The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-15-2002 Planning PacketPublic A ttendance Meeting D ate □ C ouncil Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please hll out niE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAIVIE (please print) ADDRESS 1. tl ^ c ~) L3KC LO 2. J >/y>jLr li'VV., tiJC/'vw Oa . i' NAME OR NUMBER 3. nr tHi\.i^tv, Cii\v.'i-j. A' -«t7 (^ui. 4.73^ ^ACV»(.6v^ft«o g2- Zl'lA' . .^ t f C'A-C V / J.J C' **J C '' ^ «■ Loi; 7. {»i V y iiev-ziK S>vc-'i D j: nCt ,^u / I mi ^_____*4 C ^ Kj*^V:oA.'r«rA^ ( ■L-rr’5 a - 211C ! /v !<4^'t /rr ->n^ r.•>• .y , / '^rw /,rv ^ S 5 .■ 9. 10.. 11. 12. 13.. 14.. 15. X: J>mi AdWlnkraUtt Smp^Mfmwm OM) FORMS FVBUC.ATT A fi ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday April 15,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Richard Flint AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the May 13, 2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted bv the Chair. CONSENT 1. 02-2770 David and KathrvTi Biek, 4675 Creekwood Trail, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. 02-2774 Mark Crec, 3120 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Pcmiit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) jj. 02-2767 Stonegate Farm, Inc., 2940 County Road 6, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) NEW BUSINESS 4. 02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, 4480 Watertown Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 02-2772 Jolin and Donna Crotteau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North, Variances (StafT' Paul Weinberger) 6. 02-2773 Kurt and Mary Rakos, 2175 Shevlin Drive, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 7. 02-mS Temple Israel, 645 Tonkawa Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 8. 02-2778 Manley Brothers Construction, 1973 Eagerness Point Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 PM 9. 02-2771 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 W. Wayzata Blvd., Planned Development, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Staff: Mike GaHron) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW id. 02-2768 Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive West, Sketch Plan Review (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings March 25,2002 and April 8,2002. 12. Other issues for discussion. 13. Planning Commission approval of minutes for March 18,2002. 14. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on April 22,2002 and May 13,2002. ADJOURNMENT • ‘ -( 1 MEDINA H. leoo, I .4(10 l<At1 O J V 'A-1 hi T<- V v^c ttoo piyMo?ft? ti/'C W \ s ■400 > V A4O0 4000 I • ■■■■ • ■■■■ i 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 •2400 t200 800 400 :y of Orono, Minnesota et Numbering Index Map UTTsiiE north gjLy.iKg— Mr* t Bto ic#t n,»ft5 f, ifta pf i.ffi »,m44 xp^ y A^t.rf44 !«.•«« t^k au&2t.M4 kAA. ir.iSIf 4m. . ’ V ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday April 15,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative; Richard Flint AUDIKNCK MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the May 13, 2002 City' Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 02-2770 David and Kathryn Biek. 4675 Creekwood Trail, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bollcnberg) 2. 02-2774 Mark C»’ec, 3120 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Buttenberg) 3 02-2767 Stonegale F-ann, Inc., 2040 County Road 6, Conditional Use Pcnnit (Staff; Paul Weinberger) NEW BUSINESS 4. 02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, 4480 Watertown Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 5. 02-2772 John and Donna Crottcau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North, Vananccs (Staff Paul Weinberger) 6 02-2773 Kurt and Mary Rakos, 2175 Shevlln Drive, Variance (Staff: Wendy Botlenberg) 7. 02-2775 Temple Israel, 645 Tonkawa Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinbciger) 8 02-2778 Manley Brothers Construction, 1973 Eagerness Point Road, V^ariances (Staff Paul Weinoerger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 PM 9. 02-2771 Orono /\mbar, LLC, 2060 W. Wayzata Blvd., Planned Development, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Staff Mike Gaffron) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 10 02-2768 Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive West, Sketch Plan Review (Staff F'aul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION C OMMENTS 11. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings March 25, 2002 and .^pnl 8, 2002. 12. Other issues for discussion. 13. Planning Commission approval of minutes for March 18.2002. I .1 C-l. ( TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsf, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 10. 2002 #02-2770 David & Kathryn Biek 4675 Creekwood Trail Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre) 83,029 s.f.( 1.9 acre) Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits A Application B Description of Request C Elevations/Floor Plan D Survey E Septic Memo F Septic Report G Photo of Property H Plat Map I Property Owner ’s List J Sample Restrictive Covenant Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (F): Accessoiy Buildings-Plumbing; Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed onh in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. Application Summary: The applicants have applied for a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building. The accessory building will be used as a “pool house". It will be located next to the pool, 18’ x 26’ in size, and behind (south) the existing residence. The pool hou.se will include a bath room with sink, toilet and shower. I he pool house w ill contain a half-bath, bar sink, dressing room, and a sitting 'eating area. The pool house will be built on a 18’ X 26’ concrete pad that the applicant received a permit to build from the City of Orono in May of 2001. The property is located in the RR-1 A zoning district. The City of Orono allows for the provision of plumbing in accessory buildings that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub. The accessory building is required to be conforming in location, size, and height. The accessory building will conform to location, size and height requirements set by code. Septic: The existing septic system was built for a 5 bedroom residence, installed in October 1994, and is up to code. The “pool house” is not adding bedroom, and septic inspector Matt Bolterman has concluded that the existing septic system is adequate. »02-2770 DavidXathiyn Bick 4675 Creekwood Trail Conditional Use Permit 4/10'2002 Page I Items for Discussion: I. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be deuimental to the neighborhood? 2. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the intended use as a pool house? 3, Does the property owner confirm acceptance of the restrictive covenant to be placed on the chain of title placing conditions on the accessory building? (See Exhibit J, which contains the standard limitations for such use on page 2). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for property located at 4675 Crcckwood Trail based on the structure meets the requirements established by the Municipal Code for an “accessory structure with plumbing" CUP subject to the following condition: The property owner files the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for an accessory building with plumbing. «02-2770 DavidXathryn Biek 467S Creekwood Trail Conditional Use Permit 4/10/2002 Page 2 » • Application U 02-^77O Date Received S’20~oz Amount Paid ^/7S' CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address T1g-A\L Type of Application to be Filed CCNptnoNAL o-^E pcic. poouKg u^^. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) UOT S, l^Loc-K. I, PA/NTEKS , rteidMEpiNl Cou^itV, i hiHe^OTA . APPLICANT Phone (home) 15 2 - 4 T4 -Tfo y Name Atop 14ATHR.VNJ •6>1EX» ____ Phone (work) 95^-74x~ mc>7 Address *fC>7S Cff.efcK.i«Jooi> city CW.CNQ________Zip 5535*? OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired 3~*-€a**-*>**^ ________________ I (do) ^0^0^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request wth CUP application y, $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____S250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining Aalls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month'year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation )\tth Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #2770 DLB: Jp (264262) 03/19/02 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY DAVID AND KATHRYN BIEK FOR BACKYARD POOL HOUSE 5 1. Property Address: 2. Legal Names of Owners of the Property: 3. Project Description: 4. Structure Drawings: 6. Certificate of Survey. 6. Certified Property Owners List 7. Topographic Survey: 4675 Creekwood Trail Orono, MN 55359 (952) 476-7905 (home) (952-742-4767) (office) David L. Biek (husband) Kathryn L. Biek (wife) We want to build a one-story, screened pool house adjacent to our backyard swimming pool. It will have cedar siding and an asphalt shingled roof. It will also contain a half-bath, bar sink, dressing room, and sitting/eating area. The pool house is to be built on a 26 foot X 18 foot concrete pad with rough-in plumbing and electrical power that was constructed in Summer 2001 with the permission of the City of Orono. See the attached plan, elevation, and perspective drawings for the proposed pool house structure. See the attached Certificate of Survey from the 1994 construction of our house that was approved by the City of Orono as the site plan for the 2001 contruction of our swimming pool. We have drawn In the site location for the pool house. This Certificate of Survey contains the legal description of our property. See the attached certified list and plat map from the Hennepin County Department of Finance for all property owners within 350 feet of our property line. The concrete pad for our pool house is already in place, and we do not anticipate making any land alterations involving changes in elevation. fr £ ’ III {0 KI O i 4«^cn OrepoM POOLNOUtt OMkwoodTraN MNsesse USA London NW11 7XE til: ♦4420 MSS 1804 iDM-UiMulLOOm DrudnoTli VIEW OP POOL HOUSE JBb« D* 20MW PLANNM6 07 N.T.a r1 cn V.o C4 e M a M: «o I •• |S IS o IM O •4 01 o :« •I ■ I M rt 6o5 0 01 28 ’-<r V4T 26*-<r T-(r *o *L» » M 8D 2:m o M O o»o 1!Sr»• g -a 6 lOs London NW11 7XE M: «44 ao MSS 1864 ROOF PLAN Job# 20Mir2 .tty. Son* 1M*at'-(r PLANNM6 02 rl 6 Oo M M o O JO o ASmALT SHMGtJ MOF « CH s o M 0 01 s ! 01 PAIKrTED\AK)OOTRM INSECT SCREEN N PAiKTED WOOD FRAME CE0ARSI09IG o 0crc 1m r» K m B A S OOONO IKM)L NOUM JMNiBMOMign DraMnQTHt 4e70CrMkwoodTral SAimuns Pitot NORTH ELEVATION OranoMN56350 USA London NW117XE f Mt-*44 20 84561004 roM.bitt(#uk.oom Job# 20 Mir I »PLANNN6 03 o eo o o a w s O M O •4mo •4 m 0 ITr: 1 i/i (-* Man 9 1»«- B is ' ^ c; o OmilOPOOLHOUSi 4675 OrMkwood Tral OrohoMN 86399 USA f I Jtmw BI9 OMign 5AamuraPiac« LAndonNWII 7XE M; 444 20 64561864 lOMlMcVukAom OrwringTUs SOOTH BJEVATION Jab#II 20Mv2 1/4^ . 1*^ PLANNING 05 IT s ooa o c t. * (. V, r Ul Xo o tn &4 T i: o o “4 Oo -si xsn trc tfi bc CD O i-D 9 -1 9 9 Or-o V,ao o4mo POOL House 4S7S OMkwood TraH OranoMNOSSSe U8A JniM BM DMign 5A«nun«Ptoca LondunNWiI 7XE tai: 444 20 64551864 ross.blel(Oui(.oom drawing TIte EAST ELEVATiOH Job#0201 D«k»20 Mar 2002 PLANMNG 06 J Scaio i/4’-r-<r rn SI oc. •s4 il:: DO -^1 —\ Vo r-» I asphalt shingle roof mm !',.-1.i;.> ••• r 4\ mi Jsirtvr^t .g^.*W ./. ♦ •»■ «'-;'j..'7:-.'. ,* «. .' • \. • I t f PAINTED WOOD TRIM INSECT SCREEN IN PAINTED WOOD FRAME aOAR SIDING PAINTED WOOD FRENCH DOORS cn 'v o OJ o ro o* p<a T1 £ o roi o -4 CD o•a os cn (t r* K D O •-% P g Os o •V! OMONO POOL HOUSE Jrnnm BWi Dwign Drawing TTte Job* 0201 F ! 4675 OrMkwood TraH OronoMN553SS USA 1 1 5 Aamuna Place London NW11 rXE W: 444 20 64551864 iOM.bMiOuk.oam \NPST ELEVATION 0«*» 20Mar2002 Seale IM’-I-O* PUUmiNG 04 m e oou« 0 f onmopooLHOutc 1114875 Cmknood Till SAamuntPlaot Or«loMN9S3S8 USA London NW117XE W: 444 20 84561884 1 row.biik#ukooin Orwinem FLOOR PLAN Jab# 0^ 20Mir 1 1^. 1/r m i*-or PLANNiKi r • CR V • o (fp o M • • CR •3 O M ’ cn o , I •I ft■ i; 6 S•I so M 1 /f<y o A t \\ GITYoT ORONO / /■ of Municipal Offices SlTMt Mdrtss: 2750 itelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 HaWag Mdftss: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 TO:Wendy Bottenberg FROM:Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:April 4,2002 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 4675 Creekwood Trail - CUP A new mound septic system was installed in 1994 for this property. The mound and alternative sites arc sized for a five bedroom home. All water from pool house and main house shall go into the septic system. The e.xisting mound and two alternative sites are located near the south property line. 1 recemmend the application be approved in regards to septic concerns for the new pool house. TdephoM (952) 249-MM • Fax (952) www.dMmiojan.us r SFPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Address: 4675 Creckwood Tr. PID: 30-118-23 33 0007 Building Type: residence BRs Install'd for: 5 In Musa: No Permit#: 6173 Date of Permit: 6/14/94 Installer: Hayes Exc. System Type: mound Experimental: no Appliances: Indry.dshw, f SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 1 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: 1300, 1300, 1300 Cesspool: no DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: 68 # Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 96*41 Type of Filter: rock.clean sand Soil Boring: yes Tile Size: 1.5 Under Tile: 9 Perc Rate: 27.8 Setback DF-Bldg: 100 DF Ht above Wt: 3 Soil Type: loam, clay loam Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 75 Pump Type: subm. Well-DF: 150+ Report in File yes Depth: 167 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled INSPECTION RECORD PUMPOUT RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS installation 1 12/30/99 2000 no surfacing-water entering tankjeaking I no surfacing-pump tanks I no surfacing.secure pump tank cover 1 10/27/94 4/18/96 4/27/99 6/25/01 /« '■ • / V / '. ' / ♦ V / , ( •% *• * > ‘^4 v'V' ; • I'ly 0/ 1 wif ^ / ..t,i-i > **: .-f'.vri.r • * /'V r I' ' ^jiii^ .A ^ mi0|| mm '■i ■ RUN DATE 03/12/02 BATCH S02 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATlON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR CMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO 30-118-23 33 OOOA 04700 CREEKWOOD TR J VERNOR V 8 J P VCRNOR JEAN P 8 JAMES VERNOR V 4700 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55350 38 30-118-23 33 0007 04475 CREEKWOOD TR DAK 8IEK DAVID 8 KATHRYN BIEK 4475 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 30-118-23 33 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PAINTERS WOODS HMOWNRS ASSOC PAINTERS WOODS HMOWNRS ASSOC 4750 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0004 04440 WATERTOWN RD H W 8 S E LURTON N W LURTON 8 S E LURTON 3135 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55354 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3 38 30-118-23 33 0005 04480 CREEKWOOD TR J F 8 V M O'NEILL JAMES F O'NEILL 4480 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 30-118-23 33 0004 04450 CREEKWOOD TR K P DJORK 8 L S BJORK KEVIN P 8 LORI S DJORK 4450 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 30-118-23 33 0008 04745 CREEKWOOD TR D A STORDAHL 8 N L STORDAHL DAVID A 8 NANCY STORDAHL 4745 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 30-118-23 33 0009 04785 CREEKWOOD TR L W UNDERHILL/M L UNDERHILL LONNIE W/MARSHA L UNDERHILL 4785 CREEKWOOD TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0002 04745 WATERTOWN RD DENNIS GENE ESTERLY DENNIS GENE ESTERLY 4745 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0005 04720 WATERTOWN RD M T MEHAFFEY ACM MEHAFFEY MILES T/CATHERINE M MEHAFFEY 4720 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS <hPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AMD TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS or THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION« TO THE MST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE #2770 h CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this ________, 2002, by________________________ _____ day of (husband and wife), (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building on property in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: ♦♦•Legal Description (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, 'limited wastewater plumbing’ for purposes of this Covenant shall include all interior wastewater piping and fixtures; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants' application and have found that the building proposed for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing has met the standards established within Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F) of the Orono Municipal Code to allow installation of limited wastewater plumbing; and WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B), specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B) allows issuance of a permit for installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building conditioned upon the e.xeculion of this Covenant and its filing in Applicant's chain of title; and WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an interest in the subject property, the Applicants are required to provide title information to City staff as requested. All parties with an interest in this property shall sign this covenant. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Applicants' request for installation of limited wastewater plumbing within the accessory' Page 1 of 4 2. 3. 4. building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property is approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. The following conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater plumbing: The accessory building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City code. The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a Guest House conditional use permit is obtained from the City. C) The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by their signatures upon this document. CITY OF ORONO: By: Its Mayor By:. Its City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________, 2002, by ___________________________ . the dav of __and and Page 2 of 4 1 of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public APPLICANT(S): By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________, 2002, by ______________________ day of £md (husband and wife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public FEE OWNER(S): By:. By: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) Page 3 of 4 L J STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________, 2002, by day of and husband and wife) as their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 10,2002 «02-2774 Mark Cree 3 120 North Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 83.029 s.f.( 1.9 acre) Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits A Application B Description of Request C Elevations/Floor Plan D Survey E Permit F Photo of Property G Property Owner's List H Sample Restrictive Covenant Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (F): Accessory Buildings-Plumbing: Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory' building that is conforming in location, size and height. Application Summary: The applicants have applied for a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building. The accessory building will be used as a “recreation room". It will be located on the upper level of the detached garage. The art studio and gym will be used for personal use and w ill include a bath room w ith sink, toilet and shower. I he detached garage is on the rear of the property. fhe property is located in the LR-1B zoning d' strict. 1 he City of Orono allows for the provision of plumbing in accessory buildings that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub. The accessory building is required to be conforming in location, size, and height. The accessory building (detached garage) does conform to location, size and height requirements set by code. In September 2001. Lyle Oman, Building Official, issued a building permit for the detached accessory building. Before the permit was issued, setbacks, hardcover, height and lot coverage by structures was reviewed for conformity. The detached garage was originally designed to have a large storage area above it. Since then the owners have decided to make a recreation room for family use with a bathroom. 1 he subject property is on Lake Minnetonka and is sewered. B02-2774 MarkCrcc 3 120 Nonh Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit 4/10/2002 Page I Items for Discussion: 1, Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 2. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the intended use as a recreation room? 3. Does the property owner confirm acceptance of the restrictive covenant to be placed on the chain of title placing conditions on the accessory building? (See Exhibit H, which contains the standard limitations for such use on page 2). Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for property located at 3120 North Shore Drive based on the structure meets the requirements established by the Municipal Code for an “accessory structure Arith plumbing" CUP subject to the following condition: The property owner files the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for an accessor) building with plumbing. <<02-2774 MarkCree 3120 North Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit 4/10.2002 Page2 M«rk Cr»« - HuSp««(S, Inc. 6i2383959S M»r-ll-2fl02 0#:40w FtwCITY OP WCW 12<'C7/01 07:»)3A P.OC6 •IS224U$II T*P3J ^ flOS/013 F-IJ5 1/ ¥ AppUcstioa P o3. Amount Paid — CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND VSt APPLICATION Type of AppUcaoon **> ^o.^. P. N Jib. .PXD:, — >J6V4»J _______P>««.(warkV b't-W^K T 1.^- • Ciiy 6fafN—-----------—‘>f/^ ? . OWNER (if different than applicant) Name M 4^T-K Loeaiotk^ IN -¥ Date Property Acquired ,. ^ ^ . A & % _____________ uaic rrcjpcri/ .., . ~ ------—-—— ----------- I (do) (do noi) also own tl’.e adjacent parcels of Una. FEES - CONDITIONAL L'SE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _______ _ •« « t i ' Phone Yhemet ________Phone fworlc^ __City Zip fa , — ___________(month/year) 7 $175.00 Residential Accessor/ I. sc $250 00 Institutional (church, school, e*x.) $225 00 Guest Housc/Ouesi Apartments ^ S200.00 Duplex CrediP'Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Induiifial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ----- Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain Grading anc filling • 501 cu. yd. or •'^ote^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' Giadiog, seawall, retaining wells within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule ,• • x " $150.00 Renewal Fee (no chonge from original application) .. . . V*__ AiitnlirAf'nn rf^(?” Aftei-ihe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _ $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (i- consultant fees) ~ $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation ~ $100.00 Easement Vacatiott With Subdivision " $350.00 Rezonlng (PUD - tcfci to fee schedule)iJjU.vvr ixcxuiiui^ VI .w —- . 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ” 5100.00 Appeals “ Other - see Fee Schedule iftr o ’^y ij A 4 ' g»x^*>»»n y (J*rjVi>i^r*w- ^______ 1 • Sv#’ Pu^*4*-*i ’'#* ^ » /// m fOkj. iS 4,^* 4.po«a- «it«|tVt Alv Pnw/# •0« *^Ara-^ I *ii* vf }P:7 -?i'- : m 3-W -kt f '•■ ^ “t-,— £«H# -ACT i»>^^ »e Ma T4^ 0«rr i^ua-Z- 0k f09. . I z A •»«.< Ul.tC i ‘ ?rr*Vi «J I I fc 1 ^ .. . ______ . » r:iir pslfjl ■ ;?a:;. 1^2 ' ! < I ^■©gsF It' 0mm A mm <0 9C 4«S0»«» •f'^~«*' tl*# i^ •*u»y %tm.^r t orA.w ir4. «p- »f.6?^9f p;Hi^4 v»A»t • J%% !•#*M rt%Nt ' / . f f *. V* •4 \ r.* s • • • M(i Certificate of Survey S' %ccm « • V) 0 / CS / fh / •'f/v A«tA« >«oyw. ':.or • 16M Sa 0» •• • € 4’c V» rt '^•O# • M4 S« *^1 •atft.'Sfavt • ’S::s ri r««oi • II.8A: s« ft »* •oM ^ «2* *»'»♦ o» ’«• »*«rl €»*♦ • 1C 63^ ^<H.^ w®l • 93 Ja V Sq. «»vx« «r *•%• tfJLi., jf L^Cn t»L i9.»4) - n xjd^« ® 290-900 • v« n» *9 4 ii ^ «i.iO 900 - »• • 9.^ H i : If , \0t< . ffqm ccypi 4»LA or ratm •><if« qp»« (»:o4) - n • 0 V n ^ - 290 • fJIX.Sfi 290 - 900' - Tan 9q. rt 900 - prqMTty anq • «00 S« fl f V/-/ ' ^ ' o/ o >... cA^/ LECAj. OCSCRIPTiON Pofc«i I. tol 2. B!c€« 4 ond Lot 3. Block 2. CP ySTal 8a f PAP k ascud^g »»ocoted >rtm A.e/iut odjOtMio^ so«3 Lots. occo^d*og to th* mcp ©f plot t^c'eat on t4q ond ot recced *n thq Otr>c9 of thq Rqgtstef of Owds m on<j for sa^d county Mqrnqpm Count/. Mtf^rtsoto (Apstroct) Porc»l 2 Thot port ©f Lot 2. Block 2. on© Lot I. Bioca 4 on© ot Vie«» Avqnut on© Uc*«««i Streak tPoth now vocoted) oM m CR t’S^al B ay Pahh . descnped os Mows Be«)«nmng ot the Norlheest oc mcst Wester’/ corner of so-d Lot 2 <n Block 2. It'ence South easterly otun'j ^>outhwesi^rfy i^e of aoid Lot 2 to the Soulheeste'^iy or most soutr^ert/ corner of 90>4j Lot 2. thence Southeasterly m o ftro^ght line ocross so*d V.e«r Avenue. «»ocote<J. to the Ncrth«estefiy or most Westerly corner of Kj»d Lot 1 in Block 4 .r V30 Crysto* Bor Park. »her>ce sourh*esteri/ oioog the South«esterf/ irf«e of so»d Lot t to the Scutheest or most Sootnert/ corner of so*d Lot 1. so*© po<nt beng «n the North«esterty line of County Rood Number SI. formerly known os Lofoyet*# Avenue, thence Northwesterly otonq the Northwesterly Ime of County Rood Nurrtjer SI to 'ts mtersectKyi w*th a line drown pcrottel wth ond diStont SO feet Ncrthecsterly from measured at r.ght onglea to. the Northeofterty Imes of Lot 2. Block 4 ond Lot 3. Block 2 m soKi*Crystoi Boy Pork, thence .Northwesterly on a lire SO feet Northeosreriy from, meosureo Ct ngnt ongies to. ond parallel w»lh the Northeosterly i.r^es of so<d Lot 2. Block 4. ond Lot 3. B^ock 2. SO'd Cr/atol Boy Park, to the Northwesterly line of so*© Lot 2. Block 2. Crysto* Boy Porkt thence Southwesterly•qiong the Northwesterly Ime of so<© Lot 2 to the point of beg^nniog. occordmg to the plot thereof on fde or of record m the Ofi'ce of the Register o» Deeds m ©^ for so.d county Hennepin County. Mnnesota /■' (Torrens) / Sublet to Easements of record if ©ny. V*' ( LECESD • m ««« M< W.4 H« 2MM >Wi« • Dwi«— cpwiwf wvaiw ' * RLK AMOcleUt. tU aiio Mm cifwiw ir ieHw #ita HiMwtwafee. ma> Ml wwiff e< W » wk e Ms I ilrni e Weie 2«. tff7 anfe- . ../ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1 • • • • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 (952) 249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued: P04210 Accessory Structures 9/10/2001 SITE ADDRESS:3120 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 PID: 09-117-23-32 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Permit Class: Permit Type: Residential Building Accessory Structures UBC Occupancy U1 Construction Type VN Census Code ^38 Permit Sub-type(s): Garage - Detached DETAILS: Approved per resolution #: Separate permits required:Eicciricai (state) NOTICES/REMARKS: FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee: Plan Review Fee: Sute Surcharge Fee: S 593.25 $ 385.68 S 22.50 Valuation: S 45,000.00 TOTAL FEE:$ 1,001.43 APPLICANT:Rightway General Contractor, Inc. 42383 250th Street Arlington, MN 55307 OWNER:Mark & Nancy Cree 3120 North Shore Dr Wayzata,MN 55391 ^hIe S TO to ’aLL^^ ^ OF ORONO ORoliAN^^ AND ^^TE ofREQUIREMENTS. in rEESIGNAiUkk RtQuirtd). 1-AppKcant. 1-Monthly Reports. 1-Assessing. I-Finanoe Pagel t' * * ) * •* ( i I ■: ] m!» ' -*1L^.i iMi .;■ •'■• '-‘e • /.•■ii r^-'H '■• x.r.v I, iv.r :--^*S aSa5I» eiU ^tK- * .4 •— 'ISIf'.- ■'^;*-> <i) RUN DATE DATCH 50A PROP ADDR ONMER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 56 06-117-25 61 0001 •5200 NORTH SHORE DR SHIRLEY J HENDRICKSON ET AL SHIRLEY J HENDRICKSON RICK A HINDEH6UR6 5200 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55591 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 56 06-117-25 61 0002 05210 NORTH SHORE DR MARK FINNEY MARK FINNEY 5210 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI655601 PAGE 15 56 09-117-25 52 0006 05090 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J MC6LYNN DANIEL J MCGLYNN 5090 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 09-117-25 52 0007 05120 NORTH SHORE DR NARK U CREE i NANCY L CREE NARK U CREE I NANCY L CREE 6565 WESTON LA PLYNOUTH NN 55666 56 09-117-25 52 0006 05160 NORTH SHORE DR N S WALLACE ADD WALLACE NICHAEL S I DONNA D WALLACE 5160 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 52 0009 05160 NORTH SHORE DR P J 6LON6ERG OBJ BL0HBER6 PAUL J I BEVERLY J BL0NBER6 5160 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 09-117-25 52 0010 05166 NORTH SHORE DR F P PACOVSKY i N L PAC0V5KY FREDRICK P PACOVSKY NICHELLE L PACOVSKY 5166 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 52 0011 05166 NORTH SHORE DR J A f D L ROSATI JAMES A A DEBRA L ROSATI 5166 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 52 0015 05115 NORTH SHORE DR ELIZABETH P VOGT ELIZABETH P VOGT 5115 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 09-117-25 52 0016 05095 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL C HEDLUND I WIFE RUSSEIL C HEDLUND 5095 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 52 0015 05065 NORTH SHORE OR RUTH L OLSON PAUL ALLEN OLSON 5065 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55591 58 09-117-25 52 0016 05105 NORTH SHORE OR T H FRAHN 6 N K FRAHN THOMAS H I MICHELE K FRAHN 5105 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 09-117-25 52 0017 05060 NORTH SHORE DR D BRODERSEN ETAL DUANE BRODERSEN 5060 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 58 09-117-25 52 0016 05155 NORTH SHORE DR R J HALVORSON/D A HALVORSON ROBERT J/DEBORA A HALVORSON 5155 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 52 0019 05060 NORTH SHORE OR L V A J H REARDON LAURENCE V REARDON 5060 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 69-117-25 52 0020 05070 NORTH SHORE DR S J HASNAIN 6 A HUSSAIN SYED HASNAIN/ARSHIA HUSSAIN 5070 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA NN 55591 ■74 56 09-117-25 55 0009 05175 NORTH SHORE DR NIC RUSSIN NICHAEL I CATI€RINE RUSSIN 5175 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 56 09-117-25 55 0015 05165 NORTH SHORE DR NARTHA J SWEDENBORG NARTHA J SWEDENBORG 5165 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55591 f ■f w.-. §i-\ P iy ^ MM DATE (A/tS/*2 MTCN SM PUOf AMW ONNEII NAME TANPAVER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST M RR-IIT-ZS S5 atU •SMB NORTH SHORE DR J R ■ C N AANESTAO JONATHAN/CATHERINE AANESTAO SIM NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA HH BSSn REPORT NO. PM35A01 PACE 14 TOTAL BATCH 5*4 ootiy ') 1 1 V *•, L' c Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEHTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS '7 A •'I CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this 2002, by. _____ dav of _____________ (husband and wife). (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter reterred to as the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessoiy' building on property in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: ***Legal Description *** (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, 'limited wastewater plumbing' for purposes of this Covenant shall include all interior wastewater piping and fixtures; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants' application and have found that the building proposed for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing has met the standards established within Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F) of the Orono Municipal Code to allow installation of limited wastewater plumbing; and WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B). specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B) allows issuance of a permit for installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant and its filing in Applicant's chain of title; and WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an interest in the subject propertv’. the Applicants arc required to provide title information to City staff as requested. All parties vvith an interest in this property shall sign this covenant. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Applicants' request for installation of limited wastewater plumbing within the accessorv Page 1 of 4 i 2. 3. 4. building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property is approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. The following conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater plumbing: A) The accessory building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City code. The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a Guest House conditional use permit is obtained from the City. The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Fee owner's) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by their signatures upon this document. CITY OF ORONO: By: Its Mayor By: Its City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________, 2002, by ___________________________ day of __and and Page 2 of 4 1 of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public APPLICANT(S): By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______________. 2002, by ______________________ dav of and (husband and vvife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public FEE 0\VNER(S): By:. By: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) Page 3 of 4 n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______________, 2002, by _________________________ day of and (husband and wife) as their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 L 3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 11,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2767 Stonegate Farms 2940 Sixth Avenue North Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Application Description of Request Engineer Comments Plat Map Site Grading Plan Property Owners Notification List Conditional Use Permit Required (Section 10.03, Subdivision 19): A conditional use permit is required for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards. The property is n2l located within a shoreland area. The CUP allows the City to notify surrounding property owners and requires City Council approval for such proposed projects. Application Summary: The property owners have requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The project will be to build a berm along the southern border of the property along Sixth Avenue North. The berm will help to screen the ice arena and trail from the property'. Approximately 4500 cubic yards of fill will be required to build the berm. The applicants currently do not have a source of fill, but are asking for approval now so when fill does come available they can begin immediately. The berm will be higher than the trail. Approximately 2-3 feet higher. There currently are no trees in this area. Upon completion of constructing the berm native prairie seed w ill be planted on it. Future plans include the planting of evergreens, deciduous trees and shrubs on it. Land Alteration and Transporting the fill to the Site: 4,500 cubic yards of fill can be measured by the number of truck loads that will be required to transport the material to the site. A typical truck can haul between 10 to 15 yards of fill. That would mean a total of approximately 300+ truck loads would be delivered to the site. The access route will be through the property from Homestead Trail to avoid traffic on County Road 6. #02-2767 2940 Sixth Avenue North April 11,2002 Page I of 2 ■I. i Engineer Comments: Tlie City En'^it»w has reviewed the plans. Comments and recommendations are attached as Exhibit C. Hennepin Parks: The proposal was sent to Hennepin Parks. At the time this report was written comments had not been received. Staff Recommendation: e 7 Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 . Approval from Hennepin Parks (Three Rivers Parks) prior to City Council review. 2. The applicants must obtain a land alteration permit from the city prior to hauling fill to the site. 3. The appli.rants contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for an erosion control permit. 4. Erosion control measures will be taken by installing a silt fence around the construction area upon receiving permit from City and MCWD. 5. A route map shall be provided to the city prior to the start of construction showing which county/city streets to be used. 6. The applicant will be responsible for any damage to the trail. #02-2767 2940 Sixth Avenue North April II, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • . V»A Application # Date Received /C -O^ Amount Paid ***^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / Site Address «a.9V^ dcuntc^ (9rGnn . /DaJ ^6'3S'^ Type of Application to be Filed '^nct QJ-hnuf^ CO/Tcahor^gj USE /^rrmt Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) y/ f • 2 3 - ^ / APPLICANT Name farm. The, Phone (home) Name KLtrm . JTne___________ Phone (work) 95P - 9V6 - g 6 D Address 4? 6S7 dlou/l Dr. City fmiriP Zip ' OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (homeX Phone (work) City Zip. Date Property Acquired f^C&rr)^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use \/ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Gradir.fc, seawall, retaining wails within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 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 #2767 F L Request: This is an application to the City of Orono for a Land Alteration, Conditional Use Permit. We are requesting permission to construct a berm along the southern boarder of our property, which is located at the intersection of County Road # 6 and Old Ciystal Bay Road. The ice arena is located directly across the street from this site. The primary purpose of our request is to provide some screening of both the bike path and the ice arena. The berm will contain approximately 4500 yards of fill and it will stand about four feet above the bike path. Our future plans would be to ultimately plant the berm with both evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs. H. \Jych #2767 i; iiaaiMita F ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects April 1,2002 Bonettroo, ffoiene. AndFrilk «nd Aiioriatei, tnc. ti jn AffirmativF Aciioft/CquJt Oppcrlunity rmpfo/er and CmployFF Owned Prlncipeli Otto G Boneitfco Pf • M.«rvin L Sorvtili« Pt • Gienn ff Cook Pt • PoOrrt G Schiinicht PI • Jerry A Bourdon. P£ Senior Consultants: Robert Rosene PC • Joseph C Anderlis. PC • Richard C Turner PC • Susan vt Cberim CPA Associate Principals: keirh A Gordon. PC • Robert R Pfefterfe PC • Richard W Coste» PC • David O lov«ota PC • Mark A Hansori. PC • MiChael T Raufm.srn PC • Ted It Cieid PC • itenrrth P AncJr'ion PC • Varfc R Rolls PC • David A Bonestroo MBA • Sidne/ P Wilfiamson PF . L S • Aqnes V Rmy VBA • Allan Rick Schcndt PC • Thomas W Peterson PC • James R Maland PC • Miles B Jensen PC • L Ph-riip Gr.ivei III PC • D.*n»ei j Cd^erton PC • Ismael M.vtme/. PC • Thomas A Syfko PE • Sheidon j Jnhmon • Dale A G'Ove PC • Thomas A Rousnar P£ • Robert J De.e'y, PC Offices: St Paul, St Cloud Rochester and 'JUillmar MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago IL VMtbSite' wv Awbonestroc com Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminisirator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Stonegate Farms Berm (CUP) Fill; No. 139-02-000 Pla! No. 02-2767 Dear Paul: • .. r» i v ^ . We have reviewed thj request from Stonegate Farms for the construction of a berm. The site is located along the north side of C.R. 6 just west of Old Crystal Bay Road. We have the followirs. comments with regards to engineering matters: The propo.sed berm is located adjacent to the recently completed Hennepin Parks trail. The plans should show the existing trail and the location of the berm relative to the trail. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin Parks (Three Rivers Parks) for their review and comment. Construction of the berm will create a swale between the trail and the bemi. The plans should include a typical swale cross-section showing a minimum swale bottom width of 2-feet. Swale grades should not be less than 1% nor greater than 37r. Some permanent erosion control measures (riprap, etc.) may be neces.sary where the .swale discharges to the existing ditch along the east lot line. The City should direct the applicant regarding additional erosion control measures during construction. Any damage to the trail shall be repaired at the applicant ’s expense. .^11 silt fence shall be installed prior to any grading activity. The site shall be covered with 4-inches of topsoil and seeded within one week of grading completion. If you have any questions pleu.se call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO,'ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /cTM Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65I-636-4600 ■ Fax; 651-636-1311 S'* \.P yi. j.v. \ ’ ^'*1 .. 'ri ;I V*- *:, _x*'>J' «:r /^ri If”” '-%•4'->» •♦i..^«.|» »*, ‘f;v ‘^V t- r». Vi. ;*Wi ’»*., '-i-^ '^5,.. ■^. ¥V '-^ ^ '»! - * . *«r'0 s’’^v X \ "X ‘••X "'■»*, ‘■'fc. '» 4-t'.-.v^ ,X.„ ■*• ''Xu., X. '^- -I^C >x j- y I-’ 2:1 1 • “ i»» i /^-* '* fc* , u. 4 '••N X ’••- "■'■i ^--tX % PROJECT AREA < V '«=?.'r.7ta:r»’^'‘''’X'-*:s.'../* .J- ■r*'X ^ »' 4.: . ^j.. .,.--..>v.-..t- ’ "*'5'*'■'*• ,*,^|**t,- . * ... .._, . V.. . ■•' '" ,. -■>" •---' .................... ».vr- •'-•■■'•• - ~ - -• y '.■■ '■■ S'-‘- ':^<-rj‘--'t- «'.« I > 7i 1 - «■ • ,.^-.r ' -f' *• ,. .;'nr *>*---•'’5« *• * .. •-.*s' * X * -■r' \ ‘X X. 'X 'A 4 4 A« ^ -^x:r. 'i •.. ‘'X V ' «* . ’ • *' ' ..r' *^i* '*• — ■ "•‘X. "'X ..■■>■ X-••-'I . X ■''">. >ri.* •.V.T*. i- [ V- . .* X *-. _____ ^ ^ ‘A • •■'.t^^-J: ------ ■■s' ■a-------0—-o____ rOsmEMAIN --------Q--------Ch^---- Vv 'V.,.‘X : V.\'\V ■■....r-|i ■t-'-’ XT. •? ^ '■ • •- »■• ® Saj, ^ \' 'v , \> v -Kl ■rrx: ■A . •< ' > .•* ‘ ■ A,'..A./' -.A f .' «’ X ' A» ' - • -F •i 1.- W 4* - ti* > • . -J*% . • • 4 ^ . •• . X ___-Oil •< :../-' V SCALE* 1“ ■ S0'-0” NORTH r'^'.'^TN.- - EXISTING 2 FT. CONTOUR I I I I - CITY DIVISION LINE - PROPOSED 2 FT. SRADE - PROJECT LIMITS - SILT FENCE - PROPERTY LINE - NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED *•• existing contours shown are approximate , additional topographical survey required 202 200 MS l<M. LEGEND P *■ ,«i-*,»/». <np« t#P5 pm»,t ffm A. JS. A ^ IV /1 "PUS t^# m il)i(:A / X Orono, MN .^ • Atljr-a^ ^ i. ■ =. W4 w^a'T*>-^ I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am Registered Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name:Damon Farbcr Registration #: Date: ___ 12338 Signature:Date: 01-158 Drawn/Checked:MJW / DF Scale:1 "=60'.0" Date:03-01-02 Revision:— South Berm / Buffer Plan w m \ \ ,A.\» •Vft /<{• O -Jr. M ;, -* »*> :-i ^. 4a^, W%>'% \ \ * \ ^'- \ \ \ \ \ \ * \ \ \ '\ \ ^"%^fe5')J'\ IA.w# 4‘^-HEX STIN<& TR V,. -!►. ■f- \ \E ’•> •%%\ \ C%,emaiis -< • v. X’Ti* * 4 ITH BERM PLANTING PLAN %.. a. • 1-.1--^|A*r .r'OJWi*.- BIKE PATH 0 &• 10*2(9' Tff BEf?M SECTION - EXISTING 2 FT. CCNTOl - PR(2POSEP 2 FT. ©RAE - SILT FENCE - NATIVE PRAIRIE SEEP LEGEND ••• AREA DISTURBED DUE TO $RADINS TO BE SEEDED INITH MNDOt SEED MIX N ^2^00 Sr / 0.5T AC) \ ■ ' SCAUE= 1“. 10.0" NORTH SOUTH BERM PLANTlt Vv\ • « MM ^ RUN DATE 02/19/62 BATCH 502 RROP AODR OMNER NAME TANPAVER NAHE/AODR 3S 28-118-23 31 0001 02990 SIXTH AVE N ST0NE6ATE FARM INC STONEOATE FARM INC MSI FLYING CLOUD DR EDEN PRAIRIE HN 55394 HEWIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 28-118-23 31 0009 02995 JAMESTOWN RD J ( K SWANSON JAMES T SWANSON 2995 JAMES .TOWN RD LONG LAKE NN 55358 REPORT m. PX9S5901 PAGE 5 38 28-118-23 31 0005 02995 JAMESTOWN RD H « J WAHLIC MICHAEL J A JO ELLEN WAHLIG 2945 JAMESTOWN ROAD S LONG LAKE 55356 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 28-118-23 31 0006 02905 SIXTH AVE N J F HAGEN • S M HAGEN JEFFREY F I SHELLEY H HAGEN 2905 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 20-118-23 31 0007 02005 SIXTH AVE N C R 8 C L TIMM CHARLES A GERRY TIMM 2885 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 20-110-23 31 0008 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED LORRAINE H NIICHEL LORRAINE H NIICHEL NO 9 JAMESTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 28-118-23 32 0001 01150 HOMESTEAD TR FLOYD E BUSCHDOH ETAL F E BUSCHBON 1150 HOMESTEAD TR«.IL LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 20-118-23 32 0002 03020 SIXTH AVE N FAN BUSCHBON FLOYD E BUSCHBON . 1150 HOMESTEAD TRAIL LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0008 03095 SIXTH AVE N JAB RYDER JOHN D A BARBARA Y RYDER 3095 6TH AVE N long lake MN 55356 PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 28-118-23 32 0009 03025 SIXTH AVE N B A A F A MCKEE BRENT A ANGELA MCKEE 3025 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0019 03060 SIXTH AVE N GREGORY D MALIK GREGORY 0 MALIK 3060 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0015 03050 SIXTH AVE N M L KEZAR A M A MCDONALD MITCHELL L KEZAR 3050 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 ( PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 28-118-23 32 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO GREGORY D MALIK GREGORY 0 MALIK 3060 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 39 0003 00795 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD N SCHOOL OIST NO 278 ORONO SCH DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 92 0002 02700 SIXTH AVE N JOHN LEIN JOHN H LEIN P 0 BOX 177 LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 28-118-23 92 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROGER A FAZENDIN ET AL CHAO 8 ANN-HARIE GROCHOWSKI 1265 MAPLEWOOD DR MEQINA MN 55356 38 28-118-23 93 0*09, 00800 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N INO SCHOOL DIST NO 270 irO) SCHOOL DIST NO 278 ADMIN OFFICE-SUPERINTENDENT 600 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE m 55356 80 28-118-23 13 0090 01265 HAP* EWOOO DR CHAO B GROC.nWSKI ET AL CHAD B GROCHOWSKI ANN-HARIE R GROCHOWSKI 1265 MAPLEWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 #2767 ..yvf ^ 4- . <Pir L V. 1. L C L RIM DATE 02/19/02 BATCH 502 PHOT AODt OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 8# 26-118-23 IS 0091 01245 NAPLEWOOD DR J C DANDRON I 0 HAU6LX0 J C DANDRON 1245 NAPLEWOOD DR LONO LAKE HN 55354 80 29-118-23 11 0002 00080 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENN CO PARK RES DIST SUBURBAN HENN REG PK OXST 12415 CTY RD 9 PLYNOUTH HN 55441 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 80 28-118-23 ^l 0003 00080 ADDRESS PENDING STOIttGATE FARN XNC STONEGATE FARN XNC 4851 FLYING CLOUD DR EDEN PRAXRXE HN 55344 80 28-118-23 23 0004 01242 HOMESTEAD TR D E A L C PEARSON DONALD A LINDA PEARSON 1242 HOMESTEAD TR LONG LAKE HN 55354 TOTAL BATCH 502 00022 # Id 7 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORtMTION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TANATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOMLEDCE AND BELIEF. DATE H TO: FROM: DATE: Chair HawTi and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator April 9, 2002 SUBJECT: ^<02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo 4480 Watertown Road Variances Lot Area: 174,629 s.f, (4.0 acres) Appx. 63,000 s.f. (1.44 acres) excluding wetland Required Lot Area: 5.0 acres List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Sur\ey/Site Plan D Building Elevations E Floor Plans F Site Topography G Site Photos H Memo - Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager 1 Property Owners Notification List Application The property owners have requested several variances to permit construction of a new 3 bedroom house with an attached 2 stall garage. The new house would replace the existing house on the property. Hennepin County tax records estimate a construction date for the existing house to be 1900. The location for the new house would be where the existing house is located The applicants have lived at the property since the 1970s, and have used the property as a single-family hobby farm throughout their ownership. The property is located in the RR-1A zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of 5 acres, a front setback of 100' and a side setback of 50 ’. The proposed building requires several variances. /\ review of each variance is listed below: 1. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5B -Required lot area = 5 acres Actual lot area = + 1.44 acres Section 10.27, Subdivision 5B - 3. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5B - Required side setback = 50 ’ Proposed setback = 42.27’ Required front setback = 100' Proposed setback = 53.6’ 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 -To permit all accessory buildings to remain on the property absent a principal building. Accessor\' Building lnvcntor\ Bam 1,072 s.f. Garage 1,378 s.f. Shed 1 87 s.f Shed 2 i 03 s.f Shed 3 148 s.f The applicants have chosen the proposed location for the existing house based on the existing driveway arrangement, location of buildings on the property and septic drainfield sites. 1 he property is located along County Read 6. In 1998. a portion of south part of the property was acquired for improvements to the Road. The area acquired is shown on the survey as document no. 7616078. The front property line is now defined as the north portion of the easement. Ihe new house is proposed to be located meeting the same setback as the existing house. Both measuring 53.6' to the “new” front property line where 100’ is required in the zoning district. Site Layout The site plan indicates the building envelope on the property that could be used for construction of the new house. The property owners have stated they do not want to remove the existing accessoiy buildings that have been on the property. They also would like to utilize the existing driveway location for the house, garage and bam. Staff has reviewed options for shifting the new house to the north. That becomes a problem due to the septic tanks and drainfield located north of the house. Structures are required to be located 20' to the drainfield site. 1 h: drainfield was installed in 1998 and was designed for a three-bedroom house. Shifting the house to the north to meet a greater front setback is not possible due to the drainfield location only 20 ’ from the house. file front setback becomes a question whether the location and driveway access to the existing detached garage is a sufficient hardship to require the .new house to be located to the west. The zoning code would suggest the preferred option for the house location would be to turn the house to meet the 100’ front setback and 50’ side .setback. Again, this option would eliminate the drivewa\ access to the existing detached garage. I he proposed house location does require a \ariance to the required side setback. I hc house is proposed to meet the same setback as the existing house. 43.6’ to the west property line where 50’ is required. The actual setback would be measured to the chimney which protrudes 1.33’ from the building. The actual setback is proposed to be 42.27 ’. The well location requires the house to be shifted to the west into the .setback. The site plan shows the well located off the south and east side of the house. Relocating the house to meet the minimum front and side setbacks would move the building to a clearing in the property away from a large group of trees that provide screening between the stmeture and the roadway. The attached property photos show the screening that is provided to the existing house. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. The Zoning Code lists the following criteria for determining hardship on a property. Below each is some discussion regarding the topic for consideration of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is being pul to a reasonable use because it contains a single family resilience. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. There are several issues unique to the property regarding the lot area. The property was created well before the existing zoning ordinance was adopted. The actual property' was greater than 5 acres in area (including wetlands) when the property was created Much of the south portion of the property was acquired for improvements to County Road 6 substantially reducing the lot area. The side and rear .setback variances are required based on the location of an existing detached garage that is proposed to remain on the property. The garage and driveway access to the building would be blocked by the new house if the new house were constructed to meet all current setback standards. A large group of trees are located between the existing house and roadway. Relocating the house would expose the building to County Road 6 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not change the character ofthe locality. The development pattern of the lot is in character with the general development pattern of the lot as it exi.sts. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight 6 solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the propet ty in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The use of the property would remain residential, which is a permitted use in the zoning district. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. The applicant will not he changing the dwelling status of the property. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property has a large wetland area that restricts any development over the east two- thirds of the property. The location of the well and septic sites restricts the new house location to where it is today. Any requirement to move the proposed house within the setbacks would require a blocked access to the garage. An approval to permit the acce.s.sory buildings to remain on the property would essentially require the house to be located where the existing house is located The front yard setback has changed with the land acquisition for the County Road. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The property is the only lot of its general size in the locality The neighboring house to the west is located northwest of the applicant's property approximately 250 'from the applicants house. A new house replacing the old house would not change how the property effects neighboring properties. The existing building locations, septic sites, well, wetland, driveway, and accessory building locations have required the property owners to request variances. 10. The granting of the application is necessaiyf for the preservation and enjo>ment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property' owners would like to improve the property by constructing a new house to replace a house built in approximately 100 years ago. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrar) to the intent of the Zoning Code. There is no apparent effect to the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other re.\pect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The proposed development is consistent with the intended rural character of the district. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The lot area variance is consistent with approvals granted hy the City in the past. The proposed redevelopment of the property is being done on a property with a conforming septic system and has demonstrated a suitable alternate septic site for the size of house proposed. The question is whether the keeping of all accessory buildings is a hardship since the buildings as on the property mostly could not be built where they are today, and of the current size under existing standards. The buildings on th • site are considered legal non-conforming becau.se they were comtructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The use of the pr. perty and barn for animals is a legal non-conforming u.se. The property would not he allowed for animals because the lot does not have suitable acreage for cattle. Properties are required to have a minimum acreage of 3 acres (one acre for the house and septic, and two acres of available pasture land for each animal unit, one additional acre is required for each additional animal). This property is less than two acres in lot area once the wetland area is deducted The properly owners request continued u.se of the property for as U us currently used. Any variance approval for the acccs.sory buildings to remain would not approve variances for their respective location. 7 he buildings would remain leeal non-conforminie and would be required to be removed once they have reached the end of their useful life. The use of the property for atu.nals would also remain provided the number of animals does not increase and/or does not cease. Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. Arc there hardships to justify variances to permit the proposed house in the location as requested, and to permit the accessory buildings to remain? The property will continue to be used for the keeping of animals. If the accessoiy buildings are iiot allowed to remain it would effect the ability to allow continued use for animals. If tlic accessory buildings arc allowed to remain on the property shall the buildings only be allowed to remain as legal non-conforming structures? The buildings thei. would be allowed to remain until they are no longer useful. StuiT Kecuinmendation Stall reconmendo approval of the variance for lot area to permit construction of a new residence on the propeity. The property has been used for single-family residential use since approximately 1 900. I he property also has a recently installed (1998) septic system and has demonstrated a future septic Mie for the size of house that is proposed on the property. Staff is comfortable with the proposed location of the house it respect to its’ impact on adiaceni properties Ihe preferred alternative would be to build a new house conforming in location. Allowing the house to be located as proposed in the plan would not change the character of the property or locality. A mature wooded area is located b etween the house and County Road 6. 5 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-conforming structures $250.00 Afte--the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address !Sa. Property Identification Number (p'fp.) ~ / larval 1C___*_____i it Appficatioii# OZ-11 (pI. Date Received 2- t t-o?. Amount Paid Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Prope^ Acquire d ___________________" I (do) ^o_>.iiQ also own the adjawnt parcels of land. ~ Present use of propel^': residential other (specify) '7. .(month/year) Zoning District: ^—/ A / </ v/ <T Phone (home) 9^2. .//^(prhy f meu ________ Phone (work>^>/) ^^2^- V ^^Kf) €cl. __ Cixy:/llfioxJn ' 7in CCAc-g APPLICANT Name ___________ Address: ¥</47)' 2ri OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip: D^CRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 2^0. COO " Describe request in detail: o/J /Jc^^e ^jeJA ^e.ti 0^/acT i (attach'Additional sheets if necessai^) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Setback:font Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance Nvith Zoning Code requirements:^^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) niC% I Q.W#2 I k REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information mu«t b e submitted bv the applicafion deadline date in order for vour application to he goniidgrgd complptp; 1. 2. 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'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" 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 yariantt application is noLtOmolete if the above inhirmation has not hppn inrlnHpH APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staft time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trtie^d correct to the best^,pf;his/her knowledge. yp _ DateApplicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE 7 ^ ^ ^ 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 of investigation and^'vwification of this request. Owner’s Signatur Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Date 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 mangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. #2 /TTv 1 Yf y im- y S 90*00* 00** E 582.00 w««t In* of Eo*t 5M of Eo*t Holf. NW 1/4, Soc. % cnSTNC \:hi1 y(XK> \itI ^1 StPTC \tf *=na“ 1 SrSTty 1 «,CXSTMC,^ 1 1 L«.-j :;garacc * «ot East In* of Eo*t fWf.-------* NW 1/4, S«ctlon 31-118-23 288.93 North fine of SE 1/4,— NW 1/4, Sec. 31-118-23 ^ S *(*/•«./Prdin ^..............j..................................................................................................... Doc. No. 7616078 ,1':.%^, Rood eosemcnl p«r ---------^8 .. Noflherly »^oy fino of MCSAH No. 6. Plot 5 '•'*455 “-----a=6?55=4* □□□□□□onoonannaciuuuuauuu » N .1-' JL m •■ V-f-0 m^iAmm wrmrAAm BASiMfMr- IM2f mM fwcm- li^t TOTAt- 6AKA6I- MM 1^ J \ ■ • • & # 4 wm ^V^.-;^’ 'f ■ ■ y*'.V'' / /V'' -a ^1: »• V. * % -X" .-V rtRrV ■ ' *‘V* 4 •% . '. V , -t * h 4 V < I'* ) 0 I ‘ V ^ i ik im 7^, V W'I wi V- ' \ \ ;WF ‘ I' .1 1 1 tS •* j’ ;/. .1L-- ^ •*>A i ly '.yy/- ,t^^' “ •« ^ \ /•/"• 'V ‘ r*^ • ■ . -5^ 5;* (•. • > '^. /1'^< ^ ‘ ‘ / (. Ox'M.V ki'^n ^• % • l^cuse Lt'<r^^’'^ i rj *.*- 'vf . *;;A'-M,- u4Ai<i.L n-:^::^.- ::__.. -■- :>4V'»uiVit^% \ ?%• H ■■■■!! ■III! «lllinill I pr V V V GITYor ORONO // Mmiklpal Offices 7/ N StrNt Mdrfu: 2750 Kelley Parinray Oram. MN 55356 Mailiag Mdrau: P.O. Box 66 Cfystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 TO:Paul Weinberger FROM:Matt Bohemian. On-Site Systems Manager DATE:March 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 4480 Watertown Rd A new mound septic system was installed in 1998 for this property. The existing mound and alternative site are sized for a three bedroom home. The existing system is located to the North of the existing house. The alternative site is located SI- of the existing bam. There should be no problems connecting a new house to the existing septic system as long as it only a three bedroom house. I recommend the application be approved in regards to septic concerns for a new house with three bedrooms for the existing septic system. (fS2) 24M60O • Fax (9S2) 24»-4«16 winir.cLonNiojiin.iit V-^1 mm OATf •2/2I/02 patch iiS PROP ADM OHNill HANf TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADM OHNER NAHi TAXPAYER NAMC/ADM 5a si-iis-25 12 aaia MSaa SIXTH AVE H OAHES E CARPEHTER JAHES E CARPEHTER ASat SIXTH AVE H LONG LAKE HN S5556 3a si-iia-23 2A taai OAAaa HATERTOHH RD T a H SNEEZO TINOTNY N SHEEZO AASa HATERTOMi RD HAPLE PLAIH HH 55559 HEHHEPIN MTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM fkOPERTY QHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35Afl PACE 31 38 31-118-23 12 0022 8A300 SIXTH AVE N RMERT a MARILYN CEHRflAN R08ERT S CEHRMAN A300 8TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 21 0005 0AA90 WATERTOWN RD G CHELBERG 8 M CHELBERG GLEN I MICHAELA CHELBERG 6A90 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-110-23 2A 0012 00525 HCCULLEY RD KENNETH TURNHAM ET AL TRSTE KENNETH TURNHAM C/0 SUSAN VAN MOORLEHEM AA90 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 508 00005 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE>^-^/>#A- B (i) 0) I'''0 I ♦ • * C % TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator April 10,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau 1405 Sixth Avenue North Variances List of Exhibits: 5 A Application B Addendum A, C Addendum B D Site Plan^Surveys E Hardcover Calculation Worksheet F Building flans G Floor Plans H City Engineer Comments (April 11,2002) I MCWD Comments (April 9, 2002) J Property Owners Notification List Application The applicants have requested variances to permit construction of 1) a 16’ X 19’ addition within a defined bluff area, 2) a living snace addition and porch, and 3) a garage addition within the 30’ top of bluff setback. The application also requires a variance to permit the garage addition 20.5’ from the side lot line where a 30’ .setback is required. Analysis The original construction of the house was in 1984. prior to the adoption of the Shorcland Ordinance in 1992. The Shorcland Ordinance also regulates areas defined as a “bluff’. Nearlv the entire 10.4 acre property is defined as either a wetland or is protected bluff area, including all the land in which the existing house is located. The house is located well above the 930’ wetland elevation. The actual house elev ation is approximately 987’. The dramatic increase in elevation is due to the large bluff area that is located along the north side of Long Lake. 1 o be considered a bluff the feature must have ail the following characteristics: A. Part or all of the feature is ' nrated in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25' above the Ordinary High Water Level of the water body; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25' or more above the Ordinary High Water Level averages 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. The portion of the property where the house is located meets all 4 criteria, or is located within the 30’ top of bluff setback. The ground elevation drops only 2’ where the lakeside building addition is proposed. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has commented the proposed additions to the building do not present any concern: from an engineering perspective. Mr. Kellogg did state silt fence shall be instal led lakeside of the home prior to any construction or site grading. The MCWD will also have the same requirements and require permits of their own. A large wetland is located at the base of the bluff area, between the actual lakeshore and the house. The wetland basin covers approximately 5 acres in area. The actual drainage from the house enters the wetland prior to entering the lake. Review of Hardship Bluff Impact The applicants have provided a hardship statement that is attached as part of Exhibit C. The hardships noted are 1 ) a ten plus acre of land should have a practical building area; 2) the present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance; 3) the site does not drain into the lake but rath.'*- to the wetland; 4) topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an addition onto any part of the building; and 5) no addition could be built on the house that would not fall within the impact zone. The fact that the house was built prior to the adoption of the current bluff standards is in fact a consideration whether to allow the building to be expanded. I he house was built meeting all requirements in 1984. If the property were redeveloped there is a reasonable building envelope on the property, however since the building is being preserved with only additions placed on the structure it is impossible to improve the property without variances. The site is over 10 acres in total area. 1 he additions are small in comparison w ith the actual size of the property. Many lakeshore lots in the City are much smaller. A 300 s.f addition, like the proposed lakeside addition, would have a much larger impact on a bluff in areas of much higher density. Any future subdivision of the property would be very diflicult due to the limited land available outside of wetlands and bluff. Any new building construction would be required to meet all current standards. Side Setback The applicants have stated their hardship for justifying a 9.5’ side setback variance for the garage is necessaiy for a reasonable change to the house. Additionally, stvme the hardships noted above within the Bluff Impact Hardship Statement may apply. Stair $ perspective on the side setback variance would be the existing building does meet the required 30' side setback (34.7’ to the side lot line). Any addition that would create a side setback encroachment for the principal buildi.ig would be inconsistent with the development patterns r intended for properties in the LR-IA zoning district. The property is a conforming lot. In some cases where lots are located in other 2-acre districts that have much less than two acres variances have been approved in the past. With a building meeting current side setback standards, on a conforming lot, it would not seem appropriate to approve a setback variance when there are other options available. Staff would suggest the garage addition be shifted 9.5’ to the west leaving a 30’ setback. The impact on the house would be one garage door within the e.xisting house would be eliminated. The actual floor area within the garage would not change. The total garage stalls proposed are two within the existing garage and two within the new garage addition. The property could extend the new addition to have three stalls, meet a 30’ setback and have one within the existing garage. The fact that the proposed garage is attached to the house requires it to meet the 30’ setback for principal structures. Another potential option is to construct a detached garage. A detached building 750 s.f. or less is only required to meet a 10’ side setback. The additional requirements would be the detached building must leave a minimum of 10' of separation between it and the principal building. Sliding the garage back to be 10' from the principal building also moves the garage back out of the 30' top of bluff setback. The purpose for discussion of the side setback variances is to demonstrate there are alternatives available for a garage addition without requiring uw 'e setback variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit residential additions within the bluff setback and bluff impact zone based on the follow ing findings and hardships; 1. The property is ten plus acres and all but approximately 4% of the lot is located either within w etland, the bluff zone, and the required setbacks. 2. The present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance. Any additions to the house would require variances. 3. The site does not drain directly to the lake but rather to the 5-acre wetland located at the base of the blufl'. 4. 1 he topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an addition onto any part of the building. 5. No addition could be built on the house that would not fall within the impact zone. 6. The area where the proposed lakeside additions are to be constructed is relatively flat with less than a 2' drop from the existing exterior wall and the proposed wall of the addition. Stall recommends denial of the variances to pemiit a the garage addition to be located 20.5’ from the side property line w here a 30’ setback is required. The recommendation of denial is based on the following: 1. Any addition that would create a side setback encroachment for the principal building would be inconsistent w ith the development patterns intended for properties in the LR-1A zoning district. 2. The property is a conforming lot. Variances should be considered when there are no other reasonable options on a property. 3 3. The garage addition could be shifted 9.5 ’ to the west leaving a 30’ setback. The impact on the house would be one garage door within the existing house would be eliminated. The actual garage space would not be effected only the garage access. The fact that the proposed garage is attached to the house requires it to meet the 30’ setback for principal structures. 4. A detached building 750 s.f. or less is only required to meet a 10’ side setback. The detached building must have a minimum of 10’ separation between it and the principal building. Sliding the garage back to be 10’ from the principal building also moves the garage back out of the 30’ top of bluff setback, thus eliminating the need for any variances for the garap.e. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3.Table. 4.Other Action. >^>plicatioll# O'L-'l-ll'Z. Date Received 3-2C'C2 Amount Paid ^ ICO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . i . .rv 1 1 * f - . Site Address ktHJfiiM- AJov^U AAA) Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) AS Z. ______________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 3 j LooTm_________________ I (do) flo noil also own the ad^cent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: y residential Zoning District: L» R. 1 A other (specify) APPLICANT Name d L^ratr/zLiJ Address: .go S ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ Name _______ Address: Phone (homei ^5* 2.* Vyt “OlftO Phonelworkl ^s2.- Jt*ii • OSHI Ciatin\ City. OrmuyTs______Zip: Phone fhome1^5Z.* ____ Phone (work)fa>^ 2,Z\^ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ *ICC^OO^. Describe request in detail: 1b butlA uaiH\iA ’rir\Lfvw\A yJiLriAr\Lk LaiVUi/^ vW#_ \q (attach additional sheets if necessary) AiJ^ . VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width y Setback: __Front ^ Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage )C Other (specify) toluPP ^w^p __ Average Lakeshore I I HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prevcntini rnmnlianrg with Toninfl Codc requirements! D\*a A3Ai/\AL)V/t _____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) t( D u 5IMv ^5V\*p u >i\\ tb required submittals Af the infermatioii must_l>iLiubinittcd hv tb* aPPHCttiOP .4^41tPy fatC m for vour > ■nplication to be considered compltlftl 1. 2 jt Completed Applicatioa Form y Certified Property Owners List of owners within ISC, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepm County Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 348-5910). 5 JhlauNivvCertificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11' for reproduction. ... , ... TopograpWe survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existog grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor Sc elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/j" 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 ymir variance gnmnlete if the above information has not been includ.ed. applicant s signature j u .u 7 . « 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 incuned in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true ^ - - — - Applicant’s Signature ue ^ Mrrect to the best of his/her knowledge. D«. Mo OWNER’S signature ' ,. u wi. The ovmer hereby ailmowledgcs and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto die property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes oHnvwtiga^^ and verification o^s request . . 7] Da« __Owner’s Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcanU must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the PUnning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^ 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. #2772 r John & Donna Crotteau Variance Application 1405 Sixth Avenue North Orono. MN 55356 ADDENDUM A ( Legal Description of Property: Hennepin County Torrens Certificate No. 647757 ii (Auditor’s SutxJivision No. 291) Survey: Survey to be provided within one week of variance application submittal per Gronberg & Associates, surveyors for the project. Hardcover calculations will be performed once the snow has melted. #2772 r 1 March 19. 2002 Crotteau Variance Request - Hardship Description 1405 Sixth Ave North. Orono MN 55356 ADDENDUM B Background: The existing home on this 10.6-acre lot was built in 1984. a legal location prior to the establishment of the Bluff Impact Zone Ordinance. With the introduction of the ordinance, the entire living space of the home now falls within the impact zone. The unique shape and topography of this lot, together with the setbacks and bluff impact zone, reduces the buildable area to 4% of the total site (see Attachment 1). This limited area for building a home is due entirely to the distinctive topography, unique to this lot. Because the entire living space of the existing house falls within the Bluff Impact Zone, no addition could be built and still conform to the ofTicial controls. The Bluff Impact Zone Ordinance was established for properties within the shoreline that drain directly into the lake. This unusual property drains into the wetland contained within the lot. not into the lake; this distinctive situation could not have been foreseen by a standardized bluff ordinance. Proposed Remodelino: The proposed remodeling would not in anyway alter the essential character of the lot and the surrounding area. All grade changes were made during the construction of the existing home in 1984. because there would be no changes to the existing grade, there would be no further impact on the bluff zone by the addition and remodeling. No trees would be removed on the lakeside and minimal trees on the street side. Hardcover is not a concern due to the size of the lot. Roof drainage will be engineered to flow into a drain tile system that channels roof runoff directly into the ground rather than running over the lot, therefore mitigating any erosion issues. The Owner's are seeking a variance to make an addition to the home inside the Bluff Impact Zone and an addition to the garage in the side-yard setback area. The hardship of the restricted building area makes it necessary to seek variances for a reasonable change to the house. In addition, all engineering issues can be resolved with no difficulty. Alternative Siting: There is no alternative site on which a house could be built owing to the limited building area, nor an alternative location outside the Bluff Impact Zone in which to add onto the existing house. Summary of Hardships: 1) A ten-plus acre of land should have a practical buildable area; 2) the present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance, 3) the site does not drain into the lake but rather into the wetland; 4) the topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an addition onto any part of the building; and 5) no addition could be built on the house that would not fall within the impact zone. These hardships hamper the enjoyment and preservation of property rights for the Owners necessitating a variance to remodel the home to fit the Owner’s needs and make the property compatible with the neighborhood. .u. o / J / ij it kk oy’' ' oy I ^vo- yy/^ ■ M. 0* • /"■>■'!/•••? •' /!►•-' M N^P Basemen^*' ptr O k.N o . S/9627i ^^7 jEVvVtfxMK i,r6AL 9oUOf«ifA J * /l^'oc. A/c. !45^\ A/45*t x^a..i-V ; .0 ti,‘ •■•*.• ‘f'0* •'L* . *'‘»li*; * •• w* » •*. • •S.;*> ./ ^ • .* /'•f.-V- . W 0 0 . r ’r /'C.v r SETBACK ZO.VE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ C^OTTSAH HARDCOVER CALCtLATIUiN WUKKbHEEl ' 75-250’ OS0-S0Q>500-1000’ A. House •X _«3 5 ‘Zo S.F. •. Unyih X Width m S.F, • X m S.F. ' X _cx S.F. • • • B. Garage X _ • • • • S.F. C.' Driveway X ^Z^^O S.F. X ^a S.F.' Vi D. Sidewalk /A TH X _a 3 <0 S.F.> X a • S.F.a 0 E. Patio/Dcck X ^a € 00 S.F. >• X ^a S.F.k F. Landscape X =x S.F.\ M Underlain X _____ a S.F.Vk By Plastic X __a iF. Or Fabric • G. Other ^X ^3 S.F. • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- -i- B m • . X 100 - • 75-5 3 S.F. 79. €OO S.F. 9-<4^ r» X A V PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Aourte/^ / $X ___//. p f 2€Z S.F.? Length /?. 5 X ___ Widthz • • • • # -/ Z7 S.F. it V ASA/r/00^ 2.tn X ^A3?a ^ // S.F.V X ___a /• SO-7 S.F.X \ B. Garage X ___^ 72/ s.p. s \ AAtnr/s^ C. Driveway X ___~ ? f^S - S<4o S.F.1XS.F. D. Sidewalk X S.F.•• X a S.F.^ ' E. Patio/Deck X ~S.F. •X __B S.F.t % • F. Landscape X • S.F.. (■ Underlain X ____"" B S.F; * By Plastic X B ' S.F. Of Fabric G. Other X r^TAC s 1* //z/ S.F. ( TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____ B X too - f7 S.F. ✓ tf. ^7 * A B I ■iTMTfiiai___________ r CS a - c-.' KA4J caor'tAo *1 **(70Ci.iHd 0 mm**9 •t •• vzr:**x,r:: \ "t*4- •»•; •.;;;: 'c; r: *.v;.w‘wi.-----------..m:^ i ; : r2 i.l : f~ : • rTt- * ‘; ■••*': i 1 -- . — •.^rr \c:VZ;VA- ' :: : :-:t4 :■»%.-. .»-» *« . .r» . .-Kj.j»r»-»r **^»»'»»fr.________ _ .-*>j.j»r I , ■■ .■ ---------------1,.. » , . j, ,-. , ........................... . .« • *• •-» • ■lil■■■■ If: fer 5’i <P' 1 r '^^nPl fitUI>1 -J1 1 11 ' li!?P SOUTH nevATion ______ SCAiC m‘«v^ AKjnitti J2 ’>c>*v v* ' ?r to * * t/ ‘'O -■■) V? 4 *7 HO*^M nr^ATioi* ^ scAcc iM* • I -<r c«oTrtAu»r«oortiws -:s5£“ © «tCriA«tA DIA6RAM SH0J^IN6 ADDITION AREAS #2772 CROTTEAU RESIDENCE 1405 COUNTY HP 6 OmOHO SHAANATT A MACDONALP OtS^H COMPANY 261 SCHOOL Ave CACELS40« %»02 <,.V I ' '*<.*» -i.. r u C- < » t. i* i.. SCALE, wir-v cr CROTTEAU RESIDENCE 1405COUNTY ROO ORONO 6HARRATT 4 MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY 261 SCHOOL AVE. EXCELSIOR }-2(L07 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK 1/1 Bonestroo gjg Rosene mr^ Andcrilk & • |\j| Associates Engineers & Architects Aprim.2002 9 6516361311 OA/11/02 06:53 S:01/01 N0:925 aoitfM. Antfcrlik sn4 Aiitdiftl. Inc. ii AfflnfMiivc Aciion/tqyjl Opp«riun«iy Cfnpioy«r AfM iippiny Owned Arinetpell. OHO Q BnruMirnn. !*► • M*«rvin L lurv.il.i l*C • Oicnn ^ COOii. • ■OPca O ScnuThlAl. TX. • ;c"v A ttotirdon. Pf ftnioc Cpfliultanii: Ruumi \l/ RuttfW PC. • jofcon C Angcfnc PP • Rtcrwtcl C Turner. PI • tui.es M ebmin. c pa AlIPCtaft PflAftpalr «nim a C*otdon, PC • BoDtn » Pftlteric. pK • tirn,rd W fatter. PC • Ojewl O Lotioto. PC • M«^r|| A H;inihn HV • Mirn.«el T 9.<utm.evi, PC • IWd < PiCid Pt • AAnorfh P. Amlefton. PC • It Rulll. PC • Deem A pnnf tirrsit MAA • ticln^ P WilAemion. PC. L S • Agnei M tewj. MAA • AUwt R>ik SdvrhdC PC • TTmkium W errcrfsnn Pf . J.imev R MelentL PC • Mtitl A Jcmcn. Pf . I PniMip Crjwd III. PC • Daniel J Cdgcnon .’•f . IWnAd MAflincl PE • f hr)m.it A Syfko. PC • tf«eldan J Johnion • 0am A Drove. PI • Thomai A ffouSIW. PC. • RoAort J Ocvcry PE OfllcaE! Sl Paul. St Cloud Rocnciic^ #»»d W'Urn.tr MN • MiiwniAt#. Wi • Chicago A lAAAlllf: WWW Done tirro com Wendy Botienberg Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: John Crotteau Variance File No. I39-02-000 Plat No. 02-2772 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the plans for the additions to the Crotteau residence. The site is located at 1405 Sixth Avenue North. We have the following comments with regard.s lo engineering matters; • The proposed additions to the building do not present any concerns from an engineering perspective. * Silt fence should be installed lakeside of the home prior to any con.siruction or site grading. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOQATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Oreg Gappa, City of Orono *>>>c !«#«»•• lA • €f Paail AAAI 6^1*436*1311 F .flPR-10-2002 15:51 MINKEHPHP CREEK UPTERSHQ)6124710682 P.01^01 MEMORAMDUM DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: April 9.2002 Wendy Bottenberg. City of Orono; John Crotteau Richard Flint Michael Wyatt, District Technician Permits for 1405 6th Avenue North, Orono This memo is designed to inform the City of Orono and the property owner at 1405 6th Avenue North in the City of Orono that from the current proposal, the project proposed at the location stated above appears to require permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Due to the sire of the project, it is apparent that the new home construction will involve the significant amount of excavation (5000 ft^ or 50 ft.^) required for the MCWD Rule B: Erosion Control permit. In addition, it appears as though there is the potential for wetland and/or floodplain impacts from the proposed construction. Permits for such construction will require Board of Managers approval. Applications such as these typically require 30*45 days prior to permits being issued. Please submit an application for this project for District review as soon as possible. Delays In submittals will ultimately delay the project timeline. Please mail the enclosed application to: Attn: District Technician Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road. Suite 140 Excelsior. MN 55331 i, TOTOI P PI ' . '4_. .’V V >r RUN DATE 03/ia/t2 DATCN 50A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SO 2A-11B-23 33 0029 01905 SIXTH AVE N W PEARCE IDA PEARCE TRSTES WILLXAH I BARBARA PEARCE 19B5 CO RD NO 6 LONG LAKE HN 55305 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 35-11B-23 22 0005 01905 LONG LAKE BLVD DONALD W LUND ETAL DONALD W LUND 1905 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE NN 55350 REPORT NO. P1935901 PAGE 9 3B 20-11B-23 39 0009 01305 SIXTH AVE N NARY H DAYTON NARY N DAYTON 1305 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55350 38 35-116-23 22 0001 01965 LONG LAKE BLVD KURTIS A 6REENLEY t WIFE KURTIS A GREENLEY 1985 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55350 3B 35-118-23 22 0000 01905 SIXTH AVE N R 8 C FLINT RICHARD N FLINT 3900 HULTIFOOOS BLDG CITY CENTER HPLS HN 55902 TOTAL BATCH 509 00005 (M X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KmWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 3~ ,y >■ RUN DATE 03/18/R2 DATCN SEA HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAI^AODR 5S 2A-118-23 33 0029 01905 SIXTH AVE N W PEARCE IDA PEARCE TRSTES WILLIAM t BARBARA PEARCE 19B5 CO RD NO 0 LONG LAKE MN 55305 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 3B 35-118-23 22 0005 01905 LONG LAKE BLVD DONALD W LUND ETAL DONALD W LUND 1905 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55350 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 9 38 20-118-23 39 0009 01305 SIXTH AVE N MARY H DAYTON MARY H DAYTON 1305 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55350 38 35-118-23 22 0001 01985 LONG LAKE BLVD KURTIS A CREENLEY t WIFE KURTIS A GREENLEY 1985 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55350 38 35-118-23 22 0000 01905 SIXTH AVE N R 8 C FLINT RICHARD N FLINT 3900 MULTIFOODS BLDG CITY CENTER MPLS KN 55902 TOTAL BATCH 509 00005 (M .*.*1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OP HY KNOHLEDCE AND BELIEF. ,0DATE3- -----III in tumi 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator April 11, 2002 #02-2773 Kurt and Mary Rakos 2175 Shevlin Drive Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) 46,238 s.f. (1.061 acres) List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Survey/Site Plan D Septic Location Map E Photo of Property F Sketch of House G Property Owners Notification List Required variance: 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): To permit a 40.9’ side yard adjacent street setback for the residential addition. The existing house is set back 46.3 ’ from the property line. The required setback is 50'. Application Summaiy: The applicants have requested a variance to permit construction of an addition to the existing garage, close off the existing driveway entrance on Willow Drive South with a berm and move the driveway entrance to Shevlin Drive. The addition to the garage is 8' X 24.4’. A variance is required to permit the addition to encroach 9.1" into the 50' side yard setback requirement. The garage currently encroaches 3.7' into the side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to add onto the existing garage rather than move it to the other side of the residence for a number of reasons. 1 he determinants in placement of the addition to the garage w ere; the flow of the house, location of the septic system and location of the well. The garage is currently on the west side of the residence. On the opposite side (east) is where the bedrooms are located. The well is located on the north side of the residence behind the garage making it difficult to add space directly behind the garage. The septic system is located directly east of the residence. (See Exhibit D). The septic system is non-compliant and needs to be repaired by 2007. At that time the applicant will need to hook up to sewer which was recently put in the neighborhood. •02-277J Kun/M*f> Rakos 2175 Shevlin Drive April 11.2002 Page I of 2 The property to the north is currently vacant. Variances for lot area and lot width were recently approved to permit construction on that property. The proposed residence is approximately 100' from the common property line and the applicants garage is 52.8' from the property line, for a total separation of approximately 150'. The applicants also want to move the driveway and access to their property from Willow Drive to Shevlin Drive. Their reason is safety. Since the repaving of Willow Drive South, the speed and number of accidents on Willow have increased. The applicants have had t’ ee accidents and other vehicles either in front of their current driveway or in their yard over the pa; veral months. Public Works Director, Greg Gappa, reviewed the proposal and did not have any concerns with mov ing the driveway to Shevlin Drive as long as the access off Willow Drive South was closed. The applicants are proposing to remove the driveway, replace it with grass and place a berm along Willow Drive South. Several months ago the applicants did talk with the Public Works Director and City Council regarding the placement of a stop sign on the comer of Willow Drive and Shevlin Drive. At that time City Council concluded a stop sign should not be placed there. Applicant's Statement of Hardship: 1. Conformance to existing house floor plan limits placement of garage. 2. The location of the well and septic system limit where the garage can be located. 3. Tlie residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 4. The proposed location of the garage will not negatively impact adjacent neighbors. 5. The lot is a 1 acre lot in a 2 acre district. Most other lots in the neighborhood are 1 acre lots. If 1 acre standards were applied a 35' side yard setback would be the requirement rather than 50'. 6. The one acre lot is small compared to the RR-IB zoning district 2-acre standard. 7. There arc mature trees along the back property line that screen the garage from the adjacent neighbor. f Staff Recommendation: Stall recommends approval of the side yard adjacent street setback for the garage addition, subject to removal of the existing driveway on Willow Drive and relocating it to Shevlin Drive. (02-2773 Kuii'Mv> lUkot 217) Shevlin Dfivc April 11.2002 Pafc2of2 • • Application # 0^ — XO "73 Date Received -03L CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid QJi' PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address "2-11*^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 34’-COO*~7 Attach legal description to app Date Property Acquire d Z ication if not included on required survey. ^1 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ____________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name V(u.rr a ' Rau K o S Address: puz..________ Phone (home)<i»:;2.-H'7^.r _____ Phone (work) U^rr City: Zip:J5S3fH_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF RE(^UEST Estimated Construction Cost $_______________ Describe request in detail: sfinn (». « cjtxtVu-. <?, '\\CMd. dt Icrrtrhcl-^ ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front 7^ Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance writh 2U)ning Code requirements: ccvr:>/<rcCC»<lgAH try ^ cr\ clhtr ‘Stcld cice'oo 4 wQi(h Kcicbd. ^ ^ (attach additions sheets if necessarv^(attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ pile dr\ :>o cc^ r(4 ve -tt olcle Kc u.^e .rt-V ^'fe. sieve ov- r\c #2773 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy g'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Tof^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing ^e are proi»sed. In addition, provide one (1) copy g'/," x 11" for reproducUon. sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy g'/j" x II") List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in foe 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 vwsh 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 yanance appikation h not totnplm if foe above information hn. not he^n APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by foe Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) Md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that foe information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 022l OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledps 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 investigation and verification of this request. y > ? /Q\ \ ^/zi jf) 7Owner’s Signature !a Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before foe Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on foe 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 foe Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. #27 73' ? o Measure riong a parallel line with Existing House 12’^’* \ for new Gflnif^P ArfrlJtirm rcV*/» p o;#,, nr *» \ 02-101 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 10. Block 1. WEBBER HLLS This survey shows the boundories of the above described properly, the location of on existing house, driy^woy ond shed thereon ond the proposed location of o proposed addition. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o Iron morkcr Beorings shown ore based upon on ossumed dotum QESjCTCO RCVISON DATE OESCfiPTnN bRAWN rMTKTO 0 GRONBERG 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. QOHSXm DOCTRS. UW) SlIWEYOW. SIC PlAWfRS 445 N. WLLOW OR. LONG LAKE. MN. 55356 952-473-4141 I ICREBY CCRTrr THAT IlfS PlAN. SPCCTCATION. OR REPORT WAS FRCPARCO BY WC OR UHDCR UY OflECT SUPERVtSeN AND THAT I AM A OaY UCENSEO PROTCSSONAL ENCfCCR AM) LAM) SRvrrQR IMOl TM UfS OT TM STAlC OT IMSOTA PATf ^**,7*^X Lroflg NuUm SCALEr-jit DATE 4-03-02 JOB NoT 02-101 #2773 A S Ti /6'0 25'0 A %3?-'0 no W ^'0 i^'D • ••^' »•■ . ‘* • " A- - ■ '-V •' •• ' ■ ' . ■' ■ -^IT • »k * » \f-*•'•*-*s's ' • - ♦ * •’ .t . \ •.- * • ' • /*t‘. . ' <•* s‘f.-.v’*'": *. . » Lfc I \ ^ • • - ■ .. * t . %**" ••. ,f« ' ■ 1 ' ^jt - ~If • • ' 'r» ^«r> *• u / 0[;< ,«!•>• >f> .i A* ¥' .- C* • "4' ^ • ' **iT y vr'! V . ..: c *•/••••',>' -,- » . r ' r. f . !’r.' 1. : . i!lUJ 1 . .-V i IJJ XL< ‘,% > •J**^i -c . * * * .- fs » ► ' I. > ■ iV " ; • •>: , ■t . i . *> 'jl . • '•V . :V n '; . V* - -r“, - I Tf- ‘MfpT _ • •. ( 'V '^» :\A' •it 0* *J, •• ;'. ^ 7 ; / 4 » ;j t • ■'••-/‘*v^ V- .V , V.'.. i; *'M ■ ;.•■;•<* *‘r PH9B . .-I •> ' EBp^ .'v ^■*45v.:^ •'• .v-v> >i? ' • .' - - ^“*. ;-'• T'-'V,'*!m.WfV,. »*' •. _jk>W‘/ ^ , ^ V «» A. y: •* • '.V** ^■11?:'▼npp LLZ# ••• • S • • CDr-A Kurt 4& Mary Rakos mJN DATE 03/29/02 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PBOfERTV INEOimATlON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX935A01 PAGE 28 PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 03-117-23 33 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXQNED HEHNEPXN FORFEXTEU LAND CXTY OF ORONO P 0 80X 05 CRYSTAL RAY HN 55323 38 03-117-23 33 0000 00700 WXLLOW DR S J 0 MAXWELL ALA MAXWELL JEFFREY I LEONTYNE MAXWELL 201 PARKVIEW TER GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55010 38 03-117-23 30 0005 02105 SHEVLXN DR WILLIAM M TOLES JAMES K DANIELS C/0 JILL T 8 DANIELS 2105 SHEVLIN DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 03-117-23 SO 0000 02155 SHEVLXN DR J A J PAULSON JEROME T A JUDY K PAULSON 2155 SHEVLXN DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 30 0007 02175 SHEVLIN DR K P RAKOS A M M GUSTAFSON X P RAKOS A M M GUSTAFSON 2175 SHEVLXN DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 30 0018 02170 SHEVLIN DR R P WIENS A J A WIENS ROBERT P A JULIE A WIENS 2170 SHEVLXN DR WAYZATA MN 55391 I ij: r.: ii. o • o 5u J PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 507 00000 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TP THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 1 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:April 10,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2775 Temple Israel of Minneapolis 645 Tonkawa Road Conditional Use Permit Lot Area:1 8 acres List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G 11 Application Plat Map Site Plan/Survey Pavilion Site Plan Pavilion Building Plans Site Photo Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Application The Temple Israel property has been used iis a camp property for many years, beginning as a scout camp, and now most recently for Temple Israel. The camp is known as “Camp Teko ”. Camp Teko is a summer camp, with some occasional fall/winter/spring use. Summer camp sessions last about 12 weeks. There is a full-time caretaker that is in residence on the property year round, lire campers and staff total approximately 250 users. Camp Teko has proposed a conditional use permit to permit construction of a 40’ X 76’ open sided premanulactured open-air pavilion on the property. The building is approximately 12’ - 15’ in height. It would be a one story , wood framed building with a typical gabled roof The constructic'. of the building would include a concrete slab on grade with support columns for the roof The intended use of the building is for picnicking and group gatherings. Applicants have also indicated additional work would include the general site work imp. ovements to level the ground and to landscape around the building. There will be some minor coructions made to a drainage swale, included adding culverts under the paths that will be created for pedestrian access to the shelter. The trails will be gravel and connect the pavilion to the lake, chapel and parking areas. There would be lights installed within the ceiling of the pavilion, but no exterior lights are proposed. The Zoning Ordinance requires all lights within the building to be installed so the light source is not 7 1 visible from any property line. No full lighting plan has been formally presented, but the lights are required to be installed so they are screened and or»ly shine towards the ground. The lighting is a bit more sensitive in this case because the camp is located in a residential neighborhood. The property is located in the LR-1B district which lists “camps” as a conditional use. The property recently was granted a conditional use permit for construction of a toilet and shower facility that was constructed near the street. The LR-1B district is a one-acre single-family residential district. The pavilion construction is the first phase of a number of future improvements planned for the property. The property owners intend to remodel the existing buildings, construct new- cabins, and add pedestrian trails on the property. This particular CUP is only for the pavilion building. The other improvements will be considered as a separate CUP application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to permit the pavilion to be constructed on the propeity subject to the following conditions: 1.The lighting shall be installed to screen any light source outside the building. Lighting shall be directed to only illuminate those areas contained within the structure. 2.The building shall be used for picnicking and group gathering and shall not be used for any activities not associated with the normal operation of the camp. 3.The building shall not be used for activities that would generate noise levels to e.xcced levels as regulated in the noise ordinance for residential properties. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3. Table. 4. Other Action. A AppBcatioo# (3<?-J77r l^teReccivcd S-JJG Amount Paid ^ ST(D> CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed ^ , Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) C«U. P. A#V\r^tyyL /i7- 2_^ >3 j APPLICANT ^ L_c«ty OWNER (if different than applicant) Name^'^ ~ ‘ Address ^uiucicni uian applicant; Date P I jate >Acquired also own the adjacent parcels of land.__(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - --------* 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use — $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House<'Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial 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) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS -___________$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 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 #2773 % 2 " -3 / ml 1 V ------------------------------ ^ --------cTT*n T -r- »■.'/r^-^Ti tmmji Ml c*rr-j ^K_n_ •'■ '-1 # 0 Mw:a -f ' J^fV#» I NOTH lAttl flUMUAllYI •tr^^TVa • Ml • MaM MB m ••> • rsn M.. trr: Mi. Trsrar. ]; hi' !L mI kal * i» rtrr LANDFORM ■f**M^*^ »• >■•»■«■ SURVEY I/O L i! iMMl w If I »s 't ■' • .'s;N-.;.Xi.-. . ; • ■ •• •%, '-'c* V- . riYiiraMfary^ . •• X •• • • • ... r •• * <•: ” . ■%. ' ■-* Modems no SOm6S‘Laminated Curved Beam with fite^gla^s Shingle. Steel (o'umm Lominated Curved Beam Choose either a gable end or dutch hip end model. Choose your size. Utilizing basic widths (below), Litchfield lets you add 8' bay sections as needed. •'i M r? 11 W\ Sil 6 ^ • Model SI762 20'M S2 Laminated Curved Beam Dutch Hip with Bberglaa ihim glei, apttanal cupola. }pUonal weathtrme Mddelfl709 20 M 28 t aminated Curved Beam with pre cut metal roof and custom white 5'»7'steel columns Features • Widths: 12; 16', 20; 22! 24*. 28'. 30.40 and 50' • Lengths 20; 28', 36*. 44', 52.60. 68' (^8' bays) • Architectural Grade Laminated Beams • Tongue and Groove Roof Decking • Columns of Pressure Treated Wood Options • Cedar Roof Decking and Fascia • Laminated or Steel Columns • Fiberglass Shingles • Cedar Shingles • Pre-Cut Metal Roof • Dutch Hip Model (left) • Wood oi Steel Rail Sections • BBQ Vented Roof • Cupola ii ? .i>„ ? i <{ ■£iX 3 AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE CHOKE FOR CUSTOM SHELTERS AND SITE FURNISHINGS r • I , '/ V'J I '• V'i • J Hi \ mv-iri' .vl ^ 'A ''f % '-I m.i kv\ ^ ,11 V M ^ a. mm' 1P 5! v»^ jr*. •“.1 ?•* -T-n. SETBACK Zi Cfr**\P Tf^o, ToMieftvfh HARDCOVER CALCUlJHlON WORKSHEET 0“^ IKItlk£ A. CA/nP £JIAE S: (CIRCLE ONH rt-75* JN ZONE 7M50'250-500'SOO-1000' vjM //f£g4uCAt Sa^SS = = a C Dilnwuj X V a Sidnrak <<S4AVA,) Jt JC E. Piti€/D«cJ^% % F. OteMdn X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN 20NE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B %39k.9/ xroo PROPfisx p MAMnrnvKQ lyy yj A. House ws^ 'x B. GtsiRO C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X n E. P«io/Deck X X P. l/odcrUuii By PlisUc X X X O. Odiir TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4_ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 SF. 9jr.en _ /.5y. 4-B ‘JP. *C.77 S.F. SS. SJF. SJ. SJ. SJf. 700. /3 S.F. <»2P. g3 SJ. _ /Pi,.9i>S£. SJF. S.F. SJ^. ST. S.F. A0ZZ.St S.F. A lT0.TiQ.7l S.F. B Zy^ C t ST. ST. S.F. ST. S.P. S.F. ST. S.F. ST. )I ^^3 ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. A S.F. B> c Ctl^6tN9b C, + Ct 5 i.flf C^YVNP TCX'Oi ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SCTftACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*250>SOO‘&00-1000' EXISTINC MAPI A. 4l0«e OmP JLICLZQKK B. li C, -PritftvMfcy __ O. Sidtwalk E. PatloA)eck/ foi>r0^M9e (4MC4> f ■ • * 1 ^ A •uiiunivn By PUitft O. X X X X X X X X X A. Housx P^ir/LION. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Zf ■?. ♦ B '2.4H^4 i^. 4o X 100 > > HARDCOVER IN 7-9fj f; Laoci Ii JkOL B. Omge C. Drivtw^ a sidcwilk B. raiio^eck F. Landscape Undtrltln By Plasdc G. X t % X WM* .2ML X X X X X X X X X TOTAL Hardcover in zone TC \\L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE too - ___ 'JjP.oo SF. "J./o.HI 7‘f0.7*f S.F. ZIS Z-L,SF. Z7tJ. Z.C»SF. Zfl-.Zfi- 2Z7. 74.1 S.F. Z.6'^.4^ 77/.?^S.F. 7t>». /9 ^.F. <■ 7c/, niT' /7.<r».77 S.F. _ 5y>o S.F. _________ yjt.^o S.F. _3»/. 3U S.F. J3Z..JO l£±I±_sj. 1! S>. /7«^ SP^ • i 0 ^ IP _ si. A 2Jt±Jt2£i±*^ S.F. B -----±u23___V. e, S.F. 5.04^0 SF. ___________S.F. ________ S.F. 5.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. SJ-. SI. Soo SI. ^.240 SI. A ^.P. BS21CIIW. C )( f-i- GQ C o<w®/hm> ^,*<i ' zi;0V8i++ TtX-Oy (o^S" 77>i^Kfnofi-ft». hardcover calculation worksheet ^ SETBACnC ZONE: (CIRCLB ONJC) P-Ty 7$45Q* (TmoToo^ SOO-1000' A Jbim s harpco vek in zonk X __* il s C Drimray X M D« jSidtiMtk X X E. hlio^Dcck/ F. X X X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B 5»7rfy X 100 - PROPOSED Hardcover in zonk A. Hottie _____________ X WMli B, Cifige C. IMvewty D. Sidewalk & PaiioDeck F. Laodgape Underlain By Flxilic Othw ’TPftLkJi TOTAL HAFDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE eop ♦ B fiii^£l2_£/x 100 - _ yfZ.oc .SI. 7CJL.O, 477.0J SI. (0b.sx SJF. SJT. 7^9. J»S3. S3. 203S’.iCr 3E>//.S.F. • Z2A’. 9 /S.F. S3. S.F. i.S^Z ef4 ’.z4'S.F. S3. S.F. €rj L9 S.F. S3. 3jy.SH7.l^t S.F. % S.F. s>-. S.F. SJT. 8.F. ST, 5.F. S.F. SJ». Sf. SJ^. SJ. SI. SI. 3^ s J. ^OOQ SI. A QfRF. B% c // ,?X’ » • CLdfiAfiy/Wfta C, + Ci»zO,S9b.9*r3l(0,StJ.tl*f«f ~ J hardcover CALCWLATION worksheet 6 Z SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) B-75*TS-ESO*250*51)0' MOSTTNC HAMHSOVEfc IN ; A “ SnAfifS X D. C Drivxwii X X 1 Drivxwiv D Sido*<iBc(‘^P) £ Puio/Deck/ _ r. •Uadutoin X X X TOTAL HAJtOCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4. D /UOirt^x 100 PROPOSKO HAR1 A House AIM ZONE Lnpii X X WIM 'X '* B. C murc C. Drhovjy X X O. Sidewalk E. PaSuTDeck X X F. Landscape Undtflain By PlasOe X X X G. Otha TOTAL HAMXX>VER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B _ _xlOO - 500*1000' /ZO. .ZB S.F. -yz»i/ 4>T // <3. iU /3 3 3. .477.// SJ. //SS'C'. t-y IT? iS". -7 A 2Jp -7^ et><’.s/ sj. S.FT 7 S J. // • ^ •:^sw. zcr jU^L^L 2Ji/. SJ. SJ. S.F. J3Z,b^3.i>u sr. A SJF. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ^a S.F. SJ. Si^. SJf. SJP. SJF. S.F. S^. 5*F. SJa A SX. B % m ((- * R 0 T If nw IIUN DATE 03/22/02 fiATCH 514 rtOf AOOII OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 05-117-23 32 0004 00550 TONKAWA RD A N CARLSON ET AL TRUSTEES N C NELSON I 8 C 6A6E C/0 TONKAWA INC P 0 80X 54154 HPLS NN 55454 30 05-117-23 33 0005 •0450 TONKAWA RD J H ADAIR t N ADAIR JEANNINE N I NICNAEL ADAIR 650 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 32 0005 00520 TONKAWA RD NO AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP NO AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP 2 CARLSON PKWY 0475 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 30 05-117-23 33 0000 00670 TONKAWA RD DAREL J LEIPOLD DAREL * *IPOLD 670 TO A RD LONG LAKl MN 55356 REPORT NO. 71435401 PAGE 44 30 05-117-23 33 0003 00755 TONKAWA RD J 0 L ROGERS JOHN E 0 LOIS A ROGERS 755 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 33 0004 00670 TONKAWA RD GEORGE L TORKELSON ETAL GEORGE L TORKELSON 670 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ) PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 05-117-23 S3 0010 00600 TONKAWA RD MELINDA LEE MELINDA LEE 600 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 33 0011 00604 TONKAWA RD R E DCUfLER INK BEUTLER ROBERT E A WENDY K BEUTLER 1331 ARM DR N ORUNO MN 55341 30 05-117-23 33 0012 00640 TONKAWA RD M S BRADLEY t 0 M BRADLEY MICHAEL S I OLIVIA M BRADLEY 13405 IVYWOOD ST N W ANDOVER MN 55304 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 05-117-23 33 0013 00642 TONKAWA RD BARBARA PUGH BARBARA PUGH 642 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 33 0016 00666 TONKAWA RD DONALD W LINOALL DONALD LINOALL 666 TONKAWA LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 33 0014 00700 TONKAWA RD T H SPOONER I J M SPOONER TED H SPOONER 10005 SUMAC CIR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 30 05-117-23 33 0017 00640 TONKAWA RD MICHAEL A CLEMENTS MICHAEL A CLEMENTS 640 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 33 0015 00712 TONKAWA RD THOMAS P GOODYEAR THOMAS P GOODYEAR 712 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 0010 00630 TONKAWA RD M A C S M CLEMENTS MICHAEL A A SUSAN M CLEMENTS 640 TONKAWA RD MINHETRISTA MN 55364 PiOf AODi OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 33 0014 00645 TONKAWA RD TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS TEMPLE ISRAEL CF MINNEAPOLIS 2324 EMERSON AVE S MPLS MN 55405 38 05-117-23 34 0001 00722 TONKAWA RD STANLEY S SANDTFORD STANLEY S SANDIFORD 722 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0002 •0720 TONKAWA RD P J MIDDLETON ET AL P J t K J MIDDLETON 720 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 •• ,, ’ .r». J,*' I • • 0 f.. ya mm DATE OS/22/02 DATCN 51A mof ADDt OWNER NANC TANPAVER NAHE/AODR Sa tS-llZ-ES 5^ 0003 00724 TONKAWA RD R H I L N LARSON TRUSTEES ROBERT H LARSON 724 TONKAWA RD LOIN2 LAKE NN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 34 0004 00740 TONKAWA RD ALAN J UPIN TRUSTEE ALAN J UPIN 740 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 45 38 05-117-23 34 0005 00746 TONKAWA RD E A CALDWELL I N T CALDWELL EDWARD A 8 NARY T CALDWELL 746 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 i i ft PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 3B 05-117-23 34 0006 00750 TONKAWA RD LAWRENCE W EDELHANN LAWRENCE W EDELNANN 10344 QUAIL CROWN DR NAPLES FL 34119 38 05-117-23 34 0007 00760 TONKAWA RD CHARLES A BERTELSON CHARLES A BERTELSON 760 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 36 05-117-23 34 0006 00770 TONKAWA RD T S I S J OKERSTRON THONAS S 8 SUSAN J OKERSTRON 770 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 36 05-117-23 34 00"9 00774 TONKAWA RD ANN C FISHER ANN C FISHER 774 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0091 00601 NINNETONKA HGLD LA C CURTIS LEE 8 WIFE C CURTIS LEE 601 NINNETONKA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE fW 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0072 04030 ELN ST 6 N nCSCOE 8 K N ROSCOE GEORGE N ROSCOE 4030 ELN ST LONG LAKE NN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0098 00525 TONKAWA RD A 0 8 V A HOLN ARNE 0 8 VIRGINIA A HOLN 525 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0080 00615 NINNETOrBCA HGLD LA JESSICA R NEWNAN JESSICA R 8 JOSEPH L NEWNAN 615 NINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0106 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED K L FULLER-FEYO ETAL W/L EST KAREN FULLER-FEYO 1677 LONG LAKE RD NEW BRIGHTON m 55112 1 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 36 06-117-23 44 0003 00650 NINNETONKA HGLD LA J L DERG 8 S R DERG JOHN L DERG 8 SHARON R DERG 650 NINNETONKA HIGHLAND LN LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 44 0004 00680 NINNETONKA HGLD LA C E FLENING JR 8 L P FLENING CHARLES 8 LINDA FLENING JR b80 NINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 44 0005 00649 NINNETONKA HGLD LA S V SWANTEK 8 P G SWANTEK TR STEPHEN 8 PATRICIA SWANTEK 649 NINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 36 06-117-23 44 0006 00659 NINNETONKA HGLD LA R H 8 K L SPEETER RICHARD H SPEETER 659 NINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 44 0007 00669 NINNETONKA HGLD LA R A HUNPHREY 8 C R HUNPHREY ROBERT HUNPHREY 669 NINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 06-117-23 44 0008 00679 NINNETONKA HGLD LA R 8 V NELSON ROBERT P 8 VICKY A NELSON 679 NINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 ^ J;^ &1 RUN DATE 03/22/02 iATCN 51A r / • » { PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAffE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 00-137-23 AO 0009 00099 NINNETONKA HOLD LA L i A 6ADBAW LAWRENCE W 6ADBAW 099 NINNETONKA NIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE HN 55350 SO 00-117-23 21 0001 00001 TONKAWA RO D R PONIJE I J PONIJE DAVID R PONIJE 001 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55350 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS .TST 30 00-117-23 AA 0010 00709 NINNETONKA HOLD LA GLEN T NEDDERNEYER ETAL GLEN T NEDDERNEYER 709 NINNETONKA NIGHLAND LA LONG LAKE NN 55350 REPORT HO. PIA35A01 PAGE AO 30 00-117-23 AA 0011 00719 NINNETONKA HGLD LA R C SUNDBERG A L H SUNDBERG RICHARD C I LISA N SUNDBERG 719 NINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE NN 55350 TOTAL BATCH 51A OOOAO U* •% ) t % I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE/BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. .'I ) • ) . > Completion Date: 60-Day Deadline: 3/27/02 5/27/02 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Mike GafTron, Planning Director, Apnl 11, 2002 SUBJECT:#02-2771 Orono Ambar, LI.C, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 1, Block 1, Orono Ambar) Public Mcanng regarding: - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Rezoning - Amendment of PUD No. 2 and PUD-2A Agreement • Easement Vacation Lot Area: Existing Zoning: Approved Use per PUD-2 A: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: 2.61 acres B-6 Highway Commercial District - PUD No. 2 25,000 s.f.. 2-story Office building 50-unit, 3-story Senior Independent Living housing RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District Application Summary Orono Ambar, LLC has submitted an application for rezoningof Lot 1 , Block 1 , Orono Ambar to allow construction of a 5U-unit senior independent living building. The proposed building would be 3 stories plus an underground parking level. The property was approved for a 25,000 s f. office building in 2001 , but the applicant has been unable to find tenants for the office, and consequently is proposing to build Orono Woods West, a second senior housing building architecturally similar to the 62-unit Orono Woods building under construction on Lot 2. The proposed residential use of the property requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment because the property is guided for comiucrcial use in the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. The proposal also requires amendment of the terms and conditions of PUD No. 2 related to Lot 1. and amendment of the PUD-2A Agreement, which is the Development Agreement that governs development of Lot 1 . An ancillary request is to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals. Review of this application will focus primarily on the following areas: - Basis for converting from commercial to residential use - uTipact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design - Landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road sy'stem impacts and needs - Parking arrangement Orono Ambar. LLC 1060 Way/au Boulevard #02-2771 Page 1 of 11 List of Exhibits A - Plat Map B - Boundary Survey including Proposed Easement Vacation C - Proposed Development Plan Sheets: CO-1 Title Sheet Cl-1 Existing Conditions C2-1 Preliminary Site Plan C3-1 Preliminary Grading. Drainage, and Erosion Control Plaii C4-0 Preliminary Utility Plan D - Floor Plans & Elevation Views E - Photographic Depiction F • PUD-2A Agreement G • PUD No. 2 Approval Resolution #4704 H - Approved Site Plan (Office Building) vs Proposed Site Plan (Senior Housing) I - City Engineer’s Comments J - November 2000 Traffic Consultant Reviews K - Topographic Cross-section L - Application & Property Ouncr List M - Letters from neighboring property o\s ners 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Uses within PUD No. 2A may include only those uses designated by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Community Management Plan or “CMP"). The property included in PUD No. 2A had been zoned B-1 Retail Sales BusiiK'SS District for at least 35 years prior to its rezoning to B-6 PUD in 2001, and has been formally guided for commercial use since adoption of the 1980 CMP. In 2001 Orono amended the draft 2000-2020 CMP to rc-guide Lot 2 for Multi-family Residential use, speci fically for senior housing. There arc a number of reasons why re-guiding of Lot 1 for senior housing would also be appropriate and reasonable. These include: 1) The impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods (Sugar Woods to the north, Orono Woods Senior Housing to the cast) are likely to be less intense than most of the potential commercial uses that could be established if the site remains guided for commercial use. 2) Eastbound road access for Lot I is through Lot 2, and the impacts of residential traffic through Lot 2 arc expected to be Icsc than if Lot 1 is developed commercially. Additionally, the limited direct access to Highway 12 makes Lot 1 a relatively unattractive site for high traffic commercial uses. 3) Applicant has indicated unusually higli interest in Orono W’oods, and reports that 40% of the units arc spoken for, even though construction is barely undeiAvay. There is clearly a demand and a need for senior housing in this area, and development of additional senior housing will be in keeping with the City’s affordable and lifecycle housing goals as defined in the CMP. 4) Senior Housing provides a reasonable transition between the single family housing to the north and the commcrcial/retail uses to the west and south. 5) In temis of accessibility and proximity to services, shopping, public tn’nsit and other amenities, this is one of the most suitable locations in Orono for senior housing, w ithin easy w alking distance of dow ntown Long Lake. Orono Ambtr. LLC. 2060 Wiyzita Boulevard <W)2-277I Page 2 ofl I II. Rezoning The proposed 50 unit building on this 2.6 acre site would yield a development density of approximately 19 units/acre. This density can be allowed only via a rezoning to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District. As noted in Section 10.33, Subd. 5D & E: D.Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the specific site. If the site is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the City based upon the City Council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan. Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan shal 1 be al lowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and guided for residential use. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only .after the developer and City have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for at least 20 years." Rezoning to RPUD will result in a clear and finite set of conditions for use of Lot 1, and the Planned Unit Development concept ensures the City will have substantial control over development of the site. III. Proposed Development Parameters The building will contain a variety of units ranging from “1 bedroom" to "2 bedrooms plus den". The units will all be rental units, platted as condominiums so that each unit will have a separate legal description and tax statement. All units will be owned by a non-profit organization (The Wedum Foundation) and rented to the occupants under the agreements established for the building. Applicant has indicated an intent to structure the development of Orono Woods West in the same manner as the initial phase, as follows: The land would be sold to the City of Orono (for SI) and the City would lease it back to Orono Senior Housing West, LLC (SI/year for 99 years), which would develop a 50-unit apartment building for independent seniors. The lease would be conditioned on the use remaining senior housing for the duration of the lease. Orono would issue Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the project. This w ould allow City to require that a portion of the units be affordable and designated for senior housing for ages 62 and up, for the life of the bonds. Orono Ambar. LLC. 2060 Wi>^u Boutrvifd •02-2771 Page 3 of 11 ji The HRA would create and establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and contribute 90% of the increment for 20 years back to the development. With TIF in place, the City would have ability to eventually recoup its expenditures for infrastructure or deferred/waived fees related to this development. Applicant would again request deferral of Park Fees (approximately SI 62,500) and Sewer & Water Connection Charges (approximately SI0,200), which the City would eventually recoup via TIF proceeds. The amounts would be payable only in the event that the Developer violates the Senior Housing Restriction. IV'. Site Plan Review Surrounding Land Use. The subject parcel is platted as Lot 1, Orono Ambar, and is located directly south of the Sugar Woods neighborhood. The Sugar VV'oods Homeowners Association perimeter buffer outlot between this site and the residential lots in Sugar Woods ranges from 45 ’ to 65' in width. A platted future service road corridor (Sugar Woods Outlot D) abuts the westerly 80' of the north line of Lot 1. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugar Woods 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 property is located on Highway 12 and the City of Long Lake is located south of Highway 12. The parcel directly southwest of Lot 1 contains a mixed residential/commercial use, including a residence, a building used as a commercial welding shop, gas pumps, and outside storage. The parcel to the w est is developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station. Directly cast of Lot I is the 62-unit Orono Woods Senior Housing building under construction. Future redevelopment of the adjacent welding shop parcel is anticipated, as it is zoned B-1 Retail Sales Business District and both the residence and the welding shop are nonconforming uses in that District. Topography. Lot 1 is significantly higher than Lot 2, with its high point near the northeast comer of the proposed building. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southw cst 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 I is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot I. Proposed garage floor elevation is slightly above the elevation of the existing parking lot near the welding shop. First story floor elevation w ill be about 3' below the existing grade at the back of Lot 1. The result is that little of the foundation'garagc wall will be visible from the rear of the building, but a significant portion of it will be visible from the south, cast and west facades. Exhibit K »s a depiction of an cast-west cross-section through the center of the building, showing the elevation relationships to Orono Woods I and the welding shop parking lot. Building Location/Qrieniation . The building has been located to address the topographical variation of the site, as w ell as to match the shape of the lot. As proposed, the building meets the RPUD District setback standards for the north, cast and south lot lines. However, the west and south walls are set back only 20' from the adjoining lot, with cantilevered decks extending to w ithin 15’, rather Orono Ambar, LLC 2060 Wa>zaU Boulevard •02-277I Page 4 of 1 1 than the 35' minimum required. The RPUD standards additionally require that the building setback from lot lines be no less than the height of the building; the defined height of the building will be approximately 38’ based on the elevations provided. The 20 ’ setback is proposed in order to allow adequate room for parking and driveway access east of the building. Moving the building 15-20’ further east would require a re-design oHhe parking area, and possibly elimination of the loop driveway, but would allow for additional green space west of the building. Moving the building 15-20’ further north would have some impacts on the grading ?nd vegetation buffer behind the building. Depending on the quality and quantity of existing vegetation north of the building, the proposed cuts in the slope at that location could be minimized with a low retaining wall. Buildine Height. The intent of the RPUD district is to provide for lifecycle as w ell as affordable and moderate cost housing need . The RPUD ordinance recognizes that housing type needed to accomplish these goals may rtijaire buildings to exceed the 30' height standard. For property currently guided for commercial use, the RPUD standards allow such buildings to exceed 30’, but limits them to three stories. This building meets the RPUD height standard. Nevertheless, staff has some concern about the height of the building, as it will tend to be significantly higher than existing development on either side of it. Because of steep topography, lowering the building will make it difficult to have three living levels above grade at the rear. Droppi. g the building as much as 4-6’ to lower its profile as vicw ’cd from the north would be feasible, but the first living level at the rear would look directly out at a 6-8’ retaining wall The site almost begs for a split level situation, although this could add significantly to construction costs. The proposed building would have a peak height ranging from 40' to 50' depending on the viewer ’s location. Its low est profile will be as viewed from the north. The defined height of the building averages 38’ based on the elevations provided. The building incorporates a stepping down to 2 stories at the west and south ends, which somew hat helps to decrease the Visual mass. Planning Commission may wish to have applicant comment on w hether there are additional ways to reduce the visual mass of the building. Storm water Management. The MnDOT stomnvater pond located at the northw est comer of Highv ay 12 and Brown Road is intended to serve this property. Capacity and design of this pond were deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek v\'atershcd District and the City for development of this site for Office use. Revised drainage calculations . re required from the developer to confimi there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward. Potential runoTimpacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west should be addressed. Oono Ambir. LLC. 2060 ^'i>7au Boulevard m)2V7\ Page 5 of 11 Existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County when Highway 12 is relocated. The 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 an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a semaphore is intended be installed at that intersection. The schedule for installation of that stoplight is still being discussed with MnDOT; we want it to happen this summer, MnDOT is apparently holding out to have it not installed until/unless the existing light at south Brcwn/'12 is removed, which Long Lake does not want to happen. This semaphore is critical to have in place upon completion of Orono Woods Phase I, and staff is pursuing this; however, the most recent contact from MnDOT is that until the South Brown/North Brnwo realignment occurs, the existing intersection does not meet warrants for a light, and MnDOT will not install one until warrants are met... The City of Orono’s traffic consultant review ed the initial proposal for the office and Oron.j Woods I in November 2000, based on a 70-unit senior apartment and a 23,000 s.f. office. Bascu 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 office use as approved would be expected to generate 130-in/130-out weekdays and significantly less on weekends. Total trip generation would then have been 250-in/250-out on w eekdays. Based on changing the office use to senior housing, the combined weekday trip generation for (62+50)= 112 dwelling units would be approximately 192 trips in and 192 trips out on weekdays; 144/144 Saturdays; and 152/152 on Sundays. The weekday trip generation from Orono Woods and Orono Woods West combined will be less on weekdays and more on weekends than that from Orono Woods and Office combined. Given that the difficult access times for the North Brown/12 intersection are weekdays, Orono Woods West will have less traffic impacts than 'he previously approved office building. The traffic consultant’s reports dated 11/7/00 and 11/14/00 have been attached for your review (they reflect the office use; staff has generated the above numbers by extrapolation). ParkittR Numerical Requirements. Section 10.01 requires 2 parking stalls perunit for a multifamily dw elling. Section 10.30 establishes required parking for the M-6, Multiple Family Zoning District as 2 spaces per unit (of which one must be in the interior of the building) plus .25 spaces for each unit for guest parking. While this proposal is not subject to the M-6 standards, these standards provide a guideline for parking for a standard apartment building. With Orono Woods the City accepted 122 stalls (combined interior extenor) where 124 would have been required for the 62 units. Also established was a cross casement to allow overflow senior housing guest parking on the Office parking lot. Although the proposal for Orono Woods West currently does not include an underground parking diagram, staff estimates capacity for 70-75 cars, or a total of 105-110 stalls for 50 units. In summary, while the code standard appears to be met, there is only minimal excess parking provided. Oruno Anibar. tXC. 20<iO Way/aU i)oulr\anl *02-2771 Pafc7oni internal Traffic Flow and Parkins Layout. The fi"?1 approved road/parking plan for Orono Woods features angled parking backing onto the one-way westbound driving lane, with a separated one-way eastbound drive paralleling the parking lot to minimize conflicts. This accounts for slightly over half the Orono Woods exterior parking; the remainder backs strai^t out from the north side of the driveway onto die 2-way lane leading to the Orono Woods West site. Orono Woods West features a 2-way driving lane along the east boundary allowing vehicles entering and leaving the underground garage to avoid traversing the parking lot. This creates a potentially safer parking lot and provides for easy drop-off/pick-up access without requiring backup maneuvers, but does add significant driving surface to the site, and locates that surface right up to the east property boundary where a 20' setback is required. However, given the identical use to the east, this layout is not significantly detrimental to the few end units of Orono Woods facing that driveway. Cross easements for snow storage would be in order if this layout goes forward. When the original comprehensive planning for the the Highway 12 corridor w as completed in 1988 it was envisioned that a service road would be developed parallel to existing Highway 12 connecting Brown Road and Willow Drive. The 1988 planning occurred when Highw'ay 12 was anticipated to be e.xpanded in place, prior to the decision to reroute 12 further south. Sugar Woods Outlot D and East Willow Woods Outlot C were later platted to accomplish this service road purpose. However, the 12 reroute will decrease traffic initially such that a full serv ice road between Brow n and Willow might not be required for some time. However, a connection behind Orono Mall and Serv ice 800 with a connection south to 12/Brimhall has been discussed. Staff still believes it is in the best interests of the City to keep the options for this serv ice road open; therefore, the City should still require an easement through Lot 1 to Outlot D of Sugar Woods. Actual future development of that service road in Lot 1 would have significant impacts on the north facing units of Orono Woods West, and would probably eliminate much of the vegetation that would be screening the apartments from the homes in Sugar Woods. Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks are proposed betw een the parking lot and the building. It would be appropriate to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and Orono Woods West, and continuing to the existing sidewalks abutting Hw y 12. It was determined during the rev ievv of Orono Woods that walking trail connections to the northwest comer of the property had little value at this time because they w ould not connect to any existing or planned trail system. landscaping. Development of this site will be subject to the RPUD landscaping standards adopted in February 2001. No landscaping plan has been provided as of this w riting. The landscape plan should depict the existing v egetation that is to remain, provide a plan and schedule for new plantings, and show the location of all proposed retaining walls, berms, fences, etc. The plan should take into account at least the follow ing concerns: screening and buffering between Orono Woods West and the adjacent Sugar Woods neighborhood. - screening and buffering betw ecn Orono Woods West and the commercial properties to the immediate w cst. Orono ,^mb«r. LI C 2060 \Va>/aU Ouulcvard #02-2771 Pages Of II potential for relocating existing trees on the site - landscaping methods to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite Some of existing trees are likely to be removed to make room for the project. A tree survey should be provided to document existing conditions and to help identify impacts of potentially moving the building further north on the site to meet setback requirements. Other Site Ptaniiinf Topics for Consideration 4) 5) The RPUD ordinance requires that 10% of the site be devoted to private recreation areas, which may include swinuning pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots, etc. Applicant should define these areas on the site plan. This is in addition to the standard Park Dedication requirements. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether ‘wrapping’ this residential building around the adjacent commercially zoned and guided site is appropriate. How do the visual impacts of this residential building at its proposed location compare with those of the approved office building (see Exhibit H to compare footprints of buildings and parking areas)? Review any concerns expressed by the public at the meeting or via letter (see Exhibi0|). The utility/drainage easements requested for vacation were granted as part of the site plan approval for the office building, and will have no relevance to the proposed senior housing site plan. Those easements contain no utilities at this point, and staff recommends approval for their vacation subject to appropriate replacement easements being granted. Orono Ambar, LLC. 2060 Wayau BoulevanI i02-2771 PaieOoril i staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission concludes that the proposed senior housing use is appropriate for this site, then a recommendation for reproval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning to RPUD would be in order. Planning Commission should consider whether any recommendation is warranted regarding use of TIP, City ownership of land, or other proposed development parameters. If the CMP Amendment and rezoning arc reconunended for approval, then Planning Commission should address site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following: a) Is the scale and character of the building appropriate for the site, in terms of: - appropriate density (proposed is 19 units per acre) and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. • building setbacks - building height, number of stories - basement exposure and elevation views - parking location and orientation - driveway layout, site access, interior circulation b) Building design, facade materials, etc. c) Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public d) Landscaping, tree preservation - (landscaping plan will be developed once the building location and site plan are preliminarily approved) e) Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Q Parking capacity g) Pedestrian access, walkways h) Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D i) Site private recreation area Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility easements as proposed. Orono Ambar, LLC. 2060 Wayzaa Boulevard i02-277I Page lOofll Process aod Options for Action Process Amendment of the Comp Plan is potentially a 60-day process once the Council has authorized an amendment to be submitted to Met Council. We are expecting another Comp Plan amendment request in May by another developer for development of the 55 acres on the north side of Highway 12 between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road, to similarly reguide a portion of the commercial area to multi fami ly housing. Staff would prefer to submit these two amendments as a package rather than process them separately. This may pose a slight delay for Dunbar, as the second proposal will first appear on the Planning Commission ’s May agenda. The rezoning if approved will only be implemented at the time the financing package is finalized, hence the City will not risk having the property rezoned RPUD for some other purpose than this specific use and building. Amendment of the PUD-2A Agreement and the Development Agreement will reflect and incorporate the changes in use and changes to the site plan. The PUD-2A agreement left a number of final design issues unresolved for future review and approval, which process is underway. If Planning Commission makes a recommendation to approve the Comp Plan amendment and rezoning, those elements will be immediately placed in front of the Council to allow the CMP Amendment process to begin. If Plarming Commission concludes that additional site plan work is needed but is OK with the CMP amendment and rezoning, the site plan review could be continued pending revisions or additions. Options for Action CMP Amendment and Rezoning: 1) Recommend approval 2) Table for further information (specify) or for additional consideration 3) Recommend denial 4) Other Site Plan Review & Easement Vacation: 1) Recommend approval as presented 2) Recommend approval with specific conditions 3) Table for further information (specify) or for additional consideration 4) Recommend denial 5) Other Oono Amhar. l.LC 2060 WayzaU Boulevard #02-2771 Pagellofll ERSWO AXE- •WOOD 1 U iwv24ri ‘ ------------------' />\ J —sr J »»•> LAKE CO ^5 (Ml ^BRQIAL on rM,> • M -----1-PKta_l5L5L (Ml ll f'Ol ■^ - - T- - BiWJJV OAmts •mtt ■INDiJSTRIALPABK 3 I4ii ^ // ^ 3 •nr • •* . > -j»» • ■!! * * Ij 4-«' “yrar -4f> 5 SI X. S « X •(4^ • 1 t •V>oi ■■ ■J 't#l "1 >j r?"''sr ^ r* 'Sfilnv y)*j ^ <%ru, j #1T ) I m X*: ‘ V *5-1 1g m ^ S- H , fyl • ^ ■1 >C-j6!C. 'Mt fW* HM • . ^. » (ni ;• 1 ^ I ORCHARD ▼ r»^l ftJiJ r*D* fA yi PAM AVE_ f 4 "■"“t —w»—m • J •-^41 AOON 4 DRONO WOODS II 3RONO, MINNESOTA MILUl UNaON ini umom mmi mNrauroLB, unaanTA maos CKNMUl CONTmCTOH Ou*lo SHEET INDEX SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN & TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE tc EROSION CONTROL PLAN PREUMINARY UTILITY PLAN DETAIL SHEET VICINTTY MAP (>> I woooeaoaTE ■ V JS r CMi.mrjn'maa Qopher State One Call SMOTYMCA - 454-0008 roitmt ^ 1-000-292-1100 ilHklaiP I ( ) I { K N f-t* m1 rwwi I Mr«<H nvM/oorvo 11 ia AM m \.. I V > i f, i i 1' —I 11t11I11111 A 1 11111. 1 1 1 N 1 11 n111 .11 1Ly I *J 1 ! ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 \ / 1 1 1 1 1 :»• W i 1 __________1 I 1 Hi r.ri,'f if • L I ^ f* f%1. W i I# ao Mru^Notn LCGEND csrmiB MToi ifarvn vmrtm CATCM ttklCV«LVC umm icvDi VOT OjCVATDI ■■BTSI V fLM OLTflin OM % ttnuii KT«M ¥ALL ■nmom ima f 1 -> - -1 o♦ ^ *2^ UEAfBM X«( -f»— O Bo X -> » o «r x»« ——f»— i I ORONO WOODS II CITY OP ORONO MINNESOTA MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC MCXmCCTS 4 urn m\ Id m-9m m m AssoaAT sni PLui PROPOSED PHASE II ORONO WOODS APARTMENTS MILLER HANSON PARTNERS ADCHTECTS t PLANNERS —'—'—1 1-----1 _i I 1—1 ■ ^am WBR 2BR ^ 1 2BR/D m—m |7|::sl| J SSSssfl I r^-9 ^J='ST® III! WV-Pt* ----------- END ELEVATION r • av-v EAST ELEVATION r - 30'-o* WEST ELEVATION 30>-0* HMftOOl iiOMaoon S II mKT^am _1__ i] 4---- m s 1 ' ,,= ,■ . 1 ilWMMW iWiillMBi^^ I fiTTiilHIPlil 1» • “ /' I? ftf^ [\. f • • «-?•■•: •>v,y*ic^:jr.'r , • >■<..»:* i- .•*•*1-1* ' I •'*> *■• L ^ r~ !_ L_ LL.LLt ac;I n iri^M —' —• l._. •• ••,fc.f,iii •^■■>-:>^ s - ^-c. ^ * ^ -..^ - . •. .*• , %►-•.»■• ,^ j \**i'^'' •>'■ .^* • ‘y*^' ' . •v<'v* **' ;«v .l■'^•^'7.v ‘l•‘-'‘*' *•■•*. • • • • «I • »••«*■ -%*<«•• -.1^' • . . .*• .•c^’.'f-k«-A •>* V-- V'V/'- r J •* % t ' :y.,fy Oi<|iBaIDnaS/3A>l IUv<««IOnll7/3IA)l lUvM Draft 9/27/01 Fiail ll/2IA)l ' CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINESOTA PLANT^ED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2A AGREEMENT FOR ORONO AMBAR OFFICE BIJII.DfNG (Name of Development) ORONO AMBAR. LLC.. A MINNESOTA CORPORATION (Name of Developer) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2001, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called "City"), and Orono /\mbar, LLC, a Minnesota Corporation, its heirs, successors and assigns (hereinafter called "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning application (PUD) including a comprehensive plan amendment, subdivision to create two buildable lots, and commercial site plan review, for the purpose of developing a 62-unit Senior Housing residential building and a 25,000 s.f. Professional Office building; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2001 the City Council granted Concept Plan Approval for development of a 62-unit building for senior housing use (the "Senior Housing Building") and a 25,000 s.f. general office building (the "Office Building") per Resolution No. 4619, on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for conformance with the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinances, to provide for the installation and maintenance of improvements, and to establish and document the conditions of approval for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) associated with the Senior Housing element of the development. Page 1 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial .i NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the actual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: A. General Terms and Conditions 1. Property Description. This Planned Unit Development No. 2 A Agreement for Orono Ambar Office Building applies to the following described property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lot 1, Block 1, Orono Ambar 2. Zoning . The property is zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning for the office building component on Lot 1. 3, Permitted Uses. Within Lot 1 the only permitted principal structure is the 25,000 gross s.f, 2 story office building with underground parking in the basement level and additional surface parking as depicted in the preliminary site plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and preliminary building plans and elevations (attached hereto as Exhibit D). The permitted use of the office building is 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 office building shall not be used for general retail use, except that retail uses customarily accessory to the general office use may occur in no more than twenty percent (20%) of the office building gross floor area. Other uses shall not be allowed except by amendment of this PUD agreement. Within Lot 1 the only accessory structures allowed shall include: a) Trash enclosures attached to the principal structures, constructed of materials comparable to and compatible with those of the principal structure; and b) Monument identification signs per the approved plans. No other accessory structures are permitted except by amendment of this agreement. Users shall be obligated to conform to all applicable Orono ordinances and to the provisions of this PUD agreement. The foregoing uses are permitted pursuant to this PUD agreement. 4. Site Access. Internal circulation for Lot 1 shall be via a new private road to be developed within Lots 1 and 2, Block I, Orono Ambar. The private road shall serve the uses for both Lots 1 and 2. The easterly access point for the private road shall be at Brown Road North per the site plan attached as Exhibit A. The easterly access point shall allow full entrance and exit movements to North Brown Road, provided, however, developer shall only be responsible for development of private road on Lot I, Block 1, Orono Ambar. Developer Initial City Clerk Initial jL^' Page 2 of 13 . M f W f V/i fl iHiTi ISIT^nicrti •r»iinr«i tltlWi:! [OSRt] RTIR Mfltli I •] m'i [«11 ii*x: r« [€ IM c« tltlCMikfl rtl#«TOTt rtTtTtlVt riT'.rikv/'.i rtrtiurti [tjivra •laiiTs rtvswimii mntKTt KTiTII FUMW TOJlWlt] miw. •I44IU] •linn MatnnnniT-^«i •imrtmyj [tJiTinct] [tnci] iliJlflirilt •K«it] •imrt Mt:4«nni^ . - ‘JL L-^*1 6. 7. 8. of materials C'-iisistent with the preliminary plans attached as Exhibit D. Any accessory struchires on Lot 1, if approved, shall be of the same exterior finish and colors as the office building. Construction of the office building on Lot 1 shall be in conformance with the building codes and regulations adopted by the City of Orono. Any changes to the gross square footage, footprint/wall/roof dimensions or defined building height shall require a prior amendment to this Agreement. Landjcapmg. A landscaping plan to be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E shall be submitted by the Developer prior to issuance of building permits, and upon review and approval by the City Council shall be strictly adhered to. Within Lot 1, the Developer shall establish and maintain suitable vegetative screening along the northerly boundary of the property sufficient to substantially block direct view of most vehicle headlights from the adjoining Sugar Woods residential properties. Within Lot 1, the Developer shall provide and maintain vegetative screening within the defined rear yard of the office building to minimize the visual impact on the adjoining residential properties. Within Lot 1, Developer shall minimize to the greatest extent possible the removal of exisii>tg trees and vegetation alonu the perimeters of the property, and where feasible shall retain existing trees along the southerly boundary during construction until their removal is necessaiy to complete the approved landscape plan. The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate tencing to prevent construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the defined construction limits. Any retaining walls to be constructed on Lot 1 as shown on the approved plans shall be of decorative concrete keystone-type block construction of an earthtone color and shall be limited in height and length to the extent necessary’ to accomplish their intended purpose. Lighting . Site lighting shall adhere to a lighting plan to be attached to this agreement as Exhibit F and which which shall be submitted by the developer prior to issuance of building permits, and upon review and approval by the City Council shall be strictly adhered to. All lighting fixtures shall be located and constricted so as to direct light away from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Signage . Signage on the site shall be limited to the required traffic control signage, and to monument signs provided by the developer at each entrance to the site. The signage shall be limited to a company or development name and/or logo and street address on the monument signs. Design and materials of monument signage shall adhere to the approved Signage Plan to be attached hereto as Exhibit G upon review and approval by the City Page 4 of 13 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial JlAjJ % Council. Parking and traffic control signage shall be installed subject to City staff and City Engineer approval, including required stop signs within the parking lots and service drive to ensure safety of pedestrians in parking areas and crossing points. B. Installation and Maintenance of Improvements 9.Improvements: In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City of Orono, the following described public or private improvements (hereinafter collectively called the "Improvements") shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the Developer according to the terms and conditions contained in this PUD Agreement: (a) Site grading, roadways and driveways, curb and gutter, parking lots, sidewalks, retaining walls and all necessary erosion control measures per the preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter called "site grading improvements"), subject to submittal of a Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for City approval prior to issuance of building permits; (b) Sanitary sewer and water lines and facilities (hereinafter called "sewer and water improvements") and storm sewer lines and facilities (hereinafter called "stormwater improvements") per the preliminary Utility Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C. Relocation of the existing gravity sewer line extending from Brown Road North to the lift station near the southeast comer of Lot 2, as required by the City pursuant to the documents attached hereto as Exhibits I and J, shall be the responsibility of Sidney B. Rcbers, seller of Outlot F, Sugar Woods. (c) Underground natural gas, electric, cable and telephone service to be arranged by the Developer with the utility companies involved (hereinafter called the "other utility improvements"); (d) Landscaping and site revegetation improvements per the approved Landscaping Plan to be anached hereto as Exhibit E (hereinafter called "landscaping improvements"). Traffic control signage subject to approval by the City Engineer and Public Ser\ ices Director. (f) Any additional improvements listed within the Site Improvements Cost Estimate <o be attached hereto as Exhibit H. Page 5 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial \illj 10. Construction Plans : Detailed plans and specifications for the complete installation of the Improvements shall be submitted by the Developer for the approval of the City prior to issuance of applicable City permits. The Plans and Specifications shall conform to all current City standards for all applicable work and shall comply with the terms of this PUD Agreement. 11. Construction of Improvements: (a) Commencement Date - The construction of Improvements shall begin no later than December 31,2003. (b) Completion Date - All Improvements shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. (c) Contractors - The Developer shall select, retain and supervise the Contractor(s) responsible for Improvement construction. The City reserves the right to require satisfactory proof of successful experience and adequate financial status of any such contractor. Where required by City ordinance, the contractor shall first obtain a license from the City. (d) Pre-Construction Conference - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer and the Developer's Contractor shall meet with the responsible City official to review construction plans and schedules. (e) Permits - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer's Contractor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits from the City and/or government agencies having jurisdiction. (f) Permits - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer ’s Contractor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits from the City and/or government agencies having jurisdiction. Required City permits relative to the Improvements include the following: Site Grading Permit; Utility Construction Permit; Sewer and Water Connection Permits. (g) Construction - The construction, installation and materials shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Page 6 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial /rfty (h) Insurance - The Developer will cause each person who constructs and installs any Improvement to maintain complete insurance coverage including Workmen's Compensation, Liability and Property Damage. 12. Performance Deposit: For the purposes of assuring to the City that the Improv ements will be completed according to the terms of this agreement, and that the Developer will pay or will cause to have paid all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished, the Developer or his General Contractor will deposit with the City prior to issuance of site grading and building permits an irrevocable letter of credit in a form satisfactory to the City providing that the City is able to draw upon such letter of credit in its sole discretion to complete the Improvements if the Developer fails to satisfactorily complete the vvork prior to the completion date specified in Section 11 above. The amount of such deposit shall be 150% of the estimated improvement costs per the schedule to be attached to this document as Exhibit H. The amount of such deposit shall not be reduced before substantial completion of the Improvements. The letter of credit shall expire no sooner than six months after the completion date specified in Section 11 above. 13. Fees and Expenses: The Developer agrees to pay all City fees required per the current City Fee Schedule and further agrees to completely reimburse the City for all the variable additional expenses it incurs in regard to the review and approval of the Improvements including, but not limited to, direct City payroll and overhead, costs, and fees paid to consultants and other professionals, which are not covered by City application fees. 14. Maintenance . The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of all privately owned Improvements including roads, sidewalks, and storm sewers, regardless whether easements for such improvements have been granted to the City. Developer shall permanently maintain site lighting, signage and landscaping consistent with the approved Plans for said improvements. Upon satisfactory completion of construction of sewer and water mains on the site, developer shall transfer ownership of said main lines to the City, and the City shall hencefortn maintain said sewer and water mains. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of all sewer and water lines that are defined as "connections" as indicated on the approved Utility Plan. Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that the appearance and design of the building are maintained per the approved building and construction plan, and shall be responsible for ensuring that the site amenities and features as shown on the approved site plan are maintained per said plan. Page 7 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial 15. Developer Representations and Covenants. The Developer hereby makes the following representations and covenants: (a) The Developer has the legal authority and power to enter into this Agreement. (b) The Developer reasonably expects to obtain financial resources sufficient to enable the completion of the Improvements. (c) The Developer will, subject to the requirements of Section B - Installation and Maintenance of Improvements hereof, construct, operate and maintain the Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and all local, state and federal laws and regulations, and will construct or pay the costs of construction of any site improvements, utilities, landscaping, stormwater management facilities, roads, parking facilitie." which are necessary in connection with the construction and such improvements. (d) At such time or times as may be required by law, the Developer will have complied with all local, state and federal environmental reviews, licenses, and will be in compliance with the requirements of federal, state, and local authority. (e) The Developer will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements mav be constructed. (f) It is intended and agreed that the covenants provided in this Section shall be covenants running with the land not the owner or developer. 16. City Representations and Covenants: The City makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part here in contained: (a) The City is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and to carr>' out its obligations hereunder. (b) The City will, in a timely manner, subject to all notification requirements, review and act upon all submittals and application of the Developer and will cooperate with the effort of the Developer to secure the granting of any permit, license, or other approval Page 8 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial 17. 18. 19. required to construct and operate the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing contained in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit in any way the reasonable and legitimate exercise of the City’s discretion in considering any submittal or application. The Development Property is zoned for purposes which include the Development as proposed. The city has issued all necessary commercial site plan review approvals, and plat approval of Orono Woods Addition. Compliance. At any time and from time to time the Developer may request that the City provide the Developer a certificate certifying that that the terms and provisions of this Agreement have been complied with and that this PUD Agreement is in full force and effect with respect to the development for the purpose of facilitating sale, mortgage, insurance or other matters. To the extent that there be any bona fide defaults in such compliance, the Developer shall be afforded a reasonable time to bring the development into conformance, and thereafter the City shall be obligated to provide such certificate. Binding Effect: The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding deemed covenants running with the land. References herein to Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This agreement at the option of the City shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to any subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any part of the property. Notices: Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth below. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. Notice to City Notice to Developer City of Orono Clerk/Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Frank Dunbar, Chief Manager Orono Ambar, LLC c/o Dunbar Development Corporation 5000 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 Parties may substitute notice provisions upon notice to other parties. Page 9 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial Mitf 20. Incorpora tion bv Reference: All plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and contracts for the Improvements furnished and let pursuant to this agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. 21. Disclaimer bv City; It is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer or Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or any other person, firm or corporation, tor any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions, or causes of action of any kind or character, arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the Improvements. 22. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of this agreement by the Developer, its employees, agents or sub contractors, whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. 23. Remedy for Default: Default by the Developer of any of the terms of this agreement shall automatically result in the suspension or withholding of all permits, licenses, occupancy certificates or other authorizations issued by the City in connection with the property included in this development. The remedies afforded to the City under this Section shall be in addition to any other remedies to which the City may be entitled by law or other agreement. Default by the City shall entitle the Developer to seek injunctive/mandatory relief through the courts, together with other relief as the law may provide. 24. Right of Entry. The Developer hereby grants to the City, its agents and its employees, the right to enter on the property for the specific purpose of constructing or completing any and all of the agreed upon Improvements should the Developer not complete those Improvements by the date specified in Section 11. 25. Controlling Agreement . To the extent that there is any difference or ambiguity between this Planned Unit Development Agreement and other agreements between the City and the Developer, this Planned Unit Development Agreement shall control. Page 10 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial VjJ IN,WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO Bv: l/e. (City Clerk) JLJL^ DEVELOPER - Orono Ambar, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Date (City Administrator) This instnunent was drafted by: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway B.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55356 Page 11 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial jUO ‘lOiArikin 1 aT-a ,i/vi STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. DENISE M.L fiOMirPWic- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this i?fdav oi Alr]i/e*.Ur. 2001 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. n DENISE M. LESNNEN NOTNVrMUC-lMCSOrA Mr OcmMoii Eiatai Jm. 31 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of N>-eo<vAlau^ . 20 Qt, 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 of___________________________ a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow ledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/lier/their free act and deed. LORRAINE L ROBINSONNotaiy Pi^ - Notary Public Page 12 of 13 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A.....Preliminary Site Plan xhibit B......Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit C......Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit D..... Preliminary Building Plans & Elevations Exhibit I..... Letter by Hugh M. Maynard dated 4/24/01 regarding Sewer Replacement Exhibit J.... Excerpt from Orono Ambar/Rebers Purchase Agreement EXHIBITS TO BE PROVIDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL FILING Exhibit E..... Landscaping Plan Exhibit F..... Lighting Plan Exhibit G.... Signage Plan xhibit H.... Site Improvements Cost Estimate Page 13 of 13 Developer Initial 3/^^ City Clerk Initial fU^J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 47 0 4 Draft 9/27/01 Revised I0-I8-01 A RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2 FOR ORONO AMBAR, L.L.C. AND APPROVING THE PLAT OF ORONO AMB.AR -FILE #2640/2641 VVTIEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and e.xisting under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by Orono Ambar, L.L.C. for subdivision and development by the Planned Unit Development process of property' located within Outlot F, Sugar Woods, Hermepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4619 granting General Concept Plan Approval for the proposed development, which approval includes the following elements: 1. Subdivision platting of Outlot F to create two developable building lots; 2. Rezoning of each newly created lot; Lot 1 rezoned from B-1 Retail Sales Business District to B-6 Highway Commercial District, and Lot 2 rezoned from B-1 to RPUD Residential Plaimed Unit Development District. Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-guide Lot 2 from Commercial to Residential use. Commercial site plan approval and conditions for proposed office building on Lot 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. Residential site plan review and conditions for proposed senior housing building on Lot 2. Use of TIF financing for development of Senior Housing on Lot 2; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2001 the Metropolitan Council is expected to grant Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 0 4 WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an executed Development Agreement relating to the Orono Woods Apartments between City of Orono, Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter "HRA"), and Orono Senior Housing LLC for the City Council’s consideration and final execution, which agreement sets forth the terms emd conditions for the development of Senior Housing on Lot 2, including acquisition of the land by the HRA, ground lease to the Developer, Tax Increment Financing and issuance by the City of Multifamily Senior Housing Revenue Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted executed Planned Unit Development Agreemtiits 2 A and 2B providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition of site plan approval for the construction of an Office Building on Lot 1 and a Senior Housing Building on Lot 2 respectively, and which agreements document the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an executed Road, Drainage and Utility easement over the portions of driveways in Lots 1 and 2 that provide potential future frontage road connections between Brown Road, Wayzata Boulevard, and properties to the west; and WHEREAS, the Developer has completed all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City including: 1. Completion of alt platting requirements of Preliminaiy Plat Resolution No. 4703. 2. Dedication on the plat of Drainage and Utility Easements, including dedication of a utility casement to allow for replacement of the existing municipal sewer line which must be relocated outside of the MnDOT right-of-way and onto Lot 2. 3. 4. Subminal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit (No.01-366) approving the grading and stormwater management facilities plan for Lots 1 and 2 per the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C3-1 dated 8/16/01. Submittal of the necessary MnDOT approval for the right-in, righ»-out access to Wayzata Boulevard, and confirmation that the MnDOT stormwater pond located southeast of Lot 2 has the capacity to accommodate the proposed drainage from development on Lots 1 and 2.. Page 2 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___4 ? 0 4 5. 6. Submittal of an executed Temporary Construction Easement in favor of MnDOT along the easterly 15 feet of Lot 2 to accommodate the planned future changes to the intersection of Brovvn Road North and Wayzata Boulevard associated with the re routing of Highway 12; and Payment to the City of Park Dedication Fee for the development of Lot 1 in the amount of $35,510. 7. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat a^eements, easements and covenants in the amount of $200. 8. Payment of the final plat fee in the amount of $200. WHEREAS, for development staging purposes the Developer has divided the project into two phases, Phase 1 being the Senior Housing component on Lot 2, and Phase 2 being the Office component on Lot 1, the intent being lo commence Phase 1 construction in late 2001 and Phase 2 construction in 2002; and WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have reviewed the plans for this comprehensive application and hereby specify approval of each enclosed plan and identify them as part of the official record for the Orono Ambar subdivision and Planned Unit Development No. 2; 1. Approval of site plan for Phase 1 & 2 per Site Plan per Sheet C2-1 dated 8/16/01. 2. 3. Approval of Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Phases 1 & 2 per Sheet C3-1 dated 8/16/01, subject to the additional requirements of the MCWD in Permit No.01-366, and subject to the additional requirements specified by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in his letter dated October 9, 2001. Approval of Utility Plan for Phases 1 & 2 per Sheet C4-1 dated 8/16/01,subject to the additional requirements specified by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in his leUer dated October 9,2001. 4. Approval of Grading, Street and Utility Detail for Phases 1 & 2 per Sheets C9-1 and C9-2 dated 8/16/01, subject to the additional requirements specified by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in his letter dated October 9,2001. Page 3 of 6 m n '^Eavy, GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 »y A 5. 6. 7. 8. Approval of Landscaping Plan for Phase 2 only per Sheet LA-1 dated 8/19/01, subject to the additional requirements specifled by Wally Case in his letter dated October 19, 2001. Acceptance of floor plan and facade elevations for the Senior Housing building on Lot 2 (Phase 1 only) per Sheets A3.1 through A3.5 by MHWB Architects and Planners dated 9/19^ 1. Approval of site Signage Plans per Sheet A9.7 (undated) and Lighting Plan per submitted plan by Medina Electric, Inc. dated 10/24/01 subject to final review V; City staff. Preliminary approval of building design plans for the Office building on Lot 2 (Phase 2) as described and documented in Resolution No. 4619. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVTD that based on the findings of Resolution No. 4619, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby approve the plat of Orono Ambar, Hennepin County, Minnesota and grants General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. General Development Plan Approval is granted subject to conditions estoblished within Resolution 4619 and subject to the conditions established within the Development Agreement, PUD 2A and 2B Agreements, TIF financing documents, and other pertinent documents. 2. Upon the final approval and execution of the the resolution approving the plat of Orono Ambar, the City Council of Orono shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone Lot I, Orono Ambar from B-1 Retail Sales Business District to B-6 Highway Commercial District, and to rezone Lot 2, Orono Ambar, from B-1 Retail Sales Business District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District, and amending the Orono Zoning Code by adding language establishing Planned Llni, Development No. 2 (PUD-2) to include Lots 1 and 2, Orono Ambar. Page 4 of 6 •; • •• ^ GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ y 0 4 3.Upon execution of the final plat of Orono Ambar, the City Council shall direct the Mayor and Clerk to execute other documents required by this subdivision and PUD rezoning, including but not limited to the following: "Development Agreement Relating to Orono Woods Apartments (Including Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1) Between City of Orono, Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Orono Senior Housing , LLC"; "Planned Unit Development No. 2A Agreement for Orono Ambar Office Building"; "Planned Unit Development No. 2B Agreement for Orono Woods Apartments"; and any documents related to the TIF flnancing and issuance of the Multifamily Senior Housing Revenue Bonds. 4.Final building design plans for the Office building on Lot 1 (Phase 2) shall be subject to City Council review and approval prior to issuance of permits for said building. 5.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before April 22, 2002 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the agreements, easements, and covenants pertinent thereto. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that the conditions of Resolution No. 3347 vacating an existing unused drainage and utility (sewer) casement within Outlot F, Sugar Woods, have been fulfilled, and said vacation shall be effective upon filing of Resolution No. 3347 with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if 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 5 of 6 j CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ y 0 4 Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 22nd day of October, 2001. ATTEST; ■ J. (/a V • ' 1 M m p tLinda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thisi?*^ay of October, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv, RACHa DODGE fi-v NOTARY PUfcJC*MNNErOTA My CuiiiUMlun rmiwJ«v31.»» rs-nf i» STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notarv Public The foregoing instrument was acknow ledged before me on this day of October, 2001 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corpoiation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cit\. RACHEL DODGE notary public . MWNErOTA MyConwiMlonB»lr*Jin.31.a00S /I Notaiy Public Page 6 of 6 ^ i Bonestroo Rosene ^ ■ Anderlik & Ivll Associates Engineers & Architects April 4. 2002 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Woods Phase 2 File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2771 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlth And AssociAtes. Inc is sn AfftrmAtive Action'CquAt Opportunity Employer snd Employee Owned RrinclpAls: Orto G Bonestroo P£ • M«*rv n l Sorv^M PE • G»enn R Coofc PI • Robert G Schun cm P£ • Jerry A Bourdon P£ Senior ConsultAnts: Robert W Rosene Pf • Joseph C Anderiik Pf • RicMArdE furrier Pf • Sus^ V fb»-rrm C PA AssoclAte Principals. Keitn A Gordon PE • Robert R PleHerie PE • Rt(h.*rd W Foster PE • O losfcot.i Pf • Mark A M.inson P£ • Michael T Rauimann PE • Ted K Field PE • Ferneth P Anderson PF • v.ifk R Poifs PE • David A Bonestroo. MB A • Sidney P Willi«»mson P£ L S • Aijnes M R ng MB A • Ail.m R.m St*“m(cjr PE • Thomas W Peterson PE • James R Mal.md Pf • M.fes B Jensen Pf • l Phili p Gr ....i m Pf . Dane) J PE • Ismael Marline/ P£ • Thomas A Syfro PE • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove PE • Thom.e, A Poush »f pf • Robert J Oevery, P£ Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiilmar VN • MiiA.Hikee VU • Chu.iqo fl NMebsIte; wwwbonestroo com • •• J C'—' •»c>* Dear Mike. We have reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed Orono Woods Phase 2. The site is located just west of Orono Woods Phase I in the northwest quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard (T.H. 12 > and North Brown Road. The use for Phase 2 has changed from olfice to apartment use. The following are comments with regards to engineering matters: 1. 3. 4. 5. Traffic: The proposed parking lot and access road layout appears acceptable. If possible wc '•voiild recotnmend eliminating the reverse curve in the south access to the parking lot. Stop signs should be installed for vehicles eastbound from the Phase 2 parking lot and westbound from the Phase I parking lot. .Streets and parking aa*as should be constructed to the City’s commercial/industrial street section as per City Standard Detail STR-7. .^11 streets and parking areas shall have BblX concrete curb and gutter. Grading: The plans submitted are not scalable so we are unable to determine street grades. We recommend street grades not e.xceed 89c, parking lot grades should not exceed 49c. The proposed building is to be constructed near the existing retaining wall along the west side of the site. The e.xistmg wall is constructed of timber and appears to be in disrepair in several locations. We recommend the applicant consider replacing the existing timber wail. 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 of both Phases I and 2 so the City can evaluate building heights and appearance from the north and south. Drainage: A drainage area map and storm sewer calculations should be provided f or our review. Plans should be submilled lo the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnet tor their review The dow nstreani storm sewer was designed to serve this site assuming it was developed as a clinic. The applicant should provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use Utimic.s: The proposed 6" saniuiry sewer stub appears acceptable. The City should be notified when the 8 ”x6" wye will be cut into the existing sanitary sewer. The proposed water mam connection shall be by cutting in a tee, no wet taps are permitted. Final plans should include water mam plan and profile views. Hydrants should be located at all dead end lines and at all high points. Ea.semcnl.s, The proposed easement vacations appear appropriate. New utility ea.scmcnts will need to be provided lor all constructed water main, sanitary and storm sewer. Drainage easements should be provided across any existing or proposed drainage ways. Drainage and utility casements should be 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55II3 • 65I-636-4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-I3II provided 10-feet wide along all lot lines. A final plat should be submitted for review. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the ftnal plans are completed we will prepare an estimated cost for site improvements to determine the amount of financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTRCX). ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono Memo J/1J Bonestroo ^^RDsene Anderlik^ |\J| Associates f AQln«*r« 4 Arcfwttcti Project Nome: Orono Apartments Review To: Paul Weinberger From: Bryant Ficek, Tom Kellogg Client: City of Orono File No: 139-2641 Dafe; 11/14/00 J ffa; Traffic Flow and other issues for the Orono Apartments The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 12 with Brown North in Orono, Minnesota. No development cuirently exists on this site. The current site plan, dated October 17,2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the cast side of the site, next to Brown Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet of area and would be located on the west side of the lot. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site. Time Period Office I In luilding Out Senior 1 In 'lousing Out Total Site In Trip Ends Out Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250 AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10 PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35 Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120 Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105 As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments. Site Access The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access drive connects to Brown Road North on the cast side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the cast side of Brown Road North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced ‘T’ intersections. One lane in each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection if this project is completed before MNDOT’s realignment of TH 12. As part of the MNDOT TH 12 project. South Brown Road will be realigned to be the fourth leg of the Brown Road/fH 12 intersection. MNDOT plans include signalizing this intersection. Boneetroo, Roeene, Anderlik end A»»oclates 2335 West Highway 36+ St. Paul. MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600+ Fax; 651-636-1311 r November 14, 2000 Page 2 of 3 The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this location, leaving the median on TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane be created from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive. A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance, we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives. Thus, the amount of ‘cut-thru’ traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically. Internal Traffic Flow From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and arc able to choose to go to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include: • Swapping the location of each building .so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building's parking lot. • Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without dismption from parking activities. This will require locating the drive aisle a bit further south than originally shown. This will not impact the site any more than shown on the proposed grading plan. A sketch of this option is included with this submittal. • Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Construction of this drive aisle would impact an area north of the buildings not shown to be graded on the proposed grading plan. Either option would allow office users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area. Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas. The City should evaluate the proposed access drive in the northwest comer of the site. This access could, at a minimum, provide access to the City’s pump house. Pedestrian Movements To provide additional safely and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise. Bonettroo, RotBne, Anderltk and Assoefatet _______________________ 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone; 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 .ft *• November 14,2000 Page 3 of 3 Grading and prainaae The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest comer of the site approximately 10 feet higher than the adjoining property to the south. We recommend this part of the site be lowered at least 4 feet. The retaining wall could then be eliminated and 4:1 slopes graded between the parking lot and the adjoining property. If the proposed grades are not revised the developer should work with the adjoining property owner to replace the existing timber wall with a segmental block retaining wall. The developer should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for our review. Bon0»troo. Rottm, AnehrtlkandAsaoeMm 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone; 651-636-4600 Fax:651-636-1311 J mm UjttCT -1-0. \ 7:^ ^ HI 'ilnliWUt’diri "Wfkam rn*iTmKrc •i-vo irtfnaiTiB (is ^ McfiS [•(tiHriMir* WW iTiIflill rtroiiaii^ rtiriT^TiTil roflRi •IvJftTi* LVitfit iTiTilfl Ili^* .* ^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ____Completed Application Form. 2* ____Describe request in detail. '■ ------for survey 5.- Et.,- names (mclude marital status) of all persons wth an mterest in the nroperty. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownerfs^ : Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). .Ac fin ____1*__ ■ ' 8. 9.As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notifled of this application. ‘‘ooumems, plans, elc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please .u.e application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^e applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonine Adramtslraior agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered b> original fee payn.ro supplied is true and correcj^ to the best pf his^er knowledge ’. f , Applicant's signature - / Late i/u OWTN'ER'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 memberat dTot^cil membets for purposes ofjnvestigation and, verification of this request. Owners stgnamre - ^ ■ -//y/,. ___ pj,^ z. // Ap^tiitant must have all submittals Into the Citv olTices '’5'dav' befort. rh.. m,„„- • • Planning Ccmmisiion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month a , Commission Meeting, scheduled reviesv meetings of dte Planning Commission and Cound •“ scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized aeent attentf^n'T '* * Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. * ^ ^ **’* 1 #’2 7 71 A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ;^* , V i: ; : ^ \ -r-r ^ 1. - ____ Compfetea AwliciUfn-F^rS 2. -Describe-reaue^uWicSu^^ *• '■• ••■v' ■ • - 3. ____Certifij^ Propei^jOvra^^ of owners within 350', labels .and plat map^ou must obtain this’^Uk.labeWw^ map from'Hent- pin County b^irtment of Finmce; A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). .,. . . . , , , . ^ j, • 4; " Certificate of Survey (signetl by ‘a licens^ surveyor)^-*rrfer"fe hahclout for s^ey * * ‘ ^ ♦ r ,• f • 1 J J • WA>:V1 YT/^5. ____Attacn legal descnpuon to application if not included on required survey. /. v 6. ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land'alteratiofu 'invi^ve, changes in elevation (grades).-- T-.-;.. . • • ' ^ - - 7. ______ List 01 uie legal names (include mwtal status) of all persons with an interest in the nroperty. This would include iiame(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. ; construction plan, if applicable (cec staff for requirements). . * -r i . 9. ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. » • YOU ARE REQUIRED T05UPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11 ” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITT'ED. (Staff will 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 • I APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff ti.me not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of tliis application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correclto the best of his/her Imowledge. Applicant’s signature Date 3// • 7 - 7 OWNER’S SIGNATUgE 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 of^nvestigation an^verificalion of this request. Owner’s signature Date //cz. / Applicant must have alj/^bmittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, rianning Commission Meetings arc 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior 'o the meeting. S' ~ M •7 *• \ .* ♦ • < • ».* V i #1^771 ORONO AMBAR, LLC ^'3 March 20,2002 Mr. Michael P. Gaf&on City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Michael: Enclosed please find the General Land Use Application along with a check in the amount of $2,750.00. We are requesting the following: 1. Amendment of the PUD 2 A Agreement to reflect a different use and different site plan than was originally reviewed and appn ved 2. Rezoning of the property from B-6 Highway Commercial District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guide plan for this parcel from commercial to multi-family residential Please feel free to contact me with any questions Sincerely, Ei^hk C. Dunbar Ihief Manager J‘zL U f^ / V •'~ v ^ I j 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 22S Minneapolis. MN SS422 (763) 377-7090 FAX (763) 377-7089 L Dunbar Development Corporation April 2.2002 Mr. Michael P. Gaf&on City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Day, MN 55323 Re: Orono Woods West Dear Mike: As you are aware, we are proposing to develop Orono Wood West, a 50-unit independent senior development. Our intent is to duplicate the transaction used for the development of Orono Woods as outlined in the Development Agreement: • The land would be sold to the City of Orono and Orono Senior Housing West, LLC would develop a 50-unit apartment building for independent seniors. This would insure that the development would remain occupied by seniors • The City of Orono would issuance Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the project • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would create and establish a Tax Increment Financing District and contribute 90% of the increment for 20 years back to the development. • The City agrees that park dedication fees and ut ■ ty connection fees otherwise payable with respect to the Development are deferred and shall be payable only in the event that the Developer violates the Senior Housing Restriction Please feel free to contact me with any questions. We look forward to working with you and the City of Orono on this development. Sincerely, . Dunbar President 5000 Glenwood Avenue. Suite 200 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55422-5146 (763)377-7090 FAX (763) 377-7089 GITYoT ORONO M * * • •; »• • •• * I# ' Stif ft liMms: 2750 Keller Paikway Orono. MN 55356 Municipal Offices •' I'r?'• < IMDef UdrtM: P.O. Bn 66 . Crystal Bay, lOi 55323^66 February .20,2002 . r- * Frank C. Dunbar, President Dunbar Development Corporation 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55422-5146 Re: Orono Woods Senior Housing Phase II Dear Frank: This letter is to outline the application process for review and approval of Orono Woods Senior Housing Phase II should you choose to proceed. Your proposal will require the following applications and associated fees per the 2002 Orono Fee Schedule; 1 . A request for amendment of the PUD 2 A AGREEMENT to reflect a different use and different site plan than was originally reviewed and approved (Application fee: Covered by rezoning application fee below). 2. A request for rezoning of the property from B-6 Highway Commercial District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District (Application fee $375.00 plus $40.00 per dwelling unit) 3. A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guide plan for this parcel from commercial to multi-family residential (Application fee: $375.00) The appropriate application form is attached. The deadline for applications to be reviewed at the April 15 Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday, March 20 at noon. I understand you are meeting tonight with the neighbors in Sugar Woods to identify and address their concerns. Please advise us of any issues you become aware of. Schedule. 1 anticipate that the Planning Commission will not have significant concerns about the rezoning or Comp Plan amendment, but may wish to spend some time addressing site plan issues. If a public hearing is held on April 15 and results in a tabling due to site plan issues, 1 >vill ask Plaiming Commission to act on the Comp Plan amendment so we can make an application to Met Council and avoid any delays. In the event of a PC tabling, it may be prudent to have a work session (possibly a joint session with City Council) prior to the May 20 PC meeting. I would then anticipate Council review in May/June, and finalization of TIF, financing, etc. would occur over the summer months. Tdephow (BS2) 249-46 . www.d.i6rpMMiiiii M€yr^ vy 1 ■ § -Li /'V- ..f l?H . if*-’ Orono Senior Housing Phase II Februaiy20,2002 . ... , r. , , , Pagc2 .'1 % ^ • TTF.etc. As we have discussed, your application will involve a request for TIF financing with City ownership of the land under the same terms as Phase I. Council has been made aware of this pending p/oposal and has expressed no'objections to proceeding as such. Park Dedication . The Park Dedication fee had been established for commercial use of Lot 1 in the amount of $35,510 for which you have executed a mortgage note. Park fees for a 52 unit residential building per current ordinance at $3250/unit would total $169,000. * • Sewer/Water Connection Charges. The ori^nal analysis of sewer and water charges for development of Lots 1 and 2 assumed a total expected usage of 75 sewer/water units of which 41 were paid, leaving 34 of 75 (45%) due at the current Highway 12 Arearateof$13,545/acre. The fee was calculated as follows: 0.45 x $13,545 x 6.7 acres « $40,838. This fee amount was then attribute *' the senior housing on Lot 2 and the entire amount deferred. The Met Council SAC determination for 62-unit Phase I was 49 SAC units based on the variety of tinit sizes. Based on this. Phase II’s 52 units would yield approximately 12 SAC units. Total units attributable to Phase I and n combined would be 91 units, or 16 more units than initially anticipated. Using the same formula for determining a revised sewer/water connection charge, 41 of 9 1 total units have been paid, leaving 50 of 91 units, or 54.95% due. The current 2002 rate for Highway 12 sewer/water units is $14,115 per acre. 0.5495 x $14,115 x 6.7 acres = $51,966, of which $40,838 has been deferred. The balance due would be $11,128. Other Administrative Fees (to be expected at end of approval nrocessL Final Plat Review Fee..................$225 plus incurred legal/engineering/coosultant charges Document Filing Fees..................$200 plus incurred costs/charges TIF Consultant/Legal ...............$(?) We are looking forward to working with you on this project, and will seek to provide whatever assistance we can in moving the process forward. Please feel free to contact me or other staff members if you have questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Oaffron Planning Director cc: Paul Weinberger Wendy Bottenberg inr ^ £) 4 i * RUN DATE 03/1^/02 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAKPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWMER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SB 3^-118-23 21 0002 02180 WAYZATA BLVD W WILLIAN W WEAR t WIFE WILLIAN W WEAR 2160 WAYZATA BLVD BlOb LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 54-118-23 21 0018 02103 SUGARWOOD DR R J I S G HOGAN RANDALL J I SARA 6 HOGAN 2103 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0022 02106 SUGARWOOD DR 0 Z GILL IPS GILL QRETCHEN Z i FRANCIS S GILL 2106 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0025 02110 SUGARWOOD DR G E NILEUSNIC I N NILEUSNIC GEORGE E 8 NARILYN NILEUSNIC 2110 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE NPLS NN 55616 38 36-118-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS PENDING C I L OTTEN CLIFFORD i LOUISE OTTEN BOX 266 LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0016 02107 SUGARWOOD OR T J 1 V A SMITH THONAS J SMITH 2107 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0019 02101 SUGARWOOD DR RICHARD J I CONNIE L APPLE RICHARD J t CONNIE APPLE 2101 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGARWOOD DR R N SCHONNER I E N SCHONMER R N SCHONNER I E N SCHONMER 2106 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0026 0211? SUGARWOOD DR K G BERG 8 K N D BERG K G BERG 8 K N D BERG 2112 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55616 38 36-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD 8 LOUISE OTTEN BOX 269 LONG LAKE m 55356 t . REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 1 38 36-118-23 21 0017 02105 SUGARWOOD DR THOMAS J 8 VIRGINIA A THOMAS J I VIRGINIA A 2105 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE m 55356 SMITH SMITH 38 36-118-23 21 0021 02102 SUGARWOOD DR T M KINMES 8 A E KIMMES TODD M I ANITA E KIMMES 2102 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0026 02108 SUGARWOOD DR M L RICKS 8 J M RICKS MICHAEL L/JACQUELINE N RICKS 2108 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0027 02116 SUGARWOOD DR R J OLSEN 8 E A OLSEN ROGER 8 ELIZABETH OLSEN 2116 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0033 02190 WAYZATA BLVD W GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC PO BOX 800 2190 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 36-118-23 26 0001 02120 WAYZATA BLVD W WILLIAM WEAR ETAL WILLIAN W WEAR 36 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE MN 55356 \ 4« n .I I r RUN DATE §5/14/82 BATCH 501 PROf AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAIK/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEV^Y INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY uWNCRS LIST 30 34-110-25 24 0050 00030 ADDRESS UNASSI6NED SIDNEY B 0 BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B t BARBARA REBERS 3525 NEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK HN 55416 72 34-110-23 23 0053 02205 NAYZATA BLVD N PERRY’S VENTURES INC PERRY’S VENTURES INC 2205 NAYZATA BLVD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0026 00545 VIRGINIA AVE D CREAR t H B CREAR DAN CREAR 1900 SPATES AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 72 34-110-23 24 0027 00535 VIRGINIA AVE KEITH D HILLER KEITH D HILLER 535 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0039 02045 NAYZATA BLVD N J t H IHVESTHENTS J 0 H IHVESTHENTS 6341 KINGSVIEN LA H HAPLE GROVE HN 55311 72 34-110-23 24 0040 02065 NAYZATA BLVD N JOHN B DRISCOLL JOHN B DRISCOLL C/0 PCI 332 HINNESOTA ST 02100 ST PAUL HN 55101 72 34-110-23 24 0067 00001 PREHIER DR RJR HOLDINGS CO INC RJR HOLDINGS CO INC 1 PREHIER DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0060 02073 NAYZATA BLVD N GREGORY H SHAU6NESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR 2073 W NAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 697 LONG LAKE m 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0070 02160 DANIELS ST VB PROPERTIES LLC VB PROPERTIES LLC 1250 CRESTVIEN DR HUDSON N1 54016 TOTAL BATCH 501 00031 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 2 I 72 34-110-23 24 0025 02045 NAYZATA BLVD N D CREAR t H B CREAR DAN CREAR 1900 SPATES AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 72 34-110-23 24 0036 02069 NAYZATA BLVD N HIBNEL BUDGET RENTA|. KIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL 2069 NAYZATA BLVD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0052 02005 DANIELS ST QPN LLC ET AL QPN LLC C/0 JILL A HUNZ 7272 32NO ST S E BUFFALO HN 55313 72 34-110-23 24 0069 00509 SHAUGHNESSY AVE GREGORY H SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 N NAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 697 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23-21^0036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO HSG & RDVLPT ATHY ORONO HSG & RDVLPT ATHY 2750 KELLEY PKWY ORONO MN 55356 Jill #2771 M-l April 5,2002 To; Orono City Mayor, Barbara Peterson Orono Planning Commission Orono Zoning Commission Orono City CouncU The purpose of this letter is to inform the Orono Mayor, the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission and City Council Members of our objections to the Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Apartments. The original plan of Phase II was a 2-slory office building. The new preliminary plans are now for a 3- story, 50 units “L”-shapcd complex for seniors. Some of the Objections to this plan are as foUows: • The increased scale of the project and its bordering of the Sugar Woods Preserve. • The project’s growth in overtaking the area by towering over Long Lake and Orono with a 5-story complex on top of the W1 - includes above ground enclosed parking, 3 stories of apartment units, and the roof • The density of a possible 50 to 100 more residents in a two acre area, in addition to Phase I currently under construction (62 units of 62 to 124 residents), causir^ considerably higher traffic flow in the following areas: 24-hour Residents Moving Trucks Deliveries Visitors Medical Care House Keepers and Maintenance More acceptable plans or projects would be that of a lower building structure (2 stories), with fewer tenants, positioned closer to Highway 12. Included in this plan would also be underground parking, thereby helping to lower the overall height of the complex on top of the hill. It would also be acceptable to retain the plans for the previous approved 2-story office building as discussed during Phase I of Orono Woods. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to onl) with the accompanying office building, not with a second large apartment complex as a companion to the first. It has been stated by some of you that you need to hear from the Orono lesidents it there are any objections to proposed plans. You heard our objections last time with Phase I of Orono Woods, and let this be recorded as our objections for Phase II along with the enclosed signed copies of residents who were in town this week since you notified us through mail received on April 8* that we had only until April 11*** to send in written information for the April 15* meeting. We hope you take us, and our concerns seriously Sincerely, ^ / O L ^ U^' 0 c (b 1^-7^ April 5,2002 To: Orono City Mayor, Barbara Peterson OroDO Planning Commission Members Orono City Council The purpose of this letter is to inform the Orono Mayor, the Planning Commission, and City Council Members of our objections to the Phase n of Orono Woods Senior Apartments. The original plan ofPhase II was a 2-story oflBce building. The new preliminary plans are now for 50 units in an “L”-shaped complex for seniors. Some of the Objections to this plan are as follows: • The increased scale of the project and its bordering of the Sugar Woods Preserve. • The project’s growth in overtaking the area by towering over Long Lake and Orono wit:', a 5-story complex on top of the hill - includes above ground enclosed parking, 3 stories of apartment units, and the roof • The density of a possible 50 to 100 more residents in a two acre area, in addition to Phase 1 currently under construction (62 units of 62 to 124 residents), causing considerably higher traffic flow regarding: 24 hour Residents Deliveries Visitors Medical Care House Keepers and Maintenance Ect... More acceptable plans or projects would be that of a lower building structure (2 stories), with fewer tenants, positioned closer to Highway 12. Included in this plan would also be underground parking, thereby helping to lower the overall height of the complex on top of the hill. It would also be acceptable to retain the plans for the previous approved 2-story’ office building as discussed during Phase F of Orono Woods. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to only with the accompanying office building, not with a second large apartment complex as a companion to the first. Please regard these as our serious concerns pertaining to this proposal. Sincerely, -C, V It would also be acceptable to retain the plans for the previous approved 2-story ullice building as discussed during Phase 1 of (>ono Woods. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to only with the accompanying oflSce building, not with a second large apartment complex as a conqxmion to tte first. Please regard these as our serious concerns pertaining to this proposal Sincerely, ^ /j •2.^0 7. Sincerely, 0- /y*/ he »?/• Sincerely, Z.IOV Sincerely, c2/03 u Oy^OOO /^f^6-v/oociyij Or. Sincerely, ^3 l!00 ?Tog ut me luu. it would also be acceptable to retain the plans for the previous approved 2-slory oflice building as di**^****^ during Phase 1 of Orono Woods. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to oaly with the accompanying oflBce building, not with a second large apartment conq>lex as a con^Mnion to the first. Please regard these as our serious concerns pertaining to thb proposal. Sincerely, Sincerely, 6AJ <rt) D Sincerely, Sincerely, L. CAfd^ rieti5c ic^^oAu Sincerely, z\n^SO g ^/1 jQ a '^SZ Vvf' 9ozo ------------------ • '1 he scale oi me projcci aiiu ua uoruetuig ui lue ou^^aiiUi Vf UU\iO I \%0» The project’s growth in overtaking the area Iqr towering over Long Lake and Orono with a 5-story complex on top of the hill - indues above ground enclosed parking, 3 stories of apartment units, and the roof. The density of a possible 50 to 100 more residents in a two acre ^ in addition to Phase 1 currentty under construction (62 units of 62 to 124 residents), causing considerably higher trafiBc flow regarding: 24 hour Residents Deliveries ' Visitors Medical Care House Keepers and Maintenance Ect... More acceptable plans or projects would be that of a lower building structure (2 stones), with fewer tenants, positioned closer to Highway 12. Included in this plan would also be onderground parking, thereby helping *o lower the overall height of the complex on top It^wuld also be acceptable to retain the plans for the previous approved 2-story ofiBce building as discussed during Phase I of Orono Woods. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to only with the accon^ianying office building, not with a second large apartment complex as a companion to the first. Please regard these as our serious concerns pertaining to this proposal Sincerely, "2. I ^ Sincerely, 'UjLP'I/.ILL.^oay Shmcmmak TkMf M'3 Date: April S, 2002 From: Rkhanl and Evelyn Schommer / ^ To: Frank Dunbei Sut^t: Sugar Woods Neighborhood Response to Additional Senior Housing Building We were not able to meet with the neighbors due to the feet that untO March 29*, 2002, we had no knowledge of what exactfy you were proposing to the Orono Planning Commission. Upon notice of the “Proposed Building Plans Senior Apartment Complex” from the Orono Zoning Administrator with the April 15* date of an Orono Plannii^ Commission review of these plans, we are presently notifying our neighbors of this change from an office building to a new much larger “L”-shaped, higher populated building. We are extremefy concerned about this change and its size. The first phase of the apartments were agreed to only with the accompanying oflBce building, not with a second large apartment conq;>lex as a companion to the first. cc: Mike Gaffron Paul Weinberger ■ iwfld iini ffiHiii im itomjrn-innrni L M-H April 5*. 2002 Orono Mayor, Commissioners and Council Members: 1 am writing to my representatives at Orono City Hall as a concerned member of the community. As an architecture student, I have been studying how we as a society interact and react to the environments in which we create. After just witnessing an inspiring lecture on “Visionary Architecture” at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, I think in today’s society it is clear more than ever that we need to be cognitive of what we build in our communities and the affect what is built has on its citizens. This applies to both aesthetic qualities, as well the social changes brought about with certain building/development projects. With this said, 1 feel Orono could be a community that is set apart from others in an age of the never-ending urban sprawl syndrome, while still keeping the best interest of the city and its citizens in mind. Projects such as the Orono Woods Senior Housing Complex offer challenges to a community trying to keep the integrity of its land and people. Although the city, and seniors, will benefit from senior housing, at what cost and at what scale are we willing to alter our community and property value? When will Orono appear to be just like every other suburb in a metropolitan area? Now with another proposal for major development on the land adjacent to the Orono Woods Senior Housing project, the city of Orono is in grave danger of creating an area of the community dense in population and lacking of character and planning. The developer’s intentions seem to be to develop ^e land as expeditiously as possible with the greatest personal profit possible, despite what is conveyed to the neighbors about “their best interest.” Should a city with new development such as Orono’s be so quick to trust such developers that arrive with urgency to build up our streets and neighborhoods? What is in the best interest of the City and its citizens? Is it maintaining the quality of life that we moved to Orono for? Is it worth devaluing our property? Is it worth creating a less than aesthetically or cohesively desirable thoroughfare for the citizens of Orono, as well as surrounding communities? These are questions I expect my elected representatives and local officials to think about and debate over before decisions are made, and people are coerced by convincing developers, to greatly alter our city landscape or develop our city into something that is far less than our expectations. I cannot therefore support further housing being developed for the site adjacent to the Orono Woods Senior Housing along Highway 12. The reasons for this opposition are clear: aesthetics, population over-density, increased traffic, property devalue and altering quality of life for the Sugar Woods neighborhood, and maintaining an overall b.isic community pride for the city of Orono. If this land must be developed, it is my hope and expectation that the city of Orono will be highly selective in what they choose to develop this land with, as well as future sites, - land that affects each of us. Sincerely, 'RYAN SCHOMSfER ^ • Dunbar Development Corporation M- April 9.2002 c;rv ^ Mr. Richard and Evelyn Schommer 2106 Sugarwood Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Orono Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schommer: Thank you for your memorandum to me dated April 5,2002. As you are aware, on February 20,2002 I held a meeting, in which you were in attendance, regarding the new proposed development. On February 21,2002 I forwarded to your home a site plan on the new propo^ development and requested your comments. On March 12. 2002,1 sent you and the Ricks another memorandum requesting your comments. In all due respect, we disagree with your statement that an apartment building would be more higher populated than an office building. An independent senior apartment building averages 1 .3 people per unit. For a 50 unit building this would be 65 individuals. A commercial office building averages 5 people per 1,000 square feet and for a 25,00 square foot office building this would be 125 people. The site plan for the independent senior apartment building has substantial more green space and the building is located furthers south on the site. We are hopeful that this would enhance the relationship with your southern boundary and our northern boundary. We welcome any further comments you or your neighbors may have and we look forward to working with the Sugar Woods Neighborhood as we develop the site. Sincerely, -AfA. -C - .Frank C. Dunbar ^ President Cc: Mike Graffon 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Mumeapolis, Minnesota 55422-5146 (763) 377-7090 FAX (763) 377.?Dd9 r; L April 10,2002 To Orono City Mayor, Barbara Peterson Orono Planning and Zoning Commissioners Orono City Council Members Re: Proposed Building Plans for Senior Apartment Complex Regrettably and unfortunately, we are unable to attend the April 15, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. We request that the eiKlosed letter be read aloud during the meeting so that our concerns can be considered and noted by all. Once again, we are iwt against the concept of senior housing, but rather the towering size of the complex and the increased population density in the remaining two acres, as is pointed out in the attached letter. We have collected a number of residents'signed letters stating these concerns and will bring them to Oroix> City Hall to Mike Gaffion by your requested date of April 11,2002. Thank you for listening to us as residents of Orono and Sugar Woods. Sincerely, Richard and Evelyn Schommer 2106 Sugar Woods Drive ! Date: April 10,2002 To: Mike Gafifron*^ Paul Weinberger From: Evelyn & Richard Schommer 2106 Sugar Wood Dr. Re: Requested Response To Frank Dunbar The attached is our response to Frank Dunbar as he requested. He met with Michael Rkks, 2108 Sugar Wood Dr., and us to inform us that “Whh or without the neighbors’ approvaT* he would be proposing additional 50 apartments to be buih instead of the approved ofl^ building, or he would accept offers for the sale of the remaining two acres, or he would be open to other offers. He also indicated that he would be interested in buying out the owner of the welding business and the Orono MaU and building MANY high-trafBc volume businesses on the land. -! ! We suggested that more of the neighbors than just the two of us be involved in his proposal when he was definite about just what it was he would be proposing to Orono Planning Commision. 'i ' I He followed up with a memo to us asking about our meeting with the neighbors, And the attached is our response back to him. . _ - TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:April 10, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2778 Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road Variances List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Elevation Sketches Floor Plans Property Site Plan/Sur\'ey Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Application The property owner has requested a two-part variance application, 1.To raise the existing house from a 1 Vi story to a full 2 story. The variance is requiretl because a portion of the building expansion is located within the 75’ lakeshore setback. Ihe second story addition would raise the building height by approximately 10’. The total building height would be defined as 22’, below' the 30’ standard. To permit construction of a 14’ X 8’ deck located betw een the garage and house. The deck requires variances to permit the total hardcover to increase from 27.7% to 30.2% in the 75- 250’ setback where 25% is allowed. A second variance is required to allow the total lot coverage by structure to increase from the existing 1,901 s.f (18.3%) to 2.013 s.f (19.4%) where 1,553 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Review of Project The second story addition will only raise the roof to create a full second story. There will be no work occurring outside the existing foundation. The variance is required to permit an expansion to the building within 75’ of the lakeshore. No increase to hardcover or structure is proposed. The total hardcover and structure has been reduced since Manley Brother’s Construction has taken ownership of the house. They have removed a large lakeside deck that was w ithin 75’ of the lakeshore that cannot be replaced. The house encroaches 8’ into the average lakeshore setback. The second story expansion has been designed to not raise any part of the roofline within the average lakeshore setback. The deck variance request is to permit a new 14’ X 8’ deck between the garage and house. ITcrc is an existing interior walkway between the two structures. There is an above ground walkway ‘itaj allows access to an existing deck above the garage. The walkway and deck above the garage w ere permitted variances to replace decks last year. The deck in question would allow the walkway to be widened by constructing a deck to the west side of the walkway. The primary issue is the deck w ill increase hardcover and structure on the property. A deck had been located in this area prior to being voluntarily removed about 2 years ago. I here was no intent to replace that portion of the deck when the variances were approved to allow the deck above the garage to be replaced. Existing Building Permits The property owners have permits for the following. 1. To permit replacement of decks and railings for the walkway between the garage and house, and to replace the decking above the garage. (Variances approved in 2001. Zoning Application No. 2668) 2. To permit replacement of second story dormers in the second story of the building. (Variances approved in 2001. Zoning Application No. 2668) 3. To permit basement level and main level interior remodeling. Other Outstanding Issues A previous property owner had constructed retaining walls and regraded the shoreland area within 75 ’ of the lake. Staff required the retaining walls to be removed and the lakeshore restored. The eurrent property owner removed the retaining walls in February, 2002. Mr. Manley is in the process of having a lakeshore restoration plan designed that will develop a plan that will complete the restoration and provide erosion control. The lakeshore restoration design has not been completed. If the lakeshore restoration requires retaining walls and/or land alteration that would change the preexisting grades, a conditional use permit and variance application would be required. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the second story expansion based on the fact the building was constructed in its current location prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, no expansion to the building footprint is proposed, and there would be no further impact within the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommends denial of the variances to permit a 14’ X 8’ deck addition between the walkway and garage based on the following: 1. The deck would add additional hardcover and structure to the property. The deck requires variances to permit the total hardcover to increase from 27.7% to 30.2% in the 75-250 ’ setback where 25% is allowed. A second variance is required to allow the total lot coverage by structure to increase from the existing 1,901 s.f. (18.3%) to 2,013 s.f. (19.4%) where 1,553 s.f. (15%) is allowed. 2 E 2. Over the past several years the City of Orono has not approved variances that would allow additional building mass on properties that are currently over 15% structural lot coverage. 3. The property has lakeshore to the northwes: side of the property and directly across Fagemess Point Road. Additional hardcover on the property has the potential to contribute to direct runoff of storm water to the lake. Approval of such a variance would be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan ’s Environmental Protection Plan. 4. Such an approval would be inconsistent with other actions taken by the City for lots that have lakeshore on more than one property dimension. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3.Table. 4.Other Action. I 4 A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ApriiallMi * 63-3.-77S/' I^e Received ______ Amount Paid '2>00» vumber oProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. I (do) (do not) also own thy adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:____________________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Address C i/«n A(V a xv I lJ Phone (home) ~/o030 Phone (work) 3— ._____Zip:City: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Phone (home). Phone (work) Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: /y\ci^4^h Estimated Construction Cost 5 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front ^ Hardcover Side __Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore y. Other (specify) ______________________________________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ' Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or. unusual property conditions preventine complianc e with Zoning Code requirements: ^ ^ i (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2778 WmSRXSmsMs^‘jhfeTJ^i tl,^ .>7Tf /?- //7- 2-2 -(^ '--f Parcel Infonhationtr^'^!^ *- -••. r'-*v *>-'. 4r,^-. •'.- 1%?^^ U J - :^r» >..............f«^« yj % Hi :k |&V|<5Wk»l' ya14V|U> ! ■i• « ^. iLj/ I !■a^> (fU I - •«*) S . )^ • m -ftfryi Cw liPiVUy I4\u Xfmut prtfltjt P»g|» puM *4^1^' OPIanco lAc. ^<wt.*f>>1' fF»**-iK KPW> (J P HlfH^flOff. (*Mi> |^(fcw> viPl. vU^ (T% > Ul 2g o o zs (rill U-“ UJo -5' r f « ! t • . J ! • t ftac»TWw> ! •• • OPIaneo Inc. I . I . 3f t lliu? Fiff»<m<><’ ,P^ le , lu; o W\ txp^ pl i— MN 71 a ^(Wf<Ly W T : -• . iL T -f ^ / '? • I « I t i J V1UH 5 .It ««lt»*t c,L^ HMM’ *H 1 M ■ ^/ #•* . // I ^ • .. /? 1' ofou. UJoz lU9 </>LU QC - «»-#A-*-/- •' - .»- -V - " « ^ IM J If»• • E .. . . I r »• ••• • • • • • • • t • •«. . • • • ^ • * • , ♦ * I* • . t «. •• I • • •>«! • 4* .1 I* . t I ’ * ! ,: . • •• I. ■ I A O Ptanco Inc. I ••• f I • ■ I i. tiA^o i . . rM" i !. . I ■ ! h- I J‘. %** iU> <1 # f' ^ ... ^ •t . • t/I i A -V I- u. Ulosa <0s ^ .. . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET lIRCLE ONE) li-tSV iSWOO*500-1000' F Uf2 g!»STTXC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Hcuse 9^0 S.F. B. Gar^e • • • ‘ C Driveway X X X E. Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Piastre G. Other X X X X X X X X ■— * ------------------------------------ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ X ICO panPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House_____________X Lngth WkSh B. Garage C Drivr.vay D. Sidewalk E, PorJo/Deck F. Landscape Ur.derloLi By Plasrx G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X total kardcovxr in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B ___X too SJ. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. c.n S.F. S.F, SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. JCij(D S.F. A O- S.FT B T t IA y. S.F. ST. 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. ST. A "ST. B % HARDCOVER CALCLXATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^75* gXISTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Kcitn * & 500-1000* Lc 9|0i B. Gangs • • • • C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado^eck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other ■•£tv4lr^- ‘ ‘ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X ICO fp^^pnSgD hardcove r in zone A. House ______- * Leaftti Widh B. Cange C. D^ve^vay * D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape UnderiaLn By Plasrx 0. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4* B X ICO F 2 of ^ sj. SJ. SE. SJ. SC.'h SJ. n3 S.F. . SE. \ S.F. . :• S.F. £(g__ SE. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.rT B '}-i.n . y» S.F. s:f. SE. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. S.F. 1)2^S.F. ilecK S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iSSifi • SE. A &F- B ~JdVZ^ % mJN DATE 03/18/02 HENNEPIN COUNTY POOPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO* PIA35A01 PAGE 5 BATCH 502 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 18-117-23 14 0004 01075 FAOERNESS POINT RD JOHN K PURDY ETAL JOHN K PURDY 1075 FAOERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55301 38 18-117-23 14 0007 01071 FAOERNESS POINT RD W L DELAY OLA DELAY WILLIAM L 8 LORI A DELAY 1071 EAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55301 38 18-117-23 14 0008 01073 EAGERNESS POINT RD MANLEY BROTHERS CONST INC HANLEY BROTHERS CONST INC 444 LEXIE CT EAGAN MN 55123 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 18-117-23 14 0000 01045 EAGERNESS POINT 0 L EKLOF t C F LEE OARY EKLOF / CATHY LEE 1045 EAGERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55301 38 18-117-23 14 0010 01055 EAGERNESS POINT RD H S IVES IKE GEMPLER MARIS IVES I KARLTON GEMPLER 1055 EAGERNESS POINT RD ^ WAYZATA MN 55301 • * TOTAL BATCH 502 00005 - ^ *■V. X CERTIFV THAT THE FACTS REFRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTV DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTV TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NV KNOMLEDCE AND BELIEF. ■» j K'*• 'x'.'vC... DATE -J* iVoZ-vi \ i to TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator April 10, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2768 Brad and Carol Pass 250 North Shore Drive West Sketch Plan Review Lot Area:14 acres List of Exhibits: A Application B Applicant Letter - Request for Concept Plan Review C Plat Map D Orono Wetland Inventory Map E Lot Layout F City Engineer Comments G MCWD Comments Application Brad and Carol Pass are owners of the property proposed for subdivision. They are requesting a sketch plan review for a front lot/ back lot subdivision of property. The property is a 14 acre property to be divided by creating two building sites (Lots 1 and 2), shared driveway (Outlot A), and a conservation outlot (Outlot B). The lots are proposed as follows: Lot 1=53 acres (2 acres dry contiguous) Lot 2 = 3.01 acres Outlot A = 0.65 acre (Driveway Outlot) Outlot B = 4.92 acres (Conservation Outlot) The property owners also own the 20.5 acres located immediately east of this property. The total lot area owned in common is approximately 34.5 acres over three separate parcels. WTien the City reviews a proposed subdivision the City can require future access corridors to be dedicated for roadways. Based on the size of the property it would be appropriate to create a future right of way to connect County Road 19 to North Arm Lane, or north to Baysidc Road if there is potential for future development of interior properties. After having discussions with the property owners about the future access corridors an alternative plan was developed that would create two building sites on the west property and create conserv ation land to the east that would not be developed. The conservation land would be 5 acres on the property being subdivided and additional land to the east would be a dedicated conservation casement. The east parcel is approximately 20 acres in size. There are two dwelling units located on the 20 acre parcel, but this parcel is only used as one residential site. There is no intent to use the property for two separate residences. One of the units is located above a detached garage, the second is the primary house (2 IS and 235 North Arm Lane). Enough land would be left out of the conservation easement for one additional, future residential lot. The total lots would then be 4 over the entire 34.5 acres. The second residential site on the east property would be determined at such time that that property is subdivided. The individual parcel would access North Arm Lane. Under that scenario additional road access would not be required between North Arm Land at id the westerly parcel. The option of not requiring a road is beneficial to the property since the existing topography and wetlands are major obstacles to road construction. Sketch Plan Review The Sketch Plan Review is required for this subdivision because the subdivision will require "flexible zoning". The flexible zoning for this application is a variance for land alteration and placement of a driveway within a designated wetland area and within 26* of the wetland. The only land alteration and hardcover that will be located within the wetland is for the crossing. The MC WD will also require a permit for the work. Staff has reviewed the access issue w ith the applicant and has determined the proposed driveway access has the least impact on die wetland. There is no possible access to County Road 19 w ithout crossing some part of the w etland. The general site plan meets all requirements for a front lolT>ack lot subdivision. Back lots arc defined as "a lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow- corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a back lot when the corridor is platted as an outlot.." The special requirements for a front lot/back lot division are the back lot (Lot 2), because the property does not have direct access to a road, must meet a minimum of 150% of the minimum lot standards in the zoning district, in this case Lot 2 must have a minimum lot size of 3 acres, and a principal building shall meet a minimum setbacks 1 50% of the standard. The lot is in the RR-IB district, which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Setbacks in the district are 50* front and rear vard. and 30* for the side vard. Back lots are required to have a driveway access a minimum of 30 ’ in width. The shared driveway access meets the minimum requirements. Outlet A is much wider than 30* at the road. This was done to allow the driveway approach to be located at the highest point to provide the best site lines for the driveway. Outlot B will be part of a much larger conser\ ation easement area that w ill be dedicated to the Hennepin Conservation District. A large portion of the adjacent property will also be part of a land dedication to the Conser\ ation District. The Conservation District would maintain and manage the conservation area. City Engineer Comments Tom Kellogg. City Engineer, has submitted comments that are attached to this memo. His primary concern is the proposed grades for the driveway. The existing topography will make a safe driveway difficult if existing grades are used. The grades w ould be in excess of 20% for the east 150 ’ of the driveway. Typically, the City recommends driveways do not exceed a slope of 10%. % .d I L The conunents have been forwarded to the applicants and they will be developing a plan that addresses the driveway slope issue. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual approval of the Sketch Plan subject to the following findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The layout of the lots meets the requirements for a front/back lot subdivision. The proposed use of the land is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The conservation easements over the east 5 acres and the eastern property would eliminate the need to create a road extension since the total additional building sites would only add one to North Arm Lane. (The North Arm Lane corridor is not fully developed to typical road standards. When the east property develops with an additional residential lot the condition and upgrading of the road will have to be determined at that time.) The properties to the north and south are either fully developed or have future access planned for new lots. The variance for the wetland crossing is justified based on the fact the wetland crossing is required for access and the access minimizes impact on the wetland and wetland buffer area. Such recommendation is based on the following conditions: 1.Applicants shall provide an engineered grading plan demonstrating improved driveway grades acceptable to the City Engineer with a Preliminaiy Plat application. 2. Applicants shall make application within 90 days for a Preliminary Plat. 3. The Final Plat shall include simultaneous recording of all easements for conser\'ation areas. Planning Commission Options for Action A Sketch Plan Review does not require a formal action by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission can use this opportunity to provide feedback on the lot layout and wetland variance request to the subdividers. I i 1 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Applicadon # 8 DateRccclTed" 3-/y>o2~ Amount Paid .^2 7$“ PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Si»address ______________ PropertyIdentificadoaNumber(PID) e<^-un-.13 3^ check one - Property i/' abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT^ ^ Name Vti^t_______________________ Address ^r» ■c.-> City _ OWNER (if dififerent than applicant) Name Wt> Address____________________ City _______Phone (home) 7a i »f.<r Zip Phone (work) i>tVniy (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District _______Phone (home) Zip____Phone (woric) C ^.0 U\ VJt>wr Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ ^jC PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites o Existing Units _____New Units ^ Total Units ^ Units per/3 AcresProposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Sq. Ft. Di^Buildable Land Proposed Use (check) y Residential y “other(specify)*^7^ ciuTl^j #2768 March 19. 2002 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 Attn: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Subj: Request for Concept Plan Review End: 1) Subdivision Application with Fee 2) Concept Plan 1. Enclosures 1) and 2) are hereby forwarded for you review and comment. The pre-submission meeting with Staff was completed on March 6, 2002. 2. As a matter of introduction to your City, we are Brad and Carol Pass. Carol is one of four siblings who currently own the property and Carol and Brad are the prospective .iew owners of the property described below, for which a purchase agreement has been executed, for a projected closing in the late May 2002 timeframe. There are 3 PID's involved in this purchase agreement; 06-117-23 23 0001 (13.9 acres). 06-117-23 24 0001 (19.4 acres), and 06- 117-23 24 0002 (0.5 acres). Our intention is to develop only a portion of the 13.9 acre parcel into two saleable lots to help defray the cost of the overall purchase; a conservation easement will be applied to the undeveloped portion of this 13.9 acre parcel. 3. Referring to the enclosed Concept Plan, the two lots proposed meet all City requirements and both will have shared access on County Road 19. The shared driveway may cross a portion of a wetland (delineation pending, to complete prior to Preliminary Plat submission) but will be designed to have a minimum effect on the wetland with a culvert to maintain natural water flow. 4. With respect to the conservation easement, the type and benefactor are yet to be determined; these specifics, with City input, will be determined and proposed with the submission of the Preliminary Plat. Brad Pass / JS. L fiPR-10-2002 23!23 P.01 DATE; TO: 3/2V02 Roel Ronken Conservation Specialist Hennepin Conservation District 6900 Wedgewood Rd., Suite 140 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone:763-420-2157, Fax: 763^94-3176 /<J » //iUU wuf Vi CL *To FROM; f , - r. RKr» RE- Bradley J. (Biad) Pass & Carol Ann Pass - ■ Mpls., MN 55404 Phone: 612-721-4509, Cell: 612-916-8478, Fax: 612-722-5509 E-mail: bpasa®u$intemeLcom Conservation Easement Dear Roel I am writing to initiate the process necessary to implement a Conservation Easement on Outlot B as depicted on the accompanying “Proposed Subdivision For Brad dc Carol Pass • • • 1 As we discussed in our phone conversations, we are dedicated to the permanent preservation of a major portion of the land we are purchasing at the North end of North Ann, Lake Miimetonka. This land is at the top of the Minnehaha Watershed District and is very important to the water quality of North Ann Bay on Lake Minnetonka and this district The Property Identification Number for the first parcel we are dealing with is 06-117-23-23- 0001. It is legally described as; “That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23west of the 5* Principal Meridian, lying north of the South 854.5 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter^. We w <iihdividing this parcel, as indicated on the accompanying Preliminary Platt This subdi^oii will ptovi^ two lots, which we will sell in order to nu3ce the overall purchase and subsequent conservation easement protection, more affordable. Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be sold and we wish to permanently protect Outlot B with a Conservation Easement Outlot B includes an original maple/basswood/oak forest Note that the wetland area on the west end of this parcel is also protecUKl from development. We await yo'ir suggestions as to bow to best achieve our goals with regard to this land. lik flPR-10-2002 23S24 P.02 DATE* TO: 4/09/02 RoelRonken Conservation Specialist Hennepin Conservation District 6900 Wedgewood Rd., Suite 140 Maple Grove, MN 3S369 Phone: 763-420-2157, Fax: 763-494-3176 FROM; -•f ••• Brad& Carol Pass Mpb.. MN SS404 Phone: 612-721-4509, Cell: 612-916-S478, Fax: 612-722-5509 Email: bpass®usintemeLcom RE Conservation Easement DearRoel, Thank you and David Thill for the meetiog toady and your invaluable help and support in our commitment to preserve the natural features of a major portion of CaroFs family home-stead by nmatiQ of a pennanent conservation easement in favor of The Hennepin Conservation District. In addition to creating a Conservadoa Easement on Outlot B as depicted on the “Proposed Subdivision For Brad A Carol Pass....", (a part of the current PID # 06-117-23-23-0001), we arc also in the process of desigoadng a significant portion of the irregulariy shaped PID # 06-117- 23-24-0001 to be included in a permanent Conservation Easement. Mark Gronberg of Gronberg A Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors, A Land Planners, is currently woiking to define moat of the western portion and all of the northern portion of this PID number. This will include all of the wetland and many other natural features, and, in addition, will also permanently prevent development on several predetermined building sites. Wc have reviewed yo ur “Grant of Easement" contract, wd based on your excelleiU histo^ of n^mtiw*«n»ring a^ prmcTving youT Conservation Easement poitfi^o, we aiv residy to grant t^ Hennepin Conservation District the permanent Conservation Easements discussed above. This transaction will take place concuneot with our closin', on, or about, the 26^ of May, 2002. Thanks again for your timely and professional assistance. Cc: Chuck Alcoo TOTAL P.02 S urirm ivm f (31 WOi EKMOIEICi^llU ■mi vi.n J!i2i.»%««f i(CO-' R0=»«0*HW jr. M6S? SAVy/SW FAI^M^ ! D * 1 a ttmof c oti sm MLSiJwrirBrT V cablA' ' '; R6- IB KMS MCMA F AffiinM «0/M (^p ZO «kC« 5 LR-IA WWTBr B.,i %S St?,c HPflOT&J ■ «im TOT ttiC I 031 •, 'I'^i iV^ti'-- ''I fx. . 4 V ?? • y-' ^ *t V :‘ '^) ' (:;Aa;.: .1 •>r iK»V;Dl, tir<: Ik i; M"' ' ■' I'^'i I : ;■ ';! i. '♦ ! < M ’ . isiR.. .A-.‘!wi .•;ai ? .y, ?S. cf/*. Jfj A ( \ V”,<• ' V V r.> • ^ < *. ■jnr/r^ f.* .<-*•_• OT.' - \. r' 'i r ,.y.;.- .-/,i I jt •■•j’l . V i4 V ’) -Y H PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR BRAD & CAROL PASS IN THE SW 1/4. NW 1/4. SECTION 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA HUH-T SCALE rCET •« t,trnm, Ifiat mm %m fft *■■4 •* tU. M art U ueSiS o jjOgo CO fg CO 53 or “"ii '“ill mi #,*1 111 CO ^ m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Boneitroo. ffoipnr. Anderlik »nd AitocUItt. tne If an Affirmjifive Action/Fqu.«l Opporfcn«*y rmpioyer snd employee Owned Prlnclpxli: Otro G Bonestroo. PE • M.»fvtn L Sofv.«i.» PE • G'enn ff Cook PE • Poherl g ^chunicht. Pf • Jerry A Bourdon. PE Senior ConiultJntt Robert W Posrne PE • Joseph C Anderlili, PE • Richard E Turner PE • Susan VI Ebe»'n CPA Atfoel«te Rrincipjli Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R PfefteMe PE • R chard W Eosfe^ PC • D.«v.d O loskora PF • Mark A Hanson PE • Michael T Rauimann PE • Ted K Eicfd. PE • Kenneth P Ardeison P£ • Varfc R Rolls Pf • David A Bonestroo MB A • Sidney P ’X'liiiamson PE . I S • Ag^es M P.rg, V* B A • AHan R.ck Scr'midt. P£ • Thomas W Peterjon PE • James R Maland PE • Miles B Jensen PE • L Phiifip Gravel Hi P£ • Daniel J Edge'ton P£ • Ismael Marfine/ PE • Thomas A Sylko PE • Sheld'jn J Jormsen • Dale A Grove. PE • ThomasA RousT.«r P£ • Robert J Pevery PE April 1. 2002 Offices; St Paul St Cloud. Rochester and Wilimar. MN • Milwaukee. Wl • Chicago IL U^bsite; w w wbonestroo com Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminislrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Brad and Carol Pass Subdivision File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2768 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the sketch plan request front Brad and Carol Pass for a lot .subdivision. The site is located at 250 North Shore Drive West. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: The proposed subdivision will create two lots and two outlots. Access to Lot 2 will be across Outlot A. Existing grades within Outlot A are 12% cast of C.R. 19 and in excess of 20% across the easterly 150-fcet of Outlot A. Driveway grades should not exceed 10%. It is unclear how the driveway to serve Lot 2 can be constructed at a 10%; grade or less. It appears that the subdivision will create a land locked parcel (Outlot B). The planning commission and council should review and discuss access to Outlot B. The west 33-feet of the property should be dedicated to Hennepin County for roadway purposes. A lO-foot drainage and utility casement should be provided along the C.R. 19 frontage. Five-foot wide drainage and utility easements should be provided along all interior lot lines. Drainage and utility easements should be provided across all wetlaud.s. drainage ways and ponding areas. It appears that an existing driveway serving the property to the north encroaches upon the northwest comer of Lot LA driveway ea.semcnt should be provided if one doesn’t already exist. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. LNC TomKelI<4g V/ Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65f-636<f3ll nPR-03-2002 13:55 mi^CHPm CREEK URTER9CD 6124710682 P.01/01 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM April 3.2002 Paul Weinberger, City of Orono; Brad Pass Michael Wyatt. District Technician Permits for 250 North Shore Drive West This menra is designed to Inform the City of Orono and the property owner at 250 North Shore Drive West in the City of Orono that from the current proposal, the project proposed at the location stated above appears to require permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Due to the size of the project, it is apparent that the new home construction will involve the significant amount of excavation (5000 ft.* or 50 ft®) required for the MCWD Rule B: Erosion Control permit, in addition, there appear to be wetland impacts from the construction of a driveway access. Permits for such construction will require Board of Managers approval. Applications such as these typically require 30-45 days prior to permits being issued. Please submit an application for this project for District review as soon as possible. Delays in submittals will ultimately delay the project timeline. Please mail the enclosed application to: Attn: District Technician Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 140 Excelsior, MN 55331 ------ MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth. Sandra Smith, David Rahn, Janice Berg, Daniel Kluth, and Alternate J. Mark Fritzler. Commissioner William Stoddard was absent. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order 6:35 p.m. CONSENT (#1) #02-2756 DAVID AND JODY DAL\TY, 1520 BOHNS POINT ROAD, CUP (#2) #02-2760 JAMES CUSACK, 4140 HIGHVVOOD ROAD, VARIANCES (#3) #02-2765 WILSON MANAGEMENT, LTD., 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, RENEWAL VARIANCES Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to the three above-mentioned Items. 1 here were no public comments. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Applications #02-2756, David and Jody Dalvey, 1520 Bohns Point Road; #02-2760, James Cusack, 4140 Highwood Road; and #02-2765, Wilson Management, Ltd., 740 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#4) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 4C, HO.ME OCCUPATION STANDARDS Hawn indicated the Planning Commission would like to discuss this item further in a work session prior to acting on it. Hawn inquired w hether there were any public comments regarding this item. There were no public comments. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2333, Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20, Subd. 4C, Home Occupation Standards. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGEl ^^^UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#5) #02-2745 ILONA AND KENNETH PETERSON, 1074 WILDHl RST TR.\IL, VARIANCES Ken Peterson, Applicant, and Jack Carter, Contractor, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of a new house and detached garage on the property. The vanance is to permit land alteration and construction of the garage on the property. The Planning Commission had reviewed this item at their February 19"’ meeting and determined the garage should be shifted out of the wetland area, noting the preferred option would be to have the garage located within the front yard setback rather than encroach into the wetland. Weinberger stated the garage is a two level structure, w ith the ground needing to be raised to provide driveway access to serve the two garage stalls, v* einberger stated the idea for the two-stall garage is to provide additional storage on the property as well as inside parking for tw o vehicles. Weinberger indicated the majority of the property is located w ithin the w etland buffer. The Applicants have submiticd a revised plan with the garage being shifted closer to the street and now located completely out of the wetland area. The proposed grade changes for the garage are also outside the wetland area. A variance is required to allow the garage to encroach into the front setback. Weinberger indicated the City F'nginccr has agreed to a 10-foot setback rather than a 15-foot setback from the south property line. Weinberger stated a minimal amount of grading w ould be needed to the front of the proposed residence, with the revised plan moving the house and decks outside the 26-foot buffer area. W^einberger stated the final issue discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting dealt with the dual access proposed to the site. The Applicants arc now proposing to relocate the access further to the north, w hich provides drivew ay access to both the low er and upper levels of the garage. The Public Works Director has reviewed the plan and is agreeable to the proposed access. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted subject to the six conditions outlined in Staffs Report. Weinberger noted there arc different methods for determining wetland boundaries today than when the property was originally platted back in 1991. w hich has resulted in a larger w etland than originally believed. Weinberger stated the property consists of almost tw o acres if the wetlands arc included, w ith the buildable area being approximately one acre. Weinberger noted the Watershed District has issued a permit for this application, w ith the Applicant mitigating and creating new wetland areas consisting of approximately 2,100 square feet. Weinberger noted the actual w etland would not be impacted by this proposal, with some impact to the 26’ buffer area. Peterson stated they have attempted to address all the issues that were raised at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Hawn stated in her opinion the Applicants have addressed the Planning Commission’s concerns. Rahn inquired if the Applicants arc still required to do mitigation of wetlands since they will only be impacting the buffer area. Weinberger stated there is no mitigation requirement if it docs not acnially impact the wetland, but noted that w as a condition of approval required by the Watershed District. Weinberger stated the PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMiVHSSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, Continued) Watershed District permit may or may not be required since there is no impact to the wetland as currently proposed. There were no public comments relating to this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval oI Application #02-2745, Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail, granting a variance to allow the garage to encroach into the front setback and to permit land alteration and the garage to be located within the 26 foot Wetland buffer, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the March 14,2002 Planner’s Report. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #02-2740 JEFFREY AND NANCY TW’IDWELL, 1865 CONCORDIA STREET, VARIANCES Nancy Twidwell, Applicant, and Jeff Switzer. Architect, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc proposing to tear down the e.xisting residence and construct a new single-family home. The Applicants arc requesting a variance to hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. The Applicants arc proposing 33.54 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc proposing three separate proposals in their application, with the preferred plan requesting the hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback. This proposal also keeps the residence in line with the neighboring properties and allows the three mature maple trees to remain. Bottenberg stated the increase in hardcover is a result of moving the house further back in line with the neighbonng residences and having additional dnveway area. Bottenberg stated the second proposal docs not require any variances, but would require all three of the mature maple trees to be removed. The house would be located appro.ximately 30 feet from the street. The third proposal also docs not require any variances, with the residence still being located approximately 30 feet from the street. 1 his proposal, however, would require one of the mature maple trees to be removed. Bottenberg indicated the Applicants do meet the 15 percent structural coverage for the property. Mrs. Twidwell indicated they have resided on this property for the past seven years, with the original residence being a cabin that was constructed in 1941. Twidwell stated they have started looking at various plans to remodel approximately two years in an attempt to alleviate drainage problems. Twidwell stated they were eventually advised by their builder that the drainage problem will not be alleviated by remodeling the e.xisting residence and decided to proceed forward with a tear down of the existing residence and constructing a new home. Twidwell commented they have reduced the size of the house down to be below the 1 5 percent structural coverage limit. Twidwell stated they w ould prefer to keep the three mature maple trees if at all possible, with their preferred plan proposing to keep their house in line with the neighbonng residences and reduemg the hardcover from w hat cun-ently exists. Twidw ell noted the neighbors are supportive of this proposal. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2740 Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell, Continued) Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia, stated he lives approximately ten houses down from the Twidwells, noting he has also gone through the same process where his house was relocated to line up with the adjacent homes. Palm noted there arc a number of other property owners who have relocated their residences to be more in line with the neighborhood and reduce the hardcover in the area. Palm indicated he is supportive of this plan. Smith commented the preferred plan looks acceptable to her, with Alternate Plan B also being acceptable. Smith indicated she does not have a problem with the application. Mabusth indicated she agrees with Smith. Hawn noted the Applicants are well under the structural coverage limit, with a majority of the hardcover consisting of driveway. Mabusth noted the hardcover is being reduced from what currently exists. Hawn stated the Applicants should be made aware that the City will probably not grant another hardcover variance on this property in the future. Berg and Kluth commented they arc in favor of saving the trees. Rahn inquired whether there is a deck and stairs being proposed down by the lake, noting the plan and survey differ slightly. Twidwell indicated the dock has been there for a long time. Twidwell stated they would be willing to remove the dock and leave the stairs to the lake if the Planning Commission so desires. Mabusth stated she docs not have a problem w ith the deck or stairs. Fritzler commented in his opinion the maple tree in the middle might still be lost, noting he did look at the tree. Fntzler stated part of the tree is dead already. Twidwell stated they did obtain the opinion of an arborist, who indicated the trees are in good condition and also provided some suggestion.* on how to lessen the damage to the trees during the construction process. Fritzler stated he is familiar with maple trees and that it doesn ’t take much damage to kill the tree. Mabusth inquired whether the dock has any footings or foundation to it. Twidwell stated the dock just sits on the ground. Mabusth stated in order to be consistent on this application, the Planning Commission should ask for that dock to be removed. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (802-2740 Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell, Continued) Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application 802-2740, Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell, 1865 Concordia Street, granting a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area, subject to the removal of the old dock. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (87) 802-2752 JERRY AND CINDY GRAY, 880 PARTEN'>VOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:00 p.m. - 7:25 p.m. Ed Doyle, Architect, appeared on behalf of the Applicants. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the City Council approved variances for a previous property owner in 1985 to permit construction of an addition on the house. The approval required the removal of a large portion of the driveway to compensate for the additional hardcover the new addition would place on the property. The approved site plan indicates a lakeside deck as well as a dog nan. The current site plan shows the dog run has been removed and replaced with a deck. Weinberger stated it is unclear when the deck w as actually constructed since a building permit was never applied for, but it appears to have been constructed some time ago. Weinberger noted the amount of hardcover on the property did not increase as a result of the addition of the deck since the dog run was moved. Weinberger stated the Applicants are looking to restore the original character of the house and would like to construct a circular driveway and parking area as well as some other improvements to the property. Weinberger stated the Applicants are basically proposing to put back the hardcover that was required to be removed back in 1985. Weinberger stated this application that goes against what the City has been doing and goes against the original approval on the site that allowed the addition on the property. Weinberger stated the hardcover regulations are the same today as e.xisted in 1985, with the e.xception that the City adopted the Shoreland Management Ordinance in 1992. which also regulates hardcover. Weinberger stated one of the primarv- ways the City has reviewed applications for hardcover as it relates to shoreland property near Lake Minnetonka is to limit the amount of development and hardcover on the property. In addition, the Public Works Director does not approve of the second drivew ay access onto this propert)' because of maintenance of the public road and minimization of accesses onto the public road. Staff recommends denial of the application to increase hardcover on the property to permit an expansion of the driveway based on the City’s approval in 1985, w hich required removal of hardcover and a requirement that any new hardcover only replace existing hardcover. Weinberger noted this property is located near the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka in three directions and the proposed hardcover would reduce the amount of natural surface in the locality of the lake. Weinberger stated there is no apparent hardship that would require additional dnveway area and access to the property. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p jn. a (#02*2752 Jet TV and Cindy Gray, Continued) Weinberger stated if the Planning Commission docs recommend approval of the application, that would be subject to the Council completing a review and appealing an administrative decision to allow'ing a secondary access. Doyle stated on the surface, this application appears to be difficult to approve, but stated the property is difficult from the standpoint of the size of the lot, which is less than one acre, and the triangular shape of the lot. Doyle stated there are some issues relating to safety and hardship, noting there is very little room for guests to back up in their current driveway and have dinged up their cars a number of times. Doyle stated due to the small amount of lot area that is left on this site after you go back 75 ’, the amount of hardcover being requested is approximately 2.000 square feet, which is relatively minor. Doyle pointed out there arc also some roof overhangs that are being proposed that may have been left out of the final calculation. Doyle stated they would like to do some remedial roof work. Doyle indicated they arc willing to remove underlayment under landscaping in conjunction with this project, and requested the Planning Commission consider approving this application. Doyle noted the residence located at 815 Patenwood has a similar lot configuration and has gone through a number of variances, noting their hardcover is 9.400 square feet. Doyle suggested the Planning Commission look at the amount of green space that is left over following completion of the project. Hawn noted those have been renewal of variances that were approved a while ago, with the work never having been completed. There were no public comments relating to this application. Smith inquired if Staffknows w'hether the deck was replaced two years ago or 15 years ago. Weinberger stated the deck may have been constructed prior to 1992, noting it appears to have been there for some time. Smith indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendation concerning the second access. Rahn inquired whether there is a current turnaround area located on the side of the garage. Weinberger stated there is. Rahn commented he would have a hard time saying a hardship exists for the second access since there are no safety issues involved. Mabusth inquired whether there are additional hardcover improvements that are being requested in addition to what was approved in 1985. Mabusth indicated she has no information relating to the roof overhangs. Weinberger stated there would be a slight increase in the hardcover from what was approved in 1985, noting he is not aware of what the exact number of. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray, Continued) Doyle indicated it would be approximately 500 square feet. Doyle stated currently the siding on the house is experiencing some damage from water because there are no overhangs. Doyle stated they are proposing to construct an overhang around the perimeter of the house that would stick out approximately two feet. Weinberger indicated he may have misunderstood the situation with the roof overhangs, noting he thought that portion of the proposal had been removed from the plan. Doyle apologized if that information was miscommumcated to Staff. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission would be able to give a recommendation on the driveway but that a separate application for the overhangs would need to be submitted. Hawn noted the overhangs would be included in the structural coverage. Weinberger stated the resolution approved in 1985 stated that no additional hardcover in excess of 38.8 jjercent would be allowed. Weinberger stateo the property currently exceeds that amount. Doyle stated the slight increase may come from the deck. HawTi stated in her opinion at the time this approval was granted in 1985, there was some type of trade-off with a portion of the driveway being removed in e.xchangc for the addition of the deck and garage. Hawn stated it does not appear that the Applicant is proposing to remove any of the structural coverage that was granted at that time in return for partial removal of a portion of the driveway. Hawn stated unless there is a decrease in the amount of structure, the Planning Commission in her view does not really have any grounds, absent a hardship, to grant a variance. Kluth stated in his opinion there is no hardship to grant the hardcover variance. Doyle stated the property was purchased w ith hardcover at 42 percent, and inquired whether they would be able to keep the hardcover at 42 percent. Doyle stated they would like to construct the roof overhangs and in return would be w illing to remove the underlayment. Hawn stated it is not the practice of the Planning Commission to trade underlaymen* for hardcover. Berg stated the Planning Commission would like to see the underlayment removed an>way. Berg indicated she is in support of Staffs recommendation. Mabusth inquired whether Doyle would like to have this application tabled in order to give them time to review their options. Doyle stated he would. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #02-2752, Jerry and Cindy Gray, 880 Partenwood Road, to allow the Applicants time to re-evaluate the hardcover on the property and determine what new improvements are to be done to the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN’NTNG COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.tn. (#02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray, Continued) Mabusth noted she did not give any direction on the hardcover, but suggested the hardcover be reduced to the 38.8 percent. (#8) #02-2757 TERRANCE C. JOHNSON, 1045 LINDEN LANE, RENEWAL VARIANCE, 7:26 p.m.-7:52 p.m. Terrance Johnson. Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. We'nberger stated the Applicant is requesting a renewal of variances approved in 1992. The original approvals were to permit additions to t!ie existing residence and adding three to four courses of block under the existing house to raise the ceiling height of the w alkout level of the house. The addition to the residence also included an addition of a second stoiy over the house, the addition of an attached garage and second story ree room, addition to the east side of the existing house, replacement of existing decks, addition of a deck adjacent to the rec room and master suite, and construction of an open porch/portico over existing deck on the lakeside, and e.xtend the existing deck along the house ten feet. In order to reduce hardcover on the property, the Applicant is agreeable to removing the existing detached garage and gravel parking area. Weinberger stated the property owner did not renew the variances on a yearly basis, stating that it was his understanding from the City that the renewal would not be necessary until they were ready to complete the project. Weinberger stated the pnmary issues in 1992, w ere potential drainage problems that may occur due to the increased hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback. Since 1992, the house on the adjacent lot has been removed and is currently vacant, being owned in common with another lot further down Linden Lane. Secondly, the increased length and steepness of the driveway could create some runoff and access problems for the property. The plan depicts a driveway that would average a 12 percent slope. Staff generally recommends a driveway slope of 10 percent or less. Weinberger noted the Planning Commission back in 1992, voted 4 to 3 to approve this application, with the primary concerns being the length and slope of the drivew ay, drainage concerns, and the amount of hardcover being proposed. The resolution adopted by the Council included language that allow s the City Engineer to monitor the drainage situation on the property. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission can approve the renewal of the variances if it finds that sufficient justification exists to recommend approval of this site plan. Weinberger stated the same hardships exist today as they did back in 1992. Weinberger indicated the Applicant is proposing to do this project in stages, w ith the first phase of the project being to lifting the house and adding three to four course of block, followed by building the addition to the house. Johnson noted the house on the adjacent lot w as gone at the time they purchased the house. Johnson PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 p’clock p.m. (#02-2757 Terrance Johnson, Continued) stated it is their intent to raise the level of the walkout level, noting the footings have been checked out and found to be in good condition. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether there were any additional runoff issues that exist today. Weinberger stated he is not aware of any additional runoff issues. Weinberger stated the Applicant is required to comply with any drainage recommendations. Mabusth inquired whether there were any specific recommendations by the City Engineer relating to the driveway, noting the drainage will run down the driveway. Mabusth inquired about the time table for completion of this project. Johnson stated he has spoken with the contractor doing the block work, who indicated they would like to start between April 1 “ and May 1 “, with completion of the lower level to occur first, follow ed by the addition of the second level. Hawn inquired how many years the Applicant thought the project would take. Johnson stated in his opinion the majority of the work should be done within two years, minus the garage. Johnson stated the foundation would be completed first, followed by the renovation completed on the lower level, and then the second story. Johnson indicated he has not received any bids on construction of the garage at the present time. Smith inquired whether the existing garage would remain durin- • •jv'uction. Johnson stated the garage would remain until the new garage is constructed. Hawn inquired how much hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback consists of dnveway. Weinberger stated that number is no? broken out, but estimated the total hardcover in that setback area for the driveway would be 2,570 square feet, w hich is approximately half of the amount allow ed in that area. Rahn inquired whether the elevation shown on the plan is the existing elevation or the proposed elevation. Johnson stated that is the elevation for the new home. Rahn commented there w’ould be additions on almost all four sides of the house once this project is completed, and inquired whether the floors will be saved and the stairwell relocated. Johnson stated the stairwell would be relocated, with the flooring on the main floor staying the same. Johnson stated it is his understanding the contractor will be removing the roof, cut it in sections and move it aw ay, with a three-foot wall being erected, followed by the floor joists being placed across that. PAGE 9 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2757 Terrance Johnson, Continued) Johnson indicated the house is not going to tom down or gutted, noting the kitchen has recently been remodeled. Johnson stated the inside walls will be furred to give it the equivalent of 2 by 6 construction. Rahn stated when you put a stud wall on top of an eight foot wall, a hinge effect is created that very seldom is capable of sustaining 80 mile an hour winds. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant has considered tearing down the existing house and constructing a new residence. Johnson stated they would prefer not to tear down the existing house, noting the footings and foundation are fine. Johnson stated they would like to build up. Rahn inquired whether the Applicant was sure the footings are fine. Johnson stated they are, except for perhaps one comer. Rahn inquired whether an engineer has inspected the footings. Johnson stated they had an engineer look at the footings, noting there is a section in one comer of the house that used to be a bomb shelter where some work to the footings may need to be done. Hawn cautioned the Applicant that if in the course of doing this project it becomes necessary to essentially replace the entire house due to problems with the current footings, et cetera, that it may become necessary that the house be relocated. Hawn commented that new construction has a different set of rules than renovation. Johnson stated he understands that. Rahn stated he understands the desire to do this project in stages. Johnson stated a new deck has been recently added, along with the kitchen being remodeled. Rahn recommended the Applicant have an engineer inspect the footings prior to any work being done to raise the house. Johnson stated they ha\ e done a considerable amount of work on this project and have looked into all their options. Smith inquired whether the materials would be stored inside during the phases of this project. Johnson stated he understands the concern the neighbors may have during this project, noting they are planning to utilize the garage for storage of materials. Kluth stated if they are technically within what is considered a rebuild versus new construction, the Planning Commission has to go with the rules governing rebuilds. PAGE 10 J MLNUTES OF THE QRONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. {tt02-nSl Terrance Johnson, Continued) Hawn inquired how Staff determines what that line is. Weinberger stated the City does not have a formal policy regarding that, noting that Staff generally considers ’new construction where the project exceeds the floor area by more than 50 percent. Weinberger stated another element on whether this should be new construction is whether there is work being done to the foundation beyond what is proposed here. Weinberger stated if there is work to be completed on the foundation. Staff may have to revisit this application. Hawm cautioned the Applicant that if a second comer of the foundation needs to be replaced, it could be considered new construction and the Applicant would need to come back in. Hawn noted the building inspector and city engineer will be doing routine inspections on this protect. Hawn recommended adding the definition of a rebuild be included on the agenda for their next w ork session. Smith inquired whether a definite time i ^ame could be given on this project, noting she does have some concerns that this project will get prolonged. Kluth noted the Applicant would need to come back before the Planning Commission to renew the variances if the w ork is not completed within one year. Hawn stated she personally w ould prefer it if the Applicant w ould consider tearing down the existing residence and starting over. Hawn stated if the house were pulled it. it w ould reduce the hardcover. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application /^02-2757, Terrance C. Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane, renewal of variances, subject to frequent inspection by the City building inspector and compliance with ail recommendations concerning the drainage given by the City Engineer, and further subject to the understanding that the variances will need to be renewed within one year if the total project is not completed. The Applicant is further ads'ised that if additional work on the foundation and footings needs to occur than w hat is proposed, the project will be considered new construction and the Applicant svill be required to comply with all setbacks and standards for new construction, with all construction ceasing until the application is revisited by the City. \'()TE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler Opposed. Fritzlcr stated he voted in opposition to this motion because in his opinion this project will not be completed on a timely basis and will have other issues arise during construction. Kluth suggested the City consider imposing a time limit for when variances can be renewed. Rahn stated if this had not been called a renew al, in his opinion it should have been considered new construction. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#9) #02-2758 ROBERT D. PIEPER, 3995 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:53 p.m. - 8:13 p.m. Eric Vogstrom, Builder, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has recently constructed a new home on the project that was previously known as Sandy Beach Resort. In August, 2001, a building permit was issued for the construction of a new residence. In February and March, 2002, the residence was part of the 2002 Spring Parade of Homes tour. This particular residence was highlighted on Channel 5 one morning. Bottenberg stated the City's building official happened to be watching the show and listened to the desenption of the home. It was later determined by the building official that the plans do not indicate a mother-in-law apartment, which requires a conditional use permit and building permit. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was notified of the problem, who then promptly applied for a conditional use permit. Bottenberg stated the apartment is located above the garage and appears to be part of the house. There is access to the apartment from a door through the garage, an outside door, and a door inside the residence. Bottenberg noted the property is sewered. Bottenberg stated the Planning Commission should look at the number of access points into the apartment and whether the outside door is a problem. Bottenberg stated a restrictive covenant should be recorded on the chain of title st-ting the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the principal residence. Vogstrom stated it was never the intention of the property owTicr for this apartment to become rental property, noting the property owner merely decided to avoid the mess of finishing off this area later and instead do it in conjunction with the rest of the project. Vogstrom stated the apartment consists of two bedrooms along with a kitchen, bar area, and living room. Smith inquired whether there is an access door inside the residence. Vogstrom stated there is. Berg inquired what the kitchen consists of. Vogstrom stated it has a microwave, stove, sink, and refrigerator. Vogstrum stated there also is a kitchen located in the mam residence. Smith inquired how it happened that a permit was not obtained for the apartment. Weinberger stated the original plans show ed that this area w ould not be fintshcd off and was not part of the original permit. Vogstrom stated the property owner decided to finish the apartment and the jjcrmit .^as overlooked. PAGE 12 MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2758 Robert Pieper, Continued) Vopstrom stated they were informed of the need for the permit at the time the building official inspected the project prior to issuing a final occupancy permit. There were no public comments relating to this application. Smith inquired whether the apartment as it exists today meets the regulations for an apartment inside a principal residence. Weinberger stated it does. Smith inquired what happens if a lock goes on that door leading to the apartr-v.' from inside the residence. Weinberger stated a second address will not be allowed for the unit and separate meters would also be prohibited. Hawn inquired how many access points there are to the apartment. Vogstrom stated there arc two access points, w ith no access off the deck. Mabusth inquired whether this is being treated as an after-the-fact application. Weinberger stated the building permit would be considered after-the-fact. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit should probably be considered as after-the-fact as well. Weinberger stated the biggest concern w ith this t>pe of apartment is w hether they will be rented out in the future. .Mabusth stated once a kitchen is added, it is then considered an apartment. Gaffron stated the issue is whether or not the door leading from the outside is the primary access to this apartment. GafTron stated the intent of the ordinance is to make the apartment not look like an apartment from the outside and making it difficult for the unit to be rented. Gaffron noted a covenant will be recorded on the chain of title stating the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the pnncipal residence, with no rental of the apartment being permitted. Gaffron noted the Applicant has met the requirements of the ordinance. Haw n moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2758, Robert D. Pieper, 3995 North Slioi e Drive, granting an after-the-fact conditional use permit, with the understanding there will not be a lock installed on the door inside the residence leading to this apartment, and further with the understanding that a restrictive covenant will be recorded on the chain of title stating the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests, with no rental of the guest apartment being permitted, and subject to the builder paving after-the-fact penalties. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 13 ^^NL’TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. (#13) #02-2764 REVIEW OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PUD ORDINANCE Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this item. There were no public comments relating to this application. Hawn noted the Planning Commission has discussed this item preliminarily in a work session and would like to table the matter. Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #02-2764, Review of Proposed Commercial PUD Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. !► NEW BUSINESS (#10) #02-2759 JOHN COLLETTE, 2160 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:15 p.m. - 8:22 p.m. John Collette, Applicant, and Walter Koronkiewicz, Building Manager, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a 208 square foot leased office space within the Orono Shopping Center. The property is located in the B-1, Retail Sales Business District. The Applicant has stated the only use of the property will be for general administrative functions of the business and does not intend to store vehicles or display vehicles for sale on the property. Professional offices and offices general in nature are listed as a conditional use in this district, with automobile sales not being permitted. Weinberger noted this use does not require any changes to the structure and docs not require a review of the building and remainder of the site. The manager of the property has provided a detailed list of all the tenants and square footage used by each tenant. The total parking required for the existing uses within the building, including this office use, is 81 spaces. The property has a\ ailable parking for 128 vehicles. Weinberger stated the Applicant docs not intend at the current time to have any signs identifying the location of his office, noting he does not intend to have customers coming to this office on routin. isits. The Applicant would be allow ed one sign on the exterior of the building not greater than 30 inche: • height and w ould be limi'ed to the name of the business or company logo. Weinberger recommends approval of the application based on the fact the intended office use is in keeping w ith the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The .ntended use is consistent with several of the existing uses w ithin the building. Staff is recommending approval be subject to the following conditions; PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2759 John Collette, Continued) 1 . At no time shall any vehicles being brokered be stored, displayed, serviced or parked on the property. 2. Any future signs for use with the automobile brokerage be in compliance with the provisions of the zoning code and/or provisions as set forth by the approved sign plan. 3. Any requests to e.xpand the use of the building for the automobile brokerage business shall require an application to amend the conditional use permit. Collette indicated he would like to lease some office space, noting he intends to have some file space and answering service in the office. Collette he understands he is not allowed to park any vehicles relating to this business on the property. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2759, John Collette, 2160 West W’ayzata Boulevard, granting a Conditional Use Permit, subject to the three conditions outlined in the March 12, 2002 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #02-2761 ADDISON AND CINDY PIPER, 1125 SPRING HILL ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:22 p.m. - 8:38 p.m. Cindy Piper, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances and conditional use permits to remodel the pool house, construct a guest house, and construct a screen porch to the c.xisting residence. The existing residence was built in the 1950s. A conditional use permit is required to construct a guest house on the property. The guest house would be used as a caretaker's living quarters, storage, and provide two additional parking stalls. The guest house will be 24’ by 62’, and will be located northwest of the exisfng residence into the side of a hill. The guest house will have a separate septic tank and will be connected by a gravity line to the e.xisting pumping chamber and mound. The guest house meets all setback and lot requirements. A variance to the average lakeshore setback is also required to allow the Applicants to consttoict a 13.5’ by 25’ screen porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. The screen porch addition encroaches into the average lakeshore setback by 15 feet. The porch w ill not be visible from the adjacent residences. Bottenberg stated in addition a conditional use piermit is being requested to replace c.xisting plumbing in the detached pool house and a crowding variance because it is located within 10 feet of the principal structure. The pool house has been on the property smee at least 1994 as shown on aenal photographs. A conditional use permit is required because the pool house currently has two toilets and showers in it. PAGE 15 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2761 Addtoo and Cindy Piper, Continued) BoUenl«tgs,a.ed.l.epoolhouse«3SOn#,na,,y6olU,.3ree.fton,.heptopet.y.,neto.H.d,an^ required 10 feet. ■n„ Ouilder staled the roof ove, the scteen porch Is an extension o( the existing roof. Tn W^'p-^^r stated she Is wtlling to comply with the apphcable standards. There were no public comments regarding this application. id approval of Application #02-2761 Smith moved, Hawn Wo conditional use perr^ts, average addlson and Cindy Piper, I •« to the proP«.y raheshor. mthach variance, “ V™*7*;"rt.r hVose «d' an aeeessory building SKETCH PLAN (#12) #02-2763 CLAVT A^D JUUE ANN TABOR, 960 NORTH BROWN ROAB, SKE PLAN REVIEW Clayt and Julie Ann Tabor, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants - ~ :Srhl^a““^^ 'Vetnherger noted this property ts located on the laheshore. a. . a,___— tUot Vi. I» f I* ^01X1^)111 which has a minimum oiiwu act w,. c Weinberger stated initially in 1984 it is not possible to two acres. If the properties were H^^ZrZ of less than 200 feet. required because the lot would have fron g g . • common ownership to be combined Weinberger stated the Cty area and/or width. Following a property rhrt="-="^ • f “ commnauon, u la --------- Weinberger stated Staff has only been able-:ikssss=;"ssi'S~ — PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COJVIMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. happened in 1994, with the plat of Blue Hill. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow one lot (II02>2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. The Council approved one lot to be less than two acres based on the “agreement” that had been made by the 1980 resolution between the City and the property owner. Weinberger indicated based on the number of subdi\isions that have been approved in the City of Orono, it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. TTie subject property has been guided for two acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property has been zoned two acre since at least 1967. This property has also been recently included in MUSA, but the provision of sew er to the property does not change the rural character for this district. Weinberger noted the Applicants have submitted a petition signed by a number of surrounding property owners in agreement with this particular plan. Weinberger stated Staff did receive one call from a neighbor who had some concerns regarding a possible towuhome development on this property. Tabor indicated the country club addition that surrounds their property consists of 22 properties, with 21 of those properties being less than one acre. Tabor stated in his view this subdivision will help increase the housing value in the neighborhood and w ill give them the financial ability to renovate their existing residence. Tabor stated if the propert>' were subdivided, the two lots would still exceed the size of the majority of the other properties within the area and will not detract from the rural character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Tabor commented they would like to stay in the community and remodel theT existing residence, which this subdivision would allow them to do. Mabusth inquired whether the Applicants had petitioned for sewer. Mr. Tabor stated they had not, noting their current septic system works fine. Mabusth inquired why rural sized properties were included in the MUSA. Gatfron stated the MUSA boundary that was adopted with the new Comprehensive Plan incorporates everylhing south of County Road 6 from Lake Klassen all the w ay to Spring Hill Road. Gaffron stated this area consists of a significant number of shoreland properties and arc also adjacent to the sew er mam. Gaffron stated this area is not currently sew ered by City sewer. HawTi indicated the Planning Commission is bound by the City Code, noting this application does not comply with those documents. Hawn stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body and recommended the Applicants pursue this matter with the Council. Hawn stated in her view without input front ? Council she would not be able to support this subdivision. Mabusth stated she would agree with Hawn, noting she does not feel the Council would be in support of this type of lot division. (Council Member Jim White arrives at 8:46 p.m.) PAGE 17 MINITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) Gaitron stated Staff did look at the history of ownership and the chronology of events that have affected this property. Gaflron stated to his knowledge the City has not granted variances to subdivide in cases similar to this and would be precedent setting if a lot area variance were granted to one of the lots. Mr. Tabor noted that this property is adjacent to 21 other properties that are substandard. Hawn commented that is somewhat of a compelling argument, but that the Planning Commission needs to follow the zoning guidelines for this area. Gaflron stated from a precedent setting standpoint, the Planning Commission needs to look at what was there prior to the zoning change in 1975 and what has been approved through a PUD. Gaffron stated he is doubtful you will find a lot within the two acre zone that wasn’t either platted before the Code changed to two acre minimum or that isn’t a PUD type development where the average lot lize has to meet the standards. Gaffron stated to his knowledge of the City, this would be precedent setting because the majority of the rural lots have been there for quite some time. Fritzler commented it is also possible that someone could purchase the property and construct a residence that is not in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. Hawn recommended the Applicants discuss this item with the City Council. Gaffron stated the Applicants could possibly find an adjacent property owner who w'ould like to purchase some additional land and split that piece of property off and sell it to the interested buyer. Mr. Tabor stated in his opinion that is not likely to happen. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING C03LMISS10N COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLAN’NTNG CO.M.MISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETLNGS OF FEBRUARY 25, 2002, AND .MARCH 11,2002 Berg indicated she attended the February 11* Council and has nothing to report Smith stated she attended the March 1 1* City Council meeting where the application regarding the vacation on Big Island was discussed. Smith indicated the City Council referred that application to the Park Commission for their input. Hawn inquired what progress is being made on the clean-up of Big Island, noting that it was suggested a couple of years ago to have a barge brought out there. Hawn recommended Staff follow pursue clean-up of the island. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.ni. Berg recommended certain restrictions be established for what can be put on the barge. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 19,2002 Klttth moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the minutes of the February 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETLNGS ON MARCH 25,2002 AND APRIL 8,2002 March 25 - Kluth April 8 - Hawii ADJOURNMENT Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair PAGE 19