The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-20-2002 Planning PacketPublic A ttendance Meeting D ate 4 - Z C - c □ C ouncil IX Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please fi ll out the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITV RFXORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER l. mj 75/ 3.ru /j V7j 4.i;y?7 TZVcT t ~7 14. 15. X:vDai«\A i%t S«ppMl>(F«nM • OM) FORMSxPt'RUC.ATr cC ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday May 20,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kellev Parkwav - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Bob Sansevere 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 advisorv' body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the June 10,2002 Cit}' Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #02-2777 Tom Meehan, 2825 Little Orchard Way, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. #02-2779 Jerad and Leslie Hahn, 809 Brown Road North, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 3. #02-2784 Bob Tunheim, 2755 Countryside Drive West, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) NEW BUSINESS 4. #02-2776 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Renewal Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 5. #02-2766 VV'illiam Keefe, 2216 Shadywood Road, AAer-The-Fact Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 6. #02-2769 Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 7. #02-2786 John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 8. #02-2790 Gretchen Shaw, 1750 Shady^vood Road, Afler-The-Fact Renewal Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 9. #02-2780 Otten Brothers Nursery, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard, Amendment to PUD#I(Staff: Paul Weinberger) PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 PM 10. #02-2782 Karl Berg, 2765 Kelley Parkway, Commercial Site Plan Review /PUD/ Rezoning (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 1 1. #02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC, 2550 Wayzata Boulevard West, PUD Concept Plan Review / Rezoning / Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings April 22, 2002 and May 13,2002. 13. Other issues for discussion. 14. Planning Commission approval of minutes for April 15, 2002. 15. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on May 28,2002 and June 10, 2002. ADJOURNMENT I£..qL^ 1^' • I r** .J “-|1 ;"-H f II! ii n! T <1 z>jLgJg m V •1200 •1600 .BEACk^ V •. zr\^ LAA£ y B ^ C £ 2^)0 p 2400 Q of Orono, Minnesota ^Jumbering Index Map 2000 1600 1200 BOO 400 , ^ loop jSr kiinJo wmatnn^iJOOX ftoad K#r : U»c, north wgy^ito w^<. vata it#i n»iMJ sc»t f, mo Pt% t.9M A*< lO.BM AX 9. 1991 it.aM I. rtii «U&tt,M4 ItAit 17.1999 JA<«. (9.1999 i(.i '. J ■^:m. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION .Monday May 20, 2002 6:30 P.M 27.S0 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers Council Reprcscniative: Bob Sansevere Al'DIENCF. .MEMBERS: AGENDA Please sign in for the public record at the front podium If you svish to address the Planning Commissi-n. ApplicanU will be asked to move to the front fable to answer questions when the Chair aiiDounces the application. The Planning Commission Is an advisory bodv to the CONSENT ' (SU ””™jy E-6 ' S“”Ldy ’■ (S.a'”wc„dy .NEW BUSINESS '■ w m" ’ (S’w»dy BSlI;rM.VM . U. Drive, Variances(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map B-7 ’■ "uD ™„fr: '» PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 P.M /e, Parkway. Commercial Site Plan Review /PUD/Rezoning (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Map F-2 ‘' ■ Conr”nfpi <^'opmcnt LLC, 2550 Wayzafa Boulevard West, PUD Sifr Ma / Rivonmg / Comprehensive Plan Amcndme!..(Siaff; Nfike Gaffron) Map F-2 IMd.WNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 2002 ldTlari3,®2M?"“ fcpf«'ntatives attending Council -eetings Apnl 22, 13. Olherissucs for discussion. 14. Planning Commission approval of minutes for April 15.2002. 15. Sjicefon of,cprc«„,.,iv„ fo,Coy Cooo.il„„,i„s,oo May 2S. 200; ,»1 Jo„. ,o. '..Z X I G TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner May 15. 2002 SUBJECT: «02-2777 Bob Carlson on behalf of Tom Meehan 2825 Little Orchard Way Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IA One Family Lakcshorc Residential District (2 acre) List of Exhibits A Application B Elevations/Floor Plan C Survey D Permit E Photo of Property F Property Owner’s List G Sample Restrictive Covenant Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (F): Accessor}’ Buildings-Plumbing; In.stallation 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 accessoiy building will be used as a "storage building", fhe storage building will be used for storage and will include a bath room with sink and toilet. The detached garage is on the lakeside of the property. The property is located in the LR-1A zoning district. The City of Orono allows for the provision of plumbing in accessory buildings that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub. The accessor) building is required to be conforming in location, size, and height. The accessory building 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 subject property is on Lake Minnetonka and is sewered. Items for Discussion , 1. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? W02-2777 Bob Carlson on behalf of Tom Meehan 2825 Little Orchard Way Conditional Use Permit 5^5/2002 Page I 2. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the intended use as a storage building? 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). AppUcaHon# Date Recehed Q Amount Paid m CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ /, Site Address Type of Application to be Filed L. US-^ /Yp|urnft/0 4\/<f<:oyjS/< o Property Identification Number (P.l.DQ 69- /? 7 - J^ . j;V 60J3. ^ ^ ^ . . J / Phone (home) • Voo/ P (L^/LU60 /JV lAA)^ Phone (work) • OCOO 1^0 Sc>>^'^^ ^ftoAbiX^M Cit\^ (jL>a V Zip?^Y9T APPLICANT Name Address Phone (home)OWNTER (if different than applicant) Name ________________Phone (work) 4 ^ A. 7Ao - ^ 8 ^ / Address ISirU O^CHBnA UWCitv 00.0^0 Zip Date Property Acquired_____ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of landiceht parcels ol (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application X* $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 Vacatin _____$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 ---------Omcr - see Fee Schedule . ^ ,±t " . ' *77 S 5 // ^QUIRED SUBMITTALS ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. -------Certfied Pro^ 0™ers List of ovmers within 350’, labels and plat map (you mtut ob^ this list, bbels and map from Hennepin County Department of Ftomce A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ruiuiitc, ------Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey — clTglTt'eS -olve ------ status) of all persons with an interest in the property This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current oivner(s). ------ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) ^ ------- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. FOR "^P^SSJ^rtT'v'’.,'.‘1 documents OR COPY SUBMrmi?”VSff^i!t/'' * ” S^^'ALLER) for all documents suSdl ‘ pl“5. «C. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. initiciiS of Clcnccil _________________________Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zonine Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (statf time not covered bv^original fee paymenO and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied IS true and correct tolthe bes^f hi^r knowledge. ormation Applicant's signature ^**^^0*-*^ LAy ^_____ OWNER'S SIGNATUI^ to ‘Ws application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the proi^<by City staff, wnsultants. agents, commission members, and Council members for verification of this request. Date equest. i . DateOuTier's signature Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv offices '>3 davs befon. th.. di ,„ ■ /- Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month ADDlic^?* scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Counrr iV ^ scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent an'lnd’’^» Building & Zoning Office of this change prior Tthe meeting * P*"'* ** ..' i u U ^ 6 . / • • •. ILi r^* ! u 0. 7) B E »« >4 3 b Ml [ B. Ba * / 'iDe4<;e. b>o(i_dim<2T ^jert.'=!' II • *9 $00 fVi a. cn ODo 0)or* mna 0 01 Obm 01 V:^'tOf2Jr6.^—\2>V\UO\KCK I —TfP. 7Sli? fe." —fc^fe.v/A ‘T' I V4*»iVa!!r:"-.":- I — NlZDI- I Iqr. n A. 01 0)o 01 CD mno o 0) A. A 0) (PA > 7V cowtiz - . JVLAn) D/^AfceMA^^4 ; S-f«Me-A.dI.st.‘—• 0,ojupfv^ PC-4M HPOX . 9 A501• • • • • bUILUiWli I iMcgpr.TCjn _ ■ ------------------------------------- DArn__0.. prr.MiVno.------------------- i’L/\i i I iL- viL v^ ^.1 : _ /.PPPCVEO At- GUL'MlTTflD □ APPFIOVGD V.'iTH COiTiHCTiO.A'S AG NOTED D HOT APPi tCVED ••• CCr'.P-ir.T a FiEEUEut'T cciTifTtc.-n; 3 «v ivIcrirjiiM. All ..‘f.iK I'S .o<3# H^)U-»*rpl:v;.'.!j!3 huHri oj f.»w1 70r.i»*.J * '(Ja .Vt V :.c'’.y I.;"-'* in »hr. levxw. ■|r f^’.t Ccj ‘ ..................... f.w .K*» ”'> -I............................ - KEtiP TH13 PLy\li tiGT ON OITE AT ALL TIMES I 1 162 VT2. Otfxgra. ^-r«ip rz. A\CX -1; I --------------------------,» —JVlAN/O yM&,eA»ANi ..U^>u)€M2- t^i)ura<^Ari<^M pL4M ^ -15 OO So ^1 \ R Q> c * i o <1 4 ieo*29jr RES 7 a J)(D INi<0) S3® T Of LOT 35 • 9 i ^ LOT 27 (8) 412.57 532 f 2 (15) Cliy OF ORONO a?W Kelley Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 (952) 249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued: P04370 Accessory Structures 9/26/2001 SITE ADDRESS: 2825 Little Orchard Way Way2ata,MNSS39l PID: 09-117-23-21-0012 DESCRIPTION:UBC Occupancy Ul Proposed Use: Residential Permit Class: Building Permit Type: Accessory Structures Construction Type VN Census Code 328 Permit Sub-type(s): Accessory Structure DETAILS: Approved per resolution #: Separate permits required: Eiectrical (sate) NOTICES/REMARKS: Plumbing in strucrure requ’Ires C.U.P.• FEE SUMMARY: Permit Fee:S 391.25 Valuation: S 25.000.00 Plan Review Fee:$ 254.28 State Surcharge Fee:$ 12.50 TOTAL FEE:$ 658.03 Jyland Development OWNER* Thomas Meehan 150 South Broadway 620 Bushway Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata. MN 55391 nU- LfNDtRSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPRONTNENTS SPECIFIED and AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN STRICT COMF1 lANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES AND STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT ISSUED BY SIONAnniEAPPLICANT PERMITEE SIGNATURE Cooi&: \-¥i\t fSienitures Reauired), l-Aoolicant I-MonthlvRcoorts. I-Assessine. I-F*mancc /W Page I CITY OF ORONO CO\TNANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made anu entered into this dav of___, 2002, by Thomas and Aija Meehan (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 accessor)' building on property in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 6, Block 1, Hennepin County, Minnesota (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), specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(F) 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 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 building to include one toilet and one sink on the Subject Property if approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. 2. The follow ing conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater Page I of 5 3. 4. 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. B) 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 ovvner(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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this___day of_____, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of Page 2 of 5 , 2002 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public APPLICANT(S): By: By; ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20. .personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of________________________ ________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of__________ .personally appeared before me. ., 20 who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of ________________, a credible witness Page 3 of 5 and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notar>' Public FEE OWNER(S): By: By: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,20. .personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of ________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing insuiiment, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary' Public STATE OF MINNESOl A COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this dav of . 20 .personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of Page 4 of 5 J r ____ whose identity 1 proved on the oath/afilrmation of________________________ ________________a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner April 10.2002 #02-2779 Jerad & Leslie Hahn 809 Brown Road North Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing RR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 6.9 acres Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits A Application Elevations/Floor Plan Survey Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C) (3) Sample Restrictive Covenant Sample Oversized Accessory Structure Covenant B C D E F G H 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. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (C): Size Restrictions & Conditions for Oversize Accessory Structures: The maximum oversize accessor)- structure footprint for a lot of 6.9 acres is 2400 s.f 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 “work/storage room". It will be detached. 30’ x 50’ (1,500 s.f.). and located north of the residence. The work'storage room will be u.sed for personal use and will include a bath room with sink and toilet. The property is located in the RR-1B zoning district. The City of Orono allows for the provision of plumbing in accessory buildings that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub. The accessoiy building is required to be conforming in location, size, and height. I he accessory building (detached garage) does conform to location, size and height requirements set by code. The accessory building meets all setback requirements for the RR-1B zoning district and the square footage of the building meets the size restrictions of the oversize accessory structure ordinance. This property is located on Dickey Lake. Hardcover is not an issue with this application. #02-2779 Jared Leslie Hahn 809 Brown Road No Conditional Use Permit 5/10/2002 Page I 2 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 work/storage 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). 4. This building is subject to the requirements of Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (C) which is attached as Exhibit G which requires the execution of an “Oversized Accessory Structure” covenant (Exhibit I). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for property located at 809 Brown Road North 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 has agreed to filing the two appropriate restrictive covenants on the property: accessory building with plumbing and oversized accessory building. «02-2779 JaredAeslie Hahn 809 Brown Road N Conditional Use Permit 5/10/2O02 Page 2 fc' Application U 02-277^ Date Rcceive<r vA/e 2 Amount Paid 7S’ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION \ Site Address ^0^ 7VLlC'i^ , O^bV^n U n I Type of Application to be Filed Si wvh a I An? tP.^St-W'V Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) u - - - APPLICANT 3- ,i- . ~ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3* (i* *^^f**; \\C *1^hone (home) ^ ^ ^^144 ~ Name CfelgAO-il i-gSL/ET t-^ __________ Addres s ^0^ "Ry OLC A-gri M/;._____City F)YQ hO_________Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City Zip Date Property Acquired_____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application y $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) _____Afier-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 With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #2779 k »*»*i#»tnt««if »fi*r»»#ii*rr»«t»'>'« • « •Orf t-H* tU«ft blf f>'l» ••» I •'# M '•rr»trr«««t •ta««» )<• «• r* HR HH t r iH rv« ■'fM v« rv t» «• »f*( V »« n t»1*4 »>vi I !'«• etrial I ttnnfirttwi *—».«»>.»»>?*** *?'l*J**i ZiXtTAux:riR^.:tdtTtf:x^S!ttiJ!TSttTi ■ m ■■»! i»#* r:f;?/;:i;r::ji5rs:.ijg3Jwrjr7,^^ ta*trti4»t't»iirtr«f»^ i%»*t»««rtfi »i>i n *•■•• •■«• f i'i 1 !••»«>• • H »■>•• w* m • f>*rt>t •'■•(•r«»Mt I «r>>« • I * t i>4i orvrt • «•«• M>tri'« r»*t»* • • * •# I V ■«»»••• Ml •»it»«»i>iii>*i»<in» iSiaVift KKtf.'SnhsCK L J] ©REAR ELEVATION 1/8*-V-O* SIDE (BOTH) ELEVATIONS 1/8*- I S K D SOCE 6W«^LE5 no MATCM MOUSED ROCr VCNTS A5 f^OP \b» FELT ICE < VUATER 5MIELD ^•-O* UP FROM POCP ECXiE 1/2* PLTUXX20 ftWEATMlNiOi --------- EI^INEEREO 6CIMOR TRUS5ES • 24* OC. IK6ULATION (R-bC> CONTINUOU5 F*OLY VAPOR BARRIER b/b* GTP6<n BOARD SKDARCHmcrS, INC 11140Highway 55 Suite A Plymoulh.MN 55441 (763) 591^115 ROOF <aABLE OvgR>-4ANGi 6EE DETAIL BDCfJCVESH^ 6EE DETAIL TOILET CEU IND 3/4* PLTUOOO 7*h JOIdT • I** OC BAH INSOLATION S/»* GiTPdin BOARD TOILEi giALLS 1/3* OTPSCM BOARD 3x^ STUDS • »* OC. M/ BATT INSULATION 6* hkjm curb block 1/2* oYPSOi board TILE BASE INSIDE TOILET 4* CONC. SLAB PITCHED TO FD. 3* RkjlD INSOL OVER S* GRAVEL FILL typical i 1/2* GTPSCM BOARD CONTNUOUS POLT VAPOR BARRIER 3«S STUDS • 16* OC •/ BATT N6UL m-3:2 1/2* PLYWOOD SMEATWINO TYVEK BUILDING UJRAP CEDAR shingle siding rTO MATC4 MOUSE/ TYPICAL CURB 3i>6 TREATED SILL PLATE l/2'DIA n 16* ANCHOR BOLT GASKET SILL SEALER GRADE MIN. 6* BELOW TOP OF BLOCK 6* CURB BLOCK b CSE. 12* CONC. BLOCK, 2C-10 CONC FOOTING «/2* *4 CONT. REBAR SFCnON i/v-i'-o* \ 1 --------- — ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \Jii / K N •tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiliriiiiiliiiiiliiiim 'll / PRAI5ED panel I^TAL tidUL rcTAL t4SUL. on, CCHO.^AD FRONT ELEVATION 4 /ji ^ nt fyt It !ilinHU I hjlTTT > jf It li-i \ /\\ U jnrjiiuu !i- H fn:ii H |Tn jlTTuJITi^^a^jTirf Jprif ii ([ u a iidJS^JIIIuriliu^LLa I I I/3*jA 1/3* t-----t/3* FltlEZE DO E/4*»» I/a* UOUi/DR miM. TYPICAL UNO 3/4*m mn ADOv€ OK POOR 3/4*j» 1 V4* JAMD TRM 0>l POOR CCNC. front elevation TYPICAL NOTES: TTP. MCAOEM ML. • CXTE TYP. HlilOeit 2-2ii» • WTE«0^ TTP. CA6MO • ttOttl/DP bi4 r^DAMfTTPJ OAA^ P.OOP TO 06 EPOXY. iPCXY 4* UP WALL FLOOR PLAN 1/4*. V^P .V‘ c CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ARCHETYPE BUILDERS. INC. IN THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 15-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA S 88*49' t9* E DICKEY //# / I / / LAKE //y/M:/ / / orjW |>KS M lO-i-tl' Vi ----------------------------- 323 4 /•mmA #1 ( w S 88*49'19* E. . 32347V _____________iu_____j "'■If,,___/ /. —L— \ 7 ] 'll/! •> i / I —^...v I I III // // / - y/ yV 'I \\ \ — /. / t I ! \ 1 ' ^ ' / f s i t ! 1 / \ X / / / J I s - _ Z' / ^ ^ /^ Iy / •90 0 7^ / » ^mm*‘*‘* ^ / "7*^ N 88*49' t9“ W Ir* •* « */*. S« 1/4 $•< 2’ y V' 990 21 \ / / / /' / ; ^ [../ /- -' •—> 7 , »» »tC4l _.f... cf5:l»p>.^* C4 w^4SK. ,„, Tm Va.'a «*7J '«' •' s«t«>» V. IF.-T'f of S;4.f*#a«f. Ozyt«< •» So«i»'*«ft tN-<y of ■c^’ W' fJc'* C* •* % 1/4 €W"^ «f t«« 1^. T«o !•• 88. 4y9 2J • •* 5i/* » «* 40-CH rrorkf* OnOFOfKWO tri ^>4 __ OAAOlfcQ PIAH i.A2P**5.*a-w<W A*r> “ A/f^./.tJ AtTH NCifiSfOM ____________ fVi^S 1. ■ ______________- D IWWi * • V. MMi A I ^f^*7 Si-CsAt^**:, C*'.*'’• f • --’• • •• ■ A RUN DATE EA/lt/E2 HENNEfIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 9 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 36 27-118-23 S3 000b 0073b DICKEY LAKE OR HARIAN N HOYT MARIAN H HOYT 73b DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 5535b 36 27-116-23 33 0007 007AA DICKEY LAKE DR 6 L PETTIS I A J PETTIS GERALD L A ALICE J PETTIS 7bb DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 5535b 36 27-116-23 S3 0021 00650 WILLOW OR N T D CARLSON I J A CARLSON THOMAS D i JANE A CARLSON 650 WILLOW DR N LONG LAKE NN 5535b PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 36 27-116-23 Sb 0002 00915 BROWN RD N THOMAS W LANE t WIFE THOMAS W LANE 915 BROWN RD NO LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 27-116-23 3b 0003 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DSR INVESTMENTS LLC DSR INVESTMENTS LLC 2003 SUGARWOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 27-118-23 3b 000b 00679 6R0WN RD N DSR INVESTMENTS LLC DSR INVESTMENTS LLC 2003 SUGARWOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 5535b PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 27-116-23 3b 0005 00619 BROWN RD N STEVEN GUY GRAY STEVEN GUY GRAY 619 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 27-116-23 3b 0006 00609 BROWN RD N LESLIE N BARRY LESLIE N HAHN 609 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 27-116-23 b3 0013 01995 WEST FARM RD R L PARRISH i C J PARRISH RICHARD L PARRISH 1995 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 5535b PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 27-116-23 b3 001b 01925 WEST FAim RD CHARLES L SCHROEDER ET AL CHARLES L SCHROEDER PAMELA FREEMAN SCHROEDER 1925 NEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 27-116-23 b3 0022 01990 WEST FARM RD AIM BRACHMAN ARMAND E I MARY A BRACHMAN 1990 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 27-116-23 b3 002b 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE FARM AT LONG LAKE THE FARM AT LONG LAKE PTNSMP C/0 TIMOTHY ADAMS 1610 WEST FARM ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 3b-116-23 11 0006 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY L STEIL ET AL MARY L STEIL ET AL 7bb BROWN RD N L»I6 LAKE MN 5535b 36 3b-116-23 12 0002 007b0 BROWN RD N SCOTT A MA6USTH ET AL SCOTT A MA6USTH 7b0 BROWN ROAD NORTH LONG LAKE MN 5535b 36 3b-118-23 12 0005 007bb BROWN RD N T M SCHULTZE I M L STEIL M L STEIL I T N SCHULTZE 7bb BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 5535b PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR 36 3b-116-23 21 0003 02002 SUGARWOOD DR R L i N H GILL RICHARD GILL 2002 SUGAR WOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 5535# 36 3b-116-23 21 000b 0200b SUGARWOOD DR M V SCHROCK I C T SCNROCK MICHAEL I CATHERINE SCHROCK 200b SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 5535b 36 3b-116-23 21 0005 0200b SUGARWOOD DR S R SCHROLL I T G SCHROLL STEVEN R SCHROLL . 200b SUGAR WOODS DR NN 5535b 6 RUN DATE 0A/10/02 BATCH 505 HfNNEfIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATXON SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA3SA01 PAGE 10 PROP AOOt OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB 54-11B-2S 21 0006 •2000 SUGARWOOD DR A J GRAF i N A GRAF ALBERT J B NARY ANN GRAF 2008 SUGAR WOODS DR ORONO NN 55356 5B 56-11B-2S 21 0007 02010 SUGARWOOD DR R HESHBESHER B K HESHBESHER RONALD B KIMBERLY HESHBESHER 2010 SUGAR WOODS DR ORONO MN 55356 3B 34-11B-23 21 0010 02003 SUGARWOOD OR SHANNON M READ SHANNON READ 2003 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 * 3B 36-11B-23 21 0011 02005 SUGARWOOD DR JUNE A WINTER JUNE A WINTER 2005 SUGARWOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 3B 30-11B-23 21 0012 02007 SUGARWOOD DR F PXNTENS IRS PXNTENS FRANK PINTENS 2007 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 3B 3B-11B-23 21 0013 02009 SUGARWOOD DR M M KILEEN ITS KILEEN MARY M B THOMAS S KILEEN 2009 SUGARWOOD OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 SB 36-11B-23 21 0016 02011 SUGARWOOD DR ROGER L KING 8 JEAN L KING ROGER L KING B JEAN L KING 2011 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 SB 36-11B-23 21 002B 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55616 3B 36-118-23 21 0030 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55616 38 36-118-23 22 0006 00730 DICKEY LAKE DR J D RICK B J H RICK JONATHAN D RICK 730 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 503 0002B 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, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE by * Miuhdak § 10.03 C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are nal considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding nonencroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. ’ - Paddocks or arenas table: 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following Maximum Allowed Lot Area Ma.ximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Propertv 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f.2,400 s.f 3.01-3.50 acre •1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f.6,000 s.f * Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas 3. Any Oversize Accessor>' Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) § 10.03 b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 ’ or the defined height of principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. > ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessor}’ structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source; Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 D. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located w-ithin the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) e.xcept that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or comer lots. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1 . Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. ORONO CC 255-1 (8-14-89) Mjjk 3.A^VPLE' CITV OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this day of 2002, by (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: (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), specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03. Subdivision 9(F) 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 property, the Applicants are required to provide title information to City staff as requested. Ali 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 building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property if Page 1 of 5 Gr J 2. 3. 4. 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. 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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ___day of ,2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notaiy Public Page 2 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this___________day of March. 2002 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public APPLICANT(S); By:___________ By:___________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ( *n this day of .. 20. .personally appeared before me. v-ho 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 acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STAl E OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of__________ .personally appeared before me. 20. who is personally known to me Page 3 of 5 whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/afilrmation of _________________________ ________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notaiy Public FEE OWNER(S): By:___________ By:___________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of 20 .personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affiimation of ________________________ ________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notar%’ Public On this day of 20 , Page 4 of 5 j)ersonally 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 acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 3;^rv\pu& CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR OVERSIZED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this __,by _____ day of (single/husband and wife/a Minnesota corporation), (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 an accessory- structure on property in Hennepin t .'i^ivnty. State of Minnesota, legally described as: (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants ’ application and have found that the structure requested is defined within Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) of the Orono Municipal Code as an Oversized Accessory Structure ("OAS"); and ^^^IEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10,03, Subdivision 9 (C)(3)(c), specific conditions exist for an allowable OAS; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(3)(c) allows issuance of a permit for construction of the subject OAS 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 st’bject 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. Page 1 01 * w NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicants ’ request fc one (1) Oversized Accessory Structure ("OAS") 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 existence of the OAS: I A) No future subdivision of the Subject Property will be approved that places the OAS within a lot that has no principal structure. B) Should Applicants wish to subdivide the Subject Property, the OAS may remain ■*without a principal structure for a period to be determined by the Orono City Council. If no principal structure is fully constructed and completed on the property by the end of the determined period, the OAS must be removed. C) Should Applicants subdivide the Subject Property, the OAS and the principal structure shall be located ^vithin the same lot, which meets the minimum lot area requirement based upon the size of the accessory building, which lot area requirement is detailed in Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(2) of the Orono Municipal Code. Setback requirements as defined in Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(a) shall also apply. • • 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 e.xecution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by his/her/their signature(s) upon this document. Page 2 of 4 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 __________i^ .t>y __________________________ day of __and and 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 inslrumen: was a'^knowledged before me this ________________________^_____by _______________________ day of and as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. (husband and v/ife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) Notary Public Page 3 of 4 r FEE OWNER(S): By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) .The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______________________.4®___, by ____ day of and as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. (husband and wife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) . • Notary Public Page 4 of 4 3 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE: May 15,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2784 Robert Tunheim/Sport Court of M inneapol is 2755 Countryside Drive West Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B Actual Lot Area: 92,534 s.f. (2.124 acres) List of Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/ Survey C Plat Map D Photo of Property Pertinent Code Section 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 10: Conditional Use Permit-Accessory Structures: All accessoiy structures on through lots located in “R” districts shall require a conditional use permit. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct two accessory structures on the property behind the residence: a sport court and a pool. The applicant is proposing to locate the accessory structures appro.xiniately 70' (sport court) and 250’ (pool) from the rear property line as indicated on Exhibit B. A conditional use permit is required because this property is considered a "through" lot. By zoning Code definition a “through" lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets on two sides: Countryside Drive West and Old Crystal Bay Road. Primary access to the residence is from Countryside Drive West. The property contains a private sewage septic system. The proposed accessory structures will not interfere with the primary or alternate septic sites. ANALYSIS The Planning commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit if the following findings are made: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located end Comprehensive Municipal Plan: U02-278-I Robert Tunhelm 2755 Countryside Drive West Page I The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the Municipal Code because an accessory structure on a through lot located in a "R" District is listed as a conditional use. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The proposed acccssoiy stioicture (pool) is 20’ x 40' or 800 s.f. An accessor)’ structure of this size is to be located at least 15' from any property line. The closest property line the accessory structure is proposed to be located is approximately 100'. (Side property line- See Exhibit B). The other proposed accessory structure (sport court) is 45' x 28' or 1,260 s.f. An accessory structure of this size is to be located at least 30 ’ from property lines. The accessory structure is proposed to be located approximately 70' from the rear property line where 50’ is required and 30 ’ from the side property line as indicated on the survey. (Exhibit B). They both meet required setbacks. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The use will not conflict with other provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Issues for Consideration; 1. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 2. The accessory structures meet setbacks from both Countryside Drive W. and Old Ciystal Bay Road. 3. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct a accessory structures (pool and sport court) on the property as proposed, meeting all required setbacks. U02-2784 Robert Tunheim 275} Countryside Drtve H'esf Page 2 04A5/2002 21:41 6514542230 SPTCTMPLS PAGE 02 Application # Date Received V- Amount Paid __________ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Type of Application to be Filed _ ^ ^ a ^ m i lype oi /ippiiwauv/u iv» i/v i iivu ^______ -■ Property IdentijQcation Number (P.I.D.) /^a £hc.)c, 6*r>? AAlif?po Phone (home ) ______ Phone (work) 3bjS •» V\u3V City _________Zip >g3~ APPUCANT I- i /^L/ \ Name Ceor-T ( Phone (home) H7^ ____ ^__ __________________________ Phone (woric ) 37i 39fSZ Address ^J-?*;^ ^ City £)r^*yo Zip SSTSS’Ca. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name fttalro Date Property Acquired Oc4~ _______________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. 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 (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation )\^th Subdivision _____ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #27 04/15/20U2 21:41 6514542230 SPTCTMPLS PAGE 04 Old Cft-YSTAL B ay £)C. SiT R oao 6iT Pvrw .«w« ^ DSSftfNACjE, EA^eJAENT"^ oJ ? JL7TV ' 11 iVcT.<"'' ! o ' I rcs^*“f— ?8*^ 4r"sfeutl f ?(Z'lid'^. 1 » C cuaitxjys ,Oe; We$T. Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 2IMU »r9i (20}t(0) M2U %er9t«ne 4MM Marine I //>//7- f '♦pt «ao»yNaroi4e» ^or«rr tMf4 ru; rf.' 7 NID ^ f i additioJ^/ /fU scaiji (SO U*79 <ffj 5 Mitr (Tiorri BQEl. addn rtn Mrya ’w 4Mia ♦w CRYSTAL ^ (*0/ /’ '1 ^ «w JS'«» «. Parcel Information Parcel 10 0411723120017 House Number 2755 Street Name COUNTRYSIDE DR W This Is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of Information and data from Oty. County, and Slate road authonbes arnl other sources. rfc <//avc> III 1-^ ;ltl X >s -r-■N"!! '.‘k f;‘r •-■ ■? •.■''v.'^?: C/' ‘ **'■ ■ 'IV'^V-tf/- ^ - *—^ i • • S -•.V-:.;V -;• A .*' • 1 ...\ ;v. ;.'..w4 :*. ‘ # • .i w ••t *1 ■> ^' <( V - i'Vrl m • • ’v' •. ■ SV./- , tv .’.1 ■> v>. •* f» .' *t. n 4 t k*>- .* t ’} '■ j:. V4»I V •*1, . I -j* • 4 . / . fc ■* i/ -•i» 1 Application Date: 3/22/02 Deadline: 7/20/02 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:May 13,2002 SUBJECT; #02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Resolution No. 4485 June 26,2000 Approved Site Plan Plat Map New Site Plan - View 1 New Site Plan - View 2 Building Plans Property Owners Notification List Application Hennepin County has applied to the City of Orono to renew variances to permit construction of a 7,200 square foot, three bay salt and sand storage building on the property and to renew a conditional use permit to permit construction of a stormwater management pond on the property. Modifications to Plan The revised site plan has relocated the building closer to the property lines than previously approved. The 2000 approved site plan has the storage building 50’ from the north property line and 125’ from the east property line. The new site plan shows the building 27’ from the north propertj ’ line and 67* to the east property line. The required setback to the rear property line for the building is 30’. The 27’ setback requires a variance. Approval of the site plan as a renewal will require the site plan to be amended to meet the previously approved setbacks. The new building location would not reduce hardcover as previously approved. Background On June 26, 2000 the City of Orono adopted Resolution No. 4485 approving the variances and conditional use permit for the Hennepin County Highway Maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The salt and sand storage building required variances to permit the building to exceed the maximum allowed size for an ovt rsized accessory building on a property of 6.65 acres. The Municipal Code only permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building on the property, and an aggregate of 4,800 square feet for all accessory buildings. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet plus a 10’ overhang for an extended roof for each storage bay. Initially, the City of Orono was concerned that the construction of such a facility on the property may expand the operation of the site. County staff has indicated the proposed building would actually have less impact on the surrounding residential properties becau.se the number of salt and sand deliveries to the site would be reduced by approximately 60 trips annually. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because of the limited indoor storage currently provided. With the enclosed building they can stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. Existing use of Property: The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since that time the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility primarily being County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12 and County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels ofTloats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. 1 he LMCD has used the property for storage of 4 milfoil har\ esters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt'sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LM^D to store the milfoil harvesters. I he large parking a ea between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overtlow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would reman; as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. 1 I' This application requires the following approvals: I Renewal of a variance to permit hardco* er alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138.188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Renewal of a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. 1 he Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this , operty is 4,800 square feet. .According to the most recent site plan, the total proposed square footage ♦or accessory buildings is only the salt'sahd storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for the land alteration on the property and construction of the stomiw,.ter management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-2.1). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by th<' WCA and required MCWD board approval. This wetland euid the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory' to any future property owner that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the renewal application subject to the conditions as noted in Resolution No. 4485 and requires the building to meet the setbacks as approved in 2o00. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3. Table. 4.Other Action. J|ai.-15-2002 02:05pa Ffca-CITV OF COO 4SSZ2434316 T-99S P 0:9/:i7 F-92I AppUc^.«j>ii # 0 ’2»“Zy7lf Date Received __________ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 y, ($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) Amount Paid piitr pf-*^** PROPERTY INFOR^TION . Site .address SU<yv<_\i 'rit/t Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Zp -M7-T3 ^ ^ f Attach legal descrioUoa to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired -------------------- I (do) (4£^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propetw:residential other (spccifjr’X Zoning District: applicant . Name L.WVy_ Address:_________________ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ _ City:.Zip:. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ------------ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:.City..Zip:. description of request Describe request in detail: __ Estiraated Con3truni''n Cost $. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Vvidth i^^Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) —.. I. ■ BoilA'M nv fw insnfTQTTAT property CONDITIO?® compliance with Zoning Code requirements:----------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) MQB-19r2a02 14:3S ♦9522494616 99-4 6 P.25 } CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .4455_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.f56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERAHT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 2555 -WHEREAS, Hennepin County (hereinafter the "applicant") is owner of a property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows (hereinafter the "property"): "Exhibit A" ; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Conunission held public hearings on January 19, 2000 and April 17, 2000 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a land use application to the City of Orono requesting the following approvals: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the propeny was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning chang-d to residential in the early 1970 ’s, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback froni the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) 3 i Page 1 of 8 CITY of ORONO 11 //RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 S 3.Virtue to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) 4.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2555. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezotiing, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this fac ..ty from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of the Zoning Code Amendment to the LR-IC District based on the following: A. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed e.xpanded use is much more intense than what the property is currently used for. Page 2 of 8 J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. 5. 6. 7. There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. C.The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-IC district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non-conforming status. •D.The proposed height of the building was 42' requiring a variance. The building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building. E.Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt'sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. The proposed building has been reduced in height from 42' to 20' and the building has been redesigned to not require a fully enclosed building but rather three storage bays for the salt/sand product. Elevation views, provided by Hennepin County, indicate the buildings would only have minimal unpact on adjacent properties to the north. The 42' building proposal would have blocked views from a small area in Spring ParL across the railroad tracks. The storage bays would provide protection for the salt and sand product. Much of the salt and sand has been stored outdoors and could become part of the runoff from the site towards LaV.e Minnetonka. The facility is located within the 1000* Shoreland area of the lake. Page 3 of 8 CIT Y of ORONO 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 4 5; ■- stormwater management pond has been proposed to treat stormwater before leaving the site. Water drains towards the south side of the property and enters a culvert that carries the water directly to the lake. A management pond will treat much of the water before leaving the site. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wet.^ s. The wetlands drain into a storm sewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. 10. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Without indoor storage the County is required to make deliveries on a 24 hour schedule during snowfall events. 11. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fixe hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. The City Council finds that g.anting a conditional use permit for land alteration for pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property w ill be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 4 of 8 1 CITY off ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ^ b O____ Uf="^he City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'- 1000’ lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X 120 ’ (7,200 s.f.) accessory building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,400 s.f. is allowed; and for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10,03, Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities, and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal. 3. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono. 4. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer. 5. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product. 6. The three lots that exist on the property shall be comb'med into one tax parcel. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council ’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 26, 2001). Page 5 of 8 9. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 r> iolation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Owners Co. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June. 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARYANN JOHNSON NOTAKyPUBUC-MMCSOTA CannWan Jin, 3f, 20C9 ; ^ ^J.'/yJ Notary Public C" Page 6 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 5 STATETJFWINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) npfhk ^ day cX N^ . 20 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared G-U)/ G/, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrumentr and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. MARY ANN XIHNSON Notary Pi^^nc ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of., 20 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Public Page 7 of 8 J Exhibit A L£6AL DESCRIPT10f4S; Tract 1 •Tomns Property per CerttflooYe Of DHe 359670 S ,7 7*e ' ^ ' ‘..v« »• •. * '-7 •*:s, .» y /A* Government Su'^vey-thereof. All of Tract 1 la subject to permanent easements for street purposes as per Torrens Oocuments 13775 and 1655002 (County Highway Plat) Area of Tract 1 *■ 11.632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres). Tract 2 - Tofrerie Property per Certiflcote of Title 369670 That part of Government Lot 8. Section 17. Township 117. Range 23. and that of Lot 1. Biocx S. Townsite of Langdon Park, all described as beginning at the intersection of a j^iithwith and 233 feet North of the South line of said Government Lot a and a ^SirrecQ^and 100 feet East of the East line of *Streater's Spring Park Addition . thence North along the last described parallel line and Its e’‘^®g?^?g.^°c;nM!hfpi5^riant^af^uav lin^ line of the Great Northern Railway Companv: thence Easterly along |®^g^,So*Jtherly right of way nto its intersection with a line drawn North at right angles to the South line of said Sectlo..^ from a point thereon distant 1315.97 feet West from the South ouaf'ter-corner of said Section 17. thence South along said last described line to a point 233 feet North of the South line Section 17: thence West parallel with the South line of S<ctlo<7 17 to the point of beginni g.the boundarlea of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the four cor.nersthereo and the South line of which tract Is further marked by Judicial Landmarks placed thereon 50.02 fe and 100.04 feet East of the Southwest corner of said tract, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 1514/. According to the Government Survey thereof and according to the recorded plat tnereor. Subject to a private driveway or street easement over the westerly 100 feet of Tract 2. Area of Tract 2 “ 243, 101 Square Feet (5.SSI Acres) Tract 3 • Aberrocr Property per Doojnent No. 3845782 That part of Government Lot 8. Section 17. Township, 117. Range 23 WeaH lyi'i9„rithln a di^ c'100 feet Easterly of the Easterly line of -Streater’e Spring Park At^giLlon. Hennepin Counwy^^^ Minnesotar and lying North of the southerly 233 feet of said Government Lot 8. and South 0 Great Northern Railway right of way. Subject to an easement for street purposes over Tract 3-.ly^ps.North of a line parallel wlth^a^ ^ 50 ect Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway right pe- .ts 33282.37 wnw 29457^3 Page 8 of 8 June Z(r,ZOOO r*v«J S«+t PUn LAKESHORE OFFSET 500- LINE n S^or•l?^^C^Iw• ^ ✓ "- -/ H ^C~]^*^*=*: :b * •- v'3\; «««^ *«••«• • : < » l \ \ 1 I ' - ' ^.f \\ *' * .-. * ' “•' "\V v\s \ '\rzjr^z:r.rr: |k^ 9 «»• O' 25' $0' 25' 100' /--"■-'" i:"i I r-""‘ ••' kilM I '*• ,fli ;': I ‘ t! i »-j - . . « i • « :^n '25 ( . - •EJr'TiSv'—)' IJ4 riTv ! nrr^r 1 r^'5.'jsr5.‘6t.~\ -15.-Pt*t-M>-^■<~—SHORCLtNE-0RIV&------IHC5AH IE TONKA LAKESHORE OFFSET 250' /• bv •.:, ■ $j|i.T .STOMflCi BUILOIM' \ ''V Zfj.,1 ■t- ■ ■ ■:«0* X ^ -W‘ . V^g-. ■ ;. ./■.;tv - *■■•• ' ................^?wiu:<f4 \ \ :ONC. RETAINING WALL^ \ r i^rforated comigated polyethytene drainpipe, place pipe w/holes facing downward; slope drain to sump, y$ee sump location on site plan for brick pattern design see details on sheet A3, color to be determined by architect. 1 zo' - o-/£r;r.'ir^0 downspout, fasten to wan at top, middle & bottom, cone, splashblock ...................................... _____________________\ it, l.ii^ 1 IV.P4!JUUU«r!W«5aWMII II I .................................... tUN DATE iA/l5/0t iATCN 550 mor ADDt OWNED NANE TAXPAYER HAtlE/AOOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX0S5A01 PACE 5 17 17-117-2S SS 0000 0SO10 NORTHERN AVE ROOER ALLAN RUENL ROGER ALLAN RUENL SR10 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN SSXRR 17 17-117-2S S3 0010 0S810 NORTHERN AVE HAROLD R KOKESH ETAL HAROLD R KOKESCH 3814 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 0014 03842 NORTHERN AVE E R TISCHLER 8 K J TISCHLER ERIC R TISCHLER 3842 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 l*’-117-23 S3 0018 03852 NORTHERN AVE KEITH J ENERY KEITH ENERY 3852 NORTNERi: AVE SPRING PARK NN 5538* 17 17-117-23 33 0014 03877 PARK LA RANKERS TRUST CO OF CALIF WILLIAN A ANDERSON 3877 PARK LA SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 17-117-23 33 0020 03842 NORTHERN AVE JAN W STRUCK JAN W STRUCK 3842 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 17-117-23 S3 0022 83841 PARK LA A N HOUO 8 N E FARXNHA ANGELA N HOUG 5248 NINNCHAHA AVE NPLS HN 55417 17 17-117-23 S3 0038 03414 SHORELINE DR DOUGLAS C GANGLE DOUGLAS GANGLE 2043 NOUNTAIN VIEW DR ESCONDIDO CA 42027 17 17-117-23 33 0034 03424 SHORELINE DR CLARK R OLTNAN CLARK R OLTNAN 3424 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN 55384 Jv 17-117-2/33 0040 03^2. SjloftELINE DR JOHN PIASTER JOHN^ RASTER 2^ CASCO PqiNT RD WAVZATA NN 5U41 17 17-117-23 33 0043 03400 DEL OTERO AVE J H GAGATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY GAGATZ 3400 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 17-117-23 33 0044 03424 DEL OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURNER CATHY JO TURNER 5537 GARTLETT GLVD HOUND NN 55344 r- (i 0 •M7ITv 17-117-25 55 D€L OTCMT^VE HICHAI l R ERICksON mCHAEI>^^RICXSON 5454mao AVE SRRENO PARK NL S55R4 17^7-117-25 55 RRAl OSVAR ^-NORTNCRN^VE THOMAS E CHRISTENSEN ET AL THOMAS A LUAlRt CHRISTENSEN 59A« MORfHCRN AVE. SPRfltO PARK NN S55R4'X 17 17-117-23 33 0044 03414 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 3414 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55384 ^ ? 17 17-117-23 S3 0045 03408 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 3414 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 17-117-23 S3 0044 03400 NORTHERN AVE GERALD ROLAND HANSEN GERALD R NANSEN 80X 152 SPRING PARK NN 55384 17 17-117-23 33 0047 02258 HAZELDELL AVI ROGIN L SHERNAN ROGIN L SHERNAN 2258 HAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK NN 55384 I RUN DATE tA/fS/et tATCN 55t ONNCR NANS TAXfAYER NAHE/ADOR PROF ADOR OliNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR ORNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OliNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY ORNERS LIST rUvl7-117-23 SS 1184 •221%^ LILAC/Rir T D I^UNASoN THONAD<inNntENE L NASON 22S#LILAC L>S^ SPRING PARK HN^S^SSDA 17 17-117-25 55 8887 85872 NORTHERN AVE NOREEN P 8ENJE6ERDES. NOREEN P iENJECERDES 5872 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 88584 17 17-117-25 55 8844 82248 HAZELDELL AVE P A RARTQN 8 N K 8ARTON P A DARTON 8 N K 8ART0N 2248 HAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK NN 88584 17 17-117-25 55 8157 85822 NORTHERN AVE N A SCHNELIN6 ET AL ELIZABETH N SCNNELIN6 P 0 BOX 81 5822 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 88584 17"H7-1V"^ W 8154 8224!><^ZELDCLL AVE DpUOlAS >vSXPPEL MU6LAS J STPPEL 2241 HAZELDELL SPRING PARK NN CSAVE N Ne}: 17 17-117-25 55 8142 85418 DEL OTERO AVE RICHARD S LIBERANTE RICHARD S LIBERANTE 3418 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 88584 17 17-117-25 55 8144 85414 DEL OTERO AVE J A PRXTZ tvs JENSEN JANES PRXTZ 8 NENDV JENSEN 5414 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK HN 88584 17 17-117-25 35 8148 85418 DEL OTERO AVE GREGORY A DAVIS GREGORY A DAVIS 3418 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 88584 17 11-117-23 35 8147 85482 SHORELINE DR G A KLITZKA 8 V V KLXTZKA G A 8 V V KLXTZKA 5482 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN 88584 17 17-117-23 35 8148 83484 SHORELINE DR VINCENT K BURNHART VINCENT K BURNHART 488 HAPLE CREST DR HN 88544 17 17-117-23 33 8188 82242 NAPLETON AVE THOHAS PREDRXCK BROUELETTE THONAS PREDRICK BROUELETTE 2242 NAPLETON AVE SPRING PARR NN 88584 17 17-117-25 34 8821 83888 NORTHEIOI AVE LOIS A TOWNER LOIS A TOWNER 3888 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 88584 REPORT NO. PI438481 PACE 4 17 17-117-25 35 8888 85874 NORTHERN AVE ROGER DALE ROGER DALE 3874 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 88584 17 17-117-23 33 8138 83832 NORTHERN AVE KEITH D TRASK KEITH D TRASK 3832 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 88384 17 17-117-25 33 8145 83414 DEL OTERO AVE ZACHARY S SWANSON ZACHARY S SWANSON 3414 DEL OTERO AVE SPRlItt PARK HN 88384 17 17-117-23 53 8144 83488 SHORELINE DR S W 8 P K OSHERA STEVEN W 8 PANELA K OSfSRA 3488 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HN 88384 ci \ 4 0 17 17-117-23 35 8144 83484 SHORELINE DR DONALD L LANDON DONALD L LANDON 5484 SHORELIfffi DR SPRING PARK HN 88384 58 17-117-25 33 8882 85888 SHORELINE DR CO OP HENN HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTN NARCIA WXLDA H/C 488 417 BTH ST N 8528 NPLS NN BB481 RUN DATE OA/AS/Rt iATCN SSt RROf ADDR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AOOR ININER NAIC TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER KANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR Sa 17-117-2S SS RROS •SOat SHORELINE DR COUNTY or HENNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO - P.S. DIO S2t NASHINQTON AVE S HOPKINS NN 553AS sa 17-117-2S S3 im •sasa SHORELINE DR JOHN C CHENONETH JR JOHN C CHENONETH liaas KIN0SD0R0U6H TR S COTTAOE DROVE NN SSfU 38 17-117-23 54 ffOS •377# SHORELINE DR NARY SONNS NATTHEN SONNS laai AVOCET LA NOUND NN 5SSA4 3aSij-ii7-23 sa^aNY# •S74t\SHORELlflE DR TONKA VENJURES LLC TONKA VENTUKS LLC 77aa/PRANCE AX| S 8771 EDINA NN 55431^ 3^^17-117-23 Jpr#O04 •••3^ ADDRESS UNASSIDNED TONKA VENTIIRES LLC TONKA VENTURES LLC 7Jal' FRANCE AVE S 877# t^S NN SS4S3\^ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIOH SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 33 •••4 •saaa snoreline dr E J I N J HELD EDWARD J I NARSNA J HELD 3840 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN 55341 38 17-117-23 S3 •••7 iS8ii SHORELINE DR JANET N OLSON JANET N OLSON 3800 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN 55341 38 17-117-23 34 •••4 •3740 SHORELINE DR CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO ATTN RONALD J NOORSE p 0 BOX aa CRYSTAL DAY NN 55323 IDw17-117-23 38 ®®07 OO^V. AMREK UNASSIDNED TONKA VKiCniRES LLC LLC E S 8771 38 17-117-23 34 0150 •378# NORTHERN AVE N T CARL i J K JANES N T CARL I J K JANES 378# NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 7 38 17-117-23 34 0052 •••38 ADDRESS PENDING NCLEOD CNTY RED RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH NILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 84537 38 17-117-23 34 OObS •••38 ADDRESS PENDING LAKE NTKA WOODS ASSOC LAKE HTKA WOODS ASSOC C/O EAGLE CREST NORTHWST INC P 0 DOX 47333 PLYHOUTH NN 55447 38 17-117-23 S3 OROS •3840 SWmCLINE DR DAVID UN8EH0CKER DAVID UNDEHOCKER 3840 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN 55341 38 17-117-23 34 •••2 •3740 NORTHERN AVE LEO J SLECNTA ETAL LEO J SLECNTA 3708 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 S8S^7-117-2S 34 4005 •374>v SHOREL»«J||l TONKA Vq^ED^lLC TONKA yURURES LLC 774rTRANCKAVE S 877# EDINA HN SMS 38%17-ll7-23 34/T(o8 •37#Dw SHORELINE DR TONKA VEffTURES LLC TMirVEHTURES LLC 774# FRANCE^AVE S 8770 EDINA HN 55435 38 17-117-23 34 0051 •3744 NORTHERN AVE J R 8UAN a J E 8UAN JOHN R 8UAN 3740 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 38 17-117-23 34 0083 •0038 ADDRESS PENDING LAKE NTKA HOODS ASSOC LAKE NTKA WOODS ASSOC C/O EAGLE CREST NORTNWST INC P 0 DOX 47333 PLYHOUTH NN 55447 (\ fN d ri) tUN DATE M/IS/ti NCNNCPXN COUNTY PtOfERTY INPORffATlON SYSTEN PROPERTY ORNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXAS54fi PACE a iATCN 550 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR sa 17-I17-2S 54 atas •atsa ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TONKA VENTURES UC TONKA VENTURES LLC 77aa PRANCE AVE S 0770 EDINA NN 55455 ;8S UNASSl 17-25 ADDI{E85" UNASS16NED REO RAILROAD AUTH DAKO 2#a INORTH FERGUS FALLS NILt^ LLS NNN^I4557 38 20-117-25 21 8018 02420 DUNVOODY AVE CALVARY NENORXAL CHURCH CALVARY HENORIAL CHURCH 2420 DUNHOOOY AVE VAYZATA NN 55341 PROP AODR OVNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 58 20-117-23 22 0001 05425 SHORELINE DR C N SHITH ISO SNITH CORTLAND SHITH 8 SUSAN SNITH 5425 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN 55584 38 20-117-23 22 0002 03455 SHORELINE DR J a S 8EDCLL JANES DAVID 8EDELL . 5455 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN 55584 38 20-117-23 22 0003 05405 SHORELINE OR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON 5405 SHORELINE DR NAVARRE NN 55542 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANC/ADOR 58 20-117-25 22 0004 03845 SHORELINE DR R D JENSEN ETAL J i S RAUSCHENOORFER 5845 SHORELINE DR VAYZATA NN 55341 58 20-117-23 22 0005 05415 SHORELINE DR K 8 C KRUGER KONRAD CHRISTOPHER KRUGER 4851 NAHrrOU RD TONKA RAY NN 55331 38 20-117-23 22 0004 03877 SHORELINE DR T N GREGORY 8 T A GREGORY T N GREGORY 8 T A GREGORY 3877 SHORELINE DR VAYZATA NN 55541 f\ PROP AODR OVNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 20-117-23 22 0007 *03845 SHORELINE DR PAUL V LARSON PAUL V LARSON 5877 SHORELINE DR VAYZATA NN 55541 58 20-117-23 22 0008 02405 DUNVOODY AVE RRENT D VALTON ET AL BRENT D 8 JULIE B VALTON 2405 DUNVOODY AVE ORONO NN 55341 38 20-117-23 22 0004 02425 DUNVOODY AVE V P VITHERS ALA SANNA VILLIAN P VITHERS 2425 DUNVOODY AVE VAYZATA NN 55341 'O rmp M»R OMNCR NAME TMMVER NMIE/A«»R torn RATCN iSt 38 20 117 23 22 0010 2435 DUNWOdDY AVE MARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE JAMES C BEISE 2435 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 22 2445 DUNWOODY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2445 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 0011 J n/3 38 2U 117 23 22 0012 2437 DUNWOODY AVE MARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE MARION 0 BEISE 2437 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 I RIM DATE M/IS/M MTCH SS* HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SMR1 PARC 9 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RCPRCSENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS TNIS DATE ON TNE KCOROS OF TNE HENNEPIN COUNTY OCPARTHENT OF PROI^RTV TAXATION, TO TNE REST OF HY ENOHLEDCE AND tCLIEF. DATE PRtmRTV TAXATION, TO TNE RES' A 3 (\ rli a O 6T TO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE: May 15,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2766 William Keefe 2216 Shady wood Road ATF Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 17,273 s.f. (.3965 acres) List of Exhibits A Application B Letter from Applicant C Letters from Neighbors D Survey/Site Plan E Photo of Property F Hardcover W’orksheets G Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (E.F) Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B): Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. 2. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (E.F): Water Oriented Accessory Sfructurc.s/Stairways Lifts and Landings: The only water oriented accessory structures that arc allowed in the 0-75' setback zone are lock boxes up to 20 s.f area and no more than 4 ’ high. Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesting variances to allow a 63 s.f shed located by the lakeshore to remain on the property. Discussion: The current owners purchased the property in 1997. At that time a shed existed in its present location which needed repair. Recently the property owner started repairing the shed and it became apparent the repairs would be more substantial than initially thought. The property owner ultimately replaced the shed floor, walls and roof The existing concrete pad was used from the old shed. There is not a permit on file fo^ He old shed, however it appears it has been there for many years. A letter submitted from the property owner states a shed has been in this location since the 1970's. Also, mature trees and other landscaping surrounds the location of the shed indicating a shed has been located there for many years. «02-2766 William Keefe 2216 Shady wood Road Page I Staff did walk through the neighborhood and noted there are several other sheds on properties by the lakeshore. Checking City flies, there not any permits found for the other sheds. Planning Commission has been consistent in the past requiring sheds to be removed to a conforming location or turned into a lock bo.x when the residence was being tom down and rebuilt. In this case, the residence is NOT bwing tom down and the property owner currently does not have plans to. Statement of Hardship The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration 1. There is not a permit on file for the shed by the lake, however it appears the old shed had been there for many years. Mature trees and other landscaping surround the location of the shed. 2. The shed does not obscure adjacent neighbors views of the lake. Moving it further from the lake to a conforming location will change current sight lines. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options for Action; 1. Recommend approv al of variances for the shed to remain within 75’ of lakeshore. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table for further review or further specific information, advising the applicant what other possible revisions will make the application acceptable. 4. Other. Staff Recommendation; Planning Commission should detemiine whether these are sufficient hardships shown to allow anything more than a 20 s.f. shed/lock box to remain. #02-2766 William Keefe 2216 Shadywood Road Page 2 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IC Lot Area Required .5 Acre Actual .3965 Acres Hardcover Calculations Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'3,784 s.f.0s.f 268 s.f 268 s.f. (0%)(7.1%)(7.1%)* 75-250'9,338 s.f.2,334.5 s.f 1,656 s.f.1,656 s.f (25%)(17.3%)(17.3%) 250-500’3,999 s.f.1,199.7 s.f.1,635 s.f.1,635 s.f (30%)(40.9%)(40.9%) * Rip rap is included in calculations. / 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 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # OZ^2.1 (pQ) Date Received Amount Paid ^2^0 PROPERTY INF9RMATION Site Address ZZ/G SKofjL.i )r>nD 'RnAfs Property Identification Number (P.fD.) /7- II7 2.Z V2. QCQ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired \0l^1 I (do) no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: K residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: ^ — I C.____________ _(month/year) APPLICANT Name 1/JiHia.tr^ ______ Address: ZZ/fg Ron// Phone Ihome) _____ Phone (work) City: Maj Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Sid.Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) j o 0#2 A March 5,2002 Paul VCcinbcrgcr Planning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkuay Orono, MN 53356 Dear Mr. Weinberger: As per directions of City Stalf, we arc including this letter with our application to more fully explain our situation. We purchased our home in October of 1997. At that dme, most aspects of the hou^e were in need of update or repair. ITie small shed between our house and the lake uas no cxccpnon. It was minimally functional at best, as squirrels had taken up residence over the years. We received comments from friends and neighbors regarding its unpleasant aesthetic qualities. It v^as and is our desire to improve our home and yard, 'lb tliat end, we evaluated the shed and thought potUons of the shed could be repaired to remove the squirrels and maintain structural integrity. Adjoining neighbors wxre consulted and gave support for repairing the shed. Wt tackled the repairs to the shed one fall weekend in 2001. Upon closer inspection, after initiating repair work, we replaced the shed floor, ualls, and roof. A previously existing concrete pad near the side lot line as well as existing vegetative screening, dictated the placement of the shed in our yard. Ihis previously existing pad also minimized impact to the impervious surface ratio on our lot and did not increase stormwater runoff to the lake. Surrounding neighbors have complimented us on the current shed and have indicated support for this change in attached letters. While our repairs to the shed may have erred, we have taken great strides to enhance rather than detract from the quaUty of the neighborhood. WTien conducting an analysis of average lakeshore setbacks of the other two sheds prc\nously existing within KKJ feet on either side, the setback of our current shed is greatest. We believe our request meets the City’s hardship criteria for our shed, and we arc hopeful you will look at the lot, surrounding area, previously c.\isting concrete pad, and vegetative screening as the hardship that will allow you to grant us the variance for continued existence of our shed. Thank you for your time and consideration in this m.itter. It is greatly appreciated. Sincerelv, ?nj J / William Keefe Sallv Keefe ir 2216 SMADYVIOOD ROAD • ORONO MN • 55391 PHONEt 952.471.il09 ? / fr 1 '■'!s *7 vr 5 March 5, 2002 March 5,2002 cation to more fully explain ot the houac were in need u-as no exception. It u*as :r the years. VC’e received qualities. It was and is our rd and thought portions of ctural integrity. Adjoining t inspection, after initiating sting concrete pad near the nt of the shed in our yard, urface ratio on our lot and have complimented us on rters. Jes to enhance rather than alysis of average lakeshorc fier side, the setback of our p entena for our shed, and e.xisting concrete pad, and he vanance for continiied ireciated. Paul Weinberger Planning Administrator (jty of Orono ?750 Kelly Parkway ^ >rono, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Weinberger: I am sorry for the delay in 61ing our application for a variance. In November I learned that my sister was placed on a Transplant List. I have elected to donate a portion of my IK-er to her. Because of the ambiguit)' of scheduling, I have been waiting for firm dates to plan around. My suigerj- date is now scheduled for April 3, 200Z Because of this fact, I would ask that the City of Otono delay the Planning Commission and City Council re\*icw of our application until I am able to attend. I will be in touch wfth you near the end of April. If you have questions or any problems, please call me at home. Sincerely, 1 2216 SIIADYWOOD ROAD • ORONO MN PHONE: 952-471.. 55391 ii; September 20,2001 RE: Shed on 2216 Shadywood Road Lyle Oman City of Orono 2750 Kelley Park>\'ay Orono MN 55356 Dear Mr. Oman, We have recently been made aware that the City is requesting the existing shed at 2216 Shadywoc^ Road, owned by Mr. William Keefe, be removed and a building permit be secured for a location withiu the appropriate setback area. We are asking that this decision be reconsidered. Our neighbor inunediately to the south recently completed updating a shed on his property. We supported mis action for a number of reasons. First, the previously existing shed was an eyesore. The shed had been on the lot for decades and deteriorated over time through no fault of the Keefes. Secondly, should the shed be moved to a new location within the setback areas, current sight lines would not be maintained, causing great concern for our family. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Barry ^nnett 2208 Snadywood Road Orono MN 55391 ' /» V. y Theresa Pirich Mark & Susanrte Griffin 2224 Shadywood Rd. Wayzata. MN 55391 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Attn: Lyle Oman/Paul Wienberger To whom h may concern, Mr. Bill Keefe updated a shed on his property (2218 Shadywood Rd.) and we are writing a letter to notify the city that his next door neighbors to the south (2224 Shadywood Rd.). Mark and Susanne Griffin and Theresa Pirich have no objections to this update. In fact, we believe the new shed is a vast improvement. Here are some reasons why we have no objections: • Mr. Keefe asked if it was ok with us if he updated his old shed - The shed was constructed exactly in the same spot and exactly the same size > The old shed v^as an old fish house that had been there since 1970's Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerly. (9 Susanne Qrlffirj^Theresa Pirich / V ^ hi ....- ri' “ I • ^1,1111, I ' ir-; •' ar '- '^’' V . ^ /< ■ •* -: . •--... • I i I I Mrm '■i4 f' X \vx^' V' V'’ J'-n • Sw S'I It II «» u. t V. V / ♦ *. t \- \ .' ♦ * V .» *-t.• • -A • » ^ . * ‘ •“ V -. - <i-iCJ >1; / f tt. > , : ^ ■y'' */ :>% / * i I / ^ ?? £5-t -r^ .. w* W,. ▼ "• ; •- •'^;:r^ •"■■■ ■•_;•• •■ -•-y ’•'■*■—»«:; '''Tt —'• • . ^'\- «-— ^-T C«y^** ' “ k: ^ " : ^ ii - —• .'^ r«* '* p k r- r’ >• Tt L r r.^ c .• .. *1 / ! / / / t ' ^------TT^ ■ f^.'^•'''”la*5ri>i*v-V-'=^--' '■ .,>,^A-'>-• •^«r ' 4' T t Lr .. ** ll ^ Tf: V !! !t II ?|i If f I 5:ii ? {I i!4 'Mi 5 )* % I •■ 'i . V i «ir . *St.Id ’Ml 'ft<W: -S J l4 ■'^=£frsji«aii*w ■ ..'d: ..; J; •.■^- .^:■ ?5;^' ,.'^. t.'SLjSLV^t* ^ - » *. S«.*V5i ,«t' /•v5r^B^- * . J ;-X k*L >: » ^ L‘P ‘^i* t \ ' ^‘■> :‘ ;■ '*•».*.F) ifc I ‘ t '4 ■ ^ I a HARDCOVERg^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500*500-1000 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House st,&^ Lenfih Width X X X 63 B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other V 7VC TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ZfeS + B 3,7 61^ 26 S’ 37 X 100 PROPOSED hardcove r IN ZONE A. House _____________ ^ Length WidA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X £• Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B XlOO - "ftwo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. _S.F. •7./ % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. A S.F. B % . r >, K- hardcover calculati on worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'250-500' A. House 500-1000 ’ 9/S Leo|ih Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric C. Other Ah X X X X X X X X X X X X ^7 / 279 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A /USA B 9.^38 X 100 /■7,3 PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House _________* Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B X100 - l l S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /) ^^{> S.F. T33S S.F. /0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. *r A B A B . V SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE hardcover calculation WORKSipiET RCLEONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ ^ISQ-SOOO 500-1000’ A. House Leogrb X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other f TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7,6 35~ 1 PROPOSED hardcov er IN ZONE A. House ____________ * Lengdi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G, Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ▲ ^ B m S.F. Widfii S.F. S.F. =S.F. f 22-S.F. B S.F. a l(oZ-S.F. 8 ■ 6*2 S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. 8 S.F. «S.F. / /S.F. S.F. '3,999 S.F. 3, ^^9 X 100 »¥0,3 % S.F. W'Idth 8 S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. - S.F. 8 S.F. - S.F. •8 S.F. ;S.F. .S.F. xioo -% n • 1 mm * • ' .i A B A B rr 1 § 10.56 3. Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings, and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zories. 4. Uses wthout water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal Ordinary High Water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. 5. Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per Subdivision 16 (F) of this section. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. 6. Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. p. Minimum Lowest Floor Elevations. All strucmres located within the Shoreland Overlay District which are subject to the flood plain regulations of Section 10.55 of this ordinance shall be placed at an elevation consistent with the requirements of that section. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be established as set forth in Section 10.55, Subd. 7 of this code. All structures constructed within the Shoreland Overlay District shall have their lowest floor, including basement, placed at m elevation no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation.’ Where the regulatory flood plain elevation cannot reasonably be determined, the minimum elevation at which the lowest floor, including basement, may be placed shall be determined as follows: 1 . For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least 3 feet above the highest known water level, or 3 feet above the Ordinary High Water Level, whichever is higher. above the flood of record. 2. For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least 3 feet E. Water-oriented Accessory Structures. The only water-oriented accessory structure allowed to be located nearer the Ordinary High Water Level than the normal structure setback as specified in this section shall be a lock box no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. Such a structure requires a building permit from the City. ORONO CC 376-12 (2-24-92) c- § 10.56 F. Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the shore setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: 1. Stairways and lifts must not exceed 4 feet in width. 2. Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. 3. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. 4. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. 5. Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public w ater assuming summer, leaf- on conditions, whenever practical. 6. Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems 1 - 5 are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. 7. A building permit shall be obtained for consuuction of stairw'ays, lifts and landings regardless of w’hether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. G. Steep Slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes, shall provide adequate information to allow the City to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessar>', conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. H. Height of Structures. Ko structure within the Shoreland Overlay District shall exceed the height limitations set forth in the standards for the underlying zoning district. ORONO CC 376-13 (2-24-92) Application Date: 4/17/02 Deadline: 6/16/02 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Mav 15,2002 #02-2769 Mark and Pam Palm 1447 Park Drive Variances Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Site Plan D Garage Plans/Elevation Views E Hardcover Calculation Worksheets F Property Photos Application 1 he property owners have submitted a variance application requesting side setback and hardcover variances to permit construction of a 35 ’ X 24’ two story garage, to replace an existing garage. The proposed garage is intended to be constructed 1.3' to a property line where a 1 S' setback is required. A 15’ setback is required for all accessor) buildings between 750-1,000 s.f. in size. The proposed 35* X 24’ building is 840 s.f. The existing garage is a one level building of 540 s.f. (approximately 24’ X 24’) with an attached lean to structure 2 r X 14.5’. There isa 1955 building permit for the two-car garage, but no building permit for the attached lean-to. The total size of the garage and lean-to is 900 s.f. Staff has had several phone discussions with the applicant and a builder and has advised theS^a new garage should be constructed with a greater setback to the side property Mne than the existing 1.3’. The property owners ha\ e reviewed other options on the property and could not determine any other way to design the garage that works based on the topography of the lot and driveway slope. r Analysis This property does have a number of factors to consider that make construction of a new garage that conforms in location difTicult. This is assuming a side-loading garage with the same driveway configuration. The total distance between the driveway and the east side retaining wall is approximately 27’ One possibility to be explored is to turn the garage to have the garage doors face Park Drive and locate the building in the center of the property. This option would require some fill to be brought in j to raise the ground elevation and create a fiat approach in front of the garage. It would not be feasible to have the driveway continue to slope down to the garage as winter conditions may cause a vehicle to slide into the building. Additionally, the driveway design needs to be done to ensure that ^ any water would be diverted away from the building. '51^- Staff believes a garage could be constructed on the property meeting a greater setback than 1.3 ’ and still provide ah adequate area to maneuver a vehicle on the property. A building of the size proposed would have a 22' peak height only 1.3' from the property line. •s c C % Lakeshore Lot According to Hennepin County plat maps and the survey submitted with the application there is a portion of Forest Lane (undeveloped) located between this property and the lakeshore. It is assumed that this portion of the Forest Lane will be combined with the applicant's property at some time in the future. It has serv ed as the lakeshore access for this lot. Other lots in the neighborhood have had Forest Lane vacated and a few lots have combined that portion of property with the residential site. Staff is considering this lot a lakeshore lot for setback purposes even though the legal description and property records do not include the vacated portion of the road. I his is an important distinction for this property because a non-lakeshore lot would not permit an accessor) building to be located closer to the street than the house. Hardcover 75-250' 250-500' 4,938 s.f hardcover (49%) Removal of all non-confomiing landscaping plastic cover (1,690 s.f) the actual hardcover within this zone is 32.3%. 1,285 s.f hardcover (40%) The applicants have stated they do not intend to the change the layout of the driveway or increase hardcover on the property. The existing driveway will accommodate the access to the proposed garage. The application does require a hardcover variance in the 75-250' lakeshore setback to permit removal of the existing garage and consuaiction of a new garage if the hardcover in this zone is over 25%. Staff Recommcndatioii Staff does not support the granting of variances to reconstruct and expand a garage located only 1.3' from the side property line. The proposed garage is 840 s.f. requiring a minimum side setback of 15’. The lot averages 60 ’ in width where a garage would be constructed. There is no apparent hardship that has been demonstrated. Reconstruction is on opportunity to reduce non-conformities. ^ ^ 5 3. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO 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) Application # - .3 7 6 ^ Date Received" 3'3,0 - 03L Amount Paid CO PROPERTY INFORMATiaN Site Address Property Identification N FORMATION ^ ^Nun vm: ification Nuinber (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pmneitv Acquired __________________________Propeitj^Aci I (do)(i^ notDalso own tl^ adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert)" resi (month/year) residential other (specify) Zoning Di. *rict: APPLICAJW -n Phone (home) “ MlQ Name WH Phone (work) C>\^> - S"M Address: WT City: ZimfeSSC^H 0\VNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST hstimated L’onstru(^on Cost $ Describe request in detail: ^^p'Ai'j2-/^pT)A*rK. Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front X, 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 with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) #27 M REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All-Qf tht following information must be submitted bv the applipatinn iatf in order for vour application to be conaidered gnmplt»«i»; 1. 2. 5, 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propei^ 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 S'/i" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" 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 othei 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 your va riance aPDlication is not complete if the above information has nnt hi.«.n inrlndfd APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trye md jcqirect to the best of his-lier knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date,, 3-Zo OT_ I OWTS’ER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowled^s 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 ||f inygsli^ation and verification of this request. • lo- O-L,Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make wrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ••X » •» # ^769 Pounty Taxpayer Seivices ipgBia^^1 •» #2 S Parcel Information ' >■• » • Ir.' * Parc«l ID 0711723420021 Housa Number 1447 Street Nemo PARK DR A --------7 . •^1TTjIs Is noi s logsUy recordod map. It raprasants a compilation of mformathn and data from City, County, and State road authorities and othar sourtas, h '■WEsr ^^4Mtf€ ^ ^smttrf 0m 4t*f4 r# 4.00 /##r« /5 N 72*57'52” E n 49.14 « t#c —► ^ rn 1 deck 1 -L.". ^ CITYOFORONO jC errEPLA^ GBAi)lNGPtANfes,-i&ar~ BY WTE ^*Hl.Ti^'on ^ ^•*on ***•*»>•# J>M. / • X 3(5; #27f5fl R-70000 A«05*19* 47- I •55 12 nrmomjrtid Of ? / DECK I EXlSTiN( L r 5 Cam7 ----------II---------------------------1 “ , I I 7X9 Wf I I Ilf I I____U f^an f^r fit nil frim 2*/ • H 0 #2769 1 i1 § U cy i • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1 75-250’2S0-S00'500-1000* EXISTING HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Len|th Width X X X £5 & B. Garage C. Driveway Srm^jL D. Sid iwitk X X ^3 X X » B E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ___92 _____ + B /4^X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcn|ih Width X X 8 8 B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X 8 8 E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X Q. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ B X 100 • t S.F. S.F.,-. S.F.(' ' S.F.'^ 4 "V. 1 S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F..1 S.F. S.F. A S.F. B S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. e; 0^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEI I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’2S0-S00'SOO-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcngih X X X Width J 9 as s B. Garage C. Driveway D. SSi^is? X X 90 X X E. Titio4Deck Pe^ac^H X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X SS: S es G. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4‘9JS.4^ + B fOOSo X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Lengih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X B B D Sidewalk E. Patic/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL Property area in zone B X ICO S.F. Zc> gzo.z Z5.7 /03 ± a/.7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /09.3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. <9-9X.d. S.F. S.F. 4-9./4> % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A 6 itmif irt HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEl ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S'75-250* CISO-SOOO SOO-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVrR IN ZONE A. House S.F. Lcnfth Width X X X S3 X5 1b! S.F. SF. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X C79,0 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F, S.F. E. Paiio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape- Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other a.*30.4-S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /i8£.0 + B S/SS X 100 e /ZAS. o S.F. S.F. 4^.73 % proposed HARncnvRW IN ynisnr A. House ______ X Lenpib Width S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage*S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. A B r' ” • ■ V A V • -- . fr sv >■ % j E. Paiio/Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic •y X X X S.F. S.F. 0. Other S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ B X too S.F. S.F. X A B , I«V ^ .'U l1^; f'I vzmi t / • . r ■ ••• '.-vV'!! • • '-w'. . ‘V . • sac5s«fwi" ’' ■'>? • m0t ^ *■ <■ :ib. •x* ♦ r.i fi M'1/ V ly ^ V * ^ »■ '•••4^^'^*'.; li i 'I \ \imA j \m/ /Ai^v:v-JF»fti:a HI §IM V, '' ^ i' 'i'C . 1 V <Jr ^'.dff'' X > f ' a|'- • ■ ♦? fct I' ; f / ' / It •. n---, • --Ct 9^y^,n/fu'* ••• ^ l«>;'4 r- I S’ t ^ i :r I f* t ; ■ -m \ nr.y'-^ f < -# • t. ^ rr"\r - .. r-'Z-^ vS^\* ' ■ •ii vv-*- \; VvA •y *"• vk'^ 'jA - ♦ •» • r “* ;5^ * • ■ * wef h .J?'r-'"'U i y ^ <-4' ' ^ '>'^11 ^r- lp^«' /r^ r?c i?<' >*V. ^ *' V- .-"'% (.• s W;l<-’-ftw S'-f ' \ |ii f. '. .‘jatjjf' .-5»* ,.'. >• 'V^Jjk' ‘ • ■ \ %!i^‘ ■■»• ■- 4 •j i|r ' -w## V ' X, > --i . -rl ..- i-^i V. ' ' • W''^'w>: L_'jn * / \- S": t ' ' ' K I f^" ■ ^ ^f-’^'.-. -.'• "^ .*'.1 • .V dtv I 4 ' » V* * V v^Jr ip:';' !iW . ■.f V \ il l Y i •. V'., % * 'i^rK : ., i li;. ;,J. 4. .f. '4 ‘'' ■■■ ■ ■>* 5^:- :t> "'*1^*. •tv "^■M1 >*'i =A' -i ■ ■ ■r*/lL 'i''V. :-;■■• A <*..• Srr»CJg^ ii.Si f .A . '* i- rv ^ , f';‘;'- ■■ •-. ‘ V:' t,* ;i, ■; -i I*, ^-’'. ■Ji4 ‘> . ' * •r>4>r V M t J;-, I. ^-'-■- .». v-:‘; Ml-.. K- . - ■■ ; ^ ^ h ' ■.:/. ■ r; ■m ■ ;v^?“ ■'v,p- ■ ^s;^.kS'V‘V-'m:-H Wr. -1^J» ,-' - ^ ::-ir^ ,, - V* V I i\ ** \ *. -»r,’ > 0T. 0 IP»0 K^l s II M'-' ’4-^ V /':' / . *'> -' (^''T> -r jA ^ -iWu’V ri.r> • • •i;’*' * ”- ■'V ■ ■• ,>%> ’ .■ ^ -1* ^4^'-..~ -Avi; ;U.'‘’ .V' Ill ily >1 tr; * ?• ’ ' ^'1 •^‘* ^ I iH ♦ Vjr ^ ^:,:' j ,• „•. iy/ *'I 1 s . ^' *-• - <!•-»»sr> l/' J^.I cc V -• tj' /l^ yTj'KS n TP .»• y-j' ; 4. 'A V‘ Id 4 ^t-4•tn*.. Sl : ^ ^ / $ ^ n. ------------- ■f/ • ' a //'N \\ I '"Me i" ■■ r. •% ~k \ . • V ' ■-'■‘Iv, W; V''Xv JBJ V ja - 3- - * - V m -f: -L li , (' V t'\ **' ^ ’ ^4. 0^ Wk.*- - ^■'4^ Wf ■ '«:-jW'>*-' % V -~s-- *• ■■jA t'. ■ •vv .. •; J* •-■•.' «? •■ •i;:V.t^-'»'*'^*-.j^^- AW, V I.*" - . 1^’-/'***' 1/>•• ■ • . ' '' • ••'...... >ik^? Jii^ "A . il- ■.,A;r:,,.,5;. . .; ••;.X ^:-' . ^ y,w ^'vw<-'Ar' ..; . ■‘f’ • -/-v’ ..''>':V.•.^^• • r-i.. . > •• • > ,i P V I I ' < (. I V « * ,y ■I'-: p '' In m >»x t *. ' ,,y '■ ' ' Eli p: IP v: ? U A Iv ■•im .^'’-■‘^d;E,..i, »»** N* - "'2* *1 y ' -.0^ #ii»- ■**’ *i%t> ^‘\/X-y f I i^'^/^7'- !' .. • -r^ //;'/...?'y*'K' ' ''fe-' £>AV / ':'•' i;!'? . ;, . ' ’ W^i xt^ / iajfaL4 jj^. r—' V- - *: •I ! ?r... ,.L:v-|i v|ev -/" lyflllEHBE^^mb ShhMHI ‘d ^ ^, -'d ■■' ''d-V J::k '< ^ ' i 7 Application Date: 4IHI02 Deadline: 6/16/02 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:May 17,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Variances 2U>ning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C D E Application Plat Map Site Plan Elevation Views Property Photos Application The property owner had submitted an application for variances to permit redevelopment of the property. There is an e.xisting one level house located on the property. The variances applied for on April 17, 2002 requesting the following: 1.Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10,048 s.f. (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) is required. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50’ in width where 100' is required. 3.Average Lakeshore Setback: To permit the house to be constructed encroaching 7’ into the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is permitted. 4.Building Height: To permit a house to exceed the 2 Vi story height limitation for a full 3 stor) house. 5.Structural Lot Coverage: To permit total structural lot coverage of 2.018 s.f (20%) where 1,507 s.f (15%) is allowed. 6. Hardcover: To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%. J n 7, Side and Rear Setback: To permit the existing house to be converted to a detached garage located 1 ’ from the north property line where 10’ is required and 2’ to the east side property line where 10’ is required. (Through Lot) The property owner has worked towards reducing the number of variances and setback encroachments. Revised plans were submitted to the City of Orono on May 16**’. The revised plans still do require variances, but have gone a long way towards reducing variances. The revised plans have proposed a single house with a 1 level tuck under style garage with access to Birch Lane. The layout of the property with access to Birch Lane is consistent with the development of the neighborhood. Required variances are: Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10.048 s.f. (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) is required. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50' in width where 100' is required. « Building Height: To permit a house to exceed the 2 Vi stoiy height limitation for a full 3 story house. Hardcover: To pennit total hardcover in the 75-250' setback to exceed 25%. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances The City has approved a number of variances to lot area and width for the lots in this area as nearly all lots are non-conforming. The property has been developed as a residential site for many years, is connected to sanitary sewer and does demonstrate a suitable building site. Hardcover Variance The property has a total lot area within the 75-250' lakeshore setback of 6,750 s.f. The total proposed hardcover within the zone is 2,485 s.f or 37%. The existing house has only 1,265 s.f of hardcover on the property. The low amount of hardcover in relation to the hardcover proposed is due to the entire existing house being located very close to the Birch Lane property line with little driveway. All existing hardcover is within the required 30' setback to Birch Lane. Relocating the house to be more in line with neighboring residences and w ithin setbacks docs create more hardcover on the property. The hardcover proposed is 1,500 s.f for the house and 985 s.f for the driveway. The existing house is 920 s.f Building Height Variance Tire property owner has requested a building height variance to permit a full 3'*^ story on the house. The zoning code allows a maximum building height of 30' or 2 '/i .stories, whichever is less. Building height is measured from the highest existing grade above which the house is built. I he 2 '/j ^ story height limitation allows a tspical 2 story house with an attic space above, but the half-story j f . S>n,. would not be used for living space. This particular lot is located only 3-4’ above the lake elevation of Lake Minnetonka not allowing for a basement level. The building height variance is being requested to permit additional living space. Ihe entire building does not exceed 30 ’ in overall height. The property owners submitted sketches that would have a 9’ ceiling on the l“ level, 10 ’ ceiling on the level, and 8’ ceiling on the 3'** level. They would be willing to lower the ceiling height to 8’ on each level. The total proposed height of the structure, assuming the 8’ ceiling heights, is approximately 28 ’ to the midpoint of the roof. Some height restrictions used by cities were based partly on the ability to provide adequate fire protection, as equipment was only able to reach buildings of a certain height. The proposed individual house is not taller than other houses since it would meet the 30 ’ standard. The 2 Vz story height limitation versus a 3 stor>' house would not change the amount of residential structure that would be visible from the lake. Many lakeshorc homes arc walkout style homes that have a full 3 levels exposed to the lakeshore. Allowing 3 stor> houses would mean houses having a walkout level 'could have as many as 4 levels exposed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application based on the variance requested for building height. The height variance recommendation is based on the following; 1. The granting of a variance to height would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. 2. The granting of a height variance would be precedent setting for other lots with similar characteristics, such as not having the ability to have a basement level. Allowing 3 stoiy houses would change how the City of Orono has viewed residential development. 3. No hardship has been demonstrated that requires a third level in the house. The request to have more living space may be a convenience to the applicant and not a hardship. Staff supports a scenario of a building that would be consuaicted within the site plan and not exceeding 2 'A stories based on the following; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The lot was platted prior to current zoning standards. I he property has been developed as a residential site. Hennepin County tax records estimate a construction year of 1900. The property is served bv’ sanitary sewer. Redevelopment the property as residential is consistent with the zoning district and with the development of the surrounding properties. The lot has demonstrated a suitable building site. The amount of hardcover proposed is the minimum amount of hardcover required to serve a house with a 1,500 s.f foundation and provide a suitable driveway. The only concern is the house docs not have any sidewalks or ground level patios in the plan. \ A 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 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3^^ Application # 0<^ ~ SiHi^ Date Received Amount Paid pcjh Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0& "/fy -2.3 ~ Attach legal description to aralication if not included on required survey. Date Property Acuuired V 39________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District:_________________________________________ APPLICANT ___ Name Phone (home) Phone (work) “ 392^“" Address: ■ City: Zip: yTS’39 / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback:Front X Side X Hardcover X Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AR-of the foll Qwing information must be submitted hv the apniicaHnn |„ order for veur anplicatSon to hg con«idgr>rf complft^; 1. 2. 3./ 5. 6. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners wilhin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculaiions as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SV2" x 11" for . reproduction. 4. ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing / grade are projwsed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproducUom Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11") X List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in 7 uL would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owiier(s). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of Oiis application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your YurtouM upplifaluB b n«l nimpleu if the above inform.iinn h.. h„n APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^e 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) Md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and c^ect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature X ________ Date ^ ^----------------------------- OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have a 1 subminals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comimsston Meetmg. 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 mi^e t^gements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Ofiice of this change prior to the meeting. T 0G 9 mi iSi c - c :r-i / (9?-/.'7- 23-@) ■7 ;C^r -) •/ r j ♦ it ]o«iM Numb«i :3490 ^ Nimi* NORlii eWolil V V i . i?^l?SSX^-SJSlTS22i£^^om C«iy» Ooun^» ana SaMt /ota MfwMt aMjam TTitt ii I- anddMa tam 01^, County, and SMt load 5i». .0. IID. \ c Certificate of Sur NrM««ar • lOX • 09 • Its • IM N 2CX)2-151-71B.a^VC r. PJO d PJO ^JJC - KuujUto. Ltd. 61 iO Blu* Circl* Dr. BuiU #100 MiaarUaBa* Ma. •6646 (•M) M»-9tTt fWi (tu) na-tiM I lMi| «(% M Ml fm m mm anaM It « a ^ ty *i(t Baaw a« M I «i • oa aHM ^9*i >0. 2002 UM IM 900bBta Sti &?33i IlOH JOHN R. JONES CHARLOTTE LIRA 3490 NOtTH SHORE ORIVI ORONO, MN 55391 1 o in i. 01c p V a cO C 3 I X 0u. n •• ri ri N 0 1 H I >1 z H* ‘5’TOipv yt>"1-IPA-ilCii'^'ft‘S WcM£ me. ■ S'W- tidi Hill IMi IMI! Vf I 0c V L a oa pc 3‘ I X 0u. < n •« M H N 0 1 ri I >1 I o l)iiiiiiiMii as m falifiiiiii ■ ■iVliffS IVifllA ^IPVS. fec^vAllocH Sl-tot. F' 'fCC'i xli^' ,V/F; Lr Oul'-O : j ^ ^. /y . /.••• • r..U: • r isik, -»4 V..*« r ,p ,.«. ** vr ’- 1.- -T'- s>r^' > • • '«< m- ■V ■- -.1' Z** c I h rTTTv / y -\ Ky \j/y . .. iF '..V . I ' I ^ T\ f '• ' ri : • t-*" »- ' . . • ,*v . • -•v^^ ' « * - '«»4>.\.’ .%> ~ • . • xi . -t • _ A.U • . • ••»- • •• • n’S; 1 aquifer le water. innelas aied by house* lif-way . foster nen. It y pro- AMILY rriage. elling nmon inien* ration ities. rate. h* •'c. HABITAT The sum total of all the environmental factors of a speci* lie place that is occupied by an organism, a population or a community. B B B B B B HAIRPIN MARKING HALF STORY A double-painted line separating parking stalls. See Story . Half. See Figure 17. IF AfceA ‘a I* AT LBAVT AO*/o AK.BA •*6*" - THBW "A" l« A HAUF halfway HOUSE HAMLET Figure 17 See Boarding Home For Sheltered Care A small settlement or village. iU hammermill A broad category of high-speed equipment that uses pivoted or fixed hammers or cutters to crush, grind, chip or shred solid wastes. HARDSHIP VARIANCE See V ariance . Hardship . ^ HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT A pollutant to which no ambient air quality standard is applicable and that may cause or contribute to an in* crease in mortality or serious illness. ComneMi Examples of hazardous air pollutants are asbestos, beryllium and mercury. 99 I IV J’ g- Application Date: 4/17/02 Deadline: 6/16/02 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator May 13.2002 SUBJECT: «02-2790 Grctchcn Shaw 1 750 Shad>-wood Road After the Fact Variance Renewal List of Exhibits: A Application B Resolution No. 4264 C Approved Site Plan D Building Plan Set (1 999) E Site Photos F Plat Map Application I'he applicant has requested an after the fact renewal of variances previously approved on April 1 2. 1999. The variances approved in 1999 allowed the property owners to add a second stor> addition to the house located v/ithin 75’ of the lakeshore and permitted the addition of an attached garage. The property currently does not contain a garage. The applicant has stated in her letter of applic.ition that the project was not completed w ithin one year of the approval due to a family illness. The after the fact portion of this application is for the approval of the second story addition. 1 he property owner had hired a contractor to repair the e.xisting leaking dormers and windows. It was determined the dormers required replacement, and were replaced larger than what had previously existed thus resulting in an expansion of the building envelope within 75' of the lakeshore. The dormer expansion, rather than a complete 2"** story addition as approved in 1999, will have a reduced visual impact from the lake and adjacent properties. Normally the City will issue a permit when a building addition is within the envelope approved per a variance if it is determined the building addition has less impact and is in character with the approved plan. In this case a permit would likely have been issued w ithout Planning Commission or Council review if it h.ad been applied for within one \ car of the variance approval. y.W t Ms. Shaw has referred to Phase 2, which ir the actual building and garage addition that was also approved as part of the 1999 variances. The variances approved 2,406 s.f. (51%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback where 25% is allowed. Staff Recommendation Based on the fact the property conditions have not changed and there have been no code revisions since the adoption of Resolution No. 4264, Staff recommends approval of the after the fact renewal application subject to the conditions as noted in Resolution No. 4264. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve, 2. To deny. 3.Table. 4. Other Action. / 04-I7-200Z 12:35 FROM-in CANNON SNITCH PRODUCTS / 49529349I2I T-803 P.003/BI2 F-435 Application# 0'2-~21^0 Date Received ^l-ll'O'L Amount Paid 3o O. oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION -------------- Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) -4 IS- Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 pC, "^oo.&o (no change from original application) Variance for non*conforming structures $250.00 ^ Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address SFfAPyuJOOl3 T?OA■T^ n - 111-23-2.1 - OOO'JProperty Identification Number (P.ID.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propero^^Acquired___________Au6fUS7Z ✓ “9 6 t-oT siMCh^oai) I (do) ^0 no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: 'Z residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District;_______________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name SU-^vO Address: / 7 5o toe^Q) . City: Phone (home) {^^2) U-"! Phone (work) Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________ Address:City;. Phone (homeX Phone (work)^ Zip: O >4 OCti a. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 000 / Descrioe request in detail; ggg - HoDt f^tcAr?CAj ttp eyr577A->^ (attach addiuomd sheets if necessary)5 ^aJ si*^ ^ /Z>y t lOC'T -m nuJ A/o/S<=“ ^ jn/^ ^ t ^ / m c.r^M'4 L.OF'T ’TD ArUjOuJ M0/Z€' VARIANCES REQUIRED /F/^> Lot Area ^xj^^^Sctback?^'^ ^ PMKi- . A Other (spec £ ( ^ (speci fitr. Fiont Lot Width X Hardcover Side Rear Lot Coverage Average Lake^ore . Pt^ASC / 'TC fi>/z, ^ S7t>/Z.y i>df2rtezLS TTfs ^ ser^f=^ft HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing coi^Uance with^Zoning^Code requiranents: ^)tT^SfO'^ tf/hZt/9TOc^ Z K/o(UnAc ne^ ~kM<Z'l>S^ fP additional sheets if necessary) (/y^f ^c£ P0je\/(0o^L\f 04-17-2Q02 12:36 FROU-ITT CANNON SNITCH PRODUCTS 43S29348I2I T-803 P.004/012 F-435 1. 1 yen -o REQUIRED SUBMITTALS nf the following iaformarion muat be submitted by the application deadline date nrdgr for your application fn he conssldered complete! Completed Appiicadon 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). ~T^ B^SuPP^i Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S’/z" x 11" for reprcduciioiL Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/z" x U"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons wi^ an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appUcant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addeixdum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of diis application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. / / / -VI ■/ ■y ' f^N^Tht Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete If the above Information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is truc^d correct to the be^of his/her knowledge. Date ^Applicant's Signature OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of Lpn'cstigauon and verification of this request. _____ DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please Tpaifg arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning OfGce of this change prior to the meeting. n ,r // * w ••• *• t .-r^. . r \N V I t *« 04-IW002 12:36 FWU-in CANNOa '"ITCH PRODUCTS 48S2B349I2I T-B03 P.006/012 F*435 1750 Sbadywood Poad Orono, Minnesou 55391 April 17,2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminisnator/Planncr City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323-0066 Dear Paul: This lener is to further describe my request to exL^£i the original variance approved in 1999 (#4264) for my property at the above address. The variance approved in 1999 permined me to expand the building envelope for a Z"** story expansion/addition within the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback where a 'A story exists. I consider this portion of the approval to be Phase 1 of the project. The Phase 1 of this project now only emails an expansion of the dormer windows rather than a full 2-siory addition in this 0-75 foot area. The roofline now proposed is not as high as the original variance approval allowed to the existing structure. The variance approved in 1999 also allowed for a 2406.64 sq. ft. of hardcover within the 75-250 foot lakeshore setback where 719.45 sq. feet exists and 1169.6 sq. ft. is allowed. This building addition portion of the approval is Phase 2 of the project. Nothing is actively being done on this portion of the project at present but still is intended. Due to illnesses in the family that occurred after the variance was approved, I failed to complete construction before the variance approval expired. The “after the fact" nature cf this request to extend the original variance is due to the fact that construction of Phase 1 has begun and been viewed by yourself and your Infection Department at my request. This occurred quite innocently and initially as a repair to the existing leaking dormers/windows, which had ronen wood and caused leaking. This repair work soon led to replacement and expansion of the dormers. Upon subsequent review of the variance approval. I realized 1 needed to apply to extend the original variance approval. I contacted the City on April 1“ to determine how to get back in line with the appropriate process, leading to my application for extension. Sincerely, Gretchen S. Shaw (952) 471-3355 Home (932) 974-5860 OfBce \ • t 04-17-2002 t2:3S FROIHTT CANNON SWITCH PRODUCTS 40S28348I2I T-803 P.002/012 F-435 1750 Sbadywood Road Orono, Miimesoia 55391 April 17,2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminiscrator/Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323-0066 Dear Paul: I submit the attached variance application request to extend the original variance approved in 1999 (#4264) for my propeny at the above address. Based on our discussion, you already have much of the required information to be submined with this application except for the Ceniiied Property owners List of owners within 150 feet, labels and plat map. As agreed, I will fax to you today the application iocumeni with attachments and mail a S300.00 check to you for the after-the-fact renewal of the variance approval . As soon as possible when received from Hennepin County, 1 will supply the Cenified Propeny owners li>n, labels and map. I assume the above will cover the necessary information for the City to review my application. Please contact me if any additional information is needed for the Mav Planning Commission meeting. Thank you in advance for your help in processing my application. Sincerely, Gretchen S. Shaw (952) 471-3355 Home (952) 974-5860 Office Anacbments; Variai^ce Application-3 pages Desenpdon of Request-1 page Propeny Descriprion-1 page #4264 1999 Variance Approval-S pages .•* • V r r t, r, f 7 •m CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. - ^ 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (6) FILE #2451 WHEREAS, Lyle Shaw and Gretchen Shaw (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1750 Shad>-wood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and Lgally described as follows: Lot 16, Shady wood, Hennepin Count), Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due and published notice and ntailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on January 19, 1999 and March 15, 19^9, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to \Iunicipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit expansion of the building envelope for a 2nd story addition within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback where onc-half story exists; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 2.406.64 s.f (51.14%) of hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, where 719.45 s.f ti5.3%) of hardcover exists and 1,169.5 s.f (25%) is allowed; and Section 10.j6. Subdivision 16 (C) (6) to pennit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Page I of 5 I____ GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 2 64 Minnesota: 1. 2. 5. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\XD by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2451. «The property is located in the LR-IC, Zoning District, where \H acre or 21,780 sq. ft. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .30 acre or 10,430 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on March IS, 1999, and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The existing residence is located 55' from the 929.4' Ordinary High Water Les*el (OHNM.) of Lake Minnetonka, and is 1 1/2 stories in height The upper 1/2 story would be raised 6 1/2' to a full stor>*. D. No garage space exists on the propert)-. C. A S’ X 5' storage shed is located on the property line, and shall be removed at the time the addition is constructed. D. The structure would not exceed 15% on the lot. E. All additional hardcover would be placed outside of the 75' setback. F. The deck existing on the lakeside of the residence is non-conforming. Any ftmire replacement of the deck would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. The City Council finds tliai the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this /jning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect trafF.c conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely Page 2 of 5 GITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 42 6^ serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary- to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiming Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety *and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, OILDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (I) to permit the expansion of the building envelope for a 2nd story addition within the 0-75 ’ lakcshorc setback where one-half story exists; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 2,406.64 s.f. (51.14%) of hardcover within the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 719.45 s.f. (15.3%) of hardcover exists and 1,169.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Approval w-as subject to the following conditions; 1. Variance approval is for conditions shown on the survey completed by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated 7/5/96, on file with the City of Orono Building and Zoning Department. Any alteration to structure or hardcover, including reductions, may require further City Council and Planning Commission approval. 2. The 5' X 5* shed located on the front property line, on the southwest comer of the lot shall be removed prior final Inspection. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 22, 2000). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tcmis and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically Page 5 of 5 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE.CITY COUNCIL ,un 42 0: ATTEST: terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. • The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this I2ih day of April. 1999. Linda S. Vee. City Clerk Property Ovvner(s) •• STATE OF NUNNESOTA ) ) »s COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of April, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S Vee. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Not4ry public Paged of 5 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of .JTTti for said county, personally appeared 199^ before me a Nolai>’ Public within and iaj _________known to me to be the person(s) described in and who c.xccutcd the foregoing inslmmcnLand acknowledged that he (they) executed the same os his (their) free act and deed. i|{vT;p.mtfCv*.r ‘e;ta ::CC.r:TY v t';Crr.T t*: -.1 iV i NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this HH day of for said county, personally appeared L\f !p 199 7 before me a Notary Public within and fT) qppt' ecf known to me to be the person(s) described in and who e.xecuted the foregoing instr\iment,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. .SSSL yy (XX/ N0TARY4 ‘UBLIC Page 5 of 5 ibli^ L ACU*b«b2- 0£.XJA-nckO •unnooMfiuN ?UlStD h^io f,^tjnt%L^ 'tLavI .tiaxwil r SECOND nCXJR t> . \ J 'i- iUSTl.9 merchandise, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair, jcw-eliy shops and repair, laundromats, music, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, retail foods, tailor shop, and wearing apparel. It is the excepted clause that Otten Uros. is requesting to have removed from the PUD agreement. Removal of the exceptions would mean all D-1 permitted uses would be then be permitted uses on Loti. The PUD Agreement w as amended in 1998 to permit construction of a outdoor loading dock located at the north end of the property and construction of the green houses east of the building. B-1 uses Ihe City created the B-6 zoning district specifically for the commercial areas on the north side of Highway 12. The district was developed to limit the intensity of retail uses, and to provide for uses that are compatible with the residential uses to the north. Both lot 1 and lot 2 of the Otten property arc zoned D-6. This is a large amount of property, the dcNclopmcnt or redevelopment of w hich w ill ha\c a substantial impact on the character of the Highway 12 area. Any changes to the PUD. or to the zoning of the property to add new permitted uses needs to be done carefully, and in a way that ensures the use of the property fits into the Cit>-‘s plans for the broader Highway 12 area. If we simply open this property up to all B-1 uses, the property could be changed to a mix of uses that is incompatible w ith, or detrimental to. the plans for the Highway 12 area. Also, if we add B-1 uses to this B-6 zoned area, we would get pressua* from tlic owners of the property on the northwest comer of Willow and Highway 12 to do the same for them. They are already pointing to the existing retail uses on the Otten property as a reason to allow intense retail uses on their property. Restaurant l^sc The current a'staurant use includes a small portable concession stand that is located within the Otten building. The concession stand operates with a limited menu and is open generally at 8 00 a m. and closes one hour before the nursery closes. The area w here this use operates is approximately 900 s.f. in area. A total of 10 tables and 44 chairs arc located next to the concession stand. Otten Bros, is also requesting that restaurants be listed as a “permitted use" to include restaurant use beyond the existing "Daisy Diner". Until 1996 Class I restaurants were listed as permitted uses in the B-6 district and would have been pemiitted to be located within the building prior to that lime. Class I restaurants are now a conditional use in the B-6 district Class 1 restaurants arc a sit down restaurant where food orders arc generally taken at a table or a restaurant where food is ordered cafeteria style and taken to a table for consumption The concession stand is a Class I restaurant. A concession stand also may fit some of the criteria of a Class II restaurant which is not a permitted or conditional use in the B-6 district. Class 11 restaurants an. defined as “a restaurant where a majority of customers order and arc scr\'cd their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is serv ed, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment.” The Daisy Diner is open to the public, but docs not have any exterior building signage. The restaurant is accessory to the nursery use of the property. Additionally, there is no direct access to the eating or ordering area from the outside. A customer actually has to enter the nursery to access the restaurant. This is an important distinction to the use of the diner as an accessory use to the retail as the diner is not a stand alone restaurant, more like a coffee shop in a book store or the cafeteria in the Minnetonka Arts Center. The cafeteria in the Minnetonka Arts Center has operated for many years without building signage or advertising, but docs serve food to the general public. Parking The existing seating for 44 customers is located over un area of approximately 500 s.f. of floor area. The required parking for a restaurant is one space for each 80 square feet of public fim)r area. 500 s.f. / 80 “ 6.25 or 7 narkiim spaces The space that is now occupied by* the restaurant is part of that area that had been used as retail space. The total public retail area was 900 s.f requiring 5 parking spaces. The net increase in p^ing is 2 individual spaces based on the change in use of that part of the center. Since there is currently no outdoor advertising and no dia*ct access to the eating area it is assumed much of the customer base w ill be patrons of the businesses within the building. llie 1990 PUD Agreement lists the approved building plan to indicate 24.644 s.f within the main shopping center with 9,600 s.f of oITtce space located on the 2'^ floor. I he main shopping center is used for three retail establishments (Otten Bros . an interiors and home decorating shop and a gifi shop), a chiropractic clinic, and a karate and dance studio. According to the site plans that are on file with the City of Orono there arc 151 parking spaces that are used for employee and cu.stomer parking. An additional 22 parking spaces were added several years ago to help relieve some of the parking shortage. There are still limes when there is a shortage of parking spaces on the property, especially w ith the pick-up and drop-off for the karate and dance studios. Mr. Otten has stated the parking areas will be seal coated and resuiped this summer. L PUD Agrecmeot Permitted Uses The property is zoned PUD with B-6 as the underlying zoning district. The permitted uses are those uses listed as permitted in the B-6 district and those uses permitted as B-1, except those items as listed on page 1 of this memo and page 2 of the PUD Agreement With the underlying zoning district of B-6 the only permitted uses available on the property are; 1. 2. 3. 4. Offices (business and professional) Banks and Tmancial institutions Libraries Motels and hotels For Lot I only, the PUD Agreement also lists permitted uses for this property as the nursery and garden center. Because of the retail nature of the shopping center a number of B-l uses were also allou-ed to be located uithin the building. The permitted uses in the B-l district are listed below. Those items crossed out arc those items that were excluded from the B-I uses allowed on the property. IrAits and school suppli es store; 2. Bonks and insurance companies. 3. Barber otid beauty shop s; 4. Bicycle sales and repair. 6. Drugs , candy, iee cream, soft drink s.-eesmetHH? and oth er usual drug store merehand ise: 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. 9. Gif\ or antique shops. 10. Hardware store, paint store. 11. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. 12. Jewelry shop s and rep aifi 4-3T-Laundfomats; 14. Locksmith. 15: Music, radio. TVVoppl iaiHio solas and rtpair storesi 17. Office supply store, office machine store. 18. Pet shop. 19 -.- Pip e and tobacco shop s; 20. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, carpet store. 21. Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. (23« Retail food of all vori ettes and home supplies. ^4^. Sew ing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26r-Tailof-sh op s; 27. Tcmporao sales such as Christmas tree lots. 28. Travel bureau. 29. Variety store. 30. Wearing opporel store. sho<f-stoffr; 31. OiT-sale Liquor Store 32. Home and garden equipment rental. 33. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considca*d to be an olTice use. Any uses not permitted are required to go through the PUD Amendment process for approval. Other Issues Over the >-ears since the property was developed there have been comments from surrounding residential property owners atx>ut the operation of the site in relation to noise and screening. There is no standard that limits the types of equipment that can be used on the property, lltc zoning ordinance regulates uses, but d^s not regulate the t>pes of equipment that would be allowed with a particular use. Operation of the nursery and production facilities includes bobcats, dump trucks, a front-end loader, and other incidental equipment. The ordinance that can be applied to the use of trucks and equipment on the property is the Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance can be difllcult to enforce becau.se the actual noise production may have ceased by the time the City can respond to a complaint. The City has never researched the decibel ratings on equipment used by commercial and industrial users to determine whether they exceed noise standards. One ongoing issue with noise is the sound of the back-up beepers on larger vehicles. This is an OSHA safety requirement and is exempt from noise standards. The primary piece of equipment the City has received comments on is the use of the front-end loader. Mr. Olten has stated they use the front-end loader for fa.ster loading of materials that would take much longer to do ifdonc with a smaller vehicle, such as a bobcat. The front-end loader is used primarily during the daylime hours and stored within a building before 6:0() p m It is .also used sparingly on weekends. The production facilities on the property required screening by planting of trees located north of the property to separate the commercial from the residential uses, llte trees were planted in 1990. In most cases the trees have prospered and have begun to provide better screening. However, they have never provided full screening of the properly. This particular application is an opportunity to resolve some issues that have risen since the property was developed. Possible solutions may be by setting limits on the extent of activities and equipment allowed on the property and improving screening. City Staff is willing to mediate that discussion between Otlen Bros, and surrounding property owners. Staff did a comprehensive review of the site to check compliance with the original PUD and determined Otten Bros, landscaping and the uses on the property arc in compliance with the past PUD approvals. Staff docs agree that the area of the site visible from Dickey I ake Drive, especially near the parking lot and north of the rock bins, needs attcnl ’on in order to provide more effective screening. Lot 2 is fairly well screened to both the lots to the north and I lighwny 12. However, a significant amount of the screening of the Walvatnc property (710 Dickey Lake Drive) is by vegetation on the adjacent property vs. the evergreens initially planted by Otten. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request to the amend the PUD Agreement to allow a concession stand style restaurant to operate within the building as an accessory use to the nursery retail. The restaurant approval would permit the operation to use 900 s.f of area with seating for 44, as currently available on-site. Staff recommends the approval subject to the follow ing conditions; / y ( L‘^1 I 1. No e.xterior signage is permitted on the building or property ’ to'advertisc the restaurant use. There is a concern about the adequacy and amount of parking available on-site. Exterior advertising would bring additional vchieles to the property. 2. Primary access to the restaurant area shall be from within the existing retail nursery space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended to be the primary ’ access for restaurant customers, , y “ /'U 3. Any request to expand the restaurant use beyond a cafeteria use shall be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD Agreement 4. Expansions to the restaurant use would be any increase to the seating capacity beyond 44. dedicating more than 500 s.f. of the floor area of the building to public seating area or devoting more than 900 s.f to the restaurant use. 5. The concession stand use shall only permit ordering of food at a counter. 6. The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the normal operating hours of the retail to w hich it is accessory . Staff recommends the request to allow* restaurants in general to be added as a permitted use to the PUD Agreement be denied. Any such request to locate a restaurant w ithin any part of the building shall be review ed independently as an amendment to the PUD Agreement through the normal public hearing process. Staff recommends denial of the request to include all B-1 uses as permitted uses. Staff also recommends any proposed use not listed as permitted by the existing PUD Agreement be reviewed indepetKlenlJy as an amendment The property has an underlying B-6 zoning designation. The existing PUD Agreement does allow for many uses beyond what is normally allowed in B-6. Plaoning Commisskio Options for Action 1. To approve and/or deny any or all parts of the request. Any recommendation on this application will be placed on the June 10,2002 City Council agenda. Between Plaiming Commission and Council review staff would facilitate a meeting with Otten Bros, and neighboring property ownerfs). 2. To Table. A motion to table shall include direction and comments to the applicant in relation to the proposed uses and other issues that may come up during the Planning Commission discussion and Public Hearing. 3. Other Action. •L AppUcatioii tf OA • 7y O Dale Received AmoimtPaid 34^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY' LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.P.)nJ*/ 2%^ 03. UJd It? /-^• iff- am4nd, A3 Adi •to OQjt^_______ APPLICA Name ^.UPfianX L. Ol4<jr\ Phone (home) 763 6531 Phone (work)<itfd. Address u)- Ujas^rahiL AWcK City /-a./tc. />?n OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (homc)_ Phone (work) Address Dalfi_Propc(txAcquircd mo I (^oyfdo not) also oun the adjacent parcels of land. ^ ocoo one eat>V pAroJi FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request wth CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ___ $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commcrcial/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 lakeshorc ______PRD/PID • sec Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) (month/year) V 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 #2780 REQ 2. 3. 6. 8. 9. SUBiVUTTALS __ Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. t/^ Certified Property Ov^-ners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you must obtam this list, labels and map from Hennepin County I^artmcnt of Fiiumce, A-603, Government Center, 348*3271). lyWiO SH?- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ___ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^Ijt_ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the . property. This would include namc(s) of applicanl(s) if not current owncr(s). \ZfA Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. f\oJULL YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11'* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (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 APPLICAIST'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pavment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to^e best of his^l^ Imow ledge. Applicant ’s signature ^ ___ OWTVER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes t^mvestigation and v^fication of this request. DaleOwner's signature / / Appticam must have all i^minals Into the Cit> offices 23 da)s before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mondav of each month. Applicants must be present tt all Kheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If in applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please moke arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and advise the Building ft Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. O Ok O -vJ •ONTR 45 YEARS OF QUAUTY SERVICE* APRIL 15 2002 MIKE GAFFRON CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO. MN 55356 DEAR MIKE; OTTEN BROS. NURSERY & LANDSCAPING INC. IS APPLYING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO OUR PUD TO OPEN OUR NEW " DAISY DINER THE DINER IS A SELF CONTAINED. CONCESSION TYPE TRAILER WHICH WILL BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE GARDEN CENTER AND THE GREENHOUSE. THIS WILL BE A RELAXING. CONVENIENT SPOT FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE FOOD. BEVERAGES. A VARIETY OF GOURMET COFFEES AND TASTY SNACKS WHILE THEY SHOP. ALSO. HANDY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR BREAKS OR LUNCHES. FOR THIS USE AND OTHER POSSIBLE USES THAT MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE. I REQUEST THAT THE EXCEPTION TO THE B-6 ZOI^^G BE LIFTED FROM MY PUD. WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATE INSPECTED AND HAVE STATE LICENSED PERSONNEL ON STAFF TO OPERATE THE DINER. OUR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALTERING THE LAND AND ARE PLACING THE DINER UNDER EXISTING COVER. WE ARE NOT INCLUDING A CONSTRUCTION PLAN BECAUSE THE DINER IS SELF CONTAINED AND PORTABLE AND BEING PLACED UNDER EXISTING COVER. #2780 2350W.WAYZATABLVD. • P.O.BOX 249 • LONG LAKE. MN 65356 • (962)473-5425 • FAX # (962) 473-7232 MM MTC M/ll/IS ■ATCN S»S M S3-llt-2S 11 MM PtOP AOM aiAM AONC&S UNASSICNCO OMNI* NANf <NKMO PLA2A TAXPAYE* OMNO PLAZA NAHE/ASM C/0 KIEOSOOM LAW OPPICE AMf AATN ST W HPLS m SSA2A HENWfPlW COUNTY PWOPEITTY INPOtHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SR SA-llt-2S 22 MRS •R7R1 DICKEY LAKE OR P A K PUCH PATRICK S KAREN PtICN 72S DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE fM SSSSA REPORT NO. PIASS4U PACE A M SA'llR'ZS 22 MRA ••72S DICKEY LAKE OR P P PUCH I K L HACELEE P PATRICK I KAREN PUCH 725 DICKEY LAKE OR P LONO LAKE rm S53SA 3A 3A-11R-23 22 t«R7 PROP AOOR Rt73S DICKEY LAKE DR OWNER NAME P O SKOOO SSL SKOOO TAXPAYER PAUL I SHERRY SKOOO NAMi/AOOR 735 DICKEY LAKE OR LONO LAKE NN 5S35A 5« 3A-11A-2S 22 RRIA R2350 WAYZATA RLVO W C ■ L OTTEN CLIFPORO A LOUISE OTTEN •OX 2AA LONO LAKE NN SSSSA 3A SA-llA-23 22 AAIS AA03A ADDRESS PENOINO CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN •OX 2AA LONG LAKE NN SSSSA sa SA-iia-23 22 aaiA PROP AOOR aiTlt DICKEY LAKE DR OWNER WANE J 0 WALVATNE A 0 F WALVATNE TAXPAYER JOEL A OIANE WALVATNE NANE/AODR 710 DICKEY LAKE DR ORONO NN SSSSA 3a 3A-1I8-2S 22 A017 •2251 PINE RIDCE LA CAL OTTEN CLIFFORO A LOUISE OTTEN P 0 ROX 2AS LONG LAKE NN SSSSA sa 3A-118-2S 22 8818 8B8S8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CAL OTTEN CLIFFORO A LOUISE OTTEN •OK 2A8 LONO LAKE NN SSSSA -| 38 SA-118-2S 22 8028 PROP AOOR 88838 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER MANE C 8 L OTTEN TAXPAYER CLIFFORO A LOUISE OTTEN NANE/AODR ROX 2A8 LONO LAKE NN SSSSA >2 SS-llB-23 lA 882S 82A18 INDUSTRIAL RLVO W SYSTEM CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP HC DONALDS CORPORATION P 0 BOX AA287 ANF OHARE CHICAGO IL A8AAA 72 3S>11B-2S lA 882A 02AI8 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC C/O PROPERTY TAX RECORDS SSA MAIN ST S FINDLAY OH AS8A8 72 3A-118-23 2S 8881 PROP AOOR 82SAA WAYZATA RLVO W OWNER NAME GEOROAYN C KRAMER TAXPAYER GEORGAYN C KRAMER NANE/ADDR 2MR SUMNER SET LA LONO LAKE NN SSSSA 72 SA-1I8-2S 2S 8082 82SA5 WAYZATA RLVO W R E t R N HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYEO 8 HOURI NAKINZ S885 BERNARD PL EDINA NN S54SA 72 3A-118-2S 23 SSaS 82SAS WAYZATA RLVO W R E 8 B N HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYED A HOURI HAKIHZ 5Y8S BERNARD PL EDINA NN S54SA 72 SA-118-2S 23 8823 PROP AOOR 82225 WAYZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME PERRY'S VENTURES INC TAXPAYER PERRY'S VENTURES INC NANE/AODR 228S W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE NN SSSSA 72 SA-1I8-2S 23 88AA 88S72 TAMARACK AVE RHEA COMPANY RHEA COMPANY 13725 MAIN ST ROGERS NN SSS7A 72 3A-118-23 23 88AS 8232S WAYZATA BLVD W RICHARD R RUUD ET AL ELITE AUTO X RICHARD RUDD 2S2S W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE NN SSSSA r •UN DATI M/n/az •ATOf sas HENNEPIN COUNTY PtOPCRTV XNFOIINATXON SVSUH PRQPIRTV ONNERS LIST REPORT HO. PIASSAai PACE S PROP ABM TAXPAYER NAME/ABM 7E M-na-zs zs ias« aZZAB MAVZATA BCVO N aiPPOtO L OTTEM JOHN S SNELOON P 0 BOH E7A LOMB LAKE NN M5SA 72 S4>11A-2B 2S 0aS7 azzas WAVZATA BLVO M CLIPORO L OTTEN CLIPORO L OHEN P 0 BOX 2«a LONB LAXE NN SSSSA TOTAL BATCH BBS aaaza ) J CtRTTfY THAT THE PACTS REPRfSttTEB ARE AN ACCURATE AW TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INPORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECOROS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE^EST OP NY KNOMLEBCE AW BELIEF. BATE M. O O A'■ ' ' oO•J' lLlHrr'ra«2.cT W . o u y ^ Ol,' _<r V/) -iX Oo»;. QOg*C 1 0 V3 too r \ i! I: .{•1 iiii ------— . ;T3r.T«“Cir-‘^scal C <h rccT 200 Re . city of Orono Document Form Revised 10/87 CiOyPy -p^ Clouu.A^\>>J CITY OP ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUUWED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT POR East Willow Woods (Name of Development) Clifford L. Otten (Name of Developer) NOV 1 9 1990 THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 23rd day of April, 1990, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called •City*'), and Clifford Otten, his 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) and resolution no. 2692 of the City that granted preliminary approval of PUD, subdivision and plat approval for East Willow Woods, and commercial site plan approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such development on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for conformance with the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance (PUD), all on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Property Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlets A, B, C and D, all East Willow Woods, according to the plat thereof or. file in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (sometimes herein referred to as the "Property*). 2. Zoning: The Property is zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning. The Property may be hereinafter referred to as PUD-1. 3. Permitted Uses: The buildings and the signs shown on the site plan attached for which the Developer has requested Page 1 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk I t,*Z building permits are to be constructed only on Lot 1. The first floor of the main building, including its greenhouse portion, has approximately 24,644 square feet of space with the Developer initially proposing to use approximately 14,244 square feet for his business, leaving approximately 9,600 square feet of rental space. The second floor of the main building has approximately 9,600 square feet of space, of which the developer will use approximately 5,040 for his o%m business, leaving approximately 4,560 of rental space. The storage building, including covered storage, has approximately 7,200 square feet of space. The production greenhouses (approximately 4,920 square feet) are also shown on the site plan attached. The Developer's uses of Lot 1 specifically include sales, service and rental uses for a landscape and garden business, including yard and garden equipment, and supportive and related uses. The permitted uses of ^tl include the Developer's above described specific use*s^Tne zoning district B-6 permitted uses, and the zoning district B-l permitted uses except arts and school supplies stores, barber and beauty shops, boo)cs, magazines, record shops, drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair, jewelry shops and repair, laundromats, music, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, retail foods, tailor shop, and wearing apparel. Other uses may be allowed subject to an amendment of this PUD. I^t2 nay be used for the storage of plant, garden and Tan?^ape related supplies and materials in conjunction with the Developer's use of Lot 1. Lot 2 nay also be used for zoning district B-6 permitted uses. In conjunction with Lot 1 use and under same ownership. Lot 2 may be improved with structures subject to City issuance of a conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval BO long as such structures are built of the same materials and of the sane quality as the developer's structures on Lot 1 and so long as such structures are greenhouses which are auxiliary to the Developer's business on Lot 1. Such conditional use permit shall require appropriate screening of the structures from Highway 12. Users shall be obligated to confom to all applicable Orono ordinances and to the provisions of this PUD Agreement. The foregoing uses are pomitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. site Access; The present access to Lot 1 is via Highway 12 and Willow Drive. For the purposes of this PUD Lot 2 may only be accessed through Lot 1 and the ingress only access via Highway 12 and only so long as Lot 2 is owned Page 2 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Cler)c^^j^^ 5. and used by the owner of Lot 1 as part of the landscape and garden business on Lot 1. For special assessment purposes relating to the construction of a road improvement on Outlot C, the Developer agrees that benefit to Lot 1 from the road will not take into account the presence of the existing Willow Drive access; the City agrees that the construction of the road on Outlot C will not require the Willow Drive access be closed. The present access from Highway 12 to Lots 1 and 2 is approved as part of the PUD for ingress on‘*y. In its sole discretion the Orono city council by a three member vote may approve the right of egress but only upon the request of the owner of Lot 1. If«Lot 2 ceases to be owned and used by the owner of Lot 1 in conjunction with the use of Lot 1 or is developed independently, then Lot 2 shall be obligated to develop access via Outlot C unless the City in its sole discretion determines that alternative access is adequate. Building Design and Construction; The improvements on said Lot 1 shall be constructed according to the plans on file with the City of Orono. The building plans show a main building with a partial second floor and an accessory building, and production greenhouses, all on said Lot 1. The exterior of the building shall be of a combination of tan and dark brown concrete blocks with split-face stone finish with trim of dark brown and green to match anodized aluminum with clear glazing used through area where plant materials are maintained. All accessory structures shall be of the same exterior finish and exterior colors as shown on elevation plans attached to this agreement. To the extent Developer builds structures on Lot 2 for use in conjunction with his business on Lot 1, such structures on Lot 2 shall be constructed of the same materials and of the same quality as those on Lot 1. Height; The portions of the flat roof are at a height of 30* or loss. The two story portion of the building with the gabled roof is 32*6** to the peak, 21*8* to the eave, and 27* to the mid-point. The height of this building to the peak not to exceed 32*6* is permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. gjqns: The signs and signage in said Lot 1 shall conform to the Sign Plans (4 pages) dated April 5, 1990 on file with the City and are permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. In consideration of the fact that the said sign plans permit Developer*s pylon sign to be closer to Page 3 of 6 Initials of Initials of Developer City Clerk 8. 9. 11. 12. Willow Road than is otherwise permitted by ordinance, Developer agrees to relocate such sign at any tine that either Willow Road is upgraded and such road upgrading in the opinion of the City makes the said pylon sign location a hazard, or prevents normal and customary road maintenance. Comollancet At any time and from time to time the Developer may request that the City provide the Developer a certificate certifying 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. 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 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 City of Orono Clerk/Administrator P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Notice to Developer Clifford L. Otten P. O. Box 249 Long Lake, KN 55356 Incorporation bv Reference: All plans, 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. Disclaimer bv Cltv: 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, Initials of Initials of Page 4 of 6 Developer L City subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or any other person, firm or corporation, for 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. 13, 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 subcontractors, whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. 14, 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 bo 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. 15, 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 Developnent Agreement shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. In Presence of: r>...J • . * • ■ ' f - aJ.' — THERESA L NAAO NOTAAV ruOUO . UMNCSOl ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY NOTAAV ruOUO • UMNCSOTA HEIM/ comw mtwi ««p*n 94-tI CITY OF ORONO \ 1 • BV! -*/( I a . *• (Hafor) '— • ■■ Page 5 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk^^^^gJ^ r'- iJ nwJJMy Cll^rd L. 'Otten Reviewed^for Administration: Date; O j /ffd_ _ _ t^ty Official) THIS INSTRUMEITT V/AS DRAFTED BY g(TY VivS-M?,7^07 (name and address) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )8S COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ZZKZ35^? The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before no this 23rd !•• O^en. SANDRA K. RODENZ MOTAAV PUOllC • MINNESOTAmHENNEPIN COUNTY 'uy C«<MMMten S««t ». Ittt ..-W11 r//yv /A‘ (A -A _ _ Notary Public ' STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HZNNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of April, 1990 by James R. Grabek, Mayor, and Dorothy M. L....... Page 6 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk ORONO OITEM PUD ACREQIENT 2HSEX 1. 2. 3. 4. Plat of East Willow Woods B-6 zoning standards Plans: Connercial Sits Plan (with internal signage) dated 4/5/90 Grading, Drainage fi Soil Erosion Control Plan printed 4/6/90 Slope Analysis printed 4/6/90 Landscape Plans 6/23/89 Elevations of sain building/accessory building plans 1/4/90 Ro&d and Utilities Easenent over Outlet C \ 5 10.4S SBCT20N 10.45 B-C BISEWAY COKKEBCIAL BISTRICT Suba. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the B-l Bighwsy CoBBerciel District is to provide ■ coBsercial district •peeificslly tailored to eecoisplisb \be cossercial dcvclopsent objectives of the Blghway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Ceoprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All epplicants for e building pernit in eny *B-6” Highway Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and seferred to the Planning CoBsisslon for seview. Subd. 3. Peroitted Uses. Within any *B*f* Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deeaed siailar by the Council. A. Offices (business and professional). B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. Z. Bestsursnts (Class 1). Subd. 4. Belatlonship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Developaent. Other types of cosBercial uses and aiied use developcents nay be applied for through the planned unit develop&ent process. Applications that include cocsercial uses within the Bighway 12 Corridor shall assuae the B-6 District as the underlying toning district. Conditional Use 0 A. Within any *B-6* Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use persit: 1. Any business listed as a peraitted use in the tone that includes a drive-thru condition. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses, within any 'B-C* Highway ........“..ii 10.45 >.\y •hill be pernitted that reiultt In «ater runoff causing flooda, eroaion, or tfeposlta on adjacent proptttiat. site and drainage plant shall be subeitted by the applicant in auch detail at required by the Council and those plana shall be reviewed by the City Enginaac before aubniaaion to the Planning cosBisaion and Council for approeal. Such cunoff say ba caquiced to be properly channeled Into a natural water ceurae* ponding araa, atoro drain or other public facilitloe. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwlae nuat ba in eesplianec with the Surface water Manegeaent Plan and shall be conaiatent with other applicabla ragulatiena or City Coda proviaiona and tubjact to the approeal of other agencies having juriadictioh* over the araa affacted by tba drainage. G. Haight. Wo atructurt or building ohall esceed 2-1/2 •torioa or thirty foot in height axeapt as provided in Section 10.75. B. At laaat twenty five percent (25%) of the land araa Shall ba landscaped with graaa« approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking araa aball ba landscaped. Tba following siniauB fixes shall be requitad at the tiae of plantingi Ovaratory Deciduous Traaa Ornanental Trees 2-1/2 inchea in diaaater 1-1/2 inches in dlsfieter ConiferouB Trees < feet tall Major Shrub Plantings 5 gallons 1. All trash and trash handling aquipsent shall be stored within the principal atructura, within an attached ■tructure ecceasible froa witbin the principal structure, or totally aertened from eyt-.’.eval view froa public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accesaory structures are propceed, they shell be conetrueted of tbe saae building material •• the principal structure and be readily served through avinglng doora. j. Caragea, acceasory atructures, screen walla and >* 10.4S eipoied artii of itt»inin9 walls shall bs of sioilsr typo, quality and appearanct as tha principal atruetura. F. Tha ground leval view of all sachanical utilities ■hall be conplttcly accaanad froa contiguous prepartias and adjacent atraatar oa daaignad to ba coapatibla with the architectural treataent of the priaetpal atruetura. L* Zxtarnal loading and earvice araaa must be coaplataly ■craaned from the ground level view froa contijuoua rcaidential or coaaarcial propartia* and adjaeaat atraata« iineept at accaaa points• H* The llg'*^^ fr09 automobile headlights and other ■eureaa aball be acrett-^^td wbenavac it may ba directed onto adjacent raaidantial vir^rwa. 4 I . { Appllrallon Dale: April 16.2002 60-Da> Rr«iei« Eipiralloa: JuarlS.2002 To: From: Dale: Subject: Chair Hawn & Planning Commission Members Mike GalTron, Planning Director May 17,2002 #02-2782 Professional Properties of Oronp. 2765 Kelley Parkway - Public Hearing for Proposed Dental OfTicc ' 1) PUDRezoning 2) PUD Concept Plan / Commercial Site Plan Rev iew Summary* of Request Applicants propose to construct a one story, 15,000 s.f. dental office building on the 2.0 acre existing lot at the NE comer of Old Crystal ^y Road and Higliway 12. The request is for a PUD rezoning of the property from RR- ? B Single Family Rural Residential to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Property Owner: Developer: Surveyor: Planner/Englneer: Architect: V-City of Orono Professional Properties of Orono: Dr. William J. and Jean Kottemann (835 Parlenwood Road) Robert and Mary Ritter (3260 Hohns Point Lane) Or. Karl G. and Konnic M. Berg (2112 Sugar Woods Or) ' * Cronberg & Associates l.andform Shea Architects (Applicants have been negotiating a puikhasc agreement with the City; it is as yet unsigned, but Ron Moorse has authonzed the application process to proceed.) List of Exhibits A • Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - City Engineer's Comments E • Applicants Submittals: 1 - Cover letter 2 - Elcv’ation Photo Depiction 3 • Buildmg MatenaJs Depiction Spec Sheet 4 - Plan sheets; co t ^ rule Shet'i Cl.l ~ Existing Conditions C2. t - Preliminary Site Plan C3.1 - Preliminary Grading Plan C4.1 - Preliminary Utility Plan L2.t • Preliminary Landscaping Plan SU-Site Plan PI. I - Floor Plan El.l - Extenor Elev’ations El.2 - Exterior Building & Trash Enclosure Elevations Ptans in titUcu these art revised set received S-I7-02, hence memo m^ nat reflect ati changes^. M2-27I2 PrafcstloMl Prapcrltn of Oroaa May 17,2002 Paiclaf? PUD Rezonlog & lllghway 12 Corridor Stondardi Applicant is requesting to rc/one this vacant property to B-6 Highway Commercial District. The 2000*2020 Orono Community Management Plan guides this property for Commercial Office uses, hence the proposal is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Professional olfices ore a permitted use in the B*6 District, and rezoning to B*6 is allowed under the “Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area” of zoning corlc Section 10.52, Subd. 5, hence B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Section 10.52 additionally contains a number of development standards applicable to this site: (Subd. I) - Minimum Area. Minimum area for a rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor is 5 acres (variasce required - the existing parcel is nominally 2.0 acres in area; the site was created in 1984 to accommodate a branch of the Hennepin County Library, w hich was never built. The City of Orono purchased the site in 1996 for temporary public w orks use and as a means of controlling the future development of the site. Given the fact that the site exists as a separate parcel and the proposed use conforms to the CMP and the B*6 district, an area variance to allow rezoning of the site may be treasonable. The adjacent existing vacant lot directly cast is 2.5 acres, and will likely involve a similar request in the near future. (Subd. 2) - Access and circulation plan . The proposed site plan meets the general standards developed for the Highway 12 corridor, in that all access is directly to Kelley Parkw ay. and trail links arc provided. An easement will be required for the existing trail on the properly paralleling Old CrystakI Bay Road. Sidewalks trails w ithin the Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 nghts-of-way arc ^ubjcct to approval by Orono and MnDOT respectively. (Subd. 3) - Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water must be available. They arc. City w ill dctemiinc whether any assessments or connection charges arc due. (Subd. 4) - Stormwater Management . The code requires that a stormwater management plan be submitted and be in compliance w ith City standards. See discussion below and City Engineer ’s comments. (Subd. 5) - Allow able districts for rezoning include B-6. This section also requires that any rezoning involving a modification to zoning requirements must be processed as a PUD - the minimum area variance therefore forces this to be a PUD rezoning. (Subd. 6) - Building Design and Construction - addresses the exterior wall finishes, architectural compatibility of future additons and outbuildings, and prohibits temporary buildings. The proposal appears to be in compliance with the pertinent standards. (Subd. 7) - Require* that all re/onings w ithin the Highw ay 12 Corridor are subject to a Dcvelonment Agreement assuring compliance w ith the requirements of Section 10.52. L *02-2712 ProfnUoiMl Prop«nic« of Orono Ma> 17.2002 Pitc2or7 Conformity to B-6 Standardi As noted above, the proposed dental ofTicc use is an allowed use in the B-6 District and is generally in keeping with the commercial development objectives of the Highway 12 Commercial District. Compliance with the B-6 District development standards is illustrated in the follow ing table; Bi|lldlii^^velog^n^ta|ida^JI^*Mulr^ Lot Area Lot Width Principal Structure Setbacks Front (N| Side tE)* Rear(S) SMe Street (W') 2.0 acre mm 100’ 35* 35V 10* 35- EslstinR,'Proposrd 2.0 acre nom. 304’ 71- 35 ’ 44' Conipiiance OK OK OK OK OK Parking Setbacks 4acliidcs drl«tog Uses Front (N)Variance Side(E)*10’/5*Possible Variance Rear(S) Side Street (W')26’OK Ruilding Height Peak Height N'A 31*OK Defined Height 30' max OK *liigher number reflects standard if adjacent properly is rcsidcniial zone, south is Industrial, west and nonh ate Residential, but east could be either Kcsideniial or Commercial in fuiure .. Relationship to Surrounding Development The proposed dent.il office is adjacent to property guided for commercial officr' i > the cast. Property to the nonh is used for City Office facilities, although the City facilities are zoned RR-IB Rural Residential. The property to the west is zoned RR-IB Rural Residential and used for scIkkiI purposes. The property to the south across Highway 12 is zoned industrial. The properly to the southwest across Higluvay 12 is zoned RR-IB Rural Residential and guided fur a mix of urban density single family and multifamily residential use. The dental office would appear to be compatible in relation to existing and probable future uses of the surrounding properties. Site Conditions The site is very flat, w ith existing drainage primarily to the northeast through the wetland between City Hall and Public Works. The site is anticipated to have high water table soils and is not #02-2712 Proretdoaal Prvprrtin of Orono May 17.2002 Page 3 *17 conducive to a basement or underground parking without substantial fill to raise the grade. The proposed one level building with no basement would appear to be a good use uiulcr these site conditions. There are no mapped wetlands on the site. However, applicant is advised to meet with the MCWD and determine whether a wetland delineation is necessarv*, to avoid any surpnses. Site l.ayout and Circulation Developing a suitable building design and site layout has been a demanding process for the applicants. Factors afTccting the la>out have included: • size of the site • size of building proposed and required parking stalls and driving lanes • access allowed only along north boundary' (potential future connection to east adjacent lot ‘ is a factor also) • existing bike/hike trail within the property boundaries limits usable area - preferred front entry orientation tow ard 12 0ld Crystal Bay intersection • necessity of a loop drop-off due to dental orthodontist high-volume uses - access for deliveries and trash pickup - attempting to maintain approximately 25°o green space (this was a B-6 requirement but appears to have been eliminated during recent B-6 landscaping amendments...) The building has been oriented at an angle to take advantage of the visibility from the intersection to the southwest as well as to make use of natural lighting for certain treatment rooms. Primary vehicle access to the site is at the midpoint of the north line. This appears to provide adequate separation from the Kcllcy/CXTB Rd. intersection. A secondary access at the NE comer of the site is proposed as in-only, primarily to serve scr\ ice vehicles (delivery and trash removal) A one-way road along the SE perimeter would serv c 4 parking stalls and provide full access around the building, but at the expense of a significant amount of green space According to the City fire marshal, tins perimeter drive is not required for fire access purposes because the building will be provided with fire supression sprinklers. 1 hcreforc. at the loss of 4 parking stalls, a significant amount of green space could be gained. Absent the perimeter lane, access for garbage trucks under the current layout will be tight, but staff believes the trash and loading^dclivcry area could be rearranged to avoid backing problems. Parking & Driving Lane Requirements The site limitations noted above have resulted in a somewhat *squcc/ed ’ parking arrangement. It appears to meet the 20''22 ’ 20 ’ minimum ‘stall driv ing lane stall’ standard for opposing stalls; all areas w here there is one row of stalls must meet a 20 ’/25 ’ minimum. The most recent site plan indicates 15.000 s.f. (gross) building envelope. Net of hallways, utility space and storage, the building is approximately 13,500 s.f. w hich w ould require 5 stalls per 1.000 s f. or a total of 68 stalls. •02-271} Profrttlunal Proptrlirt of Orooo VU> 17. 2002 Fate 4 of 7 The current plan shows 71 standard stalls plus 4 handicap stalls. The minimum requirement is met, and a few stalls could technically be eliminated. Applicants arc concerned about parking due to the daily high patient turnover for orthodontics, and would prefer to not lose stalls. Again the issue is loss of green space to ser\ c those stalls. Stormwater Management - Easements Needed Applicant proposes to discharge stormwater to the regional ponding area proposed by Dahlstrom Development LLC to the cast along Highway 12. The applicants proposal relies heavily on that pond being developed, since no stormw'atcr storage facilities are being provided on site. This is a v iable plan as long as the regional pond is constructed in a timely fashion. See City Engineer Tom Kellogg's comments also in relation to stormwater ntanagemcnl (Exhibit D). The applicants w ill potentially have to obtain casements over the properties to the cast based on their draft utility plan. The stom- vater management issues may ultimately pose some scheduling problems for U.c rpp’tca :* Stormwater Drainage Trunk Fee This new development will be subject to the City ’s recently enacted Storm Water Trunk Fee. At the current 2002 Fee Schedule commercial rate of $6,480 per acre, the site w ill be charged for 2 0 acres or a total fee of $12,960. Trails and Park Dedication The proposed site plan indicates the location of the existing Ciiy/Counly trail along OCB Rd. w hich Orono wants to remain os-is in its current location. An easement for that trail w ill be defined and dedicated prior to the sale of the properly to the applicant. The proposal indicates a 6* sidewalk w ithin the Kelley Parkway right-of-way. leaving a 4* green boulevard to Kelley and a 1 O' setback to parking on-site. The City has not established standards for sidewalk width along Kelley Parkway. A six-foot sidewalk may be adequate, however, we have 8 ’ in areas along Highway 12... The sidew alkarail proposed along Highw ay 12 south of the property appears to be located south of liic road ditch. This sidewalk should be north of the ditch, tucked up against the south property boundary, and 8* in w idlh to match those walks further cast along 12. In reviewing the Park Dedication ordinance, staff notes that in 1998 the ordinance was amended to require that all planned unit developments arc subject to park dedication. While this language is in the subdivision code, the current proposal is not a subdivision, hence the Council will have to interpret whether this application is subject to park dedication. The ordinance reads as follows: «02-27a3 rrofmtoul Prvpmtn of Oroaa May 17,2002 rates of 7 mJN DATE M/1A/D2 •ATCM Bll M SS-m-2S 12 tQI2 rior ADM t27AS BEUEv ntwv MWD lom CITY or OOONO TAKBAnN CITY Of OWNO NAflE/AMNI P 0 DON 4A CRYSTAL DAY MN SSS2S Hli^iTPlN COUNTY PtoriRTY INTORNATION <STEN PROPERTY OTMERS LIST SO SS-110-2S 12 BBOO BBBSO ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY or CITY or ISSS BROUN RD S WAYZATA NN 5SSB1 REPORT NO. PlOSMBl PACE 1 SO SS-11S-2S 12 BBB7 B27BB BELLEV PBWY NBA CITY or NBA CITY or ISSS BROMN RO S WAYZATA MN SSSBl SO SS-11S-2S 12 BBBO PROP ADD* B27AS BELLEY PBWY OWNER NAME WILLOW PROPERTIES TABPAYER WILLOW PROPERTIES NAHE/AOOR C/O ALBERT 0 YIKVE ASS5 OIC RICE LABE DR N E RENER nW SAA72 SO SS>11B-2S IS BBB2 B2B07 WAYZATA BLVO W ACE PROPERTIES LLC ACE PROPERTIES LLC SSBB ANOERSON ESTATES RO HAPLE PLAIN NN S5S5B SO SS*1IB-2S IS BBll B2/B5 WAYZATA BLVO W VEDA INC ETAL VEOA INC PO BOB S7S LONO LABE NN 55S5B SO 3S-11B-2S IS BBIA PROP ANOR B272S WAYZATA BLVO W OWNER NAME VEDA INC TABPAYER VEOA INC NANE/ADOR PO BOB STS LONO LABE IM SSSS4 SO SS-110-2S 21 BBB2 BBBOS OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N SCNOOC OIST NO 11 ANOBA-NENNEPIN I S D NO 11 112M NANSON BLVO N W COON RAPIDS Ml SSASS 50 SS-110-2S 24 BBBl BBSBS OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N JANES A WINTERHALTER JANES A WINTERHALTER S4S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONO LABE NN SSSSB SO SS-11B-2S 24 BBB2 PROP AOOR BBBSO ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NANt TNOHAS F JANES LTD PTRSHP TABPAYER TNONAS F JANES REALTY LLLP NANE/ADOR C/O JUDITH J SCHERER 77B7 T STREET LITTLE ROCB AR 72227 TOTAL BATCH SSI BBBIB #2 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TABATION, TO THE BEST or NY BNOWLEOCE AND BELIEF. DATE *• y o2 )AREA L0CAT10K MAPI OROKO. MN :■ UBBREVIATWKSI r•<<r MC b h\y |i. h f- i i?I' I T 5*''■JM £ « I kcr* — S3.- £“H' I i:- p"'*' ife iv;:: £■=. If- I £■• S.‘ 3/•»« % ■M-r* :> » F4/ #.* jiy- ' ' « ' f' 17il sr JJ" tr u- ‘43 !r S; 2' SLr: gr 2r* :r = r.T^ M :l~|f"E t- •r.z:zz" DENTAL CLINIC ORONO, MN f=30RAWIKC SYUBOLSC ':i3LTtUTy SYMUOLSt crasrTE/UTiUTY contacts i (D ®0 A » - • PW CAM# «•«# «M« IMI !*#«»• •K» !«•» mm 0i*«r« ci'M %«•%« r4«M« ft CTDSITC liYHBOLSC iwnrt cmrairo fovTam ttftM ft ••‘M awi AMft% *• C« • ft#_.r,7rr* ft* n*« ••A#e *«u mt lift 3^ :r.*:3r- ,••■j neftftM «*.a •«* A 1 »«#• SIWMh •■U I* ff.MiR •*• ft# n ***t tosa m CT3SURVCY SYMBOLSCrrr= • ft* • mi • * ft*^ •«•«*« car I arfftiT tft« 4 C3CIVIL SHEET iNDEX t fft. <M •*• %ftl» a> Aift^Rw* < «*«•»c* ^«'* «!• mtiwi* 4 ••—%ft Ml» IRVftftA* <*r# .E> 4k4(*m CT3ER0SI0N CONTROl SYUBOLSC cA«ftA 1 n* »*»t««. ac Gopher State One CaB /ect/t^ s-i?'Oz^ shea L J irrmm I viMaa lint ORONO PROnSSlMAL CENTER praiKlIllr DENTAL aiMC ORONO. MN LANDFORM • ••€ AftftA « ft ftnfti•• I •heel title OVlTniE SHEET rvn*i K«___ _ »* C0.1 CT3K0T1 »« m * wrt •• «r«-«« w«» »«i m'’>9*0 #•{*►•♦ *«« ^ • • •• w -«^ <« »• r^M w> •# ^ ^ . *«*^«« m / «M»«# ^«» •# «« *4 M* V »■»— •• •• M« «*«* »''i *m Mc ' ••« -M m c.»9* • »•• I^«i^••• <^«r» M«ar » » #•«*« « •ifc.* <1 r •-•<*« »• •••« ►#•«&« ••••«<•»• N • •••« ) i««l r. :.,Vr*; r .««at • r* r ## «r »•••*««■ •• M»» %«• ^ r 'v«M «<*» r f«» «« «« fc. • 09^%^* %m0t% —‘m* «»-♦• «n%% • $mnm rntmar »• • •^•^*0 mm ms *mrn mmmrn m9 tm** %#••*« $m-mm m-mm* m» m mmrn «m»* mm mmmm «■ «w«« » ft ftftM* aft* I'M** •« ft^ • Ci*ft*^ “w •**«•«• *%••<• tftiift** r # ftft* ••'ft aaB *t •*.»•* ^ '* '^M Mi' ili # «ift ftftMt^ mm» ft^4 ft i »r«4 ft# •# «»ft ft^' a «•••• ft<ft H4 ra#*« i*.i»«^ r *ft •«« ft^« ft . •« vt f»W« «ft« •• a.a •« p»ftw <ft«>< a ft«^ aft •*M‘$ «. ' aaA aa *a «ft4 a« ft*... • ftrr»»ft a» ■Oft ■■ I !■ *««-<M •#« ftft4 *a»* *ft aft ft*ftft ft Ift4*« Mft *«*•*• a%l aft ftiftM aft ft a#ft «■•»» *ft •<« C^« ftftOM aft *Vfta« • a« H« ftlf ftaw • a » ir aft .- aftar-ftf Oa .•• ftfttfttftl mm* tm (.tftftaft* •*»- *« *ft ••ft ft ft* aft *ft 'fta*i*.ft fta* .ftft >ft . .*«*.•.« a«i*.« m • »«*• ft Jft'iaaft Nft r^a.-«a 4i«a>* ••• •ftO aaaftM ft ••« ft. .«* rrSaft r.a.*fa-*» ftft. •m’m.s •• ftrft r m^aft ^-^ftaaa M*a>^« a« aft. ft***a aft ftftt •■« ja*aa ft *■* M ftafti ft<a ••'•!•/%«««' • 'ft* «ft (.•»•••. <ft aft. ft-vM a* ft-** aft vftp^ ft*r% ft ftft# «a«ia« • *•• i.af«ft«ft aft. M*a« «• N*« #«• aft ••«*• »a«l •• a*aa «• *ft mm •« •aoft ft .^aa • a« aft. .4ft ft •<•« a« t*ft« a*aa ft Oft aak a. rftftftft*aa Mft*ft« aft* mmm* *4ia lOaMt ft «ft . ft>*a. -ft aft. a*a.«A4 ft ftiii‘ftft *0 mtm «ft m*mmm mi* *• ar« •*• m% ft ai tftafto# ftft-tftft* M»*4 aft. ft ftiftfti* ^ ft ft «.»%• aft aaa ft aa M iw»r««4 ■• •m •mmmm m*m *»- - ------“• a •**» «ft« •ri-r. 9 mm 1*^ w ft*4 ^ an • ifta • O <• fti ft*ft** i •*«-wM aft. < '^TUT •“ ^l.■ •CALI a fUT *■*••*) aama ttumnw f ttiMiaa ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER pniKiMr OCNTALCLMC ORONO.MN LANDFORM •taatMi: PREUMNARV GRAOMQPIAN •ft*.* •a__ «*>Bi f-a at___________ aotctiMMCi-wm =s--*- C3.1 dKOTESt »mm • m »«•«•«* •<« %«<aM ^<pc b^ •« mf>m^ % »f%« *c «k «M » • K#? **%•• ■» •n*-v« »«i mjmm •» £•• « am A*M1 v*4»>V* «*Mr*W .• «^*»« •« 'I *4 •crA*:« A •#A^'«» mrm»^ p* *p* ta# ^ mL* '-MrMm mmi m ma map u f am mmmp% *m <«nr M •«MM %Mw • ^pm •• m mpptmjp »m I mm ^<*«4 pmm m ^*v «m mm ;v>*>« « *• pw*M » AM:* •VMS M nt'm Pm m'wm*••’•M* nr x»n vi M naM M I* pfpp mm «M n rM ««M mp CUM * • »■ v% m.mmp mmmm, »f ■virWA t ^ cM#i •*»• *# <-• •« « n atriBMim M* cr» » AM rw«4A^ (VV mm** a <m«% a i a k< mp p—t* k«*Mn m »Mr« (Kpm:*pm m f m tM«t« mmmm 9 mpm* «vi v#A*Ai« mm <««a ‘i MA m'mpp* zmpu* %« Mam p-w^^mp ppm ••• •• mmpp-p^’m mmmmppt mp • et m iM •« m* mrnmpp . kjvpm •• pmm pppmpt mm *p rrVn«»«H ^ mwt ■■■ •• mmm r popmu w %A««« PP mmmmp • mp p<m KMPtmm amm 9p *»• ^XP'PP J^mp mm •*• prnp-m mm %mpj m tarw m •«••«»• m m csasnx/UTtuTY contacts i »rS tteinvnf^ SipiMrItniOMMI a m^ KAU n mr slwn i. J 11tHNW f tliMBH dM; ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER pn(Mi«*K OENTALCUMC ORONO.MN LANDFORM dMiMK PREUMNARY UmnYPtAN ■Mfm. IMHI« M. •••»l»I!tm vn« ■ m mmm Pf p c#w* •• p^mK tmmm muvmrnttummm ' - — — C4.1 a 5. wighuat no . d C=>PftCUMINARY PUKT SCHCOUU: • ” j* ».■». [DOo onuimTAt non 6 •immm WCM mm • . *• (DO •«*«* o ■I4«4 4 «•4M • ••• [DtJ •«« ou>•ms tMA*O ui—iwiui nra •MA A*4OTMi MMMA4 MM4*4 • M **•».«■ (DO •««»- DtramoOT WMiM Jh m »4M M*• ••• (DO •«*.«» .'-■99 PMA M«M»*n« 4MWM M*M «r4*r**tc*M«• »•••« (»X^ t^taLM o 9 MJ MW MM WW t4M mm m,„ [20 M m— ms smakM l4Myi »IM* M* AT *«h.m -.« (DO—* i •*sr-~»4W Mt **••*'• GXI> •— n m a»>Mi ••••.«• (DO cnBcanxmtmm O «••4A4AW,t(A M*-•- (DO—— O ••• mm 4M44 vrs.:*^t«J4 m .... (DO~ O 4^««M MMM MAM4.4 crrar**ts%.tm •«.•. (DO —— O ir rntmmMMMIt «*M mmmmm WOM • «•mm (DO — rttt<<M«u ♦M 4M MW 4MM44 Mpi4*4t3r***M*-••- (DO «-» o M Mr*?S*MW«4 • AM.M*•■•*■ (DO ••*•«n Sff*-'«*•Ml (DO —•m •Wm* « flW 4* •a* •4W4AA.4 4^« a M4 •C4.•r •*••*• (DO CIDLANOSCAPe uQuumiEin mU w -M-.-r-w tm ^U0 »» M'«*« « 4 «»*«•# N» *41 • !•«••• •« MA'tfH ^^n.*n*i*i* m^^**** ■■»■ —' Mft. r a»* • MU «• <«M M4 r im4 m %4 Km •«•* msm^9 9* » •r4*w Ni «r^ •« »«» A*-» •; .««>« *|« ««•••••« «••w.— • A.«^« »«w ■ i ■«■»♦ W<^ • ^4 *<• - •^•4 ^ CM»* • *4 rnmm m» mm mm4 mm» .» « <.j4««w4h —ir- ^ *4 •«« • m** 4 * ** ^ »•••» •• *4^ 4*#4* *• • v«v •«• • >AM1 ^ «iW4* *• » |-n -mi m • -mu ' cm^Ks » % I •^■c ^ M mmm* •• m 9m** • m ^ 4ik»*t« •wH« »«4M ^ii IX m m9C4^ ••mM $ » ffma Mm • n mmmt • » mmsm Mmrnrnm mm mmmrn% H, 4 • « mat I 44 4*. 4rtiM mmmk% m » ^«4c • 9MS m £ *4 *<4 0m^M* *4.4 »44W* iM4C«M (Ml.(44 41.^ 4^ Mi.nCMKANH 44 m 44r««4# • |aM44M 9mrnm ^44«* • 4M44M «4MK ^»%4> .*•%««« • $j%jm» • m m mi0<^ < k * MMA«4»»«M* MM •».-« 0, rirr shcti L J K»>mwn ■wim I ti}iam> > (UMin (MONOPfiORSSnNAL CENm pnM«r. OENTN.CUMC OROHaMN LANDFORM 444 Mi; nVLMNlWY LM08D4CFIMI JtU4 WJICIIWi WWMW £S?*“ L2.1 r i_______ FLOOR PLAN^ FLOOR I/16*« i'-0*DATE* 4-I1-2002 I I I snen L J lOOnotiiidia ■^MOe SSSi ’" T 612 »9 2297 7 612M92IN l>> dint ORONOPROFESStONAlconsi pro]ed UHe: DENTAL CLINIC ORONO.MN thMilitiK FLOOR PLAN m. tm rnmttm t «iMi otTvaaMW P1.1 P!E»BsesS;xK8»^^ ASPHALT SHINOLES ALUMINUM TRIM CANOPY AND COLUMN BEYOND BRIOC •PRE CAST STONE 1 ^ROCKFACE ^^^^^SPLIT STONE PRS CAST VENEER STONE ©?N IUE6T ELEVATION e Tv 1/16' ■ r-0‘ DATEi 4-H-2002 proltdlllt: DENTAL CLINIC ORONO. MN skMiinr. EXTERIOR BUILDING AND TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS SAQ^^ilQE BR'CK— FRONT •PRE CAST CAP •ROCK FACE PRE CAST STONE ■SPLIT STONE VENEER 1 tnM anumnM._ » \ TRASM ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS Ejy 1/16* • DATE: 4-n-2002©El .2 ■ ♦ . -I ' • i > >•. , ,......................... ’■'■y : ■■ . •• • l ’ yv% ' V • ' r ... ■ ♦ •'. 1 ‘'i** .r< i *' . . ’ < • 3 ■ ■■>..>«; : ;¥l v-?.<■ ' ’.i ; . Dr. Kiri Berg Orooo Professional Building Exterior Fimifaes Shea Commission No. 5241.00 Kex A. C ■ Roofing riiingles MimiCKturer CextiinTeed Style: Architectiinl/Designer shingles Pritem: Independence Color Driftwood Glass Manufacturer Viracon ProducU Solarscreen Reflective Glass Product No: VSl-20 Brick facade Manufacturer The Lakewood Brick and Tile Company Distributor Elk River Brick and Stone Color Medium Red Grain Aluminum trim Manufacturer Copper Sales, Inc. Product Uniclad Architectural metal building products Finish: Stone White Rock face style precast concrete Manufacturer Ailstone Color To match existing sample Size: 2’x2* Splyt stone veneer Manufacturer Aggregate Industrie Color #177 Gray Balsam Size: 2’x2* Appitillu Dm«: April 17.2M2 M-4>qrlUvk«CiplnllM: jM*li.2M2 To: Chair Ha\%-n & Planning Commission Members From: Mike GafTron, Planning Direcior^^jzA Date: May 17,2002 Subject: <>02-2789 Dahlstrom Development, LLC, **2550" Wasyata Boulevard - Public Hearing for Proposed RcsidentiaFCommercial Development; 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) Rezoning 3) PUD Concept Plan Rex iew Summary of Proposal Applicants propose to develop this 5 1-acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mixture of residential housing types including 41 townhomc units, 82 “rowhouse**‘units, and 112 co-op condominium units; and approximately 38.000 s.f. of commercial space including grocery, retail and restaurant uses on the southeasterly 5 acres of the site. Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership Dahlstrom Development, LLC Landform Kjolhaug Environmental Services Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Property Owner: Appikan l/Dcvelopcr: Planncr/Eaginecr/Surveyon Wetland Coniullant: Attorney: Proposed Dcvclopnient Name: **Orono Village” Dahlstrom Deselopmcnl LLC has provided letters from property owners authorizing submittal of the application. List of Exhibits A - l-ctter from City’s Planning Consultant. John Shardlow, AlCP B - Excerpts from 1980 and 2000-2020 Community Management Plans (CMP) C - “Study A" and “Study D“ D - Applicants Submittals: 1 • Cover IcUer 2 - Application forms 3 - Property’ Owner Authorizations 4 - 350* List of Neighboring Property Owners 5 - Plat Map 6 - Concept Stage Required Information 7 - Orono Village NarTatix-e 8 • Letter to MnDOT (Tunerson) re: Stormwater Pond E.xpansion 9 - Stormwater Pond Memo M2-27M DaMstrMU Dcx^wcut LLC May 17.2002 PagclorO {A—> 10 - Plan sheets; CO. 1-Title Sheet CI.l - Existing Conditions Cl.2 - E.xisting Slope Analysis &. Drainage Pattern Plan C2.0 - Land Use and Zoning Plan C2.1 - Concept Plan C2.2 - Conceptual Design Guideline Plan C3.I - Concept Excax^tion & Embankment Plan C3.2 - Concept Welland Impact Plan C4.1 - Concept Utility Plan C5.1 - Conceptual Plat C5.2 - Phasing Plan E - City Engmeer’s CommenU I. Summary of Required Approvals City review of this application necessarily involves a sequence of steps in which the Planning Commission will be asked to make recommendations and Council must ultimately reach a decision whether or not to grant approval. These steps include: 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The developer’s proposal relies on successfully obtaining an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP). North of Kelley Parkway the site is currently guided for multi-family residential (MFR) use at a density of 3-6 units per acre. South of Kelley Parkway, the site is guided for Commercial uses - specifically professional offices, limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the offices. The primary change requested is to allow' multi-family residential use (row houses and condo’s) on the westerly 3/4 of the site south of Kelley Parkway, rather than commercial office use for which it is currently guided. A second and equally significant CMP change requested is to allow a considerably more intense level of retail uses at the northwest comer of 12/Willow than contemplated in the CMP. i.c. grocery, service retail and restaurant uses. Rezonine, TheentiresiteiscurrentlyzonedRR-lB,OncFamily Rural Residential. Thearea of commercial development is proposed to be rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District (PUD) and the residential component is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. Planning Commission w ill be asked to review and make a recommendation regarding w hether RPUD and B-6 arc appropriate zoning districts for the uses that will be allowed, and whether any proposed uses arc inappropriate or require special conditions or limitations based on the standards for those districts. The application is being processed as a Planned Unii Development, and actual rezoning of the property would not occur until completion of the Development Plan Approval stage. PVD Generai Concept Plan Aporovat. The first stage of the tw o-stage PUD review- process is the General Concept Stage, in w hich Planning Commission and Council review all aspects of the proposed development. Tliis is similar in scope to a combination of the sketch plan and preliminary plat phases of a standard subdivision process. General Concept Plan Approval is the City ’s formal commitment to the development, which will be documented via a Council resolution, hence all significant issues and concerns muat be addressed at the General Concept Plan review stage. The General Concept Plan review will include review of the proposed commercial uses and commercial site plan, as w ell as review of the proposed residential uses and layout. PVD Development Plan Approval. In this final stage the developer will provide detailed plans for implementation of the approved General Concept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. Rezoning and formal amendment of the CMP w ill occur as part of Development Plan approval. A Development Agreement w ill be executed by the developer and the City to formalize all aspects of the approval. M)2-27S9 Oahlttrom Df%elopmem LLC May 17,2002 Page 2 of 9 II. Review Process Planning Commitfion*! review oo May 20 shonld focns primarily on (be proposed amendments to the CMP. The developer has presented the City with a concept plan that includes a level of detail which should allow Planning Commission to begin to visualize and understand the various plan elements. However, the primary focus of this initial review should be to analyze the basic concepts rather than the details. You should carefully consider the points made by the City's planning consultant, John Shardlow (sec Eshibil A). Planning Commission should follow this outline for reviewing the general concept elements of the plan: 1) Mixed residential component (density and layout) a) Townhouses . b) Rowhouses c) Condos 2) Retail component (types of uses, relationship to development and City goals) 3) Open space and recreation component (public and private) 4) Transportation (streets, sidewalks and trails component) For the May 20 public hearing Planning Commission should expect a relatively brief staff report and a 10-15 minute presentation by the applicants, followed by public comments. You should then consider the proposed CMP amendments and if possible, reach a recommendation on whether the amendment is appropriate or under what circumstances or conditions it is appropriate. Finally, you should start to define issues related to the Concept Plan. If you reach a conclusion regarding the CMP amendment, that specific item will be brought to Council on June 10 for consideration and action. 111. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Discussion History The 1980 Orono Community Management Plan guided this property for single family residential use at a density of one unit per 2 acres. By the mid-1980's, support was growing for widening of Highway 12 in-place, to accommodate growing traffic levels. In anticipation of development pressure along the Highway 12 corridor through Orono, a study was commenced in 1985 that resulted in an amendment of the CMP in 1987. The amendment brought the area from Highway 12 to County Road 6 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). This nearly vacant 190-acre area was identified in the 1987 CMP amendment as Property Area No. 3. #02-2789 Dahbtroni Dcvciopnirni LLC May 17.2002 Page3of9 4. The Lx>ng Lake/Orono retail market can only support a certain amount of higher valued, higher income generating retail uses, i.e., one grocery store, one pharmacy, etc. 5. If these types of uses are allowed to locate outside of the primary Long Lake downtown retail area, there will not be another opportunity to locate similar uses in the dowtitown area. 6. Everyhigh quality retail usethat isallowcdtolocatcoutsidcorthcrclalivclycompact downtoum area near Brown Road has a dual negative impact on the Long Lake downtown area: a. It pulls retail energy and vitality away from the downtoum area rather than adding its energy and vitality to the downtown area. b. The financial resources that could be generated by the use to facilitate the redevelopment of the Long Lake downtown area arc lost. 7. Given the small retail market, a more compact downtown is more vital and viable over the long term than a linear retail area spread out along Highway 12. 8. Most third ring suburbs would give their right ann for a compact downtown that could be a focal point for the community, or arc spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to artificially create one. In downtown Long Lake w c already have a compact downtown retail area with the huge bonus of being located adjacent to to a beautiful lake. Enabling this compact downtown area to realize its potential should be a much higlier priority than facilitating retail development in any other area. 9. G: /cn these strategic elements, it is critical that development decisions in Orono and Long Lake arc made in a coordinated way that enables progress toward the shared vision. This will require a it-ecific plan and adherence to this plan by both cities. The grocery store has been proposed as a retail element to provide the western ‘anchor* to what would be a linear retail strip with its eastern end being downtown Long Lake. Staff sees Ibis as being in compicle conflict w ith the Comprehensive Plan. The developer is correct that a grocery store will serve as an anchor. WTiat this means is that it w ill draw other retail development to it, because other retailers want to tap into the high volume of customer traffic that a grocery store draws. The developer suggests that the substantial retail development a grocery store would draw to the Willow Drive area would work in tandem with the existing dowmtow n Long Lake retail area to encourage and facilitate devclopment/redcvclopment of a vital, viable retail area su-ctching from downtow n Long Lake to Willow Drive. Staff believes that contrary'to this optimistic perspective, ifa grocery store is located west of Willow Drive, it will draw retail development out to the Willow Drive arc. making the Willow Drive Highway 12 area the focus of retail developmcnL'redevclopmcnt. to the detriment of the existing downtown Long Lake #02-2789 Oabittrom Devdoproenl LLC Ma> 17.2002 PageSoTO retail area, and to the detriment of the plans of both Orono and Long Lake to redevelop the downtown Long Lake area. It is much less risky to focus on strengthening the Long Lake downtown area and moving to the west only as the development potential in downtown is used up and the market is calling for more retail development; vs. creating a new retail node and hoping that the market is strong enough to not only support both the new retail node and the existing dow ntown area, but also to enable redevelopment of the downtown area and redevelopment west of the downtown area to create a continuous retail area stretching from downtown Long Lake to Willow Drive. Staff strongly recommends against amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow the grocery store element of the development proposal, and suggests that Planning Commission place significant focus on this element In its consideration of the concept plan. Given the uses on the three other comers of Willow/12, the applicants' other suggested retail uses of this comer (coffee shop, restaurant, etc.) arc perhaps more in tunc with the concept of serving the immediate ncighbortiood as well as area residents without having a major impact on future development. Planning Commission should consider whether the retail use is appropriate for this comer as opposed to the guided office use. 2000-2020 CMP: RESIDENTIAL VS OFFICE The final CMP issue is to consider whether conversion from office to residential is appropriate for areas south of Kelley Parkway. In recent >'cars the City has had its planning consultant, DSU, drafi concept plans for both areas as a guideline for discussions (sec Exhibit C). Two of the concept plans, “Study A" and “Study D”, became the City’s standard guide for developers inquiring about the property. "Study A" depicts 45-75 townhomcs north of Kelley Parkway, in a manner that would maximize the use of most of the dry land. This depiction locates Kelley Parkw ay with a southerly curve. “Study D“ depicts a minimized commercial area of Office uses to complement “Study A". It suggests a total of 4 building sites, each around 2.5 acres, each with a 20-25.000 s.f. office and associated parking, with green space ranging from 28-43% per site. Study D suggests a much more ‘open ’ character in the area between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 than is proposed by the applicant, and herein lies the issue - the intensity of the proposed residential development as compared to the guided office use. “Study D“ depicts 80-90,000 s.f of office space in one- or two-story buildings south of Kelley Parkway w ith a total footprint of about 65,000 s.f The applicants' proposal for south of Kelley Parkway is 150.000 s.f of residential footprint and 38,000 s.f of retail footprint (which they feel should bump up even higher to accommodate a larger grocery). Applicants' total combined rcsidcnliayrctail footprint is 190,000+ s.f south of Kelley Parkway, or three times the amount of building mass (not even accounting for height) than the City had been contemplating. #02-2789 Dahliironi Development LLC Mav 17,2002 Page 6 of9 L From slafTs perspective, the conversion from office to residential has pro ’s and con's. Currently the market for oHice space is very weak, yei this parcel has been sitting for nearly 15 years without any action, and markets come and go. Does it make sense to wait for the office market to develop? What if the neighborhood retail was developed at 12/Willow with office south of Kelley further west? Remember also that the City has made a commitment to providing a w idcr range of li fccyclc housing options, and this is one of only three areas in the City where the 2000-2020 CMP allows for the higher densities necessary to allow lifcc>'cle housing to happen. Staff reconameads that PlaaniagCommissioii give careful consideration to the conversion from commercial office nse to multifamily residential south of Kelley Parkway. IV. Concept Plan Discussion Punchlist Applicants have provided a detailed narrative describing the various elements of their proposal, and have provided the required submittals for the concept plan review (See Exhibits D-6 and D-7). Rather than reiterate this information, staff would offer the following punchlist of issues to be addressed if the concept review continues to move fonvard. Site Features: The full wetland delineation report should be submitted for review by staff and City Engineer. Should a tree survey be required for areas to be disturbed? This is not a specific City requirement, but is alluded to in Subdivision Code Section 11.60... the applicant should do some degree of rev iew of existing stands of trees to confirm the extent of w oodlands to be impacted and determine if any should be preserved... Development of Kelley Parkw ay: 3.Does the applicant's proposal provide the *>arkw ay" character intended by the City? Since Orono has not strictly defined the characteristics (landscaping, ligliting, pedestrian walkw'a>’5, bikew’ays, etc.) for Kelley Parkway, some attention should be given to this topic as part of the concept plan review... The City Engineer in his preliminary’comments indicates a traffic study should be completed. #02-2789 Dahttlrom Development LLC May 17. 2002 Page 7 of 9 Proposed Residential Density and Housing Types; The table below summarizes the development densities for each residential component of the site. Planning Commission should discuss whether these densities are appropriate south of Kelley Parkway, and if not, what densities might be acceptable... Planning Commission should also consider whether the applicant’s proposal includes features which help to reduce the visual impacts of higher density... A comment was made at the 5/14 work session that Orono ’s code does not allow more than four (4) residential units attached. This is true for the LR-IC-I and M-6 zoning districts, but was not adopted into the RPUD standards, primarily to allow for a wider variety of housing options in RPUD... The densities proposed for the LofVs are only allowable in the context of RPUD development that meets City housing goals. The Lofts were initially presented to staff as senior housing, but applicant indicates they arc now intended for all age brackets. Planning Commission may wish to review the CMP Housing Element, specifically housing goals, to conclude whether the proposed density increases attributed to the Lofts and the rowhouses are supportable by meeting a defined housing goal of the City (affordability, lifecycle) Recreation and Open Space: Development Areas Analysis Site Area: Upland 38.4 acres Wetland 12.8 acres Gross Area; 51.2 acres Site Area by Proposed Use: Kelley Parkway Commercial 41 Townbomes 82 Rowhouses 112 Condo Units Welland, Open Space St Siontm-ater Mgntt. 2.8 acres 5.0 anes 17.0 acres (2.4umts/ac) 9.8 acres (8.4 units/ac) 4.5 acres (24.9 units/ac) 12.1 acres (+ MnDOT Pond) 51.2 acres Overall Residential Density: 235 Units on 31.3 acres = 7.5 units/ac 2000-2020 CMP Planned Densities: -North of Kelley Parkway 3-6 units/ac -South of Kelley Parkway (Not designated; guided for commercial use) 8. What portions or areas of the residential development are devoted to the 10% private recreational areas required by the RPUD ordinance? This must be exclusive of the areas devoted to public pa^ dedication (8%)... 9. Does Planning Commission accept developer's suggestion that tot lots, tennis courts, and other recreational amenities are unnecessary for this development? Staffwould suggest that reliance on existing City facilities 1 /4-1/2 mile away will not necessarily sen e the needs of the proposed inhabitants of the various housing types proposed... M12-27I9 Dihlftrom Developiiwnt LLC hUy 17,2002 Page 8 or 9 General Issues 10. The mix/variety of dwelling lypes is a positive aspect., building height is still a potential concern, elevation views would be helpful., please provide City with specific similar Landform developments we should visit comparable to proposal... 11. Market analysis for residential and commercial - developer should provide additional detail... Stair RccomincadatioB As indicated above, the focus of review on May 20 should be on the proposed amendments to the Community Management Plan, saving discussion of details for future meetings. Staff strongly recommends against amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow the grocery store element of the development proposal, and suggests that Planning Commission place significant focus on this element in its consideration of the concept plan. Planning Commission should determine whether the other proposed retail uses are appropriate. Staff recommends that Planning Commission give careful consideration to the conversion from commercial office use to multifamily residential south of Kelley Parkway. Jr- #02-2799 DahbtTMB Drvdopmral LLC May 17.2002 Pafctoff . 0I/1V200I 12:01 FAX 0123275801 OAGHLCR SHARDLOW li IHAX 9002 ; I '\i iU ,|vi \ ''! i \K! 'i I 'W AM ' ! i ;\\ •*KO«rOILATlO CONSULTI'JC PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55401 612 J.^9 .4100 May 15.2002 Orono Planning Commission C/o Michael Gaffron, Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota SS323 RE: Orono Plaza PUD Concept Plan Dear Mike and Commission Members: At your request, we have completed a cursory review of the Sketch Plan for the proposed Ore no Plaza PUD. Let me begin by saying that there are many very positive elements to this concept and some aspects of the design are very well conceived. There are numerous important details that would have to be addressed in the design refinement process. The normal human tendency is to leap to those details, because they are so important and we all want to make sure that they get identified. The problem is that when all of these issues get thrown out, their relative importance gets obscured. The better approach is to focus on the fundamental issues first, and only after they have been addressed to your satisfaction, move on to the other details. There is no more fundamental issue than the fact that this proposed PUD is inconsistent with the Orono Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses to the south of the stretch of Kelley Parkway are ^fTerent than those shown on the adopted Land Use Plan. We strongly recommend that you focus on these inconsistencies first, and be as clear and direct as possible with the developer about what you could support and what you will not support, ns departures from the adopted Plan. f The adopted Plan does not allow retail and it does not show residential south of Kelley Parkway. For as long as IS years ago. we have been awve of the City of Orono's resolve to guide the development of the Highway 12 Corridor aw*ay from an expansion of strip commercial extending from Long Lake. That resolve was reafliimed in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Some of the reasoning behind the Land Use Plan was to avoid the appearance and character of strip commercial and another important aspect was to support the economic health of Downtown Long Lake as it redevelops. 08/11/1001 11:00 PAX 0128878001 DASmjGR SURDLOV & UBAN Q008, The proposed PUD would address a significant part of that conceni by introducing fcsideatial akxig the western end of the corridor. With the change in role and function of TH 12, when the by-pass is constructed, there may be a good ratiooale behind the change to reaideiilial use. The retail uses in the northwest cotim of TH 12 and Willow Road, however, continue to stand out as inconsislent with the Plaa The proposed grocery store is particularly noteworthy, since a grocery store would be a logical anchor use in any redevelopnieat scenario for Downtown Long Lake. The proposed restaurant and some limited retail could be a good compliment to the rest of the development and not detract sig nifican tly from Long Lake. No one should be expecting that even limited retail could be supported by the development itself. It will need to draw from the broader community in or^ to be successful, but it still should maximi/e the opportunity to connect with the adjacent residential area. In summary, the proposed PUD shows promise and has many elements that we find very positive. There are also numerous design details that need to be addressed, but they need to stand in line behind the major issues. Those fundamental issues are related to land use and the inconsistencies with the adopted Land Use Plan. It ultimately does the developen no service to beat around the bush, or spend a couple of hours diacimoing design details. If you can support residential along the corridor, if well designed and configured, then send that message. Be as clear as possible in identifying the criteria that you will be using to judge a successful design. Also be as clear as possible about your feelings about retail in general and a grocery store in particular. The developers need to understand v^iere they stand on these key issues and the sooner the better. We would welcome the opportunity to help the City with any aspect of this process. Sincerely, Dahlgren, Shardlow, A Uban, Inc. Johoj^Cshardlow.AICP Pj^dent and Director of Planning CMP Part 3B. Lamd Um Plaa a-1 extent limited by environmental constraints, each such development must be analyzed and reviewed on an individual basis. Thepropcrties identified for residential dev’elopment at densities of 2*6 units per acre iiKlude properties guide-planned for such use as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1 988, as well as properties heretofore planned for single family development at rural densities. All identified properties are located relatively high in the Lake Minnetonka water^ed, allowing ample opportunity for effective stormwater management. These properties arc detailed in the following tables and maps. site Dcacriptioo: SITE A (Parcel Group I, Map3B-7) 541-acre parcel located north of Highw ay 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road Background, Site Characteristics Planned Development Parameters A number of potential development schemes for this parcel which included townhomes ond commercial development were reviewed in 1987 which became the basis for CMP Amendment H2 adopted May 23. 1988. This site was not subsequently developed, with the exception that the City ofOrono municipal facilities were developed at the west end of the parcel in 1991. A development option for the vacant parcel was generated by the City’s consulting planner, DSU Inc., in 1998 at the City’s request, taking into account new information including the new MnDOT stormwater pond; City’s new topography- maps suggesting greater areas of wetland than previously anticipated; and the initial development of Kelley Parkway that established a service road corridor at the west end. The intent of this plan set w as to show how towuhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed. The result of the 1987 study was adoption of a plan with the follow ing components: a. An east-west service road w ill be developed connecting Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive, located approximately 300-500 feet north of Highway 12. This service road will allow for one tier of developable lots between the service road and Highway 12, such lots to have access to the serv ice road but not to Highway 12 due to traffic considerations. b. The portion of the property between Highway 12 and the service road may be dexeioped with one tier of commercial uses, to potentially include professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use. c. The portion of property north of the service road may be developed for residential uses, potentially a mix of single family and multi-family uses at a density of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre. d. Conversion from 2-acre rural zoning to to the mixture of uses described above will be subject to strict performance standards whicb were added to the Orono Zoning Code in 1989. City ofOroBoCc StV«Mikcr 2SM iHy Maaagencat Plan Page3B-34 CMPPartSB. LudUicPIui 10. roofc compact community scale retail area matches design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges L^gLake. nwLimitt the impact on north/south roadways (i.e. increased traffic M activity levels) as compared to the mop6 intense **bigboi^r retail uses. Maintains \lower activity level in the areayest of Willow Drive. 11. Would create Ins pressure for providipg an access from new Highway 12 to tl^ retail area. Accordingly, this area shouldbe developed with a mix ofcommercial uses including retail, serviceV^d offfcc components. Access via a service road paralleling High\^ .12 should still be required rather than direct access to Highway 12j^since existing trafTic levels along Highway 12 are expected to remai\at a level which makes direct all* way access difficult and dangerous^ The Highway 12 re-rq.ufe ("proposed Highway 12") when completed in approximately 2007 will have a signim^t impact on access for this area, becaus^ current Highway 12 trafnc levels are expected to increase betw^h now and 2007, then should (^rqp dramatically when the Bypass opens. However, trafTic levels on "old Highway 12" after 2007 are^)(pected to again creep upward, and the nmg-term need for a servin road may again manifest itself. For this let^n, it is in the bestyferests of the City and the business communit^to preserve at lea^a pailial service ro^ corridor between Brown Road and Willow future use, that will provide all properties with occ\^s options ^ther than direct access from Highway 12. The City suprorts the development of a "mid-point" connection to Highway 12 oirectly across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right-in, right-out configuration. Further, if and when the service road is constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should iiltifnntely be removed____________^______________ Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map 3B-7 as the ‘commercial’ portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of ihc 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent CUy ofOnMO CoBwaaily Maaafcaeal Plio ScyMStr MM Pagc3B-39 CMFPmOB. L—dP-Pt— lo the north side ofHighwity 12 for conynercialdevelofNnaiL Atihat time, the City was not dear about the type of commeidal development that should be planned for this area. Through joint discussions with the City of L<^ Lake regarding development along Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development b this area would office devel<^«ienL Office development can provide services for Orooo residrats, can provide facilities for businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality employment opportunities. The development of this area for office use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a more compact pedestrian-friendly retail area versus a non-cohesive extended strip of retail development Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access pobts onto Highway 12. Development of this service road began b 1991 with the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay Road. The City's intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north of the service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by MnDOT midway between Old Crystal Bay Rood and Willow, and the City's intent to develop the area north of the service road residcntially at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportunities for large office sites are limited. As many as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowbg the inteiKl^ residential development to occur. This area is guided for office use with mbor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. **Big box** retail uses will not be allowed within this area. CHy O tmo CMiawalty Maaagcaicat Ptaa PageJB^ C-f n ^ • •:( fV'n /N / \ - • N N ' study A - Maximized Multi-Family » 45-75 townhome units on 45 acres ► Four 2-plus acre commercial sites along Hwy 12 nSlT W-IL^ r , d i 1- •i CUj Of Of«M 1 _j Waitaia N«y. II Ut3 2JAc. Oflice Lots 2,2 Ac onkc If ]f 25,000 Sq. Ft - 2 Stories 22,000 Sq. a - 2 Stories l32P«kiit|SpKCS 111 Parking Spaces 34HOrecfl Space 32H Creea Space Lo<4 2JAc Office 21,000 Sq. Ft IHParkiogSpac 43% Often Space Lots 2.7 Ac Office 19,000 Sq. Ft 117 Parking Spaces 28% Qieen Space City Of Orono Hwy. 12 Study D Study D - Minimized Commercial Area: Office Uses ► Four 20-25,000 sf office buildings on 2.5-acre sites ► Multi-family residential north of road is undeHned, but more area available than in Study C c-% ____1 C.-.. ...1 ! 1 L—]1 -'V liniytii r.";i fyihtfftM 1 ! r-----1 1 2 1 1;•__:""•tl c:::^' r........-, f-----r-'-i"! f'1 I ”ExMVtf.f^ A r. • : lARCA tflCATION UAPC ORONO VILLAGE THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA DAHiTliOMDCmonOTLLC Pf gr.v^Tig ’ ]A8BRCVIAT10KS< BZT £rtJ!rir“ SI rtk.«w ** * Wy_____ #«« ft ■■ — ■ftlllM >■ Pifti: E-tx. •»«* • *«■ A* »ft & C3DRAVIKC 8YUB012C E> %Q A M mm I •«wft • 9*t m»a t«<« «mi C3SITE SYMBOLS ( E53 ••._ ■^■1 II ^G> « © ——- CDCROStON COKTROL SYMBOUE a’ •9W •« »»w* «.•<) IBtKCHUARKS: Gopher State One Cal sc-i-urrstr* C=}UmiTY SYMBOLS) r«p eftM ««l am » »eMAnj »PM*W VA^ BBAftn CUPAA* a A« «<-WA |U wM M(*«r •*«««•«» *A# CDSURVtY SYMBOLS( r3ifiJS-iL*ic,*A: ^weaa Aft# «M« a^ 3LCCAL DCSCmpnONC a AU#* AfVftPA •**« f# *A M«pftpew** mm^0 m mm» m —* m #••4* CZaSITE/UnUTY COKTACTS) fttYiet 1 eeurtiun ] Mirracn •<*# •ft^te* sa M a BA se 1 •** m ' rm AMBAA* !«• aM Ai mt'Ak a»A BtMB CAA4 «Aft»ft *• ftA «A Aft •«««• *lAft ^l-tP* ■ftAA »•« AM |pft>«Aft 'i^lA «• pfniw# •» aAM# MCA ftioft»e a •kJM.' #ABr AAte ; MAS aaft# ml*-» 11 •£• CT mot Sftt ,rri-s*'iawa. i ' AABM ^PA Iftaa ‘a AA^ftAft 1 , OftAB •AftMA )DEanM CONTACTS I i5:™s3 E^iS'Sss; ftM Aft •* *-ftftft -«A* ftft-MB'A^ ^ BftiftB Aft* aa-BBs 9m9 •A lA 02789 tnraoA PA9*arr rvaxrr uftMou uww CONCErr OUDMITTAL Ante 17. 2002 rtxacT ORONO VILLAGE Orono, Mirirt—otft ■»A LANDFORM OfEimiiMKEr CO.l r — CT3LESAL DESCRtPTIONC S2Si-------------r*-tt 3KOTtS( —<n MM*> M as *M■••■w • ili^«iii»imm» m m<<u<«• C=3KEYC n^S -V. ,.v / W. 0 'W' - m-- fui tw tuu bt ruT ^ 5 s^:ot:Swss25^*?^'’L uus,''Ksrr£K.i.‘^rrii3!;r^‘« I «M«« Dm MMa’l* ta -^ ■■■«»■ »» »D •mm flhM«.MmdPV OaUlSIKCMDOEUWOTUC nMfOM4ir«« «McjBaws»i i SS.. ««XUT MAMAS IM» coNcerr sudmotal Anai7.aco2 ORONO VILLAGE Oror»o. N4inr>esot« “1?- ■‘“T iMiseiM ■ew casrMOSLarKMMLTStt « PMMCC PATION rUM Cl.2 exvtwa zoH<Na oeSiOKArioN mss fiSSZ ; - ■ orr o» 1.90 uu(t f*opo5cd land use oesiaK^TioN ntoposeo zoning oesiCNArioN -.; n\ O DAHiUtONKTEUnCiTlIC tuHiMjneM R«NUMU« MaNlCMa^wm &’i-4 OaMHMO S' ^ L^5®3* HLucfi^wom CONCEfT 9UOMITTAL Afiarr. 2002 mAJKt. OR.ONO VILLAGE Orono. Minn«*oui A LANDFORM UU0UMAMOSMNOnAN C2.0 A*~- •>i aKOTtsc Cl. ‘S r.'nTr. EO czjsrrBACK summajh «««••« mm •isrsTJSSi-'^OUlintOMODEUrSCfTliCM njMivBA^unm!I n4«ccu.iiAK7 %gucsD«i.i»aM Cl' i^»*«o-c-i )ARCA SUMMAim mmmm m iMJMt# M tmtmm. m Z 1*4 *4 3Puu( suKiCAfirczz: a* CZ)PARKIKC SUUMARYC jorttHe^ I••• tm* tm i p* mrrnj fp4 «• Jir 1^49 m U S Sm •••% COISJCEFT SUDMITTAU AfU.f7.aOOS •vt r 4« #4 |%4* OR.ONO VILLAGE Ororto. NUnncMia »-«.' T.—s. r .»- . - •.•t« sa :i£L4r*- t —.JAOt A LANDFORM ^£2*789 Krt_J eo«rfnAx K*u n mr C2.1 L DES'CW GUIDELINE DESIGN GUIDELINE TYPICAL SETBACK GUiPEL»g NOISE WALL D«5niONDCTElOWCfniC lUtlCMWIlOM M«Mioan.iaiaMi ..yj «r ^ ■** esacr-* UMMMiM'aT QC 1> CONCErr SUDMnTAL Arm. 17. aoos 03 ORONO VILLAGE Orono. Minnesota LANDFORM M I «»C • I ^Jr:=r-*sn»:r eONOFTlM. tOUMUMflAN C2.2 « • • DAHiiTtoMDcm£neTur fl^PGL&iklMn ^Mca&n.w«B»M ^0-tm m pi “ E-sajrss- majKiwMiMtii CONCErr eUOMtTTAL Anurr. 2002 mnjKf ORONO VILLAQE Orono. Minnesota LANDFORM caiamw. riAf C5.1 i(\i Bonestroo £5 Rosene Ancleriik& ^\J| Associates Engineers & Architects May 9. 2002 Mr. Mike Caffrun Planning Director Ciiy of Orono Pott OfOcc Box 66 Crystal Bay. .MN 55323 •wmirM. ■•»€«*. AndMM «n« AiiofMtn. Inc. H m Allirauti** Acunn, t^Mi 0»M«t»imty (mnlay«* «ne ImptofM OcMirn riinciAalc Otto O Scv^tlroo *t • I So>«jU. rf • Otrm ■ Coo* fi • koOr't G H • trftf A BMAOon M t«n»or Confullonu^ lsC>*n W loi'nr f| • ioi*rA C An«rfU f| . t Ki'r>f Of • t.>t*n M fb«<X' C PA AiioclotoArtnctpalt: Kntn A OorOon ft • Oobtfi • flcrirtif ft • Ik H oO W four' ff •D**«IO loi*ot« fl • Wjr* A Kjmon fl • M<n«cl f ■*<«"»»»« f| • »e<J * fl • Cefmetn f An4r«tan fl • UUrt » Ooift ft • Dn>d A Bonettroo Mi A • t«rwT f WAMOnon. f I 11 • Agnrt M *«g MBA • A.ijn »<• l(*mdl ft • rr>on%fi W f«»»»ton ft • iAnri f MAjnd fl • M.t« ■ Jmtm ft • I fKA® 01 ft • 0*n«i I tOifnon ft tVTur) M»tt«ec ft • trioinM A i|rl*o ft • SnCAon J toAmon • OAr A Gro>« ft • A foutrvA ft • foOrfi J OtYTif ft oritctc. Si foA Si Cloud, fochcttcf ond WMmti. UN • MA oa A oc . in • Clacogo A WfOtito *«*i)on<tmiacom Re: Orono Plaza PUD Concept Plan File No. 139 02 000 Plat No. 02-2789 Dear Mike: We hate ret ieued the PUD concept plan for the proposed Orono Pla/a development The site is located in the northwcsl quadrant of the intersection of Willow Drive and TH 12. The proposal provides for a mix of residential housing and commercial deselopmenl. We have the following commenu in regards to engineering matters. I. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer flows from the sue will be routed to an existing sanitary sewer along the noiu. ide ofTH 12. The existing sanitary sewer then flows southerly under TH 12 through a line just west of the Golf Dome propeny. This line serves an area north of TH 12 including the public schools along Old Crystal Bay Road, tlie Willow View subdivision and the Medina Morningside neighborhiHxJ in Medina. Prior to the construction of the new Orono Middle School this sanitary line was nearly at capacity. The City recently constructed a bypass lift station along the south side of T.H. 12 to provide temporary relief for the additional flows generated by the school. During peak flow times the bypass lift station pumps into an existing MCES foiccnuin along the south side of TH 12, The lift station was an interim measure and will remain in operation until the downstream infrastructure is upgraded to provide the necessary capacity. Currently the system is at capacity and cannot accommodate the additional flows generated by the proposed development until the system is upgraded downstream from the bypass lift station. Improvements to the existing sanitary line between the bypass lift station and the railroad tracks to the south would need to be a City project. The applicant should review costs for these improvements with the City. It is our understanding the system along the railroad uacks and to the east will he upgraded as part of the proposed MN/DOT TH 12 improvement project. MN/DOT should he consulted to determine when the pri'posed s.initary sewer improvements will be completed and to verify that the necessary capacity will he pros ided Sar.iiary sewer shall be in installed in accordance with City standard details Final plans should include plan and profile views of all sanitary Water Main: The propsned water main from west to cast should he 12" DIP. The ilignmcni of the 12 ’ mam should follow the alignment of the proposed K.r Hey Parkway. Water main design throughout the .es: of the project appears acceptable. The two water mam laterals serving the units north of Kelley Parkway should be looped Final plans sh.)uld include plan and profile views of the propv'sed water mam. water mam details and service liK.aiion.>. Storm Sewer: The draft version of the Ciiy's Surface Water Management Plan (S\\ .MP) shows that this site lies w ithin th. Long Lake drainage disiricl. The nanalive provided wiih (he application prop-- c$ to c xpa.id the existing .MN/DOT pon*ls along the south side of the site. As part of the expansion the improvei:M;nls propose to lower the normal water level of the pond by installing a new outlet pipe approximately 3-fcct lower than the existing ouilel pipe The existing pond outlet pipe discharges on the south side of TH 12. Storm water then flows owrland through a drainage diich along the west side of the Golf Dome property. The drainage ditch is very flat and the Golf Dome experiences occasional flooding during heavy ram events. The developer should provide additional mfomiatinn as to where and at what elevation the proposed outlet will discharge south of TH 12. A minimum of 2-fectof freeboard should be prov ided between all basement elevations and pond high water levels. The City has storm sewer near the proposed westerly pond. Additional details such as connections to the City storm sewer, proposed emergency overflows and discharge pomu should be provided for the pond along the weu boundary All storm sewer within 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 ■ Fax. 6St-636-l3tl LANDFORM Orono VillAo* Pra^ Number TD01002 Contract Mana0er: Chris Cunmngton Location: Orono, MN Fie. Nurp Sin Conoaptualxis Nurp Pond Siting ByCNC Date: 3/26f00 INPCrr VARIABLE UNITS INPUT VALUE NOTES WatarshadAm ParvkMS Curve Number Impervious Fraction Dmign Storm acres inches 104.00 72 (SCS Soil Cover Complex) 021 2.5 (2.5 in. sVLAWMO Criterion) OUTPUT VARIABLE UNITS OUTPUT VALUE NOTES Maximum Retention Design Stonn Runoff inches inches 3 89 0.94 Pennanent Pool Volume Required Permanent Pool Volume Required ac.fl CU.fL 8.17 355,849 #2789 £xfiiStr B SSOBimrR NORTH Buumc 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MMNEAPOUS. MN 5S403 PHONE: 012^9070 FAX: 6I2JS2J077 www Irndtom iwl LANDFORM Orono Village Project Number Location Contract Manager. Date Revised; File Porxl Volume Conceptual xls Pond Volumes TD01002 Orono. MN Chris Cunnington 4/16/02 by CEC Contour Elevation Site Area (s.f) Elevation Difference (feel) Volume (cf) Cumulative Volume (cf.) Average Depth (feet) Dead Storage 996 18,910 997 21,919 1 20,396 20,396 093 998 25,013 1 23,449 43,845 1 75 999 28,587 1 26,780 70,625 247 1000 31,989 1 30,272 100,897 3 15 1001 35,573 1 33,765 134,662 379 1002 39,300 1 37,421 172,083 4 38 1003 43,208 1 41,239 213,322 4 94 1004 47,686 1 45,429 258,751 5 43 1C05 52,980 1 50,310 309.060 5 83 1006 71.591 1 62,052 371.113 518 Live Storage 1006 71,591 1007 76,759 1 74.160 74.160 0 97 1008 81,797 1 79,265 153.425 1 88 1009 86,906 1 64,339 237.763 2 74 1010 92,088 1 69,484 327.248 3 55 1011 120,725 1 106,084 433,332 3 59 39 £x»fiSir C ORONOV-2 Prepared by (enter your company name here) HyUroCADCe.OO a/n001542 C 1986^2001 AppliedMtcfocomputef Systems Pond IP: Existing Pond |86] Wamirtg: OsdUations may require smaller dt (63] Warning: Exceeded Reach 2R inflow depth by 0.01' @ 15.60 hrs Type lt2Hirf^m=5.90' Pagel ________________4/17/02 Inflow « Outflow B Primary ■ 117.56 cfs Q 12.99 hrs. VoiumeB 33.52 cfs Q 14.68 hrs. Volume= 33 52cfs@ 14.68 hrs. VoiumeB 25.443 af 25.455 af. AttanB 71%. Lags 101.8 min 25.455 af Routing by SinvRoute method, Time Spans 0.00-36.00 hrs. d(s 0.05 hrs Peak ElevB 1.014.9V Storages 401.752 cf Plug-Flow detention times (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation (feet) Surf .Area Isa-ft) lnc.Store (cubic-feet) Cum.Stcre (cubic-feet) 1.009.00 0 0 0 1.010.00 777 389 389 1.012.00 6,511 7.288 7,677 1.014.00 128,937 135,448 143,125 1.016.00 439,784 568,721 711,846 Primary OiftFlow (Dynamic Tailwater) T^lsCulverl•IsCulvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 1 .OOg OO* 24.(T x 120.17 long Culvert RCP, end-section conforming to nil, Ke« 0.500 Outlet Inverts 1.006.8V Ss 0.0183 7 ns 0.013 CcsQ.goo j-r 7?‘ ••• .> •? /“ £tHieiT t> ORONOP-1 Prepared by {enter your company name here) HvdfoCACW 6.00 s/n001S42 01986-2001 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems Type II 24-hr Rainfalt-5.90* Pagel ________________4/17/02 Pond 2P: Conceptual Proposed Pond [86) Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt Inflow Outflow Primary 114.12cfs@ 12.38hrs. Volumes 23.13 cfs @ 16.77 hrs. Volumes 23.13 cfs@ 16.77 hrs. Volumes 29.179 af 18.708 af. Attens80%, Lags 263.3 min 18.708 af Routing by Sim-Route method. Time Spans 0.00-36.00 hrs. dts 0.05 hrs Peak Elevs 1.010.52* Storages 754.377 cf Plug-Row detention times 418.1 min calculated for 18.682 af (64% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation (feet) 'Surf.Area (sa-n)Inc. Store (cubic-feet) Cum.Slore (cubic-feet) 996.00 18,910 0 0 997.00 21,919 20,415 20,415 998.00 25,013 23,466 43,881 999.00 28,587 26,800 70,681 1,000.00 31,989 30,288 100,969 1,001.00 35,573 33,781 134,750 1.002.00 39,300 37,437 172,186 1,003.00 43,208 41,254 213,440 1,004.00 47,686 45,447 258,887 1,005.00 52,980 50,333 309,220 1,006.00 71,591 62,286 371,506 1,007.00 76,759 74,175 445.681 1,008.00 81,797 79.278 524,959 1,009.00 86,906 84.352 609,310 1,010.00 92,088 89,497 698,807 1,011.00 120,725 106,407 805,214 Primary OutFlow (Dynamic Tailwater) ^IsCulvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Prlnuiry 1.006.00* 24.0- X 120.0* long Culvert RCP, end-section conforming to fill. Ke= 0.500 Outlet Inverts 1.006.80* S=-0.0067*/* n= 0.013 Ccs 0.900 ir.'.*' Evuevr £ LANDFORM Orono Village Regional Pond Oronu, Minnesota Enoine«r*t Prttfmlnary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs OcMriptioD . Units Unit Price Quantity -Item Cost RcfbNialPeed Common Excavation CY S3.00 30,000.0 $90,000 Jack/Dorc24"RCP •LF S400.00 120.0 $48,000 48* Outlet Control Slnicture EA S2.000.00 1.0 $2,000 36* RCP Stonn Sewer LF $50.00 1,130.0 $56,500 Seed AC $900.00 4.0 $3,600 SUBTOTAL $200,100 30% Contingency (Design, Adminislration, etc.)$60,030 GRANDTOTAL $260,130 : regionai pond estimates.xls Eitfimir F fI r LANDFORM b-l April 17, 2002 Michael Gaffron City of Ofono 2750 Ketiey Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: Orono Village PUD CorK:ept Plan. Commercial Site Plan. Sketch Plat. Rezoning and Land Use Goide Plan Amendment Submittai Dear Mr. Gaffron. On behalf of our client. Landform Is pleased to submit this application for PUD concept stage plan, commercial site plan, sketch plat. rezonIng and land use guide plan amendment for property located at the northwest comer of the Intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12. We are requesting approval of a PUD concept stage plan/site plan and sketch plat for the Orono Village mixed-use development. The plan includes a mix of 235 housing units, including low-density townhomes north of Kelley Parkway, rowhouses south of Kelley Parkway and the Lofts in the southwest corner of the site. We are also proposing approximately 38.000 square feet of commercial development on the southeast comer of the property. Our proposal includes construction of the planned Kelley Parkway In the first phase of development. We are requesting approval of a reguiding from Commercial to Urban Residential Medium Density (SFR/MFR) for approximately 7.22-acres and a reguiding from Urban Residential Medium Density to Commercial for 0.49-acres of this 51 -acre site to allow development of the rowhouses and the Lofts south of Ketiey Parkway, townhomes north of Kelley Parkway, and commercial in the southeast comer of the site, as shown on the attached plans. The larxJ use guide plan amendment is also required to accommodate the proposed location of Kelley Parkway. We have shifted this street slightly north to accommodate the topography, wetlands and align with the existing curb cuts. The proposed Orono Village project would require a rezoning from Single Family Rural Residential (RR-1B) to Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) and Highway Commercial District (B-6) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district. The rezonIng would be required in order to comply with the existing land use plan and the requested reguiding. If the City approves the requested reguiding, rezoning, sketch plat and PUD concept stage plan/site plan, we would prepare the required PUD master plan and plat applications for development of the site. • 90 ■urn* NOaiH ■UIIOINO Sto »i«ST A^INUI AOft, o#ricc tiiisa oora. Mc»iMlO«»on P«m2 Rr. Orono Vlag* SobmWtal Aprt 17.2002 We lequest appioval of the land use guide plan amendment, rezoning. PUD concept stage plan, commerc ial site plan and sketch plat It is my understanding that this Hem vmOI be scheduled for Planning Commission review on May 20, 2002 and City CouncH action on June 10.2002. If you have any questior^ or comments, please contact me or Steve Johnston at 612.252.9070. Sincerely. COPY: Terry Oahtstrom. Dahlstrom Development LLC *Undlorm Compaq Landfonn eao BUTLER NORTH BUniNNO 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MWNEAPOUS. KM 56403 OfFICC: ei2JS2.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 mm,3T5>. ■'5' R 9 AwBoitioo* Date Received AmoonlPald c:o CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATI Site Address m ‘tote?Type of Application to te Filed_____ Property IdenUfication Number (P.I.D.) ^ tWyri-;^fa*»y&.kHa>x «i-7ort.vw. iJiVR Pia}. i«6 JJ).> ^-Hli-33-j/-ODo-a O' ' (month/year) ... , . . , t*«wflionirt '1I>3-V30-3&S1 Nime DevC-lpproeryi LLf phone (woi tri^is - 37T- C-.»V,:0 Address Po tarr^ iLiine- City Ktplf Zip *rg3 1 1 OWNER (if differed than applicant) _ ^ ^ Phone (home) Name Arnnr) Plfl-za^' /^eiers^fJd Vhone (work)"^52- WJZ- 7/W Address Ciiy Jj/nWppl.y _Zif_k^^lCOI Date Property Acquired_____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application - $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 cxl yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls wthin 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 X $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation ______$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Ea.<*ment Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) y $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule 3 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. _i^Conjplcled Applicatioa Fonn. Describe request in detail. 5. 6. m. 7. ^ S. 9. Certified Pro;wrty Owners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Cerdfrcaie of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic sur/cy (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest b the property. This would bclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this rr.'/ucation, please attach a separate list of any other persons you vrish notified of this applicatioiL YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawbgs of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above i^ormation has not been betuded. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is coi.;rlete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________ Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonbg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covc;ed by original fee payment) and/or unustial expenses bcuned b review of this application, and certifies that the informatioo supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowledge. Ap t ir»*s signature Date owner S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature...-^*^^<g^Date 3 ' ^ ^ ^ Applicant must hive all submituls Into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission MeeU..g. Pbnniag Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicaou must be present at ail scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If an applicant b unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place arid advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to die meeting. "Lrc I ■O''.■1 ^ Application # 03. / Date Receif e^3EZ3Z2ST Amount Paid prf •_______ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIO Site address ©ft. Property Identification Number (PID) ^3 - OOQ~^ Please check one - Property ^ abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e LLC. Address *^o\oir*^ Lane, City rOfliplg _________ Phone (home). Zip5S3ll Phone (work) •OWNER (if different than applicant) Nam e Oror>o PlQ^d, Addn^r~^^d;> Vjg&4 m City Min/\ecLpioi.~<N A+1-• *T2>m ^ t*hone (home)^/ee-V (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels / Development Size _________ Present use (check) _________ \C Present Zoning District Aft Zip sytf V Phone (work) <?5D - 93«3 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units____ Other (specify) k/^a PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Lme Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units 33b__Total Units Proposed Gross Density 6JL — Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ____\ Units per Acres Sq. FL Dry Buildable Land Residentid Other (specify) OoMMecr TA-l ■^Additional Oimar: * Name: Cllb<Naae: Cilberc C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust Address: c/o Fredrlkaon & Byron (Attn: Creg Munson) 900 2nd A'*-nue South, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-24/-7146 #2789 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION ’ y. Payment of fees (refer to “applicatioo fee.” listed below. y. Completed application form. y Preliminary plat information on Cettificate of Survey. y Certified Property Owners List of owners within 3S0* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you «rish notified of this applicatioo. Zoning Official's Signanire , MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUDIEO FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION K Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appic^Ie). Signed Certificate ofSurvey or myiv copies of fotm^ plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit ZoningOfficial's Signature _____________________________________Date_____________ L APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pQ those whkb apply) A. Anpllcation Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & m) $275.00 Subdivuion of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350 00 Subdivision Applicatioo (Class I & II) $350.00 Prelimirsary Subdivision Application $400.00 $30.00fiot (Class in & all oon-residentul) Final Plat Application (Class HI) $225.00 Legal Review and Filing; _____Subdivbion only $100.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original applicatioo) _____ Renewal of Class ni. Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original applicatioo) _____ Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Piopcsed Private Roads $650.00 ♦ $.50Aineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x JO ■ $_____ _____ Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.;,_____lin. ft. x .50 “ $_____ Request for City to Accept Existbg Private Road $950.00 Proposed Sanitary Setver Main Extension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 *■ $2s/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 On-Site System. Site F^’aluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $60.00/per lot X_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Mlsc. Fees _____Variance $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $3 5.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Appli^* s Owner's SItmature /g Date Applicant must have^^S^m^rts ^^^^^73a>^f6elore lEVpf^ing Commbsion 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 anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorued agent attend in your place and to advise the Building &. Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I \/o o '•a h ClTYoT ORONO Miinidpai OfDcts StmtMdrtn: 27SO Kdlcy Ptrintay Orono, MN 55356 MailiRilMratt: P.O. Boi 66 C>ystjl Bay, MN 55323-0066 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2. "Rights of subjects of data", we woold like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its dv partments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the e.xtent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may tmome public. 5. You have certain rights under M S. 13.04 (sec following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle Last Qv^’^g\J€.io^tY\grt4 LLC ^*7^5" ?o\grr.S Address 4-m State 5'53ll mi. Phone I understand my rights as stated above. /Signature TeUphooe (612) 2494600 March 11.2002 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Ororvo Village Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely. Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partr>ership Owner's Signatur e: Dale #2789 March 11.2002 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Orono Village Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely. Gilbert C. Braun Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust Owner's Signature: Dale ^ ' J #2789 i MM DATE il/17/»2 lATCN 59A rtOf ASM OMCB MMC TARfAYER NAHE/ASDR 5S 27-11B-23 53 ROIR M7At OICKCV LAKE DR ARRANAH TNOttAS ARRAMAIf TNDtUS 7AR DICKY LAKE DR LOfW LAKE m &S3SA HCPME71N COUNTY RROfERTY INfORMATlON SYSTCn fROPERTY ONNERS LIST SR 27-na-2S S3 1010 M77t DICKEY LAKE OR C 0 LEUKUnA A J N LEUKUNA CHARLES D ■ JILL H LEUKUNA 77* DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN SS3Sh REPMT NO. Pl<i3Mi*l PACE 3* 3« 20-118-23 A3 flOOS ••770 OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD N IND SCHOOL DIST R27R lORONOl ATTN SUPERINTENDENT INO SCHOOL OIST 0270 lORONOI AOS OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE IM 553SA L L I L C c L K 'C L C PROP OWNER NAHC TARPAYER NANC/AOOR PROP ASM ONNER NANi TARPAYER NANE/AOM PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ASM OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOM AOM OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 3R ZR-llR-23 A3 »§«» 00«o OIBOi OLD CRYSTAL RAY RO N INO SCHOOL OIST NO 27R INO SCHOOL DIST NO 278 AONIN OPE ICE-SUPERINTENDENT AM OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE NN 5S35A 38 28-118-23 AA B88A 888AS WILLOW VIEW M WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1321 YATH LA N E NPLS NN SSAAY 38 28-118-23 AA 0087 •0Y8S WILLOW VIEW OR HANS P RCR6H/SHAR0N P BER6H HANS P 8 SUSAN P 8ER6N 1088Y CHATHAN CT N BURNSVILLE HN 55337 38 33-118-23 11 BBtl 0I83R ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO ORONO PLA2A ORONO PLAZA C/0 REIERSCORO LAW OF71CE ASIB AATH ST W NPLS HN S3A2A 38 33-118-23 13 8882 82A87 WAYZATA BLVO W ACC PROPERTIES LLC ACE PROPERTIES LLC 5588 ANDERSON ESTATES RO NAPLE PLAIN IM 55358 38 28-118-23 AA 8882 88885 WILLOW VIEW DR 0 R SANS 8 N J SANS DOUGLAS R 8 NARY J SANS 1185 LOtU LINDA AVE ORONO NN 553AA 38 28-118-23 AA 8885 88885 WILLOW VIEW OR WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 AATH LA N E NPLS HN 55AA8 38 28-118-23 AA 0818 88838 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 AATH LA H E HPLS HN 55AAA SR 33-118-23 12 8887 82788 KELLEY PKWY H R A CITY OP ORONO H R A CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROWN RO S WATZATA NN 553A1 38 33-118-23 IS 881A 82725 WAYZATA BLVO W VEDA DC VEDA INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE NN 55358 3B 28-118-23 AA 8883 88825 WILLOW VIEW DR LCCRAN CORP ' ECRAN CORP 1521 *ATH LA N C BLAINE HN 55AAA 38 28-118-23 AA 8888 88885 WILLOW VIEW M WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 AATH LA N E HPLS HN 55AAA 38 28-118-23 AA 8828 88838 ADDRESS UHASS16HE0 WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 AATH LA N E HPLS HN 55AAA 38 33-118-23 12 8888 827AS KELLEY PKWY WILLOW PROPERTIES WILLOW PROPERTIES C/0 ALBERT 8 VNGVE A535 816 RICE LAKE OR N C REHER HN 58872 38 33-118-23 IS 8815 82885 WAYZATA BLVO W ORB BB LLC ORB 88 LLC C/O BUSCIi/PREORlCKSON/BVRON A88 2ND AVE S 1188 INTRNL CT NPLS NN 55A82 #2789 ■UN DATE tl/IZ/M •ATCM SM M M-llt*2S 22 taOS rmf ADM aarai oxckcv lake de OMNEE NAME P A K PUGN TAXPAVEE PATEXCX A RAECN PU6N MAHE/ASOE 725 OXCKCV LAKE OE LONG LAKE NN S5S5A HENNEPIN COUNTY PEOPCETV INFOENATION SV5TEN PEOPEETY ONNEKS LXST SA M'X1A-2S 22 OaOY 00755 OXCKCV LAKE OR T G ESAU AHA ESAU TCRRANCC 0 A NARY A ESAU 755 OXCKCV LARC OR LONG LAKE IM 55U0 REPORT NO. PXA35A0L PAGE S7 SA M-11A-2S 22 00X0 00755 DXCKEY LAKE OR JANES PENSKC JANES E FCNSKC 7b5 OXCKCV LAKE OE LONG LAXC NN 55S5A SA SA-XX0-2S 22 0010 PROP AOOE 02S50 MAVZATA OLVO M ONNCR HANK CAL OTTCN TAKPAVER CLXPPOEO A LOUXSE OTTEN NAIK/AOm BOX 200 LONG LAKE NN 55350 SA SO-11A-2S 22 OOIA 0003A ADDRESS UNASSXGNCO CAL OTTCN CLXFFORO A LOUXSE OTTCN BOX 200 LONG LAKE fW 55350 3A 30-lia-23 22 0020 0003A AOORESS UNASSXGNCO CAL OTTEN CLXFFORO A LOUXSE OTTCN BOX 200 LONG LAKE NN 55350 72 S3-110-2S 10 0011 PEOr AOOE 02000 INDUSTRIAL BLVO H OMNEE NANS ETCO PROPERTIES INC TAXPAYER ETCO PROPERTIES INC NANE/ADOE 15500 MAVZATA BLVO R750 MAVZATA NN 55301 72 33-11A-2S 10 0012 02020 INOUSTRXAL BLVO M LUSC AND SON XNC SAFCMAV STORAGE XNC 2020 W INDUSTRIAL BLVO LONG LAKE NN 5535b 72 33-11A-23 10 0115 02030 INDUSTRIAL BLVO M ETCO PROPERTIES XNC ETCO PROPCRTXES XNC 15500 MAVZATA BLVO 0750 MAVZATA NN 55391 L L PROP AOOE OMNEE NANC TAXPAYER HANC/AOOR PROP AOOE ONNCR NANC TAXPAYER HANC/AOOE PROP AOOE OMNEE NAME TAXPAVEE 72 33-110-23 10 0020 02055 INDUSTRIAL BLVO M LARTCN OCVELOPHENT CO FREO HANUS 15001 MEST OAKS niNNETONKA NN 55305 72 33-110-23 10 002b 02000 INDUSTRIAL BLVO M SPEEDMAV SUPERANCRXCA LLC SPEEDWAY SUPERANCRXCA LLC C/O PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 539 HAXN ST S FXNOLAY ON 05000 72 30-11B-23 23 0003 02305 MAVZATA BLVO M R E 0 B N HAUGEN CT AL OSCAR SEVCO 1 NOURX HAKXHl 72 33-110-23 10 0021 02Ob5 INOUSTRXAL BLVO W LARTCN OEVCLOPNCNT CO FREO HANUS 15001 MEST OAKS NINNETONKA NN 55305 72 30-110-23 23 0001 02399 MAVZATA BLVO M GEOROAVN C KRANER CEORGAYN C KRANER 2990 SUNHCR SET LA LONG LAKE IM 5535b TOTAL BATCH 504 BB0S4 NAHE/AOOR 5905 BERNARD PL EOXNA NN 55034 #2789 72 33-110-23 10 0025 02010 INDUSTRIAL BLVO M SYSTEM CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP HC DONALDS CORPORATION P 0 BOX bb207 ANF OHARE CHICAGO XL bObbb 72 30-110-25 23 0002 023bS MAVZATA BLVO M R E 0 B N HAUGEN CT AL OSCAR SEYEO 0 HOURX HAXXHI 5915 BERNARD PL EDINA NN 55034 ■UN BATE tl/lZ/tZ ■ATCN SM HCNNiriN COUNTY fROPERTY INFORHATIDN SYSTEM PROPERTY OtmCRS LIST REPORT NO. PlASSARl PACE M 1 L L L 28 28-U8>23-43-0011 2680 KELLEY PKUY CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 i , L i. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORK. I • PUD CONCEPT STAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS We have reviewed the PUD concept stage plan submittal requirements as outlined in Section 10.53 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to simplify City review of the submittal, we have noted each submittai requirement and identified where this information can be found or. in cases were the information is not yet available, when the information will be submitted. 1. PreUir^nary ptat and Information required by subdivision Title. A sketch plat has been prepared to provide the City with a general idea of how the property will be platted for this development; however, the preliminary plat is not included in this submittal package. Following City Councii approval of this application package. Landform will prepare a preiiminaiy plaL final plat and PUD development stage plan application for review and approval. 2. General Information a. The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subfect property. The subject property is owned by Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership. The larxlowner may reached at Orono Plaza Attn: Tom Relersgord Reiersgord Law Firm 4500 West 44** Street Minneapolis. MN 55424-1001 An undivided interest for the southeast 7.41 acres of the property has been conveyed to Gilbert C. and Anna Lou EUa Braun Charitable Remainder Trest. pursuant to an unrecorded deed. Mr. Braun is also a partner In Ororro Plaza. b. The applicant s name if different from the landowner. Dahistrom Development LLC is the applicant. c. The names and addresses of all professional consulfanis who have contributed to the devek^ment of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. . J.- - • 650 BUTLER NORTH BUiirXNG 510 FIRST AvENUE NORTH MNNCAROUS. A«N 5S403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www landfom n«« MchMiGalkon PaBe2o«6 Rt PUD Concept Plan SUgt SobnutUi Raqmrenients Apnl 17.2002 Planner Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minneapolis. MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Wetland Consultant Kjolhaug Environmental Services 28105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood. MN 55331 Phone: 952.401.8757 Fax: 952.401.8798 Englrwer Landform 510 First Avenue North. #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Surveyor Landform 510 First Avenue North. #650 Minneapolis. MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Attorney Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis. MN 55402-3205 Phone: 612.344.1111 Fax: 612.344.1414 d. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the property to effectuate the propo^ PUD. including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. We have attached a letter from the property owner authorizing the applicant to submit this and any other required applications. Present Status a. The address and legal description of the properly. The vacant property !oes not yet have an address assigned. The legal description is as follows: Outlot B. Willow Properties Addition, except parcel 201 and 201a Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-57. 6S0 butler NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVE^ NORTH MlNNEAPOC OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 Undform net Mchod Oafiron Page 3 ol 6 Re PUO Coocept Plan Stage Submittal Reguncmenis Apnl 17. 2002 The existing zoning dassification and present use of the sut^eef properly and ail lands within 1,000 feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant and zoned RR-1B. The property to the north and east is guided Rural Residential. 2K>ned RR-1B/RPD and RR-1B. respectively, and developed with single family homes. The property to the east, south of Kelley Parkway externfed. is guided commercial, zoned B-6 (Mighwny Commercial) and developed with commercial uses including Otten Brothers Nursery. The property to the south, across Highway 12 in the City of Long Lake, is guided Commercial and Industrial, zoned B-2A. M and I-2 and developed with a mix of retail commercial, service retail and industrial uses. The property to the southeast, across Highway 12 in the City of Orono, is guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. The property to the west is guided Public/SemHPublic and Commercial and is zoned RR-1B. The property guided Public is developed as Orono City Hall and Public Works and the property guided Commercial is currently vacant. We have included sheet C2.0 in the submittal package to identify the existing uses, larxf use and zoning on the surrounding property. A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within 1,000 feet thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, properly lines, easements, watermains and storm and sanitary sewers with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet of the property. The subject property Is currently vacant. We have included an existing conditions map in the submittal package (sheet Cl .1). A written statement generally describing the PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the pre^yosed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. A narrative describing the Orono Village project is included in the submittal package. Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions on a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet. i \ The existing conditions map is included on sheet C1.1 of the attached plans 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 5S403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612252 9077 www landlomiJiet Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not linvted to the general location of major circulation elerr^nts. public and common open space, residential and other land uses 00 The PUO concept stage plan/site plan is included in this submittal package (sheet C2.1). . ii__ Mkhael GaNren Pag«3oie Re PUD Concept Plan Slafle SubmilUl Reouircments April 17. 2002 Mctiael Gaffron Page4of6_ Re PUD Concept Plan SUge Submittal ReqoiremenH April 17. 200'* b. The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within 1,000 feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant and zoned RR-1B. The property to the north and east Is guided Rural Residential, zoned RR-1B/RPD and RR-1B. respectively, and developed with single family homes. The property to the east, south of Kelley Parkway extended, is guided commercial, zoned B-6 (Highway Commercial) and developed with commercial uses including Otten Brothers Nursery. The property to the south, across Highway 12 in the City of Long Lake, is guided Commercial and Industrial, zoned B-2A. I-1 and 1-2 and developed with a mix of retail commercial, service retail and industrial uses. The property to the southeast, across Highway 12 in the City of Orono. is guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. The property to the west is guided Public/Semi-Public and Commercial and is zoned RR-1B. The property guided Public Is developed as Orono City Hall and Public Works and the property guided Commercial is currently vacant. We have Included sheet C2.C in the submittal package to identify the existing uses, land use and zoning on the surrounding properly. c. A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within 1,000 feet thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easemenfs. watermains and storm and sanitary sewers with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant. We have included an existing conditions map in the submittal package (sheet Cl. 1). d. A written statement generally describing the PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neight)onng property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. A narrative describing the Orono Village project is included in the submittal package. e. Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions on a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet. The existing conditions map is included on sheet C1.1 of the attached plans f. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. The PUD concept stage plan/site plan is Included In this submittal package (sheet C2.1). 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH KUNNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 Undlomi nrt r*-- 9 A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of Vie pmposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percentage of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: I. Area developed to residential uses. Orono Village would include 235 market rate homes in a variety of housing styles. Approximately 42 acres of this 51-acre parcel will be devoted to townhomes, rowhouses and the Lofts. The remainder of the site is dedicated to streets arid limited, neighbomood commercial. li. Area developed to residential by building type. Approximately 30 acres of property north of Kelley Parkway are planned for 41 townhomes. 8 acres of property in the center of the site are planned for 82 rowhouses. and 4 acres of property in the southwest comer of the site are planned for 112 units in the Lofts. Hi. Area devoted to common open space. We have provided a Town Square in the commercial area and a Village Green near the Lofts. Both of these common areas are intended to encourage use by the residents of the neighborhood and visitors. The Town Square will be a community gathering space where Orono residents can linger over a cup of coffee or ice cream and visit with friends and neighbors. The Orono Village association would maintain both of these areas, which total approximately 0.6 acres. Our concept plan and sketch plat includes common lots over the wetland areas and surrounding the townhomes. as well as outlets for the private drives and private streets. The total area for the common open space areas, common lots and outlets is 28.5 acres. iv. Area devoted to public open space. No public open space is proposed. The current plan shows a large portion of the site as common open space with private trails and sidewalks throughout the development. While these trails will be maintained by the Orono Village, they will be open to use by the public. Given the proximity of a number of public spaces at the City Hall complex and school facilities, a large public open space within this development would be redundant. However, we have provided public trails along Kelley Parkway. Willow Drive and Highway 12. Additionally, we have retained large wetland areas within the development and have provided private trails around those features. The private trails and sidewalks within Orono Village will be maintained by the HOA. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www landform nel (•/ MdkMlGafiron Pm«SoI6 PUD Conupl Plan Stage S^Amiltal Reqiawnenit Apnl 17.2007 V. Approximate area devoted to streets. Approximately 2.8 acres of the property would be dedicated to Kefley Parkway, a public street, arxl 2.8 acres would be devoted to the private streets located in the proposed ou;«ols. vi. Approximate area devoted to. and nurr^r of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. The concept plan shows general compliance vi/ith City’s minimum parking standards. The townhomes and rowhouses have a minimum of two parking stalls for each unit as required by tha Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the two dedicnled parking stalls for each unit, additional guest parking is provided in the townhome driveways and 46 on-street parking spaces on the private streets adjacent to the rowhouses. The commercial area would also comply with the City parking requirements. The Lofts would have one underground parking space per unit plus surfara parking. We believe the proposed parking would be more than adequate for this use. The concept plan shows 99 surface parking spaces at the Lofts and 271 surface parking spaces in the commercial area. The total area devoted to these surface parkkig staRs is approximately 1.5 acres (exclusive of access aisles and drives). We have proposed screened loading areas for the larger commercial building. This loading area for the grocer would be screened fr^m Willow Drive. Smaller vehicles would likely serve the smaller commercial buildings and loading would lake place through the front door. Trash enclosures would be designed to be an integral part of the principal building. Access to this development would be provided from Kelley Parkway. There would be no direct access to Highway 12 or Willow Drive vii. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. The coTKept plan shows approximately 39.000 square feet of complementary^ retail space in the southeastern 5.6 acres of the Orono Village mixed-use PUD. / w«. Approximate area, and floor area, devofed to industrial or office uses. r No industrial uses are proposed. Office uses may be located in the retail buildings. •/ 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING S10 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 5540T OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX bt2 252 907.' tendform net r McliMtGaffron Pag«6ol6 Re PUO Concct>t Pten Siege Sub«n<Rel RequeemenH Apnl 17. 3002 h. When the PUD is to be constnicted in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single constniction season, a schedule for the de\fek)pment such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or corrvnon open space and dwelling units to be provided or constmcted during each such stage and overali chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. If the planned development is approved by mid-summer, the developer would begin construction in 2002. However, if approvals are delayed, the proposed scheduled would also be delayed. The initial phase would include construction of Kelley Parfcway, several townhomes and rowhouses in the central portion of the site in 2002/2003. Phase II would irKlude the remainder of the townhomes arxf rowhouses In 2004/2005. The Lofts and the commercial portion of the site may be constructed as anytime. A graphic representation of the proposed staging plan is included in the submittal package as sheet C5 2 I. When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or corrvnon open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or sen/ice facilities. Maintenance of the common open space, private drives, private sidewalks/trails and community spaces will be the responsibility of the Homo Owners Association (HOA). Covenants will be drafted and submitted to the City with the PUD development stage plan and filed wHh the title to the properly. The City will maintain the public trails along Willow, Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway. j. Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to the property included in the proposed PUD. Landform will prepare developmenl starxlards that will be included in the covenants for the property. A draft of those documents will be submitted with the PUD development stage plan and filed with title to the property. The PUD concept stage plan narrative provides a general description of the development plan. k. Schematic utility plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. The schematic utility plans are included In this submittal package on sheet C4.1. u 2 Uvenl 'E nor"tmeSOBOTlERNORrHBUiLtXNG SiOFi OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 AF^IS 5540) * '' tandtom n«l t>'7 ORONO VILLAGE NARRATIVE Land Use Guide Plan Amendment Landfoim is requesting approval of a reguiding from Commercial to Urban Residential Medium Density (SFR/MFR) for approximately 7.22-acres and a reguiding from Urban Residential Medium Density to Commercial for 0.49-acres of this 51 -acre site. The requested reguiding to residential would allow us to rezone the property and construct the Lofts and rowhouses south of Kelley Parkway. The reguiding from Residential to Commercial is simply the result of Kelley Parkway being shifted north to line up with the existing curb cuts on Willow Drive. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that everything south of Kelley Parkway will be developed as commercial, however, the street was shown only 300 feet north of Highway 12. Our proposed Kelley Parkway alignment is slightly north of the planned alignment, consequently, the Land Use Guide Plan map must be amended to show the new alignment and the additional commercial south of Kelley Parkway near Willow Drive. The property Is currently vacant, but has been the subject of a number of city discussions over the years. The property was recently reviewed as part of the City's recent Comprehensive Plan update The City's Plan identifies a general alignment for the planned Kelley Parkway and identines the property south of Kelley Parkway as Commercial and the properly north of Kelley Parkway as Urban Residential Medium Density. The City has indicated a desire for office uses on the commercial portion of this site and has suggested that this property be developed in a way that does not compete with the retail uses in downtown Long Lake. Our analysis shows that the area would not support the amount of office the City planned for the site; however, some retail commercial could be provided to serve this neighborhood and provide retail uses that are not planned or available in Long Lake. We are proposing to reduce the planned commercial area and limit the commercial uses to the southeast portion of the site. The requested reg'tiding would allow development of housing south of Kelley Parkway where commercial was originally planned and would allow additional commercial development south of the realigned Kelley Parkway as intended by the City. The reguidIng from commercial to residential would allow development of Orono Village as a town center with a mix of housing types providing life-cycle housing opportunities for the community. The proposed reguiding would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the mix of residential and commercial land uses would allow for the creation of a truly walkable community that would be an asset to the City of Orono and would complement the existing and planned development in the City of Long Lake. The building mass of the Lofts would be similar to the mass of a commercial office building that could be constructed under the existing land use plan. The loft residential planned in the southwest portion of the site would be three-story buildings and would generate less traffic than the permitted office use. _ _ 650 BUTLER north BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTm Mi.NNEA^lS. MfRwOa 1-—•. .s OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 landlomt n«l MKtiaH Gaffron Page 2 ol 1 Re On>oo Village Narrative April17. 2002 We respectfully request approval of the reguiding from Commercial to Urban Residential Medium Density (SFR/MFR) for approximately 7.22-acres and a regulding from Urban Residential Medium Density to Commercial for 0.49-acres of this 51-acre site, based on the finding that reguiding would comply with the spirit and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, would provide life^cycle housing opportunities for Orono residents, would provide limited retail to serve the neighborhood and would allow development of the mixed use Orono Village as proposed. Rezoning Currently, the property is zoned Single Family Rural Residential (RR-1B). This zoning is rwt consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan. Landform is requesting approval of a rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and Highway Commercial District (B-6) with a PUD overlay district. This rezoning would be consistent with the existing land use plan and the requested land use guide plan amendment. The rezonIng would also be consistent with the Section 10.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area. Specifically: 1. The project area exceeds five acres in size. 2. The proposed development would include construction of Kelley Parkway and would be consistent with the City's Transportation Plan. 3. Sanitary sewer and municipal water are available to serve the subject properly and the utility system has sufficient capacity for this development. 4. This development complies with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 5. The requested RPUD/PUD and B-6/PUD zoning distncts are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 12 Corridor Study. 6. The Orono Village mixed-use development will be designed with attention to detail and the use of high-quality materials. PUD Concept Stage Plan/Site Plan Landform Is requesting approval of a PUD concept stage/site plan approval to allow development of this 51 -acre site as Orono Village, a mixed-use development offering life-cycle housing opportunities to Orono residents and a limited amount of complementary neighborhood commercial. The proposed mix of housing and neighborhood commercial will be an asset to the City of Orono and the surrounding neighborhood. The upscale housing will provide lifecycle housing opportunities for Orono residents and the retail component will provide needed retail and service commercial, as well as. a convenient neighborhood gathering place. 650 butler north BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612^52 9077 wmm lanctionnnM ( 1 Uv Michael Gaflroo Page 3 0(7 R« 0«ono Village Natf.itive Apnl 17. 2002 Our development includes construction of the planned Keiley Parkway in the first phase. The Orono Viliage project presen/es nearly ail of the wetland area, while creating open space and recreational opportunities throughout the site. We have designed the townhomes north of Kelley Road to take advantage of the wetland views. This townhome layout provides beautiful views for the homeowners and also allows us to retain the existing vegetation on the north side of the property. The existing vegetation will be preserved to serve as a buffer between the townhomes and the existing single family detached homes to the north. Furthermore, we have designed the project so that the nearest townhome Is over 300 feet away from the nearest detached single family home. The existing vegetation, proposed plantings and distance between the single family detached homes and the townhomes will provide a buffer and transition between housing types. Orono Village is proposed as a mixed-use development offering an approach to life- cycle housing that is unique in this community. A mix of 235 townhomes. rowhouses and Lofts will be constructed and approximately 38.000 square feet of commercial will be included to serve the neighborhood needs. These homes will appeal to Orono residents who are seeking a retirement home for their parents or themselves, “empty- nesters" looking for a smalier-but still upscale-home, or to those are seeking to simplify their life with a condominium or townhouse. We also anticipate the rowhouses to be a viable first home for young professionals-particularly the children of current residents who would like to start their own families in Orono. This site is unique because it is near community facilities, including City Hall and the Orono educational campus, which includes an elementary school, middle school, and high school and offers community programming and recreational facilities. These facilities make this a natural location for seniors, who tend to be active participants in community programming, such as adult education, and volunteers in schools. Orono Village will encourage this participation by providing sidewalks and streetscaping to create truly walkable streets connecting the new community with the public facilities The majority of the property north of the planned frontage road would be townhomes and would become less dense as you move north. The rowhouses are set along the gently curving road, closer to the Lofts. Private cul-de-sacs with the townhomes overtook the wetlands to the north. In order to buffer the rowhouses from the City Public Works facility to the west, we have proposed an increased structure setback with a berm, noise wall and landscaping. This will provide an excellent transition between these uses. The development north of Kelley Parkway would be low-density development with a net density of 2.7 units per acre where the Comprehensive Plan anticipates 3-6 units per acre. The property south of Kelley Parkway is planned as an urban village. An additional 71 rowhouses are planned in this portion of the site. The rowhouses will be located near the MnDOT ponids and will be centrally located within the site. These rowhouses would have front porches on Main Street. Main Street is planned as a private. 36-foot wide street with parking on both sides of this tree-lined street. 650 butler NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 miwm Undform ncl L, UcttaH Oalfron Papa 4 0*7 Re Orono VilaQe Narrabw ApnJ 17. 2002 The Orono Village plan also includes the Lofts with 112 homes on the southwest portion of the site, which is adjacent to Highway 12 and is currently zoned for commercial development. The natural buffer would be enhanced with new landscaping which would separate the housing from the highway. The residential area south of Kelley Parkway will be developed at an urban density. This area was planned for commercial and the proposed residential would result in traffic counts similar to an office use. This location is Ideal for residential because of its proximity to the civic center, downtown Long Lake and the neighborhood commercial proposed for the southeast comer of Orono Village. The net density for this area would be 13.6 units per acre. On the southeast corner of the site, near Otten Brothers Nursery, we are proposing a limited amount of neighborhood commercial. This retail is a key component of the walkable neighborhood concept, which is based on the notion that convenient service retail should be located within one-quarter mile of residential. The proposed retail portion of this development could include approximately 38,000 square feet of retail and office uses, including an upscale grocer, a sit-down restaurant and other service retail including a possible drug store or coffee shop. The B-6 zoning district allows retail commercial uses as part of a PUD. The retail component of this development is critical if we are to create a truly walkable neighborhood for Orono residents. All of the Orono Village residents would be able to walk down to the Orono Village commercial center for a cup of coffee, lunch with fnends or to pick up groceries. We have met with the City of Long Lake’s planner and reviewed their downtown master plan and design guidelines. The City of Long Lake has identified a need for a small grocer in the area, but there is currently no viable location for a grocer in Ihe City of Long Lake. We believe that this intersection is a prime location for an upscale grocer and other neighborhood commercial uses. We have had preliminary discussions with a number of upscale grocers who have expressed interest in this area and have indicated that a location on north side of Highway 12 is preferred. Commercial development on this corner would be consistent with the commercial development on the other three comers of this Intersection. Furthermore, our analysis shows that this comer would be well suited for neighborhood commercial uses, which would support the walkable neighborhood concept in Orono Village. Orono Village is planned around the natural features of the site, which include several large wetlands, and stands of mature maples and basswood. These wetlands, which have been disrupted over the years, will be restored to the extent allowed by the Watershed District to a beautiful natural feature for both Orono Village residents and the surrounding neighborhoods. Trails for walking and biking will wind through the site, connecting with amenities such as the Town Square in the commercial area and a Village Green near the Lofts. The wetlands will also form a natural buffer between the existing single family neightx)rhoods north and east of the site and the commercial development along the highway. We will have wetland impacts as part of the road construction. We are proposing to mitigate on-site as required by the watershed district and the Wetland Conservation Act. 650 butler north BUILDING 510 FiRST AVENUE NORTH WlNNEAf»OtlSM.N 554C3 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAA 617 252 9077 www Un<}4omi nd K<iCh»et Galfron PaO* 9 o' 7 Pe Ofooo Vill.iq*? Narrative AcfJ 17. 200? We have designed an environmentally sensitive project that preserves and enhances wetlands, preserves existing vegetation on the project edges and provides rain gardens In the cul de sac islands to reduce water runoff. We are proposing to expand the MnOOT ponds to provide storm water management for the site. We submitted a letter to MnDOT requesting permission to expand these ponds. A copy of this January 16, 2002 letter is attached. MnDOT stated that they City of Orono must initiate this action on our behalf. We have discussed this issue with City staff and our January 30, 2002 letter to Mike Gaffron requested that the City initiate contact with MnDOT. The design of Orono Village will offer a rich, warm material and color palette, which responds to the site's immediate context, including City Hall. Suggested materials will include stone, several colors of buff and red brick, and accents of terra cotta and wood. Overall the colors will have the warmth of the local stone and brick, as well as natural wood with accents of evergreen and blues. We are requesting approval of PUD concept stage plan/site plan. Following City approval of the concept plan, we will submit a detailed PUD master plan for City review and approval. While submittal of development standards and covenants would be premature at this time. Landform has developed some general design guidelines for this project. We have reviewed the City of Long Lake Downtown Master Plan and Design Guidelines and we will incorporate those standards into the Orono Village design where feasible. Orono Village has been designed to create a walkable neighborhood with consistent development standard and materials. The following guidelines will be expanded with details when we create the Orono Village development standards and covenants; Architecture • Material and color palette shall be contextual with the existing surroundings, selected and compatible with the overall buildings: • Buildings must have an expressed "base ” and "cap”, and the resulting "middle" of the exterior wall should be proportionate to the base and cap; • The base matenal shall be consistent with the landscape elements; • The cap should include the sloped roof, and a well-expressed, trimmed eave; • Gable or hipped roofs are appropriate to convey the residential character of the buildings, but large, continuous roofs are not acceptable; • Porches are encouraged for curb interest, residential character, energy savings, and to encourage neighbor interaction along the street: • Exterior lighting shall compliment the architecture and landscape, while increasing security; placement of lighting shall prevent light spillage onto adjoining property. Parking & Garages • Resident parking shall be provided within each building; • Guest parking may include a combination of on- and off-street parking: 650 butler north BUILDING 510 FiRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 wwm lancKorm net 05 CQ MbchMl Caffron P»ge 6 ol: R« Orono Vitage Narrabve Ap»il i;.2002 All residential buildings shouid be designed such that the garage doors are not the most prominent feature of the exterior, particularly when seen from the public street; Garage doors shall be compatible with the overall color palette; Accessory garage buildings and carports are prohibited; Parking lots are only proposed to provide guest parking at the senior cooperative and customer parking in the commercial area. Sidewalks & Streets Pedestrian-safe sidewalks or trails shall be provided along all public streets; Pedestrian-safe sidewalks shall be provided along all private streets adjacent to the rowhouses and senior cooperative building; Sidewalks shall be lit by pedestrian-scale lighting, which may be combined with or separate from the local street lighting; Different paving materials shall be used to designate pedestrian-safe crossings; Street trees should be placed on average every 35 feet on the streets, and Landscaped boulevards are encouraged on the public streets and the pedestrian-oriented Main Street. Open Space S Landscape Landscape buffers shall be used to screen roadways (e g. Highway 12) and provide privacy. Wetlands will be preserved and enhanced through environmentally safe design. Trails shall wind through the wetland areas; Trails and sidewalks will connect with trails outside the site. Setbacks The walkable neighborhood concept encourages a reduction in the standard front yard and internal setbacks; Encroachment of residential porches, verandas, stoops and similar entry features are encouraged in front yards; Residential porches, verandas, stoops and similar entry features will be encouraged. Commercial Setbacks Building Setbacks: 35 feet from Kelley Parkway. 35 fee! from Willow Drive. 50 feet from Highway 12; Parking Setback; 20 feet from exterior lot lines. The Lofts Building Setbacks; 50 feet from Highway 12. 25 feet from Kelley Parkway. 35 feet from exterior lot lines; Parking Setbacks. 20 from all exterior lot lines; 650 butler north BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 F/LX 612 252 9077 www UnClonn net MchMlGallran P«g« 7 o» 7 Re Orono VAege Narrative Aph117. 2002 • Buildings shall have entrances to traits and sidewalks along the street side and along the wetlands and creek side of the building; • Parking shall be buffered with the use of landscaping. Townhomes • Buildir)g setbacks: 25 feet along Kelley Parkway. 35 feet from exterior lot lines; • A walkout or lookout on private backyard; • Combine driveways where possible to reduce the number of curb cuts; • A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided in an attached garage for each unit. Rowhouses • BuiWir>g setbacks: 25 feet along Kelley Parkway, 50 feet from Highway 12. 35 feet from exterior lot lines; • Porches are located In the front yard; • Rear balconies for each unit; • Guest parking located in the front of the building; • Two spaces shall be provided in a tuck-undor garage for each unit. Sketch Plat We have included a sketch plat for City review and approval. The sketch plat is simply intended to provide the City with some idea of how the property will be developed. Orono Village Is proposed as a mixed-use PUD with common lots, private drives, private streets, private sidewalks. Town Square and Village Green that will be maintained by the association. The townhomes would be platted as envelope lots surrounded by a common lot. the rowhouses would be platted as condominiums and the loft buildings would be platted on a single lot. The commercial buildings are also proposed to be platted as condominium tots with shared parking and access. Summary Landform Is pleased to submit this application for approval of the mixed-use Orono Village development. We request City Council approval of the PUD concept stage plan/site plan and sketch plan, as well as City Council approval of the land use guide plan amendment and rezonir>g to PUD contingent upon filing the final plat. We also request that the City of Orono extend the effect of the subdivision approvals pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358. Subd. 3c. which states that no amendment to a comprehensive plan or other official control shall apply to or affect the use. density, lot size, lot layout or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. The Orono Village development is a multi-phase devr 'opment that will be constructed over a period of 3-5 years. Consequently, we request that the City extend the PUD and other approvals for five years as allowed by State Statutes. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST A'.^NUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www Undtorm nd LANDFORM h-s January 16.2002 Ben TImerson Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 Mr. Timerson. I spoke with you earlier this week about the possibility of expanding two existing ponds located in a MN/DOT easement for use in a proposed mixed-use development near the northwest quadrant of U.S. Highway 12 and Willow Drive in Orono. You responded with a phone call stating that typically MN/DOT does not reach this type of agreement with private developers, but would be receptive to a proposal from the City to expand the ponds as long as they are designed to accommodate all drainage from surrounding developments that may enter the ponds in question, and that maintenance and construction responsibilities are transferred to the City or their representative. I would just to lake the time to thank you for your response and notify you that we will be pursuing this issue with the City of Orono in hopes that it agrees that the use of these ponds is beneficial to the proposed development and surrounding area and will take the proper steps to get MN/DOT approval for these actions. If I have, in any way. misunderstood or misinterpreted your phone call or if you have any questions in general about this issue please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely. . j •M BUTua Mari* iwaixiM »io >fisf'«»f»Hii'i»oatN o«»Ki aia »S3 «oro mi cu 3»a«orr • tc^.WK S»40> iw landfofm n«l Apri 17. 2002 A breakdown of the major construction costs associated with the regional pond and trunk storm sewer is show n on an attached exhibit The trunk line will provide scrv ice to the two undeveloped lots to the west of the Orono Village site. The natural drainage patterns of the remainder of the basin will remain largely unchanged as storm runoff is routed through the new regional pond. We respectfully request that the City assist us in our negotiations with MN/DOT for the construction of these facilities and that Trunk Storm Sewer fees be used w here appropriate to fund this project. #27 oo 1* t riMIMMTl-------- MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth llaw-n. Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth. Sandra Smith. David Rahn. Janice Berg. Daniel Kluth. and J. Mark Fritzicr. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. And Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Rcprcscniaiive Richard Flint was present. Chair llawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA («I) 02-2770 DAVID AND KATHRYN BIEK, *1675 CREEKWOOD TRAIL, CONDITIONAL l^SE PERMIT (»2) 02-2774 MARK CREE, 3120 .NORTH SHORE DR1\ E, CONDITIO.NAL I'SE PERMIT Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments reuarding these two applications. There were no public comments. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application tt02-2774, David and Kathry n Dick, 4675 Creekwood Trail, granting of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building subject to the property owner filing the appropriate restrictive convenant on the property for an accessory building with plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2774. .Mark Crec, 3120 North Shore Drive, granting of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building subject to the property owner filing the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for an accessory building with plumbing. >'OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#3) 02-2767 STONEGATE FARM, INC., 2940 COl'.NTV ROAD 6, CONDITIONAL I SE PERMIT, 6:33 p.m. - 6:44 p.m. Susan Seeland. \Tce President of Stonegate Farm, was present Hawn indicated she wxiuld like to discuss this item even though it is on the Consent Agenda. Ilawn inquired whcthvr there were any public comments relating to this application There were no public comments. Hawn noted approval from Hennepin Parks is required on this application pnor to this matter proceeding forward to the City Council along with a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct for erosion control. PAGE I MINI TES OK THE ORO.NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. April 15. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (M02*2767 Sloncgatc Fann. Continued) Smith inquired why all of ihc engineer ’s recommendations were nol included in Stafl's report, particularly the one relating to the trail in this area. Sccland stated they have no need to cross the trail. Berg noted condition six in Staffs report relates to the trail. Smith recommended all the recommendations in the City l-.ngineer ’s report be included as conditions. Haw n moved. Mabustb seconded, to recommend approval of Application b02>2767, Stonegate Farms. 2940 Sixth Avenue North, subject to the six conditions outlined in the April II, 2002 Planner's Report as xel! as all the conditions outlined in Exhibit C. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0. NEW BCSINESS («4) #02-2762 TIMOIIIY AND MARY SWEEZO, 4480 WATERTOWN ROAD, \ ARIANC ES, 6.45 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Tim and Mary Sweezo. Applicants, were present. ITie Certiticale ofMailmg and Aflldavit ofl*ublication were noted Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting several variances to permit construction of a new three bedroom residence w ith an attached two-stall garage. The new house would replace the existing house on the properly. Hennepin County tax records estimate a construction date for the existing house to be around 1900. The location for the new house would be where the existing residence is located, llie property is located in the RR-IA zoning distnct, which requires a minimum lot size of five acres, a f.ont setback of 100 feet, and a side setback of 50 feet. 1 he Applicants arc requesting variances to lot area, with the buildabic area consisting of 1.44 acres. Weinberger noted the eastern two-lhirds of the lot is wetland, with the wetland area not being counted in the dry buildabic area A substantial amount of the south portion of the property was also acquired in 1998 for improvements to County Road 6. which significantly reduced the size of the lot. The Applicants arc also requesting variances to the side setback and front setback. The Applicants ha\e chosen the proposed location for the new residence based on the existing driveway arrangement, location of buildings on the property, and septic drain field sites I he new residence is proposed to be liK-atcd meeting the same setback as the existing house, which is 53.6 feet to the front property line. The side and rear setback variances ar; required based on the location of an e xisting detached garage that IS proposed to remain on the property and based on the fact that the garage and dnveway access to the building would be blocked by the new house if the new residence were constructed to meet all current setback standards PAGE 3 MINirreS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2762 Timothy and Mary S^^cczo, Continued) Weinberger stated Staff is recommending appro\-aI of the variances based on the hardships demonstrated. Staff also recommends approval of the variances that would allow the accessory buildings to remain on the property until such time as they have reached the end of their useful life. This recommendation includ . the understanding the buildings would not be allowed to expand or have any structural modiftcations. Weinberger staled the buildings on the site are currently considered legal non conforming because they were constructed pnor to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The buildings would remain legal non-conforming and would Ik required to be removed once they have reached the end of their useful life Mr. and Mrs. Sweezo had nothing further to add to Stafl's report. There were no public comments relating to this application. Smith inquired whether the new residence could be located where the existing bam or garage is, noting that it would bring the residence closer to conformance. Weinberger slated that it could. Weinberger stated the Applicants were attempting to maintain the best location for the house based on existing plumbing for the septic, well, and screening from County Road 6. Mabusth stated the garage is relatively new. with the bam being approximately 1 15 years. Mabusth stated the bam is in great shape. Mabusth recommended the Applicants be advised what the Code says about repair of a non-conforming structure. Mabusth noted this lot is a little over three acres, and inquired how many accessory structures would be allowed. Weinberger indicated they would be allow ed one. w ith the actual defined area of the lot being approximately 1.5 acres. Smith inquired whether the bam is currently being used. Swee/o stated it is. Smith inquired what the bam is being used for. .ec/o stated he has two cows. Hawn inquired w hether the life of one or more of the accessory buildings could be established, noting that this IS new construclton. Mabusth stated she did view this lot and in her view it would be difficult to ask the Applicant to remove the structures since they are in extremely good condition. Mabusth stated the bam does add a lot of character to the area. Smith inquired whether the residence was built to compliance originally. PAGE 4 i___ MIMTES OF THE ORONU PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 O'clock p.m. (#02-2762 Timolhy and Mary Swce^o, Coniinucd) Weinberger staled it had been. Gaffron noted the City does allow accessory structures in a rear >*ard or a side >-ard and they do not need to meet the principal structure setbacks unless they arc oversized. Gaffron noted the oversized ordinance was only put into effect approximately ten years ago. Hawn commented she has a concern since this is new construction and the precedent that nuy he set by granting the variances. Mabusth inquired w hether the Applicant would be agreeable to a deadline in which the buildings be removed. Mr. Swee/o stated he does not know how long the bam would remain, noting he has maintained his buildings in the past. Sweezo tuMed the pole bam wns also constructed poor to when he purchased the property. Mrs. Sw'cczo commented they would like to construct a new residence since it would be easier to maintain and require less work. Smith inquired whether the new residence could be built m the UKation of the two other buildings, with the bam remaining. Berg staled she does not like to design the layout of this lot, noting that they do ha\e legitimate reast>ns for the proposed location. Berg stated in her view the proposed location of the new residence is fine. Kluth indicated he is in agreement with Berg. Kluth stated the buildings were constructed prior to the adoption of the new ordinances and have been grandfathered in Kahn inquired w hether the residence could be relocated eight feet to alleviate the side setback. Sweezo stated they w ould be required to dig a new w ell if the house is moved further back. Rahn noted there is very little room for mosement of the house Hawn stated she still have a concern w ith the o\-ersized strucnires. Smith commented in her view the residence could be rcl«Kaied slightly, which would lessen the encroachments into the setbacks Mabusth inquired w hether the application should be tabled to see if there are other options. Sw eezo indicated they have looked at a number of possible options and this is the best possible location fur the new residence. Sweeze stated he could dig a well and gam a few feet, but noted when the house was onginally buili, it was over 100 feet from the road. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondty, April 15,2002 6:30* o'clock p.m. (H02*2762 Timothy and Mar>- Sweczo, Continued) llavsn commented it does not appear much u ill be gamed by tabling this application since the Applicants have explored other options. Fnlzler noted the w resi*!ence has an attached garage. Fnzlcr inquired why the footprint for the house be angled so the northeastern comer be located closer to the existing garage. Sweezo stated he was told he needs to be ten feet from the existing garage. Smith indicated she would prefer this application be tabled. Hawn reiterated she still has a problem with the two oversized structures on this lot. Smith moved, Fritzicr seconded, to table Application #02-2762, Timothy and Mary Sweczo, 4480 Watertown Road, to allow the applicant time to explore other options for location of the new residence. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant should be asked whether he would like his application tabled. Smith stated the Applicant has the option of having his application tabled or voted on Kluth and berg indicated they arc in favor of this application. Rahn slated in his view this house could be relocated to bener meet the setbacks. Hawn stated she has a problem with the accessory buildings. Fnt/lcr and Mabusth stated they are opposed to granting the v-anances. Hawn stated the Planning Commission can cither vote on this application or the Applicant can request the application be tabled in order to allow them additional time to work with Staff on relocating the house. Weinberger noted Staff has worked w ith the Applicant on his options for ItKation of the residence. Rahn inquired w hether the Applicants prefer the proposed location. Sweezo stated they do, noting they currently have a nice buffer from the road Rahn stated he really does not want to see the Applicant have to rednll his well or put in a new septic to accommodate a different location for the house Rahn noted Staff has rev lewed this application and is recommending approval. Mabusth stated that Staff has w orked w ith this Applicant on finding another location for the new residenee, noting there is a rather nice screening from County Road 6 currently. PAGE 6 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15.2002 6:30 o ’clock p.ni. (#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweczo, Continued) Smith staled this might be the lime with new construction to contemplate reUKaiion of the residence, noting that the road will only get busier and perhaps wider in the future. Weinberger indicated that two-thirds of this lot is wetland, w hich leaves approximately 1.5 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated they are applying five-acre standards to a lot that is approximately 1.5 acres. Weinberger indicated this proposal does meet the setback requirements for a two-acre lot Hawn noted the County has taken a significant amount of the land. Kluth noted the Applicant has not given permission for his application to be tabled. Smith stated she w ould w ithdraw her motion to table the application Fntzler indicated he would also w ithdraw his second to the motion. Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend appros al of Application #02-2762, Timothy and Mary* Sweezo, 4480 Watcriow n Road, granting of variances to permit construction of a ness residence on the property, with the request that Staff provide the Applicants ssith Information concerning non-conibrmiag structures. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 3. Smith. Hawn, and Fritzler Opposed. Fntzler slated in his opinion the proposed residence can K* rckKaled. Smith indicated since this is new construction, she would like the Applicant to consider his options further on the location of the residence. Hawn stated she has a concern with the two oversized accessory structures and the precedent it might set since this is new construction. (#5) #02-2772 JOHN AND DONNA CROTTEAl , 1405 SI.XTH AVENT E NORTH. VARIANCES. 7:16 p.m. 7:58 p.ro. Dorma Crotteau, Applicant, and Bnan Nowak. Architect, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidaxit of Publication were noted Weinberger slated the Applicants arc requesting variances to permit consuuction of a 16’ by 19 ’ addition within a defined bluff area, a living space addition and porch, and a garage addition within the 30’ top of the bluff setback. The Applicants arc also requesting a variance to permit the garage addition to be located 20.5 feet from the side lot line w here a 30-foot setback is requir^. Weinberger stated this property consists of approximately 10.5 acres and is located in the I.R-1 A zoning district, which has a two-acre minimum. Weinberger noted there is a shared driveway to thi: lot. with a large portion of the lot consisting of a peninsula that is protected by a conserv ation easement. PAGE? MIMTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (N02>2772 John and Donna Crottrau, Continued) The house was ongmally constructed in 1984, prior to the adoption of the Shorcland Ordinance in 1992, and met all the requirements at that time. To be considered a bluff, the property must have all the following characteristics: A., part or all of the feature is located in a shorcland area; B.. the slope rises at least 25 feet above the Ordinance High Water Level of the water body; C.. the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the Ordinance High Water Level averages 30 percent or greater; and D., the slope must drain toward the w ater body Weinberger indicated this area is dePmed as a bluff area. Weinberger stated there is not another kKation on the residence where an addition could be added that would not encroach into the bluff area or 30 foot bluff impact zone. 11k house, w hen originally constructed, met all the requircmcnis, w ith the house being built prior to the adoption of the current bluff standards. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance for 9.5 feel. The property line is 20.5 feet from the edge of the garage w here a 30-fbot setback is required. Staff recommends the garage either be built as a detached structure further back from the e.xisting house or be shiOed another 9.5 feet to meet the 30 foot setback. Ihe detached structure would need to meet a 10-foot structure rather than the 30-foot requirement that an attached structure would be required to meet Weinberger indicated all variances for the garage could be eliminated if the garage w ere detached Staff recommends approv al of variances to permit the residential additions w ithin the blulT setback and bluff impact zone based on the follow ing findings and hardships: 1. The property is ten plus acres and all but appro.ximatcly 4 percent of the lot is located cither within wetland, the bluff zone, and the required setbacks. 2. The present home was built m a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance. Any additions to the house would require variances. 3. The site does not dram directly to the lake but rather to the five acre wetland located at the base of the bluff. 4. The 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 w here the proposed lakeside additions arc to be constructed is relatively flat w ith less than a two-foot drop from the existing exterior wall and the proposed wall of the addition. Staff recommends denial of the variances to permit the garage addition to be located 20 5 feet from the side property line w here a 30 feet setback is required Weinberger noted he did receive a message from the DNR w ith regards to the bluff impact late this aflemoon. with the DNR indicating they did not support any bluff encroachment. Weinberger indicated PAGES MINI TES OK THE ORO.NO i'Lanmm ; commission meeting Monday, April IS. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (002<2772 Jokn and Donna Crolleau, Continued) he docs not have any further dclails at this time and will be anemptmg to contact the DNR in the future regarding this applicalion. Nowak stated he would like to nuke one correction, noting the addition extends 13 feet from the existing house into the bluff area rather than 16 feel. Now ak staled they arc only building on area that w*as modified when the house was built back in 1984, and will not be touching any virgin .soil. Nowak stated they do not aniicipale the need to remove any large trees, noting a few small saplings nuy need to be removed. Nownk indicated the water drains to the wetlands and eventually out into the lake. Nowak staled w ith the garage addition they arc attempting to minimi/c the impact on the front of the site, itoting there arc some older pine trees that they would like to retain. Nowak stated if the garage is moved to the north 9.5 feel, the two pine trees would need to be removed. Nowak indicated they arc willing to discuss the option of a detached garage. Nowak distnbuied photographs of the property. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn noted the surveyor indicated the lop of the bluff existed halfway through the proposed rear addition, and inquired why Staff has located it elsew here. Weinberger staled the difference is probably in the way the ordinance is interpreted, noting both are within ten feet of each olha. Smith inquired what the additional garage would be used for. Mrs. Crotteau stated it is for additional garage space. Nowak slated he did visit the site with Weinberger and looked at various sites fur a detached garage. Nowak indicated there docs appear to be some merits to a detached garage and they are w illmg to explore that option further. Nowak stated there arc a couple of options that could consider which would olluvv the pine trees to be saved as well as meet the 10 foot setback. Nownk indicated w here the tw o possible sites for a detached garage are Klulh inquired how far the garage would need to be moved to make it comply w ith the setback. Now^k stated the detached garage could be moved around 75 feet. Mabusih inquired whether the existing landscaping would need to be removed in order to construct tlie detached garage. Nowak slated there are some pine trees in that area that could be saved Nowak staled he has spoken to the neighbor who indicated they would prefer an attached garage to prevent headlights from shining into their residence. PAGE 9 MIMTES OK THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (1102-2772 John and Donna Crottcau, Continued) Hau-n stated it appears (he Planning Commission would like to see a difTerent design fur the garage, with the front addition being okay, and with (here appearing to be mixed feelings about the addition to the rear of the house. Klulh stated he would tend to allow it since the bluff area was previously modified. Berg indicated she would be in support of the rear addition since the drainage has been addressed Kahn indicated he is undecided on the rear addition. Hawn inquired what hardship exists fur the rear addition. Hawn noted there is an overall hardship since the residence lies within the bluff rone, but inquired what the need is for this particular expansion of the house. Nowak stated they both are in the bluff impact /one Nowak stated the intent of the ordinance is to control erosion and to protect the naturalness of the site. Nowak staled those tw o factors arc not at issue in this situation. Nowak stated the hardship is really the site itself, noting this site is 10.5 acres but yet only 4 percent of the land is available for building. Now ak stated in his opinion the hardship is the topography and nature of the site. Rahn inquired how many square feet the existing structure is. Nowak stated the first floor is approximately 2,200 square feet. Weinberger inquired w hether that included the garage. Nowak stated it does not. Hawn comnKntcd she would be inclined to approve the rear addition. Rahn stated if the intent of the ordinance is to control the drainage, he would be inclined to approve the addition smcc the drainage has been addressed. Kluth noted there are two cantilevered bay w ind' also encroaching on the bluff. Smith indicated she does not see she need to encroach into the bluff area. Fnt/ler stated he is not in support of the rear addition. Mabusth stated she is in support of the rear addition, but that she would prefer the addition be reduced in si/e somewhat. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recuniiiieiid denial of Application it02-2772, John and Donna Crottcau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North, granting of variances to permit a garage addition to be located 10.5 feet from the side propertv line w here a 30 foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 11 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (IWW2-2T72 John and Donna Croltcau. Continued) Hawn moved, Klutb seconded, to recommend approval of Application M02-2772, John and Donna Credean, 1405 Slith Avenue North, granting of variances to permit an addition to the front of the residence w ithin the bluff setback and bluff impact rones. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Klutb seconded, to recommend appros al of Application #02-2772. John and Donna Crotteau, 1405 Siith Avenue North, granting of variances to permit an addition to the front of the residence within the bluff setback and bluff impact rones subject to implementation of the drainage corrections as proposed by Gronberg. %'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Smith and Frit/ler opposed. (#6) #02-2773 KIRT AND MARY RAKOS, 2175 SHE VEIN DRIVE, VARl.ANCE, 7:58 p.m. - 8:02 p.m. Kurt Rakos, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Afndavii of l*ublication were noted. Bottenberg staled the Applicants arc requesting a variance to permit construction of an addition to the c.xisting garage, close oiT the existing driveway entrance on Willow Drive South with a berm and move the driveway entrance to Shevlm Drive. The proposed addition to the garage is 8' by 24.4'. A variance IS required to permit the addition to encroach 9.1 feet into the 50 feet side yard setback requirement. The garage currently encroaches 3.7 feet into the side yard setback. Bottenberg indicated the addition to the existing garage is proposed on the side of the house for a numlKr of rcavon*. one. the flow of the house; two. the ItKaiion of the septic system, and three, the location of the well. The garage is currently on the west side of the rc.sidcnce. Bottenberg noted the property to the north is currently vacant, with a proposal to construct a new residence on that lot located approximately 100 feet from the common property line. The Applicants in this case arc proposing the garage be located 52.8 feet from the property line. The Applicants would als«j like to relocate the driveway and access to their property from Willow Drive to Shcvlin Drive due to safety concerns. Since the repaving of Willow Drive South, the speed and the number of accidents on Willow have increased. The Applicants are proposing to close otTthe access from Willow I>nve South and relocate it off of Shevlm Dnve. The Public Works Director has reviewed this matter and docs approve of the relocation of the drivew ay . Stall recommends approval of the side yard adjacent to street setback for the garage addition subject to the removal of the existing driveway on Willow Drive and relocating it to Shevlm Drive. Rakos indicated he does not have anything to add to Staffs report. Hawn inquired whether a conditional use pemnt is needed for the berm PAGE 12 MIMTESOFTIIK ORONO PLANMNt; COMMISSION MEtTINC; Monday, April 15, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2773 Kurt and Mary Rako«, Continued) Boltcnbcrg stated a conditional use permit may be needed depending on the sue of the berm, which has not been detennined at this time. There were no public comments relating to this application. Mabusth inquired when they would connecting to City sewer. Rakos stated they arc waiting for this project to be completed and arc anticipating to hook up sonKtime this summer. Hawn mosed. Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2773, Kurt and Mary Rakov 2175 Sheslin Drise, granting of a variance to side yard adjacent street setback for the garage addition, subject to the removal of the existing driveway on Willosv Drive and relocating it to Shevlin Drive. VOTE: Ayes 7, .Nays 0. (#7) #02-2775 TEMPLE ISRAEL, 645 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL TSE PER.MIT, 8:02 pjn. - 8:06 p.m. Albert Lindeke, Architect, and Robert ShifT, Building Management Sers iccs. were present on behalf of Temple Israel. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Hawn stated a formal presentation on this item would not be necessary, noting I cmplc Israel has appeared before the Planning Commission previously regarding other projects. Hawn stated the Applicants arc requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 40' by 76* open-sided pre manufactured open-air pavilion on the property. ShifT indicated they would like to construct a covered pavilion area that would be utilucd by the kids on sunny days. ShifT slated the pavilion would have a concrete floor along w ith columns and would be utilized as a central meeting place and activities center for the campers. Smith inquired whether there were any comments from any of the adjoining property owners. Weinberger stated the property owners to the north did call and stated they would support the application if language is included w ithin the resolution that the City’s noise ordinance would be enforced Weinberger stated they did express a concern regarding speakers or loud music. Hawn inquired whether there would be a sound system installed at this pavilion ShifT indicated there would not be. Ralm inquired whether there h.ise been any problems in the past concerning loud music or noise. Weinberger stated there have not been any complaints in the past. PACE 13 MINtTESOFTHE ORONO PLANM.NC; COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2775 Temple Israel, Continued) llassn requested that the proposed projects for this property be consolidated as much as possible. ShifT stated that was their intent. There were no public comments regarding this applicalion. Smith moved, Bern seconded, to recommend approval of Application *02-2775, Temple Israel, 645 Tookawa Road, granting of a conditional use pcrniii to permit conslructioii of a 40’ by 76* pavilion subject to the conditions outlined In the April 10, 2002 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:07 p.m. - 8:18 p.m.) SCHEDIT.ED PI BIJC HEARING - 8:00 P..M. (*9) *02-2771 ORONO .V.MBAR, LI.C, 2060 W AV/.ATA UOI LEN ARD, PLANNED DEVELOP.MENT, REZONTNG, AND COMPREIIKNSIX F. PLAN AMENDMENT, 8:18 p.m. - 10:02 p.m. Frank Dunbar. Orono Ambar, and Bill were present I he Cemricate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Gaffron .stated Orono Ambar has submitted an application for re/oning of Lot I. BUkK 1. Orono Ambar. to allow the construetion of a 50-unit senior independent living building. The Applicant is requesting rezoning from B-6. Highway Commercial DistncU lo Residential Planned Unit Development. Gaffron stated approximately one year ago the Council approved phase one and two of this development, with phase one including a senior house building, and phase two proposing the construction of a 25.000 square foot ofllce building. Ihe developer, after marketing this propeny for a year, has concluded that there canently is not the market to proceed forward with the office building and IS now proposing to construct Orono Woods West, which would be a second senior housing building. Gaffron stated the proposed residential use of the property requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment because the property is guided commercial 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 I. and amendment of the PUD-2A agreement, w hich is the Development Agreement that governs development of Lot i. An ancillary request is also being made to vacate portions of the drainage and utiliticv casements that were granted as port of the PUD No. 2 approvals. Gaffron indicated he would like Frank Dunbar to make his presentation of the project, followed by a review and discussion of some of the specific site issues, and then open the public hearing. PAGE 14 MIMTKSOFIUK ORONO N.ANMNf; ( OMMISSION MEETING Monday. April 15. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2771 Orono Ambar. ('ontinucd) Frank Dunbar. Orono Ambar, indicated his concept is to bring forward a senior housing building similar to what Is currently being constructed. Dunbar stated they are proposing to bring this building substantially fonvard, noting that the proposed building and parking u ill cover six percent less on the site than the ofticc building which w ill enable them to sa\e some landscaping in the area. Dunbar indicated they arc also proposing to reconstruct the retaining wail that is currently on the property and replace it w ith a 4.5 foot retaining wall. In addition, there w ill be a number of pine trees placed near it that w ill also help to hide the garage. Dunbar reported according to the research conducted by Maxwell Consultants, this area is substantially undersized m its housing for seniors. Currently 40 percent of tk* first building is leased, with over 100 other people expressing interest in leasing a unit. Dunbar .stated in his view that helps t»i dcnnmstrate the need for additional senior housing in this area. Dunbar indicated the senior housing building will also reduce the traffic impact •< this area and will require fewer parking spaces than the ofl'icc building. Dunbar compared the differeii *s of the proposed senior housing building with the office building, noting that the parking and amount of tratVic generated with the senior housing building would be significantly less in his view than an office building. Dunbar noted the building would also be located 110 feel from tk* property line whereas the ofTice building would be located 75 feel. Dunbar indicated the height of the two buildings is relatively the same, with the senior housing building being 27 feet high. Gaffron stated within PUD No. 2A the only uses that would be allowed are those uses desig ated by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Tlie property included in PUD No. 2A had been zoned B-1, Retail Sales Business Distnct for at least 35 years pnor to its rezoning to B-6 PUD in 2001. and has been formally guided for commercial use since adoption of the 1080 CMP In 2001. Orono amended tlie draft 2000-2020 C.MP to reguide Lot 2 for Multi-family Residential use. specifically for senior housing Gaffron indicated the impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods arc likely to be less intense than most of the potential commercial uses that could be established if the site remains guided for commercial use. 1 he impacts of residential traffic through Lot 2 are expected to be less than if I ot I is developed commercialls. .Additionally, the limited direct access to Highway 12 makes Lot I a relatively unattractive site for high traflic commercial uses Ciaffron stated there clearly IS a demand in this area for senior housing, and development of additional senior housing will be in keeping with the City's affordable and lifecycle housing goals as defined in the CMP and is within easy walking distance of downtown Long Lake rutiher. senior housing would provide a reasonable transition between the single family housing to the north and the commercial retail uses to the west and south. Gaffron stated the proposed 50-unii building on this 2 6 acre site would yield a development density of approximately 19 units acre. I his density can be allowed only via a rezoning to RPUD. Gaffron noted phase one of this project was 62 units, with a 15 or 16 unit per acre density Gaflton suted in order for the City to accomplish some ot its housing goals, higher density is reouired Gaffron slated the developer is requesting essentially the same development parameters iliat were previously approved by the Council for phase one of this project GalTron suted the units will all be PAGE 15 MINUTES OK THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (N02-277I Orono Ambar, C'ontiniied) inquired whether there w ere any public comments relating to this application. Scott Mabusth. 740 Drown Road North, expressed a concern about the amount of dirt that has been dropped into their gutter and onto their boule\*ard. noting that this proposal calls for the hauling of cs-cn more dirt. Mabusth requested that other alternatives be ctmsidcrcd for the removal of the fill. Mike Shrack, 2004 Sugarwood Drive, staled he has a concern with the height of the building, noting he had the impression from the first phase that this would be a low-rise structure, which is not the ease. Shrack commented the additional senior housing building is even higher than the first building, which was not what he had env’isioncd when he purchased the property’. Shrack stated in his opinion this is not a good use of this property. Jacqueline Ritz. 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated she was aware this property was commercial at the time they purchased the property, but that she does object to the height of both buildings. Rit/ stated she IS opposed to a third story building since there arc no other three-story buildings in Orono. Randy Hogan. 2103 Sugarwood ITnvc. expressed a concern regarding the height of the building, noting they were told in the first phase that this would be a low-rise office building Hogan slated the developer at that time told the City and residents that this project would only work with an oflice building, with no talk of an additional senior housing building. Hogan slated he has had an opportunity to review the plans for this proposal, noting that the building would be approximately 70 feel aKne the n»ad. 100 feel above the intascction. and would ltH)k like a citadel Hogan commented in his view the current buiMing is not being built according to the spirit of the plan, noting that the residents were informed the trees would be protected along Sugarw»H>d. which is not the case. Hogan stated a large number have been removcL' Hogan stated this development has changed the w hole feel of the area and character of the Sugarw ood neighborhood. Roger Olson. 2114 Sugarwood Drive, stated he had the understanding the onginal building would be one story near the residential area and then increase. Olson stated he thought the building would be cut further dovvTi into the hill, which is not the ease. Olson stated the proposal to construct a second building on lop of the hill will only make the situation worse. Rick Apple. 2101 Sugarwotnl Drive, expressed a concern regarding the height of the two buildings. Apple slated this development is different tlun what they were informed of originally. Dunbar stated to his knowledge the building has been built exactly to the engineer specifications that were presented to the City. Dunbar staled he regrets that there is a sense that they have done something different than what was approved by the City. Dunbar acknowledged that some trees were removed on the north side in order to construct some berms in that location, which was done with the knowledge and approval of the City. Dunbar noted he did have the engineers measure the building and it has been built to within one-half inch of the plans. PAGE 18 MINI TES OF THE ORONO PLANMNC; COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (If02-277l Orono Ambar, Continued) Dunbar pointed out that the eonstruction process is a dirty process, particularly in the spnni* Dunbar indicated they have a scooper scheduled every Friday and a caterpillar out there to grade as much of the dirt away as possible. Dunbar stated in his view once the storm dram system is installed, the site should dry out, whieh will help reduce the amount of dirt on the roadway. Dunbar commented he is concerned that if the residents misunderstood the first phase of this project, they may be misunderstanding this concept as well. Dunbar staled it would be his preference to delay discussion on this matter until he has a chance to talk u ith the residents. Dunbar indicated the office building would be a much higher stOKturc and uould create a larger impact on the neighborhood Dunbar staled he regrets the misunderstandings, but it was his feeling the additional senior housing would be a belter use for this property and be more compatible with the neighborhood. Dunbar indicated he is willing to discuss the issues with the neighbors. Dunbar reiterated he would rather suspend this discussion until he has a chance to speak with the residents and explain the difTcrerKes between the office building and this proposal. Kluth noted the matter before the Planning Commission tonight is the senior housing facility. Hawn noted for the record that the City rccewcd a letter from Richard and livclyn Schommer. 2106 Sucarxvoods. indicating they arc opposed to this project. Hawn noted the City has also reccised the same letter from a number of residents in the Suganvoods neighborhiHx! Kluth commented at the time this project was originally presented to the City, the office building component of the project wtis said to be \ttal to the success of this project, w hich docs not appear to be the situation now, Kluth stated he does have a concern with the height and density being proposed with this second building and that the developer is try ing to recoup his investment by increasing the density on this property. Kluth stated the developer has a number of options he can consider for improving the proposal, such as reducing the height of the building to two stones or relocating the building slightly, Kluth commented the saving of some trees in the back of the building in his view is merely a sugar coating and is not a real attempt to address the concerns of the residents. Berg slated she had concerns at the lime the City was reviewing the plans for phase one of this project, noting she is not pleased with the appearance of the building Berg indicated she understands the developer's comments regarding the ofricc building, but noted that the size of the proposed building is not appropnate for this site. Berg stated the residents of the Sugarwo<xls neighborhood arc being asked to look at a significant building Berg indicated she would never approve that height again. Berg indicated she is adamantly opposed to this proposal and has quite a few concerns relating to the traffic, building si/e. and appearance of the building. Rahn noted he was not on the Planning Commission at the time phase one was discussed, noting that some of the conditions for phase two were placed on phase one. Rahn stated in his view n would be unfair to the local residents to construct a bigger building than what was originally proptiscd. but that he PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PI-ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 15, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (tf02'2771 Oronu Ambar, Conlinucd) would not be opposed to changing the use of the budding. Rahn indicated he probably would nut be in favor of the project as it is currently designed. Hawn commented she does not expect a developer a construct a budding that would not be economically viable, which is probably the reason why the office budding is not being constructed at this tiiiK. Hawn stated she also recogni/cs there is a need in this area for additional senior housing, but staled the height of the proposed building is very difficult to approve. Hawn stated she would prefer the height of the building be reduced to two stones. Smith stated she would be in favor of the reroning in order to accomnxKlatc additional senior housing, but noted she does have a concern with the height of the proposed budding and would prefer two stones. Fritzler noted he also was not here at the time phase one was discussed. Fnt/ler stated he has a major concern w ith traffic at this location and the amount of traffic that w ould be generated in this area. Fnt/ler inquired what Item 2 under the proposed development parameters mean. Gaffron stated a portion of the units needs to be affordable based on income guidelines. Hawn inquired what the median income is m the Twin Cities. Dunbar indicated it is $74,600 this year. Gaffron inquired of the units that haw been currently leased in the first budding, w hat portion of those are the lower rent units. Dunbar stated approximately 30 percent out of the 40 percent are the low er rent units. Dunbar stated the difference is around $116. Frit/lcr stated he is nut seeing this as an affordable housing project but rather as condominiums for well-to-do seniors Fnt/ler indicated he is not in support of either project Mabusih noted ihe affordable housing units arc only for 20 years, with the lease being fur 9'j years. Mabusth stated she personally does not have a problem with the re/oning or the senior housing building, but expressed a concern regarding potential commercial uses for this property. Mabusth inquired what steps were taken to protect the trees on the outlot. Gaffron stated under the olficc use very few trees would have been saved because the entire site would need to be graded. Mabusth inquired how it is determined how much senior housing is needed in this area. Gaffron stated the developer was required to do a market analysis on senior housing in this area, and based on that research, it was demonstrated that senior housing is needed in this area. Gaffron stated it PAGE 20 MINI TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, April 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (tf02*2771 OroDo Ambar, Continued) is his belief another market analysis will be done with the second phase. GafTron indicated there are two other parcels within the City that could be used for senior housing. Mabusth staled she does also have a concern with the intersection and the amount of traffic that is being added to this area. Mabusth stated in her view a semaphore is needed at this intersection GafTron slated it is the desire that a semaphore be installed at that intersection by the time the first senior housing building opens this fall. Gaffron indicated Staff is currently working with Ma'DOT on this issue, with Ma/DOT’s position being that this intersection does not ha\e sufficient warrants to justify a stoplight at this site. GafTron stated the need for a stoplight is based on the traffic count. Hawn commented in her view the people are not op|v*,sed to the use but rather the height and mass of the building. Dunbar stated he does have a concern that there appears to be a misunderstanding concerning the first senior housing building and the proposed office building. Dunbar stated they have complied w ith the requirements of the City and are building the first building in conformance w ith the approved plans and specifications. Dunbar commented it was his belief that the residents would prefer a second senior housing building rather than an office building. Dunbar stated he would like an opportunity to speak w ith the residents regarding this project. Dunbar stated he would like to table his application Hawn stated it is her belief the residents have a coiKcm with the length and height of the building that would face their neighborhood. Berg commented this type of build.ng is large for this area and perhaps would be better suited clsew here, especuilly in light of phase one. Hawn inquired how many people from Orono have leased space in the new building Dunbar stated he is not aware of the e.xact numbers but a large number of them are parents of people who live in Orono. Dunbar slated there also is a large number from the City of long Lake. Hawn recommended the developer consider having a three-dimensional model of the project. Dunbar stated he would be interested in doing that, particularly to demonstrate the differences between the ofilce building project and the additional senior housing project Kluth commented the developer at the time he was requesting approval of the office building concept portrayed the office building in a very positive light, but now appears to be putting the office building in a more negative light in order to gam approval fur the senior housing projeef. Dunbar indicated he did speak with the residents rather candidly regarding the lights and the impact that the office building would have on the area. Dunbar stated he is w illmg to lable this matter and is also agreeable to meeting with the residents. PAGE 21 MINl’TES OF TIIF OHONO PLANNING COMMISSION MKETING Munday, April 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2771 Orono Ambar, Continued) Kluth indicated he is now oppoiicd to senior housin*,: but he would prcler to see a smaller si/ed building. Mike Sehraek, 2004 Sugarwood Dnve. staled a big part of his eoncem is w ith the overall bulk of the facility and the height of the structure. Schrack indicated he purchased his lot originally because there were a large number of trees, but now he is faced with a tall building and the possibility cf another even taller building being constructed on this site. Schrack commented he also has concerns regarding the possible commercial uses that would be permitted on this property. Jacqueline Rit/ stated she is in agreement with Schrack. noting that her understanding of the original proposal IS different than what is being proposed tonight. Hawn stated Mr. Dunbar has, to her knowledge, taken great steps in the past to listen to the residents and to work with the City on this project. llawTi encouraged the residents and Mr Dunbar to continue to work together on this development. Hawn pointed out there arc many other uses that would be permitted on this property that may not be un desirable as a senior housing building Rit/ inquired why this property was re/oned in the first place. Hawn stated that whole corridor was onginally zoned B-l. Gaffron stated the property was zoned B-l as early as 1967 and perhaps earlier. B-l is the City’s most liberal retain business district and would have allowed a fast-food restaurant, a gas station. griKciy stores, a number of retail stores. Gaffron stated the Oruno Shopping C'cntcr right next to this site is zoned B-l. Gaffron indicated the discussion regarding conversion to B-6 started initially in 1987 m conjunction with a review of the Highway 12. Gaffron slated a new B-0 district was created which allows fewer uses and makes restaurants a conditional use rather than a permitted use in this district. Permitted uses for the B-6 district include office use. clinics, banks, and libraries Gaffron stated tvpically the City docs not rezone property unless a request is made. Dunbar stated he would like to table his application. Dunbar commented the construction phase is a difficult time to discuss future plans w ith residents, but tlut he would like to continue to follow through w ith the project and address the issues. ITunbar noted he did send a letter back in I'cbruary regarding a neighborhood meeting on this project where only two couples shtiwed up Hawn inquired whether the residents are interested in meeting with Mr Dunbar on this project. A number of residents indicated they would like to meet w ith the developer. A resident requested that all the residents of the Suganvoods neighbsirhood be given notice of all meetings regarding this proposal. Hawn recommended the developer also take additional steps to handle the dm on the roadway. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. April 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (H02«2778 Manley Brothers, Continued) Manley stated he is in the process of acquiring some additional land across the front, which M ould change the hardcover numbers somcwhai. Kluth inquired w hat the new hardcover numbers would be. Weinberger indicated it is approximately 2.200 square feel of additional land, but that he docs not hau* the new hardcover figures. Manley noted they did remove the deck off the rear of the residence, w hich reduced the h.*rdco\ er in that area. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented she docs not haxe a problem with the expansion to the two story. Smith stated she would prefer to stay at the IS percent structiire coverage limit, and inquired whether the Applicant can reduce the stmciural coverage on the lot somehow. Manley staled that currently the house consists of 1.200 square feet w ith a small garage. Smith noted the Applicant would be permitted to stay at the existing 18.3 percent structural coverage llawTi stated the Planning Commission typically is very strict on adhenng to the 15 pea'cnt structural coverage as much as possible. Kluth stated he would not be able to support the deck, but that he could support the addition to the house. Manley indicated they have already reduced the hardcover by a considerable amount from w hat was on the property. Kluth staled the hardcover restnciions arc designed to help with water runoff to the lake Mabusth concurred that it is difficult to approve the increase to the structural coverage, but noted that the increase may not be as large once the additional bnd is calculated in. Mabusth pointed out that the 75-250’ setback area will always pose a problem since it currently exceeds the hardcover limit Manley noted they currently have no parking av ailable on ihcir lot except for ihcir garage Mabusth recommended the Applicant speak with Sufi concemmg what options might be available as far as parking once the additional land is acquired. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to demonstrate a need or hardship in order for a variance to be granted. Hawn noted the City docs allow steps down to the lake. PAGE 24