCE FOR ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CCWTRACT. WELL DISCIAISURE STATERVNT. Buyer has received the well disclosure statement required by Minnesota Statutes Sec. 103I.23S. BUYER AND SELLER INITIAL; Bayer(s) SeEeKrt Pt! . MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (a) SurvfvaL All of the wamnties, representations, and covenants of this Agreeraait shall nirvivo and be enforceable after the closing. (b) Entire Agrecmcat;Modifkatioe. Thu Agrecreent constitutes the compWic agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agteementsbeturaen the panics teeing the property. Thcremeno verbal agreements that change this Agrcemem and no waiver of any of its tenns will be cffoctive unless in a writiag executed by the parties. (c) Snecoron and Amigns. If this Agrecmcm is assigned, alt provisions of this Agreement shaU be bbidkig on successors and assigns. C1X3SINC DATE. The Closing Dale shell be scheduled for a mutually convenient ditc i» or before October 1.2002. AGENCY DISCLOSURE. COLLIERS TOWLE REAL_ESTATE IT IS REPRESENTING THE S£LUB IN THIS TRANSACTION. WARAJ4EAL J.STAT1: DISCLOSES THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTING THE BUYEHgl THIS TRANSACTION. BUYER AND SELLER INITIAL: IS. Ihif puKhase agraement is contingent upon City approval 1 APR.OrZOOS 11:94 9iZ 432 9'7eO SEVERSON SHELDON DOUGHERTY •6736 P.005 MM*)! THIS » AUG ALLY nranNGCOimUCT. ir NOT innilRSTOOIMESK COMPRINT ADVIG ___ p»M: o4i^ ap- MLLgfc •¥sriAz^'‘ •r t. /i€^miLk\ 8ILUN0 AGlNTt____ SELLING AGENT: iwyj«L^m V». ! . r r '..r' V >.. ..*. K I'f* >7?''* . .JL V- ir. ■• 'i-' • ■ty; "V^ v v-‘r^ - ‘ II niipanlMtli .■•i. ■>::■■;• -v > w • -'I . . : • . , • , . A V*\ '.: ••. •=- .':'■ .1 :V:- • '-». =4. ,■;■■.•>■ >: . ■:••,• ■■. .V. *■ 'V -.- • ■• ■ '■ . •■ ■ ? ••■-- . ; , --w,; ' ‘ . • ■ ■ V " • ’ ' •'.■• ■ ' .;..\- vhJ A' : ■ ■.- A-v- APR.04'2009 11:20 9»2 432 3700 SEVERSON SHELDON DOUCHERTY •6736 P.002 «MA jnTATE WCOWPOmUD HUa 3599 Tryjj/f $ -----Ml mini iiMi>Aai I APR.04*2003 11:34 952 432 3700 SEVERSC.S SHELCCN DOUGHERTY •6730 P.006 amendment #1 TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Amendment #1 to Ptnchase Agreement (the **AmendmenO. dited effective as of the day of October, 2002, is made by and between Warn Real Estate, also know as Warn Real Estate Incorporated (“DuyerOf and Orono Ambar, LLC (**Seller")- RECITALS A. Buyer and Seller are the patties to that certain Purchase Agreement dated June 28, 2002 (the “Agreement") pursuant to which Buyer has agreed to purchase the property described u Lot 1, Block 1, Orono Ambar (the "Pn^reity"). B. Buyer has served a Cancellation of Purchase Agreement dated October 3,2002 (the "Cancellation”). C. Buyer has agreed to rescind the Cancellation and proceed to purchase the Property subject to the terms of this Amendment. D. In eonsidemtion for Buyer’s agreement to rescind the Cancellation, Seller has agreed to modify tiie Agreemem as set forth in this Amendment (the Agreement as modified by this Amendment shall be referred to as the "Agreement"). NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is mutually acknowledged, the parties agree that the AgreenMnt is modified as follows: 1.Buyer R escinds C ancellation . Buyer rescinds the Cancellation of the Agreement. 2.Del entirety. Paragraph 2 . Paragr^th 2 of the Agreement is deleted in its 3.CowTiNGEKCiES. Buyer’s Obligations Under the Agreement are specifically contingent upon Buyer receiving approval by the City of Orono for use of tiie Property for its proposed office townhome developments. IfBuyer does not receive tlw approval by April IS, 2003, Buyer may cancel the Agreement and all earnest money shall be returned to Buyer. C losing Datc . The Closing Date shall be the earlier of April 30,2003 or 45 days after Buyer receives final plat approval by the City of Orono. Notwithstanding onything contained herein to the contrary, under no circumstances shall Buyer be required to close prior to March 1,2003. 5.TERMS OF AOREE.MENT. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the tetms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. Tl APR.04*2003 11:36 962 432 3780 SEVERSON SHELDON DOUGHERTY •6736 P.007 . IN WITNESS WriitKtfOFf the parties have set dieir hands U; tHs aiTeement as of the date indicated above. SELLER: Orono Arnbar, LLC "7 210169V1 BUYER: 4:4 / 7 « Waia Real Estate Incoipoiated /! n' / >■ lt«. l k -'J Y' y t < • ' ' GITYor ORONO Moaldpil StrtitIMrtn: 2750 Kelley Peikwiy Orono. MN 55356 MaHiitMOms: P.O. 8« 66 Ciystal Bay. M< 55323-0066 April 2,2003 Ravia Real Estate, LLC c/o Steve Paetzel Mohagen-Hansen Architectural Group 1415 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: #03-2889 Proposed Commercial Buildings, 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W., Orono Dear Mr. Paetzel: The City of Orono is in receipt of your application for General Concept Plan approval of a commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) site plan and subdivision at the above referenced prope^. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday, Apnl 21 at 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. You will be receiving a staff report in the mail prior to While your application submittal appears at this time to be complete, it may be determined during the staff review that additional information is necessary. At this time, we are requesting the following additional information to supplement your application: 1.Narrative description of your project describing the office condo concept, your intended market, the basis for what appears to be a significant departure fi-om the minimum parking requirements, how the two and three level office layout is intended to function (will some L being leased?) and any other information about the project that will help the Planning Commission understand your proposal. 2.A listing with addresses of similar projects you have completed that City staff and Planning Commissioners can visit. 3. Statement as to ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or ?). The above information should be submitted no later than Friday, April 11 to ensure adequate staff review time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City Planner Wendv Bottenberg at 952-249-4600. ^ Sincerely, Michael P. Gaflron Planning Director TMeiilioiie (952) 249-4400 • Fai(MI2)24M414 wmrxLeraoojiutvs Bonestroo Rosene Anderljk& Associates Engineers & Architects April 7, 2003 Ms. Wendy Bottenberg Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Cry'Stal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 Re: Lakeview Town Office Park File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 Bonetiroo. Ro»«ne. Anderhk snd AstociAlvs. Inc. it «n AfhrmAiivc Acf«on/Cqu«l Opportunity Employer end Employee Owned J Prtncip4lt. Otto G Bonestroo P€ • M«rrvin I Sorv<»l.«. P€ • Glenn R Cook P£ • Robert G Scnuojchi Pf Jerry A Bourdon, P£ • M.wk A H<«mon. PC Senior Contultentf; Robert W Rotene. PE • Joseph C Anderlili. PE • Richard E Turrser. PE • S usao M Eberim. C PA Attociete Princlpalt Keith a Gordon. PE ■ Robert R Plefferle. PE • Rich*«rj w foster PE • OAvid O LoskotA PE • Micn<«el T R.iu:m«inn. PE • Ted K field PE • Kenneth P Arsderson. PE • M.srk R Rolfs PE • O.ivid A Bonestroo MBA • Sidney P Willi.imson. PE . L S • Agnes M Rirsg, MBA* Allan Rick Schmidt PE • Thomas W Peterson. PE • James R MaMnd PE • Miles 8 Jensen PE • I Phillip Gravel HI P£ • Daniel J Edgerton, P£ • Ismael Marlines. PC • Thomas A Syfko PE • Sheldon J Jorsnson • Dale A Grove PE • Thomas A Rouihar PE • Robert J Oevery PE Offices; St P«hjI St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar. MN • Milwaukee Wl • Chicago. It Vl^bfite; WWW bonestroo com Dear Wendy. We have reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed Lakeview Town Office Park. The site is located just west of Orono Senior Housing site in the northwest quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard (T.H. 12) and North Brow n Road. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Traffic: The proposed access road grades on the east and w est sides of the site exceed 12%. This is exceptionally steep and wc recommend street grades be revised not to exceed 8%. Stop signs should be installed tor vehicles eastbound from the subject site at the intersection of the access road from T.H. 12. Streets and parking areas should be constructed to the City’s commercial/industrial street section as per City Standard Detail STR-7. All streets and parking areas shall have B6I8 concrete curb and gutter. Grading: We recommend that parking lot grades not exceed 4%. The proposed removal of the existing timber retaining wall along the west side of the site is on the adjacent property. Easements will be required for the retaining wall removal and the construction of the new retaining wall. All retaining walls over 4-feet in height require an engineered design and details. All silt fence must be in place prior to any grading activity. The applicant should provide an overall site plan showing building elevations so the City evaluate building l«eigl>ts arid ai^pearar.ee fivun the nort'n and souui. Drainage: A drainage area map and storm sewer calculations should be provided for our review. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review. The applicant should provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use. I'ttlitics: The proposed sanitar>' sewer design appears acceptable. The City should be notified \.hen the sewer and water connections will be made to the City facilities. Water main connections shall be by cutting in a tec, no wet taps are permitted. Final plans should include sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water mam plan and profile view’s. 1 lydrants should be located at all dead end lines and at all high points. Fa»eiiu'iils: New utility easements will need to be provided for all constructed water main, sanitaiy and ^toml sewer. Drainage easeinenl.s should be provided across any existing or proposed drainage ways. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 10-feet wide along all lot lines. A final plat should be submitted for review. 23J5 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN S5I13 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651*636*1311 Bonestroo Rosene Ancferlik& Associates Engineers & Architects a«n«itroo. eet*n«. AfidcrlMi mtd Aiiocliitt* loc. If im Afflrifi«tiy« ActiOf^IeiMif Opportunity snd tmployto Ownotf Frlrfclpoli; Ono G Bor>estroo PC • M»»rvin I Sorv<»i.« PF • Glcrwi ff CooC. PC • ffobert G SclHirwcht. PC Iwpio j^^ April 15,2003 Jerry A Bourdon PC • M.w* A H.tnton. PF Stnior Coniultonii: Robert W Rotene. PC • Joseph C Anderlik. PC • Richerd C lUner. P£ • Susen M Cberiin. C PA ^ Aiiocleie Prlnclpoli; Keith A Gordon, PC • Robert R Pfcfferie PC • Richerd W Cosier. PI • Oevid O Louote. PC • MiChAel T RtXJtmenn. PC • Ted K field PC • Kerv>eth P ArvJerson PC • MatK R Rolfl, P£. • Ojvk J A Borestroo MBA • %tdney P WilliArmon. PE . I S • Apnes M Rtrsg. MBA* Ali^n Rick Scrvn»dt. PC • Thomei W Peterson. Pc • jAmei R M^Aod PC • Miles B Jensen. PC • I PhiMip Grevel III. PC • Oemei J Cdgerton. PC * ismeel Mertmet PC • Thom^is A Syfko. PC • Sheldon J Johnson • Dele A Grove. PC. • Thornes A. Rousher. PC. • Robert J Oevery. PC Offices: St Peui. $i Cloud. Rochester ersd Willmer. MN • MilMieukee. Wl • Chicego. IL SBObsite wiAfWborsestroocom i }. Ms. Wendy Bottenberg Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 Re: Lakeview Town Office Park File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 Dear Wendy, We have reviewed the storm sewer calculation submittal for the proposed Lakeview Town Office Park. We need clarification and the following additional information to complete our review: The calculations show structures 4B, 6A. 9A, 12A, and 12B that are not identified on the plans. The applicant should provide a plan sheet that clearly shows these structures. The applicant should provide a drawing showing the drainage boundaries to all structures so we can verify the calculations and finish our review. The applicant should provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the cq>acity to serve the new proposed use. Please contact me at (631) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg ^ cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2J3S West Highway 96 > St. Paul. MM SStl3 • 6S1-636-4600 • Fa«: 6fl-< :9ff § 10.45 SEC. 10.45 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 1 . Purpose. The purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any "B-6” Highway Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Offices (business and professional). B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. C. Restauran ts (Class I). Deleted via Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effective Date: 10-28-96 Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development. Other types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the unoerlying zoning district. Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses. A. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use peimit: 1. Restaurants (Class 1). 2. The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Source: Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effective date: 10-28-96 ORONO CC 351-1 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) ™RTir«w ii-Ti in ■ iw nMi H l¥^ n I ^»rnT*r«rr:i •Ids'll I •] :BHI: RXirora^mFi ^ . § 10.45 shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural w ater course, ponding area, stonn 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 City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. 11. At leas i fiv e percent (25%) of the land are a shall be lands ca ped mth gr ass, a pproved g round cov er, shrubbery an d trees. At leas t three percent (3%) of the Imd ar ea within a par king ar ea shall be la ndsca ped: The following minimum sites shall he required at the time of plan ting : CHxrstory Deciduous Trees Ornam ental Trees----------- 1/2 inches in diameter +»-t /2 inches in diam eter Coniferous Trees 6 feet tall Maj or Shrub Planti ngs 5 gallons -------------------------1. All trash a nd trash handlin g equipment sha ll be stored within the principal structure, within a n a tta ched structure a ccessible from w’ithin the principal structure, or totally screened ft lev el v iew from public streets and adja cent residential properties. If accessoryllVlll VjrV^ structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the sam e building mater ial as the principal structure and be readi ly served through swinging doors. J. Ga ra g es, a ccessory structures, screen walls and exposed a reas of retaining walls shall be of simila r type, qua lity a nd appe aran ce as the principal structure. K. The g round level %iew of a ll mechan ical utilities sha ll be completely screened from contigu ous properties and adjace nt streets, or designed to be compa tible with the a rchitectural treatm ent of the urincipal stiuctme. L. External loa ding and serv ice a reas must be completely screened from the gr ound lev el vi ew from contigu ous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at a ccess points. -------------------------M. The ligh t from au tomobile hea dligh ts an d other sources shall be screened whenev er it may be directed onto a djace nt residential windosvs . (Subd. 6H through 6M delc.^d and new Subds. 6H and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201,2nd Series adopted February 12,2001) ORONO CC 351-3 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) 7 -'T Landscaping. §10.45 1. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be required for any proposed commercial site and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals SO feet and shall show the following; a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; b) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; c) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals; d) location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; e) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructic 0 planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; g) locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; h) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; i) location and details of irrigation systems; and j) details and cross sections of all required screening. 2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and gioundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: ProiecI Value (Including building construction, site prqranition, tnd site improvements) Below $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - $2,000, $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 $3,000,001 -$4,000,( Over $4,000,000 Minimum Landscape Value 2.0 % of Project Value $20,000 + 1% of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess of $2,( $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,( 1.0 % of Project Value ORONO cc;351-4 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) §10.45 In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/2 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 Vi inches. d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landsciq)ed areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. 0 Not more than SO percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. 3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. a) All parking lots containing over 1 50 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow oftrafllc shall not be subject to the 50 stall" standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. ORONO CC 351-5 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) 4 i j r r ’ L § 10.45 4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of noiification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in oMer to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. 6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a tetter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-halftimes the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one |wfi full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 7. Screening and Buffering. a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: 1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto located in the B-6 zone shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R” district. 2) Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. 3) External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. ORONO CC 351-6 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 • • • - • 4) All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. 5) The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure. 6) The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. 1.Architectural Standards 1. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all structures in the B-6 District: a) elevations of all sides of the building; b) type and color of exterior building materials; c) a typical floor plan; d) dimensions of all structures; e) the location oftrash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. 2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be pemiitted as exterior materials for principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, et its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. ORONO CC 351-7 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. Accessory structures for trash and trash handling equipment shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors. 4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened so as to not be visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. 5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation value of the structure). (Subds. 6H and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201, 2nd Series, adopted February 12,2001) (Ordinance No. 67,2nd Series, Adopted: 5-8-89) (Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 351-8 (Sec. 10.45:5-8-89) r CrNi..—.. --------- Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 4/22/03 6/20/03 JUN 9 2003 CITY OH OhONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: i. Name: Jennifer Chaput/Mike Saffron Title: City Planner 7"^— DATE: June 5,2003 ITEM NO. <\ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 4195 Highwood Road Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B Additional Plan Submitted June 2,2003 C StaffReport and exhibits of 5/19/03 Planning Commission meeting Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted; 2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’ of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and 3. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted._________________________ Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(2): Grading, filling & excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75’ of the Ordinaiy High Water Level of public waters. (Request: Grading, filling and excavating within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading, filling nor excavating is permitted). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L '(1) & (2): Hardcover within 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavatii g, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: to permit 524 s.f. (4.6%' hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 3 (2 &3) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CK 3): Bluff Impact Zone; The bluff impact zone is defined as the bluff and land located within 20’ of the top of a bluff. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairw ays, landings, and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(5Xh): Filling in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). 1 . PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Approve variances to replace existing retaining walls and steps within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The existing deck within the 0-75’ setback zone requires structural repairs and will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed; and 2. Prior to City Council review, the following must be submitted for review by City staff: a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover fiom the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot lines, proposed and existing contours, location of boulder walls, etc.; b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. A new plan was submitted on June 2 and reviewed by the City rjig'neer on June 4. The new plans fail to address the issue of wall screening, and do not inciude existing/proposed contours or other details asked for by the City Engineer. Therefore, the approval resolution includes a requirement that the necessary detail be provided for City review and ai^roval prior to issuance of the required Land Alteration Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To qrprove the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. i A RESOLUTION GRANTING CERTAIN VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (JK2); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (LKl); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (JK5Kh) nLE NO. 03-2898 WHEREAS, Douglas and Roban Smith, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants ”) are the owners of the property located at 4195 Highwood Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 26, 27, and 28, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (JX2); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(l); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LX2); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (JX5Xh) to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka with 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted; grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’ of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted, in the LR-IB zoning district, and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLNTD by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. HNDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File W3-2894. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.9 acres. Page 1 of 5 r 3. The Orono Planning Conunission reviewed this application on May 19, 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of S to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The proposal reduces hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback one; B. Removal of the existing stairs and retaining walls require filling in the bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted. However, stairs and landings are permitted within the bluff impact zone; C. Properties with major topographic changes, prohibiting a property owner to access the lake, are permitted to have one set of 4’ wide stairs with 32 s.f. landings to access the lakeshore; and D. There is an existing deck within the 0-75 ’ setback zone which is nonconforming and in need of structural repairs. The property owners were notified in a previous resolution that structural repairs to the deck would require City approval. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right o^ the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application, including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(2); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LXl); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LX2); and Section 10.56, Subdivision Page 2 of 5 ( • 16 (JX5Xh) to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka with 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted; grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’ of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and placing fill in a bluffimpact zone where no fill is permitted. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants as attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to submittal of the following information to be provided by the applicant for review and approval by the City Engineer and City staff prior to issuance of a Land Alteration Permit for the project: a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot lines, proposed and existing contours, location of boulder walls, etc.; and b. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. Any further amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. A Land Alteration Permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to any work related to this application. Approval is further conditioned on the following: The existing deck within the 0-75’ setWk zone requires structural repairs and will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 9,2004). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 1 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the tetms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of June, 2003.i ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 4 of5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN V The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of June, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of June, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,2003,jrersonally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness .,a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and .acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 <-1 /n STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of appeared before me. ^2003,personally who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of credible witness ^a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Paged ofS I LH: ^ Li 3T % ^-2 t/to^ Douglas & Roban Smith 4195 Highwood Rd. Mound. MN 55364 June2^.20f^ City Staff Ranning Commission CityoTOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 To Whom It May Conoem: As par the "Notice of Ranning Commission Action ” dated May 20^. 2003 regarding the variance zoning file #09-2894 for 4195 Highwood Road, please see enclosed additional plans, etc. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at the following numbers: Mobile: (952) 212-1212 Office: (952) 932-9899 Home: (952) 472-7307 Thank you. Sincerely. \ \ Douglas Smith r • ^ —Ji. tm B-S CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 952-249-4600 (j.r-03 ZONING nLE # 03-2894 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; May 20,2003 TO:E)ouglas and Roban Smith 4195 Highwood Road Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: May 19,2003 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Coumission recommends the following: Approval of variances to replace existing retaining walls and steps within 75’ of the OHWL of L^e Minnetonka as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The existing deck within the 0-75* setback zone requires structural repairs and will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed; and 2. Prior to City Council review, the following must be submitted for review by City staff: a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot lines, proposed and existing contours, location of boulder walls, etc.; b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council meeting on Monday, June 9,2003 at 7 PM. Please submit the requested plans to City staff no later than Monday, June 2,2003 for review. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ■ Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 4/22/03 4/22/03 6/20/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE:May 14,2003 SUBJECT:#03-2894 Douglas and Rohan Smith 4195 Highwood Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.9 acres (39,150 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone where none is permitted; 2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’ of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and 3. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.________________________ Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K Application Survey Hardcover Calculations Proposed Plan City Engineer Comments Topography Map Resolution #2951 Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Photos Pertinent Code Sections: I. Section t0.56,Subd. 16 (J)(2): Grading, filling & excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. (Request: Grading, filling and U03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 5/14/2003 Page I of 4 J excavating within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading, filling nor excavating is permitted). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l) & (2): Hardcover within 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: to permit 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 3 (2 &3) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CX 3): Bluff Impact Zone: The bluff impact zone is defined as the bluff and land located within 20’ of the top of a bluff. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings, and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 4. Section 10.56, Subd. I6(J)(5)(h): Filling in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). History: In 1983, a variance was granted to allow construction of a 24’ x 32’ detached garage 9.6' from the street property line (zoning file U162\ resolution ^1509). In 1991, a variance was granted for an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback as a result of a major remodeling of the home (zoning file #1628; resolution #2951). Within this resolution, the existing deck within the 75’ setback from the OHWL was addressed. The resolution states as follows: “Applicants are hereby placed on notice that deck and access stair structure within the 75’ lakeshore protected area is nonconforming and subject to all pertinent standards of the Code. Any plans to make structural repairs to this structure will require approval of the City of Orono ’’. In 2002, variances to allow an addition onto the principal structure encroaching into the average lakeshore setback and for an addition onto the detached garage 9 ’ from the street property line were granted (zoning file #02-2742; resolution #4751). No mention was made of the nonconforming deck within 75’ of the OHWL in this application. Discussion: Grading. Filling & Excavating within 75’ of the OHWL 'fhe applicant is proposing to remove the existing stairs and approach to the stairway due to safety concerns. The existing stairs are rotting and in need of replacement. Due to the topogra^ liy of the land, it is necessary to have stairs on the property to access the lakeshore. The removal of the existing stairs and retaining walls will require filling and grading around the new stairs and walls. Since the work will be done within 75’ of the OHWL and more than 10 cubic yards of material will need to be moved, a variance is required. fhe applicant has stated that no more than 50 cubic yards of fill will be required to accomplish the proposed stairs and retaining walls. The public hearing notice for this application stated that a conditional use permit was required for movement of more than 500 cubic yards. However, since the notice was published, it has been clarified that no more than 50 cubic yards of fill will be H03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 5/14/2003 Page 2 of 4 necessaryreHfninating the need for a conditional use permit. Hardcover 0-75' setback zone There exists 11,250 s.f. within the 0-75’ setback zone. Within this area, the existing retaining walls, stairs and deck are 832 s.f. (7.4%). The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover to 524 s.f. (4.6%) within this setback zone. The zoning ordinance allows for stairways of no more than 4’ in width and 32 s.f landings within the shore setback zone on properties with major topographic changes towards the lake. The applicants are proposing to rebuild the stairs with the necessary retaining walls down to the lake so that they conform to the maximum 4’ width permitted with 32 s.f. landings, reducing hardcover within the setback zone. The proposal meets the design criteria of the zoning ordinance. There is an existing 312 s.f. deck that is not proposed to change with this application. The deck is nonconforming and in need of repair. Bluff Staff did not conduct a bluff analysis to determine if there is a bluff on the property. From a review of the changes in topography on the lot, staff determined that there is a bluff and that the proposed work is within the bluff impact zone. Removal and replacement of the existing steps and retaining wall requires filling in a bluff impact zone where no filling is permitted. ITie zoning ordinance does allow stairs and landings in the bluff impact zone. Other Comments: Building Official The Building Official has recently inspected the existing deck within 75’ of the OHWL and determined that it would require structural repairs. However, the deck is non-conforming and such repairs would not be permitted without a variance. City Engineer The City Engineer has stated that the proposed plans lack information. The City Engineer requests review of the following before proceeding with this proposal: 1. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside; 2. Calculations of the necessary' amount of excavation and fill for the project; and 3. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: ^0}-2894 Douglas and Poban Smith 5/14/2003 Page 3 of. I 1 . Ftopehies with major topographic changes, prohibiting a property owner to access the lake, are permitted to have one set of 4’ wide stairs with 32 s.f. landings to access the lake shore; 2. The proposal reduces hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone; 3. Removd of the existing stairs and retaining wails requiring filling in the bluff impact zone where filling is not permitted. Stairs and landings are permitted within the bluff impact zone; 4. The proposal does not address how the hardcover is screened from views on the lake or how the lake will be protected (erosion control plan) during construction; 5. No more than SO cubic yards of fill should be necessary to complete the proposed project; 6. There is an existing deck within the 0-75 ’ setback zone which is nonconforming and in need of structural repairs. The property owners were notified in a previous resolution that structural repairs to the deck would require City approval; and 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Rcconimcndatioiis: Staff recommends approval of variances to replace existing retaining walls and steps within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Mirmetonka as propos^ with the following conditions: 1 . The existing deck within the 0-75 ’ setback zone requires structural repairs and will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed; and 2. Prior to issuance of the necessary City permits, the following must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer: a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot lines, proposed and existing contours, etc.; b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. it03~2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 5/14/2003 Page 4 of 4 A w CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 - ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforaiing structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # 0 5 Date Rccelvcd7<4 --aot-03 Amount Paid 43SP.0>^pdg. PROPERTY INFORMATION . . Site Address n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 ^ ~'Z3 ~ ^0"^^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proneit^ Acquired_____t2./^/_____________________________^(monUi/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land. of property: V residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: L./9'-lfii_______;_________________ APPLICANT , Name DCU?/tA5 tU- { 6rj 5MtTH Address: ^ Phone (home) - ____Phone (work) (?S City: 0^/00 ________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ hSCX^_____ Describe request in detail: /asty LAt£€r yt) cAi^ir (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: A)Ct>0 ft> 6iCT DCWA* >y i CL'C^/t6C'/it6? __________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) M O O ^ € ' « • ! . I : i ^■5 1 • X REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the followiny Information mmt be tubmitted bv the application deadline date In order for vour appHcation to be considered complete! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/a" x 11" for reproductiorL Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. ' Please remember that vour variance appHcation Is not complete if the above information has not been Ingludgd. APPLICANT'S 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowledge. Applicant's Signature Date_^^"^3 ONVNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^ mvestigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature rppsea^ mvestigation and v Date t/~ 7^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City ofHces 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 Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. jCft. 't•i x * J i ’ » \ A IK R CAROAREU£ Land 9urveyoi>Cloua nrlve r ttrttticate Eden Prairie. MN ssi Z Orono, MN mith Book Page.RIe 5412 " *®riO Scale: •Denotes Iron Mon.Found II tl Deck Add.: 80 sf Total Land Area;39,150 *f. 75'Lake Setback Area: 11,250 sf Usable Land:27,900 sf Existing Lot Cover: 5838 sf 21X H.C. Prop.Gar. & House: 1103 sf 2SS H.C. House: 2015 sf Garage: 780 SF Sidewalk: 312 sf Porch,Deck & Steps 9 0eck*4 Steps to Lake:832 sf " errv.. 17.0 af , <4^;^ Prop.Gar.Add: 288 sf , , a. ^ House Add::762 sf MtTT ?eofo^ iO II • e mmm m Add..H.C.:1130 sf. , ^ • • • •mmm _ 20th __Decemb’cr ‘li ^ Lots 26.27. 5 28 HIohwood,.Ua|>;f; MlrP**^"** 2001 4:a • 4 Frank R. Cardarell 6tata Reg. No. aso 4» O7T lOd l£:3l 10. \Z aao 0202-TP6-396 : «J [NtO J J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X * B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk zr X A E. Patio/Deck X X F. LandKape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________+ B _________ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 20 X X E. Patio/Deck X X fS F. Landscape Underlain By Plat ic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B _ _ ST. SJ. S.F. S.F. SI. S.F. SJ. 5"^S.F. S.F. SI. SI. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. /frjD SI. A ST. B X 100 X 100 X 100 2_% % ST. ST. ST. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. ST. ST. 3/Z-ST. S.F. S.I S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. A ST. B % 12 4.L /I . .*• » . •- IT .V 4 V • ^ % V.. V V ^ * * * •% • •• ' • r*- io sn^niZcS Rm- TD &i. fAJUU((U» U-*(T^ fivitooe^ V><^ f5w«.. \ Cic.iiK ^-A«s -roUVsc £Ty 6^t€1 L/irtSJ^IA^C 'J/V02- £.»CC(S.) ---- i^ &2p &t€----T ( yt ./* ^ 5..dc^ ^ vJ'siofJ ^F^'uuff N T^ILRU^ '^J^< u^ioA- \^sTA^ A^O Txj^A/L. \}J(LjL^ l?4v2CLiG^ -'- SVi£.tf«^ fAjV-MV OJ/DL. Soiv_^ feuoi / ftoJw^(A.\A/AuU5>3-M \W MA/ [Lie. ^ ^/>£0 {^tSPrCCo itj P^Ati) 1\ LM6^TDK^e (? Oa^l«'\^OC'Ti^i^'i V'c ‘bA^ltl^ kU)!^CtJcJi. R'^ /tjjwc Aoo^ - 4*4^ /7KW 5I>C.y4r««j il' r<ic* -r^ (s-'C,'(vftU,s-i' { ’ (^‘S^ 4-4 SasC. C»&ajo, 5S34 ZrV Tlht^ "ra I *,■04/21/2003 10:40 7635610194 5 M\®lS" PT« ^ Uivwc/ 64/21/2003 10:40 7635610194 fmam IDWOrNMONL Miis III i *s DCCKSUN.IMITED PAGE 02 I lii: 'rMLOMflOIC STAIR“SE?fiON r MAX. 7*1 1 ^ .UfV- 4T-• • • • ff 13 2003 8tS4nH B0NE8TR00 R08ENE RNDERLIK 6518361311 p. 1 Bonestroo nosene ••Milt. An^rm Aiiftfi.;liic. If m Aff$fmmi¥9 AttM/Myal OpportyitHy finplayvf Prlficl^altx Otto O. tonvitroo. fJ. • M«rvln L. SpniM Ki. • Mnn t. Cook. fff. • C. Scm«nkiH. M. • j€fry A. •ourtfon. f.f. • Mark A Hanson. PI. AnderiUc&* ‘ '^^:!Assodates y: A»«wtects ‘ 'v> rtv •, ^Mky I3<2fl!d3 ’- Son«o# CofiAiiltantf: toborc W. Oomo*. Pf. • Jejtwph C AnOoHMi, P.l. • Olcnaro f. Ibrntr. PC. • Susan M. Cbtrtin. CJtA. Asjokiait PrinciM^i: i(t«ch A Oortfoa PJ. • t4»trt ff. PtaffPrlt. PX • ffkhaftf W. Posttr. PX • Oavltf O. Loikoca. PX • MIcnatl r. Pautmann. PX • 1M X PlaM. PX • Kaonotfi P Anotrton. PX • Mart X Ooifi. PX • OoriO A Xontscfooc ktXA. SMnay P. kPMiamsoa PX. LX • Agntf M. Cmg. MJA. • Allan Cic* SctvniOt PX • TPomai w. Pttarson* PX • Jamos X MalandL PX • Miioi X JwHon. PX • L PMiip Grovoi M. PX • DarUtl i. CO^trton. PX • Ivnati Mantntt. PX • Thomas A Syfko. Pf. • Shatdon J, iohnion • Okf( f A Growt. PX • Thomas A Poufhar. PX • PoOtff i. Oowtf|; PX orricoti St. PauL St Cloud. Poctiastor and WMMr. MN • kdNaaukot. wi • Oocapo. X I kWiOaHot www.Oonoscroo.com yr. % JOR^O’ChapUt .1 CityofOiono. V ^ poo Office Bw I V'tii: P^at No. 03-28H • Iv."> .• » .O Dear Jennifer:'.' ■'. v'* • . rli .. • is.. ’*i ‘. ^ : •". ’ * i \r. ^ r . ♦ ..ry ’ •* ‘ 'We have reviewed the akeich pl^^or die pipposed landscaping and s^ replacement for die property at419S Hid^wood Road. The plain proppaes fO replM die exisd^ atatra to ^ e* eyslein.and aaaociatec^ Unjdiyaipmg. We havedie following lake, install a boulder retaining wall nti. widi regards to engineenog matters: The aketidi'plan submitted lacki^dettdt. A deified ptui a drofild design ahouw be eubmiited to review. The plana should include aeotions on eidier aide of dui'stairway and a profile show j|g how the plantings will screen the walls from the lakeside. Plans shouU also include all existing structures, lot lines, contours (proposed and existing), trees, etc. ; ; y; „; Plans should hKlude an ovdiwotka tabulation quantiiying di i total ainoiuit of racavatkm and fiU. A detailed erosion and sediment oontrol plan should be subn ittod to review^ ''".‘r- V.* ''V- Av-*n.' '0 ifyduhnye any qu^rtions please call me at (6S1) 604^863. I*'** *'*«.•*I 4 -* * *• ! . ■. * 4 Yoursverytruly, ; .Vi. l._ BONESTROO, ROSS^, XtlDERUK d( ASSOCIATES, INC. ! * » 1-1 * # I _V. *• ; ‘ v"- * ! . V ■V ^ :• • w /dTvy Tom Kellogg ; * • • ’ Cc: Oreg Oappa, City of Orono • # - .•* . 1 * 4 2S3S West Highway 3« • St. Paul. MN SS1IJ • *Sh43*-4400 • Fax: 4S^*3«•1^n ........................... ...... .....--------------------ifihikii ____ 'Topo&ieAt^ ft' /^0\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2951 A SBSOLOTION 6RAHTZH6 A VARIZ^^VCB TO MONICIPAL ZONHIG CODE SECTION 10.22, S0BDIYZ8I0N 1 CB) PIIX «162S flHEREAS, Sara J. S. Finney and Mark A. Finney (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4195 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 26, 27, and 28, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit construction of a major addition, replacement of complete foundation beneath the existing residential structure and possible replacemnt of deck and 3-season porch, portions of which are located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Minnesota: NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Ccuhcil of Orono, FINDINGS e 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1628. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring 43,560 s.f. or I acre in area. The property consists of 38,550 s.f. or .88 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 18, 1991 and March 20, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings and hardships: a)The shape of shoreline as property is located on a point . Steep topography along vest side limits any view Impact upon lakeview windows of residence on adjacent property. Page 1 of 4 r GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2951 V f Mature plantings that exist on adjacent'western lot and subject property provides natural screening. The house was placed on the property prior to lakeshore regulations and that all other setback and hardcover standards are met by the proposed improvements. proj^rty^are ^°****®^^ finds that the conditions existing on this pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant^ but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. community°^°^*^ health, safety and welfare of the CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS .-V o ^**® above hardships and findings, CO setback line. Approval is subjectthe*^following^TonditioM^^ 1. Applicants shall remove 144 s.f. of plastic underliner beneath planter boxes within lakeshore access structure. Plastic ^ Building Inspector’sInspection of the footings for new construction. 2. Applicants are hereby placed on notice that deck and access ®balr structure within the 75* lakeshore protected area is nonconforming and subject to all pertinent standards of the Code. 0*rS;l” Page 2 of 4 /oT o\ III! ^B8»o€ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL•# NO. 2951 3. Applicant is further advised that a conditdonal use persiit is required if a non>*rental apartment is to be installed within the basement level of residence. This apartment may never be for rental use. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 8, 1992). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of their property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of April, ATT! ST: /* _ Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of April, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson t Dorothy M. Ballln, Mayor t City Cler)c of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HENNEPIN OOUmV My conwitMtON P’.’hlic ! •fo: 'o "4w STATE^^'=llCNNESOTA CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2951 ) > f COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ) as. On this /7J6.day of 199_^/ ________id for sa__ K A. ^>'nn**i.mam'Jknown the P®tson(8j^desj^rilw and who execute the foregoing before me a No^^ Public within and for sal? 'county, personally appeared 5ar^ j, 5. a .ncf /t)£irK A. A'orxw.i^a/w^JcnQwn to me to be instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ii NOTANV nmuo • MUMOOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )S8. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On ^his _________ day of ^ 199 , before ne ® Public wi^bin and for said Country# personajTly appeared known to me to be the-------------7 —r—3--------IV « J------------s r—_________ Jwnwwn to me no oe tiie person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 , before me s Public within and for said County, personaJTiy appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 J IE'}1 r '{I jT;rr ^ I^7^ r -T .: ') •• •-. f-<^ yf <«5r>’ w4«s^?-^ oi-m-zs- ParceUnformatioh j' , Parcel ID 071172344001 iHo:^'HMmbv p’: ' StTMt Nam* HIOHMfOp fi*fi njf p fiimiBjiTiiniifnif mi/i UnpmtMt«cpni^ ddajalvm clj^ road •uthortU0t at\.:. , -7^ . A > ‘/r - • ' •' ••• IT 01mm MM MTC 12/19/91 BATCH SM IIENNEriN COUNTY rROPCRTV ZHFORNATXON SVSTEH PROKRTY OWiCRS LIST PROP ABOR OMNCR HANK TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR U tT'UT'RS AS «H9 •••SO ABORESS UHUSZI UNZTEB CH HOSP ASSN PAXRVICH NOSP ASSN ATTN CORP REAL ESTAH RSIR ATN ST S HPLS HN SSASA SO 07-U7*2S AS OOIA •AX99 NORTH SNORE OR UNITED CN HOSP ASSN PAIRVZEN HOSP ASSN ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 23XE ATN ST S HPLS NN SSASA SO OT-UT'SS AS ••11 •A199 . NORTH SHORE DR UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAXRVXEH COMIUNZTY HOSPITAL ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 2312 ATN ST S HPLS HH SSASA REPORT NO. PXASSAOi PACE 10 PROP ABOR OMNER NANE TAXPAYER NANC/ABOR SO OT-llT'SS AA ••!• •A1A9 NXONHOOB RO LARRY H KARXEU URRY H KARXEU AXA9 NXCHHOOO RO HOUND NN S6SAA SA 07-117-25 AA 0019 •Also NXONMOOO RO PRANCES H HXLSON PRANCES TESAR Also HXOHHOOO RD HOUND NN SSSAA SS 07-117-23 AA 0020 •A107 HZOHMOOD RO NERLXN L HALVERSON HERLXN L HALVERSON A175 HZCHHOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA •5 I OtRIER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 07-X17-2S AA OOEl •A17S NXOHHOOO RO HERLXN L HALVERSON HERLXN L HALVERSON A17S NZONHOOB RO MMNO HN SSSAA SO 07-117-2S AA 0022 •A19S NXOHHOOO RO N A FZNNEV 0 S J FXNNEY HARK 0 SARA PXNNEY A19S HXOHHOOO RO hound HN SSSAA (: . I • so •7-117-2S AA 002S •••SO ADDRESS UNASSZGNEO PAXRVICH HOSPITAL ASSN PAIRVIEH HOSPITAL ASSN ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 2S12 ATH ST S HPLS HN SSASA = tv PROP AOOR OHNER NANS TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR SO OT-llT-ES AA OtSA •AX90 HXOHHOOO RO 0 P OOHCN OSH DOHNS 0 P OOUEN OSH OOKNS A190 HXOHHOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA :■ • SO •7-117-23 AA ••2S •A102 NXOHHOOO RO S A ■ J H RICHARDS XI SARAH A 0 JOHN H RXCNAROS XX A102 NXCHHOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA 30 ar-llT-XS AA 002A •A17A HZCHHOOO RO H 0 OCVAAN- OLE OEVAAN HEROERT t LORETTA OEVAAN 17AAS SUSAN DR NXNNETONXA HN SSSAS m PROP AOOR OHNER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR SO •7-117-2S AA ••27 •AXAA HZCHHOOO RO R 0 0 A L RUHSCN ROBERT 0 ANY RUNSCH AlAA HZCHHOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA SO •7-117-2S AA OaBO •AlSa HXOHHOOO RD J L OAKKC I S N CLYNN JON L OAKKE AlSa HXOHHOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA SO a7-117-2S AA 0029 •AlAO NXCHHOOO RO JANET L EIDE JANET L EXOC AlAO HICHHOOD RD HOUNO NN SSSAA •. I PROP AOOR OHNER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 07-117-23 AA OaSO MIAO HZCHHOOO RO J 0 CUSACK 0 C H CRACE C BRACE 0 J CUSACK AlAO HZCHHOOO RO HN SSSAA 30 07-117-23 AA 007S •••SO AODRESS UNASSXa HENNEPIN PORFEZTEO LAND CITY OP ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY NN SSS2S TOTAL BATCH SOA •••17 ft •/ '• V • • * < y 77"p * J Peflt Mo. •Sin S-37/ 57W <^nr,i fo Hm Po^S^¥3 L permit record Date fiLzm-n( U^ir79 (f/nh! /o - 3l<4-^I L ff' \i lljA^ -3o- «?•; i'i: Type of Permit Sk<A€AJbtt<r^fe|^ toc£i K HucA t\ I ■ ifc** I ■_%,___ . 1 L Existing Lake Approach ifj Looking towards the lake • J m II m . J’.s ~ .iS ■<>1 ^.rr:=--- • 'i» - r '•■ . <- . 1--. 4*i ' '^' '''* V ^ ^ 'Citr- •»- ,. ‘-'tk?.' V. : ••• • Looking towards the house --------------- J• If* V * ^25S taa5?5t- i^:-'.v;. ;V/. :.•■■•■'■•; mm ; ^I •'P *”i • r, • ^ ■; ''*^- 1- ••'X,: *V..JJI ' --A ■ V^ik4F>>- •*■ 1 -' •^•.•» Existing Stairs Down Ciiff to Lake First 15 steps and landing Second 10 steps and lake n * i tZ'/T -V.*sr>%• I 'i ■■■ •. *-r* D. ri- . ^ •> , ^ ^JSSW ^ V k . \ i*','..-. :. • *-‘ 'r*- '\ - i ■ ' ^ r. --'' ' ;"t *^^r- wr iS St-//. ■f O '- Vs" L^*.T ■ “' * ’ .•' •••• • •«; *-:• V^*/ .J^*‘., . “a- k” M»a . • iA. - A. -4 • * jr.‘, ^ ..K w ' •T t-v; r ^ w ;hqr- « * ' I CL ken Sli^loS 'LKti-!- :/W;> 1 Dcc/c bLj (ixlccij'ic-ivL. TcU cua Slide 3 i .. .■*’v* y ’-.-> *^?.a., ,:i - M./ . * ii- *'■». -'j p^':^ • i.^- ■■•. • •-'.■■jf.-j ,.-1'= i «6 »/ . Sf ai'*i^?5 •owZ> >i ■Decie lx idiudu'i-t- u Date Applicalion Received: 4>23-03 Date Applicalion Coniidcrcd as Complete: 4>23m3 60-Day Review Period Eipiret: 6-23^3 JUN 9 2003 CiTY OH OflONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 2,2003 Item No.: f o Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2896 Franciscus Bastiaens, 665 North Femdale Road - CUP Ltet of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-28-03 B - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5-19-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 5-12-03 Application Summary Mr. Bastiaen ’s contractor was issued a building permit in January 2003 to construct a new residence on the property. The property contains an existing old house and detached garage which applicant wishes to continue to use for dwelling purposes during construction of the new residence (which is allowed by Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 7), and further wishes to continue to use as a temporary guest house and detached garage for a 24-month period after completion of the new principal residence. This would require a Guest House CUP approval, and a variance to the lot area requirement. The building permit was issued subject to an agreement requiring applicant to remove the old house within 30 days after issuance of a C.O. for the new house if the CUP is not approved. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing held on March 19. Three motions were presented for discussion and action, none of which received a majority vote. The motions were: Motion 1: Deny the requested guest house CUP. yote: 2 For 3 Against Motion 2: Approve the requested guest house CUP per staff recommendation, plus establish an escrow subject to City Attorney approval to guarantee removal of house and driveway after 24 months, allow use of existing septic system. yote: 2 For 3 Against Motion 3: Approve per staff recommendation, escrow required, allow use of existing septic system. (Motion failed for lack of a second) #03-2896 Bastiaens June 2,2003 Page 2 No further motions were forthcoming. Planning Commission indicated this would move forward to the City Council with no recommendation other than the record of failed motions. Discutiion Applicants would prefer to not have to connect the old house to the new septic system until/unless the existing system becomes a problem. The existing septic system serving Uie old house is functional but non-compliant with the 3* separation from seasonal saturation rule, and under City codes would normally have to be replaced by the end of December 2010. However, the drainfield for the old system is minimal at best and is close to the foundation of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman, it is staffs recommendation that the old house sewer line be connected to the new house septic system during the temporary continued use of the old house. Applicants have indicated they would prefer to not be forced to close the access to North Femdale Road as it provides a secondary means of access to the property. However, City Code Sections 6.05 Subd. 9 arid 6.06 Subd. 9 allow only one road access point per lot for comer lots. The new house at 665 will be ser\ed via a new driveway from ‘Lydiard Road’. Removal of the existing driveway onto North Femdale will make North Femdale a safer road with one less access point for traffic to contend with. Staff recommends that the North Femdale access be removed once the old house is gone. Staff had recommended that some incentive be established to ensure the guest house use will be removed after two years. Applicants have indicated an escrow would be acceptable to guarantee removal of the old house after 24 months. This would be accompanied by an agreement allowing the City to remove the old house if the iq;)plicant does not do it under the terms of such an agreement. Staff Recommendation Despite the lack of clear direction from the Planning Commission, staff recommends approval of a temporary guest house CUP and lot area variance for same, subject to the following conditions: 1.The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons w ho would otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. 2.The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code. 3.The applicant shall, upon completion of the septie system serving the new house on the property, connect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable to the City, and discontinue use of the existing septic system serving the guest house structure. « J #03*2896 Bastiaens June 2,2003 Page 3 The guest house use shall be allowed only for a period of 24 months beginning with the date of final Council approval of the CUP. At the end of the 24 month period the property owner shall discontinue Uie guest house use and shall remove the structure no later than 30 days after the end of the 24 month period. Applicants shall establish an escrow and agreement that allows the City to remove the old house if it is not removed in a timely manner by the applicants. 5.The existing driveway connection directly to North Femdale Road may be continued only during the 24 month period for which the guest house use is allowed. Within 30 days after the end of the 24 month period, the driveway connection to North Femdale Road shall be eliminated, and the driveways and entrance regraded to permanently eliminate direct vehicle access to North Femdale. 6. Any other conditions the Council feels are appropriate to ensure compliance with the conditions of iq>proval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Take action regarding the requested temporary guest house CUP and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting such action, for adoption at your June 23 meeting. lib 1*^:1 1* » V ' 1- . i '{ V ^------teinai J IT~^ I A CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2896 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28, 2003 TO: Franciscus G. and Liliane M. Bastiaens COPIES: Bruce A. Boeder, Esq. 625 Femdale Road North 1000 Superior Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/CUP for Guest House Use DATE OF MEETING: May 19, 2003 Planning Commission made the following motions: Motion 1: Deny the requested guest house CUP. VOTE: 2 FOR 3 AGAINST (Motion faUed) Motion 2: Approve the requested guest house CUP per staff recommendation, plus establish an escrow subject to City Attorney approval to guarantee removal of house and ^veway after 24 months, allow use of existing septic system. VOTE: 2 FOR 3 AGAINST (Motion faUed) Motion 3: Approve per staff recommendation, escrow required, allow use of existing septic system. (Motion failed for lack of a second) No further motions were forthcoming. Planning Commission indicated this would move forward to the City Council with no recommendation other than the record of failed motions. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, June 9, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffton at 952-249-4600. orono pianot Socm Smon meeting Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. % 4>.^-2-02 Join Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, as his neatest neighbor. Mr. Henrich suted that he supported the improvements 100%. Znischwert moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of ««*; xo.e«here.olllllspermltted.ublecfto.talfre.omme.d.llo...VOTE. . Nays 0. («, d«3.2g9d BRIiCE BODER ON BEHALF OF FRANISCliS BASTIENS, «6S FERNDALE road north , 11:25 -12:09 A.M. Mrs. BasUaens. the appUcmtt. and Bn.ce Boron, her representMive. were present. Oa,^nexp,ainedth.Mr.Basti..^s»n^^^^ 2003 to construct a new residence on the property, n p and detached garage which the appUc».fs wish to continue to use for dwell^ purposes during construction of the new residence and further wish to contmu. o use m a tentporary guest house and detached garage for a 24-month p«iod alter co^l^on oft uew principal residence. This would require a Guest House CUP approval, and a vanance to the lot area r«,uirement. The building permit was issu«l subje« to m ag^« requiring appUc«.t to remove tite old house within 30 days after .ssumme of a C.O. new house if the CUP is not approved. Gaffton reviewed the fact that. Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling mut to remain in place on the property after construction of a new principle s^tum. PAGE 39 of 37 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. u the 6ont lot line, and the easUol line Autling the right-of-way of FeroWe Ro*l North ' p, i, considered the side street lot line. Gaffton explained that the applicant wishes to V —.i.-. to use the existing driveway access to North Femdale Road during the duration of the temporary CUP, although the new home accesses the private toad informally known as ■Lydiard Road’ to the north of the property. For the 24-month penod staff would not oppose this plan. After review of the existing septic system, it was deemed that the septic serving the old house is functional but non-compliant with the 3* separation from seasonal saturation rule, and under City codes would normally have to be replaced by the end of December 2010. However, the drainfield for the old system is minimal at best and is close to the foundation of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman, it is staffs recommendation that the old house sewer line be connected to the new house septic system during the temporary continued use of the old house. With regard to the lot area variance, Gaffron pointed out that the City has consistently mled that the language ‘All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house ’ means that the lot area must be 200% of the zoning district standard area; i.e. for the 2-acre zone the lot area must be 4 acres. The applicant’s old house is about 35’ from the house, hence the property could not be subdivided to allow both houses a 30' sidenew sdbact; ftirthennore. the lot is only 2.3 acres, so no subdivision is feasible. After reviewing the issues for consideration, Gaffton stated that staff recommends approval of a temporary guest house CUP and lot area variance for same, subject to the following conditions: 1. The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. 2. The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code. 3. The applicant shall, upon completion of the septic system serving the new house on MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 4. 5. 6. the property, connect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable ^^ the City, and discontinue use of the existing septic system serving the guest house ^ structure. The guest house use shall be allowed only for a period of 24 months beginning with the date of final Council approval of the CUP. At the end of the 24 month period the property owner shall discontinue the guest house use and shall remove the structure no later than 30 days after the end of the 24 month period. The existing driveway connection directly to North Femdale Road may be continued only during the 24 month period for which the guest house use is allowed. Within 30 days after the end of the 24 month period, the driveway connection to North Femdale Road shall be eliminated, and the driveways and entrance regraded to permanently eliminate direct vehicle access to North Femdale. Any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are ^ropriate to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. With regard to the staff recommendations, Mr. Boron stated that, since the existing system was functioning, the applicant objected to the requirement that they connect to the new septic system. While the new home would be ready for occupation by July 11, Boron requested that the appUcant be allowed to keep the driveway accessing Femdale for parking purposes indefinitely, since Lydiard is so narrow. There were no public conunents. Chair Smith asked if the applicant intended to remove the home in two years after their son’s graduation. Mrs. Bastiaens confirmed that the home would be removed in two years and that no improvements were to be made to the residence during that time. Mabusth indicated that the Femdale driveway access would be subject to Greg Gappa’s PAGE 41 of 37 r minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. approval. Ml.. B»li«ns .wed tlw they gel mwy eompWnl. when they, their tvoilcei.. or gue.1, park along Lydiard due to the narrowness of the roadway. Ibvm Mted IhM die oppo«d the wUction md mw no harddup which wouM endae them to the request. She believed thd once the ceidficle of occupaicy w« gnmied. the fn-ii.... could fight the City two yem down the K«d when lime for the removds comes. Rahn agreed that once the certificate of occupancy was granted, the City would lose its leverage. Gaffion indicated that the guest house can require a CUP. Rdm quesUoned what conditions the City could attach to the CUP, suggesting they require an escrow of funds to ensure the removals take place. Boron sUted that they would be willing to post a bond or make a deposit of some kind. Mrs. Bastiaens pointed out that, although they own 6 acres, they were unable to subdivide the property due to easements and the comer lot location near Femdale and Lydiard. Gaffron indicated that it was the applicants’ intent to subdivide their property into three parcels; however, due to ROW’S, Lydiard. and casements, the applicant’s lot was significantly reduced down to its usable 2 acre form. Bremer swed llw. as long as a sunset provision «>d escrow were required, she would be comfortable recommending approval of the appUcation. She asked if the appUcants could retain the accessory buildings after the two year period if they removed the plumb. Jg tram them. PAGE 42 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffion sutcd that they could retain the accessory space without plumbing. He questioned whether the City was getting a better bargain by obtaining a contract with the applicant that they will remove the space after two years. Mrs. Bastiaens stated that she would be willing to sign a contract to remove the buildmgs after two years. Gaffion believed the escrow would provide the city with adequate leverage. Hawn and Rahn indicated that they could not find adequate hardship to support the application and were concerned with setting a precedent Zugschwert stated that she would find hardship, due to the fact that the City ’s easements and ROW’S infringed upon their usable property or ability to subdivide. Bremer reiterated that she could support the appUcation with the escrow and sunset date clause. With regard to the septic, Gaffion indicated that the City was concerned how the old septic might impact the septic for the new residence. Boron stated that, as an engineer, Mr. Bastiaens was willing to take the risk and was comfortable with the old septic. H«»d moved, Roho lecoiided, «o deoy AppUeoUoii WJ-M94, FrmcUcys Biittae.!, 66S North Ferndole Rood, o reqoe.1 for a Cuert House CUP and varianee to «be lot area requirement VOTE: Ayes 1, Naya 3, Chair Smith, Bremer, and Zn*sehwert dissenting. PAGE 43 of 3' Mini ■ 11 % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 2003 6:00 o ’clocl s>. 4 Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to rccomniend approval of AppUcaHon #03- 2896, FrancUcus Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House CUP and variance to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendations, except that the appUcant be allowed to utilize the exbtinc septic system; and that a two year sunset date and financial arrangement between the applicant and the City Attorney be agreed upon. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Hawn, Rahn, and Chair Smith dissenting. Chair Smith moved, to recommend approval of Application #03-2896, Franciscos Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House CUP and variance to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendations except that the appUcant be allowed to utilize the existing sepUc system; and that a one year sunset date and financial arrangement between the appUcant and the City Attorney be agreed upon. Motion failed for lack of a second. After three failed motions, Gaffron indicated that the appUcation would move forward to the City Council for their recommendation. Mrs. Bastiaens voiced her frustration with the City that her 6 acre property had been reduced to a mere two acre usable parcel, and now the City had seen fit to even further restrict their use of their property. (#10) #03-2898 MIKE AND JULIE WHITTINGTON, 1981 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 12:09 -12:20 A.M. Mrs. Whittington, tiie applicant, was present Mabusth explained that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit construction of a deck and stairs 5 ’ in height onto the existing home, requiring 5,596 s.f. (41.56%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone where 3,366 s.f. (25%) is permitted. PAGE 44 of 37 A Appikatioii Date: 4/23/03 60 Day DcadUne: 6/23/03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director May 12,2003 Subject://03-2896 Franciscus Bastiaens, 665 North Femdale Road Conditional Use Permit - Guest House (Temporary) • Public Hearing Zoning District Lot Area: RR-IB, Rural Residential 2.27 acres excluding 33' Femdale Road right-or-way List of Exhibits A - Survey / Site Plan B > Application & letter of request C - Building Permit Agreement D - Septic System Information E * Plat Map F - Property Owners List Application Summary Mr. Bastiaen's contractor was issued a building permit in January 2003 to construct a new residence on the property. The property contains an existing old house and detached garage which applicant wishes to continue to use for dwelling purposes during construction of the new residence (which is allowed by Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 7), and further wishes to continue to use as a temporary guest house and detached garage for a 24- month period after completion of the new principal residence. This would require a Guest House CUP approval, and a variance to the lot area requirement. The building permit was issued subject to an agreement requiring applicant to remove the old house within 30 days after issuance of a C.O. for the new house if the CUP is not approved. PertfneDt Code Sections 10.20, Subd. 3(G); Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments; “1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constmeted on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house." mat W3-2896 66S North Fcrndale Road Page 2 of 4 Background During 2002 staff met with the applicant on a number of occasions to discuss the potential for a lot line rearrangement between this property and his current homestead at 625 North Femdale. A variety of factors including the size of both properties, the existence of a private road w ithin the property not covered by existing easements, etc. resulted in applicant choosing to go ahead with construction of a new residence to replace the old house at 665 North Femdale without rearranging lot lines. How ever, his intent was/is to continue to have his son live in the old house at 665 for the next 24 months while he is in college. Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dw elling unit to remain in place on the property after construction of a new principle structure, except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit is approved by the City Council. Mr. Bastiaens acknowledges that the property does not contain the full 4 acres required to meet the City ordinance standards for a Guest House Conditional Use Permit, and he is aware that approval of such a CUP requiring a lot area variance is not guaranteed; however, it is his hope that the temporary use proposed can be approved with the appropriate legal tools established to assure the City that the use w ill cease at the end of such temporary period. Site Plan Considerations The property is by definition a comer lot, and by definition the north lot line of the property is considered as *he front lot line, and the east lot line abutting the right-of-way of Femdale Road North is considered the side street lot line. The location of the existing old house on the property is southeast of the new house, and meets all required accessory stmeture setbacks should it be converted to a mere accessory building. Applicant wishes to continue to use the existing driveway access to North Femdale Road during the duration of the temporary CUP, although the new home accesses the private road informally know n as “Lydiard Road” to the north of the property. For the 24-month period staff would not oppose this plan. Septic System Thi existing septic system serving the old house is functional but non-compliant with the 3' separation from seasonal saturation mie, and under City codes would normally have to be replaced by the end of December 2010. However, the drainfield for the old system is minimal at best and is close to the foundation of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman, it is staffs reconunendation that the old house sewer line be connected to the new house septic system during the temporary continued use of the old house. #03-2896 669 North Femdale Road Page 3 of 4 Lot Area Variance The City has consistently ruled that the language “All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house" means that the lot area must be 200% of the zoning district standard area; i.e. for the 2-acrc zone the lot area must be 4 acres. Staff believes this requirement is in place to mitigate the impacts of a second dwelling unit on a property, such as the additional human activity, more vehicles coming/going/parked on the site, the potential decrease of open space in the neighborhocd, and other related neighborhood impacts. In reviewing the long-term impacts of guest houses, in the past the City has required that the guest house be located with the ability to subdivide it off from the main house in a conforming manner. The applicant's old house is about 35' from the new house, hence the property could not be subdivided to allow both houses a 30 ’ side setback; furthermore, the lot is only 2.3 acres, so no subdivision is feasible. Issues for Consideration 1.Does Planning Commission have any issues with the concept of a temporary guest house CUP? The City has not to staffs knowledge approved a temporary guest house in the past, possibly because there has not previously been a request like this... 2.Is there sufficient hardship or justification for the lot area variance associated with the guest house CUP? Should insufficient lot area be a reason to deny the temporary CUP, or is it a non-issue for the .datively short period of time requested? 3.While the City has a long-term ‘tickler file' system to advise staff when certain actions are required, it would be important that any approval be conditioned on an agreement w ith the applicant that imposes disincentives to continuing the use past the temporary approval period. Staff has not determined what such conditions might be, but it would seem appropriate to make this approval as ‘self-policing’ as possible... 4.If at the end of the 24 month period the owner w ishes to a) continue the Guest House use for an extended period, or b) keep the old house in its current location as a non-dwelling accessory structure with or without plumbing, are these possibilities that should be addressed now? 5.The old house appears on a list obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of older, potentially historically significant (but not protected) buildings within the City of Orono. City records indicate the old house was constructed in 1914 or earlier. Orono has no historic preserx ’ation ordinance that would prohibit the removal of this building; howe\ er, its relocation to some other site in the future might be contemplated by the property owner as an option to its ultimate demolition... I J »> III03-2S96 665 Nortb Ferndale Road Pagcdefd Staff recommends ^>proval of a temporary guest house CUP and lot area variance for same, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 5. The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code. The applicant shall, upon completion of the septic system serving the new house on the property, connect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable to the City, and discontinue use of the existing septic system serving the guest house structure. The guest house use shall be allowed only for a period of 24 months beginning with the date of final Council approval of the CUP. At the end of the 24 month period the property owner shall discontinue the guest house use and shall remove the structure no later than 30 days after the end of the 24 month period. The existing driveway connection directly to North Ferndale Road may be continued only during the 24 month period for which the guest house use is allowed. Within 30 days after the end of the 24 month period, the driveway connection to North Ferndale Road shall be eliminated, and the driveways and entrance regraded to permanently eliminate direct vehicle access to North Ferndale. 6. Any other conditions the Plaiming Commission feels are appropriate to ensure compliance with the conditions of ^proval. kifcAJL..-Bliiai ttiiiiiitfinifftldiiiMiiniiii^ i i vn$ •AS oa^mt J A^SSSSSK t^oFm SSwn mM . I f mmrn r»>l!J • • IMVIMiT MtS 8 iMi m. i h W I ■n&» ■mM mm mmrn * \dBt*42*4rw 29a3S WN 1C MHN lOT J cciAC «TUIC I—A iOUCD / -----«TUIC OlVIM# «TUM :’Vk /;.;'; «J —II J—JJ— ,jyiiiYafiBirMi IWi H IMhmm Ii dll —wiUmcil 02700077t7. iMmC m Cdi 1^ Ml)S'li-'S s artfsmjyLggfti^ immi «Ht mtcw iNii «M NM iM If mm SSiiJSltTLy _2J?ii**** •sslsl*** ^ JMC iNil «M Ntrlfi M if Mi Oicwwi^rLdX ^CMcici^'mJS iLfc ^tat M If GmnmmX iM X m MMc f ^jSSuS^TiM STSirL^niioJi •f MJ6 M to IM If lUI Jli rv'*' ‘ *' »,^- ■>, SETBACKS PCR 20NM0 RR-lt (cmr OF OflONO STANDARDS) UEGCND • OtNOTSSFOlMDIfONUMOfr .•—■. HNOmStoOOOfiNCS >•----•- OiNOntCNAMUlCnOCf ST8 0tN0Tltt0«.lfSTUKAT10N O OtNOnSttTMQNIIOMJMOiT NUNO um MM. fllQHT tNto VtoAOC • MT MM. BOC YARD K1SAOC « JOT MM. SBC YARD K1BACK (TMM SIRfCm - MT MM. SCAR YARD SIDAOl • MT klijm tCT lAMOt Ulif M OOSCA1ID SY AM OIMROIMPITAL eONBR.1ANT ?0 SCHBMMUJRiMM ARUtoaUMO fOR > ACRC MNMUM MM «T UNO SC1BACRK raiOlfYV ORONO STMNMUM mNtm NMI0008IR. m vsMto^&msBOOdR. PMOtoRfY I DODO fYU«i aQsa 1.) BMi «ni*y toM Ml Rwrport to C imv «l MWtofffiKMf uURMc >hHtf M MlStiM crttleal to eontlnicliofi m Rtfisfi. S) OMitocI OOFHCR STATE ONE CAU it tS1-4S4-000S rtwIm mglto toeoUMi M ulMliti prtor to my mcmm U mi. X) SIf ift Tllto il Mtomili Inc. OommltoiMil tor BS^ toMCMtci Ortor Ito. 0170007717. MtoeliM Otto U rImwOm 17. 1001. W* immi m to fMttan if rmrd 4.) Am M RMDMtjIt 111.Ft US A^ ROilfiF iCMlMPHT I kMk. mMh M Mi k • bM •!« awwi fmrnmtMm •!!< *STwm miJSS!'ttmS!£X7^ *» »M w«* M •■y A mmh M Ui. Na. MIM /Tievisions 0Y lOFOUnrjot RNOytURVCYIMMI OiR seme tins OiR V.---- I TTOBP an V OOC. I) -:asement per OOC. NO. 4629271 east UNC of OOWRNMENT lot 3 A-/ 11094X J12.43 LYDIARD ROAD 114.81 / I1I.47 S89®4T48^298.3^1082 11099 I 1^17.80 11039 11096 X 109.10 l§LWi*m M THE - iRNMOIT 10090 X X 107.12 .-.i®13.4^ i0080 10097 10O49,k^ 107.3/jf /|/ , 11093 ^ : 11071 100.420 _ K 01109.96 O in il i§{ I/I jlirli I ^ ^“-*1 / im; 1M^2T . X10O69 . V . X K115.; • • • • 3i2S^10017 X 109.44 30-J x^^P-^ I 104.27 / K104. SETBACK UNES IO6.J7 >c 104,09 K 104.04 X 100.15 108.75 V«»9- 111.14 f^l89®42*48 ’*W 298.35 UNE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 / X11X91 FNO IRON MON. RLSI0069 a4N/aiE I / -ST— :10090 '100: f««FOieb ^vtffST I Application # ^3 - ^ Date Received^/ Anwunt Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 665 Ferndale Road North. Orono (Wavzata matline)'. MN 55391* Type of Application to be Filed Conditional Use Permit Property Identification Number (P.LD.) 36-118-23-11-0003 APPLICANT Name Bruce A. Boeder, Esq. Phone (home). ___________ ___________Phone (work ) (952) 475-7040 Address IQOQ Superior Boulevard_____ City Wayzata__________ Zip 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) ■ Name Franctscus G. Basttaen^^and * Address 625 Ferndale Road North Phone (home ) (952) 475-0560 _____Phone (work ) (952) 742-6698 City Wayzata_________ Zip 55391 *Liliane M. Bastiaens Date Property Acquired May. 1988 (month^'ear) 1 (do) (d«)O0t) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _______ S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ........... _____S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) X $250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments • ______$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industiial Use ' $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afier-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation ______ $250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule ir f REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain fliis list, labels and map fix>m Hennepin County Dq)artment of Finance, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). _ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. _ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. . Topographic survty (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). As an addendum to ^s application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of t^ application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff wiU require to scale 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............ APPLICANT’S 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 incurrcfl^ review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct,4<M^ best oHi^erjpie^ledge. Applicant's signature y OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes ofjjjvestigatipn and verification of this request Owner’s signature-; ses otjnvest^i Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 23 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. p;case make arrangements to have an auOorized agent attend in your place and adsise die Buildiog & Zoning Office of this chinge prior to the meetiDg. JJm H" /Q 1 \ i_j APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Attachment No. 1 Application is hereby made by Franciscos G. Bastiaens and his wife, Liliane M. Bastiaens, for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continuing use of a pre-existing structure (‘Tlouse A'*) located at 665 North Femdale Road as a guest house for a period of twenty-four months from the date of issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. House A is currently occupied by Applicants ’ son, Bart Bastiaens, who is a student in Mechanical En^neering at the University of Minnesota. Applicants* son will continue to reside in the house after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. A new house (“House B“) is currently being constructed on the property by Lundren Bros. Construction, which will be the new residence of the Applicants. The Applicants currently reside at 625 North Femdale Road, which adjoins 665 North Femdale Road. Although Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subd. 7, does not allow more than one principal building per building site, a “guest house ” may be allowed, via a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G). The Applicants acknowledge that the “guest house" Ordinance requires that the property contain at least four acres. Since the property at 665 North Femdale Road does not currently contain at least four acres, the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of an additional structure as a “guest house" would require the granting of a Variance. Applicants request that a Variance be granted to allow their son to continue residing in the property while he is in college. Applicants agree that as a condition of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, they would demolish House A within 24 months from the date of issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, thus restoring the property in all respects to a conforming use. Until House A is demolished, it would be Applicants ’ proposal that the existing septic system which currently serves House A would continue in use serving that structure. The use of that septic system would be discontinued at the time of the demolition of House A. The new residence being constructed for Applicants will be served by a separate septic system, which is being installed as part of the construction. Applicants also propose that until House A is demolished, the driveway serving it directly from Femdale Road will continue in use. If a Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of House A as a “guest house ” is granted, the Applicants would further agree to abandon the existing driveway accessing the property from Femdale Road, when House A is demolished. Under the building plans rqrproved by the City of Orono, access to the new residence is from Lydiard Road. •• iv / 6 ’ •r ^ O I THIS AGREEMENT is made by Guillame Bastiaens, the owner of certain property in the City of Orono, and the City of Orono, located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Whereas, Guillaume Bastiaens (Hereinafter “the Owner") owns the property at 665 North Femdale Road legally described as: (Exhibit A attached); and Whereas, the Owner has applied to the City of Orono for a building permit in order to construct a new residence on the property; and Whereas, the property contains an existing residence and detached garage which the Owner wishes to continue to use for dwelling purposes during construction of the new residence, and further wishes to continue to use as a temporary guest house and detached garage for a finite period of time after completion of the new principal structure; and Whereas, Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 7 allows for the use of an existing dwelling during construction of a new principal structure subject to a permit issued by City staff; and Whereas, the Owner agrees that Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling unit to remain in place on the property except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the city Council; and Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that the Property does hot contain the full 4 acres required to meet the City ordinance standards for a Guest House Conditional Use Permit, hence approval of such a Permit is not guaranteed and requires a variance; and Whereas, the City of Orono is willing to allow the existing residence and garage to remain in use as a dwelling unit on the property until the new residence has been completed, if the owner agrees to promptly remove the existing residence and garage when the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the new residence; and Whereas, the Owner has agreed to remove the existing residence and garage promptly upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence, unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been approved for further continued use of the existing residence and garage, in which instance the Owner has agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of such approval. Now Therefore, in consideration of these premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the owner and the City of Orono do hereby agree as follows: 1. The City of Orono will issue a building pennit to the Owner or his agents for the construction of a new principal residence, subject to the normal and customary submittals and zoning and building code reviews. 2. Owner agrees that he will remove the existing residence and garage no later than thirty (30) days after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence, unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been approved for further continued use of the existing residence and garage, in which instance the Owner agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of 4.^.1 la* \ ■ I • r Pr if’m such approval. 3. The Owner agrees that in the event the Owner is not successful in obtaining a Gtiest House Conditional Use Permit for continued occu|>ancy of the existing residence and garage, (and/or in the event that the Owner is not successful in obtaining a variance to 10.03, Subd. 9D if one is required), if the Owner foils to remove the existing residence and garage within the tim^ period specified above, the City may enter the Property, remove the existing residence and garage, and recover its costs from the Owner, or assess the property in order to recover the costs, as the City determines is in its best interests. 4. The Owner agrees that the Owner will make application for the appropriate Conditional Use Petmit(s) and/or variance(s) within a timeframe that would allow for final City action prior to the anticipirted date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Guillaume Bastiaens and the City of Orono do hereby execute this Agreement. This Agreement is effective as of the date set out below. Date By its _ J I >W ■ ■ « ♦ < I i 66^ FkiTcloilt^ l^<J> 1^-I r-ii'os N &&A ■^u^il A B'c D liTnS^'O Z^'O I^Ta SSD —5n • .- . .-■- SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Address: 665 Femdale Rd. N. PID: 36-118-23 11 0003 Building Type: residence BRs Install’d for 2 In Musa: No Permit#: none Date of Permit: Installer: unknown System Type: trench Experimental, no Appliances: Indry.dshw SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 3 Tank Condition: 9 DF condition: 14 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: unknown Cesspool: yes DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: Treatment Area: Tile Size: Setback DF-Bldg: Soil Type: Trench Width:# Lines: Type of Filter: Under Tile: Perc Rate: DFHt above m: 0 Limitations: water table Soil Boring: yes WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Pump Type: INSPECTION RECORD DATE 8/16/82 4/4/86 7/20/87 7/2/90 9/3/92 5/30/95 7/1/98 Well-DF: Report in File Depth: Diameter: Method: PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 2 4/28/95 DESCRIPTION system not located-no surfacing no surfacing, but is backing up in baseme no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing-need risers non-conforming-repair by 12/31/95 non-compliant-repair by 12/31/2002 1500 3-4 2 2 2 3 3 ..-'^^Tn/Ol non-compliahtTreplace by 12/31/2010 > -------* J • I ■ •* Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 3<* M8f Parcel Information ‘ Parcel ID 361182311 ri^i Housa Numbar 668 6traat Nama PERNDALB RD N TN* Is nol a ncord^d map. H rapraaants a compiMon oflntonnation and data horn Oty. County, and Stata road authoritiaa »td odtar sourcaa. € / KUNUAiL.4i^^Uli 40 3111122220003 PROP ADOR 1120 FERNDALE RD OWNER NAME S SKROWACZEWSKl ET AL TAXPAYER KRYSTYNA SKROWACZEWSKl NAME/ADDR PO BOX 700 WAYZATAMN 55391 40 3111822220011 PROP AODR 960 BROCKTON LAN OWNER NAME TAE KNIGHT TAXPAYER terry K KNIGHT NAME/ADOR 960 BROCKTON LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3111822220018 PROP ADOR 19015 IITHAVEN OWNER NAME MARIE E ASHTON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER MARIE E ASHTON NAME/ADOR 19015 IITIIAVEN PLYMOtmiMN 5S447 40 3111822220021 PROPADDR i9010 IITHAVEN OWNER NAME N i CARROLL A M E CARROLL TAXPAYER N J A M ENGUSH CARROLL NAME/ADDR 19010 IITH AVEN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 3611823110004 PROPADDR 605 FERNDALERDN OWNER NAME HAZEL P BOWEN TRUSTEE TAXPAYER hazel P BOWEN NAME/ADOR 605 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823110020 PROP AODR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME KAREN BELOEN PREY TAXPAYER KAREN BELDEN FREY NAME/ADDR 188559THAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 .Ai 74- >t’'-' 'V. -i.- ■; . ■ HCNNLi*lNCUUNTY F:<0PER1Y INFORMATTON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 40 3111822220005 PROP ADDR 1200 FERNDALE RD OWNER NAME BRETTO ALBERAjORRAG ALBER TAXPAYER BRETT G ALBER NAME/ADDR 1200 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3111822220012 PROP ADOR 950 BROCKTON U N OWNER NAME NANNETTE N ROTH TAXPAYER NANNETTE N ROTH NAME/ADDR 950 BROCKTON LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3111822220019 PROP ADDR 1100 FERNDALE RD OWNER NAME RRL MILLER TAXPAYER ROGER MILLER NAME/ADDR 1100 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 3611823110002 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 3611823110016 PROP ADDR 775 FERNDALE RD N OWNERNAME B A A K J ERICKSON TAXPAYER BRADLEY A A KAREN i ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 775 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 361 I823I 10021 PROP ADOR 625 FERNDALE RD N OWNER NAME FRANOSCUS G BASTUENS TAXPAYER FRANOSCUS GBASTIAENS NAME/ADDR 625 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATAMN 55391 40 3111822220006 PROPADDR 19005 12THAVEN OWNERNAME SSPICZKAARLSPICZKA TAXPAYER SCOTT A ROBYN L SPICZKA NAME/ADDR 19005 12TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3I1I8222200I7 PROPADDR 19005 IITHAVEN OWNERNAME PAMGILLES TAXPAYER PETER LA MARY EGILLES NAME/ADDR 19005 1ITH AVE N PLYMOUniMN 55447 J •\ 40 3IIIS22220020 PROTAODR 1110 FERNDALE RO OWNERNAME PETERTCOOKJR/KARIECOOK TAXPAYER PETERTCOOKJRACARIECOOK NAME/ADDR II10 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 .'N 38 3611823110003 PROPADDR 665 FERNDALE RDN OWNERNAME FCBASTIAENS/LM BASTIAENS TAXPAYER FRANOSCUS GBASTIAENS NAME/ADDR 625 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823110019 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNERNAME B A * K i ERICKSON TAXPAYER BRADLEY A* KAREN JERICKSm NAME/ADOR 775 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823110026 PROPADDR 763 FERNDALE RDN OWNERNAME SDWIELE*DLWIELE TAXPAYER SCOTT DADEBORRALWIELE NAME/ADDR 763 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 ftUNOATC:4/ll/2Q03 31 361lt23ll002t PROPADDR 755 FERNDALERON OWNERNAME JEANNEMMITHUN TAXPAYER JEANNE MITHUN NAME/ADDR 755 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATAMN 55391 31 36III23I40001 PROP ADDR 575 FERNDALE RON OWNER NAME JGAMM DAYTON TAXPAYER MMES 0 A MEGAN M DAYTON NAME/AOOR 575 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 3611823110029 PROP ADDR 627 FERNDALE RO N OWNER NAME DONNIE D JOHNSON TAXPAYER DONNIE D JOHNSON NAME/ADDR 627 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823110031 PROP ADDR 629 FERNDALE RD N OWNERNAME RKAMCMOSTROM TAXPAYER R KIRT A MARGARET C MOSTROM NAME/ADDR 629 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 3611823140002 PROP ADDR 575 FERNDALERON OWNERNAME JGAMMDAYTON TAXPAYER JAMES G A MEGAN M DAYTON NAME/ADDR 575 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATAMN 55391 38 36.1823140004 PROP ADDR 565 FERNDALERON OWNERNAME JERRY E MARTIN A WIFE TAXPAYER J^^RRY A JANET MARTIN NAME/ADDR 565 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. ^ DATE 7^//^ by ' // rACE:2 f‘P'\ y.^ V :-! jVv, V- CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2901 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 29, 2003 TO:Denali Custom Homes 18283 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 COPIES: Melinda Lee/Tbomas DeVeau 680 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: May 19, 2003 PlaBBiag CommissioB reconuneBded as follows; Motioa: Recommend approval of lot area and lot width variances, and recommend approval of hardcover at the 29.15% proposed based on the following hardships which constitute unusual circumstances unique to this property: Loss of lake views that would result by moving house closer to the road due to average setback variaiKe previously granted to neighbor. Narrowness of lot at only 64' width. 3) Steep topography, i.e. existing necessary hardcover associated with retaining walls and lake access stairs in 75-250' zone. Approval is subject to submittal of a drainage plan addressing the issues noted by the City Engineer (please provide for review prior to the June 9 Council meeting). VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: CUy CoBBcil - Monday, Jbbc 9, 2003; meethig slarls at 7:00 p.BL If you desire certified copies uf the official Plarming Cotrunission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ^roval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffixm at 952-249-4600. DENALI Custom Homes, Inc. DeVeau Residence 680Tonkawn Orono,Mn Hardcover Calculations Total 75’- 250* Zone size Is ll^OOsf House With End Load Garage Deck off Kitchen 4x14 Front Stoop Driveway In 75-250 Zone Flagstone Walk to Front Stoop 23S9 sf 56 sf 28 sf 324 sf 75 sf Boulder Retaining walls for steep slope In 75-250 zone Stairs to Lake for steep slope In 75-250 zone 80 sf Hardship Credit 127 sf Hardship Credit Unable to pull house back due to 12 ’ sightUne varlence (-192) sf Hardship Credit Total Hardcover with hardships noted is 2850 sf @ 25% Hardcover Hardship Unique to Land 1. Unusually Sized Property - Narrow Lot @ 64 feet 2. Steep Lakeshore in the 75-250 zone requires retention to control erosion and run off. (80sf) 3. Steep terrain requires stairs to access Iakeshore(127s0 4.12 ft Sight line Variance granted to adjacent property preventing applicant from pulling house back further to shorten driveway length. 12ft x 16ft drive in front of garage. (192 sft 18283 Minnetonka Blvd.'Suite B'Deephaven. MN 55391 *9S2-476-2679*fiv( 952-476-2682 J ■'^ ' A.v^ '.., ■’ > ft*- ikk..•• = ■;:•;,•/;■ Li*.' .■ >*■ "6uujl!J. .'.1)0' I'Cr,!.'iji i' I •! ftodt jfOy- '■ I ■■■■ • ' '•n r I I MifiMM r *..v ■'li vSr ' ' r«- . • "m. ■■ A Q *^li D«VEAUREftl ft jmtmiitk iI } s H tt I ini r« f jr * v*’^' PMNTILlVAnON a MVfAi NE6<DENCE A-J r ' i< .■.r f ■> V. .‘‘.V ' .7 ■..< J ■ ' f .-i.■r 1 I; ■ *• ■"r',:! w . * - Q IOWILIVATI0N 0«VEAU MEWDeNCC ‘fSSF’ mmmmm .mta MjuIlM «a»4lA,jAjlAi^ Ajli ■* : ! «? nOHT MX ILIVATION j -t: r ') ^^®B5SiF ik ii'fiii jfifciifiitriiiTti V. ^ V-— . ' ; ^ ’ * o •'•’ V»T-,‘r ‘.; ; ■ -^*.- ^ .1 . ..*S^'!' . V „ . ' 'i ........ \* -5 iMy ' V** • V' f • -»■'. '* ■ ,r ■ llfT WaiUlYf^^*^ Q D«VEAU NEetDENCE L ■"-- — ■ ^ ngtis. n Date Application Received: 4>23-03 Date Apptication Considered as Complete: 5-13<03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 7-13‘^3 JUN 9 2003 CirVOPORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 5,2003 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2901 Denali Custom Homes/ Melinda Lee & Thomas DeVeau 680 Tonkawa Road - Variances List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-29-03 B - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5-19-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 5-15-03 Application Summary The applicants propose to remove an existing house and construct a new house on property locateii at 680 Tonkawa Road. The lot is located in the LR-IB zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width of 140* measured at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback. They are requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (0.54 acre) having a lot width of 64*. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250 ’ zone to allow 29.15% where only 25% is normally allowed. Planning Commission Recommendation Platming Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on May 19,2003 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of lot area and lot width variances, and recommend approval of hardcover at the 29.15% level proposed, based on the following hardships which Planning Commission concluded constitute unusual circumstances unique to this property: 1) Loss of lake views that would result by moving house closer to the road due to average setback variance previously granted to neighbor. Narrowness of lot at only 64 ’ width. Steep topography, i.e. existing necessary hardcover associated with retaining wails and lake access stairs in 75-250 ’ zone. 2) 3) Approval recommendation is subject to submittal of a grading and drainage plan addressing the issues noted by the City Engineer in his letter of May 14,2003. M3-390I M4TMluiwaRMd Jaw S, 2M3 Fi«e2 Staff RecomincndatioB Staff had originally recommended approval of the lot area and width variances but denial of the hardcover variances, based on the fact that a house could be constructed on the property without the need for a hardcover variance, and this is a rebuild. The hardships cited by ^e Planning Conunission may be valid, and all relate to the nature of the property or are circumstances beyond control of the property owner. However, the fact remains that a substantial home could be constructed on the site without the need for a hardcover variance, by making the home smaller and/or by moving it nearer the street to reduce driveway hardcover. As of this writing, a revised grading and drainage plan has not been submitted. Based on the above, staffs recommendation remains unchanged: • Approval of the variances for lot area and lot width based on the fact the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Denial of the hardcover variance for hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone, based on the fact that a house could be constructed on the property meeting the 25% limit. If the hardcover variance is denied, table the application for revisions to meet the 25% limit. Any action to approve/deny should be subject to submittal of a revised grading and drainage plan addressing the concerns of the City Engineer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Take action regarding the lot area, lot width and hardcover variances and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting that action for Council’s June 23 meeting; subject to submittal of a grading and drainage plan that must be found acceptable by the City Engineer prior to flnal Council adoption of the resolution. A CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2901 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 29, 2003 TO;Denali Custom Homes 18283 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 COPIES: Melinda Lee/Thomas DeVeau 680 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: May 19. 2003 Planning Commission recommended as foliows: Motion: Recommend approval of lot area and lot widtli variances, and recommend approval of hardcover at the 29.15% proposed based on the following hardships which constitute unusual circumstances unique to this property: 1) Loss of lake views that would result by moving house closer to the road due to average setback variance previously granted to neighbor. Narrowness of lot at only 64* width. 3) Steep topography, i.e. existing necessaiy hardcover associated with retaining walls and lake access stairs in 75-250' zone. Approval is subject to submittal of a drainage plan addressing the issues noted by the City Engineer (please provide for review prior to the June 9 Council meeting). VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, June 9, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. B deck and stairs over an existing patio 5* in height onto the existing hone as long as the total amount of hardcover per staff recommendations does not exceed that which is already present on the property, and before the application appears before the City Councii the calculations and removals will have been made. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE AND THOMAS DEVEAU, 680 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES, 12:20 - 12:51 A.M. David Bicker, of Denali Custom Homes, and Thomas DeVeau, the applicant, were present. Gaffron indicated that the applicants proposed to remove an existing house and construct a new house on the property located at 680 Tonkawa Road. The lot is located in the LR-IB zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width of 140' measured at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback. They are requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (0.54 acre) having a lot width of 64'. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 29.15% where only 25% is nonnally allowed. Gaffron explained that the lot currently contains an existing residence structure which the owner wishes to replace. The site has steep slopes, and although a formal bluff analysis has not been done, the 0-75' zone appears to likely meet the criteria for a bluff. However, both the existing and proposed homes are outside of the bluff impact zone, and no work within the bluff impact zone is currently proposed. He noted that existing retaining walls and stairways in the 0-75 zone are in good condition and no changes are proposed. With regard to tiie proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 3,311 s.f. or 29.15%. The proposed house plan indicates a 4'xl4* deck on the lakeside of the house. The house is up against the 10’ side setback on both sides. Gaffron pointed out that another way to reduce hardcover would be to re-orient the garage to be end loading, with a narrow driveway PAGE 46 of 37 MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. extending to the 250 line, then construct a backup apron and perhaps even an additional detached garage in the 75-250* zone where hardcover is available. This would require re design of the home, and applicant has stated an end-load garage would not provide the entrance view of the home he is hoping to achieve by side-loading. However, with the same footprint as currently proposed, a savings of about 200 s.f. (1.8%) of hardcover could be realized. Gaffron pointed out that the City Engineer’s inspection revealed serious concerns with the proposed grading plan which need to be resolved before this application would move forward. He shared three issues for consideration and indicated that staff would reconunend: • Approval of the variances for lot area and lot width based on the fact the lot is developed as a single fatmly dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Denial of the hardcover variance for hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250 ’ zone, based on the fact that a house could be constructed on the property meeting the 25% limit. • Tabling of the application for revisions to meet the 25% limit, and for submittal of a revised grading and drainage plan addressing the concerns of the City Engineer. Mr. Beiker stated that the applicant’s hardship lied in the narroMsmess of the lot, steep grade, and rough terrain. After consulting Planner Bottenberg, Bicker stated that they made numerous changes to minimize the plans and pull the home back 20’ to minimize driveway hardcover. He stated that they had made attempts to redesign the driveway, to make it an end loading garage, and still fell short 170 s.f. Bicker pointed out that the hardcover would be reduced from 40% to 29% with the current plan. Finally, he stated that he was conilder they could resolve the drainage issues. PAGE 47 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Mr. DeVeau stated that they had outgrown the home years ago, and contemplated remodeling; however, they decided to build a new home since the costs would be similar. Mary Torkelson, 670 Tonkawa Road, voiced she and her husband’s support for the new home. She felt the proposed residence would be a good addition to the neighborhood. She noted that the new home built next door to the DeVeau’s current residence severely impacted the DeVeau’s views of the lake. Bieker pointed out that the retaining walls could not be removed and serve a real purpose. Based on the fact that the lot was undersized. Chair Smith stated that she did not have much problem with the application. She asked the applicants to provide the City Engineer with the appropriate drainage information. She encouraged the applicants to squeeze the hardcover down closer to 25%. Hawn asked whether they could move the excess hardcover out of the 250’ setback zone. GalTron indicated that pulling the structure back 15’ would not help reduce the hardcover by any significant amount and would adversely affect the home’s views. He stated that even if the pulled the home back to gain 150 s.f. and turned the garage to be end loading, which would gain 200 s.f., they would not be much closer to 25% hardcover. Mabusth indicated that the hardcover for these narrow lots would explain why most of the hordes have detached garages at the top of their properties along this stretch. While they could probably build a detached garage, Gaffron stated that they would have a considerably long walk to the house. He maintained that the applicants could lose little in the 0-75 setback, since the retaining walls, steps, and landings were necessary'. Chair Smith noted that the Commission would be hard pressed not to get closer to 25%. PAGE 48 of 37 ( minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Hawn asked whether they could consider the fact that the appF 'ants views would be severely limited if they were forced to pull the home back even further, especially aOer the neighbor had been granted an average lakeshore setback variance which further restricted his views. Gaffion felt this to be a legitimate hardship, plus, the neighboring home was at a higher elevation too. Mabusth reiterated that, the fact that, the applicants arc be required to have hardcover in the 75*250’ due to the steepness of the grade, they have lost the ability to use that hardcover elsewhere. Rahn referred to the fact that smaller lots require smaller houses, while at the same time acknowledging that the home was modest. He questioned whether the garage could be turned to end loading in order to gain some extra square feet. Bicker reiterated that, since the neighbor was given an average lakeshore setback variance, the applicant could not pull his home further back and still retain his lake views. Gaflfron acknowledged that, if you figured in the steps, walkway, rock walls, and retaining walls in the 75 ’-250’ setback, which is an unusual circumstance, one could argue that he deserves a credit for those things, plus a potential credit for the neighbors’ encroachment. Bremer suggested he be granted a 2% credit for these circumstances. Bieker felt that an additional credit could be given for being unable to pull the home back 10’ further, which would allow them to meet the 25% hardcover. Chair Smith reviewed the hardship position as the steepness and grade of the lot, the narrowness of the lot, and the encroachment of the neighbor. PAGE 49 of 37 4 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. May 19.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. For future reference. Bremer suggested the Commission determine at what point a lot is considered ’narrow’, in some future discussion. Bremer moved. Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2901. Denali Custom Homes/MeUnda and Thomas DeVeau. 680 Tonkawa Road, granting approval of the variances for lot area and lot width, as weU as. hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250’ xone, based on the credit circumstances aforementioned, the narrowness of the lot. and the steepness of the grade, and subject to approval of a drainage plan to permit construction of a new residence on the property. VOTE; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#1?) #03-2902 WJM PROPERTIES. LLC. 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 12:51 -1:00 AM. Peter Johnson, Council for Monies AutomoUve Group; Michael Anger, supplier of the storage tanks; Tom Maddox, and Rod of WJM, were present. Gaffron explained that WJM Properties had applied for an amendment of their CUP and site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 4845. The amendments include the following: Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations (‘Motor Fuel Stations’ are a conditional use in the Industrial District). 2. Refinishing the east facade of the existing building with EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building. PAGE 50 of 37 Application Received: 4/23/03 Application Complete: S/13/03 00 Day Deadline: 7/13/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Mike Gafiron. Planning Director May IS. 2003 MJBJECT:^3-2901 Denali Custom Homes/ Melinda Lee & Thomas DeVeau 680 Tonkawa Road Variances ~ Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 23,380 s.f. (.54 acre) Application Summary: The applicants propose to remove an existing house and construct a new house on property located at 680 Tonkawa Road. The lot is located in the LR- IB zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width of 140' measured at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback. They are requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (0.54 acre) having a lot width of 64'. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 29.15% where only 25% is normally allowed. List of Exhibits A Apolication Letter of Request Sur\’ey/Proposed Site Plan Grading Plan City Engineer Comments Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Elevation Views/Floor Plans Plat Map Property Owners List B C D E F G H I Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Required lot width: 140' Lot width: 64' Required lot area: 1.0 acre Lot area: 0.54 acre 2.Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L): Hardcover limitations: Allowed Existing Proposed 0-75' 0% 9.13% 9.13% 75-250' 25% 35.89%* 29.15% 250-500' 30% 12.57% 15.54% * After exclusion of fabric or plastic>lined landscape beds r ) « IN»-2fOI M4 Tonkawa Road May IS. mi rate} Exitliog Conditions The lot cuirently contains an existing residence structure which the owner wishes to replace. The site has steep slopes, and although a formal bluff analysis has not been done, the 0-7S* zone ^ipears to likely meet the criteria for a bluff. However, both the existing and proposed homes are outside of the bluff impact zone, and no work within the bluff impact zone is currently proposed. Existing retaining walls and stairways in the 0-73* zone are in good condition and no changes are proposed. The existing house is further from the lake than the neighboring residence to the south, but nearer the lake than the house to the north. The house to the south (684 Tonkawa, Bob Beutler) was granted a 12' average setback variance in 2000-2001 when it was rebuilt. That home was constructed without the need for hardcover variances, on an 85' wide lot, with a 2900 s.f footprint in the 75-250' zone. Applicant’s property is 64' in width and is proposing a 2600 s.f. footprint in the 75-250' zone. Drainage has been a serious issue for redevelopment of this neighborhood, due to a combination of factors including steep slopes, narrow lots, and homes stretching from side setback to side setback in mid-slope. The owner of the adjacent home to the south (684) has created a rock-lined swale along its north lot line to divert runoff that formerly impacted the next home to the south (690). General Conformity to Zoninti Code and Comprehensive Plan The site plan indicates proposed side setbacks of 1 O', with the house located approximately 160' from the lakeshore, which meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures. The nouse is proposed to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line, so no variance would be needed. The primary concern aside from drainage is the hardcover request. Although the house with attached garage is within the back half of the 75-250’ zone, hardcover in that zone is still proposed to exceed 25%. The Planning Commission and Council have been fairly consistent in denying hardcover variances for new construction unless a distinct hardship can be demonstrated. Structural coverage is proposed at approximately 11.1%, well within tlie 15% limitation. Lot Width & Area Because this record lot was created prior to current zoning standards and has contained a single family home for many years, the substandard lot area and width are factors inherent to the property. While these factors limit the re-use of the property for construction of a replacement home, a replacement home could be constructed that meets all other zoning code standards, hence the area and width variances should be granted. A Ml-2901 M4TMk*waRMd May IS. 2M3 Pagc3 Hardcover Variance Proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 3,311 s.f. or 29.15%. The proposed house plan indicates a 4'x 14* deck on the lakeside of the house. No elevation view of the lake side of the home has been provided, so it is unknown whether additional decks, patios, patio doors or landings are contemplated. The house is up against the 10* side setback on both sides. Minimal overhangs appear to be shown, but the plan set provided is not to scale; overhangs must not encroach more than 1.5' past the 10' side setback line. The plans include a 3-stall side loading garage, the third stall of which could be eliminated to result in a hardcover reduction of about 230 s.f. or 2.0% in the building and another 80 s.f (0.7%) in driveway. The side-loading aspect has been accomplished on narrower (50') lots but results in tricky maneuvering due to lack of backup depth. Another way to reduce hardcover would be to re-orient the garage to be end loading, with a narrow driveway extending to the 250' line, then construct a backup apron and perhaps even an additional detached garage in the 75-250' zone where hardcover is available. This would require re-design of the home, and applicant has stated an end-load garage would not provide the entrance view of the home he is hoping to achieve by side-loading. However, with the same footprint as currently proposed, a savings of about 200 s.f (1.8%) of hardcover could be realized. Moving the proposed footprint 10' further from the lake could also reduce 80 s.f of hardcover in the side-load configuration or about 150 s.f for an end-load layout. Applicant feels that views of the lake are already somewhat reduced by the average setback variance granted to 684, and by applicant moving the house back as far on the lot as currently proposed. It is staff s opinion that a grading plan and site plan could be developed that would accommodate a substantial new home on this property without the need for a hardcover variance. The hardship is to a great e.xtent created by the applicant ’s desires for a certain size house in a specific location to preserve lake views, rather than the nature of the property, in staffs opinion. Perhaps the location of the house at 684 is a hardship in some respects. As lots get narrower, the design challenges become greater. The City has granted hardcover variances for narrow or small lots where a minimum size home cannot be constructed absent a variance. Grading/Drainage An initial grading and drainage plan was submitted within the past week The City Engineer’s comments are attached as Exhibit E. His site inspection revealed serious concerns with the proposed grading plan which need to be resolved before this application can move forward. «0^290l CMTMkjnvaRoMl May 15.2003 Pace 4 iMues for Conilderation 1.The proposed new construction exceeds the maximum hardcover allowed in the 75-250' zone. 2.The City has in recent years has been fairly consistent in limiting 75-250* hardcover to the established 25% limit for new construction, except where variance denial would make a site unbuildable or where substantial hardships exist. Is there a hardship inherent to this property that would support a hardcover variance? 3.The property to the south was redeveloped with a new home in 2001 without the need for a hardcover variance. That lot is 85* wide, applicant's lot is 64' wide, so the applicant’s 75-250' zone hardcover allowance (2840 s.f.) is substantially smaller than that of the neighboring home (3720 s.f). Staff Recommendation Staff makes the following recommendations: • Approval of the variances for lot area and lot width based on the fact the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Denial of the hardcover variance for hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone, based on the fact that a house could be constructed on the property meeting the 25% limit. • Tabling of the application for revisions to meet the 25% limit, and for submittal of a revised grading and drainage plan addressing the concerns of the City Engineer. Options for Action : 1. Recommend partial approval per staff recommendation, table for revisions. 2.Recommend approval for all requested variances, stating supportive hardships, table for grading plan revisions. 3.One of the above but send on to Council subject to revisions and/or jading plan approval prior to Council review. 4.Other action. i ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Arca/Widtht LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140* Actual 23,380 s.f. (0.54 acre)64’ Structural Coverage : Hardcover Calculationi ; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23,380 s.f.Allowed: 3,507 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2,600 s.f ±(11.1%) A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.09 ($50.00 per each, additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # I Date Received Q' Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address CtO fi-L ^ tM/u ^36L Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)______________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired tC/v>^i3gCL ______________________ I (do)(jjlo 110^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)_______ Zoning District: LB.-lfe________'L__________________ (month/year) Phone (home) 7/ C^O __ Phone (work) V76- Address: tA.\Miex%0jk.*r ftLur> Citv: Zip: I APPLICANT Name \ Cm.^o>ih C. OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 95,P-M7l<" Name ^C.\JgA««L Phone (work) 5«bM.C.________ Address: C.A,_______ Citv: Off-orop______Zip:.^^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ VoOtOoo Describe request in detail: R.e.’M«oE. eiciaTiibA mwJ, d»0mrrr,^*.T A /4ia>»Afe Tlifc p<o ae<rTM . PLk^< iriSLrtitL K additional'*'—** ----*(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED s/ Lot Area Lot Width v/ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: K (attach additional sheets if necessary) ryt.L 6 // <iJ ' 'i • 4 ; i Sj U%J JL 4 • \ requir £d submittals deadline date In or^^fr 3. Completed Application Foim 2. ^ Certified Prope^ Ownere List of owners within 150*. labels and plat map (you must GorCemer348 5^^^ "*'“***'" Department of Finance, A.603, Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover ^^roSbn ** ^ addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade 5 ^ S! proposed. In addUion, provide one (1) copy 8^," x 11" for reproduction . ^ Sketches or plans of Ooor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/j" x 11") • “ omo^ W "T/* ^ theproperty -Hus would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current oWs) As an addend^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. ✓ 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application « Please »u ♦,ppn„.i,. I. „o. c-...,. ,r ,H.■■S.K.f !rr.irr^..7 ^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Applicants Signature f ^aie V-Ja-.f.a Pi^i<rXfcieen.'fines. oe»v^r Mn<^^------------- OWNER'S SIGNATURE The ONvner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes r-asonahle entry onto the property by Oty staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and’ Council members for purpos^^f invfttig^n and verification of this request. 0>vner's Signamre _X ^ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davs hernra> »h« du • /- Meeting Planning Comntisaton Meetings T'L m on'^ Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Piannine CommUciAn anei Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to ch»g“pnt"rthe‘S^g"'“' ■*“ ^ Zoning Office of this ' ^ V / / r-'cz. O f"\ '\ /V'" 1 B City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn 55356 DENALI Custom Homes, Inc. r-zr- 03 April 23,2003 Dear Planning Commissioners; The Applicant, Denali Custom Homes, Inc., and the Land Ou':ier, Melinda Lee & Thomas DeVeau, are requesting a variance for the Minimum lot area of one acre required by the zoning district LR-IB Ibr the removal and new construction of a home located at 680 Tonkawa Rd. The attached set of preliminary plans and a survey describing the property are attached. The Applicant and Land Owner are also requesting Variance for Hardcover, based on hardships located in the 75’- 250' zone from the lakeshorc. The lot in question is a very narrow lot which also contains steep terrain in the 75'- 250' zone. The terrain requires a rock retaining system to prevent erosion of the lakeshore and also a stair case to traverse the hillside. These items fall into the zone in question and require additional hardcover not associated with the construction of the dwelling and these items cannot be removed. The uncommon narrow width of the lot creates an additional hardship and burden on the hardcover calculation in the 75'- 250' zone. The land owner directly adjacent and to the south of the property has an 80’ wide lot making this an uncommon and unshared hardship. After a preliminary meeting with City Planner, Wendy Bottenberg, the Applicant and the Land Owner have worked with the design firm to reduce the square footage of the house footprint & garage area, eliminated a desired deck off the master suite, and reduced to a minimum the only remaining deck off of the kitchen. The applicant has also moved the house back from the lakeshore an additional 20' to save on required driveway hardcover in the zone. The turn around needed for cars to exit the driveway onto Tonkawa Rd (without backing out) was relocated to the 250'-500' zone to additionally reduce needed hardcover in the 75'-250' zone. Moving the house location further back into the 250'-500' zone is not possible do to the site line variance granted to the Homeowner to the s6uth(Beutler @ 6S4 Tonkawa) and the location of their home on the property. Locating the DeVeau house any further than the proposed location would significantly devalue the properly due to the site lines that would exist creating a loss of view of the lake. Denali Custom Homes, Melinda Lee, and Thomas DeVeau have worked diligently with the home designer and land surveyor to minimize the ha.*dcover required and significantly improved the percent hardcover from the current existing condition of 40.55 %. We ask that you grant a variance on hardcover percent due to the hardship.' imposed by the land in question and existing structures to the south. Our proposed hardcover calculation sheet is attached. If you have additional questions of the applicant please contact me a 1612-718-1671. ^ <0 CJ J- 18283 Minnetonka Clvd.* Suite B*Deephaven, MN 55391 •952-476-2679-fax 952-476-2682 David Bieker Denali Custom Homes, Inc.i nicTiMl Bradlvu 7635768499 04/29/03 06t59A P.OOi A^Jorail Property Owotn* AdcMwIcdtcmoc Form I (w.) Sof,^ ^nnt naaM(t)l f Tonn* iddMitl hAvt icviewcd plant Hot the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locsted si ____site KfiERcd to St Und Use ^Meslfon No.________. I (we) tftxtgftfd that in cMcutiiti this adcnowledfeneat. 1 (we) m (are) not Mietd to declare approval or ditappraval of ttie property or we but merely to eoaCro for the City Conactt that I (we) am (are) awve of the improvement plans and that the proposed ntighboi's prejeet or use requires Council approval Dala^ Dale f(we) [print Dame(s)][print address] have reviewed the pim for the proposed improvement or proposed uae of toe piopctty tocalcd at ___________also rofenred to as Land Use Application Now ______ I (we) understand that in executing tUa adkndwiedsemeni, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare ^toval or disjppcoval of the property or use but merely to confirm tor the City Council dut 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and tbit the propoeod nerghbot’a pra}cct or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Doiei Piepcny Own*Dale If you have any intoimation that may assist the City in the review of tins Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building St Zoning Ofike at least 1? days prior to the scheduled meedng date. 8 iicnn*ir.k*9.0A •tl PPMUtH d|«:po CC 22 -// ^ (. ^ / V. If" t ^ •* #JL Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form 1 (we) PO [pr^ name(s)] • * forint addressi ^[print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _______ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date 4-JL3 - 03 DateProperty Owner 4i4i****«***4i**4i*4i*«**<»’^ •«*♦**♦****« A*********************.*********************.* I (we) of ^aJjA [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) unde? land that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requin’S Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 f •r i J 't \ Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)Q -er ^ [printint name(sjj [print address] or the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare ^roval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 'roperty Pfroperj^ COwner Date / I (we) ___________________________''f__________________________ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. (2(0 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. /1/>^ (-4- ^r-^A<5:c_ Property Owner -/ €AA.r/CS»/V /}/<r S. Date Property Owner Date If you have any information *hat may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 #29 t4 Jl I 15 2003 7t00nM B0NE8TR00 R08ENE RNDERLIK 6518361311 P* 1 I :' 9 » »T ■ . N .* f. 9 % • V I . 4.' ■ »• \ r 'i ■: • Bonestroo Rosens Anderlik& Associates Sngin««rs & ArcMCects ItoMfM, A«i#6rNii Mie Afseclaiti. IPIC. II an Affiraiatlva Acttafyi^nal Op^artiailty lai^Hy m4 ta^^ioy t Owaae PfIfBCipali: Otto O. •ontttroo. PE. • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Oitnn a Coo*. PE • ffoOart G ScPunicfic. PJ. • itrry A Bourdon. PE • Mark A. Hanion. PJ Sonlor Comultanift BoOart W. Boiona. PJ • ioi6ph C. AndRrllk. PJ. • Bicnard fi. Tbrnar. PJ. • Susan M. Sbarlm. C P>. Aiioclaio Prlnclpali: Keith A. Gordon. PJ. • BoBert B. Pfafftrld. PJ. • Bfchard W. fatter, PJ. • Oavid O. ioikoiA PJ. • Michael T. Bawtmann. PJ. • lied K. Pield. PJ. • Kenneth P Andersorv PJ • Mark B. Bolfi. PJ. • David A. Boneitroo. MJA. Sidney P. \MINamior% PE. L S • Agr>ef M Bing. MJ A. • Allan Pick Schmldl. PJ • Thomas W. Peterson, P J • J«nes B. MalMid. PJ. • MOes B. Jer^sen. PC • L PMOip Gravel m. PJ • Daniel i. Cdgerton. PJ • Ismael Martiofi, PJ • Thomas A. Syfko. PJ • Sheldon J. Johruon • Dale A. Grove. PJ • Thomas A. Boushar. PJ. • Bobert J. Oevery. PJ Offices: St. Paul. St Cloud. Bochcster and WMmar. MN • MUeraukee. Wl • Chicago IL life: wwwbor«eitroo.com May t4,2003 • **, ,*/ T -MikeOaffion Planning Diiactor . ; , .'cv, ,* City of OroDO .«r w'. •' Poit OfficcBo3( 66 • ‘ v-'*’ ^ v Crysial Bay. MN 55323 Re 680 Tonkawa Road Plat No. 03-2901 FUeNo. 139 034KK Mike. % ’ *f t,. »• • • ♦DeikN Wekave reviewed the proposed grading plana and visited the site at 680 Tonkawa Road. The plans include coouuction of a new home and associated site grading. We have the following comments in regards to oimeering matters. AAer our site visit it is clear that the plans lack detail regarding the proposed grading and storm drainage, rhe plana should be revised to include all contours and topography 50-feet north and south of the property. Items such as wells, sewers, culverts, walls, trees, etc. should shown On the drawing, ponstruction of fee swalea shown north and south of the proposed home ^ require retaining wall and tec removals. It is likely feat fee storm swale designs will need to be revised. Our site visit indicated that a Ktter approach to dealing wife storm wster might be to include some type of water retentkxi basin located fiom fee proposed home. It may be poasible to utilize fee existing rip rapped channel located on tingfaboring property for a storm water disdiarge location. If this concept is pursued an easement |ivould be required from the neighboring property owner. The firud grading plan should include provisions for storm water rate control. Existing and proposed drainage area nuq>s and drainage calculations should be provided for review. Final design should also inemporate erosion control measures to protect swales and fee existing slopes lakeside from fee proposed ^me. [The final submittal should include an erosion and aediment control plan. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questiona regarding feis matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Oreg Oappa, City of Orono 23JS West Highway M • St. Paul. MN SSII3 • 611-634-4660 • Fax: 651-636-tJII iiX6i • f f — ■ HARprovot calculation worksheet • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Q 75^ /j-250' 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000' A. House S.F. Length X X X B. Oarage . C. Driveway 'X X D. Sidewalk dfJt/tK yyMded. a eAii/fi iMtiC E. Patiort)eck /4A/4/A^irS UjamJ ST€4S • :< F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other ttfttPO 4.tT. U/Ai.C TOTAL HARDCOW-R IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_____________+ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House _____________ X Length # • X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plaslic Or Fabric X X X 0. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PRQPERTY^AREA IN ZONE A ] r B 1 1 C2,,.y Ji WidJt S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. n m SF. SF. 37 /02. S.F. S.F. 737 S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. Zl X 100 _S.F. -S.F. y. t9 ~~ y > S.F. Width ■ V S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. xlOO - S.F. S.F. % 1 A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULAT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 0.75' X Un|ih X X X B. Oarage • •• « C. Driveway X X D. Sid^vaUc % X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ Unglh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk II.'?X E Patio/Deck X X F. LandKipe Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X 0. Other P *• *r VTiOilW ^.2SoT> WORKSHEET 250-500' Width xlOO Width XlOO - r-2 t 4-2Z'03 500-1000' I34B_s.f. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. IS39 S.F. S.F. y?s S.F. S.F. 312 2?fl S.F. S.F. RA S’29 S.F. S.F. S.F. 70 /73 S.F- i€0€ S.F. H.BfeQ S.F. ^o.ss y« A B s.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5^0 S.F. S.P. RfUI> OfiVtZU/ M IZT S.F. ST. F<jP.;>£'0 S.F. S.F. - oeci4 S.F. SF. SF. 80 SF.' gt«>ioe^ WALLS- 3in SF. S.F. A B HARDCOVER CALCbLAliUM WUKKb .' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75’ ^VISTING HARDCOMER IN ZONE A. House • _________ - L(ii|ih X X X B. Garage C.'. Driveway CAii/Cl X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Oeck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- _ _ _ __ , PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House L«nfth X X X X B. Garage Driveway X X Da Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X X X .V .t: \ ■••...• d*'- c Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _* ® - 75-250’500-1000’ r-/r-oi S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9CC S.F. X 100 'y/go S.F. / 2 -g7 Y. S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iili S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • a. S.F. tn3_ y/co X100 “ A B S.F. ■ "SF. A B J S-tT-Cfl #2901 iMi » ^ \ iiiitelribiiilklL. 4«^^- A^». ... >r:' X X 6'HY~ —El ~A m a #5^ uj 0->W ■ . . ■ #29 01 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departriienta 96$MN$9*2n 456.02 JTHAL ADDN 103.12 (19) * 1- t' I d)sr-/r7- ^^'(33) JijPafce/ Information Nml ID 0f117S3330010 This 1$ not olof^roconiod mop. hmpmsonisocompilotionofinllamoikm ond doto Irom City, County, ond Stoto food outhodOos ond olhor ooutos. w ml ■;Kr<^ :■ y V ^ ■ - ' ~y ‘ - r,, ■' 1f i 4C ' "Vv ’t'u-^r v< ‘.u V . /: 0 /: '•■ i • f ^^ iViJ M RUN DATE :4aV2(03 { \ ■ t i \ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 O5ll72333O0Ot 38 0511723330009 3t OSH 723330010 PROf ADDR 67t TONKAWARD PROPADOR 670 TONKA WA RO PROPADDR MO TONKAWARD OWNER NAME DARELJLEIPOLO OWNER NAME GEORGE L TORKELSON ETAL OWNER NAME MELINDA LEE TAXPAYER DAREL j LEIPOLD TAXPAYER GEORGE LTORKELSON TAXPAYER MELINDA LEE NAME/AODR 67t TONKAWARD NAME/ADOR 670 TONKAWARD NAME/ADDR 680 TONKAWARD LONG LAKE MN 5535^LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723330011 38 0511723330012 38 0511723330013 PROPADOR 614 TONKAWA RD PROPADDR 690 TONKA WA RD PROPADDR 692 TONKAWARD OWNER NAME R E BEUTLER A W K DEUTLER OWNER NAME M S BRADLEY ROM BRADLEY OWNER NAME BARBARA PUGH TAXPAYER ROBERT EBEUTLER TAXPAYER MICHAEL SR OLIVIA M BRADLEY TAXPAYER BARBARA PUGH NAME/ADDR 684 TONKAWARD NAME/ADDR I3905IVYWOODSTNW NAME/ADDR 692 TONKA WA RD IjONQUKEMN 55356 ANDOVER MN 55304 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723330016 38 0511723330019 PROPADDR 666 TONKA WA RD PROP ADDR 645 TONKA WA RD OWNER NAME DONALD W UNDALL OWNER NAME TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS TAXPAYER DONALD UNDALL TAXPAYER TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS NAME/AODR 666 TONKA WA NAME/ADDR 2324 EMERSON AVES LONG LAKE MN 55356 # MPLSMN 55405 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO TNE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE by I RAGE: I ____—j > 3 ' ' i (3 9 O TonV.^. V-' C-, liiL -<mG Date Application Received: dO^ay Deadline: 4/23/03 d/23/03 JUN 9 2003 ClfYUHOHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOr! Date: June 3,2003 Item No.: / 2. Department Approval:AdnUnistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03*2902 WJM Properties LLC. - Monies Automotive Group 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review / CUP Amendment * Conditional Use Permit for Motor Fuel Station Zoning District: I Industrial District Application Summary: WJM Properties has applied for an amendment of their CUP and site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 4845. The amendments include the following: 1. Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations (“Motor Fuel Stations” are a conditional use in the Inustrial District). 2. Refinishing the west facade of the existing building with EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building. 3. Approval to construct a 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to the to the east property line. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B • Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-29-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 5-15-03 D - Planning Commission Minutes 5-19-03 (Draft) Please review the memo and exhibits of May 15 for information regarding this request. 1 itit J dN)3-2902 WJM FrapcHIcf JuM 3,2003 P«tt2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing on May 19. Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the fuel system, facade renovation and easterly access, subject to the staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the private motor fuel station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access to the east, subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Orono Municipal Code Section 9.34, and shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. 2.Applicants shall agree to work with the City in establishing easements as necessary to access adjacent properties if applicants are able to gain access via the proposed easterly corridor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. WHEREAS, WJM Properties, LLC, (hereinafter “the owner”) is owner of the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3(A)(4) to permit construction and use of a private motor fuel station to support the body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations previously approved for the site via Resolution No. 4845; and WHEREAS, the owner has applied for amendments to the Industrial Site Plan Approval granted via Resolution No. 4845 to allow reftnishing of the west facade of the existing building with Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) to result in a more uniform appearance for the building; and to allow the development of an additional site access via a proposed 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to the east property line; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this tqtplication were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2902. The property is located in the (I) Industrial District. Page 1 of 6 3. “Motor fuel station ” is allowed as a conditional use in the I district per 2^ning Code Section 10.50 Subd. 3(AX4). 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 19, 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. 5. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The Planning Commission finds the two vaulted fuel storage tanks will be located at the southeast comer of the building, approximately 250* from the east lot line and 350* from the south lot line. Section 9.34 requires a minimum side/rear property line setback of 50* which is more than adequately met. No canopy is proposed, and the vaults will be located to the rear of the building where they will be virtually invisible from existing Highway 12, and not visible from new 12. No ancillary lighting or signage is proposed, and no additional screening of this system will be necessary. B. The proposed fuel system will meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34. The Orono Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and the location of the proposed vaults, and has recommended that the proposal be approved, subject to meeting all City and Fire code requirements. The vaults will be located in an area of the site that is currently paved and was approved for parking of vehicles to be repaired. There is a minor reduction in the number of parking stalls available for that use as a result of the tank location. There arc no drainage issues associated with the proposal. C. Per the prior approvals, the north side of the building will be modified to be the primary customer entrance to the site. Those plans also noted the building fa9ade would be repainted. Due to the varied nature of the east facade of the front half of the building, the owner has chosen to resurface the existing block wall with EIFS as opposed to merely painting that facade. D. The owner was advised in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4845 that access to the site may change in the future and the owner agreed to discuss the matter at such time that the City or adjacent landowners initiate such discussion. The owner has initiated discussions with Long Lake to anempt to Page 2 of 6 6. 7. gain access to Industrial Boulevard to the east via a route behind the golf dome. It has long been the City’s goal to establish access to/from the industrial park to signalized intersections and eventually eliminate direct accesses to Highway 12. The proposed access would be angled to align with the east-west driving aisle within the existing parking lot. E.There are a number of issues to be resolved before such a connection can be realized, not the least of which is poor soils and wetlands for most of the corridor. However, it is in the best interests of the City to support such an access if the owner is able to obtain it, and the City would be well served by establishment of easements through the property to serve adjacent industrial park parcels. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for the proposed private motor fuel station use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiming Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above flndings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 (A)(4) to permit construction and use of a private motor fuel station to support the body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations previously approved for the site via Resolution No. 4845; and approves amendments to the Industrial Site Plan Approval granted via Resolution No. 4845 to allow refinishing of the west facade of the existing building with Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) to result in a more unifomi appearance for the building; and to allow the development of an Page 3 of 6 i i r *a->i ••• #• additional site access via a proposed 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to the east property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. Applicants shall agree to work with the City in establishing easements as necessary to access adjacent properties if rqrplicants are able to gain access via the proposed easterly corridor. 3.The conditions of Resolution No. 4845 shall remain in effect except as modified by this Resolution. 4.Authorities granted by the conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants. 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) 1 Page4of6 T STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of June, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ ___________. 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of tlie City of Orono, a Miimesota day of municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 r STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me. , who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of , whose identity 1 proved on the oath/afTirmation witness .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation witness j a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 (952) 249^600 ZONING HLE: #03-2902 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 29, 2003 TO: WJM Properties LLC 12520 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES: Peter Johnson 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Suite 300 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP Amendment DATE OF MEETING: May 19, 2003 Plaonlng Commission recommended as follows: Motion: Recommend approval per conditions noted in stafT recommendation; 1. The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. 2. Applicants shall agree to work with the City in establishing easements as necessary to access adjacent properties if applicants are able to gain access via the proposed easterly corridor. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, June 9, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffton at 952-249-4600. c - • • Application Date: 60Hlay Deadline: 4/23/03 6/23/03 ^'3-oi TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director May 15,2003 SUBJECT: #03-2902 WJM Properties LLC. - Monies Automotive Group 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review / CUP Amendment - Conditional Use Pennit for Motor Fuel Station List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H 1 J Application & Letter of Request Site Plan/Survey Fuel Storage System Information Photos of Peninent Locations Resolution No. 4845 (CUP Granted 8-12-02) Plat Map Property Owners List Industrial District Standards, Code Section 10.50 Motor fuel station ordinances, Section 10.61, Subd. 18 Fire Protection and Prevention ordinances. Section 9.34 I sr ! Application Summary WJM Properties has applied for an amendment of their CUP and site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 4845. The amendments include the following: 1.Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations (“Motor Fuel Stations'* are a conditional use in the Inustrial District). 2.Refmishing the west facade of the existing building with EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building. 3.Approval to construct a 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east paiking lot to the to the east property line. #03-2902 WJM Pvopcrtiet LLC. - Momet Automotive Group 2605 West Wayaui Boulevard Faff 1 of 3 J Motor Fuel Statton CUP The proposed private “motor fuel station ” is simply a set of two aboveground fuel storage and dispensing units, which is a conditional use in the “I” District but which is not the public ‘gas station ’ use addressed in Section 10.61, Subd. 18. Those standards are for a commercial, public gas station and relate to the impacts on a surrounding neighborhood in terms of screening, lighting, signage, property line setbacks, etc., most of which are not applicable to this site at the central location proposed. The two vaulted fuel storage tanks will be located at the southeast comer of the building, ^proximately 250* from the east lot line and 350' from the south lot line. Section 9.34 requires a minimum side/rear property line setback of SO' which is more than adequately met. No canopy is proposed, and the vaults will be located to the rear of the building where they will be virtually invisible from existing Highway 12, and not visible from new 12. No ancillary lighting or signage is proposed. It is staffs conclusion that no additional screening of this system wilt be necessary. The proposed fuel system will meet all pertinent standards of Section 9 34. Fire Marshal Bill Meyer has reviewed the plans and the location of the proposed vaults, and has recommended that the proposal be approved, subject to meeting all City and Fire code requirements. The vaults will be located in an area of the site that is currently paved and was approv^ for parking of vehicles to be repaired. There is a minor reduction in the number of parking stalls available for that use as a result of the tank location. There are no drainage issues associated with the proposal. Building Modifications Per the prior approvals, the north side of the building will be modified to be the primary customer entrance to the site. The plans also noted the building facade would be repainted. Due to the varied nature of the east facade of the front half of the building, applicants have chosen to resurface the existing block wall with EIFS as opposed to merely painting that facade. Staffsupports this minor change to the approved plan. Access Driveway The applicants were advised in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4845 that access to the site may change in the future and applicant agreed to discuss the matter at such time that the City or adjacent landowners initiate such discussion. Applicants have initiated discussion with Long Lake to attempt to gain access to Industrial Boulevard to the east via a route behind the golf dome. Public Services Director Greg Gappa is in favor of such a driveway, and it has long been our goal to establish access to/from the industrial park to signalized intersections and eventually eliminate direct accesses to Highway 12. The proposed access would be angled to align with the east-west driving aisle within the existing parking lot. (K)3‘2902 WJM Properties LLC. ~ Monies Automotive Group 2o05 West Wayzaui Boulevanl Pafc 2 of 3 j kk There are a numtm of issues to be resolved before such a connection can be realized, not the least of which is poor soils and wetlands for most of the corridor. However, the City would support such an access if the applicants arc able to obtain it, and the City would want to discuss the potential for establishment of easements through the WJM property to serve adjacent industrial pa^ parcels. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends iq)proval of the CUP for the private motor fuel station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access to the east, subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. 2. Applicants shall agree to work with the City in establishing easements as necessary to access adjacent properties if ^>plicants arc able to gain access via the proposed easterly corridor. Hanning Commission Options for Action 1. Approve with conditions as noted or with additional/revised conditions. 2. Deny (state reasons). 3. Table. 4. Other Action. •03-2902 WJMPrapeiti«LLC.-M«TiMAuiMno(ivtanMp 2MS WtM Waxwa Boukvwd N«i3of3 • I k 5'ir-03 • § * i Application# DateReccivcd AmoimCPsdd oo CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site'AddxaSS 2605 Wavzata BoulevarH Ifoar ^ Or/wfi Type of Application to bo Filed Commercial Industrial lfg«» - CUP Propetty Identification Number (PJJD.) 33-118-23-13-0015 appucant N««"e W.TM Properties LLC Addres.S 12520 Wayzata Boulevard OWNER (if different than ^iplicant) Name Same___________________ Phone(horned 612-741-1907 _____ Phone (work^ 952-475-1907 City Minnetonka Zio 55305 Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired September 2002 (monUi/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ____ S 75.00 For each Variance xeq^iest with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessoiy Use _____S2S0.00 Institutional (ehurch, school, etc.) S250.00 Guest Houte/Guest Apairments $2^a0i^^lex Ccedit/Blds iS^.OO^nunarcial/Iorinsttial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Affer-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____ $300.00 Vacation ______ $250.00 Easement Vacation ____ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD * refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment . $100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule # ^ / * i ' I tr • I BEQUIRED SUBMITTALS y 1. X Completed Application Form. 2. X Describe request in detail 3. X Cettified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat ^ou musr obtain ^ list, labels and map 6^ Henn^in County D^artment of Finance, - A-603, Government Center, 348-3271).'^ 4. X • Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey infonnation. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. X Attach legal description to triplication if not included on required survey, Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). y ' List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persona with an interest in the, property. This would include name(s) of ^plicant(8) if not current oumer(s). v/ ____Constraefion plan, if qiplicable (see staff for requirements), - Spec- & ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a smrate list of any other persons you wish notified of this ^plication. Mo4 R<q«ii/xaa YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLYjn COPIES OF LARGE DO 'UMENTS OR COPY FOR REPROIlUCnON (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The >^?plicant and Property Owner must sign this application.. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above infonnation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Stafif:^__________________________Date________________________ APPLICANT’S 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 origi&al fee paymtmt) and/or expenses incurred in review of this ^ipUcation, and certifies that the information supplied is true and com Applicant's signature e best of T7 Johnson,^ lis/fa^ knowledge.I Date 4-24-2001 ____________ Date 4-24-2003 Johnson, as/Attdrney and Agent for WJ*«. Proper ties LLC s Attorney and Agent OWNER'S SIGNATURE Properties LLC The owner hereby aclmowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council memben for purpose of investigation and veri^ation of this request Owner's signature _ \ Pettc^^m ww.iitauti, 09 fncLULuey ouu Agent lor Kj;! I’roperties LLU Applicant mult ■ w all cubminaU ima the Cay officta 2S dqrs before the riaaBing OnranisstoB MeiOAg 71aiuihif Comniuioo Mcednst arc bald on the third Monday of each noaA. AppUcaaa nam be pttacat at all pKoiiviyd review needais of ibe Plaimiqg CooBBluion and CeoadL If an i^licaat k uBable to attead a scheduled meettps, please nakr anaagem^ to have an audwriecd a|Cac attend in year place and advise the PyP/tiMj M Zoaias Office of this chasfc prior to the tneedag. ^-1 t . •ilflC I'REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST. ORONO Applicant pruposes to install two (2) Vaulted Fuel Storage Tanks on the south side of the existing building near the southwest comer. The Tanks will be located at least five feet from the building. Tank specifications have been submitted by the applicant. The Tanks consist of a steel primary tank within a non-metallic secondary containment which is monolithicaliy entombed in six inches of reinforced concrete at 5.00C PSI. The Tank capacities are 2,000 gallons and 1,000 gallons. The applicant intends to c*ore and dispense gasoline and diesel fuel in conjunction with its new car preparation operations on site. Applicant also proposes to improve the painted block exterior of the existing facility from the northeast comer, along the east wall, south to the loading dock. The block wall will be resurfriced with EIFS (Exterior insulation Finish System). Finally, Applicant is engaged in negotiations with the City of Orono and Long Lake regarding utility easements along the eastern property line. The City of Long Lake may grant an access/egress easement allowing vehicular access from the subject site to Industrial Boulevard in Long Lake. In case said easement is granted, applicant requests an amendment of its Site Plan allowing for construction of a 40 foot bituminous driveway from the eastern parking lot to the east property line. C:\OocumfnU and Sattings\All UtaraNOocumantaWy Oocumante2\Aapv4Ac»va\Morrla ‘a Orona\ntemo3.doc *-.3] ‘•T.iyi ‘a rrr rr-f f• #»— *. giy - w I I •'/ '3iiP mf. !«! Ji ^SL'ltctrl^SwtSli^, ^“w *“•***''*> '' " ' ^ r^TT ^ V-IBlSKr^A NMI N« TV ^um^^tFSS^I^PSlJSISr AAWffNff AAACtfj I 40 • ^^"li'KVTi'VcV*] fVo............. V Acce*. • 0 0A0ICIN0 t04Cli^ I 4^ ^1# 0AMVIM# 0P4Ctf| I Vi r ,M0l«<20ffA* . i| 0 ^ ^ A l iCiN*' ------- F A f|N »N4 w ^ ^ W ® ® I ’**'•• J0AC0 • 1 9PACM9 { #0ACC0 I }I ilil ATU/AC8M LAND TITIC SURVEY **^roA: DflB # n AfiORCn JN4 ^5 ’3 Ik K»| »yi I I *1 » ! /I! f i| ^ 1-STORY ^RICK^ANO SLOCK W" Nfi, VAVtUTT .M H*j| ^ ig5s.*£i£KK£*!?S^i^i^^y^l rv “T“'“ — f—Mii "^mnm Psrs. teM#CUCM90«|—* SR IM - UIL0IN6 ^ttos (txriMio/t roommr mtM w amom m m,fs7 44. rr)jr"! •***- ^ ' ' "/ poc.*to,a$03 §4§ — ^ I ^ .^s^xsaasB, r I LINCOLN MMSM A. dUC«M ^0 “I %1 -1—______L- __t^''''llh %-l-i i 1 iv 'r HrS^gg?STgaj-.a~g. « ^ ^ ^ ^4 £fil • 74 %R| •• JR» • IJ «MC si » liil 2«t • 79 IMI *0 • to IMI ••SP « f 0 IM L>l i!<i ^Mff A0C. Isa r00944« j ^EOiNP • ets«MM«. ♦ »«OMS«aMM W fifii*ti-io.«iv4famwm rm imt M «i CAW«0OOT ■.7.4' .-3 1^ >*♦*-’*»«»-i<4 n /7 ■i. V - JgQwn ysp ; «ii%* ROAR nsto A NOWAK lNC2!i2ffi*».^!«» surveyors •““ (itmcoR^s^o s-ir-oi VAULTED FUEL STORAGE TANKS • The ConVault AST is a patented and totally portable tank system consisting of a steel primary (fisbricated in accordance with UX. standard 142) within a non-metallic secondary containment Mriiich is monolithically entombed in 6 inches of reinforced concrete at SOOO PSI. The ConVault tank is constructed freo from **heat sinks" without any steel penetrations on the walls, bottom .or top of the taol.. and is seamless there by completely thermally isolating the inner steel tank and thus totally eliminating the risk of potential conductivity from any source. AU ConVault tanlM are constructed using a patented monolithic (no seanu) process and has earned FOUR UX.208S sub set listings. 1. Insulated (lire rated ) 2. Protected type. (This listiitg includes collision protection and ballistic protection criteria ) 3. Non-Metallic secondary containment protected tanks for flammable and combustible liquids with secondary containment. 4. emergency Venting by "Form of i.oDstruction". ConVault meet all national/regional/state/local codes and standards to include UFC Appendix A-H-F-1, NFPA 30 and 30A, BOCA .SBCCI, and IFC fire safety standards. ConVault provide top fittings only, in accordance with all codes and standards which prevents potential leeks from valves, fittings, and fill pipes, spill prevention during tank filling is provided by a 7 gallon U.L. listed container that surrounds the filling system. In the event of an overfill, the product will be completely contained in the spill container and then drained back into the main tank. Additionally, dirert lex'el reading ga^es, audible alarms, and auto matic shut off devices can be installed to mt-at specific jurisdictional requirements. Through the years, thousands of ConVault Systems have been installed and remain in service through out the world. Since we introduced vaulted tank technology our proven national safety record and continual U.L. performance and tusting, has resulted in the safest ‘‘AST’ tank system available. NO CONVAULT AST HAS EVER EXPERIENCED A SYSTEM FAILURE After you have had a chance to review this material, contact us or vbit our web site at WWW.CONVAULT.COM. We would be happy to answer any questions and stqpply you with additional information. I trust the ConVault Tank Systtsn meets your requirements. Sincerely, Michael J. Anger POLLUTION SOLUTIONS £640 INDUSTRY AVE. NW • RAMSEY, MN 55303 • (613) 323-3546 • 1-«)0-4e0-^ • FAXJM2) 823*3626.7 ' ' *7 ’a /■/ •t\ . I »;T| K <1 O OBdI(SS)stUl(s 1 miiC0Hr^5Say- VAULTSD nm. i © STOIIAQKSYtTI • PMItctfd Tink Litifd (UL 2085 and ULC 142.18) • Caaaellits Irani 280 to 12,000 Oilloiit in Single or Duet Compartments. • Pomp Pattagot Available. • so Year Warranty. ^ ^m • Mamifacturiog FaeiiitI Nationwide. 1 ■ P'' -i- w . r* • » • * • . .>V ‘. J ..t». iu-ytT^^0F.^V^:77^J . i•* • I's-* • i: V : •" 1*.. • ’ *»^ *• ^ * *'j O CONCRETE ENCASEMENT Six inch reinforced concrete encasement for fire resistance and structural protection of inner tank. O NO'RUST EXTERIOR Available in a variety of architectural finishes to complement adjacent facilities. O leak barrier hope Containment membrane also serves to isolate inner steel tank from concrete for superior corrosion protection O INSULATION LAYER Polystyrene insulation protects lank contents from temperature extre.mes and allows for efficient heating O INNER STEEL TANK Primary containment of standard carbon steel or :;talnless steel for compatibility with a variety of fuels and chemicals. Dual steel wails and interior coatings are also available. PRE'ENBINEERED CODE COMPLIANCE O Leak Detector O Internal Spill Container O Primary Emergency Vent O level Indicator O Communication'. Port S.^v- POLLUnON SOLUTIONS 6640 INDUSTRY AVE. NW • RAMSEY, MN 55303 • (612) 323-3548 • 1-800460-3548 • FAX (612) 323-3526 : •;" fliflflCOR MINNESOTA DIVISION ilONVAULT 1.000 GALLON • • iL 4*# K 0*'lONG NIPPLE AND CAP^ NIPPLE INSIDE DIMS. OUTSIDE DIMS. 1^. ■ lt.000 Iba. 4 -t- X 10 -0- X 3‘-D- 5*-a* X 11*-0" X 4*-4" 7 GAaOM U.L LISTED SPIU CONTAINMENT W/ INTERNAL DRAIN AND POSITIVE SEAL 6* EMERGENCY VENT NIPPLE 2* NIPPLE STBD. TAfM 1/4*30 m. NLvriHYUNc eco mmwameSTOL RQNraieeMeNT on C or «Mjb---------r ciMciinc-3------- ^ ^ ^ a. rA •• Steil Tanh TOP Tn WAI I 20 Yrv m 30 Vaar Marraaly ROTTnu Tf> WAI I <; DETAIL A ©[(itssieGOi^niBcaBt Inc FOR DETAILS SEC RCVCRSC SIDE eoattOiT. «m I . : J DETAIL DRAWING FOR CONVAULT i ,000 GALLON WCI8HT - ia.000 lb«.a* OIA. IMMeUON TMK- tCAK ocnenoN luic —V4y M wT tone NWPIX and cap 2]^:r JI ‘fi’ll -:i • t: •* CliCMOiCV ^NT Nmc r—u.1. iiuimi «/N0N«M0 nMSH r mciictiicHHT i.4----- ^ 7 OAUON U.L. unco mu contawucnt W/ MlCfMAL ONAM ANO OOSTtW SEAL r. r- 4r j SECTION A-A VL/ S T. '■h A»V rr Ni i r I. 3R£S2IS£!383^I I. i :f 4 SECTION B~B 11*-0* a* ouL iMnauo4 tank LCAK onunoN ivjk PIACCMOIT VAffCS 1* DU. C0MMUWCA110N PCNT OuniT OCBCN *0* WO«N Additions Avatioble U.L, WalfhtA aad Marawras. Cammarclal Otapana ’Af ***D fwat Monagamanl Syalama. HItH laval) Uw la«al, OvarfRI, laok Dataattan. and InlaraHal MantlaHna. OaaaNna. Avgaa. M Tual. Blaaal. Waala ON. and Oanaratar foakaiaa. Wafar Traatmant / CNamlaai / Haaardaua Waata Tanka. O . * • •em .. •• •■ O m V- i nfllCOR •* * i%f MINNESOTA DIVISION CONVAULT 2.000 GALLON 4" NIPPLE INSIDE DIMS. OUTSIDE DIMS. 4**# K 9" LONG nipple and cap 7*-o"'*x^i o*-r‘?4’-o*" e*~o" X ir-s" X s'-4- LLON U.L USTEO SPILL CONTAINMENT W/ INTERNAL DRAIN POSITIVE SEAL 2" nipple **• -..a"•• • • • • • • •• *. Tnp Tn wAi I froL 30 la. ^OLveiHaCNC oco hc^mamc >iTUl RCMrOOGtHCMT ON 6 Oi^ WMLfc- ——-------•• coMOtm --" ■ ■■■■ ,' y j- • ■. •• . . * Ij\* •. ■ T; •••.• • ^ •• Sli4 TMk MUto aitli 30 nw «mity RnTTnu Tn Wai i q 'Rfecast,lnc DFTAIL A FOR DETAILS SEC REVERSE SIDE CWiONT. IMO DCTAIL DRAWINO: FOR CONVAULT 2,000 GALLON WEIGHT « 20.000 Iba.a* out IMMUeN TMM---UM kuchon iuk _.v • a* liPM* r*4*» ■: •* tONO WmC *NO CM> •* CltfXMNCV VCNT MPFLC I OWCT-^ __fh^jrzvv?3^ •lU. IJX 1 4- I m/ NONrVoo nM»< IT mmx Ii r t ^ i*-a 1/a* r <;FnTlQN A-A Ar\- TTTfS I ,r 3 I fi A kii SECTION B-B iSU*l- ir-r itf-ar B SzSC a* a* wmi CONTAMMOtf COUAK UD P r KMCAOCMeT-/ J V t!. PI AN VIEW OUTITT OUMW V SMIIN I* OM. C0MMUMCA1I0H MMT Additions AyoHoble U.L. «M ItoMUf**, C«mii««r«l«l 0ls,4n<lwa •«< futl Wjftlama. HlgH !•••>. t»» ••»••• Wanllvilnf. i ■«_ i m r««i. otofi. w««i> on. eiia cyyrt f adtk.g«. Water TraalnWAl / Cl»aiwte*l / Haaaratua Tanka. vrx. J ? v- •■:) \‘il -I c 7TJ^AW •• • 'b- ( '02 *T mi!■ ’ ! i- JI ^ t mh ?w" I li'® ^l'■^ l Sk:/^ '' i r»3 4^'^' ‘ - - *‘ ..' r ''■^ Vn /. f ' ^ ‘ \» • . '•I*' 'ii'-; A iV ' ^ k IT OA t:,e /=<<2CD'^£'>-^s t>/ J' " \v rr'y jji;fWoWi;.vwK‘iiL7.' ■i*'?SJPTijr(» >•..'■•. ■ ViJMAimniMti II I Pil fe; ^ :Vr L%^ 4 rV., ' • Biiiteii aa g BOimiiT m &fe\' .#^T^ — M' { ^ . -i. > ft j ......;i-*- ■: '■' ■ dwsisg^ li )• . #• > ’ *■* ■‘'* ■• ■** ^ . - r . ». "•■ ».;.*5..v ■‘r., . ' ■■■■■ : t. -.♦. . r V ■'s^ -' ■ - lo •■ J it ^ * S'- fS’03. - u A-‘C.? :S: / A->ti.v’ c.Tie_iA> A ^ . 'r^ • < V £ S'tC~0^ li CITY of ORONOm1^ fisHp; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 484 K A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PER SECTION 10.50, SUBDIVISION 3 A AND INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL HLE NO. 02-2795 WHEREAS, WJM Properties, LLC, hss an interest in, (hereinafter ”the applicant") and DRB #8, LLC is owner of the property (hereinafter "the owner” located at 2605 Wayzata Boul: .ard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 A to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Plarming Commission held a public hearing on June 17,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, HNDINGS 1. 2. 3. 4. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2795. The property is located in the I, Industrial District. Automobile repair and wholesale operations are permitted uses in the I district. Open sales lots, when a wholesale operation, and outside storage are conditional uses in the I district. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. Page 1 of 10 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 48 4 5 6. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact; A. B. C. D. E. The Planning Commission finds the sales sHowcd on the property as a Permitted Use would be sales associated with a wholesale operation. In the Code under the general heading of‘Processing’ are a list of types of processes that would be allowed in the district. Processes would include conducting cei^n mmufacturing, fabrication, storage, or wholesaling operations. The I district lists “automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when completely enclosed within a building. This would allow auto sales as a w'holesale operation. The Orono zoning ordinance does not permit “retail sales” in the I, Industrial zoning district. Retail use of the property for automobile sales in the classic sense, i.e. general customer visits for the purposes of purchasing a vehicle or parts, is not permitted on the property. However, proposed uses such as the body shop, auto processing, and wholesale of cars and parts are permitted uses in the district. Auto Sales Showroom at the north end of the building will involve 32,800 s.f. within the building in addition to an outside open sales lot with stalls for 40 cars on display and for demonstration or test drives, all as part of the fleet sales and leasing operation. The operation of the showroom and open sales lot as proposed would meet the definition of a wholesale operation. TJe body shop and auto prep areas are permitted in the district. The body shop would be in an area of approximately 45,000 s.f. completely within the building. Vehicles stored waiting for body repair or for delivery would be stored in the outside storage area south of the building. The auto prep area will occupy 18.300 s.f of building area. All auto prep will occur inside the building, Monies expects to receive approximately ten incoming loads of new' automobiles per month. New automobiles will be unloaded and will be stored outside and delivered to dealerships. Total outgoing vehicles are estimated at 120 per month. Page 2 of 10 1 IjSlil J GITYof ORONO G. H. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL «845NO. The storage area of the building comprises approximately 17,000 s.f. Storage will be for internal operating uses, owner storage, and storage of facility iv'iated equipment. The office is incidental to the operation of the facility. Both c^orage and oHice would be allowed as 'incidental' uses of the building to the opc.'^tion of the entire facility. The Conditional Use Permits for the outside sales lot and outside storage would require all items to be stored within a building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque. The Planning Commission finds a berm, not less that 3' in height, shall be constructed north of the outside sales lots with plantings with a height of 3'. The intent is to provide some visual screening to the outside sales area to not give the appearance of a retail sales lot. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission the outside display area is for the fleet customer test drive and viewing, but not to attract the general public to the site for individual purchase of vehicles. The Qrono zoning ordinance does not define retail sales and wholesale sales. The City has used a general definitions book titled The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions , Retail Trade "Establishments engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods.” An important characteristic of retail establishments is that they arc usually a place of business engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy. Retail establishments sell to customers for their own personal or household use. XVliolesale Trade "Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling me<rhandise to, such individuals or companies." Page 3 of 10 1 ■4 m CITY of OROXO did BBWl RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4845NO. I.The Comprehensive Plan encourages a conversion to uses such as light industrial and high tech medical that have a clean, professional appearance and are compatible with the planned office park on the north side of Highway 12, and the planned residential development west of Old Crystal Bay Road. The re-use of the WSI property is an opportunity to begin to set the character for the Industrial District in terms of use and appearance. J.Retail uses rely on advertising signage to attract customers, while wholesaling operations normally will provide signage primarily to identify the site. The signage that is proposed for the site includes a 65 s.f. monument si^ to be located at the entrance to the property fiom Highway 12 (Monies Distribution Center Body Works) and building lettering totaling 117 s.f. (Momes Automotive Group). The Planning Commission finds the proposed signage does not suggest that the building is advertising for a retail auto dealership, but rather only identifying the individual user of the facility. 7.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be m keeping vvith the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 8.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS ves aBased upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby appro, v. . condiuonal use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 A to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot subject to the following conditions: Page 4 of 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. GITYofORONO • • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 4 K The outside storage area located on the south side of the building shall be completely screened with a 6 ’ fence around the perimeter of the storage area. This is the area where all vehicles intended for body work wiU be stored when not within the building. The individual storage area devoted to the parking of new vehicles and finished vehicles ready for deliveiy to dealerships shall be limited to 250 parking spaces The area should be limited to the east end of the parking lot since adequate screening will not be located directly within the parking area. The total display parking for vehicles shall be limited to the 40 at the north ends of the parking lots. Such parking shall be 25 parking spaces north of the building and 15 spaces northeast of the buildine as proposed on the site plan. The parking lot s^ll have 6 planting islands located within the east parking lot per the recommendations. The intent of such plantings is to separate areas for display, customer parking and employee parking from the parking for vehicles that are intended for processing. The display areas are proposed to use the existing trees that are on the property for screening. The new parking area on the north side of the building will require removal of at least one substantial tree on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some of the trees will be relocated between the parking lot and the highway. Additional screening will be provided in the form of a berm (a minimum oH’ in height) with planting of junipers. The required screening shall screen the display parking areas from view to Highway 12. The existing light poles in the east parking lot shall be removed and 4-twin bead light fixtures on poles not to e.xceed 25’ in height are permitted to be constructed to provide enough lighting to provide security and lighting to the property. 5-min head light poles, not to e.xceed a height of 20* are permirted to be installed at the north end of the display parking area. All lighting fi.xtures shall be a shoe box ” style light fixture with a recessed light source, not allowing the light sources to be visible from any propert>- line. Page 5 of 10 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 48 4 5 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Because new areas of impervious surface are proposed, engineering information regarding the drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Any required permits must be received from h4>nnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to occupancy of the property. Applicant shall be placed on notice that future access to the property may change and applicant agrees to discuss the issue of access at such time the City or adjacent property owners initiate such discussions. The industrial zoning district does m perniit retail sales in the industrial distict. Such approvals granted within this site plan and conditional use permit allow only wholesale operations, body work, and warehousing with intent to distribute product. Such use \\ ould include fleet sales of automobiles to a commercial or corporate customer and wholesale trade of parts from the site. No advertising, lighting, or displays are permitted when the intent is to attract drive-by customers. The signage is appre «red as submitted. Any additional signage shall require additional review. Noise of the operation shall be in conformance with the Noise Ordinance. Hours of operation for fleet sales and leasing shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Periodic re\ iew of this conditional use permit for compliance regarding outside display and outside storage shall be allowed and conducted as deemed necessary by the City of Orono. 15. Approval of the site plan is subject to the applicant submitting a final guarantee in the form of a letter of credit for 150% of the improvement costs, per execution of a developers agreement. Upon final approval of the site plan the City Engineer will provide an estimate of the total improvement costs. 16. Authorities granted by the conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants. 17. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shaU be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 6 of 10 4 a CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 84 h 18. The undersigned owner and applicant have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: 0 ■t Lindfa S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this >2th day of August, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. I I 'R achel oooge Notary Public Page 7 of 10 i wpnpppmiiipw oT O' Is GITYoTORONO RESOLUTION 0^ T^E^ITY^OUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument wus acknowledged before me on this dav of ■ j---, 200 5— by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal coiporaticm and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DENISE M.LESKINEN NOTMVMUC-MNNOOTA My CmnWon EipkM Jm. 31.20C3 On this /S^Aday of . 20 OL. Mauaiefl >!♦ V personally appeared before me, y who is personally known to me ___whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afiinnation witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. NotaiyYnmic 9KTSIW. JOHNSON Nonu(rpuue.MNcsorA %0«aMaib|tai JMl 31. aces Page 8 of 10 (imriiiiiiifii r r GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4ft 4 K L STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of j20 __, personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of_____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affumation witness credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of,..20 personally appeared before me, . who is personally known to me . whose identity I proved on the basis of_____ , whose identity I proved on the oath/affrrmation witness ^a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/ihey e.xecuted the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 9 of 10 r P Edilblt A 4845 UEOAL DESCRIP1I0N;• ** # • • PorcM 1: * ' • * -West Industriol Pork ond lU dictensfonsi Henn^tn County, Mlnriesoto. Poroot 2: . [ Lotii 1 thrMdh l^ lnduslye, .Block 1. bronb Industrial Po^ end oli of LMcidn Drivo. vpooted o# shown on the plot or kold Ofono Inbustrlol Pork.* * • / - . • • I ,.«« Page 10 of 10 RVN0AT£:m2a» ]• 331IIUI1000) ntOPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC TAXPAYER DAIIISTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC NAME/ADDR Tt*S POLARIS LA MAPLE GROVE MN 55311 31 3311123130011 PROPADDR 2763 WAYZATABLVDW OWNERNAME VEDAINCETAL TAXPAYER VEDA INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 35 33IIS23I300I4 PROP ADOR 2725 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNERNAME VEDA INC TAXPAYER VEDA INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 373 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 33IIS23I400II PROPADDR 2460 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNERNAME ETCO PROPERTIES INC TAXPAYER ETCO PROPERTIES INC "‘.ME/ADDR 15500 WAYZATA BLVD #754 WAYZATA MN 55391 72 33IU231400I9 PROPADDR 2445 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CITY OF LONG LAKE NAME/ADDR 1964 PARK AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 35 33II5233I00I0 PROPADDR 35 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME GNRYCO TAXPAYER BNRSANTAFERRCO NAME/ADDR PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 961059 FORT WORTH TX 76I6I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACL. I 38 3311823120008 PROP ADDR 2745 KELLEY PKWY OWNERNAME WILLOW PROPERTIES TAXPAYER WILLOW PROPERTIES NAME/ADDR C/O ALBERT B YNOVE 4535 BIG RICE LAKE DR N E REMERMN 56672 38 33II523I300I2 PROPADDR 450 OLDCRYSTALBAY RD N OWNERNAME VEDA INC TAXPAYER VCI CAPITAL INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33II823I300I5 PROPADDR 2605 WAYZATABLVDW OWNERNAME DRB«8LLC T< XPAYER WJM PROPERTIFS LLC NAME/ADDR 12520 WAYZATA BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55305 72 33II823I400I5 PROPADDR 2430 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNERNAME ROTHGREAVES HOLDINGS LLC TAXPAYER ROTHGREAVES HOLDINGS LLC NAME/ADDR 3085 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 72 3311823140020 PROPADDR 2455 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNERNAME LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO TAXPAYER FREDHANUS NAME/ADDR 15801 WEST OAKS MINNETONKA MN 55343 38 3311823420005 PROP ADOR 2680 SILVER VIEW OR OWNERNAME SPFJLK THE WORD aiURCII TAXPAYER SPEAK THE WORD CHURCH NAME/ADDR 515 JERSEY AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55426 38 3311823130002 PROP ADDR 2687 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNERNAME ACE PROPERTIES LLC TAXPAYER ACE PROPERTIES LLC NAME/ADDR 5500 ANDERSON ESTATES RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 33II823I300I3 PROPADDR 2605 WAYZATABLVDW OWNERNAME VEDA INC TAXPAYER VEDA INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ( 72 3311823140005 PROPADDR 401 WILLOW OR OWNERNAME CHURCH OF ST GEORGE TA3CPAYER CHUROI OF ST GEORGE NAME/ADDR 133 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 ( ; \ 72 33II823I400I8 PROPADDR 2435 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W OWNERNAME METROTECHPRODUCTS LLC TAXPAYER METROTECH PRODUCTS LLC NAME/ADDR 5852 BAKER RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 72 33II823I4002I PROPADDR 2465 INDUSTRMLBLVDW OWNERNAME L4RTCH DEVELOPMENT CO TAXPAYER FRED HANUS NAME/ADDR 15801 WEST OAKS MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 3311823420013 PROPADim 38 ADDRESS UNASSK3NEO OWNERNAME RKTIARD* PATRICIA MEYER TAXPAYER MICHAEL HILBEUNK NAME/ADDR 85 GOLDEN VIEW DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 o (T^ RUN DATE :4ay2CD] 3t 3311123320002 PROP ADOR 3S ADDRESS UNATSIGNBD OWNER NAME DURUNOTON NORTHERN INC TAXPAYER BNRSANTAFERRCO I PROPERTY TAX DEPT PODOXMIOI9 PORT WORTH TX 76161 NAME/Al -', / r* - . HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTAHON OP INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEM4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE by % V **.-s37 m it E<11' § 10.50 SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building pennit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for ^ review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter: 1. Apparel. 2. Anificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. 7. Bus, truck and contractor’s terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 11 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane.leather, plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. r V i Ov-V ORONO CC 352 (4-1.84) I i► § 10.50 27. Sporting equipment. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and sr^l metal products. 30. Warehousing. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses A. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Accessory structures. 2 . Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. 3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. 4. Motor fuel stations. 5. Open sales lots. 6. Outside storage. 7. Public service structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or fivight houses. 9. Research laboratories. 10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a permitted use or conditional use. 1 1 . Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing the persoimel employed in that structure. 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.5 1 . 0\ Source: Ordinance No. 172 EflTective Date: 1-1-75 B. Antenna Stnietufc. One independent antenna stiueture, with antenna or eombination of antenna attached thereto, suboidinatc to and servieiiig the principal use oi sUuctuit on the same lot and customarily incidental therete that is not aWaehed*t6*anothef*stwieture provided Oic height of the ontentia*stwietufc docs net exceed 65 feet and the antenna*stiuetufc is set baek from any lot line a distance at least equal te ihe total height of the antenna stnietufer (Seureei Ordinance No. 177; Effective Date: 6 S-75) Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 353 (4-1-84) 4 J r k § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any'T* Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses; A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1District. Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed fDr multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10 75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) (N i § lO.SO F. Building Design and Construction. The ]o addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick; or, (b) Natural stone; or, (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; or, . (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel \ construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the j building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third of its surface of materials other than prefinished metal and the remaining walls shall have at least ^ one-fifth of their surfaces of materials other than prefinished metal; or, (c) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. G. Off-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, off-street parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No >'vicing area shall occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages. On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback fit>m one of the streets, designated as a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining a residential district, may be occupied for parking purposes only; provided, however, that parking shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building. Each parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which ORONO CC I 355 (4-1-84) § 10.50 face either z ;/ubiic street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence. H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars, shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities, hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations; 1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory use. The exact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading facility for each 50,000 square feet of building floor area or mtyor fraction thereof. 2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle Into or out of its berth. All docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property's street frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such wails shall be so designed that they arc architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than 50% of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length, 14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced witli a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. 3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located within the required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used for off-street parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten feet of a side or rear property line. 1. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies, finished or serni-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall rot less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permined parking areas. ORONO CC 356 (4-1-84) I T- § 10.50 J. Landscaping. AH open areas ofany site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintain^ in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained.t K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, 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 City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (K 1 SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as provided hereafter. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an "I" District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall ^ conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended. Subd.I. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and A ^ a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres. Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City vrater and sew’er . 'A system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire ' Chief as to type and location. ^ V ORONO CC 357 (4-1-84) Ii •§ 10.61 Subd. 14. Access to Loading Berths. Each loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of access to public street or alley in a manner which will lesu t interfere with ^ traiflc./ Subd. 15. Surfacing of Loading Berths. All loading berths and accessways shall be ' improved with a durable material. Subd. 16. Storage Prohibited. Any area allocated as a required loading berth or access . drive so as to comply with the terms hereof, shall not be used for the storage of goods, inoperable vehicles nor be included as a part of the area necessary to meet the off-street parking area. > Subd. 17. Required Loading Berths. Where the principal use of the structure served is as listed, the minimum number of loading berths shall be as shown. A. Auditoriums, Convention Hall, Public Building, Hospital, School, Hotel, Sports Arena. At least one loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 1,000 to 10,000 square feet of floor area. For buildings having 10,000 to 100,000 square feet of floor area, one additional loading berth 50 feet in length. B. Retail Sales and Service Stores, Offices. At least one loading berth 25 feet ^ / in length for each building having 6,000 square feet of floor area or more plus one additional loading \ berth 50 feet in length for buildings over 25,000 square feet up to 100,000 square feet. X C. Manufacturing, Fabrication, Processing and Warehousing. At least one loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 3,000 square feet or fraction thereof plus one loading berth 50 feet in length for each 25,000 square feet of floor area up to 100,000 square feet plus one loading berth for each 50,000 square feet of floor area over the first 100,000 square feet of floor area. The operator of the business shall have the option to declare the length of the berths required for buildings above 100,000 square feet of floor area, except that one-half or more of the total number of berths required shall be 50 feet in length. i D. Other. There shall be provided adequate off-street loading space in connection vnth all structures which require receipt or distribution of materials by vehicles. Subd. 18. Gas Stations. Mot^fuel stations in all distnets shall be subject to the folloi^ng performance stani A. Fencing. A fence, wall or landscaping of acceptable design not over six feet in height or less than five feet shall be constructed along the property line when said use abuts property residentially used or in an "R" District, and said fence shall be adequately maintained. CyW Application of this provision shall not require a fence wthin the required front yard or within fifteen ^ feet of any street right-of-way line. ORONO CC 388 (4-1-84) M .J § 10.61 B. Surfacing. The entire site other than that taken up by a structure or planting shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage. C. Drainage. A drainage system subject to approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. D. Curbs. A box curb not less than six inches above grade shall separate the public nght-of-way from the motor vehicle service areas, except at approved entrances and exits. E. Lighting. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way.as to have no objectionable direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land in residential use. F. Pumps. Pump islands shall be installed and conform to yard requirements. A' S’ .K G. Driveways. No driveway.at a property line shall be less than thirty feet from the intersection of two street right-of-way lines. H. Signs. Each motor fuel station may have one pedestal type sign not in excess of 48 square feet nor more than 22 feet in height, erected within any yard except that no part of the sign shall be less than six feet from a property line. No part of the sign surface shall be less than 16 feet vertical distance from the grade of the nearest driveway or parking areas. I. Sales Prohibited. No sales of motor vehicles shall be permitted, except as an integral part of a new car agency. J. Number Limited. Two stations only will be permitted at the same intersection. Two such stations shall be permitted within each district without Council approval. Subd. 19. Drive-Ins. Drive-in establishments in all districts shall be subject to the following performance standards: A. Fencing. A screening fence not over six feet in height nor less than four feet, which is at least 50% opaque throughout its height shall be constructed along the property line Aor a planting strip not less than fifteen feet in uidth reserved and planted along the property line shall be developed according to a submitted planting plan that meets the approval of the Planning Commission. \' B. Lighting. The outside lighting, if installed, shall be in accordance wth a plan approved by the Council. (]^ Source: Municipal Code \ Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.62 through 10.69, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 389 (4-1-84) J X S 9.34 SBC. 9.34. FIRE PROTBCTIOH AHD PRBVBNTIOR. Minnesota as though be marked office of public. Subd. 1. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Adopted. The Unifojm Fire Code* 1982 Edition (MUPO^ is hereby adopted set forth verbatim herein. One copy of said Code shall CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the the City Clerk and open to inspection and use by the Subd. 2. Fire Code Amendments. As authorized by the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code* the following amendments to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are hereby adopted for the City: A. Restrictions on Flammable or Combustible Liquid Storage. 1. Prohibited Districts Established. Pursuant to MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001^ the Council hereby declares all land located within the following specified zoning districts to be the districts within which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited: R~1A, R-IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR-IC, LR-lC-1, B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, M-6 and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Aboveground Tank Locations. In those districts not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is permitted provided such tanks are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, and with the following: (a) No su :h tank shall be located in any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property llne..^r^e^jb|^ ^ (c) No such tank shall be located within 75 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway unless such tank is diked in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minimum setback for a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. A ORONO CC Lfi.- /A AA.-/A , j: pit> piAL>'2)„ V t'/ 219 84) -fT* r S 9.34 3. Underground Tank Locations. The storage of flammable or combustible liquids in underground tanks shall be permitted in any district in accordance with MUFC Section 79.601 and with the following: (a) No such tank shall be located under any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 10 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall be located within 30 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. [ B. Restrictions on Liquified Petroleum Gas Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 82.105, the Council hereby declares all land within the City, except for land zoned I-lndustrial, to be the district within which no liquified petroleum gas storage installa tion shall exceed 2,000 gallon water capacity for any one property; and the Council further declares that no liquified petroleum gas storage installation over 500 gallon water capacity shall be located in any required front, side, rear or lakeshore yard as defined in the Zoning Chapter, but shall conform to all setback requirements for principal buildings. C. Restrictions on Explosive and Blasting Agent Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 77.106(b), the Council hereby declares all land within the City to be the district in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited. Subd. 3. Definitions. Wherever the words or terms are used in this Section, the Fire Code or the Fire Marshal Division alterations and amendments, they shall have the following meanings: A. "Building Official" means the person appointed by the Council to administer and enforce the State Building Code. ^A B. "Chief" means the Chief of the Fire Department which has contractual jurisdiction in each respective Fire Service District, or his authorized representative. City. C. "Corporation Counsel" means the Attorney for the D. "Jurisdiction or Municipality” means the City as a whole, and also that part of the City corresponding to each I seoarate Fire Service District. Subd. 4. Enforcement. Authority for enforcement is hereby granted to and may be exercised by any or all of the following persons: A. The Minnesota State Fire Marshal, or his authorized representative. ^ ORONO CC 220 C4-1-84) 1 S 9.34 B. The Chief of each Fire Department, or his authorized representative, within the Fire Service District of said Fire Department. The Fire Chief shall retain primary responsibility and authority for determining response to fire calls and for fire scene command. C. The Chief of the Police Department or his officers. The Police Chief shall be responsible for coordinating enforcement policy and activities between the respective Fire Service Districts and between the Fire Chiefs and the Building Official. D. The Building Official or his authorized representative. The Building Official shall be responsible for coordinating enforcement of the Fire Code with enforcement of the State Building Code and the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Subd. 5. Permits and Fees. A. Wherever the Fire Code or this Section requires a permit, applications for said permit shall be made to the Build ing Official with ail information required, and payment of a permit application fee as fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. Application fees shall be non-refundable. B. The Building Official shall refer all Fire Code permit applications to the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Ser vice District who shall perform required pre-permit inspections. The Fire Chief shall upon request by the Building Official supply a written report to the Building Official prior to permit issuance. C. All fire Code permits shall be issued by the Building Official upon the advice of the Fite Chief and subject to such conditions of approval as may be required by the Fire Chief, except that fireworks permits pursuant to Article 78 shall be issued by the Police Chief. One such copy of all permits so issued shall be delivered to the Fire Chief for his record. D. No Fire Code permit shall be issued if said permit would authorized an activity or use of property or structures contrary to any provision of the Fire Code, the State Building Code or the zoning Chapter of the City Code. 1 m Subd. 6. New Materials. The City Administrator, Police Chief, Building Official and the Chief of every Fite Department protecting a Fire Service District of the City shall together act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes or occupancies which shall require permits, in addition to those now enumerated in the Fire Code. As they occur, such determinations shall be listed; such list shall be posted In the offices of the Police Chief, the Building Official and each Eire Chief, and dis tributed to all interested parties. tr 0 ORONO CC 221 (4-l-04> 1 S 9.34 Subd. 7. Fire Lanes Established. The Council hereby provides for the establishment of Fire Lanes for purposes of ensuring immediate unobstructed access for emergency vehicles and equipment. A. Fire Hydrants. Whether marked or unmarked, fire lanes are hereby established at all public or private fire hydrants, which fire lanes shall extend ten (10) feet on either side of the hydrant and twenty (20) feet in front of the curb or pavement edge nearest the front of the hydrant. B. Building Exits. Whether marked or unmarked, fire lanes are hereby established at all building exits required by ^ the Fire Code or State Building Code, which fire lanes shall extend [O ten (10) feet in all direction from said exits. Where larger fire^%« lanes are required, they shall be established and marked as n provided in Subparagraphs C or D of this Subdivision. C. Existing Properties. The Chief of Police is hereby empowered to order the establishment, designation and maintenance of fire lanes on public or private property wherever and to whatever extent as he may determine is reasonably necessary to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. In this deter mination, the Police Chief may confer with and accept the recommendations of the Building Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. Fire Lane Orders shall be in writing and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the property owner of record, or in the case of commercial properties, may be served upon the tenant occupying the property. Subd. 8. Fire Lane Standards. The actual size, location and extent of required fire lanes shall be determined by the Police Chief in consideration of the particular access need and configura tion on individual properties. As a minimum, all marked and de?ig- naied fire lanes shall be at least 20 feet in unobstructed width, shall have at least 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, shall where necessary provide for a turning radius of at least 50 feet, and shall be constructed of all-weather surfacing capable of I carrying a vehicle axle loading of 5 tons (10,000 pounds). _ \ Subd. 9. Fire Lane Signs and Marking. When a fire lane has been ordered to be established pursuant to Subdivision 7, Subparagraphs C or D, one or more permanent upright metal signs bearing the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE", or similar words if approved by the Police Chief, shall be placed designating the restricted area. The number, size and location of required signs shall be determined by the Police Chief. A. When the fire lane is located on public property or within a public right-of-way, the required signs shall be erected by the City or by the public agency having jurisdiction over the property. ORONO CC 222 (4-1-84) S 9.34 B. When the fire lane is located on private propertyr the required signs shall be erected by the property owner at his own expense within thirty (30) days of the date of the order establishing the fire lane. Subd. 10. Fire Lane Maintenance. All established fire lanes shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner to be free from obstructions including motor ^ vehicles* trailers* equipment* storage* rubbish* vegetation or , accumulations of dirt or snow. All required fire lane signs shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner to be securely fastened* not visually obstructed in any way* and free from paint or vandalism. Missing or vandalized signs shall be promptly replaced. Subd. 11. Obstructing Fire Lane. Whether located on public property or on private property* it is unlawful for any person to obstruct any established fire lane at any time. Subd. 12. Required Water Supply N&w Construction. The Building Official may order the installAtiou or relocation of fire hydrants in areas not served by the municipal water system* and for uses other than single-family residential* a self-contained on-site source of water as a condition of issuance of a building permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-54 SBC. 9.35. FIRE* BU.* CLARY AND SAFETY ALARM REGOLATIOHS AND REQUIREMENTS. Subd. 1. Purpose and Scope. A. This Section provides for regulation in the use of fire* burgl^ry* and safety alarms* establishes users' fees* and establishes a system of administration. B. The purpose of this Section is to protect the public safety services of the City from misuse of public safety alarms and to provide for the maximum possible service to public safety alarm users. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms* as used in **his Sec'iion* shall nave the meanings stated: 1. "Public Safety Personnel" - City employees or employees duly authorized to maintain and enforce public safety. 2. "Alarm User" - The person in control of any building* structure* or facility wherein an alarm system is maintair.!>^d. OPONO CC 223 (4-1-84) (6-19-84) I ORDINANCE # 121 t 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 116, SECOND SERIES AND AMEND SECTION 9.34 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984 ENTITLED "FIRE PROTECTION and prevention .” The City Council of Orono ordains: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 116. Second Series adopted June 14, 1993 is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Municipal Code Section 9.34 as adopted April 1, 1984 and entitled "Fire Protection and Prevention" is hereby reinstated in its entirety. SECTION 3. Municipal Code Section 9.34, Subdivision 2 (A) (2) is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: 2. Aboveground Tank Locations. In those districts not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in abovegroimd tanks is permitted provided such tanks are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001. and with the foUowing: (a) No such tank shall be located in any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property line unless it has a minimum one b'>ur fire rating. A tank with a minimum one hour fire rating may be located within 30 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall be located witlun 75 feet of any lake, weUand, stream or drainageway unless such tank is diked in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minimum setback for a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Adopted by the Orono City Council this 27th day of September, 1993 in. City Clerk Edw^ jT Callahah, Jr., Mayor / 3 \ 1^^ - • • • .»ORDINANCE NO. 186 . SECOND SERIES AMENDING ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION $34 BY ALLOWING ABOVEGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS IN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of Orono does ordain: SECTION 1. Section 9.34, Subdivision 2 (AXl) of the Orono Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by deleting the B-2 zoning district from die list of zoning districts in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids m aboveground tanks is prohibited. Subdivision 2(AX1) is dierefore amended to read as follows: 1. Prohibited Districts Established. Pursuant to MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, the Council hereby declares all land located within the follovring s^ified zoning districts to be the districts within which the storage of flammable or combu^ble liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited: R-1 A, R-IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR>1C, LR-lC-l, B-1, B>3, B-4. B-S, M-6 and PRD. SECTION2. This ordinance shiU be pubUriud in THE LAKER/PIONEER newspqier and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the CiQr of Orono, ML 26th day of April, 1999. Ota at its regular meeting held the ATTEST: J .J. ^ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Oid)riV Jabbour, Mayor Published In the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the veek of May 8, 1999. Page 1 of 1 ^ - • •. _____MINUTES OF Tlfe ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 'h For future reference, Bremer suggested the Commission determine at what point a let is considered ’narrow’, in some future discussion. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2902, Denali Custom Homcs/Melinda and Thomas DeVean, 680 Tonkawa Road, granting approval of the variances for lot area and lot width, as well as, hardcover in exceu of 25% In the 75-250* zone, based on the credit circumstances aforementioned, the narrowness of the lot, and the steepness of the grade, and subject to approval of a drainage plan to permit construction of a new residence on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #03-2902 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 12:51 -1:00 A.M. Peter Johnson, Council for Monies Automotive Group; Michael Anger, suppUef cr&c storage tanks; Tom Maddox, and Rod of WJM, were present. Gaffron explained that WJM Properties had iq;>plied for an amendment of their CUP and site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 484S. The include the following: 1.Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep and wholesaling operations (‘Motor Fuel Stations’ are a conditional use in the Industrial District). 2.Refinishing the east facade of the existing building with EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building. PAGE 50 of 37 tiaau # • • •- • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 3.Approval to construct a 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to the to the east property line. With regard to the access driveway, Gafifron indicated that the applicants were advised in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4845 that access to the site may change in ihe future and applicant agreed to discuss the matter at such time that the City or adjacent landowners initiate such discussion. Applicants have initiated discussion with Long Lake to attempt to gain access to Industrial Boulevard to the east via a route behind the golf dome. Public Services Director Greg Gappa is in favor of such a driveway, and it has long been our goal to establish access to/tom the industrial park to signalized intersections and eventually eUminate direct accesses to Highway 12. The proposed access would be angled to aUgn with the east-west driving aisle within the existing paridng lot. Gaffron acknowledged that there were a number of issues to be resolved before such a connection could be realized, not the least of which was poor soils and wetlands for most of th? r ridor. However, the City would support such an access if the appUcants would be able to obtain it, and the City would want to discuss the potential for establidunent of easements through the WJM property to serve adjacent industrial park parcels. Gaflron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for the private motor fuel station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access to the east, subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed fiicl system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. GaHron noted that die Fire Marshall had relayed that he had no problem with the use of the storage tanlf* PAGE 51 of 37 r- •••• • • • minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 2.Applicants shall agree to work with the City in esUbUshing easements as necessary to access adjacent properties if qjplicants are able to gain access via the proposed easterly corridor. There were no public comments. Gaffion asked the applicants if they found the terms of the easement requirements acceptable with regard to the proposed easterly corridor. Johnson indicated that, although expensive, he was unaware of additional problems and couldn’t foresee any since they had not gotten to that point. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2902, WJM Properties LLC, 260S Wayzata Boulevard West, granting approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the private motor fuel station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access to the east, subject to the staff conditions discussed earlier. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF APRIL 28 AND MAY 12,2003 While most of the applications were on consent. Chair Smith reported that the City Council required that the Bichanich application adhere to the 30’ side yard setbacks. With regard to the May 12,2003 City Council meeting, Rahn indicated that, as mentioned earlier, the Killian application on Spruce Place was Ubled and the Council clearly sent the message that they expected the Planning Commission to hold the line on the 25% hardcover requirement. PAGE 52 of 37 r” ♦ «• •••A.. « •— JUN 9 2003REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY Of OfiONO Department Approval: DATE: June 4,2003 Name Michael P. Oaffron j ITEM NO.: fy Title Planning Director ' Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 2003 Joint Use Dock I .icense Renewal: Big Island Veteran*s Camp Board of Govenors List of Exhibits A - City Map of Joint Dock Locations B-Resolution C - 2001,2002 and 2003 Application The City has received the renewal application for a joint use dock license from the Big Island Veteran ’s Camp Board of Governors. Since licenses were not issued for the years 2001 and 2002, the application information and fees are for 2001,2002 and 2003. There are no significant changes from previous licenses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends iq>proval of the 2001,2002 and 2003 Joint use dock licenses for the Big Island Veteran ’s Camp Board of Governors. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution granting a 2003 Joint Use Dock License to the Big Island Veteran ’s Camp Board of Governors, and retroactively granting a Joint Use Dock License for the years 2001 and 2002 to the Big Island Veteran ’s Camp Board of Governors. ffifiiiiTitiiniii miM 5^ .i s 1 t I f ^ 1^' CITY OF ORONO Private Joint Use Dock Locations 1^ A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS, BIG ISLAND VETERAN'S CAMP SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2003 TO DECEMBER 31,2003; RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,2001 TO DECEMBER 31,2001; AND RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,2002 TO DECEMBER 31,2002 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinatler "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their ttusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, w hether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjo>’ment exists betw'een and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable dejMh of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian ow ners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. This mutual ri^ht of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake arc regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and Page 1 of 2 I WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 9th day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY or HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of ., 2003 oy Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Mirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of ,2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of2 CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE LICENSEE: Big Island Veteran's Camp Board of Governors Dock Address: Big Island - Record Lot #\ • 100 Big Island Agent: James Ellis Gopher SR Address: Box 598, Excelsior, MN 55331 Licensee is: Statutory board/club or recreation group License Period - January 1,2001 to December 31,2003 n. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year’s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license Lower Main Lake _0 MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY. 2001-2003 16 (14 slips, 2 buoys under previous license) -Ifi .6^ [ \ . i Exhibit A Resolution No., Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, liRs or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation an^or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of tliis license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1.Based on the 5 cabins and 25 tent-camping sites approved by City of Orono Resolution #2802, 10 slips are approved for the 2003 season per your iq>plication. 2.Future requests for additional slips will be subject to City Council approval and shall be reviewed and considered in relation to the concurrent level of allowed camp activity. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. .... :<'■■ ■ ' ^ f ; '.fryr: •'• ■ . < A ■ ^ •> •■■••» •- ^ •••■ ■V':'’ ;■^^^;^,--v ; .‘2* •: -V ^.• -ri-=/r . W {i ■ < BIG ISLAND VETERANS CAMP CARETAKER CABl N VETERANS P DI NT i ^l^ljll|m|||[i|^ 9:JX^ f CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn 55323 952-249-4600 LICENSE YEAR 2003 CITY USE ONLY Date Form Mailed to Licensee January i5.2003 Date Application Returned to Cit>' L/^/o 3 Fee Received 5 By Employee ^4a) '137^ ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 ISection 5.42, Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED. »It is untawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in ~. Joint use (of any lakcshore property) without fira^^vin|_obuln^_^l«nsejhereforfrom_theCitjj^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please complete all items and submit signed application, required attachments, and license application fee to the City Clerk by March I of the license year. I. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1 . Association title or name (if any) XiL )itOr^O V Lake /H ___________ Bay_____________________________________ Person responsible for this application: Name _______ Phone 4^7 > /if 9-^ Mailing Address D Relationship to association _________________ Ass.'ciation is (check applicable items): ___ unincorporated homeowner's group. ___ unincorporated club or recreation group, ___ incorporated Homeowner's Association. ___ incorporated club or recreation group. Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items): ____ provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property. provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock. pro\ ide a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item): - one member's private property. _____ property’ leased by the group/association. _____ easement or outlot owned in common. property owned by the group/association. Page I of4 tLcili 7. 8. 10. List Dock location and ownership information: Street address Legal properly description 3/^^ PID # 0^!_______________________ Listed property ow ’ner(s) f ])c, Names/addresses of abutting lakeshore property owners: nMorth/WesO __________Hi^A^ t South/East t Names/addresscs of other affected property ow'ners (attach sheet if necessary): 9. Insurance Coverage - The jointly used dock is insured by one of the following; __properly owner ’s homeowner ’s policy. _*^;^^arate group/association owned policy. Name of insured /r»/ Name of insuraiKe carrier u/-_______ Name of insurance agency /h^tn<n Eftr^ r__________________________ Policy No. ___________Effective date of coverage Q'K'Ci ~~ Amount of coverage: Public liability, per person, per occurrence $ ^aca Public liability, per occurrence S ^ acti Security and policing of the jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): ____ fencing ____ security lighti^ ____ property owner's presence ------- contract security sen ice other (specify) /?isti/t/f II. POCK INFORMATION It. yo f-fC4p y 12. List Dock Use Area Specifications; Width of shoreline; _yc^ i A. Length of main dock horn shore: Doc . setbacks from side property lines at shore: A. and Dock Construction (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year) ___ permanent piling with seasonal deck ____permanent piling and decking w ■ ‘ ■ A. A. wooden decking metal decking Page 2 of 4 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock_ 14.List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips to Transient (day use) off-shore buoys ^ Permanent moorage slips_____O Permanent moorage off-shore buoys ^ Dry storage (rack) slips______C Maximum number of boats at the dock 1S. List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. O spaces. Hi. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 16.Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items): stone rip rap wood seawall metal seawall concrete seawall i/^grass and vegetation only other (specify) ( 17. Depth of water at shoreline: O ft; at 50 ft. out: Q ; at 100 ft. out: REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A.DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions arc intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. . UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS L 2. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Noic: This copy is not teouired if the applicani initials and ccn.iries the follow ing statement: This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in_______ (state year) and on file w ith the City." Applicant's initials Page 3 of4 C. INCORPORATED CLimS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association, members 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not reouired if ihe applicant initials and certifies the following statement; "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of mcorporaiion and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in (state vear) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule INITIAL APPLICATION FEE ($50.00) RENEWAL JOINT USE FEE. per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy._____slips @ 2.00 each $ S 20.00 / 66 LATE FEE ($25.00) if application returned after 3/1/03 $ $-^7 ST TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals ied^ acc 2c6 Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The City shall _DQt accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied bv a late fee of $25 00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SireJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date (f- 7—? Page 4 of 4 BIG ISLAND BOARD OF GOVERNORS Disabled American Veterans; James Ellis Gopher SR.. Chairman 3080 Dundee Ln Mound. MN SS364 932-472-1428 Paul Petersen. Treasurer 11332 Jersey AVE N Champlin. MN 55316 763-422-4134 American Legion; Tom Rasmussen 4954 Brunswick Mound. MN 35364 932-472-6462 Demerol Liilftn Rl. 2 box 91 Delano. MN 55328 763 972-2497 Veterans of Foreign Wars; Don Merkins. Secretary 225 Michigan St Hutchinson. MN 55350 320-587-4721 Dave L. Neubarth 844 Merrill St Hutchinson. MN 55350 320-587 7100 Military Order of the Purple Heart: Patrick D. Murphy 9159 Larkspur Glade Maple Grove. MN 55311 763-416-1904 I i JUN 9 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ c. I r uF OflONo DATE: June 9.2003 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: _____________________________________________________________^ Item Description: Seasonal Employees forti^olf Course Agenda Section: Public Service Director's Report The Council previously approved a list of seasonal employees for the Golf Course with the following pay range of S7.75 to $8.43 per hour for this season. New employees earn $7.75 per hour for the first year. Returning employees earn more each year until the maximum rate is reached in four years. When this list was approved for the 2003 season, not all of the employees were on the list as some of the positions were still vacant. Throughout the season employees are hired to fill vacancies. Seasonal employees are hired under two different provisions of the PERA rules. The majority of the employees will be hired under the 6-month rule which allows unlimited earnings for a 6-month maximum time period. The starting dates for these employees are staggered to allow for sufficient staffing throughout the entire season. The remainder of the employees work fewer hours and will be hired under the PERA maximum earnings provision which limits earnings to $425 per month without any restrictions on the number of months worked. These employees are noted in the list below as "Maximum Earnings Limit". LIST OF SEASONAL GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES EiBglQyft John T. Harris Maximum Earnings Limit 2003 Hourly Wage Rate $7.75 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to hire the seasonal employee listed at the proposed wage rate and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. r L. _____— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ CITYOFOhu.. DATE: June 5» 2003 ITEM NO: Dcpartncnt Approval: Naaic RonMoorse Title City Administrator Admiabtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Award of Bid and Notice to Proceed-Navane Fire Station Construction Bids for the Navarre Fire Station construction were opened on Tuesday, June 3. The low bid was submitted by DEW Corporation in the amount of $ 1,138,000.00. The estimated cost of the station was $1,112,641.00. Attached is a letter from David Kroos of BKV Group, the architect for the project, recommending that DEW Corporation be awarded the contract for the fire station project. Also attached is a tabulation of all bids received. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to award the contract for the construction of the Navarre Fire Station to DEW Corporation in the low bid amount of $1,138,000.00, and to approve giving the contractor a Notice to Proceed. iiiliiaiSiiMimtilMlllfilil 6123396212 BKPU & P5S0CIPTES BKV An. hlr ^tl Cjrr Inc tour wieclufc iocDtsvi Boa *fn»n Kffl M M*n Tdohoot: 411339.3752 ww CO Norrh Second Sireet MN 55401 imifr: 611339.4212 w.bkv|roup.com 552 P02 JUN 05 * 03 09:39 Juiw 4.2003 ChyofOrono 2750 Kallty Phrinmy P.O.BoxM Orono,liN 553234 Rc Nmrrt Fir* SaOon BMs Dc*r Miyor uid Cound Membm: Th* Cky of Orono r•c•^wd bids for dM^Nanorr* Fire Station on Tuosdqr. Jun* 3.2003. The ropooM to this pro|*ct wu vary te^oiaM* and comp«litiv* with a total of nin* fMtaral contractors •ubmittir'i bidi. TN low bid was lubmlttad by DEW Corporation in the antounc of $1,138,000.00. Af part of th* bid rawiew prooen, 8KV Croup ra^iMNad and lecdved a Kk of dant rafarancw from prawioui DEW Corporation projects. Withouc*xcapcion.aNofth* responses and cemnanti from their past dantt war* poiWv* and compHmanary. Th* comments indicated they war* woll-manafed. patient with owners, woritad a* an owner's advocate to sol^ probl«ns and iesap costs down, and they would b* hired apla It Is for this reason that w* ar* pleased to recommend to the City Council that DEW Corporation be awarded the contract for th* new Navarre FIra Station. We look forward to worfcirrg with the Qqr of Orono and DEW Corporation on th* successful completien of your project Slryd^. BKV Croup Mi •• £ 8 8 s Navarre Rre Station iMDrABOLAinN icAN Lmnmf consthuction CM coKsntucnoN DBW CORPORATION TRUCnON CBN CON JSCATBS ■ISillF"'rili» .IBID MARTIN MgRBlMAC COtBTRUCTU PKESTIGK BUILDERS liili!I ,iiif I* ii ■■I SUMJOt $1,199,000 $1.11 SIJ7X000 SU4X3K $1,230,000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUN ^ 9 2003 CITYOFORONO DATE: June S, 2003 ITEM NO: l(p Department Approval: Nine Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Donation from Bonestroo, R&^ne, An Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Anderlik and Associates Inc. The City has received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., the City’s Consultant Engineer. The donation is to be used toward the City’s parks and recreation goals. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the donation in the amount of $250.00 from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., ?: • I i: w : i a •i 1/1 Bonestroo ^y*Rdsene AndertikA ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects Boo0tiioc, AneerHk ana Aiiaclaiti. Inc It an AffiriNaciva Acilon/ffeiial O^^tunity Ifii^loyar and Cm^loyaa Ownad frincipali; Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Marvin L. SorvalA PE • Gier^n R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicbt PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE Senior Consuffanti: Robert W Rosene. PE • Josepn C Anderfik. PE • Richard E Ibrner PE • Sos,tn M Eberkn. C#A Aiioclate Principals: Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pferrerte PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmarsn. PE • Ted K field. PE • Kerwseth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PI. • David A Bonestroo. MBA* Sidney P WMliamson. PE. IS* Agrses M Ring. MBA • Allan Rick Scfemdt. PE • Thomas W Peterson. PE • James R Maland. PE • Miles B Jensen. PE • I Phrliip Gravel M, PE • D^nel J Edgerton. PE • Ismael Martirse/. TE • Thomas A Syfko PE • Sheldon j Johnson • Dale A Grove. PE • Thomas A Rowsfw. PE • Robert J Devery. PE **" • * Orricti; St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Vlfilimar MN • Milwaukee. Wl • ChKago. II M%btlle; wwwborsestroocom ‘ I J April 25.2003 CiI f Or o• - Mr. Ronald Moorse • Administrator City ofOrono PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323-0066 RE: Donation Dear Ronald: To express our appreciation for our long-standing relationship with the City of Orono please accept this check for $250.00 to be used, at your discretion, toward the City’s park and recreation goals. It is our pleasure to contribute to your community that has placed its trust in us over the years. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Otto G. Bonestroo Marvii^. Sorvala Glenn R. Cook Enc. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 > Fax; 6SI-636-t3tt REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 9 2003 DATE:Jiini^rij09'«5 ITEM NO: / J Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Temporary, Part-Time Employee to Assbt the Planning and Zoning Department The Planning and Zoning Department is short two employees until the selection process for two Planner positions is completed. Jeanne Mabusth, the City’s former Planning and Zoning Administrator, has agreed to assist the Planning and Zoning Department on a part-time basis during this interim period. Jeanne will work three to four hours per day at a pay rate of $40.00 per hour. It is recommended that the Council approve the hiring of Jeanne Mabusth as a temporary, part-time employee, at a pay rate of $40.00 per hour, effective June 9,2003. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the hiring of Jeaime Mabusth as a tempotary, part-time employee, at a pay rate of $40.00 per hour, effective June 9,2003. C''*--------------—• “"t • JUN 9 2003 CITY OF UHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 5» 200J ITEM NO: /8 Department Approval: Naac Ron Moorse THIe City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Paries, Open Space and Trans Commission Appointments The City has two vacancies on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. The Council received applications from three citizens interested in serving on the Commission, and has interviewed the three candidates. The Council discussed the results of the interviews at its June 3 work session. It was the consensus of the Council that the two candidates to be appointed to the Commission were Rick Rice and Paul Pesek. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to appoint Rick Rice and Paul Pesek each to a three year term on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Conunission expiring on December 31,2005. ^ AM k M - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: JUN 9 2003 CITY OF ORONO 6/9/03 Item No: I ^ Dq>ai1inent Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Chief of Police*oUce /" Item Description: Accept Paul Theisen Resignation Exhibits:None DISCUSSION Paul Theisen was hired as a part time police officer effective May 13,2003. He wishes to resign his position effective June 9,2003. Paul decided to resign for personal reasons. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept Theisen resignation effective June 9,2003. I •? * •# June 2nd, 2003 Stephanie Good Chief of Orono PoUce Dept !i -»: I Dear Chief Good: It is with considerable disappointment that I submit my letter of resignation of employment with the City of Orono. As you know this has been very difficult station for me and my family but feel this is the best for all parties. j I want to thank you for the opportunity you have given me. I feel under different circumstances my employment with you would have been veiy beneficial for your department and myself. ain, thank you.I i Paul The I mm REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 9 2003 DATE: June s! ITEM NO: 0^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Amend 2003 Fee Sch< Permit - Resolution Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Attachments:Fireworks Fact Sheet Draft Sale and/or Stortige of Consumer Fireworks Permit Application Draft Resolution Background In 2002, Minnesota State Statute 624.20 was changed to allow for the public sale, possession and use of nonexplosive aiul nonaerial consumer fireworks in Minnesota. Examples include items such as sparklers, cones and tubes that emit sparks, novelty items like snakes, and party poppers. Fireworks which are still prohibited include firecrackers, bottle rockets, missiles, roman candles, mortars and shells. For additional information, please refer to the attached “Fireworks Fact Sheet ” which was distributed by the Minnesota State Department of Public Safety regarding the sale of consumer fireworks. Page 2 of the Fact Sheet lists additional examples of legal and illegal fireworks. The City’s Fire Marshal, Bill Meyers, has recommended that we add a fee and generate a permit for the retail sale and/or storage of consumer fireworks. A draft permit i^)plication is attached for Council ’s review. The Fire Marshal will do inspections as needed, and enforce the Minnesota State Statutes and Minnesota Uniform Fire Codes related to the sale and/or storage of consumer fireworks. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends amending the 2003 Fee Schedule to include a fee of $50.00 for a Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution amending the 2003 Fee Schedule to include a fee of $50.00 for a Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit. ■Aiiilih MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Aloohol& Gambling Enfdr^mant Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Capitol Security Crime Victim Services Driver & Veh cle Services Emergen y Managem* nt/ Emerge! cy Response Commission State Fire Marshal/ Pipeline Safety State Patrol Traffic Safety State Fire Marshal Division 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145 Phone: 651/215-0500 FAX: 651/215-0525 TTY: 651/282-6555 Internet: http://www.dps.state.mn.us Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30,2002 Recent changes to Minnesota Statute 624.20 now allow for the public sate, possession and use of a limited number of, but not all, consumer fireworks. Summary of Changes to Minnesota Fireworks Laws e Sale, possession and use of some nonexolosive and nonaerial consumer fireworks is now permitted in Minnesota on or after April 30. 2002. Examples include items such as sparklers, cones and tubes that emit sparks, novelty items like snakes, and party poppers. For a complete list, see the Table on Page 2 of this fact sheet. • These consumer fireworks may not be used on public property (I.e. parks, roads, alleys, schools, government property etc.). • Purchasers of these fireworks must be at least 18 years old and retailers need to check photo identification. • Sale, possession and use may occur at any time during the year. What Requirements Have Not Changed • Explosive and aerial fireworks are still prohibited for public sale, possession and use. Prohibited fireworks include firecrackers, bottle rockets, missiles, roman candles, mortars and shells. • Requirements for “public ” display fireworks and certification for use remain unchanged. Questions should be directed to the State Fire Marshal Division by email to firecode@state.mn.us or by calling (651) 215-0500. Additional information is available at www.fire.state.mn.us state Fire Marshal Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30,2002 www.flre.state.mn.us Page 1 of 6 Questions: flrecodeQstate.mn.us Table 1: Examples of Legal and Illegal Fireworks EXAMPLES OF FIREWORKS THAT ARE NOW LEGAL TO SELL. POSSESS AND USE BY THE PUBLIC ON OR AFTER APRIL 30,2002 AS PERMITTED BY MINNESOTA STATUTE 624.20 (C): EXAMPLES OF FIREWORKS THAT CONTINUE TO BE ILLEGAL TO SELL POSSESS AND USE, EXCEPT AS PERMITTED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 624.20 Wire or wood sparklers of not more than 100 grams of mixture per item Other sparkling Items which are nonexplosive and nonaerial and contain 75 grams or less of chemical mixture per tube or a total of 200 grams or less for multiple tubes and Include: • Cylindrical fountain Upon ignition, a shower of colored sparks or smoke and sometimes a whistling effect is produced. • Cone Fountain The effect is the same as that of a cylindrical fountain. When more than 1 cone is mounted on a common base, total pyrotechnic composition may not exceed 200 grams • tlluminatino Torch • Wheel • Pyrotechnic device intended to be attached to a post or tree by means of a nail or string. Upon ignition, the wheel revolves, producing a shower of color and sparks and, sometimes, a whistling effect • Ground Spinner • Small device venting out an orifice usually on the side of the tube. Similar in operation to a wheel but intended to be placed flat on the ground and ignited. The rapidly spinning device produces a shower of sparks and color. • Flitter Sparkler • Narrow paper tube attached to a stick or wire that produces color and sparks upon ignition. The paper at one end of the tube is ignited to make the device function. • Flash/Strobe - Emit a bright light Novelty items such as sr •!«-'>s and glow worms, smoke devices, or trick noisemakers which include paper streamers, party poppers, string poppers, snappers, and drop pops, each consisting of not more than twenty-five hundredths grains of explosive mixture. Any fireworks that are explosive Any fireworks that are aerial Firecrackers (any size) Ladyfingers Sky rockets Bottle rockets Missile type rockets Helicopters, aerial spinners, planes. UFOs Roman Candles Mines or shells (heavy cardboard or paper tube(s) attached to a base - upon ignition stars, balls or reports are propelled into the air) Chasers Parachutes 1.3G Display (special or class B) Fireworks Aerial shells Theatrical pyrotechnics (see Minn. Stat. 624.20 to 624.25) Basically, any fireworks listed above are still not legal for public sale, possession or use, except with a permit and by a certified operator according to Minnesota Statute 624.20. (i.e. these fireworks are still not legal unless a permit has been issued by the local jurisdiction and they are used by a state certified operator) State Fire Marshal Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30.2002 www.fire.state.mn.us Page 2 of 6 Questions: SrecodeQstate.mn.us information for Consumers of Fireworks Each state in the United States has slightly different requirements for fireworks: some permit all 1.4G consumer fireworks; others a subset of consumer fireworks; or no fireworks at all. The recent law change would allow some, but not all. consumer fireworks to be sold and used in Minnesota. To prevent confusion, the Table on Page 2 of this fact sheet outlines the types of fireworks that may now be sold, possessed and used by the public. This table also indicates fireworks that are still not legal to sell, possess and use, except with a permit and by a certified operator. Here is a summary of the basic rules for fireworks in Minnesota: • Only nonexplosive and nonaerial consumer fireworks are permitted to be sold, possessed and used. Examples include fireworks listed in the left hand column in the Table on Page 2 of this fact sheet. • Fireworks that explode, leave the ground, or shoot anything other than sparks into the air are still prohibited. Use of these devices is not permitted on public property (i.e. parks, roads, alleys, schools, government property etc.). Purchasers of fireworks must be at least 18 years old and age must be verified by photo identification at the time of purchase. The only age restriction is on the purchase of fireworks - there is no age restriction on possession or use. There are no restrictions on the time of year for the sale, possession or use of these fireworks, nor are there restrictions on where the fireworks are purchased (in state or out of state). A permit or certification from the State Fire Marshal Division is not necessary for the sale, possession or use of these fireworks. There has been no change in the laws relating to theatrical pyrotechnics and the requirements for a permit and certified operator according to Minnesota Statute 624.20 to 624.25 Operating outside the exception provided by Minn. Stat 624.20 (c) for sale, possession and use of fireworks is addressed in the criminal statutes of Minn. Stat. 624.20 to 624.25. According to Minn. Stat. 624.25, violations are addressed as follows: 1. if the violation involves explosive fireworks in an amount of 35 pounds gross container weight or more, to imprisonment for not more than one year, or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; 2. if the violation involves explosive fireworks In an amount of less than 35 pounds gross container weight, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both; and 3. if the violation involves any amount of fireworks other than explosive fireworks, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both. State Fire Marshal Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30.2002 www.fire.state.mn.us Page 3 of 6 Questions: firecode@state.mn.us 1 Fireworks Safety Guidelines Fireworks are associated with many injuries nationally each year. The following safety guidelines are offered to reduce fireworks injuries, fires and nuisance complaints: • Read, understand and follow the instructions on each device prior to using. Use fireworks with close adult supervision. Choose a safe place to use fireworks that is far from anything that could be damaged from the normal or abnormal operation of any device. Fireworks should only be ignited outdoors and away from animals, buildings, storage tanks, brush or combustible materials. • Anyone acting in an irresponsible manner or who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs should not handle or discharge fireworks. • Keep fireworks away from small children and store them in a cool dry location away from sources of ignition (heat and flames). Fireworks should not be allowed to become wet and should not be used when dried after becoming wet. Do not carry fireworks in your pocket or on your person. • Lit cigarettes, cigars, pipes or open flames should be kept away from fireworks that are for sale or when stored. Never ignite fireworks inside another container, such as inside a bottle or can. Eye protection is recommended for those using fireworks. Never throw fireworks or aim them at another person, animal or building. Only light one firework device at a time, then move away from the device quickly. Keep clear of any device that has been ignited, but has yet to go off. • If a firework device has been ignited but fails to go off, stay clear of the device for an extended period of time to prevent injury due to delayed activation. Soak the device in water before handling it. • Never place any part of your body, especially your head, over the firework device when lighting. Approach the item from the side and light whiie keeping your body away from the item. • Never relight malfunctioning fireworks. Report any defects back to the seller or the Consumer Product Safety Commission. • Never experiment with fireworks, make your own fireworks, or alter fireworks In any manner (a strong federal prohibition exists for such activity). state Fire Marshal Fireworto Fact Sheet April 30,2002 www.fire.state.mn.us PageAofO Questions: firecodeQstate.mn.us Background on Fireworks Statutory Requirements Requirements for Fireworks can be broken down into two broad categories; Display fireworks -1 .3G (old name was special or class B fireworks) are the large fireworks used by trained and licensed operators and are typical of what you would see presented each evening at the Taste of Minnesota or at the Minnesota State Fair. Possession and use of these display fireworks by state certified operators is covered under Minn. Stat. 624, and Is not impacted by the recent law change. Consumer fireworks -1 .4G (old name was common or class C fireworks) are small fireworks intended for public use. Prior to April 30.2002, Minnesota Statute 624.21 prohibited all forms of consumer fireworks except for toy pistols and caps. The recent law change has added an additional exception to this statute. (c) The term also does not include wire or wood sparklers of not more than 1 00 grams of mixture per item, other sparkling items which are nonexplosive and nonaerial and contain 75 grams or less of chemical mixture per tube or a total of 200 grams or less for multiple tubes, snakes and glowworms, smoke devices, or trick noisemakers which include paper streamers, party poppers, string poppers, snappers, and drop pops, each consisting of not more than twenty-five hundredths grains of explosive mixture. The use of items listed in this paragraph is not permitted on public property. This paragraph does not e thorize the purchase of items listed in it by persons younger than 18 years of age. The age of a purchaser of items listed in this paragraph must be verified by photographic identification. Thus, the items listed in (c) above are no longer considered fireworks ” for purposes of Minnesota Statute 624.20 and 624.21 and no longer require use only by state certified operators. This allows the public to use these fireworks without a permit and without a certified operator. Fireworks not included in this new language still fall under the requirements for a permit and certified operator. All consumer fireworks sot J in the US must meet the requirements of the three main federal governme it agencies that control fireworks: (1) The Consumer Product Safety Commission in 16 CFR 1500 and 16 CFR 1507 provides standards for the safe construction, labeling iind performance of fireworks (i.e. prevention of accidental ignition or tipping during use). The CPSC also enforces a list of prohibited fireworks such as M-80’s and others. (2) The Dennrtment of Transportation 49 CFR 170-173 defines consumer 1.4G fireworks and contains requirements for transportation, labeling and shipment of fireworks. The DOT adopts by reference American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) Standard 87-1 Standard for Construction and Approval For Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties, and Theatrical Pyrotechnics. This is the main document that defines different types of fireworks, their allowable composition (weight of chemical composition) and construction. (3) Finally, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms enforces requirements relating to the explosives nature of fireworks [27 CFR 55], such as separation distances for storage and manufacturing. state Fire Marshal Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30, 2002 www.fire.state.mn.us Page 5 of 6 Questions: firecode@state.mn us Information for retailers of fireworks Here is a summary of information relating to retail sale of fireworks in Minnesota: Retailers should check with the local governmental entity where sales are contemplated for any additional requirements that may apply (i.e. business licenses, zoning or permits). No permit or license is necessary from the State Fire Marshal Division for sale, possession or use of fireworks exempted from Minnesota Statute 624.20, although one my be required locally. Strict adherence to state fireworks laws, especially Minn. Stat. 624.20 (c), is encouraged and expected. Operating outside the exception provided by Minn. Stat 624.20 (c) for sale, possession and use of fireworks is addressed in the criminal statutes of Minn. Stat. 624.20 to 624.25. According to Minn. Stat. 624.25, violations are addressed as follows: Any person violating the provisions of sections 624.20 to 624.24 may be sentenced as follows: 1. if the violation involves explosive fireworks in an amount of 35 pounds gross container weight or more, to imprisonment for not more than one year, or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; 2. if the violation involves explosive fireworks in an amount of less than 35 pounds gross container weight, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both; and 3. if the violation Involves any amount of fireworks other than explosive fireworks, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both. Purchasers of legal fireworks must be at least 18 years old. Minn. Stat. 624.20 (c) requires that retailers verify age though presentation of photographic identification by the purchaser. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code is adopted statewide and has provisions relating to fireworks. Retailers are encouraged to be familiar with the requirements in the Fire Code since they apply to legal fireworks. Smoking is not allowed in areas used for retail sale or storage of fireworks [reference: MUF C (1998) Section 1109.4.1). There are no provisions in the new language of Minn. Stat. 624.20 (c) that limit or prohibit advertising or mail order sales for legal fireworks. Permitted advertising and mail order sales, however, are limited to fireworks legalized by Minn. Stat. 624.20 (c) since other fireworks are still not legal for personal sale, possession or use. State Fire Marshal Fireworks Fact Sheet April 30,2002 www.rire.8tate.mn.us Page 6 of 6 Questions: firecodeQstate.mn.us 1 .Ill i City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Fee: $50.00 Date Received: Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit Application At!•V> ADDlkanrlafomiaUQa £r ' J Applicant Name: Business Name:. Address: City, State, Zip:. Phone #:Ceil Phone#: Emergency Phone #: State License#:__ fco.Aiibltea«tl«tortiMW6ii^•.>;•i • » Applicant Name: Business Name:. Address: City, State, Zip:. Phone #:Cell Phone#: Emergency Phone #:_________________________________ f • V Owner Name: Business Name: Business Address: Cit.v. State, Zip:__ Home Address: _ Phone#: __Cellphone#: Emergency Phone #: Fire Service Area: Long Lake Fire Department Mound Fire Department Wayzata Fire Department Sales of Fireworks Details ^ ' V t V- ■ * Date(s) of Sales: Hours of Sales: Approximate Quantity on Site: Type of Consumer Fireworks to be Sold: Sale of Consumer Fireworks Permit Application (continued) □ Permit fee of $50.00 □ CcMnpleted iqjplication □ Plan or layout showing display location and quantity of fireworks on di^lay □ Plan or layout showing storage location and quantity of fireworks in storage Hal:--?:. X jriSIIWblk^aiatfConsime^^ • Permits and fees ($50.00) for the retail sale of consumer fireworks shall be submitted to the City of Orono at least 4 working days before commencement of sales to the public. • The applicant shall submit a plan or layout showing locations of fireworks display and storage locations. Included on the plan or layout shall be the an>roximate amounts on display and in storage. • Both the owner and lessee shall sign permit application when necessary. • Applicant shall submit to an inspection by the Orono Fire Marshal or area fire department’s authority having jurisdiction before retail sales can begin. • All storage and handling of consumer fireworks shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and City of Orono ordinances. • No fireworks display shall be in, or interfere with, exit corridors or exit doors. • Fire extinguishes shall be installed as per NFPA - 10. • Additional “No Smoking” signs shall be installed when needed. • Off-season storage of unsold fireworks shall be in non-combustible containers. The location of storage containers shall be forwarded to the Orono Fire Marshal and applicant’s fire department service area. This is to certify that I am making application for the above described action to the City of Orono and that I am responsible for complying with all State Fire Code and City of Orono requirements with regard to this request. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the sale ofconsumerfireworks approved by the granting of this permit. AppUcanTt Signature (h»ner*s Sigiuiurc For Office Use Only Review by Building A Zoning: □ Approved □ Denied a NA V ^ • Review by Fire Marshal: □ Approved □ Denied a NA By: . Date: W:5:.P 4--. i y By: . Date: 3 i DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license fiom the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to proces s the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit NAME: first middle ADDRESS: house number street state DATE OF BIRTH:PHONE: month/ day / year I understand my rights as stated above. signature date A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2003 FEE SCHEDULE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the 2003 Fee Schedule will be amended by adding the following permit fee: Permit Type Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks Permit Fee $50.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held June 9,2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ......................— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUN ^ 2005 DATE: ITEM NO: Z/ Department Approval: Nanc RonMoorse Titk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Opposition to Weapons on City Property-Policy Statement At its May 27 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution in opposition to the provision in the 2003 Minnesota Personal Protection Act that prohibits cities and other governmental entities from prohibiting concealed weapons in public facilities. The Council also directed staff to prepare a statement regarding the Council ’s opposition to weapons in city facilities that could be posted at the entrances to the City's facilities. The following is a proposed statement to be posted at the entrances to the City's facilities. Although not specifically stated, Police Officers in die performance of their duties are intended to be exempted from this statement. Because the City of Orono is concerned about the safety of its employees, and the safety of those who use or visit City facilities, the City Council has adopted a policy in opposition to weapons in all City facilities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a statement in opposition to weapons in City facilities. L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 9,2003 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Nine RonMoorse Title City Adminimitor Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Amendment to the Stoiie Bay Final Plat Approval Resolution Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report The Stone Bay final plat approval resolution includes a number of conditions to be met prior to the filing of the final plat. One of the conditions is the completion of the reconveyance of right-of-way from Mn/DOT to the City, for the middle portion of Kelley Parieway and the stormwater pond. Although Mn/DOT has indicated support for the reconveyance, the fo mal completion of the reconveyance could take two or three months. Mn/DOT has been requested to provide a letter to the City indicating they intend to approve the reconveyance, and indicating the time fimne within udiich the reconveyance will be completed. The Stone Bay developer has indicated it is very important that the fmal plat be filed this week, and has requested that the Council amend the fiiuU plat resolution to enable the plat to be filed when the City receives the letter from Mn/DOT indicating they intend to approve the reconveyance; rather than delaying the filing until the completion of the reconveyance. St^ is suf^rtive of *he requested amendment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to amend the Stone Bay final plat resolution to enable the final plat to be filed when the City receives a letter from Mn/DOT indicating Mn/DOT ’s intent to approve the right-of-way reconveyance, subject to the other conditions of the filing also being met. J J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 5 5 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF STONEBAY - nLE IH02-2840 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and \VHER£ AS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter “City Council”) has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by Dahlstrom Development LLC for subdivision and development ‘he Planned Unit Development process of property located at 2550 West Wayzata Boulevard • ‘Cgally described as follows: Outlot B, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; except Parcel 201 and 201a Minnesota Department of Trjisportation Right of Wav Plat No. 27-57 (hereinafter “the Property”); and WHEREAS, on January 27,2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4915 granting General Development Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat Approval for the proposed development to be known as Planned Unit Development No. 4 (PUD No. 4), which approval includes the following elements: 1.Subdivision platting of the Property to create public road right-of-way for Kelley Parkway and expansion of Willow Drive, to create Outlets for installation of a regional stormwater management pond, and to create Lots, Blocks, and Outlets for immediate or future phased development for residential and non-residential uses; 2.Rezoning of the portion of property north of Kelley Parkway to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; 3. Establishment of conditions for development within PUD No. 4; and Page 1 of 4 wfmi GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 5 5 HERE AS, the Developer has agreed to execute the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement which sets forth terms and conditions for the development of PUD No. 4 which encompasses the entirety of the property as legally described herein (also known as PINS 33-118-23 11 0003), providing for the installation of certain public and private improvements, and which a^eement documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property; WHEREAS, the Developer has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City including; 1. 2. Completion of all platting requirements of Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 4915. Dedication on the plat of perimeter Drainage and Utility Eac' .lents as required in Resolution No. 4915k 3, Designation and dedication on the plat of wetlands subject to City and other agency jurisdiction, and granting of the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement over said wetlands. 4.Submittal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approving the grading and stormwater management faci lities plan for development of the Property. Completion of the reconveyance bvMnPOT of portions of the Highway 1 7 riyht^f. way for const ruction of Kelley Parkway and the regional <tnrmwat^r p 6.Payment to the City of Development Fees as enumerated in Exhibit B of Resolution No. 4915. 7.Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat documents, a^ements, easements end covenants in the amount of S200 plus incurred costs. 8.Payment of the Final Plat Review Fee in the amount of $200 plus incurred legal, engineering and plarming consultant charges. 9.Provision to the City of a title opinion for the Property and certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. 10.Provision of final copies of Master Declaration and the individual Community Declaration pertinent to the Phase I development currently being platted. Page 2 of 4 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.___^ 9 5 o ;xecution of the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement which sets forth terms and conditions for the development of PUD No. 4, providing for the installation of certain public and private improvements, an i which agreement documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 4915, the City Council of the City ofOrono does hereby approve the plat of Stoncbay, Hennepin County, Minnesota subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon the final approval and execution of this resolution and the Plarmed Unit Development No. 4 Agreement, the City Council shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone the portions of the Property north of Kelley Parkway to PUD/RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development and to rezone the portions of the Property south of Kelley Parkway to PUD/RR-IB, and amending the Orono Zoning Code by adding language establishing Plarmed Unit Development No. 4 (PUD-4) to include all portions of the property. 2.Upon approval of thss Resolution and completion by the Developer of the requirements set forth on pages 2 and 3 ofthis resolution the City Council shall direct the Mayor and Clerk to execute other documents required by this PUD rezoning, including but not limited to the “Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement", all subject to approval by the City Attorney. 3.The City Clerk shall release the plat documents for filing only upon certification by the City Attorney that: a) all requirements of the platting regulatiorts have been satisfied; and b) the language and provisions of the PUD No. 4 Agreement have been found satisfactory to the City Attorney and has been formally executed by the Developer. 4.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before October 28, 2003 together with a certified original copy ofthis resolution and executed copies of the agreements, easements, and covenants pertinent thereto. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the conditions of this Resolution have not been met or the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 3 of 4 mi GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4955NO. idopted by the City Council of Qiono this 28th day of April, 2003. ATTEST: Lindas. Vec. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instalment was acknowledged before me on this 23. <*ay oi iP^Pnl 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN KRSnRANOeOON iiewwywje«MncaoTA NoityPublic The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ^ day of / 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. fV.C.M;L OCOGE i • fOT;*x<ruac-tr*X'OTA V MyCM»wlMlM»E«p>WJtfl jI.2008 Notary Public Page 4 of 4 ,> i;i i! r' *•. REQUEST roR COUNCIL ACTION JUN 9 2003 DATE: June 6,2003 ITEM NO: 97 DepartmeBt Approval: Name Lin Vee jj/ Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Titk City Gerk Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1. Applicant: Tera Gross Event: Location: Date: Time: Birthday Party with Music Provided by DJ 2635 Countryside Drive West Saturday, June 21,2003 6:30 p.m. -12:00 p.m. Midnight COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to ^prove/deny the above listed licenses. Ir J Jt CITY OF ORONO p:<m Ui'.vrai^SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Event: Time: June 10.2003 Saturday, June 21,2003 6:30 p.m. - 12:00 p.m. Midnight Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Tera Gross 2635 Countryside Drive West Long Lake, MN 55356 Phone:952-476-7338 Location of Event: 2635 Countryside Drive West Type of Event: Birthday party with music provided by a DJ for approximately 60 guests The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Approval from Orono Police Department • Copy of Noti fication to Neighbors The following conditions have been placed on this event: • This special events permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. • A noise exemption will be granted for music provided by a DJ which is played between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. Midnight. • Notification of the event to be provided to the residents on Countryside Drive West, including the date of the event, the hours the music will play, and a contact name and phone number for any questions or concerns regarding this event. • Parking is restricted to one side of Countryside Drive West. Approved at City Council meeting on: June 9,2003 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkwiy, P.O. Box 66, Crysul Bay, MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616/www.ci.orono.tnn.us n i Z3 CITY OF ORONO clMck rtgtotor JUN 9 2003 CITY OH ORONO 0W0SA)31:3SPM Pagal Clwck Numbtr CmployM Nam«Ptflod ClMck AmoyfH Ctwcii Date Chtcii Status 092909 CHAPUT. JENNIFER L 092910 CHAPUT. JENNIFER L 11.2 11.1 $242.49 $69972 6/4A» Outstanding 6/4/03 Outstanding $898.21 r--. ii, CITY OF ORONO ch«ck rtgistor otnsna t:4i pm Pagtl . X Ch9ck Nuffilwr EmployM NafiM Chock Amount Chock Dito Chock Stituo 092903 092004 092909 092006 092907 092906 PETERSON. BARBARA 6 9323.22 6/9/03 Outotonding MOOR8E. RONALD J.6 9346.31 6/9/03 Outstanding SANSEVERE. ROBERT K.6 9269.36 6m» Outstondtoig MURPHY. JAMES L 6 9269.36 6/9/03 Outstanding NYOARO.JAY 6 9269.36 6/9/03 Outstanding WHITE. JAMES M.6 9269.36 91.746.97 6/9/03 Outstanding u L__ _ _ J CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 06A)6/03 8 05AM P»gei MAY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chkf 076006 5/26/03 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G 101-21701 Federal Withholding $9,599.85 G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding $4,324.42 G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding $4,324.42 Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $18,248.69 G 101- 1705 Other Retirement G 101*.1705 Other Retirement To It NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $2,162.00 $15517 $2,317 17 Paid Chk» 076071 5/28 C3 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $2,789 68 Tout ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2.76968 Paid ChJdl 076072 5/28/03 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT G 101-21704 PERA $6.68107 G 101-21704 PERA __$5.191.33 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11.87240 Paid Chk# 076073 5/28A)3 UNITED WAY G 101-21708 United Way $65 00 ToUl UNITED WAY $65 00 Paid Chk# 076074 5/28/03 WISCONSIN SCTF G 101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTF $164 62 $184 62 Paid Chki 076075 5/28^'C3 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION G 101-21711 CreditUnton $10.66500 Total CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10.68500 10100 Primary Cash $50.913 41 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 PnmaryCash $50.91341 $50.913 41 FEDERAL W/H FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE F^aid Chk# 076067 5/28A)3 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST •457 G 101-21705Other Retirement $300 00 DEFERRED COMP ToUl ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 $300.00 Paid Chk# 076068 5/28A)3 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE G101-21707Union Dues $548.16 UNION DUES ToUl LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $548.16 Paid Chk# 076069 5/26/03 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-21702State Withholding $3,902.69 STATE TAX W/H ToUl MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3,90269 USCM-ENTITY 2339 OBRA DEFERRED COMP MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON « 0002756898 SAVINGS W/H & TRANSFERRED CITY OF ORONO 06A)6A)3 8 09AM Pagel check register L--' Chock Numbof Employoo Namo Pay PaHod 052842 052843 052844 052845 052846 052847 052848 052849 052850 052851 052852 052853 052854 052855 052856 052857 052858 052859 052860 052861 052862 052863 052864 052865 052866 052867 052868 052869 052870 052871 052072 052873 052874 052875 052676 052877 052878 052879 052880 052881 052862 052883 052884 052885 052886 052887 052888 052889 052690 052891 052892 052693 052894 052895 052896 052897 052898 052899 052900 DODGE. RACHEL M LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J. SILUS. BARBARA G. VEE. LINDAS KUEHN. THOMAS M OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K. ANDERSON. BRUCE L ARNESON. JOSHUA A. BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCOTT W, BUDIG. STACIE M. CARLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C ERICKSON. KURTR FARNIOK. CORREY L. FISCHENICH. DAN T. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R JOHNSON. JEFFREY MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R. RUSSETH. KYLE M. SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW WITTKE, ANTHONY A HERMAN. JOHN R. LEE. JOSEPH P. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A. CHAPUT. JENNIFER L GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A. MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMAN. LYLE E. VANG.BRUCE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F. DEBAERE. DONALD L GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A. RATHBUN. BARRY J SKREEN. DALE S ABRAHAMSON. FRED W JENSEN. RODNEY W. MARSELLA. DAN G MCINTYRE. WiaiAM E. OAS. DANIEL O PEICKERT. GARY J ROSS. JOHN A SMYTH. KATHERINE R. STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD STORK. JOHN T. Chack Amount $1,020.13 $851.24 $12.18 $456 80 $1,229.96 $1,014.46 $126.32 $47020 $1,050.76 $71541 $769.8: $1,436.93 $625.57 $584 58 $1.61304 $1.71823 $1,528.42 $1.55351 $1.474 78 $14373 $1.877 33 $1,495.07 $613.10 $619.29 $1,601.67 $501 32 $1.162 36 $1,691.26 $496 56 $1,456.61 $1,369.74 $84558 $20942 $1,084.79 $V239.70 $1,398.84 $1,706 74 $64807 $197.74 $1.299 96 $1.37267 $1.01586 $95984 $1.044 42 $680 78 $959 47 $727 64 $1.28903 $1.092 80 $8607 $29814 $356 33 $284 40 $147 93 $293 88 $16639 $89 29 $1.362 54 $22078 Chack Data Chack Stahis 5/28/03 OuUtanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28A)3 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28A)3 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Ou* ^tanci.ng 5/28/03 Outscr iding 5/28/03 Outstanousg 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/26/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 528/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28.03 Outstanding 5/28 C 3 Outstanding 5/28 03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 OutstandJig 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/2603 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Oi!tstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding 5/28/03 Outstanding J CITY OF ORONO 06Ai«/b38;09AM Page 2 check ragister Chtek Nuffibof Employe Mrmo Pay Porlod Chock Amount ClNK:k Doto Chock Stotuo 152.361.47 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 06/06/03 6 26 AM Page 1 1 JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chk# 076205 6/9/2003 1000 FRIENDS OF MN E 101-42400437 Training & Development Total 1000 FRIENDS OF MN $170.00 10522 Growing Smart Conference $17000 Paid Chki 076206 6/9/2003 ACE TRAILER SALES E 101-42110-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip Total ACE TRAILER SALES $4207 11814 $42.07 Trailer Repair Paid ChM 076207 6/9/2003 ACTION RADIO A COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-550 Automotive Equipment $3.413 33 2385 SetUpSqd 198 E 101-42110-550 Automotive Equipmeiit $2.809 38 2477 SetUpSqd 197 Total ACTION RADIO A COMMUNICATIONS $6,222.71 Paki 6hki 076206 6/9/2003 ANDERSON. KRISTI E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $140.00 6/2A13 Park Minutes 6/02 E 101-41300-319 Other ProfeMlonal Services $165 00 6/2A)3 CC Minutes 5/27 To^l ANDERSON. KRISTI $305 00 Paid Chki 076209 6/9/2003 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $109 00 6013-322332 Coffee • CH E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses $11196 6013-322333 Coffiae E 101-41900-201 Office supplies __$1_1040 6013-322334 Coffee-PW Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $331 36 Paid Chk# 076210 6/9/2003 AT A T WIRELESS SERVICES E 601-49400-321 Telephone $12 88 3419397 Cell Phone Service E 602-49450-321 Telephone $12 89 3419397 Cell Phone Service E 101 41900-321 Telephone $2004 3419397 Cell Phone Service Total AT AT WIRELESS SERVICES $4581 Paid Chki 076211 6/9/2003 AUOIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl JM1^2 16359 Hot Dogs. Cheeseburger Total AUQIES MOBILE CHEF $41 52 Paid ChMI 076212 6/9/2003 BAKKEN, LIEDL, JANSSEN, DAY E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $1,110 00 2036 Easement Appraisal - Nelson Total BAKKEN. LIEDL. JANSSEN. DAY $1.11000 Paid Chki 076213 6/9/2003 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals ($80 91) 4476-CM Deposit Retrun E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $60 91 W189469 Portable-Bederwood E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $121 82 W189470 Portable-Summit Beach E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $12182 W189471 Portable-Hackberry Park E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals $60 91 W189472 Portable-GC E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment RenUls $60 91 W189473 Portable-Crystal Bay E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $200 91 W189474 Portable-Navarre Tout BIFFSINC.$546 37 Paid Chki 076214 6/9/2003 BKV GROUP E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting $22,539.11 20599 Navarre Fire Station ToUl BKV GROUP $22,539.11 Paid Chki 076215 6/9/2003 BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC. E 425-48945-304 Engineering Contultirg $576 00 097062 E 602-49450-304 Engineering-Consulting $48 00 097062 Staff Mig 3/12A)3 Tonka Rd Possible Swr Ext ML CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 06^^)3 8 26 AM Page 2 JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress $100 00 097062 $74 00 097062 $1,410.34 097062 $93 53 097062 $96.00 097062 $261.00 097063 CC Mtgs March 2003 Big Island Map-St Names Applications March 2003 Direct Expense Mar 2003 Review options San Swr Hwy 12 SCAOA 03/2003 E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting E 406-48735-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48036-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress E 406-48'36-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48:37-304 Engineering-Consulting ToUl BONESTROO ROSENE ft ASSOC. $306.00 097064 $268.00 097065 $618 00 097066 $1,057 83 097067 $2.02531 097066 $1.663 56 097069 $3,987.10 097070 $786 IjT 097071 $13,370.86* CR19 Sidewalk Imp North Arm Paving Willown'H12 Left Turn NLL Swr Ext-John Makay CR15 Forcemain Imp-Spates Heritage Dr Swr Addn Femdale Rd Bridge Replace Fox St Bridge Replace Paid Chki 076216 6/9/2003 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-42110-201 Office aupplies E 613-49630-201 Office aupplies E 601-49400-322 Postage E 601-49400-322 Pottage ToUl BUDGET PRINTING $169 59 26619 $2.13 26635 $8 25 6^/03 $10 56 6/4A)3 $190.53 Receipt Books Envelopes Shipping • Dept of Health Shipping • Dept of Health PaidChM 076217 6/9/2003 CEMSTONE E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply Total CEvSTONE J974 27 45652 $974 27* Concrete - W Fendale Bridge Paidbhk# 076218 6/9^003 CENTERPOINT ENERGY E 601-49400-381 Gas & E ctric $25 09 E 601-49400-381 Gas & Eioctric $382 45 E 101-42110-381 Gac & Eiectr*c $97.71 E 101-41900-381 Gas&Eiectric $11942 E 101-41900-3C1 Gas & Electric $150 55 E 602-49450-381 Gas $ Electric $1189 E 602-49450-331 Gas & Electric $75 27 E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric $39 04 ToUl CENTERPOINT ENERGY $90142 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 6750600 Gas Service 6750600 Gas Service • I • Paid Chk# 0 o219 6/9/2003 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $197 22 23784 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $58 68 23800 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint Auto Equip $105 91 23802 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $241 26 23812 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $21 00 23815 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $32 26 23826 Total CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO $656 33 Oil, W»g Wag 8192 Oil. Mount Tires #191 OU. Tires #193 Turn Signal Swtch #190 Siren Speaker #193 Oil #198 Paid Chk# 076220 6/9/2003 CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting Tout CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS $3.670 00 4222 $3.670 00 Proj Mgmnt - Navarre Fire Paid Chk# 076221 6/9/2003 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE E 101-43000>08 Contracted Street Maint ToUl DAHLKE TREE SERVICE $5^ 00 5/21/03 $570 00 Change Danners Paid Chk# 076222 6/9/2003 DARE AMERICA CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 06A)6A)3 8 26AM Page 3 JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42110-r?1 Equipment Parts & Accessories $2967 MN-17065 Memo Pads ToUl DARE AMERICA $29.67 >ald Chk# 076223 6/9/2003 DELTA DENTAL 0101-21709 Dental Insurance $1,477.45 37220072 Dental Premiums 6/2003 Tout DELTA DENTAL $1,477.45 Paid Chk# 076224 6/9/2003 DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP E 101-42110-311 Data Processing Communication $37.00 DV03040324 PVC Circuit E 101-41900-321 Talephon*$9611 W03040597 Phone Service 4/2003 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $41.20 W03040597 Phone Service 4/2003 ToM DEPT OF ADM-INTERTECH GROUP $174.31 Paid Chic# 076225 6/9/2003 DEX MEDIQ EAST LLC E 613-49830-340 General Advertising $1,264.45 14685597000Yellow Page Adv Total DEX MEDIQ EAST LLC $1.284 45 Paid Chk# 076226 6/9/2003 EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Mate/ials/Supply $298 71 53568 Signs - Watch for Children Total EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC.$298.71 Paid Chk# 076227 6/9/2003 ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS E 101 -42110-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $1.17996 21402 Relocate Pole. Wall Pack E 101-41900-404 RepaIrsMaint-BMgWGroundt $617.28 31295 Light Pole Total ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS $1.797 24 Paid 6hk# 076228 6/9/2003 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS E 101-42110-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $^2.00 30540 Siren Maint • 7/1/03-12/31/03 ToUl EMBEDDED SYSTEMS $792 00 Paid ChM 076229 6/9/2003 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $67 89 ST052303-15 Taillight #427 Total EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC $67 89 Paid Chk# 076230 6/9/2003 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $12.78 48940 Map Copies ToUl ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS $12 78 Paid Chk# 076231 6/9/2003 G A K SERVICES E 101-43000-226 Clothing A personal equipment $6909 584581 Uniforms E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $4997 584581 Shop towels E 601-49400-226 Clothing A personal equipment $11.52 584581 Uniforms E 602-49450-226 Clothing A personal equipment $34 56 584581 Uniforms E 613-49830-226 Clothing A personal equipment $5 49 584581 Uniforms E 101-43000-r '6 Clothing A personal equipment $64 71 591453 Uniforms E 601-49400-226 Clothing A personal equipment $11.43 591453 Ur.iforms E 602-49450-226 Clothing A personal equipment $34 29 591453 Uniforms E 613-49830-226 Clothing A personal equipment $5 49 591453 Uniforms Tout GAKSERVICES $286 55 Paid Chk# 076232 6/9/2003 OAPPA. GREG E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $1.00 V2J0i Copies E 101-42400-439 Meeting Expenses $1000 1/2A)3 Meal E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses $19148 V2J03 Mileage ToUl GAPPA, GREG $20248 ......... 6/9/2003 dm CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 06mA)3 8 26 AM Page 4 JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment O 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress Total OMAC AND HINCKLEY CHEVROLET $27,231.20 M3187 Chev LD3500 #712 $27,231 20 ^aid Chk# 076234 6/90002 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL E 602-49450-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 601 -49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges ToUl GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $2247 3040610 $2248 3040610 $44 95 Apnl Locates April Locates Paid Chk# 076235 6/9/2003 GREEN LIGHTS RECYCUNG INC. E 101 -41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $113 90 03-6634 Light/Battery Disposal Total GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC.$113 90 Paid Shk# 0 6236 6/9/2003 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $28 63 1557 Lumber - Summit Beach E 101-45200-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $14 46 99605 Lumber - Picnic tables ToUl HAMEL BUILDING CENTER $43 09 Paid Chk# 076237 6/9/2003 HAWKINS CHEMICAL E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products $772 94 524945 Pot Permanganate ToUl HAWKINS CHEMICAL $77294 Paid (bhki 076238 60n002 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $48 94 46424 Grass Seed ToUl HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED E.XCHANGE $48 94 Paid ChM 076239 6/9/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-42110-414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent $1,541.89 23058020 Radio Lease 5/2003 ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $i.Mi 89 Paid dhk# 076240 6/9/2C03 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $76975 1061 Rm and Board 4^003 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL $76975 Paid ^hk# 076241 6/9/2003 HERMAN. JOHN E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $61.50 5/22/03 Cables. Paper. Lens Cleaner ToUl HERMAN. JOHN $61 50 l>aid Chk# 076242 6/9/2003 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $566 82 10300697 Applications 3/2003 E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $745.79 10300699 General Legal E 101-41600 307 Legal-Consulting $714 00 10300699 Rydell Easement E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $861 00 10300699 Prof Prop of Orono E 601 -49400-307 Legal-Consulting $150 00 10300699 Nextel Lease E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer $1.30000 10300701 Council Mtgs 3/2003 E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $83362 10305018 Applications 2/2003 ToUl HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON $5ji1 23 ^aki dhk# 076243 6/9/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $4260 10012273 Batteries Tout INTERSTATE BATTERIES $42 60 Paid Chkf 076244 Mf2002 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-226 E 101-43000-221 E601-4040C-221 E 101-43000-221 E 101-43000-221 Clothing A personal equipment Equipment Parts & Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories Equipment Parts & Accessories ($32 59) 43662 $318 44357 $38 32 45003 $1560 45889 $32 74 45893 Safety Glasses Spark Plug Plug. Filter Misc Si4)ptles Cover i CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 06m/03 826AM P«g«5 • ♦ • JUNE 2003 ..... ^ .... ----------------------Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants $1064 45894 Oil Total LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $67.89 Paid ChMS 076245 6/9/2003 LONG LAKE. CITY OF E 101-42260-316 Fire Services $38.493 00 52903 Fire Service 2nd Otr 2003 Total LONG LAKE, CITY OF $36.49300 Paid Chki 076246 6/9/2003 MCLEOD USA . PHONE BILLS E 602-49450-321 Telephone $3945 6375306 Phone Service E 101-41900-321 Telephone $474.90 6375306 Phone Service E 602-49450-321 Telephone $5277 6375306 Phone Service E60M9400-321 Telephone $47 40 6375306 Phone Service E 601-40400-321 Telephone $22 61 6375306 Phone Service E 101-42110-321 Telephone $203 53 6375306 Phone Service Total MCLEOD USA. PHONE BILLS $840 66 Paid Chki 076247 6/9/2003 MIDWEST ASPHALT E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $666 40 70891MB St Repairs - Main Break E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply $452 38 70922MB Hand Patch E101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $69967 70965MB Hand Patch E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $114 81 70999MB Hand Patch ToUl MIDWEST ASPHALT $1.953 26 Paid Chki 076246 6/9/2003 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $114 01 750757 Medical Oxygen E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals $31 69 RI05030866 Cylinder Rental E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $15 85 RI05030867 Cylinder Rental Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $161.55 Paid Chki 076249 6/9/2003 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC. E 101-43000-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $277.39 113195 Remove/tnstali Radio-Dobcat Total MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC.$277.39 PaidChk# 076250 6/9/2003 MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH A FAMILY E1CM2110>319 Other Professional Services $11900 2003528 Total MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH A FAMILY ~ $119 00 Lab Analyses - Controlled Subs Paid Chk« 076251 6/9/2003 MTI DIST CO. E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total MTI DIST CO. $263 29 354801-00 354819-00 $298 77 Parts - Rough Mower Roller Paid Chki 076252 6/9/2003 MULLEN MARINE E 225-45211 -580 Other Equipment E 225-45211 -580 Other Equipment Total MULLEN MARINE ($70 00) 23760 $5,33586 23760 $5.265 86 Return • Wheel Kit Roll in Dock Paid Chk« 076253 6/9/2003 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS G 101-21710 Life Insurance Tout NCPERS GROUP UFE INS $14A00 6732603 $144 00 PERALHa 6/2003 Paid Chki 076254 6/9/2003 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-321 Telephone $716 60 506573311-01 Police CeO Phones Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $718 60 ^aid Chk« 076255 S/9/2003 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONS LTD ~ E 101-42110-319 OttwrProfeulonalSAivioas S864 00 118272 Pre Employment Exam-Russeth CITY OF ORONO Check Detail RegistehS) 06/06/03 8 26 AM Page 6 JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services ToUl OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONS LTD $8^.<M $1,750 00 118350 Pre Employment Exam-Theisen Paid 6hk« 076256 6/9/2003 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $165.51 206555774-00 Office Supplies E 101-41900-201 Offica supplies $20229206555774-00 Office Supplies Total OFFICE DEPOT $367.80 E 101-41900-201 Office supplies ToUl PAPER DIRECT. INC $29 %• $2994 338131680101 Paper Paid Chki 076258 6/9/2003 PIONEER E 101-42400-340 General Advertising E 101-42400-340 General Advertising E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing E 425-48945-340 General Advertising Total PIONEER $115 42 $29 85 $2587 $153 23 $32437 620 621 622 624 Applications Application Tovier Hearing Bids - Navarre Firs PaidChkd 076269 6/9/2003 PRAIRIE OFFSET E 101 -45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds ToUl PRAIRIE OFFSET $354 86 S1214 Spot Spray Prairie $354 86 Paid Chki C 5260 6/9/2003 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies ZP ToUl PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS $S8^r^ 1903 Herbicide Paid Chk» 076261 6/9/2003 QWEST E 613-49830-321Telephone $59429524739904 Phone Service ToUl QWEST $5942 Paid Chk# 076262 6/9/2003 REED VENDING E 613-49900-093Concessions For Resale-Txbl $62754685 Concessions for Resale ToUl REED VENDING $6275 Paid ChA# 07o263 6/9/2003 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 613-49830-201Office supplies $14365/23/03 Plants, Paper Tov^els E 101-^*2110-201 Office supplies $6485/28/03 Cleaning Supplies E 613-*;9830-201Office supplies $16485/30/03 Cleaning Supplies E 613-49830-201Office supplies $2301 6/2A)3 Cleaning Supplies ToUl RICKS SUPERVALUE $6033 PaidChM 076264 6/9/2003 SCHARBER S SONS E ni-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $95832032833 Belts E 10M3000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories ($48 06) 2032838 Re'jrn - Belt E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $15 57 2032943 S¥*itch #755 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $25 19 2032971 Parts #755 E 613-49830-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $5 84 2033017 Oil Fine' E 613-49830-212Motor Fuels A Lubricants $6652033017 Oil ToUl 8CHARBER A SONS $101^02' Paid Chk# 076265 6^9/2003 STAR TRIBUNE E 101-42400-340General Advertiaing $450 40 12757006 Adv for Emp - Planner Total STAR TRIBUNE $450 40 Paid Chk# 076266 6/9/2003 STEFFENHAGEN, Ki'N E 613-49830-404Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $214.006n/03 CH Well Repair-All Amer Electr i 1 I CITY OF ORONO *Check Detai* Register® OMMZ 8:26 AM Page? JUNE 2003 Check Amt _ Invoice Comment Total 8TEFFENHAOEN. RON $214.00 Paid Chk# 07626? 6/0^003 8TREICHER8 E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment Total 8TREICHER8 $289 49 362633.1 Uniforms-McNidiots $289.49 Paid Chki 076268 6^003 THORPE 0I8T CO. E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale Total THORPE DI8T CO. $169 20 296683 Beer for Resale $169 20 Paid Chki 076269 6/9/2003 TKDA E 402-48032-304 Engineering-Consulting Tout TKDA $3,135.10 $3,135.10 61981 OCBTH12/FOX Street Paid Chk* 07^^76 ^003 TRI STATE PUMP E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $416.1522171 Motor • GC Fountain Pump Total TRI 8TATE PUMP $416.15 Paid Chki 076271 6/9/2003 UNITED RENTAL8 • 8T LOUI8 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $319033168321-001Blades Total UNITED RENTAL8-8TLOUI8 $31.90 Paid Chki 076272 6/9/2003 VERIZON WIRELE88 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $17591003-4585141Utility Cell Phone E 601-49400-321 Telephone $17591003-4585141Utility Cell Phone E 101-41900-321 Telephone $388191003-5922058Cell Phones Total VERIZON W1RELE88 $42337 Paid Chki 076273 6/9/2003 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH $133 13 $13313 4868 25 Car Wash tickets PaidChk* 076274 6/9/2003 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $1500513596 Tire Repair #422 Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $1500 Paid Chki 076275 6/9/2003 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 602-49450-381 Gas&Electnc $21 96 3113009200Eiectncal Service E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electric $28143113009200Eiectncal Service ToUl WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $5010 Fund Summary 10100 Primary Cash $151.312 89 10100 Primary Cash 101 GENERAL FUND $71.91002 225 PARK FUND $5.265 66 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT $4,645 27 406 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE $4.255 10 425 NAVARF.E FIRE STATION PROJ FUND $26.938 34 601 WATER OPERATING FUND $2,219 92 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND $32,610 06 ei3GOLF COURSE $3,268.32 $151.31269 6 infokmahon ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING i , ¥OF JUN 9 200} otTV or onowo- » % * i i t 'h ’ o .................—'-'f\iVI JUN 9 2003 Moodjf'm Inwmton Bmnrtem UIIYurUHONO 123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 Chicego. L 60606 May 22,2003 Mr. Ronald Morse City Administrator Orono (City of) MN 2750 Kelley Parkway Long Lake. MN S53S6 Dear Mr. Morse: We wish to inform you that on May 22,2003, Moody ’s Rating Committee reviewed and assigned an underlying rating of Aal to Orono (City oO MN's General Obligation Sewer Improvement Bonds, Series 2003A. In order for us to maintain the currency of our ratings, we request that you provide ongoing disclosure, including annual financial and statistical information. Moody's will monitor this rating and reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to revise or withdraw this rating at any time in the future. The rating, as well as any revisions or withdrawals thereof, will be publicly disseminated by Moody's through normal print and electronic media and in response to verbal requests to Moody's ratings desk. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me or the analyst assigned to this transaction, Jonathan North, at 312-706-9973. Sincerely, Edward Damutz Vice President cc: Ms. Carolyn Dnide Ehicri A Associates. Inc. i Moodjf’m Inwmmton Wmnflcm GlotafCmWIiVfMrcJk MtMiici|»«l Cr«dH R«Marcli NiW ItiiM Published 22 May 2003 Orono (City of) MN Contacts Jonathan North Edward C. Damutz 312-706-9973 312-706-9953 Moody's Rating lasu# General Obligation Sewer Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2003A Sale Amount $885,000 Expected Sale Date 05/27/03 Rating Description General Obligation Unlimited Tax Rating Aal MOODY’S ASSIGNS Aal RATING TO ORONO’S (MN) $885,00 SERIES 2003A BONDS Aal AFFIRMATION AFFECTS $5 MILLION OF PARITY DEBT OUTSTANDING, INCLUDING CURRENT SALE Opinion Moody's has assigned a Aal rating to the City of Orono's (MN) $885,000 General Obligation Sewer Improvement Bonds, Series 2003A. Concurrent with this sale, Moody's has assigned a Aa2 rating to the Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority's $2.5 million Public Facility Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2003A (Fire Hall / Equipment). At this time, Moody's affirms the Aal rating on the city's $4 million in previously issued parity general obligation bonds and Aa2 rating on the $1.8 million previously issued lease revenue debt. Proceeds from the bonds, secured by the city's general obligation unlimited tax pledge but partially supported by special assessments, will be used to finance improvements to the sewer system. The rating reflects the city's moderately growing, primarily residential base with very high wealth levels: sound financial operations which have narrowed due to capital expenses, but are expected to return to previous levels this fiscal year; and moderate debt levels with rapid amortization. WEALTHY MINNEAPOLIS SUBURB EXPERIENCING MANAGED GROWTH Moody's expects the city's economic condition to remain strong due to its favorable location 15 miles west of Minneapolis (rated Aal), high value residential development and wealthy population, and additional land available for future development. Located on the northern shore of Lake Minnetonke, the city has experienced continued high-end residential development on valu; ble lakefront property. As a result of new construction (historically averaging 30 homes annually) and significant property value appreciation in the city ’s residential base, the city ’s $1.9 billion tax base has doubled over the past five years. A 160 unit residential development has been approved (townhomes and condos) and is expected to be completed wKhin three years. Land for new residential homes (2 acre lots) remain available. The population of 7,538 in census 2000, has steadily increased over the last two decades, increasing 6% and 3% respectively. Characterizing the city, a substantial 93% of the tax base is residential, and seven of the top ten taxpayers are multi-million dollar lakefront homes. Wealth levels and housing values are more than double the state, and the high quality of the residential development is reflected in an axtramely high full value per capita of $255,030. While the proposed merger with the neighboring City of Long Lake did not pass voter approval, inter-govemmental relations continue to be strong, with various shared operations continuing. HISTORICALLY SOUND FINANCIAL POSITION NARROWED DUE TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: EXPECTED TO REBOUND BY FY03 Moody’s expects the city ’s historically sound financial operations to continue given a history of conservative budgeting practices, resulting in the maintenance of favorable levels of reserves. From 1995 to 2001. the undesignated General Fund balance has averaged a sound 41.5% of General Fund revenues. The last two years, however, experienced increased one-time capital outlay expenditures (acquisition of various parcels of land)which resulted in two years of operating deficits. The fiscal undesignated General Fund balance was $1.42 million or 32.1% of General Fund revenues. Fiscal 2002 is expected to end with an operating surplus of $108,000, and while the fiscal 2003 budget is balanced, a one-time sale of land is expected to yield $420,(XX) over budget. Moody’s believes that the city's financial operations remain structurally balanced, with the draws due to one-time expenditures, end that historic reserve levels will be restored by the end of fiscal 2003. Stability and strength in financial operations are evidenced by the revenue sources: 42% property taxes, 23% charges for services and 9% special assessments. As a property wealthy community, the city does not rely on Local Government Aid (LGA), mitigating Orono's exposure to potential state aid reductions, as the State works to close its budget gaps. LOW DEBT BURDEN CHARACTERIZED BY RAPID AMORTIZATION Moody's expects the city's moderate debt burden of 1.6% to decline due to expected tax base growth, rapid principal amortizatioii, and lack of future borrowing plans. The State’s Department of Transportation, minimizing the funding responsibility of the city, is funding substantial infrastructure work on the Highway 12 project: the State has reportedly already committed the money to the project. KEY STATISTICS 2000 population: 7,538 Population increase from 1990: 3% 2003 full valuation: $1.9 billion Full value per capita: $255,030 Debt burden: 1.6% Direct debt burden: 0.5% FY01 General Fund balance: $1.62 million (37% of General Fund revenues) s i ^ V • • * Copyright 2003« Moody's tnvtstors Ssrvics. Inc. and/or its licansors include Moody's Assuranca Company^ Inc. (togathar ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN 18 PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE. IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. AJI information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, such information is provided *as is* without warranty of any kind and MOODY'S, in particular, makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any such information. Under no circumstances shall MOODY'S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by. resulting from, or relating to. any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use. any such information. The credit ratings, if any. constituting part of the information contained herein are. and must be construed solely as. statements of opinion and not 8taten>ents of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMEUNESS. COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of. and each provider of credit support for. each security that it may consider purchasing, holding or selling. Pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. MOODY'S hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MOODY'S have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MOODY'S for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to $1,500,000. m JUN 9 2003 cu r ur UHONO CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 9 0 A RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY COUNCIL ’S OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE 2003 MINNESOTA PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT, AND CALLING FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT CONCEALED WEAPONS ON CITY PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed into law the “Minnesota Personal Protection Act”, in which Minnesota residents, subject to qualification, shall be issued permits to carry concealed weapons, effective May 28,2003; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that permittees shall, with very few exceptions, per permitted to carry concealed weapons on municipal property; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that owners of private properties may post and regulate the ability of permittees to carry concealed weapons; and WHEREAS, the Council is vitally concerned about the safety of its employees, and the safety of the users and visitors of City properties; and WHEREAS, the Council can find no rational justification to distinguish between a permissive provision for private properties and a non-discretionary mandate for public properties; and WHEREAS, the Council agrees in concept with the failed amendment to the House File that would have allowctJ public facilities, such as city halls, parks, and recreation centers, to prohibit concealed weapons on the premises. NOW TH EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that it is opposed to the section of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act relating to rights to carry concealed weapons on public property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council state its support for measures that will allow cities to post “No weapons in city hall or on city-owned properties ”. Page 1 of2 iL GlTYof ORONO «8H^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 9 0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held May 27,2003. ATTEST: Linda S. V'ee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of2 W"m i' »'S«" • • • ^ Ot! Uk0 AA/MHetoM/v Mayor Jerome R Rockvam 471.9515 Councllmambers Joanna E.Wldmer 471-9429 Jacalyn Stone 471-7856 Jeff Hoffman 471-1270 Bruce Williamson 471-1029 Administrator Bill Weeks 471-9051 June 6,2003 Stephanie Christiansen Regional Environmental Management Division MN Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Re:NPDES /SDS Permit No. MN0066648 Former Advance Machine Company Spring Park Dear Stephanie, Regarding written comments on your intent to issue the above permit for construction of a ground water recovery well and treatment facility in the City of Spring Park, the City responds as follows: A) You propose to grant Nilfisk-Advance, Inc. a permit to construct a pump and treat system to address trichloroethene ground water contamination from past activities at the former Advance Machine Co. at 4080 Sunset Drive, Siting Park. The site has been sold and completely redeveloped with 25 town homes (West Arm Townhomes) on the shore of Lake Minnetonka. B) The proposed discharge of treated ground water wilt be continuous at an average flow of 28,000 gallons per day, directly into West Arm Bay of Lake Minnetonka for a term of approximately 5 years. The City of Spring Park has several questions and concerns which include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: 1 . The typical history of this type of contamitUii!on and success of this treatment and the predictable outcome at tliis particular location. The geology of this location as it relates to the probable extent of the contamination. The strength, concentration and severity of this chemical. How the monitoring procedure is conducted and it*s frequency. 2. 3. 4. CT/jSy of Spring PorK 4349WARREN AVENUE. SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-9711 •(952)471-9051 • Fax: (952) 471-9160 5. The safety of the treated water being discharged into the lake. In order to discuss these questions and concerns and yet doJ delay the start of this treatment, the City will host a Public Information Meeting on this subject only, Thursday June 26,2003, at 7:30 p.m. in our Council Chambers, 4349 Warren Avenue, Spring Park, 55384. ( We appreciate your participation in this process. Very Truly Yours, WUliam D. Weeks Administrator/ClerkA'reasurer c.c:Daniel M. Pjevach, Corporate Services Director-Taxes/Risk Management Nilfisk-Advance, Inc. 14600 21" Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447-3408 Rick Jolley MPCA 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Paul D. Josephson, P.E. Wenck Associates, Inc 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P O Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Larry Odell Right of Way & Special Projects HCRRA 417 North 5* Street, Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362 5 r* f T i John Evans Enviionmentalist/Environmental Protection Div. Dept, of Environments! Services 417 North 5* Streer Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397 \ Andrew Leith Environmentalist/Environmcntal Protection Div. Dept of Environments Services 417 North 5*^ Street Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397 LMCD 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deq>haven,MN 55391 MCWD 18202 Miimetonka Blvd. Deephaven,MN 55391 West Arm Town Home Residents City of Minnetrista 7701 County Road HOW Minnetrista, MN 55364 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 CityofOrono POEcx66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Sec/wdw • i Mon, Jun 9. 2003 7:29 AM From: Nancy and Evan Anderson <nancyevan@mchsi.com> Date: Monday, June 9, 2003 7:29 AM i ^ 0 . % teono Council Monday^ June 9, 2003 Mb Mould like to BBSure the council that w have levieMBd the plans for the tMO new hoaes on Spruce Place and feel that they would be assets to our neighborhood. r..ey appear to be good coo|>rGnii8ea for very difficult lots, lie are anxious to see the neglected lots uupgraded. Spruce Place is a very short, dead-end street. It is very difiici.lt to get constructic*n vehicles and equi|wnt in and out. Mb uige the council to pa^s both propos.^Ii* so that the construction can go on on both properties at the save tise and not have to have ou: litt.,e street in havoc for Bore months than necessary! Nancy and Bvan Anderson 1260 Spruce Place Blaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Pla%..< V':