Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-19-2002 Planning Packet
Public A ttendance Meeting Date (T' v _ □ C ouncil 0 Planning C ommission u Park Commission □ Other Please fill out the inform ..tion REQiiESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITV RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2. f?. // ^ Snnr V V/ he(fc-'Z /./'kj 7^ 3. f C L L/)" '^i>^.zLiieo y^/} /V 7 4. /-rvL S.iX rU /4V S Z?/5- 7. I ! ^ ! II \ TT I ^ -TilJo; i.i.> ^ v<rv(' 10.. n.. 12.. 13. 14.. 15.________________________ X; I>«a\A4«M«ratt«« Wpp«tMr«nM • OM)'JOILMrPi*BUC.ATT J / - C ^ ✓ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Mayor Peterson AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the September 9,2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #02-2811 Daniel and Ruth Parten, 1015 Tonkawa Road, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) OLD BUSINESS 2. #02-2782 Orono Professional Properties 2765 Kelley Parkway, Review of Revised Concept Plan (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 3. #02-2801 Kathy Mclin, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) NEW BUSINESS 4. #02-2812 Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 5. #02-2813 Mark Welsh, 3625 North Shore Drive, Variance (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 6. #02-2814 William and Sandra Keegan. 2707 Walters Port Lane, Variance (Staff: W'end;' Bottenberg) 7. #02-2816 Orono Montessori, Inc., 3800 West W'ayzata Boulevard, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 8. #02-2819 Tint Devries, 2180 Abingdon Way, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 9. Report o<‘Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings July 22, 2002 and August 12,2002. 10. Other issues for discussion. 11. Planning Commission approval of minutes for July 15, 2002. 12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on August 26,2002 and September 9,2002. ADJOURNMENT «*• ^ « TT t400 4000 3a»“3200 V LA^X MfUXTC># A WAY2ATA 2300 2400 2000 1600 1200 600 400 r of Orono, Minnesota Numbering Index f^p rts Jl g UUCttC. north MO", V ICAt 0^913 u»r.r. If 13 t.9M A*€ JO.BM S. Iff* • . *911 M.C 2t.M4 t*. t«93 Please si^ii in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning; Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the September 9,2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. W02-28I1 DanielandKuthParlcn, 1015 Tonkawa Road, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Map C-6 OLD BUSINESS 2. (I02-2782 Orono Professional Properties 2765 Kelley Park« av. Review of Revised Concept Plan (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Map F-2 3. t/02-2801 Kathy Melin, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map D-1 NEW BUSINESS 4 K02-2812 Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, Variance (Stalf; Wendy Boitcnbcrg) Map II-1 5. ^02-2813 Mark Welsh. 3625 North Shore Drive, Variance (Staff: Paul Weinbereer) Map C-7 6. W02-2814 Wilham and Sandra Keegan, 2707 Walters Port Lane, Variance (Staff; Wendy BoUenberg) Map L-IO 7 ^02-2816 Orono Monlcssori. Inc., 3800 West Wayzata Boulevard, Conditional Use Permit (Staff; Wendy Bottenberg) Map C-l 8. ^02-2819 Tim Devnes, 2180 Abingdon Way, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map G-4 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 9. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings July 22, 2002 and August 12, 2002. 10. Other issues for discussion. 11. Planning Commission approval of minutes for July 15. 2002. 12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on August 26, 2002 and September 9, 2002. ADJOUICNNIENT %. ' ■ I » / TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DAfl SUBJECT: August S, 2002 2%l 1 Daniel and Ruth Parten 1015 Tonkaw ’a Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 56,846 s.f.(.1.31 acre) Exhibits: A Application B Survey C Survey compilation showing Average Lakeshore Setback D Building Plans/Thoto of Residence showing changes E Plat Map F Property Owners List G Photos of Properly Pertinent Ordinance: 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Variance Requested: To encroach 18 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary': The applicants have requested an average lakeshore setback variance to make changes to the lakeside of their residence. These changes are depicted in Exhibit D and as follows: 1. Existing deck will be turned into a room. 2. Deck constructed above newly constructed room. 3. Existing deck will be removed. 4. Deck to be constructed on the level next to new room addition. Average Lakeshore Setback: A portion of the residence and the existing second level deck are currently within the average lakeshore setback zone. The existing topography, the layout of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening all suggest that the proposed addition and replacement of deck will not be within the visibility of either neighboring property and will not encroach on any existing view of the lake. #02-2811 Daniel/Ruth Panen lOIS Tonkawa Road 8/5/2002 Page I Hardcover/Structural Lot Coverage: The room addition and changing of decks are over/under existing hardcover and structure that was part of the original building permit approved in 1983. Therefore the improvements are not changing the amount of hardcover in the setback zone or lot coverage by structures on the lot. Existing 75-250’ hardcover is estimated by staff at 15-20%, lot coverage by structures is about 4 */j% including the additions. The house is about 190’ from the nearest shoreline. Statement of Hardship: The applicant h^ included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. Are any neighbors ’ views of the lake negatively impacted by the addition? 2. The north side of the property is heavily wooded, therefore neighbors views will not be impacted. 3. The residence was built in 1983 in its present location. There have not been any additions to the residence. 4. Hardcover on the property will not change. 5. Lot coverage by structures will not change. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. #02-28 11 Daniel/Ruth Parten 1015 Tonakwa Road 8/'5-2002 Page 2 »* 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 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # 02.-2 Q J! Date Received 7~/d -O 2. Amount Paid 2.^^ 6 ^ j PROPERTY INFORMATION , Site Address !0\^ J'^oaA^ Lo^ci Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^ *m w ^_______________________ ___, ____________ ^ Attach leg^ description to ^plication if not included on required survey. (Survey e*3 D^e^perty Acquired /983 _______________________________(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. P^went use of property: Presidential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:___________________________ APPLICANT , 11 o I Name t-u4vi rarficvl Address: 101 To^iatuea - City:. Phone (home) Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________ Address: U Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: P//ocu Ojy>ts4tJGM>fn dsck. gx;:5’/=s (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Airull^ REQUIRED SUBiVnTTALS TH1m7Sr' -T In '• Completed Application Foim '■ muf oM™ ftU i?sMaWsl°i f '"1? P'« ™P fro- . t l Govt’Center. 348-5^0) “ “'""'P" G'Pmmam of ,, reproduction. P™"* °"= O oopy 8X," x II" for <y^U B™ p^posea. in addition, provide one (1) CODV 8 '/i" X 11" fnr r ^ » 7. ^rdldS^rr « V °P application. ''8- |6^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. lariantt .ppliJtton7no. eompHrrtlt?"bme LT'l”'.!?! APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or reouested bv th. 7 • Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees fstnfr t.mm 1 requested b> the Zoning and/or consultant e.xpenses incutred in revlef o ^ P^>™'"') information supplied is true^d cotrM t^e best of hisfoer taowledg “ Applicants Signature 9/»/oZ _______ Applicant must have all subminals into the Citv offic^>Q ,1.,. u r Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetlnac <> i, 1.4 ^ 1 before the Planning month. Applicantf ntust be*pr.°™ . a| chXTe '’■<?^lMoii?of each Commission and Council. Ifl, applilris Ible m f "" make arrangements to have an authorized acent anend in vo t * “^'‘*“lp<l meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prioTfo TmSg. 7 T “ y ./■ ’v\ '• I • . .1 JLl :J !/| ■■ JL D fmmm^v' Jfc: v •7 •■¥■ C- '»'• J |M WSi:- ^ *<V*XS-^y^r 'Air-r:'* i»# * > 5K 'n- -* V7 • -' ‘v7v. • ;i.i^; !> ,•••S'.r/. * ; V>’ 1 ? n; '•\ n'1 ';>i -^1*^Mr>/v rrxi j i« I -. y »■»“»-» ^y*-I *^>;**‘ j ..Vt/-'. V ■ • V/t ' ^ % A • : Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Parcel Information Parcel ID 0811723240002 House Number 1015 Street Name TONKAWA RD «cordW map. it repnsvtis a compilation (automation and data from Oty. County, and Slate road authorWes and other sources. mjN DATE tr/M/aa DATCH S«A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZAS5401 PACE 22 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR i SO M-iir-as 12 •••! TONRAWA RO L 0 DORR SNA DORR LAWRENCE I MARILYN DORR A3SS WOOOLEION LANE LA CANADA CA nUl SS RS-nT'ES 12 •••2 ••97R TONKAWA RD DIN DOOTH DAVID I MARILYN BOOTH 971 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE NN SS356 SB 0B>117-23 12 IMS •lOO* TONKAWA RO R J HOFFMAN ETAL RAYMOND J HOFFMAN lOOa TONKAWA RO LONO LAKE NN SSSSA PROP AODE OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 aa-ii7-2S 13 aaai aiaas tonkawa rd N R WlCLEV I B A NZGLEY MICHAEL R I BARBARA A HIGLEYlaas tonkawa ro LONG LAKE NN S5354 3B 08-117-23 13 0013 01040 TONKAWA RD W H I L H BUXTON WINSLOW H BUXTON P 0 BOX 250 LONG LAKE NN 55354 38 08-117-23 13 0014 01020 TONKAWA RO DOUGLAS J WILLIAMS DOUGLAS J WILLIAMS 1020 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE NN 55354 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 08-117-23 13 0015 01030 TONKAWA RO R S EDMUNDS I 0 K EDMUNDS ROBERT S 8 DEBRA K EDMUNDS 1030 TONKAWA RO ORONO NN 55354 SB 08-117-25 21 0014 00985 TONKAWA RD GABRIEL E JABBOUR GABRIEL E JABBOUR 21 UNIVERSITY AVE N E MPLS NN 55413 38 08-117-23 24 0002 01015 TONKAWA RD DANIEL C 8 RUTH H PARTEN DANIEL C I RUTH H PARTEN 1015 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE NN 55354 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 08-117-23 24 0003 01025 TONKAWA RO CHRISTOPHER J SMITH ET AL CHRISTOPHER J SMITH NARY T NOVACHECK-SHZTH 1025 TONKAWA RO LONO LAKE NN 55354 38 OB-117-23 24 0004 01035 TONKAWA RO BARBARA A WIGLEY BARBARA A WIGLEY 1035 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE NN 55354 38 08-117-23 24 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED DANIEL I RUTH PARTEN DANIEL I RUTH PARTEN 1015 TONKAWA RO ORONO NN 55354 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 504 00012 J.L O O ■i..I kiiMHai »'* a-M «■w RUN DATE $7/§2/$2 DATCN 5t4 HENNEPIN COUNTV :»ROPERTY XNFORtfATION SYSTEM PROP^^TV OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA354fI PACE 23 * i t ■ • /*- f f' , ,, 'T . ••.'?f*». »i .#j, ^ • - vn ^14 ‘ p • ; ' '• ■ liiil r pi ■ '-iw w-^'i*. • -‘ '•’ v"-, rK. • - M ,^>. . ->',.- • • V .V? '*mmM • . . • • .»‘ j ■ li r. ^• t <• iL: v‘ K « f iv ■rt -.r V •v5T3«J'i/: ^ I ■ ^ li ■K- HP--' I *• ■ >' hH •*■ i!r«* I •:Ai < m. JZ'1^1 A4. AT & IC(‘D t-'ci -frcj- .3)^1 a l-n:..t-’-S* k /. ■;*»‘. >i ■ .f .•p‘.|'’ r&fcSfc 'WViV' •#' » r* * V . "t, jh' - » ■ ■' - 5^ ,. i I ?;V<r * »■' • • -:> 0f' f • V” ‘ ’*5l...i .-. j * • d • I %•m ^J Application ua'c April 16,2002 60-Day Hcvicw Expiration: June 15,2002 Concept Plan Approval Date: Jnne 10,20*12 (Resolution #4828) Concept Plan Approval Effective Period: June 10, 2002 • December 10,2002 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn L. Planning Commission Members Mike Gafiron, Planning Director^^l J^^\ August 15,2002 ' #02-2782 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway - Public Hearing: Request for Approval of Revised Concept Plan (Medical Office) Summary of Request Applicants received Concept Plan Approval per City Council Resolution No. 4823 on June 10,2002. As they have continued to refine the site plan, a number of revisions have been proposed which do not change the defined use of the site but do significantly affect the parking layout, access locations, site circulation, building size and orientation, etc. and which staff concludes rise to the level of requiring a Revised Concept Plan review and approval. It should be noted that applicants have been negotiating a purchase agreement with the City; it is as yet unsigned. The latest issue with the purchase is that applicants’ environmental consultant has suggested the site may contain small pockets of defined wetlands, although none are mapped on the site. The City Engineer is currently reviewing the wetland status of the property and is expected to provide staff with additional information shortly. Applicants have also advised the City that they now have a signed purchase agreement to acquire the adjacent 2.5 acre parcel to the east, and the Revised Concept Plan indicates the potential for additional parking on that site as well as a shared access to Kelley Parkway. List of Exhibits A - Revised Plan Sheets: C2.1 - Revised Preliminary Site Plan L2.1 - Revised Preliminary Landscape Plan Pl.l - Revised Floor Plan ELI & El.2 - Revised Building Elevations B - Resolution No. 4828 and Exhibits #02-2782 Profeulonal Propcrtlct of Orono Auguft 15,2002 Paid of 3 cl.. Concept Plan Revisions The following items constitute significant revisions or changes from the Concept Plan approved by the Council in June, 2002: 1. The building is 16,000 s.f in area rather than 15,000 s.f. It is still one stoiy and retains the same architectural styling as the original plan. 2. The building orientation has been reversed so that its front entrance is facing northeast toward Kelley Parkway rather than southwest tow ard the intersection of Hwy 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road. 3. The easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property to the east. This was formerly an “in-only ” access point. It is located directly across from the Orono Police driveway as required by the City to eliminate leA- tuming conflicts for exiting vehicles. 4.The westerly access from Kelley Parkway will be “in-only ” w hich provides easy access for patient drop-off and pick-up while providing less of a stacking backup conflict for ears exiting onto westbound Kelley Parkway. 5. The easterly parking lots are connected by two “through ” corridors to additional parking on the adjoining property. Based on applicants ’ revised submittal C2.1 , required parking is 72 stalls, of which 67 are provided on-site and 5 are provided on the adjacent pronerty. The site plan indicates that a total of 15 stalls are proposed on the adjacent property to ser\ e this site, due to the applicants ’ expectation that a total of 83 stalls are likely necessary to adequately serve their intended use of the building. Parking layout appears to meet the appropriate design standards in terms of stall size, driving lane w idth, etc. Topics for Discussion “ Parking Easements^Aareements vs Lot Line Rearrangement : The two apparent options for allowing the required parking and shared access to occur outside the boundaries of the properly are 1) require that parking easements or agreements be established betw een the tw o properties; or 2) require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that all parking for the comer lot is w'ithin the comer lot. The shared access should require cross-easements in any case; the proposed shared access location is very appropriate to serve both sites, and we w ould expect perhaps one additional access to Kelley Parkway would be developed for the easterly parcel. Staff does not necessarily oppose the idea of using easements to meet the parking obligation ot the comer lot, but these must be properly documented and taken into account when the easterly site is developed. •02-2782 Profeuiuoal Properties of Orono August 15, 2002 Page 2 of 3 lE9.iLa!pn^.ighway 12: During the process ofdcveloping the revised site plan, applicants’ engineer noted that placement of a trail in the right-of-way abutting the south lot line would leave existing power poles in the middle of the trail. Staff suggested that the trail be shown south of the power poles for now, and this would need further discussion. There are a number of issues regarding the location of this trail that perhaps should be taken into consideration: - safety aspect ofproximity to Highway 12. Any trail along 12 west of Willow Drive should be significantly separated from the traveled right-of-way... - aesthetic impacts - will the trail be better situated from a landscaping perspective if pushed nearer the property? - impact of pedestrian traffic near medical building windows - is there a proximity factor that should be considered? - topographic issues - the trail, if south of the power poles, is almost into the road ditch; staff has had very recent discussions with Hennepin County (in regards to the future turnback of Highway 12) about converting the ditches along the Willow-OCB Rd. segment of 12 into storm sewers, which would provide an urban section and allow for a more attractive transition from the Highway to the development along it... Planning Commission should discuss this issue and if possible provide Council with some direction in terms of trail location. Wetland Issue If any new information is available prior to the Planning Commission staff will advise you of it. The City Council will have to determine what action is necessary should the site be found to contain wetlands regulated under the WCA rules. Expected worst case is that a small amount of mitigation may be required off-site; best case is that the wetlands will be determined to be non-e.xistent prior to the WCA affective date (i.e. not naturally occurring and possibly created by later grading of the site) and nothing will be required. Staff Recommendation Staff finds that the Revised Concept Plan contains a number of elements which make it superior to the approved plan, primarily in terms of access to Kelley Parkway and site circulation. It appears that all required building and parking setbacks are met with this plan. The orientation of the building toward Kelley Parkway will allow for a more extensive green buffer facing the 12/OCB intersection. Planning Commission should address the "Topics for Discussion" noted above and make recommendations where appropriate. A resolution to amend Resolution No. 4828 will be presented to Council on August 26, referencing the Revised Concept Plan and incorporating any necessary revised conditions. The topics of rezoning, stormwater management, building materials and design, signage, lighting, landscaping, etc. are already dealt with in the Resolution, so probably do not have to be discussed at this time, but will be reviewed at the time final plans are submitted for Development Plan Approval. ^02-2782 Professional Properties of OroQO August 15, 2002 Page 3 of 3 • 17 V*u.S i'«*r«c9 VK.% iflN jrii 1<»W» l9(^C7 « *f»m*40 »»«uj «m)• muwH>•1 3AREA SUMMARYCm:^ .V - ,:v- J 6 1 WK niMift MOC M5V l» * CM.CM M« • 0«CDO Mi^MO j »t\m MM r •*»MO B n • •«[EO *«U. CAJCvlyrv^CM^W*curp E> CONIFEROUS TREES iloa; Kfi'r ■K40I <C3 Met*• M C*4 ftJM . #•0G>••a caoB OCaDUOUS SliRUBS u «MMO* C(^4C^4 9 C m.oct M • *•EG>»*44 cacB » • *41 «wao ftuM»n.1 Ci>ov:^» ft C44.*Cf ftftK « 9ft«QXD ••U. CAM 0 M •yMotm aot —m. MM tCM »«• fWKlM aiTftMMk } CM •or M« t 4W (SG>MM(M 70 4»4« MO WftO 1 •dtflUl »i0«* J»#« M9 } CM oc»•• • 4r QXD HOMO a ^1 *«*-*0<T •••MM MM4 ftMM* jM>«C4 M*<MV ••*««0 7 CM •0*JM « 9»«E!I>KCVM M •*n» •»*.»• •4*MMCI4 M»qMV»a MMMuA 1 CM oo»40N •[DQ>HOMO rvCRCREEN SHRUBS o »n«♦44U1 • fOM4 9 CM rr»>• «»r EO ftMtOBM o •1 »• C3MM A4Mt«S O9M00 •U* OMft^f 9 CM OOf *« • «v CEO ftwMOMM o ••<C<IUU Amoves *««t9r«u« COTACtft ft CM.• ftv GO CWMCBMV O a IHMk OCCKMOMO ’•CMfT • •*»CM • rw GO •MOCMM PERENNIALS Jr •«MO HH%mc*<4’*«,<9 ••MB MMAiiAtCM ♦ CM.oo»M • 1^GO •AjMft 0 • M M •Ol** *v*vr»» ipf »<T*t CM 09»>< • ft*GO •A.4.A MA/1 •fc-XM jO*-t C m >• • ftv GO GO MArtt -9ft ft^tu^ oa M9 »*r4»1’ftuii fl» oar 1 CM.oa»L»* • 19V MM«M s:4ioo lafir vr-tMT JFC JR tamcucan:JR «Kt:RL‘GUSTfl.2K? M. tftH toiMitoi 1 l/O&Q OTVSUBWTTAL c~- 1 Ml e«9y M Qfe VicMBi •riipBtt MiiniOTf »| tB or Mr HI Mi HpMlor. wi M1 *n 1 ««| iMM M fit to* mifSCTA n* M f*ias icDr vrmf4r tftiwibr JPG JR IIMICViVC tftr.AUGUST f.»» m. im iMMikr 1 ima OTVSUMrnAL liwvtyatVyM I ggg g|||» ipHfcflIVI NilimiarMflr ICSBUCTA .iU___tlMI OUTMXC5T rLEVATIQN r • I -r* shea L J looiwitwimn WIi&SOc nkmupor«.infi SS403-1S94 T 61233922S7 f 612 349 2930 mnrjfiulnkxaiB DA*t. client: ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER CMiO^ AAO S51.X-N Of TOK3 Tn SO'JTu E.^ST elevation xjy UB‘ • \ -e ‘ - —OATt, M-e»-3C«t project title: DENTAL CLINIC ORONO. MIN sheet title: EXTERIOR BUILDING AND TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS WiWttWJ drnwbK tfadadbr. 524100 1/r »r-Q* AUCUST6 2X2 0411 • mttcK -FV nitriTTi rH*'»Xn lui'.il.i tlM'nt iliHi*W tiMMt.l U h.iiii <>e. ‘•M<l UVIIH) tllMilli •«0«P4CI CAAT i^lT *T0M[ vMt« 1 raw OTYSUBMinAL fiKsmitoiwMM I prasMi IV n V «4 ircMW Mr M to TN TgAS^ ENQI OSUtg= gLEvATION’S ^ le* • I -------- J1M6___&2tt E1.2 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 8 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2765 KELLEY PARK>VAY FILE NO. 02-2782 WHEREAS, Professional Properties of Orono (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in property located at 2765 Kelley Parkway within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and >\'HEREAS, the property is located in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area for which the City has established special requirements for rezoning and development per Municipal Code Section 10.52; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono Highway 12 Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance (Municipal Code Section 10.53) requires a multiple step approval process for properties developing via the PUD process; the General Concept Plan approval stage is the first step in the process followed by the Development Plan approval stage; and WTIEREAS, the applicant has requested General Concept Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development of this 2.0 acre property. Proposed is a rezoning from RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District to B-6/PUD for medical office use of the parcel. ’ The intended use of the property is a 15,000 s.f one-story medical office building; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the follo\N*ing findings in regard to this application for rezoning and PUD General Concept Plan approval: 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2782. The property is located in the RR-IB One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. The property consists of appro.ximately 2.0 acres. Page 1 of 12 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. m'*i'i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 8 Rezoning of the property from RR-IB One Family Rural Residential to B-6 Highway Commercial District (PUD) for a medical office use would be in keeping with the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) which guides the area in which the property is located, from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road between Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway, for professional office use. Professional office use is a permitted use in the B-6 District. Per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.52, minimum area for a rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor is 5 acres. The property is nominally 2.0 acres in area; the site was created in 1934 to accommodate a branch of the Hennepin County Library, which was never built. The City of Orono purchased the site in 1996 for temporary public works use and as a means of controlling the future development of the site. Because 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 r-ezoning of the site is reasonable. Such a rezoning is unlikely to have negative impact on the adjacent 2.5 acre vacant lot, since that parcel is also guided for professional office use. Other properties abutting or near the property are used for or planned for uses which are generally compatible with the proposed office use. North of Kelley Parkway is the Orono municipal complex including administrative offices, police department and public works facilities to the northeast. Directly east is a vacant 2.5 acre parcel guided for professional office use. To the south across Highway 12 is the Orono industrial park. To the west across Old Ciystal Bay Road is the Orono Schools campus. The applicant has provided preliminary plans attached to this resolution as Exhibits A and B including site plan, grading plan, utility plan and landscaping plan (all dated 5-17-02) and conceptual building construction plans (dated 4-17- 02) which the Council finds are sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer a.nd the potential impacts of the project. The proposed site plan meets the general access standards developed for the Highway 12 corridor, in that all access is directly to Kelley Park*wav, and trail links are provided. An existing 8' wide bituminous trait which is part of the Orono comprehensive trait system is located within the property along Old Crystal Bay Road. The City wishes to maintain this trail in its current Page 2 of 12 8. 9. 10. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 8 configuration and location to maintain a pedestrian corridor that is separated from Old Cr^’stal Bay Road. An easement will be required for this e.xisting trail. Sidewalks/trails v ithin the Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 rights-of-way are subject to appro\ il by Orono and MnDOT respectively. Stormwater management is an overriding concern with development of this site, since ponding is not proposed within the property. Stormwater management is proposed to be provided by stormwater catch basins and storm sewer lines which would discharge to a proposed storm sewer through properties to the east, then eventually outletting into a regional stormwater pond to be located appro.ximately 1/4 mile east of the property. This regional pond is proposed as an expansion of an existing MnDOT stormwater pond by Dahlstrom Development LLC to serve their proposed 50-acre development surrounding that pond. The timing of expansion of the MnDOT pond may not coincide with applicants intended schedule for the medical office. In addition to the City of Orono, MnDOT and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have approval authority over the applicants’ stomnvater management plan. The City Council finds that the development of this critical comer property will set the standard for the quality, character, context and compatibility of development desired by the City for Kelley Parkway. WTiile Orono has not created specific design guidelines for commercial or residential development within the Highway 12 corridor area, minimum standards for site design and building construction have been incorporated into the applicable zoning codes. In order to ensure that development of the property will result in an expression of Orono’s open space character and image, City Council will herein establish minimum Concept Plan Approval conditions to be met by the developer in order to gain Development Plan Approval. The City Council finds that the proposed rezoning and proposed development of the site for a medical office building is appropriate for the property, will not have negative impacts on the surrounding properties when all Concept Plan Approval conditions are met, and is in keeping with the goals, policies and philosophies of the City. Page 3 of 12 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.__4 R g a CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS r n * K RES0L\TD that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the General Concept Plan for development of a 15,000 s.f. medical 1. 2. The City of Orono will approve rezoning of the property to B-6 (PUD) as descnbed herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan approval. Conditions for Development Plan Approval are as follows: A. Development Standards and General Conditions. 1) The Development Plan shall meet all setback standards for building construction and parking as established for the B-6 District in the zoning code, as defined in the following table: BuUding/Development Standards Required Lot Area 2.0 acre min. Lot Width 100' Principal Structure Setbacks Front (N")35' Side (E)10’ Rear (S)30' Side Street (W)35* Parking Setbacks •includes driving lanes Front (N)20' Side (£)5’ Rear (S)15' Side Street (W)15* Building Height Peak Heieht N7A Defined Heioht 30’ max. Page 4 of 12 W\\\^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 8 The above table values are based on the B-6 standards for residential zoning of the Orono municipal facilities to the north and the Orono Schools to the west; the industrial zoning to the south; and the intended commercial zoning to the east. Required off-street parking per Section 10.61, Subd. 10 shall be provided at a ratio of no less than 5 stalls per 1000 s.f. net building floor area. Parking layout and traffic flow shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The northeasterly access driveway to the site shall be operated and signed as “in onl/’. Appropriate traffic and parking signage within the site shall be installed subject to the Orono staff and City Engineer's review and approval. Applicants shall demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that the service area along the northeast side of the building is designed to provide for efficient service vehicle access and is treated archi'Wtu. illy as a primary facade that presents a positive visual ima;'..'; Ki^-vard Kelley Parkway. The percentage of the property that is devoted to green space (not including areas within road rights-of-way) shall be maximized to the greatest extent possible but in no case shall be less than 25% of the lot area. Landscaping plan shall meet all landscaping standards established for the B-6 District in Section 10.45, Subdivision 6(H). In addition, the Developer shall be responsible for sodding the boulevard of Kelley Parkway and any other areas outside the property boundary that may be disturbed. The developer shall create a “parkway” character through substantial landscaping along Kelley Park\vay, shall provide substantial deciduous trees along the west boundary*; and shall provide a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees along the south boundary of the property Page 5 of 12 I GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.8 8) Along Kelley Parkway, the Development Plan shall incorporate a green (sod) boulevard no less than 8 feel in width behind the curbline of Kelley Park^\’ay; a concrete sidewalk 6 feet in width located partially within the right-of way and partially on the property; and a setback to parking from the north lot line of no less than 20 feet. The property owner shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of the sidewalk and boulevard. 9) Street lighting along Kelley Parkway adjacent to the property shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. 10) Along Old Cr>slal Bay Road, the setback from the eastern edge of the existing trail to the back of parking lot curb shall be no less than 5 feet. A suitable buffer to provide a sense of physical separation between the parking lot and users of tl.e trail shall be provided, in the form of a hedge or vegetative barrier, a berm, a short barrier wall, additional separation, or some other method acceptable to the City Council. A trail easement shall be granted to the City over the westerly 25' of the property. The City shall be responsible for maintenance of this trail. 11) The proposed pedestrian trail along Highway 12 shall be 8’ wide, of bituminous surfacing and shall be located within the Highway 12 right-of-way, subject to MnDOT approval, appro.ximately abutting the south property line, to provide separation from the traveled portion of the right-of-way. The construction of this trail may be deferred until such time that development of the property to the immediate east occurs, subject to the Developer posting suitable financial security in the interim for such construction. The City shall be responsible for the maintenance of this trail upon its completion and acceptance. 12) Signage and lighting on the site shall adhere to the pertinent zoning code standards, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Site lighting shall be low and shielded, similar to the style of lighting found at the Orono Administrative Facilities. Page 6 of 12 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 Site lighting along the west and south boundaries shall be provided adequate to light the trails along these hvo sides of the property. Final decisions by the Developer regarding colors, t>pes and qualities of building materials shall be subject to Council approval. The proposed building shall be subject to the Architectural Standards for the B-6 District per Zoning Code Section 10.45 Subd. 6(1). The use of the building is specifically approved for professional office use. Retail uses accessory tc the office use may be allowed through a formal amendment of the PUD, but if approved the combination of all such uses shall not e.xceed 5% of the gross floor area of the building. Applicants architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of building permits. Developer shall provide suitable evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval of the stormwater management plan before Development Plan Approval will be granted. Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City and by the MCWT) shall be in place prior to commencement of excavation on the site. This concept plan approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. i Co® CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.82 S C. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions: 1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Prelimin',.7 Plan set. The Public Works Department r-'d MnDOT shall review and approve all utility improvements. T sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and aix subject to approval by the Public Works Department. 2) Final grading, drzi V’.sfAe and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed cont.^ *, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MnDOT have approved the stormwater plans. 3) Final landscaping design plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the B-6 zoning district. 4) Final building construction plans, including: a) elevations of all sides of the building; b) type and color of exterior building materials; c) proposed floor plan; d) building dimensions; and e) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Page 8 of 12 ill «SHO D. E. F. G. 6) 7) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 4 8 g a Parking lot construction plans, including confirmation that parking lots and driving lanes will be paved and provided with concrete curb and gutter, and that all driving lanes wdthin parking lots shall have a 9-ton minimum pavement section. A geotechnical evaluation of the soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Detailed signage and lighting plans. Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the development. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks] retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee for commercial development shall be paid by the developer at the rate of S6,480 per acre (2002 Fee Schedule). The City Council shall determine prior to final Development Plan approval whether the Developer will be charged additional fees for off-site stormwater improvements that benefit this property. • Park Dedication. The City Council shall determine prior to Development Plan Approval whether Park Dedication requirements are applicable to this project. If sc, the City will determine the dedication requirement in land or fee payment prior to Development Plan Approval. Page 9ofl2 • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 2 8 3. 4. 5. H.Server and Water Connection Charges. The applicant shall pay sewer and water connection charges to the City in an amount to be arrived at by use of the following formula: ^ ~ ^ * 2*® acre* X S14,115/acre *= Connection Charge DueA where: A » number of SAC units required for the office building . 2 = number of sewer/water units paid previously 2.0 acres = area of the property $14,115 = per-acre connection fees for 1989 Highway 12 municipal sewer & water project. This General Concept Plan Approval resolution approves the development concept subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of this resolution and all other requirements of the Cit>-. This resolution does not constitute approval of the rezoning. Such approval shall only be considered when the City Council finds that all “Conditions for Development Plan Approval” as identified herein have been met. This General Concept Plan Approval shall be effective for a period of 6 months from^ the date of this resolution. If Development Plan Approval is not granted within that period, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period. 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. Page 10 of 12 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.____482 8 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of June, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor no,^P as Developer) Ronald J. Mo^se (for the City of Orono as Property Owner) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ^day ot Xune 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal cotporatiorl and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalf of the City. /if Notary Public ^ UN0AS.VEE 9 NOTARrPUBUC'ICfffXSOrA My CentiWon Eiptru JM.s1.aooS Page 11 of 12 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 82 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 2002 by Linda S. \ee. City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal on/l coin ________« t «/• ^ *corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARYANN JOHNSON NOTAKmaJC -UMCSOrA lAr CganMoi Ejetat Jn. 31.2009 Notary Pubjr^' ^ t STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ^ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this dav of .JU£i2------, 2002 by Ronald J. Moorse. City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE |g UN0AS.VEE notmiymuc-mmcsota 11,3005 Notary Public COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of .. 2002, ICoLri a. 9^ ra J^/0 whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of ------------------------- a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instalment, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed on behalf of Professional Properties of Orono, LLP. /J^y7'tu^ Notary Public Page 12 of 12 r"DENISE M.IESWNEN NOTAwruwe-Mwapw 3AICA lACAtlOII MAfl 9mm, MU ns.» i lABiftnunoKs I tA ^4 i b* •• i: Set." ti* ST IHtF iiHv-® Sr-*=- .-•» Etc r? Er*’ RESOLUTION NO. ^^2 3 DENTAL CLINIC EXHIBIT A-1 COVERSHEET ORONO, MN IDlAtmc SYMBOISC asrrt/imiJTt coKTArni E-'--- ScT^ Sr »«4»« *00* © **m****m>^<S) C3SITC sm»0t3( »x<i 1 1 «.» ZS^^wtm •M«m« mmm* •i awii M«r* MA •• tMM sr4*tr:uy jy mSSTSm* ^*00*1l|IIIIItrrit.. •M M-MfMM ; f TS22. rs^jL.«%• M fmm A •mm S7*~ .V. • V. t'.*. .• Gscim IMtn DToci i FE2 S?«i5i*^S*^*^ •m «*• p e =5-.^I I-. % 'J* A X4 ■« r:;:*s ♦ Sd M *00 •»• =l~ir =.tu [?=-CDCaOSttN COIfTMt SYMB014( • # St I? H' S ::& HST" D* Gopher State One Cel Ml* «r* MM • m tarnMU *M« . tg|M ciima niKiflte OCMMOMC OMWLMi LANDFORM Mh CM.1TIU IMH r*v C0.1 uau KiLLEr r»A,K!QUAY J RESOLUTION NO. 4 8 5> 9 CDKOTta r »-.i::srsjTsr-SM ? EXlIlDrTA-2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN M« 0 *«•■< « • «W MB - _~M MB*»•••* •• • wT; vLT^Ia «3b* (k W « MW BM* W »W1SL\I»T M »tr«>TSM« • SrS*^t?=-i W.s«*w C^JS mV bI CD ~ — »w OPAMDtC SUWAJITI iaM M/«M • • MuB »•* VW WW dS/uttA ftnniAJiri »w* »• ««a ^ ti A M mm cum SSSftSteOitCal M «•J ■cau m n*t •WUM M«i •»• I MMMT flUMM ••WWW** ••ww** CtMt oAONOPmsscfULcemfi mtkum OCMTM.CURK (MONO. UR LANDFORM amnc: pRruurwRv UTl^ Mass. r«w tr*SUL. WMBCr C2.1 J RMOLirriON NO. I MO ns • ■ • mm m. «mm-t «k M— *• **.* *»w Ma « ***'*«^ * M wmmu .m aa ***** ** * »r«« • •»%*■»• »i»M •■ «•«• *■ T— -n ----------- * ^ <*.4 #*M «M «iB•m* «■•• mmm '*** EXHIBIT A>3 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I r M «■§ Mi • «aii#l • Ml ^ »0«« M MM MMJ #• ••MM MM M<M« M ^ ^ • "a***** -—------------^ * •* *-••'• ►-*• —■»« »• «J* * **^^*^^^i****^ * r^2^3r-•r2rs.*• * 5sv5Hc?aSSTiS^r i W “*W •««•*«« w »• .a.Mi •<*••«•.« at ••<*.**«•*»* a. .aiii* ■•« BW •• SJ^rji^Srif* i’"LrLJ' **• ^* *••••• •»>•• M MMKaU W tut t«aa» t BilMM • Mfa a CM (MOMOfWmSOUL CWTW MkIMc OfRULOMC QNONaiM landform iMMk iwuMiy OUOM lUN r»m *a—>» mc*5 --------- rHr£~;CaF^?»« rcx:^tSR:s^s:xs C3.1 RESOLUTION NO. *4823 u s wG^azr KO n CIS NOTES I EXinBlTA*4 PRELINnNARY UTILITY PLAN fS<SrX» Km X —<r M*# • «f m —w mmm w tm «M M A AM AM M •• M rM AiA • • •• ^a^mm w% «• mwm m A ** » ■—■ ■ A iAA«» «ft »#« M. SZwA* Cs>s:j;^ I ««•> «. M«VB« ^ «*M« « mpM «tat •« • ». n i iri ^ m »».M V«4 ••* ■• .mW •• <«•• •• C3SrTC/UTtUTt COKTACni M»«t 1 m«o«i i*wirw ^ MA»« Mt *A M.M.I■iiS’l— •MA* Mi JAM M •# Mia •M «i Gtpktf SUi« 0«« Cifl • W •• ruH—j tcku t> nif I MM BP MUMM Ml cfiac CMmPmVKML CWTW fnItciMi: OCm/AOMC OMONaUN A LANDFORM =£JS-» “£SS*» a ■ ■« tXtftM mdAMMY uth/typlm ■M«. Mm« r»m W . trm- -L> r-TT-i •— • « mm mmm HliCiV KS£Xfi?««» »«»«•* C4.1 \ Ur.SOLUTION NO. 4 8 f> K.XIIIDmi.l nu:UMINARY FLOOR PLAN .©r\ FLOOR PLAN I/16’ • r-0*PAT£i 4-\l-3CQ2 shea L J UOMU0in«f MHUOC T lt2»f22S7 9 11214} 2SM «Mrwi>4jMiccn dlent: ORONO PROFESSiQf; omR project IJUe: DEMTAL CLINIC ORONO. MN Sheet title: FLOOR PLAN j«L«r^2 fen»l«r 1 tfitn OTVfumrrjK P1.1 RESOLUTION NO. ^82 3 E.\mBIT B-: PRELiMiN.-:rv /:xt BUILDING ELEVACO.N u ‘SPLIT STOKE VENEER ROC< FACE PRE CAST STONE ‘ALUMINUM ^CANOPr STOREFRONT COLUWS PRE CAST STCNE ’ 'SPANDREL ^^F»RE CAST CLASS STCf^ ASPNALT SNINCLES ALIMINUM trim PRE CAST STONE BRICK T\ SOUTM ELEVATION©|^|^« ^ y»CI* DATEi 4*n-202)2 . .r- " CANOPr AND COLirW BSTCND ASPrIALT 6NINCLE3 AUniNUM TRIM brio ; SPLIT STONE VENEER PRE CAST- STONE ROCK FACE PRE CAST STONE ■PS'S CAST 6TO>fE r\ EAST ELEVATION©i/ife*. y-e>‘DAlBi A-n-:CC7 shea L J ieOM«eira« MtSBt um-tsM T I11}»Z257 f 112141 lUO vwwiUjMican clleot ORONOPROfESSIONAl CENTER proIictlRtt: DENTAL CLWC 0R0N0.MN shtetUUr EXTERIOR BULOmO ELEVADONS Jlilf v»r«»-r nr SMM. M 4m kMNkt 1 «<Mi or» *.*>r*«, E1.1 *r*w» «. «‘n/Vl^LF 1|1 RESOl.UTION NO. ^^23 EXHIBIT B-3 PRFXIMINARV EXTERIOR BUILDING AND TRASH ENCLOSURE ELL\T:aTIONS ^^^ALa-II^Un TRI-I PJ« CA5T 6TONE PRE CAST STONE ROOCFACS PRE CAST STONE ^SPLIT STONE I VENEER r\ MORTM ELEVATION©t/ifc’ • r-0'QATEi 4*n-?002 ASPr4ZLT SWINCiLES ALuniKuri TRiM J CASOPT AND COUTN BEYOND BR!C<•PRE CAST STONE ROCK FACE SPLIT STONE PRE CAST VENEER STONE ©?\ LUEei ELEVATION PATE, 4-n-2ooii/i^' • r-0* .'i' BAfiS BR*C<- GATES m X •PRE CAST CAP m M FRONT rock FACS F»R£ CAST STONE SPLIT STONE VENEER ^ TRASM ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS \EO/ 1/16* • r-0* DATE• 4.11.TOO? shea L J icoe09i»m« Iv^UOc rtai T l11»aS7 f iiiMm ctlint ORONOPROFcSSlOflAL CENTER project Bile: D£?fTALCU?iIC CRONO. m sheet true: EXTERIOR BUIL0IK5 A*.0 TRASH ENCLOSURE EIEVATIOHS jmn Kt> ___e 1 «uicterrMM^ El .2 ■ i«r« •• •• * — »S*|‘ T 1 * ft I lit 1 I ^*•01 ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER 2725 KaiEY PARKWAY •ALUMINUM 6I6N IWTM BAOaiT UJMITE LETTERS ‘ f I'l 111T ^IIT^ CltL • 11' F '1 I I 1 PR£ CAST STONE l3’-4* BRICC ROOCFAC5 PF . AST STONE ©SIC:NAGEW 1/4* . r-0‘ ai:*.! DATE- 4-n-7C02 ;r ELANMSU/ ©-0* 1 Vl** ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER ^^^PPE CAST CAP Pf^ CAST STONE ICC •ALUMINUM SION U/ITM BACKLIT UJMITE LETTERS sttiags^sggig^is-ac l5'-4* W-O* -BRICK -ROCK FACE PRS CAST STCNH shea L J tWMiMimcl toMISOl irtMipakLni T 111391 aS7 f tiiNf nso wmjr»ift4caa !•* *«mrn/M,0 cHent ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER prolect title: DENTALCLINIC ORONO. m sheet title; SfTEPLANA‘10 SIGNAGE SIGNAGE 1/4' . y-0*DATEi 4-n-300; BBBH'P«1lt •n* cn m #1 SRiSk ji m. tm 1 ftAt» OfVMMfUl ( M— • • M a S1.1 F. TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 14,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2801 Kathy Melin 3309 Crystal Bay Road Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 6,058 s.f. (.14 acre) Exhibits: A Survey B Planning Commission Minutes - July 15,2002 C Staff Report and Exhibits - July 15,2002 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback; To permit construction of an 8.02’ X 16.4’ three season porch to be located 27' from the paved portion of Crystal Bay Road where a 30’ setback is required. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(16): Structure within 75 ’of lakeshore: To permit construction of a screen porch 57 ’ from the OWHL of Lake Minnetonka where 75 ’ is required. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 2(16) (L): Hardcover in 0-75 ’ setback: To permit 867 s.f. (21.13%) of hardcover within 75 ’ of Lake Minnetonka. To permit an increase of 136 s.f. of hardcover w ithin 75 ’ of Lake Minnetonka. Application Suramaiy: This application was tabled at the J.ily 15,2002 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could redesign the proposed 3 season porch. The applicant has redesigned the 3 season porch and has submitted the new plans to staff. Variances for side v ard setback, lot coverage by structures, and average lakeshore setback are no longer needed. Changes to plan: Size: The 3 season porch was reduced in size from 12’ X 28’ to 8.02’ X 16.4 ’ for an additional 136 s.f. in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. #02-2801 Kathleen Melin 3309 Ciysal Bay Road 8/15/2002 Page I of2 fi Lot Coverage by Structures: Lot Area = 6,058 s.f. Allowed = 1500 s.f. Existing = 1397 s.f (includes portion of house and shed located off the property) Proposed == 1477.23 s.f **The applicant is removing the shed on the rear of the property (51.3 s.f) in order to meet the allowed 1500 s.f for the property. Hardcover: 0-75’ setback zone- Existing = 731 s.f (17.8%) Proposed -• 867 s.f (21.13%) Allowed = 0 s.f (0%) ♦Hardcover calculations do not include the paved Crystal Bay Road and any plastic landscaping material. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Please revisit pages 2 and 3 of 3 (Review of Hardship) of July 15, 2002 Planning Commission report. Staff Recommendation: Staff again recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition being located within 75’ of the lakeshore. The addition could not be done without the need for variances. The property has a total of 1,397 s.f of structure. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building already within 75’ of the lakeshore a variances to allow additional hardcover or structure is not warranted. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. »02-280l Kathleen Melin 3309 Crystal Bay Road 8^5/2002 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KATHLEEN MELIN OF LOT 1, WALLACE'S ADD. OF MTKA. BEACH AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED KENWOOD WAY HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR UNC LEGAL DCSCytPTlON CP PREMISES Lot 1. Wolloce's Addition to the Vi I logo of Minnetonko Beoch, toaether with 0 portion of vocoted street lying no** theoster I y of on:? odjocent to said lot descri'^ed os follows: Thot port of said vocoted street lying southwestei of o line drown f/cm o point on the SoutheostcrIy line of soid vocoted strt' x distant 10 feet northeasterly from the rrost southerly corner of soid vacated street, to 0 point on the Southwesteriy line of soid vocoted street distant 113.91 feet northwesterly from soid most southerly corner. o : denotes iron morker Beorings shown are bosed upon an essi/ned doton. This survey intends to the boundories of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, and the location of all visible ^hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other irrprovonents or encroochments. GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES, INC cmKoanummmKrum 4inmam locumiiiiaftsi •52-473-4111 I kmttf artdf M tis tf>n •• bf ne orede Wf irccl tpe- and Od I es • regilecd Cni Dgmr ed led Srwftf wde the kws of the Stott of bimtiota 7^. ftyb S Croo6trg~ Urmsolytxtfee hrOtr 12755 SCalC r-20* DATE 10-16-01 MWP 01-376 A 01-376 k MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02^03 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, Continued) GafiBron stated that, he believed, the code does not force or require in a front/back lot subdivision that both acces^come off the outlot and the existing driveway does not need to come off the front lot. Gaffron pqinted out that, if this is the case, the County may have an issue with having two accesses. He sugg^ted contacting Hennepin County public works department and the City Engineer. Gronberg asked if the applicanTUould keep this option open. Smith questioned whether the existingliriveway could stay there forever. Berg stated that the County has the final say^ Rahn asked if the two properties are sold to two ovmafs when the accessory structures will be required to be removed. This would be an undue burdelK^n those owner. Smith indicated the removals would be a condition of the subdivision. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2803^^f Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stuhbs, 2920 Fox Street, granting the preliminary plat subject to the condition that the City Engineer’s report be received by Council at the time it goe^o Council, and outlot A be platted subject to the removal of all accessory structures otherlhan the existing house, garage, and large shed at the time of subdivision. Mabusth questioned the need to resolve with the County the issue over two accesses. Smith added that an advisory to the Council be given that this is a Count)' decision that will likely be resolved at the time of redevelopment of the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 (tn 1) ##02-2801 KATHV MELIN, 3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 8:20 p.m. - 8:43 p.m. Kathy Melin and Robert Koelfgen, Applicant and Metro Handy Man, were present. Weinberger stated that the applicant has requested variances to permit construction of a 12’ X 24’ three season porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. Variances required for the construction arc, a front yard setback, side yard setback, structure within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. PAGE 15 of 36 b M •''^JNUTES of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN. Continued) “ -™achn.e„. „r 8- to “ located this site which bring into question whS fa «>'« arc a.x variances being proposed for to permit lot coverage beyond So a f on thiZll°"'''?r^ ' A variance actions along Ciystal Bay Road. There have beili two recent v ^ “•*>" Kaant complete rebuilds, not an addition as in to c^e“fts aXSn"" of to libcshore. ■ ™ddhto'couW nm •“'”? “'■Wn to 75’ hasatotalof 1,397 s.f. of structure. Due to the amnimf nf k a '"^•^ces. The property 75-Of to laheshore a varimee to allow addiltThTd^ rSdenu!m“ewtm^ “<■ -ad from to side as he had in the original plan KoeltoTaddtt Ih'JT™ “ ‘®’ “‘-ack adjacent to and irtonging upon the Dakom rS^lSrstl tonh'“ way to comply with at least some of tht variances. ^ some exceed the 1.500 s.fallowrmcrjiV°eqXe^enwa^^^ ^ that doesn’t would have big problems with these two issues. ° setback. I le stated that he Koelfgen pointed out tot variances had been granted for consIrucUon in 1996 and 1997, allowances, in fact, the htL'^t Wrc"stVBarRMd s'”' different coverage to 1,500 from the original 2,000. ^ ^ required to reduce its structural “h'SqS^: fetr :ra!:«rshrs"^ *■«" “p •<>enclosing them. suggested removal of the other porches or s and sheds on the PAGE 16 of 36 ► MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 oVIock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) Mabusth pointed out that the other decks arc merely slabs. Bremer asked how big the house was. Weinberger stated that the residence is 1,242 s.f.. not including the shed and garage. Smith inquired if the tuck under garage was included in the calculations. Weinberger noted that he merely acknowledged the door, since it is virtually under the hill. There were no public comments. Hawn stated that while the Commission ’s job is to give direction, she recommended the applicant come up with a design that keeps to the 1,.500 s.f structural coverage and 75 ’ setback. She stated that the applicant has a very tough road ahead and needs to look closely at the codes and work with staff on the proposal. She asked if the Commission should table the application. Melin asked if she were wilting to remove everything in order to meet the 1,500 s.f, could she have her porch. Berg suggested the applicant talk further with staff and come back with a new plan. Bremer inquired if wrapping the deck would be workable. Mabusth indicated that by doing so they w'ould be encroaching further into the 75 ’ setback, and suggested going to the east side in order to pull the addition out of the average lakeshore setback. Melin stated that neither of her neighbors had complained about the addition protruding further than their residences. Smith mruntained that the average lakeshore setback ensures that individuals don ’t encroach on each otliers views. Weinberger pointed out that, typically, when an applicant is well over the amount of hardcover allowed the Commission looks for ways to remove excess hardcover. He questioned whether the old garage’s existing driveway could be removed, however, maintainec that tliis could not be done without restricting access to the home. Smith asked the applicant if a motion should be made to table the request. PAGE 17 of 36 L minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) Melin agreed. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to table Application #02-2801, Kathy Melin, 3309 Crvstal applicant time to explore other options for their proposed porch. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. * (Recess taken from 8:43 p.m. - 8:53 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:30 P.M. TO RPUD RESltoTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT *^^^IOE^TIAL 8:54 p.m. -10:29 p.i^ iisiSsMms r'llf development. Wron slated lhat the Planning Commission met f" **'' dVloper last week in a joint work session tofamiliarize themselves with the new proposal.msmmmConcept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. X PP ral It Cy Complete Date: Deadline: 7/1/02 8/31/02 TO: FROM: D a IE: SUBJECT: Chair Sr.iith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator July 8,2002 #02-2801 Kathleen Melin 3369 Cr>stal Bay Road Variances List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Site Survey D Topographic Map E Elevation Views F Hardcover Calculation Worksheets G Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: Property owner has requested variances to permit construction of a 12' X 28’ three season porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25. Subd 6(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit construction of a 12’X28’three season porch located 23’ from the paved portion of Crystal Bay Road where a 30’ setback is required. Section 10.25, Subd 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: To permit construction of a 12’ X 28’ three season porch^S' to fhe side property line where a 10’ setback is required. 3. 1 8’ to the side property line whe (no lonjtv' Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) (16): Structure within 75 ’ of lakeshore: To permit construction of a screen porch 53’ from the OHWL of Lake vlinnctonka where 75 ’ is required. e<J Jt •02-2WI KilhkenMe'ji 3309 Costal BayRoaJ Page ! of 3 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd 2 16 (L): Hardcover in 0-75’ Setback: To permit an increase of 300 s.f. of hardcover within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka. Existing = 731 .s.f. (17.8%) Proposed = 1,031 s.f (25%) Allowed = 0 s.f (0%) * Hardcover calculations do not include the paved Crystal Bay Road and any plastic landscaping material. 5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage by Structure Lot Area = 6,058 s.f Allowed Lot Coverage by Structure = 1,500 s.f Existing = 1,397 s.f (includes portion of house and shed located off the property) Proposed = 1,733 s.f (includes portion of house and shed located off the property) 6.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The total encroachment is appro.ximately 8 ’. Review of Flardship: The applicant has stated the hardship is the house is located between the lake and a hill (sec Exhibit A). The State requires an undue hardsltip be present to grant a variance. 1 he State Statutory’ test for a hardship is defined as: Undue Hardship: means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the lando’vvner, and the va-iance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are 6 individual variances required for this application. For some time the Citv of Orono has consistently considered properties “fully developed” when the property is at a total 15% lot coverage or at 1.500 s.f when the lot is less than 10.000 s.f in area. 1 iiis individ*ual property is just more th^ 6,000 s.f in area, thus the zoning ordinance permits total lot coverage by structure of 1,500 s.f The total existing structure of 1,397 s.f includes a portion of the garage and shed that is not located on the property. This lot is immediately adjacent to the Dakota Rail right-of-way. Most lots alone Crystal Bay Road have maintained back yards that are in the right-of-way. The attached survey indicates the location of all structures and hardcover serving this property in relation to the property- lines. A variance to pemiit lot coverage beyond 1.500 s.f on this property would be inconsistent with other recent actions along Crystal Bay Road. There have been two recent variances approvals that were for complete rebuilds, not an addition as in the case of this application. In each case the amount of structure permitted on the property did not exceed what had previously been cn the propertv. One lot was allowed total lot coverage of just over 1.000 s.f total, the second lot was allowed a total of 1,500 s.f because the lot had been previously developed greater than 1,500 s.f •02-2S0I kaihlccn Nfclin 3309Cr>s!3i Da> ''.rad Page 2 of 3 Additional structure on the property also adds additional hardcover to the property. The entire addition would be located within 75’ of the lakeshore. The total net increase in hardcover within 75’ of the lake would be 300 s.f. A 36 s.f. stair entrance would be r.rmoved to make room for the addition. The total hardcover would be 1,031 s.f. which is 25% of the land area within 75’ of the lakeshore. The total hardcover figure does not include the landscaping plastic, an underground garage, and the paved width of Crystal Bay Road. The City of Orono has traditionally looked at equal removal of existing hardcover, but not necessarily allowing removal of driveway or landscaping plastic for structural additions. The structural addition within 75’ of the lakeshore requires variances to allow a new portion of a builuing within 75’ of the lake. The new structure would encroach 8’ into the required average lakeshore setback. This property is 52’ wide lot at the lakeshore. The entire neighborhood was platted with 50’ being the average lot width. The average lakeshore setback distance is measured by drawing a straight line between each of the neighboring residences. No building can be added or expanded closer to the lake than the average distance between those two structures. The average lakeshore setback regulations are intended to protect lakeshore views for neighbors. It is this t>T3e of neighborhood, where the houses are located relatively close to one another, that the lake views are most impacted by surrounding development. It is Staffs conclusion the front yard setback and side setback encroachments are due to the size of the proposed additioi* and are not direct hardships created by the property. Tne size of the porch could be reduced. The 50' setback to Ciy stal Bay Road and the 10’ setback to the side property line could be met by reducing the size of the addition. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition being located within 75’ of the lakeshore. The addition could not be done w ithout the need for variances. The property has a total of 1,397 s.f. of structure. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building already within 75’ of the lakeshore a variance to allow additional hardcover or structure is not warranted. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant diretiion. 4 Other action. «02-2S01 KilMc<nMclln Page 3 of 3 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^ H ( Date Received 6 // Y/03i Amount Paid PROPERTY LNFORMATION Site Address___________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) H-1 1 - qq Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\ey. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: \/ residentid .(month/year) Zoning District:, other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: 193*^ Phone (home) _____ Phone (work) City: __Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name fCi^n4-^ Address: 3 3 c<t CJt</Sna-f /Vy /?/,> City:, Phone (home) 9<’l 9</C3 Phone (work) ______________ £uA-yzA-rA Zip: $09/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimatea Construction Cost $ oao 3 (attach additional sheets if necessar>') VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property' conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Hpu<;e. )< <T\jcLki. A^l> A'tAtLL^_______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2801 turn 1. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ___ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Prope^ Ow-ners List of owmers within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain t^s list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depa^m^t of Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^^panmem ot Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover -. ;e^“on.“ ^ for 4. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if anv changes in cxistine y ^ade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x' 11” for reprotoion ~y Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy %V^' x II")' Jr of the legd names (include marital status) of all persons with'an interest in foe Propeijr. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Orvner rtust sign this application. Please remember that yopr mtanet application » not Jtmcltauithe above inforn.ntlon has no. ................ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applic^t 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 payS and'or consultant e.vpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies tifat the infoimation supplied is true and correct to the best of hisTier knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE “i^Srees to this application and fiirthcr authorizes reasonable ... c-, Date 0^-1 “)- 07^Ov.-ner ’s Signature I Applicant mujt have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning l.ommission Nfoeting. 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 nlease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise foe Building &. ^'fning Office of this change prior to foe meeting. * Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Dep^iti^lht NOTEI; REAliMNCEMENTOFLOTS 42 43.57.59. 99, <9.70 <7f WAUACE'SAOOITIC- TO THE VILLAGE OE MINNETONKA BEA Parcel Information Parcel ID 1711723410016 House Number 3309 Street Name CRYSTAL BAY RD : TNs is not »legally recorded map It represents a compilation ofhfomatlon and data from Ctty. County, and State road authoriUas and other sources. 45 •» % % ■ U|- LU I I, VVALLACC. C5 f\UU. Ur IVI I l\A. DCMUn AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED KENWOOD WAY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR LINE Pfopoi« ^ PdircU ?•;: f) I r-'T 4P LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES %i #•• • •• • • # •t •I •d r . I ■ ■EAST ^ leVA-T ir)M ^/-\e. '/c u uo' ^ y /e;; Ov' irC-^ /*u / .. L I,.::..l-iT.-'':*-C/'-c»: •?• • I! f' “•\ r.:\ r: V. • v:•• 1 *v,.‘«’..^’^** ■'V ' .C.-’ if, , • vV;. i..J ■- --■;(....-'l £S(sfff^6^c \ ^.... *VI'f, . •••••v.,..e, (•.. I \ .» '• *. 5. '• .. y . I** St^r^- Arx//c /^7i':iCrty =1^ 5|i^ ^XZfeZ- ~lG'"a>iL V'<S ■ ^¥ ■■ f3 V g>» :ar»v«;«v^Z>» • • • • // jJi'f u/4.7<^ ' . r - - i{ e.o ’2y^"^L7^ =Ej(PZ^C.l.... ;? l^’.y .Ti?TTi:?. __ '■: X>TTO'^ . . .. .p/Ar£,.._ ,, |c^Tp.L£t^J Al ELIH ! 0 ilARDCOVEUX^LCULATlON WOlUv^ SETBACK ZOr^E: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-2jO* 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcr.fii \V,dih B. Carige C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X m m M CK TOTAL HARDCOVER fN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B X 100 i cKY/rji. /toAO // PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House X Length Wiviih B. Oarage C. Driveway X X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck ^ X X X X V X X F. LandscageXr/t^uf ao C k s^yi^frirx Underlain _____________ x By Plastic _____________ x Or Fabric G. Other • x L ot Ahxx. bc-c. ’ 5n 500-1000* 264- S F -HtfU$£ 22^ 23/ jL __145. „JZt 87^ •f J3^ -3€ - P# SF. SF. _• c p . WOOD ar WALLS • • .SF COHCRirTg S.F.- DRivewAY ;s.F. S F v/oo^ S F.-5teP5 ,S.F. ROC4^ M S.F. - PtASTiC. S.F. S.F. C»HCflETtWAU.S, PtUAflS ANO SF-Sre»35 SF. A______ ip> 0-1 i S.F. B ^0*1 _2L1£__% |r| ,<^0 S.F. SF SF. SF. S.F. SF SF. ,S.F. S.F. SF S.F SF. SF total HARDCOVER IN ZON'E TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __________ * B f?C-/^20Z ^ /078 4/0 \ X100 - 2€.27 SF. A SF. B % ./ J SETBACK ZOjNCE;. (CE<CLE ONE) EXISTING H ardcover tn 7onf A. House HARDCOVER CALCULATlOi); NYORKSHEET t /iuLi. CP Mt>w. * vik. ^V. 0-75 ’ \t;qn V 250-500' L«ngVi Wicuh X X X B s; B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X 21 e (9.7<7°e A. E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plaslic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other total hardcover in zor>;E TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______ ^ B PBOPOSED H a RD c;qvfp ttst 7n>iv • A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway • mm» • • X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL R-\RDCO VER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ---------------—■ - 8 X 100 Width N 100 500-1000* ^78 s.F. - House JB7 6±3S S-F.-SHFO S.F. S F.-wooD wau .5. S.F. SF. SF. sf..‘^-?UT"'^^ SF. S.F.- 3 x>ec^^s S.F. ROCiiOH J>.r.” pt/(STfC S.F. S.F. S.F. s F. A .L9gt s.F. B .^^loLf\.tXo SF. SF. S.F, S.F, S.F. SF. S.P. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. A SF. B V. RUN DATE OA/18/02 BATCH 503 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AUDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB 17-117-23 3A 0052 0003B ADDRESS PENDING MCLEOD CNTY REG RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH MILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 56537 •36 17rll7-23 A1 0006 PROP ADDR . 00036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME C i L ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 17-117-23 61 0015 03265 CRYSTAL BAY RO HEATHER M JOHNSTONE HEATHER M JOHNSTONE 3265 CRYSTAL DAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 17-117-23 61 0016 03325 CRYSTAL BAY RD D M STANTON I B L STANTON DENNIS M t BECKY L STANTON 3325 CRYSTAL DAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 9 36 17-117-23 61 0006 02160 KENWOOD WAY P MARKUSEN I J ERICKSON PAUL MARKUSEN/JEAN ERICKSON 2160 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 61 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CEL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 61 0007 00036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED C I L ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 61 0013 03295 CRYSTAL DAY RD MARK C ZAGARIA MARK C ZAGARIA 1526 21ST AVE N E ROCHESTER MN 55906 36 17-117-23 61 0016 03309 CRYSTAL DAY RD KATHLEEN P MELIN KATHLEEN P MELIN 3309 CRYSTAL DAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 61 0017 03315 CRYSTAL BAY RD MARGARET E COMER MARGARET E COMER 3315 CRYSTAL DAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 63 0166 00036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED MC LEOD CO REG RAILROAD AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH MILL ST FERGUS FALLS MN 56537 TOTAL BATCH 503 00011 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^TME BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE #2801 % TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Botienberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner August 13,2002 #02-2812 Marvin and Mary Smith 1940 Country Club Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 56,846 s.f. (1.31 acre) Exhibits: A Application B Survey/Site Plan C Topographic Map D Elevations n Structural Engineer Letter 1' Plat Map G Property Owners List 11 Photos of Property Pertinent Ordinance: Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(B): Front Yard Setback: Minimum front yard setback in the LR-1A zoning district is 50*. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 39* from front property line. Application Summary: The applicant has requested a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 '/: story addition over the existing garage. The screen porch above the garage will be removed and the addition will be constructed in its place. I he existing residence is located 36.8* from the front property line. The garage is setback 2.2’ therefore 39* from the front property line. The applicant wishes to build above the existing garage. The topography of the property, location of the existing residence, flow of the residence and the structural soundness limits where an addition can take place. Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1965. The property is located in a two acre zoning district. However, the neighborhood is more in character with one acre zoning standards. If one acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 35’ required front setback. «0:-28l2 Marvia'Mary Smith 1940 Country Club Road 8/15 2002 Page I of 2 The neighborhood was developed in the late 1960’s early I970’s. Reviewing the four residences on Country Club Drive only one has been granted variance approval. 1 hat variance was granted in 1976 for a garage addition. The addition is proposed to be 2 'A stories. Staff has reviewed the proposed addition in regards to the City’s ordinance for height and its policy for 'A stories. The proposed addition meets both criteria. This property was part of a 1998 sew’er project that sewered the neighborhood. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1965, prior to current zoning standards. 2. The property is connected to sewer. 3. If one acre zoning standards are applied, the proposed addition meets the front yard setback. 4. Is the proposed setback in character with the neighborhood? 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance to construct an addition over the existing garage. >»02-28I2 MarvinAtary Smith 1940 Country Club Road 8 15/2002 Page 2 of 2 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 # Q Date ReccivedI Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /9</6 C/u 6 SSJSjlL Property Identification Number (P.l.£^.) ' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ✓Residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: - ( P________________ APPLICANT Name S/>7 / 7“// Address: Csutifty C/ui Phone (home) ‘0 WS ____ Phone (work) 9S2, 'V^'S‘C(J2 ^ City:_Xf/y Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^ Estimated Construction Cost $ /2S /< ibviu^ai ui UV.UU1. gyiW/tA suiA ^6t<tL oAA Queu> ovi CfliuHiwrepUcc. UJnJ^s. (attach additional sheet if necessary ) O VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area if necessary) q tl0u!s€ . Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficultjr' or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: U^,.r I- •’.It - 1/9/ ^ - 1 • ------------ — — —^ • • • W » • • Htu.^ lavi(-i-(o |>n^ 4o rr/^lf JTTc Flr,v.o q( Ivct6d ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) IL \t—V I l! J tfczJ u : 1 • • iC^ I REQUIRED SUBiVUTTALS All of the grdtr for VQur application to be cnn»rfyryd cnmpipt«..[ate_Jn 1, 2, ___ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Prope^ OwTiers List of o»-ners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obt^n this hst, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). or _ Certificate of Survey (signed by a iicensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculattons as requtred. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/r" x II" fo ---- To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are projwsed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x H" for reproduction ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11") ---- List of the legd names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in T. ZZ7' o-"er(s)---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff • # • The Applicai^wd Property Owner must sign this application, Please remember that v,gr mriitme applintion Is not tomphtt if Ihe above informaiinn ha, not h... 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) M^or consultant expenses tneurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hisOier knowledge. • Applicant's-.Signa 5. 6. 7. j»r • •• • • Date ■ . 7//Cr fc > OWNER’S SIGNATU^ 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 investigation_a[jd verification of this request. Owner’s Signatur^^i^^^gri/»~V Date '7 At A j- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. 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 nlease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bitilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. •••.- r r f CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARV SMITH OF LOT 6. BLOCK 2, LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA legal OtSCRPTlON OF PRELfSES: Lot «. aock 2. LONG LAKE COUNTRY aUB AOOTCN Tht t^vty thowt tKo boundoriot of tho obowt doocr^od oroporty, ond 1K« tocot*on of on o>ittmg bout*, porch, ‘oon-to and shod Ihortoa It dots not purport to tho« ony othor irrprovomontt or oncroocbmortto 0 t ^on morktf Booringt thoon oro betcd upon on otMnod dotum Uuctft 1JL•all MKarnoH c?/•/ #»4*010 , a#«4 Pf« M4g CRONBEfiC k ASSOCIATES. INC. :tNU*fC DCMtn L«C BPKNPL N ««.L0« 0» iOlC IMC m f52*4rj^4l4l • •€■»•» a#»rr iMt nn «• «c^i •«i »t K OO IMC* m tmtr «io«««oo« «• iwt I Ml • MV iconct wMrr>«OM4 cjcki * «o umo MOIV MUi 44 VMI o •( v*«l 9 Mn»i4 J-^ rl *n ucfwif tuhOia 7Jl tuu !•-» ••u 3/t«/0] 02-091 ■vN A\V lUv 1 io>* s \J A V \N O.)) ---->03* t :v AX vN' \'s4V V \ V > ■N V»ojj \> \ .f 'ys^X"i! c:::,o >N s • («■■sl>"// n : . V 'M; j • oil t a . r n ; './ \ »co^ • j r wy J \ji /'/^IJ^/ ’■•>V t<’ \ \\; ' Vi' V^-_^ / . J •■ ;■.' ■ V ‘ ' V' V V ' ^ >%7r> ) •0'» 1 Cn\. v/'// N F I i\X .^''r si; ..fl'x'-Ov'v ‘3; c » 1 \ • 3^« « •o*j i N X n\ % X \ X :? V.vy Ifi^ •OS J X r.YvA \ v '\\V I \ \V / N 'll 10* S O \ •o;i 0 ) // J *V' ^ ’ XX X /",-\\j) f r il ;‘li ^ Ar-/f sC®; ;;‘iA\ A.vin;■'X.; \\> \\ \ w U' ••<« 1 \ •••it • i (X ffy. ’•"“i F I J! •O'i yiflif I \ K I I: <« I Xr •// X iei« • ‘■xl • • a I ■ * •Oil.0 i-/ Hi / 'r‘ /y ■O'S • sX V %-X//\s / tL-^:—\ "»« i I—is_i* V'X'V A 7/ vr. '\ • 0 < • i / V".-AVV)1I ' o A'' v\ AM » Ax'\\V| J sp.>Sii. A- ' • V fcao's X •Ci! I ( X. \!mWfyf(( cs A'AX'A V ~-AnM/lJ^ X' / •'/ V^'^x.A ' X / y X • V : \kl^ y&%..-X ik^xA-r^ •..'..Mx) MM % •/ >rx ,y;CA ,i ///y I j y* '•C.-f/ '«• C a 1 ( V X X "vAx I A' X« V I.V.. N V •O't • ''V \ X.'n A H '. X '/ •X I ♦•I % >■••! 1 A k:y^t^-/ui 'O't • XxV' V-va -. %r \ • ts« '0i« •X /• tM f f; ^ / )] i ////7' // / llli • •S« t V, 7/ yy / ••I •V y f /Vf 'jaki-Ks 7 f X sX '][i\/ XVx— ' V »/' » \ \\V • » i ; i / n XX-X :■ “ ‘VAkM i Ay-TTXS' '.^i^xWA, \aM!^ 7 /y' 7a V yxN xy75 X WL **• ’ X •7rV II:/y • •*; s X. / I ' • ’•i UU\ ■ ' < f ' UAV'XA/"' rv *4 M 'W X' X: ^X'7 A o •sj • ri' V • Ml I CP / * » i -r------- f « /g «»^T*»**---------- 2TA I -{1 »' ■N r 'I ^ r-v r n; • > !•«• -‘’J ir **M F- r ? Betker & Associates, Inc.(E May 17.2002 Mafv Smith 1940 Country Cliib Road Long Lake. MN 55356 Structural Engineers RE: E)ditfng Structure Evaluation for Residential Addtion at 1940 Country Qub Road DeerManr: I am \Mtting to give you my oonckniona on the existing structure's alsility to receive load from an addNion atxrve. My conclusions are taaed on my observations while at the site, and Infomnation given tomebyyou. I was at the site on Wednesday 16,2002. My understanding of the situaticn is as follows. You are working with a designer to layout an addWonal level above your existing housr.. You would like to add an addition equ^ in size to the current footprint of the lower levels. This induces the screen porch aea above the garage. The existing 12 ” foundation wall running along the North, East and West sides of the house ate probably adequate to support additional load. While at ti« site I determined that every third block had both corse filled. I rnade the assumption that there is also reinforcing placed in these cores. Basedon these obaenraHons and assumptions the foundation walls will support the added load of an additionalstory. The existing North and South load bearing walls will not support addtional load They ae made of 2X4s spaced at 16* on center. These vwalls currently support roof load only on the ^ level aid roof and fkxx on the lowest south end wall. In order to support the additional load of oiolher level, I recommend adding a 2X6 in between or next to each 2X4. This would require widening the existing ^11 and top plates. If the sill plate is widened toward the exterior of the bulking, the foundation well will need to be widened to supjxxt the sill plate. The existing East ar^ West non-to^ bearing walls are adequate as long as they remasn non-toad 'beating. These^made of2X4sdpabed;^ 16 ” on center. The existing screen porch structure is not adequate to support any renfKival of the structire and replacing it with 2X6 walls. • • His nal load. I recommend This should give you enough infonnation to work wrth your designer on the scope and budget of the project. We vwxid be happy to assist you further once you begin preparing construction documents. Call if you need any further Information. Sincerely, ■“ - -V • X, - • V »• t• • ¥ - • •1i > - '• •I 10700W.Hwy.55.SuucI85 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55441-6134 Phone Number (763)546-0083 Fax Number (763)546-3059 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departiinent % 7“ « f MM I A/Q6 S 1B631 lakeview in.«6 Nerjtnv % 27Z97 ^Nararsorw <» 4J0 sar34w^ 1 8, £ ’S COUNTRY C U-UB Rpl ~ 255 \ isor r (19)& X. ? 250 430 NdrU’SOlN w B s s ---------f”-:- 8 ic: 7\'> ^ COIWTRY A\/ 1 ^' I (m /i y \ ^ (25) a a g». ADD F 7 7 j"' ;2 7-//?- >3 - *. ‘ . s' M -I ^ Parcel Information "Parcel ID 2711823420018 House Number 1940 Street Name COUNTRY CLUB RD This is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of Monnation and data from C4y. County, and State road authorities and othar sources. ■ !■ RUN DATE 07/1A/02 BATCH SIA HENNEPIN COUNTV PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PACE 87 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 27-118-23 A2 0085 01080 BROWN RO N J 0 L LUCAS JOSEPH R LUCAS 1080 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 27-118-23 82 0013 01080 BROWN RD N HAROLD F BOWER ETAL HAROLD F BOWER 1080 N BROWN RO LONG LAKE HN 55358 38 27-118-25 82 0018 01825 LAKEVIEW TER HAROLD F BOWER • WIFE HAROLD F BOWER 1080 N BROWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55358 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER riANE/AOOR 38 27-118-23 82 0015 01885 LAKEVIEW TER SHERILYN DEANE ASKE-REHICK SHERILYN DEANE ASKE-REHICK 1885 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE HN 55358 38 27-118-23 82 0018 01885 LAKEVIEW TER J C RETTINGER/L L RETTIN6ER JANES C 0 LAURA L RE 'TINCER 1885 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE HN 55358 38 27-118-23 82 0017 01820 COUNTRY CLUB RO KID CARLSTEN KEITH D I DEBORAH N CARLSTEN 1820 COUNTRY CLUB RD LONG LAKE HN 55358 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 27-118-23 82 0018 01880 COUNTRY CLUB RD H J W SMITH IMF SMITH MARVIN J W SMITH 1880 COUNTRY CLUO RD LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 27-118-23 82 0020 01885 COUNTRY CLUB RD PATRICIA A HONOALE PATRICIA A INONDALEI CONNER 1885 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE HN 55358 38 27-118-23 83 0002 01825 COUNTRY CLUB RO GIL FREDEEN GLENN C I LOIS E FREDEEN 1825 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE HN 55358 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 518 00008 ! ♦ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS #28 (?) ■f i J ;,i { fl‘4t Cauifu CCc(J2iR: '■i^OO--.^siy 1.1 ^/r •. V rm m ’’"rS<r - 4 • n 1^^ ?'/) !. v-' toSSsifeiSp^'i -A - f «-i--^*<»‘ t;- ^r . ^ JSi ^^V.: ■il-, ' • -v> •"t- ■:^i "V- *' “•, . -iT...1 •- •-• - • ^ . ■ii- IQ ^C C'Ciu ] j 1 1./ Ci ti. 1."^ . ft'c Oi .3S/,>- -: A'^yf^' -• *> •< imm T■ >! -' *v»^f ^ X ’ . ' » ^ \i' ' ^ * • -wv. <t / >^ './r 7v‘x ^ .* 4* .*. tu. >J «i- -iiii SX^.- mxri’^ V-. II. •, B^T^'r' 7 .*J^A • * ’ •> •% V* m-i m- ■ ^'T 9 %• ^ 4 >->A. \ . • t. • t« s . . ■ .* .. •••:■.., ■••‘.^-A‘- \-. ;•’ .^••. • :;! X.= '-V' .. .:•.. •■■* .•''•'•C»L*'--‘.-..V..\..: \7 ■. ‘' ‘ .• ■ Vr-V ■■•\^-'‘-’V*‘'’.•>' • "•• • :■ ■, rw'j 3» t . v-t“ :.. -' . ."Jt. a ■ * .* * ■ .• • •. ■/ •’•?'• S * •• 'a* •'•■ ■’*' 4 •• *••*. • i i;^ C !> f..‘ *. -t *1*1*. ■*/-• • * * * . A > -wa t w’.* • . . f • • • ■• J *V .• • . .• * • • •. .•* . ■ ' ■. '*. K •' ' V c.S'-••/if': /..••'■»»/v^V f •* ■• • at N ^ • •* N. -5 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenbcrg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE;August 15,2002 SUBJECT;#02*2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakcshore Residential District (.5 acre) 5,462 s.f. Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Description of Request Sur\’ey/Sitc Plan Staff Report from #02-2751 Resolution #4763 Planning Commission Minutes - February 19,2002 City Council Minutes - February 25, 2002 Plat Map Application Summary': The applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in Februar)', 2002. The applicant has not built the approved residence and wishes to make two changes to the approved plan. The applicant is still proposing to construct a two bedroom/tvvo bath home with a one stall “tuck under” garage space. The changes the applicant is proposing to the approved plan are: 1. Shift the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the propert>- line - Straightening out the residence to run parallel with the property line versus having it run parallel with the lake shore angle. 2. Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape ” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The 4.5’ extension will be from the center of the front of the house and angle back to each side. #02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive 8/15/2002 Page I of3 Discussion: The previous application approved the following variances: - Section 10.25, Section 6 (B): Lot Arca/lot width. - Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, and Subd. 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)( 1 )• Hardcover and structure within 75’ of the lakeshore, and greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone. - Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Side/rear yard setbacks. - Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A): To permit one off-street parking stall to be located 3’ from an interior side property line. The approved variances have not expired. However, because the site plan has chanued two variances need to be revisited regarding the changes reOected in the new plan. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1C zoning district is 10 . Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 5’ and 7.9 ’ from west side property line. Side Yard: The rear of the residence is approved to be located 5’ from the west property line where 10 is required. The lake side comer of the residence w as approved to be 8.5 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing to locate this comer of the residence at 7.5’ from the property line. (See Exhibit C). The 5 side yard setback w'as approved to provide one additional parking space on the property 10 accommodate the second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance was required because the house was shifted towards the west side property line. The rear comer of the msidence \\ill still be located 5 from the property line. The city prefers residences to be a mininiuni of 10 apart, the lakeside comer will be 8.5’ from the adjacent residence rather tluin 9 5 feet per the prior variances approval. The 10’ separation between buildings that City strives to ‘ maintain IS for emergency access as well as for aesthetics, to limit the visual densitv within neighborhoods. Access will be available from the east side of the property. 2. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22, Subd. I and 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l)- Variances for hardcover and structure w ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Total Area 0-75’ = 3,750 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f Approved = 615 s.f (16.4%) Proposed = 680 s.f (18.1%) S02-28I3 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive 8/l5.'2002 Page 2 of 3 » . Total Aica 75-250’ — 1,712 s.f. (Docs not include 1,153 s.f. of shared driveway) Allowed = 428 s.f. (25%) Approved = 884 s.f. (51.6%) Proposed" 884 s.f.(51.6%) Lot coverage by structures will increase from 1,176 s.f. to 1,241 s.f. Still below the allowed 1,500 s.f. for the property. The proposed residence was approved to be 53’ from the lakeshore. Adding the “prow” extends the house 4.5 ’ towards the lake which will now be located 48.5 ’ from the lakeshore where a 75’ setback is required. Both adjacent residences are within 50’ of the lakeshore. The DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50’ for a General Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. The proposed residence will still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, so average lakeshore setback is not an issue. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. To summarize the hardships, the four main problem areas are the access road, lot size, well position, and limited parking. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. (»02-28l3 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Page 3 of 3 A -^eO-.sloo-h. 62.- AppUcation # -2 ^^3 Date Recehed 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-ihe-Fact Fees (Double applic*‘*on fee) Amount Paid*^^ ySb-i^l/A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3ii>Z5' ^57^9 / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 9 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired I (do)^o no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use"oi property: yC resident!^ ___other (specify) Zoning District: ______________ .(month/year) APPLICANT____ , , Name IA/^LCH _________ Phone (work) (cj JS- ) Address:36Z5' Kk>^-fh City: tOAy?-/H»4 Zip: _L Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ I^escribe request in detai: (pKecW^t ^XV: io>n<J\ (attach additional sheets if necessary) « ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front ✓^ide C-75 TS*2S0 Hardcover Rear *''^01 Coverage Average Lakesitore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condiUons preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) /’/ t*V-. J 11I'JH.1^ I O vv^__ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. required SUBi\nXTALS ?i!Tfrrry?i!!!^yy ^PPUfati^n ffw<Hing dafe in Completed Application Form ^ z'7 '"'7? <”« frou Fman«, A-603, Oo« Cemer. 3“l5™V " Dcpartmem of - *7" addidof■ reproduclion, P™"'*' (0 copy 8!4" x 11" for - sarsi’S-S’.S.-snr '■ - - »> •« the property. This would include mmf^rc'k «r ^ i- ^ with an interest in As an addendum to this application nlL *^2nt(s) if not current owTier(s). persons you msh notifled oHhis applicLion. ° ° ditional items as may be requested by City staff. ^Km.sn..v„ tomnifle If the above infornmion ha. no. 1...^ inriiiini APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE aLSZ. :r;^. -ou^d or re<,ues.ed By foe Zonln, and/or consul,an, expenses' incul^ed in jev ^0 7^"° T"" P^^-'"') info,™a,ion supplied is due and eorrec, ,o ,he bes, of hls/Ser S"edg7 ‘' Applicant's Signature __________ OWNER'S SIGNATURE entry onto the property by cfty s^ff^consuhamr reasonable members for puq>oses of investigation and verification oV thireques" Owner's Signature --------------------------------------— Date _________________ Applicant must have all submittals into thi* ru.. «rr x Commission Meeting. Planning Commission i j ^ before the Plarming month. Applicantf must be^pres^’l^all schZ^^^ c.ch Commission and Council. If^an applicLus Ih,‘ T 7 ***' ****““‘“8 make arrangements to have an authorized agent attenH * • ^ ^ scheduled meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting ^ Building Date ■'•'■r .-.I / V tV ^ • • > .V. \JL oo July 16,2002 Description of Request: 1) shift the west side line from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet 2) Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.9 foot “v- shape” glass Prow. Hardship / Description of Unusual Property Conditions: The four main problem areas are the access road, lot size, well position and limited parking. The access road has a steep embankment which runs parallel with county road 51 and provides access to this lot and five other neighboring properties. The access road is narrow and congested due to resident and quest parking. The lot size is extremely narrow and the current home does not fall within the new city allowances. The new design is designed to accommodate the lot size and is positioned behind the two existing neighbor ’s homes. The well position is currently out side of the city variances. Limited space for safe parking due to the narrowness of the lot and access road there is limited parking available for the residents and or quests. #2813 Exhibit A C. f Page 7 of 7 Complete Date: 1/23/02 60 Day Deadline: 3/20/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION b Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator DATE: February 20,2002 ITEM NO.: // Administrator Reviewed: Item Description:#02-275 i Mark Welsh/Robert and Colleen Eberle 3625 North Shore Drive Variances Agenda Section: Zoning Zoning District: List of Exhibits LR-IC - Single Family Lakeshore Residential District A B Resolution/Site Plan Planning Report (February 12,2002) Application Mr. Welsh holds the property by a Contract for Deed. He has requested variances to permit removal of the existing house and construction of a new house. The new house would be a two bedroom/t\NO bathroom home with a one stall “tuck under ” garage space. Access to this property and 5 others is via a private, shared driveway that accesses North Shore Drive. The private driveway is located across the back of the individual lots. The applicant ’s property is the 4* of 6 properties that require the drive for access. The driveway is required because the public road is located at a much higher elevation than the properties below. According to Hennepin Countv ’ records the existing house was constructed in 1920. The house is 599 s.f in size. The new house would allow the propertx- owners to have additional living space and one garage stall. Currently the property does not have a garage. The proposed house would be located the same distance from the driveway as the current house. Please refer to the att.ached surv ey that shows the location of the house. Due to the small size of the lot, the driveway location, and elevation cnange bemeen the roadway above and the lot it is not possible to rebuild on the property without requiring variances. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted in the attached resolution. Approval is conditioned upon the following: 1. Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 10' along the north property line and 5' along the interior property lines. #02-2751 Mark Welsh/Robert and Colleen Eberle 3625 North Shore Drive Page 2 of 2 _________^________________ 2. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. 3. Gravel shall be removed from the proposed parking area to leave a minimum 3* setback to the property line. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of variances. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIMSIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 01-2751 WHEREAS, Mark Welsh, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property by a Contract for Deed, and Robert Eberle and Colleen Eberle, are o WTiers (hereinafter “the owners”) of the property located at 3625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 9, Auditor s Subdivision No. 263, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and W HEREAS, the applicant has applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f. (16.4%) hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (1 7.6%) hardcover e.xists and no hardcover is allowed, and to pennit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f (54.4%) hardcover e.xists and 428 s.f (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required and a lot width of 50' where 100' is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house w here a 1 O' setback is required; and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3' from the adjacent propert>' line where off-street parking in “R” districts is required to be set back 10'; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 7 1. 2. 3. findings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-27 The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where '/j acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The pro^rty IS 5,462 s.f. (absent the traveled portion of the shared driveway) and has a lot width of 50'. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A.The City of Orono has routinely granted variances to lot area and lot width for redevelopment on non-conforming lots in the City. The property does meet the critena that is normally considered when reviewing such proposals. The property is connected to sanitaiy sewer and the house would be located in an area above the regulatory flood plain. B. Overall hardcover on the property would decrease. C.TTie iMd elevation is about 4' higher than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The lot cannot accommodate a basement. D.The new house is proposed to be located 53' from the lakeshore where a 75' setback is required. Both adjacent houses are within 50' of the lakeshore The new house is located to meet the minimum 50' lakeshore setback as requtred by the DNR. DNR staff has reviewed the plans and stated they do not have any requirements on the development based on the building being located outside the 50' setback. ^ E.The house proposed can not meet a 75' setback due to the location of the shared dnveway access on the property. The house is located to within 2' of the edge of the drive. Page 2 of 7 1 • .• F. The 5' side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The Zoning Code requires residential properties to have 2 ofF-street parking spaces. To accommodate a second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance is required because the house is shifted towards the west side property line. The parking stall must be located between the house and side property line due to the shared driveway located behind the house. The driveway is narrow and permanent parking within the driveway area would block through traffic. G. No parking is available on the opposite side of the shared driveway as the land immediately begins to rise to the elevation of North Shore Drive. H. A typical parking space in a commercial area is 9' X 20’ in size. The proposed parking area would be approximately 10’ X 20’. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect u-affic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIOiNS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Cit>' Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f (16.4%) hardcover in the 0*75 ’ lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f is required and a lot width of 50 ’ where 100 ’ is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10’ Page 3 of 7 r be set back 10 subject to the following conditions: ^ ° 1. Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 1 O’ along the north property line and 5 along the interior property lines. 2. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. ^ 3. Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3' setback to the property line. 4. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. ^ 5. The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as E.xhibit 6. 7. 8. ^rpeimlSiv^^^ proper!, ta/ with the applicm^s.^but Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate anv authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned ow-ners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 7 • • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Fee Owners Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instriunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ________ day of .* 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ..20 whose identity I proved on the basis of______ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation witness a credible Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me .. 20 whose identity I proved on the basis of._____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation witness ., a credible executed the Notary Public Page 6 of 7 vy Exhibit A P^e 7 of 7 Completion Date: 1/23/02 60 Day Deadline: 3/20/02 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner February 12,2002 #01-2751 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 6,615 s.f - (5,462 s.f. when the shared driveway is removed from the lot area) A B C D E F G H I J App..v3tion ''r^jiiicaru Description of Request/Hardship Statements PUt' Jf'iip r.xl?;if.g Property Survey l*r-r'posrd Site Plan/Survey Calculation Worksheets Fkr«r Pbns/Elevation Sketches Site . - -.ighborhood Topography Civ Engineer Comments (February 6,2002) Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: The applicant holds the property by a Contract for Deed. He has requested variances to permit removal of the existing house and construction of a new house. The new house would be a two bedroom/two bathroom home with a one stall “tuck under” garage space. Access to this property and 5 others is via a private, shared driveway that accesses North Shore Drive. The private driveway is located across the back of the individual lots. The applicant’s property is the 4*^ of 6 properties that require the drive for ac ss. The driveway is required because the public road is located at a much higher elevation than the properties below. According to Hennepin County records the existing house was constn'cted in 1920. The house is 599 s.f. in size. The new house would allow the property ovv-ners to have additional living space and one garage stall. Currently the property does not have a garage. The proposed house would be located the same distance from the driveway as the current house. Please refer to the attached survey that shows the location of the house. Due to the small size of the lot, the driveway location, and eltvr.tion change between die roadway above and the lot it is not possible to rebuild on the property without requiring variances. Below is a summary of pertinent ordinances that require variance review. I0I-275I Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive February 19.2002 Pifc 1 of4 r Pertinent Ordlnancpc 1 2. 100' %vidth. The defined lot area absent the^n^«t^ ^ ^ 10. «d,h is 5ffi a. d,e lakcsho.c L.SS-S^TT.e defined ‘-r “■'•‘*"/- is normally considered rlhen ren'etng^^ ^‘‘"‘'‘•n'ssreer and,He House «outdMoca,ed in an area aborXZ7^^^ lakeshore, where no hardcover or strncnieTs aJlowed f n^" 25% hardcover in the 75-250' of the lakeshore. ’ ^ *o permit greater than Total Area 0-75' = 3,750 s.f. Allowed 0-75' = 0 s.f. Proposed 0-75' = 615 s.f. (16.4%) Existing 0-75' = 660 (17.6%) I“75 ”fo'“':2krr '•'» ■'"veway Proposed 75-250 ’ = 884 s.f. (51.6%) Existing 75-250' = 932 (54.4%) "-r T “House would be 1.1 76 s f. ^ ^ f "■" P'oposed ~>'^'ninin,un,60da^^^^^^ ihe plans and staled they do not haxe any reauirements ^ r ''^v/eu e^ building being located outside the 50 ’setback ^ ^lopment based on the inneionka •01.2751 Mark Welch 5625 North Shore Drive Febrtiao 19.2002 Page 2 of 4 3.Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B): Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 10* side/rear yard setbacks, and to permit the house to be located 5' from the west side property line. Required Side Setback = 10' Proposed = 5' west property line The proposed house has one garage stall proposed within the house. The 5'side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The Zoning Code requires residential properties to have 2 ojf-street parking spaces. To accommodate a second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance is required because the house is shifted towards the west side property line. The parking stall must be located between the house and side property line due to the shared driveway located behind the house. The driveway is narrow and permanent parking within the driveway area would block through traffic. No parking is available on the opposite side ofthe shared driveway as the land immediately begins to rise to the elevation of North Shore Drive. A typical parking space in a commercial area is 9'X 20'in size. The proposed parking area adjacent to the house is approximately 13'X20'. 4.Section 10,61. Subdivision 5 (AV To permit one off-street parking stall to be located 3' from an interior side property line where off-street parking is required to be located 10 ’ from a side property line. Please refer to discussion above. Review of Hardships: Applicant’s hardships are noted in the attached hardship statements. To summarize the hardships, the four main problem areas are, the access road, lot size, and limited parking. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted. A recommendation of approval is conditioned on the following: 1.Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 10' along the north lot line and 5' along the interior property lines. 2. A final grading plan shall be submitted prior to review of the request by the City Council. 101-2751 Mirk Welch 3625 Nonh Shore Drive February 19.2002 Pa^3or4 )! 3.shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final 4. 3- setback to Planning Commission OoHons for A. Approve B. Deny C. Table D. Other Action «0I-3751 Marti Welch 3625 Nonh Shore Drive FAniacyl9.2002 Page 4 of 4 • •• CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION iiitial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00 Afker-tbe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Applkadon # O Z-2~7S" J DateRcceivcdT Amount Paid 4 ZSrO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address lYllQ ?/, Property Identification Number (r.I.D.) 08 W'h 2.Aoo9 Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Qj|bux./ ___________________ I (do) (^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pn»ent use of property; residentifJ ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District: _________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Kame^-mft-g.\4 Phone (home) Address: .s^U2J5 . ____ Phone fwork’l City:UJajjgajgx^ Zip:/gr^9jC OWNER (if than applicant) Phone (homel S 1 ^ Name ‘^V>^Q4C<AtouO _____________ Phone (wojdc) AddressTlfl5lTole^"SU\Di.‘&L.Uf^. (^oK\ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConstrucL’on Cost $ Describe request in detail: S.ea^ ctribou^ ^ 4- (attach additional sheets if necessar>') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot V.’idth Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSmr/DESCRIPTION OF UNUS’JAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical dit'Ticu.ty or unusual property conditions prev’enting compliance with Zoning Code requiremen-.s: Sag_ ^Skflo _______ (atuch additional sheets if necessary) ..c V 'S 3 1 jetr*..c. ca \ '•;«4 -*■ I. F cr"---: A required submittals L 2j MiiMttoi. **"• "nnlifiion -<».iilinT itiitr In I. mm — Application Form must obtain Ui^ i?sriabet''LJd °nTp"L'm H^e Finance, A-603, Covi Center, 348-591m County Department of —. Certificate of Survey fsiV-i<.H k ‘ grade are proposed!^ in existing — Sketches or plans of fldor & eleVaLn v - ^ ^ reproductioiT — '®eaJ names (include marital strisl^ofdf the propert>-. This would include namersi nf ^ - r ^ with an interest in — “ addendum to this application picas- aS^‘‘^ owner(s). rcn,en,b=c U«, J21U: Atoinhlrator, agrlS iTp^y IddS^fces ‘°" '''' by Ihe ZorJng Wo™.,in Pa^nn.) ■on supplied ,s uue end coaec, :o ,he bes, of hLief knmSdgc'' *' AnnJl/'ark#*** o*_____ ^ ^ / xJ^ 5. 6. T'f Date _y^ ^ ^ y OWNER'S SIGNATURE ^ mbers for purposes of inves,ige,i„'n end verife.ioTo} 0^^'ner’s Signature A r -----------------Date /— Con.™,.loo ,„j Council. If „ epplicl? L of .h. Pia„|„B ra^e ^gements to have an authiri^ aaenl aS^ ‘ meeting, pleas? & Zonmg Office of this change prior m .HeeJ^g " ““ '» U>o Birild^ 5:.• c ^ *. • •• •— DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Request to construct a new ’’Lindal Cedar" home at 3625 North Shore Drive for residential use. The "28 x 42" 2 bedroom/2 bath home would have a 50 foot set back from the lake shore and a 5-7 inch graduating west side line to allow the face of the home to follow the lake shore property line. Allowances on hardcover and lot coverage will be necessary. (see attached Aspen sketch for general design layout) Lindal Cedar homes provide an efficient layout within a modest amount of space in a quaint Lakeside Cottage style. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: The four main problem areas are, the access road, lot size, well position and limited parking. The access road has a steep embankment which runs parallel with county road 51 and provides access to this lot and five other neighboring properties. The access road is narrow and congested due to resident and guest parking. The lot size is extremely narrow and the current home does not fall within the new city allowances. The new design is designed to accommodate the lot size and is position behind the two existing neighbor's homes. The well position - Is currently out side of the city variances. Limited space for safe parking - due to the narrowness of the lot and access road there is limited parking available for the residents and or guests. * •/ 17 — » » * » I g— m- 2 3-<^ m I . f.;. 7 ».? ? • / ..t ,;. ^ cs£Ls } /-23 'OZ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (o^?) 75-250 250-500* EXISTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE X ■A House 500-1000* ' 9____S.F. 6 X X X B. Oarige C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck • • • F. Landscape Underlain ByPludc Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A. House _____________ X Length X X X B. Care£e C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 41 ft a T r;‘ t. 1________ • B, •• 1.* • •. •• Widih 625* X 100 Width 6^9 4ir xlOO it S.F.' S.F. S.F. SHfO S.F. S.F. S.F. 'OffiVE S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f: S.F. S.F. S.F. 37SO t SF. /7. €o % A B ^ ^ PR<7p«?5irC SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF S F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. ___S.F. ___S.F. 16.^ ____M A B •* / SETBACK ZONE: existing hardcover TN rnNV 2S0-500' A. House V ~ • __5^0UnfUlWidih 500-1000* __SF.-H<?usir B. Osrage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape* Underlain By Plasuc Or Fabric X X X 0. Other X X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. « cs CtQAV£L s*;- Ofzt\'£. (J/S3 J.P. S.F.' as as as S.F. . S.r. SF. S.F. S.F. W total Hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B .X 100 72.77 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.n.VT .A. Hc-se _____________ Length SF.-<^<?Mf ?trt S.F. A S.F. B •/j Wi<i;h Sll B. Oarage C. Driveway • • D. Sidewalk E. Pa:io/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By PIa.stic Or Fabric Al X X ■ X X X X X X X X PRopc^tO S.F. S.F. S.F. >4-An S.F. S.F.pcive 0. Other f//S3S.r, ' S.F. V3‘fA/4Af0 j S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE VOTAJ. PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ + B 2037 •7 .-7 •.T-A*'1 V Tl {-■7r ■/ fcjt. xlOO 2g<r 7L / SJ. SF. S.F. H A B 4~r‘. .V I I <j-1 • lofi i ?6TilO*4* ' I I I Odun Wmu LD oo [ Jp- i N'h rr-' a i~i-------g***-^. i ■.«.»•*»«V I i I Oma Io ! I ■•low . I I I :J:r.:r-V on I• ^ • . • -1 • I ■ Mtitor wri inr ri.:. I r r_ rr ^ ^v:n w.irii ' •ir e •■mW f . •.■if*! '"r-vj !• " •if.4 . 'J^^ JA (Css ! ■ ■ I “i1 iL /CTi> ► ^ 1 Bonestroo ffg Rosene vr ■ Anderlik & Ivl 1 Associates Engineers & Architects February 6,2002 AiiotlJt.i, Int. I. * . Ii/matlv* Actlen/I^ual OpponunICy Cmpleyar **"* • C'«"" Ceok. P*. . Poetrt a tcNiniem. Pf. . S«««lor CanniliMti: Pepftt W. leitn* Pi • JeicpA C Aopp/Uk. Pi • Picnard t lUncr. Pi • $im«i m. lotdbi, CiA. r•«rrA7s:'£f.:r:;;s::z s: • «o«r^ X 0«^ Pi* ^ “• • *"•««" •>• Je»««>n • 0*l* A Gfo»«. Pi • TImmiui a IOuifi»^i . Offlcei: It P«A $t Cloud. Pecnoilcr ond Wiiimot MN • Milwaukee. Wl • OUcsgo. IL U/%bfict; wwwbonttCfoo^om wi» I ^1- w.- Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 3625 North Shore Drive File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2751 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the survey for the proposed home constniction at 3625 North Shore Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • Drainage and utility easements should be provided 10-feet wide along the north lot line and 5-feet wide along the east and west lot lines. • A grading plan showing proposed contours should be provided. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono * * 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN S5I13 • 651-636-4600 - Fax: 651-636-1311 t*. iUN DATE 01/15/02 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SO 00-117-23 50 DOM OQSSO ADDRESS UHASSICNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT Of WAY 017 5TH ST N R320 NZNNEAPOLXS HN 55001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 30 00-117-23 30 0002 00030 ADDRESS UHASSICNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 017 5TH ST N N320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55001 REPORT NO. PI035001 PAGE 3 30 00-117-23 30 0003 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 017 5TH ST N 1320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55001 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 00-117-23 30 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 017 5TH ST N 1320 MINNEAPOLIS m 55001 30 00-117-23 30 0005 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 017 5TH ST N 0320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55001 30 00-117-23 30 0006 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED COUNTY.OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 017 5TH ST N 0320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55001 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SO 00-117-23 30 0007 03605 NORTH SHORE DR D T COLGAN t C J COLGAN DANIEL T COLGAN 3605 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 U1I ) 30 00-117-23 30 OOOO 03635 NORTH SHORE DR Z I M LIBERMAN ZVI t MIRIAM LIBERMAN -BPeO'TCRRITOtXAL-'RDYi/^ ^ ST PAUL MN .55114- 30 00-117-23 30 0009 03625 NORTH SHORE DR R A E C K EBERLE MARX E WELCH 3625 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA m 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 00-117-23 30 0010 03619 NORTH SHORE OR 0 E BARON E S M BARON CARY E E SANDRA M BARON 0705 YORXTOWN LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55002 30 00-117-23 30 0011 03605 NORTH SHORE DR LAURENCE A JONES E WIFE LAURENCE E ARDELL JONES 3605 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 30 00-117-23 30 0050 03655 NORTH SHORE DR A E D HAGEN AL E DONNA HAGEN 3655 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 00-117-23 30 0056 03507 M)RTH SHORE DR S R E J S SUNDBY STEVEN R 8 JANNA S SUNDBY 3507 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00013 crTI J U " £ m f.// CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.___^ 7 6 S A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 01-2751 WHEREAS, Mark Welch, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property by a Contract for Deed, and Robert Eberle and Colleen Eberle, are owners (hereinafter “the owners”) of the property located at 3625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 9, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 273, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f (16.4%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakesh». setback where 660 s.f (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f where 21,780 s.f is required and a lot width of 50’ where 100' is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5’ for the house where a 10* setback is required; and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3' from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R” districts is required to be set back 10’; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Metro Legal Services Inc. Box 491 Page 1 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 6s 1. •) 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File S02-2751. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where ‘A acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The property is 5,462 s.f. (absent the traveled portion of the shared driveway) and has a lot wdth of 50'. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A.The Cit> of Orono has routinely granted variances to lot area and lot width for redevelopment on non-conforming lots in the City. The property does meet the criteria that is normally considered when reviewing such proposals. The property is connected to sanitary sewer and the house would be located in an area above the regulatory flood plain. B. Overall hardcover on the property would oecrease. C. The land elevation is about 4' higher than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The lot carmot accommodate a basement. D.The new house is proposed to be located 53' from the lakeshore where a 75' setback is required. Both adjacent houses are within 50' of the lakeshore. The new house is located to meet the minimum 50' lakeshore setback as required by the DNR. DNR staff has reviewed the plans and stated they do not have any requirements on the development based on the building beino located outside the 50' setback. ® E.The house proposed cannot meet a 75' setback due to the location of the shared driveway access on the property-. The house is located to w ithin 2 ’ of the edge of the drive. Page 2 of 7 tfgi irin ■riiiBMiBaii^i iMii i is.o# ri\ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- — 4 7 gfc The 5' side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The Zoning Code requires residential properties to have 2 off-street parking spaces. To accommodate a second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance is required because the house is shifted towards the west side property line. The parking stall must be located between the house and side property line due to the shared driveway located behind the house. The driveway is narrow an»l permanent parking within the driveway area would block through traffic. G. No parking is available on the opposite side of the shared driveway as the land immediately begins to rise to the elevation of ^^orth Shore Drive. H. A typical parking space in a commercial area is 9' X 20' in size. The proposed parking area would be approximately 10' X 20'. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right 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 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 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f. (16.4%) hardcover in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required and a lot width of 50 ’ where 100' is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5’ for the house where a 10' Page 3 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 6 3 setback is required; and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one cff-street parking space to be located 3 ‘ from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R” districts is required to be set back 10' subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 1 O’ along the north property line and 5' along the interior property lines. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3 ’ setback to the property line. 4. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit A. Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (Februaiy 25,2003). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 7 h 1^1 ki. t V r A'u CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ------dy B a Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25 th day of February, 2002. ATTEST: / Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ^^ALISSAAWINTERNHEIMER 1 NOTARY PU8UC*MNNESOTA > MyCcn»iia:onE)4)ii«sJan.31,2006 ^mM The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this jav of Marc A ___. 200_2__ by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said inr trument w as executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 :^2.\'ISE M. LESKINEN ^ARYRUBUC-MNNESOTA My ComrrtMlon Ex(*w Jm. 3f, 200S foT a STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 6 3 OnthisJT^^dayof. r>V\frh .20^? c.^,. personally appeared before me, * ------'—/ * who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of l\)M j)i__ — whose identity' I proved on the oatli'afTirmation v\itness ------------------ . a credible f' RACHaOOOGZ I STATE OF COUNTY OF HE^fl^ Chi^ifU'mr Onthis^dayof_^p^//. .2Q/^o Hotter^ personally appeared before me, — ____ 'vho is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis oiUc whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation ^ witness ------------ ^icuioic and who executed tjf^^inSGiSwSS^'^nowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/theij fjJ^Land deed;;.,-:; - * mef CC d56l67 ;.i k* * f'-^YingCOi V No tar)’ P -MiIMlAM'rpte ^ ..20^ CxjUe^n STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this Q.'X day of APfi>C personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me _j^ whose identity I proved on the basis of fLoc,r^^ j.. ------- whose identity I proved on the oath/afErmation ' , and »vho execuiad tha foregoing instniraent, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. . a ^ /Wji/n a- ^^tar^ Publict lokker #CCI!<147 i-’Airua i«in.»oj »«••'«» *Bon*yCfe Page 6 of? Exhibit A [5333] 76 3 ■(^.0)1 GR^VEL I • Z 1 o 1CJi 1 o 1 CJl 1 EXISTING 1 HOUSE 1 *C (TO BE i , IKAmoved) (di ^ -X / -K tACRAVa tJi '^lltH ^1 *■ 1 ^ ' 8oi\ / r \ \ »\ ^ •v/ \ ■■' X W t:Wo««*4 \%\ 4\ pro *sed \ U 1 aM. -11A.-V-—~ 1 ■IIII II 1 V 1 1^11 1 1 ^ 1 1 • II ....................r% \1^ house \■ y|V 1 ^ 1 \ CRAVEL :| •TO 6C 5 1 REMOVEDs|• 1 • ■• I• ■ • ■CUCfJ ^ »] ■ ^ \ \ .1 \ 111 \ 18.0 __1- (933.6> <9324) i ^ *7% (932.6) SURVEY LINE <i‘‘- ' A9.9^ \ I I_^ 0<^ iT*• * ••••••*, <93t5^ Page 7 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#12) #02-2751 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRI\'E, VARIANCES, 11:11 p.m.-11:29 p.m. Linda Welch, Sister, appeared on behalf oi Mark Welch. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. V. ..nberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances that would permit removal of an existing house and construction of a new house on the property. Weinberger stated the property is located in the LR-IC zoning district and consists of 6,615 square feet. Access to this property and five others is via a private, shared driveway that accesses North Shore Drive. The private driveway is located across the back of the individual lots. The driveway is required because the public road is located at a much higher elevation than the properties below. Weinberger stated the existing house consists of 599 square feet, with the Applicant proposing to construct a two-bedroom/two bathroom home with a one-stall “tuck-under” garage. The new house would allow the property owners to have additional living space and one garage stall. Currently the property does not have a garage and was constructed in 1920. The proposed house would be located the same distance fi-om the driveway as the current house. A number of variances are required for the new residence due to the small size of the lot, the driveway location, and elevation change. The Applicant is requesting variances to lot area and lot v/idth to permit construction of a new residence. The defined lot area, minus the private driveway area, consists of 5,462 square feet. The defined lot width is approximately 50’ at the lakcshore, vrith the requirement being 100’ width at the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the pioposed house would be located approximately 53’ from the lakeshore, which exceeds the existing setback of the neighboring two houses. Weinberger noted a 75’ setback is required. Weinberger stated the proposed building pad is located between the driveway and the 50’ setback. The Applicants are also requesting a variance to allow the house to be constructed five feet from the west property line where a 10’ setback is required. The 5 ’ side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking sp^*.ce on the property. The City’s zoning code requires residential properties have two off-stroe? parking spaces. Weinberger noted no parking is available on the opposite side of the shaicd dnveway due to the topography of the land. A variance is also needed to allow the house to be built within 75’ of the lakeshore and a variance to permit greater than 25 percent hardcover in the 75-250’ of the lakeshore. The Applicants arc proposing 16.4 percent hardcover where currently 17.6 percent exists in the 0-75’ setback area and 51.6 pneent hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area where 54.4 percent curren;iy exists. The proposed house would consist (*f 1,176 square feet and would not contain a basement due to the high water level in this area. Weinberger surged a v^ance is also required to permit one off-street par’idng stall to be located three feet from an iiilcrior side property line where off-street parking is required to be located ten feet from a side property line. Weinberger not-*d the Applicant has submitted a statement of hardship. Weinberger stated the well would need to be relocated if the house is rebuilt in this area. PAGE 30 mhwtes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (^02-2751 Mark Welch, Continued) Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided 10 ’ along the north lot line and 5’ along the interior property lines. 2. A final glaring plan shall be submitted prior to review of the rcqu'-st by the City Council. 3. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. 4. Gravel shaii be removed from the proposed parking area to leave a minimum 3’ setback to the property line. Linda Welch stated she does not have anything to add to StafPs report, noting she does have pictures of the embankment an the lot. There were no public comments relating to this application. Mahusth noted a lakeside deck is attached to the house, and questioned whether that is included as part of the house footprint. Weinberger stated the proposal only includes the house footprint and not the deck. Weinberger stated this lot would be entitled to 1,500 square feet of structural coverage, noting the proposed house is approximately 1,100 square feet. Weinberge.' stated the overhangs on the sides are appro.ximately one foot, with the overhang on the lakeside being approximately three feet. Hawn inquired whether the overhang has been included in the structural coverage calculation. Weinberger stated it has not been included. Hawn stated since there is an existing house on this lot, the Applicant is entitled to a replacement, and in her view the Applicants have uone a pretty good job at designing the house. Rahn inquired what the preferred width of a parking stall was. Weinberger stated in a commercial parking lot a stall is 9 ’ by 20 ’, which is generally what is recommended. Rahn commented he was looking at other possible locations for the parking stall and whether that could be reduced somewhat. Gaffron indicated they would also need to be 20 ’ from a sewer line. Mabusth inquired where the well will be relocated to. PAGE 31 MLVUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG CO iM:»HSSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2751 Mark M'elch, Continued) Weinberger stated that is yet to be detemuned. M»rk^V^h^6K •» rccomraead .pproval of AppUclion #02-2751, Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive, granting of variances to permit construction of a nen Illou*ed'Va«d r Structural coverage being under the 1,500 square feet that is allowed, based on the finding that there are hardships Imposed by the land; and that the 0-75’ and 75-250 ’ setback; and subject to all of Staffs , _ ... — are narosliips Imposed by the land; and that the hardcover is being reduced in the 0-75’ and 75-250 ’ setback; and subject to all of Stafl^i rccoitimcndstions coDtiiincd • '. the Feliruurv 12 2fi02 Pi^nnnv-^c oi r relocation of the w clllu ail appioved location VOTE: Ayes 6, Na« oV n':30 p“l- ll:41^m‘^'’ ' AR'-W e, W'esley Byrne, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. Weinberger stated the Ap^icant is requesting variances to permit additions and remode’ing to the existing house located on Casco Point Road. The vanances being requested wouTd add the house. The first would replace an existing attached garage w ith a 32‘ by 35’ two- Story addition. Fhc second addition would be a 20 ’hv in* * i r ^ >he tolal hardcover on the propeetj-, fhe driveway and parking area on he pr.-aerty la proposed to be reduced in siae. Weinhe, Jr J.2 , J hardcover would still o'er the 25 percent limit in the 75-250' lakeshori'setbac^ with'th^^^ riquesting 3-1 percent hardcover. Weinberger noted the e.visling hardcover is 36 5 percent 'Se e J'J m 1 and remove a shTdrateJtar the licants street. A sidewalk and wjod planler bo.x would also be removed from the west side of the propertv srxrprrse^^brsrCoXrm^ 99 square feet more structure than the property is allowed. * ’ ?d^XXa«dt rhfftont'’"'*'''''’ ■“ P™'«' - *»-y«3r Staff recommends the Applicants reduce the size of the house to nct • .jcro.^ch into the side vard setbacks and meet the 15 percent lot coverage by stmeture. ^ ™ PAGE 32 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25,2002 G- •10. #02.2750 Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. #01-2751 Sansevere m^ed, and Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4763 erantine 10 srstfhdl^li ” «*** Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Seftion Ts^iw ?w!7S «?.'I 'T— IfcT‘ , wnere 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s f ^25%1 wid.b of50> wbere 100-1, .od T 0fPs.r«. p„lg ^ distrlc.: Ir^.^ Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. •12. #02-2754 Ma2» »d Do.Hff, 2580 Phe«,n. R„,d-V.ri,„c^- Samever. moved and Hint seconded, to adopt Resolu.ion No. 4764 .raalina 13. #02-2755 Long Lake Fir. Station-4:ity of Orono. 340 Willow Drive North- Class III Subdnisioa, Variance and Conditional Use Permit creating a lot for the fire station, a rr^To?^' XntUI rSnT“'”“a* " the south end that would continue to be owned by the City for lii Je us“ Due ?o s°ile \ \v<Xv^^ i2^._ .' .t^ _ U \>r; / ♦. # ^ m AUD VBi ^3 'j \/6U /V J"'' > r 'X* w . • .. •-j- . •. ,*‘1 )L- ' 'n '\ / (54',^*^'' *’*c»tcrif;5CKt ^-- -!l -/ . ^CRYSTAL BAY VIEW ^3?' //7- 2 3-(Sv> J •c;^ • I* « TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 13,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2814 William and Sandra Keegan 2707 Walters Port Lane Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Exhibits: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 24,953 s.f. (.573 acres) A B C D E F G H I Application Hardship/Description of Property Conditions Survey/Site Plan Permit from 2000 Elevations Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Property 0\\’ners List Photos of Property Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B): Side V'ard Adjacent Street Setback: Minimum side adjacent street yard setback in the LR-IB zoning district is 35’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 10’ from side street property line. Application Summary: The applicant has requested a side adjacent street setback variance to construct an attached garage. The three stall attached garage, 960.5 s.f. will be on the south side of the residence. 1 he present garage is difllcult to access and use because of its location. It will be turned into storage space and the e.xisting driveway removed. A new driveway will be constructed on the south end of the property. Discussion: In 2000 the applicant applied for a building permit to construct a three stall attached garage. The plans were submitted to the city for review and at that time, Lyle Oman. Building Official issued a building permit. (See Exhibit C). The applicant did not build the garage and the building pemiit expired, in 2002 the applicant submitted the same plans to obtain another building permit. This time the side yard adjacent street was flagged as needing a variance. #02-2814 Willionv Sand) Keegan 2707 Wallers Port Lane 8 13/2002 Page I 6 The proposed garage is to be constructed on the south end of the residence rather than adding to the existing garage because of the following reasons: • The present garage location is 10* from the property line. • At the property line, the land drops six feet to the neighboring property. • There is a retaining wall at the property line because of the change in topography. The rc ddcnce and driveway are located in the 75-250’ setback zone. Hardcover in this setback zone is: Currently - 6,113 s.f. (28.8%). Proposed - 5,099.8 s.f (24.02%) (driveway and other removals) Allowed - 5308.5 s.f (25%). This leaves 208.7 s.f. of hardcover available in this setback zone. Because there is room for additional hardcover and Waters Port Lane is a narrow private load. Planning Commission should explore if some of the existing driveway be left or a turn around be constructed with the new drive (approximately 10’ x 10') to allow for additional parking. Neighborhood: The existing residence was built in 1969. The property is irregularly shaped and has road on two sides. Rather than the street ending and the last property access off Walters Port Lane with a long drive the street wraps around to the last property. The property is located in a one acre zoning district. However, the properties are more consistent with standards in a half acre zoning district. There are five properties on Walter Port Lane. All five have had variances granted for setbacks and/or to allow additional hardco\ er on the property. 2702 Walters Port Lane 3 season porch - rear setback of 8’ where 30’ is required bathroom addition - rear setback of 10’ where 30' is required walkway - rear setback of 18’ where 30’ is required screen porch over existing deck - front setback of 34’ where 35’ is required 2703 Walters Port Lane Lot width/area to build residence 2705 Walters Port Lane Hardcover in 0-75’ - denied Hardcover in 75-250’ - deck and drainage 2709 Walters Port Lane Entry way/porch/deck - structure within 75’ of lakeshore CUP - retaining w alls within 75’ of lakeshore #02-2814 William/Sandy Keegan 2707 Walters Port Lane 8 13/2002 Page 2 2710 Walters Port Lane Patio - Hardcover in 0-75’ Residence/deck - Hardcover in 75-250’ Neighboring Property ’: The properly with the largest impact of the proposed addition is the last property/residence on Walters Port Lane, 2709 Walters Port Lane. The property owners. Bill and Susan Dunkley, did call and state they fully support the proposal. They do not have issues with the location of the garage. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The existing residence was built in 1969, prior to current zoning standards. The proposed attached garage affects one neighbor. 1 hat neighbor has contacted City staff and verbally stated they fully support the proposed project. 3. The property is connected to sewer. 4. If the street ended at the property line w ith a long drive for the last house, the proposed garage would only need a 1 0 ’ setback. 5. The topography of the property by the existing garage is such that an additional stall cannot be added on. 6. Lot coverage by structures is not an issue with this application. It is currently 9.07 % and will increase to 13.6%. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance to construct an attached garage. Walters Port Lane is a narrow street with not much room for parking. The proposed new driveway is not overly large to accommodate guests. This property is towards the end of the #02-2814 William Sandv Keegan 2707 Walters Port l ane 8 13 7002 Page 3 L street, however there is an additional house that the parking could affect. This property still has available hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. Staff suggests either a portion of the existing driveway be allowed to remain or a turn around be added to the new driveway. A t>pical turn around is 10’ X 10’ = 100 s.f. Walters Port Lane is narrow private road that does not have a lot of room for guests to park. #02-2814 William'Sandy Keegan 2707 Walters Port Lane 8/13/2002 Page 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) m PROPER! Y INFORMATION Site Address 3l707 UlaHTeirs Property Identification Number (P.I.dI A1 - 117 - .3 ^ > 3,'^ > QQ 4 Apphcation M Date Received Amount Paid Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proper^ Acquired OS I (do) non also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present usTof property; X residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____________ .(month/year) APPLICANTM li\M «1.C i V (home) / —W* 111AXH. ______ Phone (work) *^53 - U *7) - ^Address:_i3Qg (ihife Ci^ ^ ^A: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (work) _ Zip:_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ G Describe request in detail: _AlAvfinv, ^ rA^rUA ^ide *rke^ _______________________ O ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width )( Setback;Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditic*is preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (sqq. ) ________________ -A- (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ <0if-^ ’c HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Our lot is an irregularly shaped piece of property in a neighborhood of five houses serviced by a private road. The city does not outi nor maintain the road. All costs of paving, repair and snow removal are paid by the owners of these five properties. This is a dead-end road and our home is at the dead-end of the road along with one other home. The road runs along one side of the first three of the homes on the street, but runs along two sides of our property as it turns to meet up with the end of the driveway of the last home on the road. Ours is the cnly home where the road runs along two sides of our property. This combined with the fact that the lots are small and ours is an irregular shape makes it impossible to build a much-needed garage and still comply with all of the setback requirements. We need the garage because we have had to park our vehicles outside for the five years that we have occupied this home. This is not only a great inconvenience especially in the winter, but the neighborhood would look better without our driveway always full of cars. The home does have a tuck-under garage but we have not been able to use it for two primary reasons. The first reason is that the garage faces the north side of our property and at the nearest comer is only ten feet from the property line. At the property line, there is a retaining wall and a six-foot drop-off down to the neighbors yard and home. It is virtually impossible to get a car into one stall and very difficult to get into the other stall without risking going over the wall and crashing into the neighbors home. This dangerous situation in itself has caused us not to use the garage, but in addition to this problem we need a garage for storage. We have no basement on our home and therefore no storage area for things such the lawn mower, snow blower, bikes, tools and seasonal items. We have been storing these under a deck area, but this is an eyesore for our neighbors as well as for us and also is a problem with squirrels and chipmunks. The proposed garage would give us a safe place to park our vehicles out of tlie elements and would give us the storage space that we need. The variance requested affects no one other than one neighbor and us. This neighbor does not have a problem with the variance that we are requesting. 14 e> •C. pp , • r,V ' ' “>“*/ ^ I ^ J -n -r .j-i 1 • BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY FOR: Bill. ___________ loT 3 , BLOCJCl>, W/tcrees pout cnroFOMNO ^ SITE PLAN___.GPADtNQPlAN U, ^993 0 APPROVED ^JOiruf. □ APPROVED WITH REVISIONS □ OISAPPi BY_ DATE ’'/ ^ CT«rt»*.T A P6*- l4-C. flO-FVc^___ O • inON MON. SET□ - WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M.. BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM ________1st FLOOR ELEV. tuirfi fiio\ric • ■ IRON MON. INPLACE BASEMENT ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. • DRAINAGE 000.0 ■ EXIST. ELEV. (oOO.o)> PROPOSED ELEV. ^.o * EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. SCHOBORG i ND SURVEYING INC. tn-izai Mr Or. ^ 13 s« omm. MN MM t hifeby carilfy that this pton. survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota y'y /7 y jl) y Oata: OcTt- ^ i! Ragistrallon No. 14700 JOB* 4B4>/ Book • Page 40-37 Scale CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Paikwey - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 (612) 249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued: P02757 Accessory Structures 8/11/200 D SITE ADDRESS; PID: 21-117-23-23-0044 2707 Walters Port La EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Permit Class: Permit Type: Building Accessory Structures UBC Occupancy RJ Construction Type VN Census Code 438 Permit Sub-type(s): Garage/Attached DETAILS: Approved per resolution Separate permits required:Eieciricai (state) NOTICES/REMARKS: FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee:$391.25 Valuation: S 25,000.00 State Surcharge Fee: $ 12.50 TOTAL FEE:S 658.03 APPLICANT:WILLIAM KEEGAN 2707 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 OWNER:WJ&SJ KEEGAN 2707 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERNOSSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN STRICT COMPLUNCE tMTH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES ANT> STATE OF hflNN*ESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. APPu2^yPER-SUTtt SJcJWat ORIS mikCc 0 CJmay>n ISSUED BY signature Copies; City, Applicant, Assessor, Finance Page 1 Total Fee: $ Entered By: Date Received: 7/ 3/ O Permit#: i^D'dr? CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION All information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) (^^WNE^R CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: ^101 UiqPhgKS Po^tLn-ZIP: NAME OF OWNER: tU;/l/a,w tSondm /(fe PHONE: (home) ^7h7%] (work) ^L\ILING ADDRESS: 37^7 [iio)-hrs CITY: fcrrebro*- ZIP; <«?» 55^^5/ CONTRACTOR: ___ CONTACT PERSON:, NLAILING ADDRESS: STATE LICENSE: # _______PHONE; MOBBLE/PAGER: CITY:ZIP; ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS:___ NAME; PHONE: CITY;_________ REGISTRATION # ZIP: T\*PEOFWORK: New Move Addition_^ Remodel/Alteration Accessory Structure Land Alteration PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail): qva cdfarli^6 STORIES: I SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATT. 2^ DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ aS./SOO I hereby apply for a building permit and 1 acknowledge that the information above is complete aixl accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinaiKes and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:: 7/j//^0O0DATE NOTE! Parade of Homes events require separate permit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non-pemutted events will not be allowed. LgFT EU^VATIQ N %filx 1/4" - I'-O" — - —□□II 1 1 JL1 "1 1 1 L tiQ5mi vaist7 FKCM FUFVATION .. J cuM5nmtwi mvc\f P )»‘0tff-0‘OKVtW/ '2- 9\/rvKwmi OeBOiWBi- 9-6”9’6” 2-69M-a05t^ Tommw.^ 5/8 ftrt "X" nriap. fl«f. pp. ON vKMt mi5K>jf(mio»xee- I: 90 9'OXfl ‘O' OH.t^W/ 6‘0*' ¥ r-O" W-O"»'-0" M‘-0* PKSfPLOCKaAN HARDCOVER CALCULAT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75' mON V C^250^ WORKSHEET 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcfifth Mli. Mil X X X Width « TcrAi. B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X O. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 31 13*1 X 100 ______________ + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Length Wi(i(h X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 91. i * B Sii. ;t.^y X 100 500-1000' S.F. S.F. . *i7.U S.F. S.F. S.F. _ 3.6f6 S.F. S.F. ff/S.F. S.F. 410 S.F. S.F. 3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9V/5D/3 S.F.A J/PJy S.F.B44 s % % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /ypi/j .. J.I _ _S.F. -Z2-?/S.F. S.F. isro S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. smi SJ.A S.F.B %1 j r Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department el Information Parcel ID 2111723230044 House Number 2707 Street Name WALTERS PORT LA This is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of Information and data from City, County, and State mad authorities and other aourcaa. itr 3; RUN 8ATE 07/11/02 BATCH 500 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI035001 PAGE 10 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 50 20-117-23 10 0007 02007 KELLY AVE PREFERRED BUILDERS INC GENE NARTIGNETTI 2097 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0002 02703 WALTERS PORT LA WILLIAM H REESE JR 0 WIFE WILLIAM H REESE JR 2703 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0003 02705 WALTERS PORT LA ROBERT J BONKIEWICZ ET AL R BONKIEWICZ i L BONKIEWICZ 2705 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER MAME/ADDR 30 21-117-23 23 0000 02707 WALTERS PORT LA W J i S J KEEGAN WILLIAM J K SANDRA J KEEGAN 2707 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0005 02709 WALTERS PORT LA W M 0 S K DUNKLEY WILLIAM M I SUSAN K DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 000630 21-117-23 23 02710 • PENCE LA D E HABERMAN 0 H D E HABERMAN I H 2710 PENCE LA EXCELSIOR m 55331 R HABERMAN R HABERMAN PROP AOOR OWNER NATff TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 21-117-23 23 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC 0530 IDS CENTER MPLS MN 55002 30 21-117-23 23 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D i L UPHOFF DARYL L I LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0051 02710 PENCE LA D E HABERMAN t H R HABERMAN D E HABERMAN t H R HABERMAN 2710 PENCE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 21-117-23 32 0007 02715 PENCE LA S J SYNDER t S L STERN STEVEN SNYOER/SHERRYL STERN 2715 PENCE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 500 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM) TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN OF NY KNOMLEOGE > .’VVt' , -.i V y • . • i.« 'iji ‘'^'i >. • ‘ •^ ' ■’ • ’T"' »*•' , »,"• •', ^^»’• /?{*» A.'ni^' ♦ ..'J.’*«i^**' ■4" ’• ..,/• .> H^SSiy^ Mf . ■ .iV,/’ ,. "•;• ^r',- r-..I:;: - ' .. ' • ■ T vI iM bfcL ■< . «• ■• Tj » < A . -r- * . C ✓ t • / 9 >\ • f'-'iN X •> *• /V* ^'*5- ;» . 4m I Qlljl. * •♦• - - ■ «'u 7 TO: PROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Plaiming Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner August 5,2002 #02-2816 3800 Wayzata Blvd. Conditional Use Permit -- Publie Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Exhibits:A B C D E F G H I J Application: RR-IB One Family Residential District (2 acre) 1.64 acres Application Site Plan/Floor Plan Resolution #4244 Sign City Council Minutes - July 22,2002 Highway 12 Map Septic Report Permit Record Plat Map Property Owners List The applicant is requesting a conditional u.se permit to operate a Montessori School T)ay Care Center for 60 children in a building that was previously approved for 60 children and 10 day eare providers. The previous day care ceased operation in October 2001 and a new conditional use permit is required. The Orono Montessori School/Day Center was located in the lower level of St. Edward's Church until it recently burned down. The applicant has indicated they will have 7 members on staff. The ages of the students w ill range from 16 months to 6 years. The ratio of children to workers is based on the number of children and their ages. T he ratios are set by the Department of Human Serv ices (DHS) and are regulated by the state licensing process. The hours of operation for the facility will be between 7 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pertinent Ordinances: • RR-IB District Standards, Section 10.28 • Conditional Use, Section 10.09 • Special Provisions-Signage, Section 10.61 Orono Montessori SHOO itay zatj Bhd PC Hil'oo: Page I ofS L Cit>' Council Discussion: During the Public Comments section of the July 22,2002 City Council meeting, Mr. Kuruvilla of Orono Montessori School came before the City Council in order to discuss relocating the school to 3800 Wayzata Boulevard. After St. Edward’s Church burned the school moved temporarily until July 31, 2002 to Wayzata Community Church. The property at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard is available, has been used as a child care facility in the past, and Orono Montessori would like to move in. However, since more than 6 months had passed since Little Acorns preschool occupied the building, a new conditional use permit is required. Mr. Kuiuvilla asked that the City Council waive the lengthy paperwork in order for them to move in on August 1,2002. The City Council did not waive the application process, but did grant a temporary conditional use permit for the purpose of opening the Orono Montessori School pending approval of the fomtal process, with the understanding that if the City Council determines not to grant the permit the temporary use may be revoked. Analysis: Day care facilities are allowed in rural residential districts as a conditional use. Day care facilities are licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Ser\ ices (DHS). The zoning anpiication addresses how the facility will operate as a land use and D1 IS licensing addresses the stalling levels and care of the children in the facilitv. The issues to be addressed in the conditional use permit application are access, parking, landscaping, signage, and hours of operation. The conditional use permit may also limit the number of persons using the facility to correlate w ith the size of the septic system and control the off-site impact on adjacent residential properties and traffic. It is anticipated that this building will be removed when construction begins on Hwy. 12. Access The subject property has a driveway and curb cut on I Iwy. 6. No access is available from I Iwy. 12. Parkinu The site plan indicates that there are 18 parking spaces with 1 designated as a handicapped accessible space. 1 here are also 2 parking spaces available in the garage. 1 he Zoning code requires that 4 parking spaces be provided for each 500 square feet in excess of 1 ,000 square foot of floor space in the principal structure. The structure measures 50’ x 63 ’ (3,150 s.f) according to building plans on file. I hc parking requirement for the size of the facility is 17.2 spaces; where 21 spaces are provided. The site plan meets the required parking requirement. Orono Montesson JSOO lyayzata Blvd rc S. I9 02 Page 2 of 3 Landscaping The previous day care facility was required to have a fence around the play area and trees along the fencing on Flw>' 12. Signage The lot may have an identification sign that shall not exceed 12 square feet in area per surface. Tlie sign cannot be located on public right-of-way and shall not exceed 8’ in height above the average grade level. The sign may be illuminated by flood lights if the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential areas. The applicant has submitted a sign which is 3 ’ X 6’. It is designed to fit into the existing wood frame on the Highway 12 side of the property. The wood frame is from prior uses of the building. Sign permits were issued in 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1993. A variance has never been granted for a larger than 12 s.f. sign however the wood frame will hold a sign of 18 s.f. Orono Montessori will be in the building on a semi-temporary basis. Therefore, staff is not concerned with the size of the sign and a variance is not requested as it is considered as pre-existing. Hours of Operation Orono Montessori School will operate from 7 AM to 6 PM Monday thru Friday. Septic The subject property is serviced by an on-site septic system. On-Site Systems Manager. Matt Bolterman, has reviewed the existing septic system and has no concerns regarding the proposed use of the property. Staff Recommendation: To approve the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of enrollees shall be limited to a maximum of 60 persons at one time. The number of staff allow ed shall correlate to the number required by DHS for the age and number of enrollees. 2. The applicant is to obtain a license from DHS. Orono Montessori 3S00 H'ay zata Blvd PC S/19.02 Page 3 of 3 A Application# 0<P-<P^ DateRcccived ;r-7-0 3- Amount Paid 3lS o • OQ • • CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site Address 3> ^ OO Od^7~ /^UD Type of Application to be Filed ^ ^7^ > T j or^r^ j_ / 7~ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT /y?0^T^SSC(^f '^^oiS'chome) ~ A Name nOjc Phone (work) Address^<^/:) i^/7\sj^uryjcoj> 7^_ Citv ^ A//^9-&/‘9 7>^ Zip----- --------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name C^y / ^ O'T'T' a rJ Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City Zip. Date Propert>' 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 $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 wails within 75' of lakeshore _____ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/ycar) 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 #2816 L_ 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. _____Completed Application Form. ____Describe reque^ in detail. -------Certified Proj^rty 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). -------Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ____Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. -------Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ____List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ____Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (II" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applic^t and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:^________________ Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning ^ Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct^to the best of his/her Imowledge Applicant's signature Date y OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f .•1 •a SITE.^5 a /Jr •♦ i* /« r ■/ 7 f m • ? If .«A •r ® #0 ''”» t ; :•* i: // O 'H'.:i:c' ’ :VS. ^ 1/ b . c fell GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^44__ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) FILE #2460 WHEREAS, Kristin Jacques of Little Acorn Day Care Center, (hereinafter "the applicant") has applied to the City for a day care at the property owned by Clifford L. Otten located at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Those parts of Lots 11, 12, and 13, "MINNETONKA GARDEN ACRES", according to the recorded plat thereof, lying southerly of the centerline of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 6 Plat 5, as delineated in Book 70, Page 3844152 of Hennepin County Records. Also the north 1/2 of adjoining old County Road No. 6 now vacated, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Crono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 1999, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning thi« application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and \MIEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to permit a day care center for 60 children, ages 33 months to 11 years per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A). Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2460. The property is located in the RR-IB Zoning District, where 2 acres is the minimum lot area. The property consists of 1.64 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 16, 1999 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0. Page 1 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 2/14Mil 4. The Planning Commission made the following fmdings of fact: A. The proposed use will not have a negative impact on adjacent residential uses. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to permit a day care center for 60 children, ages 33 months to 11 years 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 properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCI^USIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A) to permit a day care center to serve 60 children, subject to the following conditions: 1. This facility shall have a maximum capacity of 60 children. 2. The facility shall obtain a child care facility license from the Department of Human Services. 3. The hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (February 22, 2000). Page 2 of 4 mamm CITYofOROXO RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ^ —•> 4 2 4 4 5. 6. Violation 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 and authorized agent of Little Acorn Day Care Center and owner of the property 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 22nd day of Februaiy, 1999. ATTEST: v/! Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Applicant(s)y//5z, ^ C'/) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of February, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour and 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. nisSJi JAMIE LGEMAR NOTAflYPUBUC^RNNESOTA HSiNEPM COUNTY My CotTjnittion Eivtns Jmi. 31.2000 Notary Public J Page 3 of 4 r CITY of ORONO m E8H^^ RESOLUTION OF^THE CITY COUNCIL ^,0. 41^42 44 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^3day 199^ before me a Notary Public within ^ cr.;^ on..nn/ »«rcrtnollt, o»,r«.or«1 iy ^ ■ /I------ . (JCdcrU U(>MJCC<Jand for said county, personally appeared~^^'!:?.,:z:,^/3^?vyv/Aj OCdirl ____ known to me to be the person(s) describeu inando^o the foregmng instriim acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE LGEMAR NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2C00 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 3r^ day of , 199J^ before me a No^ry Public within and for said county, personally appeared r.ft;^ pu.sfm',-} known to me to be the person(s) described^ and who executed the foregoing in«rument,Mi acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. f> ' r.9^>.JAMIE L. GEMAR NOTARY PUBUC-UNNESOTA iwnncnntuuNiT g M|rCeRnissionEipitesJan.31.2000 <\ A'il'TXA NOT0Y PUBLI3LIC Page 4 of 4 40589.plt 7/25/2002 1 ;07:58 PM Scale 1 9 60 Height 36.000 Length: 72.036 in f r« MOKTESSORI SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN, PRE-SCHOOL, TODDLER 16 MONTHS TO 6 YRS ■ 952-404-2046 3. — VivicL Bva lioi vMVMtf f • r^-J J V. i •V.. X. >nNUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson, Representative Nothing new to report. PLANNING COIVUVIISSION COAIMENTS - Sandra Smith, Representative Nothing new to report; however, would like to see the City Council appoint a new Vice Chair when ready. PUBLIC COMMENTS Michael Cruella, 290 Ridgeview Drive, Wayzata, Director and owner of Orono Montessori School. Mr. stated that as owner of Orono Montessori School, who lost its home when St. Andrews Church burned down this spring and had been temporarily located in Wayzata Community Church, they are hoping to relocate to Highway 12 and County Road 6 August 1, 2002. Their current temporary location runs out on July 31, 2002. The building they propose to occupy was previously run as a Little Acorns preschool, however, since vacant for over 6 months Mr. found out new paperwork needed to be filed when he stopped by City Hall. Mr. stated that this past year has been very difficult for he and his students. They have a school, and children to think of He urged the City Council to waive the lengthy paperwork in order for them to move in on August 1. Gaffron confirmed Mr. statement, indicating that the building had been vacant for nine months. Built as a preschool run by Open Arms and then Little Acc ms, the Montessori school proposed to occupy this space until the Church could rebuild. Since the previous CUP lapsed at 6 months, the new school will be required to file for a new CUP, however, the City Council would not be able to grant formal approval for that CUP until its August 28th meeting, well after the Montessori school has lost its current lease. Gaffron indicated that the City Council could allow the Montessori school to move in while they go through the CUP process. Gaffi-on added that both he and Lyle Oman visited the building and saw no obvious problems with the CUP. He PAGE 8 of 8 minutes of the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. «n.inu«l tto ttis shon-tenn use would be good for the eommunity. the children, and. since the Church will be rebuilding over the next 1-2 years, this space offers a good location for the school. In fact. GaOron noted the Onen building will be taken as part of the Highway 12 expansion in 1-2 years anyway. Miuphy questioned whether Gaffron foresaw any imminent reason to reject the CUP request. Gatfron stated that this proposal provides a good potential short-term use for this facility, which unfortiinately was caught up in the paperwork. Attorney Barrett reminded the Council that the ordinance states that the applicant must still go through the CUP process. Sansevere asked if they could allow the school to occupy the space while they were m process. Bamtt stated that while it could be allowed, the Council needs to make it clear that the permit could still be denied if something showed up unexpectedly. Sansevere indicated that, while emotionally he wanted to do what he could for the kids a.-.d the school, he needed to learn what the legal suggestion would be. Barrett stated, once again, that the City Council had employed the right to waive the paperwork temporanly to allow the applicants to move in, but required the perniit to be completed i timely fashion.m a Muiphy asked if staff could foresee any code problems. Gaffem indicated that the proposed Montessori School meets all the zoning requirements the butlding allows 60 students, while the school has 56. they are not offering a school Imtch program, there will be no changes to the facility, and the school found all conditions acceptable. PAGE 9 of 9 • • ••• « minutes of the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o^clock p.ni. Mr. stated Uiat all of the inspections are underway in order to meet the move in date of August 1,2002, and so far the Fire Marshall and building inspections have been okay. Mayor Peterson stated that she had no problem allowing them to move into the building in 10 days while they go through the CUP process. Mun>hy poii.ted out that the City finds itself in a unique situation and has been given the opportunity to do something for the kids. rare Murphy moved, lo grant a lemporarj Conditional Use for the purpose of opening the Orono Montessori School pending approval of the formal process, with the understanding that If the City Council determines not to grant the permit this temporaiy use may be revoked. Mr. asked under w hat condition the school might be asked lo move. He reiterated that this past year had been very difficult, losing their home to arson and then being asked lo move fiom a temporary location. He staled that they had been through quite a bit and would like to feel comfortable that they have found a semi-pennanent location. Murphy indicated that it is the City Attorney’s job to look out for the City’s interests, however, he believed the Council was committed to doing everything they could to lesson the burden for the school. Mayor Peterson seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. I nmuvuhcs. \ LMour ♦ \Ct4«b^ \ pr«pwi ))iAbjea* ' .■ ^it'-in.;i;4> ll)ll^ ^4|^CX4t|t > )»- 4'«4M’«>44^ CD O>r^44-^ ♦• %% )|.%^ O O CX30 O O liiiiPinmm:in i’&^.r.i tli'’^!^': •? \ l<joyZPi.\Q. Klic(. IS' •V»* \ {r{- ^rrx^vedJ \ V \ ^ ' \\ \ \ \ ,\ \ \ ____J I I I I I G SEPTIC SYSTEM INVBMTORY PID; 29-118-23 34 0002Addr: 3800 Wayzata Blvd. Building Type; residence # BRs/GPD: 650 # Systems/units; 1/1 Permit No; 6670 Date of Pfemat; 4/29/82 Installer: Patnode Bros. System Type; mound Appliances; SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity; 1 Failure Pot; low Tank Condition:DF condition: SEPTIC TANKS Material; precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 10 Capacity: 1000, 1000, 500 DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: 160 No. Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 80*40 Type of Filter: rock,clean sand Tile Size: 1.5 Under Tile: 9 Perc Rate mn/in: 40 Setback DF-Bldg; 30 DF Ht above WT: 3 Soil Type: sandy clay loam Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 100 Well-DF: 75 Report in File?; y Pump Type; subm. Depth; 139 Diameter; 4 Method; drilled INSPECTION RECORD Date 5/21/80 6/8/82 9/10/86 8/30/90 7/9/91 9/3/93 10/2/96 DF cut off during road construction replacement Installation no surfacing-cut trees on mound no surfacing-cut trees,pump tanks no surfacing-cut trees,pump tanks no surfacing-cut trees,pump tanks no surfacing-cut more trees,pump tanks Compliance 1 PUMPOUT RECORD Date Gallons 1 1 1 1 1 1 &3C\^ ^344 PERMIT RECORD UJoLAJCaMSlJi 'K Type of Permit; J/ -^n 4^-2^A^^au/t ^-V-£g.___€./LAanJr>n 0 U4£Z^ hd-i3 P/u.r}^h/^ - ^-jn~9iU ^4yC {)r\^ "ifk^of- _ n PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo.Date Type of Permit '^r % * ____r.i ■ ,.r^ I' ■ •; « rv ’‘^ PH m ^7 / { • ■■ ’'^^lw/^'■<; :vr''' .-r ^J '-t r- ■.‘- •.'t.l A^*i*; .V.; 'I .iI'?.'• . • .w.iiiFuia -V ■ ^: :c: •■:?;■ V?-•-*;• j • , \^/r. -i /->••: t;.--- /- -* • T ^ 4«. .c, ;,v .%• • ••. .. • ■• " W * * • *. I: i..', •'z.:?#. r ■- ■ -■•-r • • • • t , « ^ 4 r - • » • •» •, •• -S.* •'* *;* *^,r'^ V ' * ♦.Jk».^ :i u>^ W4;t*i<-r-Tv .<^'7.4^iiT-l!T:i‘.;- 'Wii V'*' ’**_______ ■—.' •.**•*.^**^ • • - r-» •• -*. - • ■ f.. .v.if-.:»VK^<:r--i‘■■,:■■:• 9 • • • «.. ««• • , .; «: *. . ■ - ' . " i,>tTHAV£N-{HCSAHN06.-Pt^rSi -- -- -- 'll •* Vt.-X % •,•#• * • |N ■•;' • -• * V •* •’ •/"y • "• ••-f ♦. • * .j , • • .. JACOBS ^ //^ t //L •^.'s ,. , nS{7,-^3 ^ .-ttu* -4: # •- •** . w j /* / - ''• • • j ^ ‘•» y 4 .T " 'O • • * • • I RUN DATE ar/R^/IZ ’•'■ V , . * •« / BATCN 5IA RROP AOOR ONNER NAIC TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AintR ONNER NAtK TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR HENNEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST SO 29-110>25 S2 0106 •••SO ADDRESS UNASSI6NE0 HENN COUNTY. PK RESERVE OIST SUiUROAM NENN REC PK OIST 12A15 CTY* RO 9 PLYMOUTH HN 5MA1 30 29-11I-2S 34 •••• •3740 NAY2ATA OLVO>N CLIFFORD L OTTEN CLIFFORD.L OTTEN P 0 OOX 249 LONO LAKE MN SSS54 . 30 S2-U0-2S 21 •••A •••SO ADDRESS UNASSICNEO BURLINOTON NORTHERN RY 0 N S SANTA FE RR CO PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO OOX 9A1RS9 FORT NORTH TX 70101 SO S2-1M*2S 22 OVOS •S02S SIXTH AVE N NICNAEL A ALEXANDER MICHAEL A ALEXANDER 3025 OTH AVE N LONO LAKE HN 553S0 •• • I • \• * m; ■ .r. 'I * n# • • “ • f . 7 •I • * 4 •• « SO 29-118-23 33 0009 03900 SIXTH AVE N NORTHERN STATES POWER CO NSP PROPERTY TAX DEPT 414 NICOLLET NALL MPLS NN S5401I SO 29-110-23 34 0009 •3000 WAYZATA OLVO H OTTEN NANASEHENT OTTEN MANA6EMENT BOX 249 LONO LAKE HN 55350 38 32-118-23 21 OOIO 03700 JACOBS MILL RO STEPHEN 0 TOWLE STEPHEN 0 TOWLE 5115 PINNACLE OR OLOSHAR FL 34077 TOTAL BATCH 506 00010 REPORT NO. PI435401 PACE 34 .. • '•* 30 29-118-23 34 0006 03000 SIXTH AVE N PARK CUN CLUB INC PAr; FUN CLUB C/0 RUBY CESCHWINO 4939 VERA CRUZ AVE MPLS HN 55429 38 32-118-23 21 09*3 •0038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED S A CIRSPINSKI ETAL CLIFFORD L OTTEN P 0 BOX 249 LONC LAKE MN 55350 38 32-118-23 22 0B02 03825 SIXTH AVE N MICHAEL A ALEXANDER MICHAEL A ALEXANDER 3825 OTH AVE N LONC LAKE MN 55350 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATI^ AND TRUE 7^7DATE 5if- y I t • j ) .) • . TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner Mike Gaffron, Planning Director August 15,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2819 2180 Abingdon Way _________ Conditional Use Permit -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Exhibits:A B C D E F G H I Application: Tim Cayle Devries 21 no Abingdon Wo}' PC A19 02 Page I of 5 RR-IB One Family Residential District (2 acre) Lot 6: 9.9 acres (2+ ac. dry) Lot 5: 4.3 acres (2 ac. dry) Application Project Description Surx'cy Plans Septic Plan (Exist.*»|{ Engineer Comments Area Topography Original Plat showing Drainagc/Conser\ation & Flowage Easement 1975 Wetland Airphoto/Map The applicants arc requesting a conditional use permit to alter lano .ii c.xccss of 500 cubic yards. The applicants are constructing a tennis court on the property. Tlie conditional use permit is required because Vlic applicant is proposing to move 1,040 cubic yards of fill. The applicants own the property (Lot 6) and the adjacent vacant property (Lot 5). Ol the 1,040 cubic yards of fill to be moved, approximately 120 cubic yards will be trucked from the site to another location, approximately 500 cubic yards will be trucked to Lot 5 and the remaining 420 cubic yards will be used as fill on Lot 6 to construct the tennis court. The fill trucked to Lot 5 will be used to “correct grade irregularities, cover small stumps and debris, and to eliminate an 18-inch difference in grade from the existing driveway on Lot 6 to Lot 5". Exhibit D-1 and D-2 indicate the area where the fill will be located on Lot 5. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Section 19 (Grading 6'. Filling) • Section 10.55 (Floodplain Ordinance), Various Sections • Section 10.56 (Shoreland Ordinance), Various Sections Analysis: The applicants wish to construct a tennis court on their property. 1 he tennis court will be located southeast of the residence and meets front and side yard setbacks as required. The proposed construction is 180 ’ from Long Lake Creek where a 100’ setback is required for non-sewered property. The tennis court meets the required Orono 26’ setback from the delineated wetland on the property. However, it appears that the plans show a slight encroachment of fill into the 26' wetland setback area at the south end of the court; in staff s opinion there is no hardship justifying this encroachment and plans should be revised to incorporate a low retaining wall or other method to allow this area to remain undisturbed. (Unlike the MCWD rules, Orono code does not specifically allow for filling/mitigation within the 26’ buffer area). It should be noted that the property was subdivided in 1983 prior to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, and Orono took a Conservation & Flowage Easement over portions of the property deemed to be wetland at that time. The new delineation performed under the more recent WCA rules shows that areas now defined as wetland are more e.xtensive on the site than those protected in 1983. In some locations the delineation shows wetlands that weren't included in the 1983 easement; in other locations, areas protected by the easement are not now considered as wetland, as can be seen from the heavy dashed line on E.xhibit D-2. Septic System Concerns : The subject property is serviced by an on-site septic system. Staff has reviewed the existing septic system and it is not directly affected by the proposed tennis court construction. The area being used for tennis court would likely not be suitable for a future septic site due to its proximity less than 75’ to the wetland. Staff is concerned about the proposed “Wetland BulTer Mitigation ” propo.scd directly downliill from the existing mound system. Any fill or excavation in this area could have a severe impact on the functioning of the mound, as the downhill slope of a mound is a critical absorption area. Staff would recommend that another buffer mitigation site be loeated that will not impaet this mound. Tim/Gay le Devries 2180 Abingdon Way^ PC 8'I9/02 Page 2 of 5 L Excess fill from the construction is proposed to be placed on adjacent Lot 5, a currently vacant but potentially buildable 2-acrc lot. The proposal would place fill within 10-20’ of tested drainfield sites. Staff believes this is a risky venture at best, for the following reasons: 1.The easterly tested site is within 75’ of the wetland as recently delineated, and Orono Code requires a 75’ setback; this site might be defined as unacceptable in the future... 2.The proposed fill will destroy the potential for finding additional drainfield sites on Lot 5, since the fill area will be considered as disturbed soils, and will not be usable for drainfield purposes. If for some reason the tested sites arc rendered unusable. Lot 5 could be deemed as unbuildable. 3.The tested alternate site on Lot 6 is now within 75’ of the newly delineated w etland. If for this setback reason or some other reason that site was found to be unusable. Lot 6 would have no alternate site available, and may need to find an alternative on Lot 5... This neighborhood is not within the MUSA and the City does not intend to bring municipal sewer to this area. Maintenance of septic system options is critical. While a fence to protect the sites on Lot 5 will be constructed prior to fill moving, and while no storage or trucking is intended to occur beyond the fence, staff still feels the potential to create future septic issues is present. Staff would recommend that the area of fill and truck traffic on Lot 5 be reduced to about half the area proposed, and that applicants take extra precautions to avoid any disruption within 50’ of te.sted sites, to allow for future flexibility. Engineers Comments; City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, reviewed the proposed plan and submitted comments. (See Exhibit F). Staff would note the following; Silt fence - The plan the applicant submitted indicates where the silt fencing is to go. The City engineer suggests the silt fence be heavy duty as shown in exhibit and be installed around the entire site where the fill will be moved to, rather than as shown. Septic Sites - As discussed above, the future septic sites must not be disturbed. Narrative of total cut and fill - As discussed above. 500 cubic yards o( fill will be moved to the adjacent lot. 120 cubic yards will be trucked from the site to another location and approximately 420 will remain on the site to construct the tennis courts. (This may change if less fill can go to Lot 5 to retain septic options...) Tini'Gayle Devries 2180 Abingdon PC 8/19/02 Pa^e 3 of 5 Drainage easement : The ‘drainage easement ’ on the survey/original plat defines the boundary of the area originally protected by C&F easement with the Abingdon Glen subdivision. Now that wetlands have been delineated and the delineation shows wetland boundaries difTerently than the conservation easement, a question is raised as to whether the C&F easement should be revised to refiect the new wetland boundaries. It appears to staff from the wetland report that many of the wetland areas that weren’t defined in 1983 are Type 1/2 wetland which the City in recent years has opted to not formally protect by easement but rather by filing in the chain of title a document notifying current and future owners that there are WCA wetlands on the site which are regulated. There are several options the Planning Commission could consider: 1 . Do nothing. Keep the delineation report on file in case additional work is done on the property. 2. Require that the property owner grant the city a revised C&F casement for the portion of the wetland not included in the easement at the time of subdivision. (This option is costly- would require a new legal description, survey and filing of easement). 3. Acknowledge the non-City protected, WCA-protected wetlands via a notification document to be filed in the title. Site Lighting : Applicants intend that the tennis court be convertible to hockey rink use in the winter. They intend to provide lighting around the structure. This has raised the concern of at least one nearby property owner, and night lighting has been an issue in this neighborhood in the past, and in rural Orono in general. Ice is light colored and highly reflective, and even lights shining down on it will have an impact of lighting up the night sky. Consideration should be given to use of shoebox downward cast lighting with diffusers of some sort to reduce the impacts of reflective glare, and perhaps timers or other methods should be used to ensure the lights are turned olYwhen not in use. Tini'Gayle De\ries 2180 AhingJon li'ay PC 8/i 9, 02 Page 4 of 5 T=r?rs8ea Staff Recommendation: To approve the conditional permit with the following conditions: 1. The area of Lot 5 to be filled must be reduced to allow for some measure of future flexibility in septic site location should the existing tested sites be disturbed or found to not be usable. 2. Heavy duty silt fence and other protective measures such as signage be installed around the portion of Lot 5 where fill will be deposited. 3. The delineated non-City protected wetlands on the survey be documented via a notification to be filed in the chain of title. The wetland delineation will be kept on file for this property for future reference. 4. The buffer mitigation area must be relocated to a site where it will have no potential impact on the existing mound system’s proper functioning. 5. The grading plan must be revised to eliminate any fill within 26 ’ of the delineated wetlands. 6. Lighting to be as recommended above. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation, subject to noted plan re\ isions being made satisfactory to staff prior to Council action. 2. Table, require revisions to be reviewed by Planning Commission prior to going to Council. 3. Recommend denial, state reasons. 4.Other Tim/Gayle Devries 2180 Abingdon H'ayf PC 8/19/02 Page 5 of 5 Application # QZ-Z^I^ DateReceKed Amount Paid oO^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ________'I ie>0 jOAx^ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2*7 000 7 APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address . City Zip 6^^ I OWNER (if different than aralicant) Name Tl/A Address UO^ City Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip Date Property Acquired 1 (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) 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/lndustrial Use 1^ $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ___ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ’ _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule REQUIRED SUBMITTALS !• _____ Completed Application Form. ^ ■_____ Describe request in detail. ------- Certified Pr^^rty Outers List of ou-ners Nvithin 350', labels and plat map (you Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Government Center, 948 3271 -). (^!2-S6'SI1 0 ------- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ------- Attach legal descripUon to application if not included on required survey. -------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 woqld include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owneifs). ■■ ■ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ------- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUFPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (II" X .17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS STOMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc to be submitted.) The Applicant and Pioperty 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:______________________ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to p-ovide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies Uiat the infomiation supplied IS true and correct to th^est of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature ______________Date 2^ OU^ OWNER’S SIGNATl The owner hereby ackn , ahtTagrees to this application and further authorized reasonable ento’ onto the propertj b> Ci.y staff, consultants, agents, commission members, aiid Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature /4 DateiSItSssiss f t -‘1 \ I lames robin landscape architect 5935 glencoe road excelsior, minnesota 58331 3133 29 July, 2 a 982 474 3946 982 474 8480 City of Orono, Minnesota City Staff, Members of the Planning Commission and City Council Please consider this request for a Conditional Use Permit to alter land in excess of 500 cubic yards, by- Timothy and Gayle De\Tics, 2180 Abingdon Way, Orono, Minnesota 55356 Mr. and Mrs. Devries propose to construct a tennis court at their home, 2180 Abingdon Way, on Lot 6, Abingdon Glen in Orono. The tennis court \s-ill be located southeast of their existing home as shown on the accompanying drawings. They propose to construct the project this year. They contacted the neighbors on June 24, offering to review the project and have not had any response. The proposed Tennis Court fits within the available building area of the site bounded by the required City of Orono setbacks for front and sideyards as well as the City of Orono wetland buffer of 26’. The proposed Tciuiis Court surface coverage is allowed under the hardcover requirements as shown on the drawings. A variance from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnet requirement for a 35' wetland buffer in the amount of 298 sf of encroachment has been applied for separately and will be heard by the MCWD Board on 22 August. The 35' w etland buffer is larger than the 26' wetland buffer required by the City of Orono. We are removing areas of heavy Boxelder and Buekthom growth as shown on the drawings. No vehicle traffic will be allowed on the fenced and protected designated septic sites during the excavation and construction operations. The Tennis Court will be constructed as a bituminous surface with a concrete curb, black chain liiik fencing and frame and low cutoff type lights mounted at 12* heights, llie total cut and fill for earth moving on Lot 6 will be 1040 cu yds as shown on the drawings Approximately 120 cubic y ards of soft, clay sub-soils will be trucked from the site to a proper disposal site Approxinutely 500 cubic yards of topsoil will be removed from Lot 6 and placed on the adjacent, undeveloped Lot 5, also owned by the Devries. The topsoil fill on Lot 5 will vary from zero to 18”, to correct grade irregulanties, cover small stumps and debris and to eliminate the abrupt, 18" difference in grade from their existing driveway on Lot 6 to Lot S. The disturbed areas on both sites will be restored with turfgrass seed and mulch. The areas within the required v ctland buffer areas will be left to naturalize and will not be mowed. Please eall me at 952-474-3946 with questions and comments. Sincerely, James Robi Attached i^ra f 2; Wetland Delineation Report by John Anderson :ate of survey for : GAIL DEVRIES 6. BLOCK 1, ABINGDON GLEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA C 2 ; V ■••I ' \ •••■ ■• V t^TNO^ t i f i •• '■ , V .. . ^ J iP^ Vr-"'" : •• V -------------umt r r» ”* / 0 f 0 , • •• " I ck t. AiNOOOM OfN • MM ( « to «W MMITM •# •• MM *. M M M«i«« •» •» -♦>*< Notes: V »««a» c ^ 0<* —K mS tftw tm*«»•** *wm»m M«4»M ••• Ml *«• ’Jin Notes: 1 . Lot 6 tfifornabon and Lot 5 boundary from Survey dated S>5-01 by Coffin and Cronberg 2 lot 5 informaton for topograpby and laplc sees from Cey of OrofX) records 3. Cutand FUCaicutaSons Lot 6 ^opso4 cut Soil subsoils cut Stif day subsofs cut Topsoii ftl Still day M 600 cy 120 cy 140 cy 100 cy 140 cy Tota< Eann Movrg on Lot 6 Lots Topsoe M from Lot 6 Tola) earth movrg on Lot 6 Earth matanai leavrg s tn Buckthorn and misccllaneot lashed areas, regrade to uniform lurfgrass Cross-hatch area, 20.640 sf. indicates limits of 500 cy topsoil fill material on Lot 5 from Lot 6. average depth 6** 3 ^pprovpGsecondary ikepticf^te y pQ protection fence or to anWgrading work, traffic qj/ storage Myond ^—30* sidcyard setbadc vvetiarxi area setback 'etiarxl ? lek^y^tWshed rn delineated wetland ✓✓ )no septic ck from ftland vunming pool louse Remove Boxelders, Buckthorn and miscellaneous brush material from dashed areas, regrade to uniform surface, restore with lurfnrass 80 sf encroachment on 35’ wetland buffer Wetland edge delineated by John Anderson. 2001 105 sf encroachment on 35’ wetland buffer Proposed Tennis Court 113sf encroachment on 35' wetland buffer Sheet 2 of 3 Tennis Court Project T* - robii Devries Residence 2180 Afcing<jon Way. Omno. Mn 55356 arc! 593 •*cel*lor ■ - ^ y U • /v; minneaol 88331 313 SSi-ir* S4»» > • m •••• « • 'am « I « • ‘rvtvta* w« ^•a '94o:iL« k SPECIFICATIONS —---u -E. EDGE AND FENCE 3/4* = 1'-0" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , .rwia-.""’ I uanr** 4 i«Mr» «Mrto •• »*««,«i« POtn »f no « -tr-i ..V. n,•• ••^“^ortn* ro^oM*. n«r»ui*tMfomchuo, 7g> I --------- uDM'oivni i:>'3 'H- oo s liVIETRIC SKETCH NO SCALE NEW TENNIS COURT CWk J^fm Ntr POS^S }ru*v or rva. 4#«r '►ji* / / I ••*■"• •'•••**»•'• *'>— -Ml* ». ri ;4*cc»rwi oi« --------------L’--JL _ 5#* <• __ ■ » :::::fc i «. r OiM>«vM*« f3C TiTo 1-±-----------------------------f TENNIS COURT PLAN p--f ^ < «»■ — •«««• •NAA Oates 12 A*n« 2 Gooftf St^ rwr^ #26«0^ 14 Ain* 2 R».«w Sheet 3 of 3 Tennis Court Project Devries Residence 2180 Atxngdon W*y. Ow». Mn 553Se 1/8" = r to* S935 CltfttCM roftd »celiior« ■liaaeeota SS331 3133 5Si4T15*46 3niri»tso .z' r-;-" N V f Wi Vfi wm .^. M. ^ ."T!^ _ Jt ■ mm^iisjjsir* W^'I'W SUSAN WILSON 325 South Brown Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 (612) 473-9113 September 19,2002 Steve and I have received the notice of construction of a tennis court/hockey rink and perhaps pool at the DeVries home which is directly behind us - across Long Lake Creek. I calM Gale DeVries and talked to her about it as we sold them the lot that is part of the plan. I told Gale that we have two concerns. The first is that the Long Lake Creek watershed area which includes the wetlands is very important in this area. It holds lots of wildlife - the wooducks and mallards nest there as will as Blue Herons and Egrets. We have deer and coyote and all the smaller mammals and many songbirds. It is the main reason people like to live along here, and I hope that whatever construction is done it will be well within ail of Orono’s wetland ordinances. The second concern is the lighting of this sports area. We look right over the wetland and creek. Our house is positioned to take advantage of it. Extra nighttime lights would be a huge detriment not only to our wildlife but also to the serenity and quiet of our view from our living room and bedroom. I think lit hockey rinks belong in park areas and have encouraged Orono to consider one at the Golf Course area. The peacefulness of this area would be ruined by a lit rink. Thanks for considering our issues. I guess the Wilsons are the most impacted by this plan. There is an area at the end of the Abingdon Way cul de sac that is higher and farther removed from the creek and wetland area that would be better for a court as you wouldn’t have to alter the land area as much. However I still think tlui lights would be a bad i lea for all neighbors in the area. Susan and Steve Wilson 3/80 (\iy -A v»I cr ty\ - —- OL ^- e / \ e ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects August 15, 2002 r-iBoneiifoo. Rotene, Anderlik and Associates. Im. is an Affirmative Actlon/Cqual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals Otro G Bonestroo Pf • Varvm l Sorvaia P£ • Glenn R Cook Pt • Robert G Schunicht PE • Jerry A BourtJrjn P£ Senior Consultants. Robert W Rosene. PC • Joseph C Anderiik PE • Rtcharj E Turner P£ • Susan M Cberlin. CPA Associate Principals: Keith A Gordon. PC • Robert R Pfeffene PE • Richard VR Foster. PC • Oavid O Loskota PC • V.»fh A Hanson. Pt • W'chael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kersneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs P£ • David A Bornstroo. MB A • Sidney P VA'illiamson PE L S • Agnes M Ring MBA • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE • Triom.n w Peterson. PE • James R Ma'and. PC • Miies B Jensen PE • L Phiiii- Gravel Ml P£ • Oamei J Edgerton. PE • Ismael V.irtme/ PE • Thomas A Syfko PE • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove PE • Thomas A Roushar P£ • Robert J Dovery. PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and WiUmar MN • M iwaukee \l/l • Chicago. IL NMebsite: www bonestroo com Wendy Bottenberg Zoning Ad.ministraior/Planncr City of Orono Post Office Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay. MS 55323 Re: Devries Tennis Court File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2819 Dear Wendy: We have rev iewed the plans for the proposed tennis cou.'t ccnstructior. at the Devries residetice. The .site is Ii>cated at 2180 Abingdon Way. The proposed work includes soil corrections and export of e.xcavatcd P’aterial to 2150 Abingdon Way. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The existing drainage easement does not cncompus.s the delineated wetian J alvMig the cj.st and west property boundaries. The applica:!! should to correct the d-ainage ea.,emen;s to provide coverage over all wetlands on the property. • Heavy-duty sill fence (detail attached^ should be installed prior to any construction activity. The silt fence should be installed at the loc aliens highlighted on the attached drawing. • The drawings should identify the alternate septic site location on Lot 6 so that it can be fenced and protected from construction ai. liv ity • The narrative provided by James Robin quantifies total cut and fiil of 1,040 cubic yaids of inatri ial. Approximately 120 cubic yards w il! be trucked off sue and 500 cubic yards w ill be in.sialleJ on Lot 5. The applicant should identify if 1040 cubic yards is the net •'scav atioi* or w nethcr tins is the sum total of ail proj»ose<l cut.- and fills If 1040 cubi . i.s the net excavation the applicant should identity v»heie the reiiiairiing 420 cubic yai" c.xcavated matrriai will be placed. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 60-1 4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCI.ATES. INC. Cc; Greg Garpa, City of Orono 2135 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, M.W 55113 • 651 636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 I G:\STANOARO PLATES\ERO- iiform 20,640 sf. 500 cy on Lot 5 je depth 6" U’O cy % <* -vx ^ »• / W i V• ' > ■ «. 'X. » » > • ^ % to IT ■ ■ » • I <\ / ■A’ AV to to >1 ». •V. ^ ■ ■it nr%^fftA/W4 rto 8 ' ^ A \-xVAV- , to to • > to ^ • toi k \ h b H^i»' Cl> X I C'Jqw \ / #»<y t viiMi - >pfc-ytor'fihw^a 31 V--:: I \ \ \ ' \ V \--—• House UuP*v ^ • * W9 13 lu»sto’ >> ■ 939 16 ■^/ . St> J^to iJj 1V AQ'5, • ^»>*»** I « X » # • • is.« N r » ■ «/V • * y I:. W.V r .%•.*.■•I-' A,::i f' to to P 4t-u I V Vy JU?84 *-X . y M'i WcV *'*^'*' / Primary a site install prc prior to ai no traffic beyond < I Approv septic; r'- I S / / > ■■ ■ Va t< -.ca V19>- JTO.;.. J5^' ■^ir- T* --f m'v^n y v-"'V v'* A A A '--to -y — — y A. .L D^ ^ a » n « g e A A ^ X® e n y MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on th' above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, C>Tithia Bremer, Janice Berg, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing stalT were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Planning Consultant Wally Case, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Rristi Anderson. Absent was Council Representative Jim White Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2799 TERESA KOCH, 2225 BAYMEW PLACE, VARIANCES (#2) #02-2800 MARLYS MCCARTY, 225 TONKA AVENUE, VARIANCES (#4) #02-2809 RICK AND KRISTINE STERLING, 1300 VINE PLACE, VARIANCE Item #3 Application #02-2802, Janet Gillquist. 993 Wildhurst Trail, request for Variances was removed from the Consent Agenda as the applicant has withdrawn her application. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2799 Teresa Koch, 2225 Bayview Place, to renew the variances to construct a new residence on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2800 Marlys McCarty, 225 Tonka Avenue, granting front and rear yard setback variances as w ell as lot area and widtn variances to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Aves 7, Navs 0. Mabusth moved, Haw n seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2809 Rick and Kristine Sterling, 1300 \'ine Pl?ce, granting approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 2’ X 10’ addiiion and to replace the existing lakeside deck, VOTE: Aves 7, Navs 0. PAGE 1 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS (#5) #02-2668 MANLEY BROS. CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Weinberger requested that this application be tabled until outstanding issues could he resolved. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to t:ible Application #02-2668, Manley Bros. Construction, 1973 Fagerncss Point Road, CorJi'ional Use Permit and Variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES Weinberger requested the Commission return to this item later in the meeting, as the Hennepin County representative was not present. (#7) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES The applicant had not yet arrived; therefore, W'einberger suggested returning to this item as well NEW BUSINESS (#8) #02-2791 DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINI ROAD, VARIANCES 6:37 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. David Rahn. Applicant, was present. Weinberger e.xplained that the applicants had applied for variances to permit construction of a 24 X 24 attached garage and walkway that would connect the new garage to the existing house. The garage is proposed to have a second story ‘ bonus room" including adding two dormer w indows on the north side of the existing roof. The new additions requiie variances to pennit new- structure and hardcover w ithin 75’ of the lakeshore. Weinberger pointed out that in order to accommodate the new hardcover, a sidewalk between t.he existing garage and hc.use would be removed along with the driveway access to the garage. Previous variances #2248 (1997) were approved to PCimit additions to the existing cabin 5.3’ to the property line. Weinberger maintained that hardcover variances were allowed since the entire cabin and additions were located within the 75’ setback and a IlnJing made at that time indicated PAGE 2 of 36 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 :30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2791 DAVID AND JODI RAHN, Continued) that a large portion of the center of the property was located w ithin the floodplain. Variance #7390 (1998) approved allowing additional hardcover on the property to construct a 20 ’X20 ‘ detached garage at street level. At that time, Weinberger indicated that the Council had felt the applicant should have considered the issue of a garage in 1997. Later in October 1998, Jim Hafner, District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, visited the site and made a finding that the area on the property below 931.5’ elevation was, in fact, not directly connected to the 100-year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka after all. Weinberger shared other approvals allowed in the Rest Point Road neighborhood. He stated that stair recommended the proposed lot coverage be limited to 15% of the lot area, which, based on new calculations lot area is at 14.8%, thus not requiring a lot coverage variance after all. Staff also agreed that the existing garage is not the safest access to the property. Variances are still needed, however, to allow' tlie connection between the house and new' garage and additional hardcover. Weinberger questioned if the determination that the area below' 931.5’ elevation as not part of the 100-year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka, changes how the Planning Commission considers new development on this property. There were no public comments. Smith questioned Rahn whether the designation as a flood plain back in 1997 alTected their decision to develop the property the way they did and how the original plans might have been different if that determination had never been made. Rahn stated that in 1997, he did not wish to move the structure due to the floodplain and mitigate for it. If he had known it were not a floodplain, he stated that he could have seen moving the home back 20* from lakeside and having an attached garage. In hindsight, Rahn indicated that had he looked at the designation further and pursued other options things would be different. Smith inquired what would make up the second story’ shown on the verhead. Rahn indicated that the bonus room located above the garage, has no designated use as of yet, w’hile a hallway adjoins it to the rest of the house. Smith further questioned how the property had evolved from originally having no garage to now PAGE 3 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2791 DAVID AND JODI RAHN, Continued) possessing two proposed garages. She asked why no garage had been considered in 1997. Rahn maintained that the original design would have been difierent from the start, if he had not been limited by the floodplain. He likely would have proposed an attached garage. Rahn stated that based on these issues at the outset, they were not in any hurry to construct a garage, nor did they have any idea where it might fit best, later op they built the detached garage. Rahn reiterated that if they remove the steps, walkway and driveway to the e.xisting garage, they lose 160 in hardcover. He did request keeping a landing and 3’ apron along the garage for water diversion. Smith asked if the removal of the steps, driveway, and walkway were reflected in the calculations. Weinberger noted that they had been taken into account. Present during both 1997 and 1998. Hawn stated that this lot could support no more hardcover, however, based on the redefinition of the floodplain, she has since reconsidered her position. ITie structural coverage issue has be ?n eliminated, the rest of the new construction falls within the 75- 250 ’ setback with hardcover not exceeding 25%, under these circumstances she indicated that she could approve the application. 1 lawn added that she would never like to sec this property come before the Commission ever again. Rahn stated that he wasn ’t aware there were limits on the number of variances a property is granted. He pointed out that neighbors have been granted 31% hardcover variances in the area, whereas, he has only a 23% hardcover ratio. Mabusth stated that she concurred with Hawn's opinion. Smith took a moment to caution others not to be in too great a hurry to develop propertv without examining all of their options. Had the applicant resolved the floodplain issue at the time, he would not be here this evening, the Commission would not be looking at three structures, he could have had his attached garage as proposed, and pulled back the home a little bit to enjoy more of the lakeshore, but here w e are. Mabusth supported the application, adding that the applicant has and will have to live with the imposed limitations. He could have enJo\ ed more home and lakeshore if these issues had been resolved upfront. PAGE 4 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2791 DAVID AND JODI RAHN, Continued) Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2791, David and Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Road, approving a hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback and to permit new structure w ithin the 0-75’ setback, subject to the removal of the existing steps, walkway, and driveway. V'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Rahn abstaining. OLD BUSINESS, Continued (#6) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES 7:01 p.m.- 7:19 p.m. Lazio Philip, Architect representing Hennepin County, was present. Weinberger reported that Hennepin County has applied to renew variances to permit construction of a 7,200 s.f., three bay salt and sand storage building on the property and to renew a conditional use permit to permit construction of a stormwater pond on the property. The original approved 2000 site plan showed the storage building 50 ’ from the north property- line and 125 ’ from the east property line. Weinberger explained that the revised site plan has relocated the building closer to the property lines than previously approved. The new plan shows the building 27' from the north line and 67’ from the east property line. Weinberger stated that the required setback to the rear property line for a 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. In addition, W'eiiibergei noted that the new- building location would not reduce hardcover as pnw iously appro\ ed. The facility is mainly used for w i.ntcr road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility primarily being Coiunty Roao 15 between Mound and Highway 12 and County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. A County Highway maintenance facility since 1962, the DNR also makes use of the property for storage of milfoil har\ esters etc. Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the renewal variances subject to the conditions as noted in Resolution No. 4485 and requires the building to meet the setbacks as approved in 2000. Lazio Philip, an independent contractor representing Hennepin County, stated that the County is willing to comply with the 2000 requirements and conditions. There were no public comments. PAGE 5 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, Continued) Smith pointed out that in 2000 the Planning Commission did not recommend approval; however the City Council approved the Resolution for Hennepin County. Mabusth asked what the concerns of the Commission were. Smith indicated that it was an oversized structure, which the Commission feared could spur the expansion of the operation at that site. Hawn added that there was concern with regard to this being the right spot for a facility of this nature. Located near the Lake and wetland, the proximity issue was raised with regard to the sail and sand near these precious natural resources. Mabusth inquired about the proposed retention pond being constructed to mitigate and filter the runoff before it meets the wetland or lake. Weinberger stated that the retention pond is being designed to treat the entire site, plus the chiropractic clinic next door. Philip maintained that the new building will be taking the place of the existing structure and it is less likely any leaching will occur. Mabusth voiced her support for the renewal of the original site plan and asked if this impacts the additional storage requirements of the facility. Weinberger noted that the storage will be moved to the opposite side. Philip pointed out that some retaining walls may still fall within the 250’ setback. Ralin questioned altogether the rationale for approving a nonconforming use. They have proposed new footage, an expansion of a nonconforming use, which is in conu-adiction to all Commission findings. Weinberger stated that based on the City Council Findings of Fact, the proposed building will actually have less impact on the surrounding residential properties because the number of salt and sand deliveries to the site would be reduced by approximately 60 trips annually. W^’h the enclosed building, the Countj' can stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during daytime hours. Rahn asked if this could lead to expanded ser\ ice sites. PAGE 6 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2' 76, HENNEPIN COUNTY, Continued) Weinberger reiterated that the County has no intention to expand the service area being County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12 and County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. The County has been there since 1 962 and want to keep this site to ensure easier access to the areas of Highway 15 and County Road 19. Mabusth questioned whether the City conditioned the retention pond to be in at a certain time. She felt that to be an important ingredient of the application, which should be finished before occupation of the new building, takes place. Philip stated that ponding is planned to be completed along with construction. Fritzler questioned how the pond would cover the entire site when it is located at the northeast comer. Would there be internal drainage that occurs to avoid building runoff draining into the wetland. Weinberger pointed out that the proposed storm sewers will redirect the runoff How to the pond. Fritzler reminded the Commission that, currently, the two wetlands receive ever>thing from the two lots and should be cleaned up with the new construction. Weinberger promised to double check that the storm water sewer ser\ ice would redirect the drainage as discussed. Philip stated that, to his knowledge, the design and grading that will occur will redirect everything so that it heads to the pond. Mabusth moved, Smith .seconded, to approve Application #02-02-2776, Hennepin County , 3880 Shoreline Drive, the renewal application for a Conditional Use Permit, the construction of an oversized accessory structure, and construction of a stormw ater management pond on the property, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the previous resolution approving this application in June of 2000. Furthermore, approval of this application w ill be based on the fact that all drainage from the site will drain to the new retention pond and that c.xisting wetlands, tsvo within close proximity to the site, be cleaned out. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Hawn opposed. Hawn stated that she objects to the proposed geographic location for this application. PAGE 7 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (HI) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES 7:20 p.m. - 7:25 p.m. John R. Jones and Charlotte Lipa, Applicants, were present. Weinberger indicated that the applicant had dropped off revised plans earlier that day addressing a 2 1/2 story building. Based on the sketches Mr. Jones provided, they had reduced the size of the 1/2 story and revised the building height to meet the requirements as laid out at the June 1 7, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Having met the lot coverage requirements. Weinberger noted that the only issue that remained was the side yard setbacks. Approximately 10 feet from either side, Weinberger suggested reducing the eaves to 1 1/2 feet. Additional variances include a variance to allow new construction, lo» width, and lot area allowing 37% hardcover. Weinberger pointed out that the applicant had addressed the concerns from the last meeting while maximizing his use. Mr. Jones had nothing to add. There were no public comments. Smith complimented Mr. Jones on addressing the previous concerns. Bremer stated that he had done a good job working with staff to come to an acceptable design. Jones added that the best piece of advice the Commission gave him was to fire his previous architect. Fritzler asked if Mr. Jones would revise the eaves. Mr. Jones agreed. Smith moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2786, John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, granting variances for lot width, lot area, and hardcover for construction of a new home on this pioperty. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, Continued (#9) #02-2797 JIM MURPHY AND SANDRA S.MITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7:26 p.m. - 7:50 p.m. Jim Murphy and Sandra Smith, Applicants, were present. PAGE 8 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, Continued) Weinberger explained that the applicants bad made a request for a conditional use permit to allow an additional horse on the property, making a total of three horses on the property. The property is located in the RR-1B zoning district where horses are a permitted accessory use. The Smith/Murphy property is approximately 3.6 acres, where 5 acres is required to permit 3 horses as an accessory use on the property. Since the Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture land for feed p.irposes. Council has the discretion to reduce the required pasture acreage. Weinberger pointed out that horses have been kept on this property since the bam was erected 60+ years ago. Weinberger added that, regardless of the size of the pasture, a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and to eliminate odors. In 1997 the applicants contacted the University of Minnesota Extension Service to conduct a site visit to determine if any potential pollution impacts were present on the property. It was the opinion of Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed that any impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the application to pemiit three horses on the property per the request in the applicant ’s letter of application. One additional horse w ould not be significant change to the character of the property and the applicants own the property that would be subject to the most impact. He suggested that the Planning Commission also provide conditions that will ensure the impact of three horses will not change how the property is used and consider a sunset date allowing three horses on the property. Weinberger acknowledged the public comments memo submitting neighbors opinions for consideration. Hawn questioned the manure management program u.sed on the property. Smith stated that Jeremy Geske, the University of Minnesota e.xtension educator, reviewed their compost and management plan, including the border composting, and felt it was adequate. Murphy stated that the border composting provides a natural buffer for runoff. By pushing the manure under the fence and managing the removal themselves by grading the area eveiy spring or giving the manure to local landscapers, they have successfully been managing the waste. Having never considered adding additional horses to the propert>'. Smith stated that the two they own are elderly and chronically lame. She indicated that her father had offered a younger four year old for them to train and keep. Murphy stated that it is a timing issue for them, there is no way to predict how long the 26 year PAGE 9 of 36 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, Continued) old will last, yet alone the lame 18 year old. He added that adding the four year old to their stable provides them an opportunit) to start anew. Hawn suggested the Commission consider a time limit which might contemplate the demise of the elder horses and allow for three currently. Smith asked if they would need to return to two horses at that time. Hawn asked if ten years seemed a reasonable time line allowing three horses. Smith stated that they could accept ten years it the Commission chose this limit, however, they could be returning at that lime for additional discussion. Bremer questioned the average life expectancy of a horse Hawn called for public comment. Dave Struyk, the neighbor contiguous to the Smitli'Murphy site, slated that he has shared a driveway with the applicants since 1979. and there has always been horses there even prior to the Smith/Murphy’s. He indicated that he and his family welcome the horses and enjoy them. With regard to the odor issue raised by a different neighbor, Mr. Struyk stated that he has never noticed any odor problem coming or going daily down the drive. Three horses are in keeping with the community. Jonathon Tomhave, 1200 Orono Oaks Drive, stated that he supports the addition of a third horse. He maintained that the odor is virtually nonexistent, even as he heads to his mailbox daily it is not noticeable. He added a general comment, stating how important it is since 9/11/01 to encourage community and support one another. Bremer suggested, rather than speculating on the average life expectancy of a horse, the Commission make it contingent on the death of one or another of the elder horses. Smith indicated that while horses can live for 30 plus years, a 20 year old horse is considered old. Murphy noted that as their horses get older, they spend more time inside than out, which ensures the pasture and manure issues will continue to be fairly well contained. Mabusth questioned whether Smitlt'Murphy objected to 10 years, even though they may be back. PAGE 10 of 36 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#020-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, Continued) Murphy felt lU years sounded reasonable, since the eldest would be 36 years old, which in itself is unlikely. He maintained that their intention was not to reconstitute the commercial bam that existed 65 years ago, they would simply like to be allowed some overlap between their older and younger horses. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, approving Application #02-2797, Sandra Smith and James Murphy, a Conditional Use Permit allowing the keeping of a third horse on the property where they presently keep t>vo, subject to the follow ing conditions, once, that they continue the manure management practices that they have already established and described, and two, the CUP for the third horse will lapse 10 years from the Council approval date. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Smith abstained. (#10) #02-2798 FRED SHEARER, 1405 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCES 7:51 p.m. - 8:01 p.m. Fred Shearer, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant has requested side yard setback, front street setback, and hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The addition would consist of an 11’ X 23’ third stall (253 s.f.) and added portion to the driveway (109 s.f) increasing the hardcover to 31.3%. as compared to the existing 28.8%. Start'recommended approval of the side setback variance and the removal of existing hardcover in order to maintain the existing 28.8% hardcover. Shearer stated that, in reality, the existing three season porch was originally a cement slab under an existing deck, and they have not changed the hardcover by more than 4’ of what was already there. He indicated that they have worked w ith stall to look at numerous other ways to see if they could get by with a detached garage, however, these have not been doable. He maintained that the side setback approved in 1968 was acceptable and they are trying to maintain this continuity by coming straight out. Shearer consented to removing 6’ X 40’ out of the driveway for more .'andscaping in order to reduce the hardcover by 240’ which almost brings the hardcover ratio back to the original 28.8%. Hawn questioned if this removal would jeopardize safety entering and ex isting the driveway. Shearer stated that the driveway would be just w ide enough to allow »um around room, but could PAGE 11 of 36 MINUTES UF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (1^02-2797 FRED SHEARER, Continued) not be any smaller. Smith asked what the percentage of hardcover would be with the removal. Bottenberg indicated 28.9%. There were no public comments. Smith asked Mr. Shearer if his neighbors had made any comments to him. Mr. Shearer stated that both neighbors had signed off on the application after speaking to them. Hawn stated that prior to his concession for hardcover, she had not seen much of a hardship, now however, she has new found support. Rahn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2798, Fred Shearer, 1405 Park Drive, granting a side yard setback variance to permit a garage 9.8’ from the side lot line where 10’ is required, and a front yard setback variance to permit a garage 27.9 ’ from the lot line where 30’ is required, and to allow hardcover in the 75-250* zone, not to exceed 28.9%. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 p.m. (#15) #02-2803 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, 2920 FO.X STREET, CLASS II SUBDIVISION 8:02 p.m. - 8:19 p.m. Mark Gronberg, a sur\ cyor of Gronberg and Associates representing Jeff Martincau, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant had applied for a preliminaiy plat of property located at 2920 Fo.x Street. The property is a 7.75 acre property to be divided to create one new building site (Lot 1), and driveway for back lot (Outlet A). I hc existing driveway on Fox Street will continue to be used by the house on the front lot. Bottenberg stated that the general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. No wetland impacts are proposed and it has been determined that septic sites and both primaiy and secondary' drainfield sites meet all City and State standards. PAGE 12 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 oVIock p.m. (1^2-2803 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, Continued) While the existing residence on Lot 2 does not meet the side yard setback from Outlot A, Botlenberg stated that, at this point, it has not been determined if the structure will remain or be removed. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the six conditions outlined on page 3 of the zoning administrator's report dated July 11,2002. Bottenberg added that the applicant has agreed to comply with all covenants. There w'ere no public comments. Hawn stated that she would like closure that the existing outbuildings would be removed. Mabusth agreed, stating that at minimum the buildings on the lot line would be removed. She questioned who owned the structure to the east. Gronberg stated that, to his knowledge, the shed belonged to the adjoining property owTier. lie felt all of the out buildings would come down with the exception of the house and garage that might come down at some other time. He suggested that the applicant could come forward to the Council with some sort of timeline of when they would be removed. Hawn believed they would need to be removed prior to anyone building on the second lot. Gronberg noted that a single buyer may purchase both properties and live in the house for awhile as they build a new home on the back lot. Mabusth a>ked who was living on the property. Gronberg believed that Cheny- Stubbs was the only resident, and was moving out. He inquired whether outlot A could be converted to lot 1 if they didn't want to share a driveway. Weinberger acknowledged that the house is recorded at a 50' setback to the platted outlot. Gaffron noted not under current code. Mabusth asked if the outlot stays in a shared ownership. GatTron stated that outlot A can stay in common owTiership, even if the current owner combined the two lots, the outlot would still function as the corridor requiring a 50' setback for new- PAGE 13 of 36 M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (^02-2803 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, Continued) construction. GafTron recommended that the outbuildings on lot 1 be removed at the time the subdivision is approved because that lot then becomes a lot without a principal structure, and shouldn’t have any accessoiy structures. The accessory buildings on outlot A should also be removed at that point, and a small shed on lot 2 should be considered for removal. The e.xisting house, garage, and large shed in the northwest quadrant of the property could remain for the time being and have no impact on the next lot. Smith asked if this would be agreeable to the applicant. Gronberg stated that he had been given the impression that some negotiation is going on with buyers or a single buyer, who would live in the existing house until the new' residence would be built. Gronberg felt the e.xisting house would not be a permanent structure, but should be allowed to remain while they are building. Berg stated that tlie Commission would like the other accessoiy structures t'* be removed with the subdivision. Mabusth asked if there was an engineer ’s report to review ’. Weinberger stated that there was not one available yet. Smith inquired whether this should hold up the process. Weinberger stated that it should not hold up the process, but should certainly be available to Council. Smith reiterated that the direction the Commission is taking is for removal of the smaller sheds and accessory' structures, while leaving the existing house, garage, and large shed for now. Fritzlcr asked if the development does separate the two pieces, does the existing driveway for lot 2 turn over to outlet. Smith stated that if the existing house is still being used at this point, access w ill get fairly difficult. Gronberg stated that the residents would use the e.xisting driveway to access the existing house. Mabusth maintained that they need to set a deadline for when it has to be removed. PAGE 14 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2803 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, Continued) Gaffron stated that, he believed, the code docs not force or require in a frontl>ack lot subdivision that both accesses come off the outlot and the existing driveway doe‘ not need to come off the front lot. Gaffron pointed out that, if this is the case, the County n.,., have an issue with having two accesses. He suggested contacting Hennepin County public works department and the City Engineer. Gronberg asked if the applicant could keep this option open. Smith questioned whether the existing driveway could stay there forever. Berg stated that the County has the final say so. Rahn asked if the tw’o properties are sold to two owners when the accessory structures w ill be required to be removed. Tliis would be an undue burden on those o\s'ncr. Smith indicated the removals would be a condition of the subdivision. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2803, Jeff Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs, 2920 Fox Street, granting the preliminary plat subject to the condition that the City Engineer ’s report be received by Council at the time it goes to Council, and outlot A be platted subject to the removal of all accessory structures other than the existing house, garage, and large shed at the time of subdivision. Mabusth questioned the need to resolve with the County the issue over two accesses. Smith added that an advisory to the Council be given that this is a County decision that will likely be resolved at the time of redevelopment of the property. V'OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 (#11) #02-2801 KATHY MELIN, 3309 CR\ STAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 8:20 p.m. - 8:43 p.m. Kathy Melin and Robert Koelfgen, Applicant and Metro Handy Man, were present. Weinberger stated that the applicant has requested variances to permit construction of a 12’ X 24’ three season porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. Variances required for the construction are, a front yard setback, side yard setback, structure w ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshore. PAGE 15 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1^02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) increased hardcover in the 0-75’ setback, lot coverage by structure, and total encroachment of 8 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. With regard to hardship, Weinberger noted tliat the applicant had stated that the house is located between the lake and a hill. Wemberger indicated that there are si.\ variances being proposed for this site which bring into question, when is a property considered “fully developed". A variance to permit lot coverage beyond 1,500 s.f. on this property would be inconsistent with other recent actions along Cry stal Bay Road. Tliere have been two recent variance approvals that were for complete rebuilds, not an addition as in the case of this application. Staff recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition being located within the 75’ ot the lakeshore. 1 he addition could not be done without the need for variances. The property has a total of 1,397 s.f. of structure. Due to the amount of hardcover and building already w ithin 75 of the lakeshore a variance to allow additional hardcover or structure is not warranted. Koelfgen stated that he had just gotten the setback calculations that afternoon and had insufficient time to review them. He felt the sur\eyors hadn ’t shown the deck with a 10 ’ setback from the side as he had in the original plan. Koelfgen added u.ac he was unaware thev were adjacent to and infringing upon the Dakota Trail ROW stating that they were looking for some way to comply with at least some of the variances. Rahn stated that it would be tough to come off the front of the home with an addition that doesn ’t e.xceed the 1,500 s.f allowance and require encroaching into the 75’ setback. Me stated that he would have big problems with these two issues. Koelfgen pointed out that variances had been granted for construction in 1996 and 1997. Weinberger maintained tliat the variances he referred to were lor new construction with different allovvances, in fact, the home at 3375 Crystal Bay Road was required to reduce its structural coverage to 1 ,500 from the original 2,000. While she recognized the desire for enclosed outdoor life. Smith asked what could be given up to accomplish this requiring fewer variances. She suggested removal of the other porches or enclosing them. Melin stated that she would be willing to remove all of the other decks and sheds on the residence in e.xchange for addition of this one. PAGE 16 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mnnday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Contlvued) Mabusth pointed out that the other decks are merely slabs. Bremer asked how big the house was. Weinberger stated that the residence is 1,242 s.f., not including the shed and garage. Smith inquired if the tuck under garage was included in the calculations. Weinberger noted that he merely acknowledged the door, since it is virtually under the hill. There were no public comments. Hawn stated that white the Commission’s job is to give direction, she recommended the applicant come up with a design that keeps to the 1,500 s.f. structural coverage a id 75 ’ setback. She stated that the applicant has a very tough road al.ead and needs to look ctos'.ly at the codes and work w ith staff on the proposal. She asked if the Commission should tab ’e the application. Melin asked if she were willing to remove everything in order to meet the 1,500 s.f could she have her porch. Berg suggested the applicant talk further with staff and come back with a new plan. Bremer inquired if wrapping the deck would be workable. Mabusth indicated that by doing so they would be encroaching further into 'me 75 ’ setback, aiid suggested going to the cast side in order to pull the addition out of the average lakeshore setback. Melin stated that neither of her neighbors had complained about the addition protruding further than their residences. Smith maintained that the average lakeshore setback ensures that individuals don’t encroach on each others views. Weinberger pointed out that, ty pically, when an applicant is well over the amount of hardcover allowed the Commission looks for ways to remove excess hardcover. He questioned whether the old garage ’s existing driveway could be removed, however, maintained that this could not be done w ithout restricting access to the home. Smith asked the applicant if a motion should be made to table the request, PAGE 17 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1102-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) Melin agreed. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to tabic Application #02-2801, Kathy Melin, 3309 Cry stal Bay Road, to allow the applicant time to explore other options for their proposed porch. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:43 p.m. - 8:53 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:30 P.M. (#16) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOP.MENT LLC, 2550 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM RR-IB SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 8:54 p.m. -10:29 p.m. Steve Johnston, Carolyn Krall. and Kendra Lindahl of Landfomi Designs, and the applicant Mr. Dahlstrom, were present. Gatlron reported that the Applicants had submitted a revised proposal to develop portions of this 5 1 - acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mi.xture of residential housing types to be located north of Kelley Parkway, including 59 rambler townhomes. 43 two-stor> townhomes, and 66 lofts (condominium units). The proposal would create two commercial outlets south of Kelley Piirkway for future development. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission met with the City Council and representatives for the developer last week in a joint work session to familiarize themselves with the new proposal. The required approvals include: Proposed rezoning of the residential area north of Kelley Parkway to RPUD. PUD General Concept Plan Approval is the first stage of the two-stage PUD review process in which the Planning Commission and City Council review all conceptual aspects of the proposed development. Finally, the PUD De\ elopment Plan Approval will be sought as the final stage in which the developer will provide detailed plans for implementation of the approved General Concept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. As part of the Concept Plan Review phase, Gafiron stated that the Planning Commission should focus on both general and detail aspects of the development plan. By identifying issues and concerns, and defining both positive and negative aspects related to the Concept Plan, the Commission's goal should be to provide specific direction to the applicant as to how resolve the PAGE 18 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) issues. Such direction could result in one of two actions; revision and submittal of the concept plan to reflect ail required changes or insertion of the direction into the concept plan approval resolution as a condition to be met before the City will grant final development plan approval. Gaffron pointed out that some difference of opinion has occurred between staff and the applicant’s consultants regarding at what level of the review process concept plan approval should be granted. This is in part due to conflicting wording and intent between the PUD and RPUD ordinances. The applicant’s consultants have to some extent treated the concept plan approval as equivalent to the sketch plan stage, whereby the City has merely been providing direction thus far. The City, in fact, is reluctant to grant concept plan approval without having all the details worked out, in turn the developer is hesitant to commit his resources to providing great detail without some expectation that the project will be approved. Gaffron encouraged the Commission to include discussion w ith regard to the proposed land use and density. The density guidelines for the area north of Kelley Parkway were refined as part of the 2000-2020 CMP update, resulting in a density standard of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre, w ithout limitation on the number of units per building allowed in this area. Theiefore. Gaffron noted that the developer has a reasonable expectation based on the comp plan, that a proposed development with a density of 3-6 units per acre will be approved. Because this is PUD and rezoning request, the Commission has the ability to determine whether the density is appropriate in the context of the type of the mix of the various dwelling units, as well as, their mass and layout and site circulation etc. Due to the RPUD standards, Gaffron pointed out that the district allows higher densities than contemplated in the CMP, only in areas “currently zoned and guided for commercial use ”. With regard to the use of Kelley Parkway for Density credit, GafTron noted that the applicant’s proposal is at a density of 6.0 units per dry^ buildable acre if the northerly half of Kelley Parkway- right-of-way (not including the portion within the MnDOT pond) is allowed for density credit. Gaffron stated that he had no problem with offering the credit. He added that the current proposal for 168 residential units, plus the two commercial outlets, will fall within the density range anticipated by the 2000-2020 CMP. In terms of location for Kelley Parkway, which is the other significant initial starting point for discussion, GatTron referred to two concept plans for the areas north and south, between Willow and Old Ciy stal Bay Road, set up as a guidelines for discussion. Studies A and D became the City’s standard discussion guide for developers inquiring about the property, but did not become part of the CMP. Gaffron pointed out that the applicants have suggested that the routing of Kelley Parkway- in their revised Concept Plan “follow s your comprehensiv e plan”. Gaffron noted PAGE 19 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) that this is not accurate, as the CMP does not define routing for Kelley Parkway but merely indicates it will be “300-500 feet north of Highway 12". GafTron suggested additional discussion addressing staffs concern about the applicants’ proposal to locate a segment of Kelley Parkway within the e.xisting MnDOT stormwater pond right-of-way take place, never suggested as a feasible or preferred configuration. Gaffron stated that Public Service Director Greg Gappa discussed this with Ben Timerson of MnDOT, w ho indicated that while such a reconveyance to the City would be feasible, it would not be a priority and would likely take 6 months to a year to process. Staff believed it would not be in the City's best interest to pursue such a request on behalf of the applicants. While City support and partnering in gaining approval for the use and e.xpansion of the MnDOT pond right-of-way for regional stormwater purposes is one thing, Gaffron maintained pursuing a swap for road purposes is quite another and does not rise to the same level of importance. The City is currently working clost.y with MnDOT to ensure that the Highway 12 project proceeds as smoothly as possible, whereas MnDOT does not have the resources to deal efficiently with requests such as this. Gaffron suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation, as to whether the applicant and City should pursue use of the MnDO T pond area for Kelley Parkway. Gaffron supplied the Commission with a punchlist of 8 various topics along with an outline of the site plan elements that should be considered prior to making a recommendation to Council on the Concept Plan. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission should first concentrate on whether this concept plan generally achieves the purposes of the RPUD District. Next, consider whether the mi.\ and spatial relationships of the various unit t>T3es withia the development and in relation to each other as well as the surrounding uses, is appropriate. He added that discussion whether the tack of a defined proposal for the use of the outlets w ill cause poiential issues in terms of w hether the outlets can be used for their intended purpose is warranted. The issues regarding location of Kelley Parkway in the MnDOT pond r.o. w. also seems to be a critical factor to staff in determining whether the entire concept plan can move forward. Smith invited Steve Johnston, of Landtorm Designs, to make a brief presentation in order to familiarize the public with the proposal. Following the presentation. Smith asked that public comment be made and discussion among the Commissioners be limited to appro.\i;nately an hour, specifically addressing the punchlist provided by staff. Mr. Johnston shared schematic drawings of the units in order to provide the Commission with a feel for the scale and mass of the units, and how they would be laid out. Johnston pointed out that PAGE 20 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. («02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) the two unit buildings would be approximately 50-60 ft wide. An additional drawing reflecting site amenities with trails and sidewalks and an expanded linear park was displayed as well. Based on trip calculations, Johnston pointed out that the applicant felt 110 trips daily did not warrant the need for sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs, as recommended by the planning consultant. They have proposed an open green space area with gathering spots with benches, a gazebo over a water feature, and water treatment which flows through a series of rain gardens north and south. He believed the development would not necessarily warrant a tot lot. Ms. Krall, Landform Architect, pointed out that additional green buffer space exists than is reflected in the display boards, the boards were intended to feature the larger open space and linear park system. Johnston stated that an entrance feature witli a waterfall and coordinating green space for a bus stop with benches across the street was being proposed. With regard to the numbers, Johnston pointed out that public green space makes up 2 acres, the private open space equates to approximately 2.2 acres, with trails comprising another 1-2 acres, 13.7 acres or 33% of the land area is wetland, all totaled equates to 45% open space, and 55% developable land area. Johnston stated that the applicant was not at all concerned with the developable land parcels south of the development and with the City’s support, they would work out the road scenario with MnDOT. Gaflron asked, if the development was forced to move, whether the applicant had an alternate plan or were prepared to lose the half circle entrance. Johnston demonstrated on a separate plan, that without the road change the development would likely lose 8 townhomes. however, it would still have an entry marked by some feature. He stated that he would be willing to take questions, but wanted to point out several elements to the Commission before he began. First, the proposed road widths were admittedly more narrow than the City had suggested, simply because the developer felt the 28’ standard was too wide. He asked if a middle ground could be found. Johnston stated that they would be willing to landscape a parkway, but would like to see it 28’ w ide to handle the traffic volume, whereas the roads w ithin the project arc shown at 20’, which meets fire code. He added that, studies have shown, narrow roads tend to keep speeds down. Curb and gutter were also proposed for all streets. There were no public comments. Smith stated that the Commission had been presented with two scenarios, along with 8 punchlist items to discuss, starting first w ith item 5, the proposed housing types, site layout, functionality, etc., continuing to item 7, the development of Kelley Parkw ay. Smith questioned if the PAGK 21 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) Commission felt the dwelling units, design, layout, and overall concept of housing types, at 6 units per acre, seemed to meet the City’s RPUD as they would envision it. Hawn had difficulty accepting the 6 units per acre figure, even though allowed 3-6 units by code per acre, she was more interested in a lower density. She stated that she would like to see even more green space and/or wider streets or sidewalks to truly make this a “walkable” community. Furthermore, Hawn felt that the bundled parking was not sufficient to what she felt the number of housing units would require. She also had concern that cars would be piled up on Kelley Parkway waiting to get into the development. Mabusth stated that she had issue with the loft units. She questioned whether any findings to allow 3 story lofts also cited a better location other than the southwest comer that would not impact neighbors. She had concern regarding the encroachment onto the MnDOT property and asked if others found issue with that. She had no additional concerns related to item 5. Fritzier stated that, in his opinion, the houses were too tight, the streets too narrow, complaints w'ould come from residents of the lofts about the public works site, which was there first, and finally, he saw issue with three stories in general. Smith indicated she had little more to add other than traffic concerns. She questioned how having the school nearby impacts the development. Smith w ondered if direction could be given that 4-5 units per acre works better than the 6 proposed. Mabusth stated that she would not support a northeast access to the development. Rahn felt it would be derelict to allow the loft units so close to public works when we know there would be complaints. He also questioned traffic volun>e. Smith asked the Commission if they could suggest an alternate location for the loft units. Rahn suggested that the loft units supply the spot to reduce density. He questioned how many on site parking spots were allowed per unit. Johnston stated that there are 4 spots per unit, with additional on street parking within the bump out areas. Krall pointed out that the development has provided substantially higher parking ratios than required. PAGE 22 of 36 m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) Rahn stated that he liked the proposed water feature. Berg stated that she understood the use of the space to the north, but believed the lofts were way too dense. She could support the site for the lofts, however, felt there were too many. With regard to traffic, Berg stated that the Commission needs to decide what Kelley Parkway will look like. Bremer stated that if there arc to be lofts that is where they need to be, from an economical standpoint she could see the logic. She had less issue with the density than she did with 3 stories in general. Bremer contended that since the code allows 3-6 units per acre, the Commission should have no difficulty with 6. She complimented the applicant for their efforts in reworking the design, emphasizing the need to keep the lower price point for Orono to encourage diversity in housing. Mabusth added that the waterways are attractive and do much to enhance the plan. Bremer stated that parking to her was not a big concern and she could not support more parking at the cost of greenspace. She felt less parking might cut dow n on the amount of extra people Johnston pointed out that without the loft units as part of the equation, the project is at a 4 unit per acre figure. He maintained that if the City was not going to develop this property at 6 units per acre, they should not have said 3-6 units per acre in the code. With this being said, Johnston stated that the applicant would like to find a solution that is good for everyone. He added that the loft units are 60’ from the property line, well within what the ordinance requires. In fact, he stated that if the City had concerns about locating housing near public works, they should have turned the building so that the ugly side faced the City Hall. With regard to a 3-story loft unit building versus a 2-story loft building, Johnston pointed out that cither requires an elevator. Krall added that 3-stoiy loft buildings were proposed because elevators w ill be added, and are costly. After examining the area, Krall stated that neither of the proposed 3-story loft buildings will be as high as the new senior building being built down the way. She added that the applicant does not want something obtrusive either, in fact, since they arc mixing style, they propose the steps up in scale are very gradual. They have proposed continuin’ in their design, and have deliberately stuck to virtually the same widths throughout. Krall maintained that the lofts give people options and answer a genuine need in Orono in keeping with a high amenity design. Rahn asked why the townhomes start 1/2 story off the ground. PAGE 23 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. («02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) Krall stated that the townhomes are designed to be accessed by steps, unlike the loft homes, which need to be kept at or near grade. Rahn asked if the three storied start at grade. Krall indicated that the underground parking allows them to start at or just ofT grade. Smith inquired about possibly tilting the loft buildings slightly. Krall stated that, currently, the proposal places the driveway to the underground parking at the end near public works in order to avoid giving residents views of public works. The applicant would prefer to avoid that scenario and use a wall or fence with landscaping to further shield the facilitv. Johnston stated that, from an engineering standpoint, the townhomes are designed to sit up slightly so that people sitting on their porch are at eye level with those walking by. Rahn asked about the intended parking for the townhomes. Johnston stated that the applicant would like to see parallel parking on Kelley Parkway, w hich would allow 28 ’ plus parking. Rahn inquired whether the street width could be expanded w ithout undue burden. Johnston asked if it was truly necessary to widen the streets at the loss of greenspace. Krall noted that if the streets were much wider, you would encourage people to cut around each other. Johnston stated that they have tried to conserve as much green space as possible. Krall asked if a compromise of 21’ to 22’ would be possible, noting that 28 ’ or more would be diftlcult. Weinberger stated that staff has concern about public works vehicles on the Parkway and access for bike traffic. Johnston stated that providing bituminous trail for bikes on one side and sidewalk on the other is PAGE 24 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) very doable. Lindahl indicated that, in order to avoid turning Kelley Parkway into a speedway, one needs to narrow the street and add landscaping and/or a canopy. While some numbers were provided at the work session. Krall stated that the traffic figures have demonstrated that appro.ximately equal trips arc taken w’hether it be this mixed unit development or single family residential. She added that higher senior densities provide a broader peak period as well. Mabusth asked Public Service Director Greg Gappa to comment on the Park Commissions view. Gappa noted that while the Park Commission had not commented on specifics, they would likely suggest a wider parkway since no one knows what will develop across the street. Mabusth asked if any standards exist for a parkway. Gappa stated that no standards exist, however, 41 ’ was suggested perhaps due to the public works trucks, and because 41’ is the width of existing Kelley Parkway. Gaffron stated that the CMP merely designates scenic parkways along the lakes, and the City has gone no further than naming this “parkway". The 60 ’ corridor was platted when this area was designated for single family residential. In his thoughts. Consultant Case stated that 41’ is very wide for a road that doesn’t have any real standard, adding that 28 ’ may be appropriate. He suggested that the City review the Engineer’s report when available. Bremer asked if a turning lane into the development could be added. Berg reminded the Commission that there will be commercial across the street and thought needs to given into what might go there. She maintained that, likely, half of the people in the development will be coming and going during peak times. Johnston noted that even without a traffic study, it still seems likely that 41’ and two lanes would be appropriate at either end of Kelley Parkway; however, he question. i the need for 41’ the entire length. PAGE 25 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) Berg stated that consideration needs to be given to people traveling at peak times and off peak times, in order to be proactive and avoid problems. Lindahl stated that many of the issues related to traffic would likely be worked out with staff when the traffic study becomes available. As a former City Planner, to her knowledge, 28 ’ was a pretty standard road width in most communities, and the applicant would defer to the traffic study as far as road width is concerned. They simply question whether 41 ’ makes any sense here or if it just loses green space. Berg stated that the City needs to be proactive. There are many places where road ways have been built, and many developments, that tend to impact what’s happening and the number of accidents that are happening. Berg stated that the Commission needs to be thinking about the future, not necessarily just what was being proposed here. Smith inquired when the traffic study numbers would be available. Gaffron noted that in the beginning development stage the traffic study will provide them with the appropriate details, but he encouraged the Commission not to let this holdup the concept plan. Gappa stated that the road will fall within the minimum 28 ’ and ma.ximum 41’ range. Smith reviewed that the discussion had covered quite a few^ areas, including the 4 unit per acre issue, the consistency of diversity and lifestyle, 3-stories as acceptable, and the dynamics of the plan. Berg maintained that 36 units was a verv' large unit development, by cutting just one unit they could provide more space between property lines and eveiyihing. She stated it would be very helpful to her if they could remove three units. Krall pointed out that it is far easier to produce an even number of units within each building making a smaller size unit, than it is to remove units. Because they are built in pairs and bays, when you cet to the end you can t take out three without removing si.x. They could change the ends of the buildings to 2-stories be removing two units on the top floor. Berg stated this would not change unit size floor to floor. She assumed most plans would accommodate removing units. Krall suggested that they drop the end to two stories to soften the look of this building. Similar to PAGE 26 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) the senior building that tried to do the same thing. Berg asked they not compare themselves to the other development. Krall indicated that because it is currently under construction it is shaping peoples image of what this could be. Johnston stated that in order to cut down on the complaints, a disclosure statement could be provided for renters of the lofts stating that they are aware they arc near public works. These end units would also be subject to thicker walls and triple glazing to reduce disturbance. Fritzler suggested placing the stairways or offices at the end near public works versus rental units. Krall agreed that would be done to the extent possible. Gaffron noted that the Commission hadn’t discussed separation yet. Mabusth asked for Plaiming Consultant Case’s opinion. Case stated that while 10’ setback or separation is not unusual in a village context, the Commission needs to realize that they have 2 1/2 story buildings approximately 28 ’ tall with a separation of 10'. In the revised plan most buildings are flat side to flat side, but it can depend on the architecture. As one walks by a ten foot setback can feel like a significant setback, but from a roadway, the setback can look altogether different. Krall added that landscaping can also cfTccl that dramatically. Johnston pointed out that, in reality, most of the setbacks are 15’. Based on how some of the buildings are angled, Johnston noted that at one end there might be 15’ separation, while there is a separation of 22* or more at the other. He indicated that they are looking for the flexibility to go down to 10’, otherwise the comers can get tight, and other ends with setbacks of 60*. Krall observed that, in their experience, the side yards are not used extensively. They provide nice separation and greenspace but for the most part people don’t use those narrow yards but they do provide screening from the next unit over. For the sake of trying to wrap up the discussion for the evening, Johnston stated that, on a plan, they will provide the Commission with what the proposed exact separations are for consideration PAGE 27 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, Continued) during their next discussion. Case asked if any circulation would be provided from the parking side to the other. Krall stated that there will be wider .spaces provided to access the front and back. As a result of the last discussion, they added those areas. Smith stated that they had covered many items, including proposed housing and how it relates to the RPUD, they touched on Kelley Parkway and transportation, and access in and out as it relates to parking. Many items they had not covered need to be discussed and she asked Gaffron if there w as an>thing that should be covered yet that evening to provide direction to the applicant. Gaffron suggested they either spend another hour wrapping up discussion or scheduling a follow-up meeting for another time. Bremer suggested a second meeting soon. Johnston concurred, stating that they have a timeline they arc trying to meet and would like to continue discussion soon. It was agreed that discussion of this item would be continued to a meeting which would take place on Wednesday, July 17,2002 at 5:30 P.M. NIabusth asked when the wetland delineation report would be readv for review. Johnston stated that the study was concluded and he awaits the paperwork. Gaffron encouraged the Commission that, if they had enough detail to grant concept plan approval on Wednesday night, to do so. (#I2)#02-2804 PHILIP ANDCONSTANCE MARTIN, 1230 ARBORSTREET, VARIANCES 10:29 p.m. -10:49 p.m. Philip Martin, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants have requested front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the existing residence. The e.xisting single car garage will be converted to living space, the existing driveway would be removed, and a new PAGE 28 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2804 PHILIP AND CONSTANCE MARTIN, Continued) one will be locaicu in from the new garage. While located within the two acre zoning district, Bottenberg stated that the neighborhood is more in character with half acre zoning standards. If half acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 30 ’ required front setback. The proposed front porch and the front of the proposed garage would encroach 4’ into the front yard setback. The side of the proposed garage would meet the required 10 ’ side yard setback. With regard to the history of Arbor Street, Bottenberg pointed out that most of the properties in the area are half acre lots and the property to the south has been vacant for many years. Bottenberg maintained that if the Planning Commission concludes that the addition as proposed would be in character with the neighborhood, and not detrimental to the neighborhood, and adequate hardships are present, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Mr. Martin stated that his only hardship is that he has no character out front, most of his neighbors have front porches out front, and his has absolutely nothing. While the average setback is 40 ’, what he has proposed does not change the character of the street, in fact, the neighbors have indicated their support. From a functional hardship, Martin stated that there is no landing to the front of his home, you enter directly into the house. There were no public comments. Rahn asked if with the removal of the existing dr veway, the old garage would turn into living space. Martin stated that the driveway is not paved, in an effort to reduce hardcover. Smith inquired about the vacant lot. Martin indicated that the owner lives across the street and stated they do not object to his proposal. Smith asked if, in the future, someone wants to build on that site would the proposed garage and porch be to close to the lot line. PAGE 29 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2804 PHILIP AND CONSTANCE MARTIN, Continued) Rahn asked why the residents along Arbor are zoned for 2 acre lots when that is clearly not the case. Bremer stated that she was in support of the proposal and believed it to be a big improvement. Berg moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2804, Philip and Constance Martin, 1230 Arbor Street, granting variances for front yard setback and side yard setback and that the existing garage door and driveway be removed and exterior wall replacement be done. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) #02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, 3415 EASTLAKE STREET, VARIANCES 10:50 p.m. -11:20 p.m. Bruce Hellier, architect from Ilellicr Homes and Additions, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant has worked ver>- hard with staff to best meet city ordinances Md construct a new house on the property. The latest plan before the Commission just completed is Plan 3, therefore a site plan and not a survey accompany it this time around. Bottenberg reported that the applicant has requested variances to pemiit removal of the existing house and construction of a new house. The new home would be a two stoiy , four bedroom home, with a two stall tuck under style garage. Due to the small size of the lot and zoning standards, it is not possible to rebuild on the property without requiring variances. The requested variances include: lot area and lot width, hardcover and structure within 75’ in excess of 25%, and a variance to allow encroachment into the 50’ front yard setback. While Eastlake Street is zoned LR-1A (2 acre), Bottenberg pointed out that most of the properties are. 11 or. 12 ot an acre. After researching Hastlake Street, stafl found four residents where variances have been granted. Recapping, tlie main hardships are that the lot is extremely undersized for the zoning district and 15% of the property is within 75* of the 929.4* water level! Stair recommends approval of the required variances to construct a new single family residence on the property. Bottenberg submitted both a signed letter of support from four neighbors and one letter from the neighbor at 3403 Eastlake Street objecting to the application on the grounds it is too large and PAGE 30 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued) out of character for the area. There were no public comments. Mabusth questioned how they could have held true to the side yard setbacks. Hcllier indicated that their goal was to be in compliance with one or two codes if possible. Mabusth questioned the 9’ setback from the street and 37 ’ setback from the creek, as well as, the very large 600 s.f. deck. Rahn had concern with the lack of allowable parking in the driveway. Mabusth suggested e.xpanding the design further sideways in order to obtain more room by the road and in the front. She felt she could support side yard setback variances in order to gain additional room near the road. Bremer stated .hat she had less concern about being close to the road than she did close to the lake. With regard ;o neighboring residences, the proposed home seemed to her to be similar in size to 3 :07 or 3465. Hcllier stated that 3465 was a larger home, and while designing this site they chose to stick with the bungalow style home design currently seen in the area. Bremer noted that the structural coverage was under 1 5%. Rahn stated that the deck was much too massive for the home at 15X40 = 600 s.f., he would be inclined to see something more reasonable. 1 lellicr indicated that he knew he had an additional 2500 s.f. to use up and chose to do so with the deck. Bremer asked whether the Commission had a problem with the proposal as long as the applicant reduced the deck. Hawn stated that she had difficulty accepting the limited driveway space. Bremer suggested that the deck span the 30’ width of the bank of windows on the back side and PAGE 31 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued) not exceed a maximum of 300 s.f. Rahn stated that he would support a 42 ’ setback from the creek side. Weinberger noted that the average setback from the property line at the street is 12’ in this area. Mabusth once again stated that she would be more comfortable with less setbacks on the side yards in order for it to be pulled further off the street. Smith stated that the Commission would be comfortable with a 12’ setback from the street, 10’ se backs from the side yards, and 42' from the approximate creek bank to the deck. Smith asked the applicant if this provided enough direction. Hellier stated that the applicant is in the process of combining families, moving out of a current residence, and would like to see the process moving ahead as quickly as possible with contingent .approvals. Smith stated that she lelt they had made significant enough changes to warrant the seeing a new set of plans. Hellier asked if he could bring the new plan to Council. Hawn suggested adding this to the agenda for Wednesday nights meeting. While Bottenberg stated that she would be unable to attend, Gaffron indicated that he could relay her planning report. Mabusth asked to see a copy of the old surv ey. Bremer stated that based upon the history of Eastlake Street, this application is not asking for much more than the others, it is not out of line with the neighbors and, in fact, the single neighbor who had voiced an objection was granted a variance far greater than what has been proposed. Bottenberg provided the Commission with copies of the old survey, to which individual Commissioners devoted time translating and examining the information. Rahn stated, assuming you could pull a car in the driveway, 15’ would be adequate space to him to support the application as long as the deck were changed. PAGE 32 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1^02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued) Weinberger noted that the average commercial parking stall is 20’ deep. Based on a 20’ street setback, Rahn further suggested the applicant maintain 50 ’ on the rear, 42’ from the creek, and 20’ total from the sides. I lellier stated that he would take this information, speak to the owner, and hope to turn it around in time to attend the Wednesday night meeting. Rahn sugg. ted hearing this item first, prior to the Dahlstrom Development piece. Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #02-2805, Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street, at the applicants request in order to allow them time to redesign the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #02-2808 JIM AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, VARIANCES 11:21 p.m. -11:30 p.m. Weinberger reported that the applicants have requested a hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance to permit redevelopment of the r'operty. The intention is to remove the e.\isting residence and construct a new residence on the p* jperty. Variances approved in 1990 established a maximum allowed hardcover of 35.5% in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback area. Weinberger pointed out that the total hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback would be reduced by 983 s.f. with the proposed design. The property is two acres in size with approximately 1,600 ’ ofshoreline and includes a peninsula. Because the lot is on a peninsula, views from adjacent residential buildings are not directly affected. The new house is being moved further from the lake leaving more lake view for the house to the nonli of the peninsula. Weinberger noted that staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the fact that the property is a peninsula lot and there is no suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. Staff could also support allowing additional hardcover beyond 25% in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore .setback based on previous approvals of hardcover on the property in 1990. Weinberger added that the property owners have w orked with staff over the past se\ eral months to reduce as much hardcover as possible. Mr. Echtenkamp complimented Weinberger on his summary, adding that after years of mistreatment, their goal is to restore the property to the outstanding piece it once was. He stated that they are taking a nonconforming property, making it conform and asking for a variance to do PAGE 33 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2808 JIM AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, Continued) so. Echtcnkamp believed this to be a win-win situation for both parties. There were no public comments. The Echtenkamps stated that their neighbors, the Smileys were in attendance, however, due to the late hour they had departed with their children earlier. Smith acknowledged that they have a very' unique lot with evident limitations. Mabusth stated the hardships were evident and she had no problem supporting approval. Bremer, Rahn, and Berg concurred. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Applications #02-2808, Jim and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Pheasant Road, granting hardcover and average lakcshorc setback variances permitting new construction not to exceed the amount of existing hardcover on the property-. Although large in acreage, the property is compromised by the fact that it is a peninsula and surrounded by water and virtually all of it is in the 0-75’ lakcshore setback, which limits its buildability . VOTE: Aves 7, Navs 0. (#17) Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on June 24, and July 8,2002. Berg stated that on June 24 the Daisy Diner was discussed, neighboring issues were addressed to which mediation is beginning. The Council did vote to allow Class I Restaurants as a permitted use. Gallron noted that if a restaurant docs move in, it could do so w ithout further approval, as long as parking is met. Berg reported that the Pass’s conservation easement passed. Smith reported that during the July 8 meeting, she learned that there are si.x potential planning commissioner alternates to choose from. She stated that the fill at Fo.x Ridge was contested, as the applicant brought his own engineer ’s report and legal team to address the Council. Weinberger added that they will be reverifying the wetland delineation report. PAGE 34 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (CITY COUNCIL REPORTS, CONTINUED) Smith explained that the Kosek’s, on ShadjAvood Road, not only received their variance, but were given a lock box and sidewalk by the Council who believed she would only be back to ask for them later. Berg noted that the old driveway was removed and replaced by sod and gardens. She added that it looked veiy good. Smith reported that the Park Commission will be taking an annual park tour Monday, July 29, at 5:30 P.M. in lieu of their August regular meeting. Hawn inquired about the status of a w alkable communities tour. Gaffron suggested this concept be revisited in 1-2 months as the City moves forward on its first such community. Haw-n asked if the Commissioners could be provided with addresses to visit on their own time. Gaffron stated that he would talk to Planning Consultant Case with regard to such communities. Berg suggested people simply stop in at Centennial Lakes in Edina or Libertyville in Stillwater. With regard to Landforms proposal, Berg questioned if the housing seemed extremely expensive to others beside her. Gaffron noted that the lofts arc priced from $225,000 plus. Berg askeJ why, as a potential resident, she would move there as opposed true walkable areas in Wayzata or Edina. Gaffron stated that Landforms people believe these units can sell for that in this market, although he had not seen the numbers to support this. Berg indicated that she would be interested in seeing a market analysis or study that supports their assertions. PAGE 35 of 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith reminded the Commissioners of their annual get together on August 4,6 p.m. at her home. She invited all to bring a significant other and tex mex themed item to share. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 17,2002 Rahn changed p.8, paragraph 2, first line, to read “ ..to push the garage out toward the street..” and p.lO, line 2, “Palm stated...” not Rahn. Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Minutes of June 17,2002 Planning Commission Meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, with Mabusth and Hawn abstaining. (#20) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 22,2002 AND AUGUST 12,2002. July 22. Smith August 12 - Mabusth OLD ISSUES Gaffron asked if the Commission would consider getting back on track with the eveiy other month work session schedule. Smith suggested putting together a calendar of these dates. ADJOURNMENT Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 P.M. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 36 of 36 _____M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o’clock p,m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Janice Berg, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz HawTi, and Jeanne Mabusth; The following City Staff were present: Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and recorder Kristi Anderson. City Planning Consultant Wally Case of DSU, Inc. was also present. Commissioner C>-nthia Bremer and Zoning Administrator Bottenberg were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. in order to address two items tabled from the Monday night Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS (continued from July 15,2002) («!) #02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, 3415 EASTLAKE STREET, VARIANCES 5:30 p.m. - 5:43 p.m. Carson Erickson, Applicant, was present. Planning Director Gaffron staled that, as suggested during the Monday night Regular Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant revised his application to increase the setback to the street by decreasing side yard setbacks, maintaining the 50' setback from the house to the creek bank, and reducing the deck to approximately 300 s.f He slated that the revised proposal accomplishes everything that had been asked of the client. Although the Applicant had no additional comments to make with regard to the proposal, he informed the Commission that his architect, Bruce Hellier, who presented on Monday night was admitted to the hospital with chest pains. Mr. Erickson indicated that Bruce was doing well and had tried to revise the proposal to meet the Commission’s suggestions. Smith asked Mr. Erickson to relay best w ishes for a speedy recovery to Mr. Hellier. There were no public comments. Smith reiterated that the requested variances include lot area, lot width, hardcover variance, front yard setback, side yards setback, and rear yard setbacks. Rahn suggested that the deck dimensions remain undeteimined and that the applicant simply adhere to the 300 s.f coverage. PAGE I OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o’clock p.m. (^1) #02.2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued Hawn moved, Berg seconded, granting approval of Application #02*2805, Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street, variances for lot area, lot width, front yard setback, side yard setback, and both 0*75* hardcover and 75*250’ setback variances, noting that the structure is within the 1,500 s.f. allowed and the deck size is no more than 300 s.f.. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MONDAY JULY 15,2002 CONTINUED FOR DISCUSSION (#2) #02*2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, REVISED PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM RR IB SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 5:44 p.m. *8:14 p.m. Gaffron stated that the applicant had worked through a lew of the line items from the staff memo on Monday night in which the Commission had started their discussion with regard to the housing types, layout, and functionality. He questioned whether the Commission had addressed their concerns with regard to item 5 of the staff punchlist, the proposed housing types, site layout, functionality, etc. Smith indicated that she felt other comments relative to housing still needed to be heard. Once again, she asked the Commission to give the applicant as detailed suggestions as they could, in order to supply them with adequate direction. Gaffron noted that the applicant had already addressed several of the suggested changes from Monday evening's discussion and wished to hand out a revised plan. Johnston highlighted the changes, noting that the most significant change was that the new plan contained actual dimension between the townhomes for the Commission to look at. As shown on the revised plan, Johnston pointed out that the closest townhomes arc 11 ’ apart, while many arc as much as 23 ’. Smith felt the revised plans reflecting the dimensions were very helpful. Johnston indicated that they had also taken out three of the rambler style tov\-nhomes and replaced those with five smaller two story tovviihome units in an cfTort to open more space behind them. Johnston pointed out that they had removed the third level loft units from the end of the first building as well, creating a softer two*stor>' look near public works. He suggested that PAGE 2 OF 22 C: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________S;30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued building a berm near public works would help greatly in screening the end units. Other than those few changes, the unit count was still at 168, and Johnston stated that they would like to get past this planning level and address the r.o.w. issue with MnDOT as soon as possible in order to continue in a timely fashion. Johnston shared board sketches, which reflected the relative heights of the various unit types. Based on the existing grade, all three buildings were similar in height, including the loft units depicted at 32 ’ with a flat roof, which he stated could be readily changed to a low-pitched roof. Krall pointed out that the grade varies l-'/j feet to 2 feet along the loft building. Gaffron inquired what the elevation of the loft units w as in the garage level in comparison to the wetland. Johnston stated that the garage is located approximately 2-3 ’ above the wetland. With regard to the relationship between public works and the development, Gaffron noted that, relative to height, Kelley Parkway is at 1022’ elevation, and the lofts parking would be at approximately 1019’. The finished grade on the south side would be approximately 1025’, which allows for a 3 ’ face of the garage showing, followed by three stories, and the draw ing by staff assumes a 4/12 roof pitch. Krall stated that they had hoped that no more than 2 ’ to 2 '/i ’ of the south basement wall would show. Gaffron asked the Commission for their comments regarding a flat roof or pitched roof design, While the design with a flat roof would be relatively near the peak height of public works, a pitched roof could be an extra 10’ higher. Rahn asked if the elevator doghouse could extend into the 30 ’ roofline. Gaffron stated that because this is a PUD the City could allow the doghouse to extend higher than the 30 ’ limit. Rahn stated that he believed a sloped roof W’ould look much better than an exposed elevator shaft on a flat roof. Krall stated that 3/12 is the lowest pitch they can give to a sloped roof. Whereas the base building height of the loft unit building is just above 30 ’, the other buildings are below 30 ’. She added that the loft buildings cannot be three stories tall and fall under 30 ’. PAGE 3 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o’clock p.m._____________ (#2) WI2-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Bremer asked how much above 30’ the loft unit building would be. Krall felt the loft building would fall within a 31-32’ range for height if it had a fla" roof, however, a parapet would need to be added so that people do not fall off the edge. )n the other hand, if there is a sloped roof you gain an e.xtra 9-10’ of roof height without the parapet. Smith stated that she could not imagine a flat roof. Gaffron noted that the numbers being discussed were based on the finished grade as the starting point for measuring height, although City code would normally use e.xisting grade for height determination. Krall stated that, assuming the Commission would prefer a sloped roof, the slope would start at about 31’ above finished grade. Gaffron presented a drawing showing the amount of fill needed to make this happen in the front. In the back, Gaffron was concerned that a great deal of fill would be necessary near the wetland to ease the transition from existing grade to the 1st story dwelling units. Johnston stated that, based on the grading plan, they would come out to the same grade relationship that is proposed in the front with sidewalk and retaining wall at the wetland. Gaffron felt that this suggestion made sense, because in order for the garage level to avoid being considered as a story, about a half of its wall area must be below grade. Krall stated that they wanted ground floor units to possess easy grade level access off the porches. Gaffron noted that a large retaining wall would be necessary in relation to the w'etland since they are so close to the wetland buffer. If this proves to be too great a challenge, forcing the building to move forward, Gaffron acknowledged the applicant might have to deal with other issues. Krall stated that the applicant would be prepared to make the building 1-2’ narrower if need be. Gaftron stated that he drew his sketches in order to compare what he saw, to what the applicant was proposing on Monday evening. He agreed w ith the applicants ’ comments that, with a flat roof, they are close to the height requirement. Rahn asked if Gaffron had noted how far it was to the peak of his illustration with the potential sloped roof. PAGE 4 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o’clock p.m. (/!I2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron stated that his sketch reflected a peak height at 1066’ for a 4/12 pitch at the lofts and 1053 ’ on the public works peak, or about a 13 ’ difference. Rahn asked what the total height of the building would be with a 4/12 pitch. Gaffron stated that the total height of the building, measuring from existing grade to the midpoint of the highest gable as required by code, would be 40’. The visual perspective would probably be 40-41’ total height as viewed from Highway 12, or up to 47’ as viewed from the backside. Krall stated that there will be fill to offset the height in certain areas. Gaffron indicated that fill will help, however, one will see the retaining wall on the backside. Smith stated that apparently, in order to get a pitched roof, the Commission would need to allow an additional 10’. Mabusth stated that she would like to see, for design purposes, a pitched roof Prior to their discussion, Mabusth stated that she had only considered a flat roof however, now believed that a pitched roof would conform better to the design. Hawn and Smith stated they preferred a pitched roof Rahn stated that, w hile he was not thrilled with the height, he preferred a sloped roof to an exposed eleva ’or. Krall indicated that they might come back with a design combination. She stated it was their desire to keep the design elements of ali the housing types similar. Berg had no comment. Gaffron asked if the Commissioners could support a three-story building. Mabusth could accept the three-story design with the tapered end two-story units. Hawn asked how many fewer units the tapered design meant to them. Krall stated thev lost two units. Berg stated that she would still like to see them remove 6 units. Smith asked if there were comments regarding housing diversity. PAGE 5 OF 22 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Mabusth stated she liked the diversity. Smith was concerned by traffic and transportation issues. She believed the parking still was inadequate, especially during the winter months when people would want to park near their destination. She added that there would be the chance they would lose stalls due to snow storage. Mabusth asked precisely how many stalls the rambler units were allotted. Johnston stated that it was pretty clear to see which units had 2-3 car garages, supplemented by a driveway space outside the garage. He acknowledged that some driveways were longer than others, with the e.\ceptions of units 11 and 12, and 29 and 30, who were wide enough for three car garages but had driveway access to only two of the stalls with added storage. Johnston indicated that they allowed for ample parking within the e.xtra designated parking areas located throughout the development. In fact. Johnston pointed out that code merely requires 336 parking spots, whereas they have provided 672 on their plan. Smith was concerned that the two story ramblers were not supplied with enough adequate parking nearby. She felt large parties could not be ser\ed. Johnston stated that it was not a supply issue, but a distance question. The parking seri’cing those homes was the furthest away in the development. While she understood there was a delicate balance between parking and greenspacc, S.niin believed people would not want to walk great distances to their cars. Hawn stated that w ithout sidewalks, people would be forced to walk in the road during the winter. Rahn reminded the Commissioners that the three car garages are supplied with an additional three spots for parking and questioned why this would not wpically be enough. Smith asked what it would take to put parallel parking near the townhome units 17 and 18, on West Lane. Johnston stated that, once the street width issue is resolved, you might have potential parallel parking along Kelley Parkway. Smith asked for the proof of parking figures. Johnston pointed out that the applicant could add an additional 10-15 stalls, if needed, near the lofts. PAGE 6 OF 22 MIN JTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Smith asked where these proposed spaces would be added. Johnston noted that residents of the lofts have two stalls of underground parking, which could be bumped up if necessary. Krall explained that ever>one who enters the loft units do so by one main entrance, so the parking should be convenient to the main entrance. Hawn asked how much outdoor parking was provided for the lofts, not including on-street parking. Counting them up, Johnston indicated that in the lofts area, there were 41 spaces, including the proof-of-parking spaces. Mabusth asked how wide they viewed Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated that they had allowed for 28 ’ driving lanes, accompanied by 8 ’ bump-outs for parking. With regard to punchlist item #5, Smith noted that complaints would be unavoidable since the lofts are so close to the public works facility. While they could not be lost altogether, she asked if they could be moved to the north end of the property. Mabusth cautioned against this scenario since the City had promised the residents to the north that the City would avoid any such circumstance. Rahn reiterated that the loft unit entrance road is only 20 ’ from the Public Works Facility. Mabusth stated that if proper berming was to be achieved to screen the public works facility, the City would need to cooperate in providing a shared berm, fenced and landscaped by the developer. Rahn inquired how wide the base of the berm would need to be. Johnston indicated that they would propose coming off of the public works slope, broadening it by 5’, and rolling back down into the ditch. Gaffron asked for Commissioner comment with regard to this proposal. While the plan would not impact the City ’s operation, Gaffron stated that it would require use of City property. Smith asked if it w ould ever impact operation. PAGE 7 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,7002 _____________5;30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continu, Gaffron indicated not. He asked how removing the entry' to the underground parking from the end to the south side would impact the development. Johnston stated the entry is hidden at the end versus the front, and because of noise, it is typically put at the end to avoid additional problems. Rahn asked what might be put on top of the berm. Johnston indicated that a rough poured concrete wall with climbing plants and additional landscaping would sit atop the berm. Rahn stated that those things would need to be placed on the applicants’ side of the bcmi. Johnston argued that, in order to achieve maximum height, the wall etc., would need to be placed on the City side. Rahn stated that he clearly had issue with the wall and landscaping on the City side of the hill and would not want this to become the City’s problem or maintenance responsibility. Gaffron noted that the top of the w all would be ceiling height of the first storv. Mabusth added that the end units would only be two story loft units. I lawn suggested they plant tall mature trees. Berg maintained that the loft unit building was still too tight, necessitating removal of additional units. She felt it was too cramped and additional room from the property line was necessary. She stated that she would not support the underground door in the middle of the building. Krall asked if the applicant were able to narrow up the building to obtain additional room, whether the Commission would find that to be adequate, rather than losing additional units. Berg stated that she didn’t feel the City was asking too much for them to remove an additional 4 units. The magnitude of the project and tightness they propose were too much in her estimation. Smith stated that, according to Commissioner comment, the berm would need to be on the developer ’s side of the property. She asked for comment regarding City property. I lawn asked why it should even be considered to be put on City property at all, no hardship exists to compel it. She reminded the Commission that if this were a regular property owner they would not permit them to build on City property. PAGE 8 OF 22 Ml MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o ’clock p.m._____________ (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT I.LC, Continued Gaffron asked where the property line fell with regard to the berm. Johnston stated that the property line falls along the ditch. Gaffron suggested letting the applicant extend the berm, to avoid an up and down hill appearance. While she would support allowing them to extend the berm, Berg stated that ever>lhing that happens on the berm would need to happen on their side of the concrete fence. Krall felt this could be accomplished. Rahn stated that the applicant was already borrowing square feet from the street, and now would be encroaching on City property in order to meet density, which was already at six units per acre. He questioned whether there were too many units being proposed for this site. Johnston stated they understood the City’s perspective. Gaffron asked Berg to clarify her request to remove units. Would she accept them moving the building further from the propert) line. Berg stated that she thought removing 4 units would give the City more space from the lot line. Gaffron clarified that the setback from the lot line would be 80’ versus 60'. With respect to greenspace and separation between buildings. Berg stated that she would not find it acceptable to simply move the building down, in lieu of losing 4 additional units. Smith appreciated the clarification, stating that the Commissioners would not like to see the building moved. Mabusth stated that the removal of units would be more appropriate and asked whicn would go. Berg stated that she had suggested they remove a w hole block of units, 6 to be e.<act. They already removed two by tapering the end units to 2-story’s, and she suggested they remove those units as well. Thereby the end units go back to 3-stories, just moved in one set. Gaffron stated that the City would obtain an 85 ’ setback by requiring those units to be removed, Krall asked if they could address the Ci /’s need to expand the 60’setback to 80’, and separately address, how many units the city believes the property needs to lose o\ erall. She stated that she PAGE 9 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued would rather not have the City determine the details of how wide the units should be, or take a certain number of units off an end, when she can work within parameters set by the City to achieve the desired setback goal. Smith felt she would be more comfortable giving the applicant that direction. Her thought was, if they could figure out a way to keep it tiered and still achieve setback, she thought that would be acceptable with everyone. Rahn stated that the removal of four more units made the most sense. Mabirth 2sked the applicant felt they could do all that they’ve discussed with the berm and wall using an 80’ setback. Johnston insisted that sin';^1y units would not necessarily solve some of the problems. In fact, he believed less costly ijs^. 'iions could be accomplished without the removal of additional units. Smith asked how many feet could be lost to make a difference. Krall stated that mass or height has a greater impact than moving the structure back 10 ’. She suggested that the roofline be designed to deflect sound. Berg maintained that sound or noise was not her only issue and that she was more concerned with obtaining setback. To her an 8’ wall wasn ’t of interest. Hawn disagreed, stating that an 8’ wall could be appropriate. Smith reminded the Commission that the applicant was looking for direction with regard to setback to the lot line only. Rahn stated that a 30 ’ setback for parking and an 80’ setback for the lofts were what they would like to achieve. Mabusth stated that as a group, the Commission is aware that they ha\ e a public works facility currently located very close to where a proposed loft unit will be and were worried about the complaints regarding lights and noise coming from public works. She continued that it is important that the applicant know that whatever they are proposing with regard to lanuscaping. they have to do on their side and the City should not be brought into trying to solve those issues. Smith clarified for the applicant, that the City would like at least 10 ’, or better yet 20’, additional setback. PAW OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o ’clock p.m._____________ (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Moorse suggested that the Commission look at the space allotted for the proof of parking north of the units and consider making the setback space wide enough to add one lane of parking along the edge. Parking there, would suffice to meet the proof of parking and avoid the removal of the trees to the north, if the building were pushed back far enough. Krall stated that, while this parking location may not be as preferable to residents, this suggestion would work and allow the applicant to keep the line of trees intact where the proof of parking had been proposed. Smith indicated that. Commissioner Hawn had suggested, the proof of parking be relocated to the side lane, thus improving the views for those units on the north backside. Mabusth reiterated that the Commission was requesting an additional 20 ’ setback. Smith recapped and asked if item 5 had been covered in great enough detail. She stated that, as Johnston pointed out, the development is at merely 4 units per acre when the loft units are taken out of the equation. Although she would have liked to have seen more greenspace and parking, she stated that this is an innovative and new concept to Orono. She added that she still needed convincing that this was the right spot for a development with this many units, and wondered why truly walkable communities like Wayzata or Edina had not been considered. Smith stated that she was getting closer to viewing the development as a 4 unit per acre site, if the applicant could meet some of the City ’s other issues. She stated that she could support the lofts where they were and the diversity of the rest of the development, once other items w ere addressed, such as sidewalks, west lane and north lane, etc.. Krall stated that the current plan did reflect 4 units per acre excluding the lofts. Berg reiterated that other than losing the aditional 4 loft units, she was okay with the development. Rahn stated once again, that the code allows 6 per acre and this property is slated 6. Although he felt this to be rather dense, if it was slated for 6 then he didn’t have a problem with that. Gaffron explained that this piece of property- was slated for 6 because the City could meet the Met Council and housing diversity- requirements. According to the Comp PIm, there were few other places in Orono, beside this location, that warrant this kind of development. In order to meet our housing goals and satisfy Met Council, 6 units per acre made the most sense here. Gaffron reiterated that there were no other places in Orono this would work, Navarre would not PAGE 11 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o ’clock p.m._____________ (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued work due to traffic issues and tightness. The only other land guided for higher density is southwest of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road which is surrounded by railroad tracks, Highway 12, and industrial uses. Rahn stated that he felt better knowing that there wasn’t any other location guided for this t>pe of development. Smith stated that this site was one of two or three sites within the entire City w here this development would be allowed, therefore one would not see this running up and down Highway 12. Krall pointed out that, when you look at the level of amenities that you have so close around this site, the way it's placed, the way you have retail placed, and the way you have City facilities and school facilities placed, when you look at the comp plan this is the one place where it makes sense for Orono to meet some of the housing needs. It provides a unique situation, and offers the only place that functions that way within Orono. Smith added that this does not mean that there are not issues surrounding parking, Kelley Parkway, traffic, and its impact. Hawn stated that she needed to leave soon and w’anted to address a few concerns. She stated that, initially, what she thought was driving the higher densities for this location was the need to set up spaces for affordable housing, and this isn’t it. She indicated that affordable housing was something that mattered to her. With regard to the proposal, on one hand the applicant has asked Orono to make some concessions for their planning, on the other hand Orono would like to see their help in addressing the area of affordable housing. Johnston pointed out that the afibrdability issue was difficult. The units that could meet the affordability number were the loft units, and the way that they can do that is through a finance program through the federal government. The City has to be a partner in requesting that financing, but once it is put in place, it is essentially a buy dow n of the interest rates that makes those affordable units. Mr. Dahlstrom added that, initially, the first plan that they had provided w ith 235 units had the potential for more of the affordable housing units, than the current proposal. By removing 60 units, pricing fle.xibility is greatly impacted. He stated that they are not opposed to working with the City on the affordable housing issue and tiy ing to do accomplish some cost shifting to meet the need. Smith stated that considering price points today, the whole issue of affordable housing is a very difficult subject to tr>' to do a good job at. PAGE 12 OF 22 flHii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o ’clock p.m._____________ (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Dahlstrom pointed out that by incorporating affordable mortgage programs and funding more can be done to accomplish the task. Berg asked if they could incorporate this request for funding from the federal government into their plan. She insisted that City ’s are very much on the forefront of asking developers to come to them with affordable housing. She found it hard to believe that these price points would meet affordable housing standards. In fact, Berg asked to sec lower priced units or townhomes as part of the proposal. Johnston stated that the homes they had provided meet the medium range of affordability. Hawn added that, with regard to affordable housing, she would like to see the data that makes this possible or not possible. Krall stated that the Met Council provides data with regard to affordable housing standards on a region wide basis, as well as, the west metro area, and for differing levels of income in different places. They may find that they are unable to meet some affordability standards, but able to meet others. She pointed out that write downs, grants, and TIPS offer one way to help meet standards. Smith indicated that the applicant seemed to be creative, innovative, and open enough to pursue further e.xploration of affordable housing. Krall stated that they could compile the information, and perhaps, schedule a separate discussion on what constitutes affordable housing, identifying a regional goal, and how to accomplish it. Hawn stated that she was hesitant to dictate how many units per acre would be required, but instead preferred that the needs of the design drive the plan. She stated that she would like to see sidewalks along the townhome streets, more parking, more greenspace, and look at market research. Hawn felt the one stor>' townhome price points were quite steep for the area, and wanted to see the data to support those, as well as. data supporting the overall location. She believed that Orono could not provide the local amenities to anract adequate buyers. She would not want to see them build a development that wasn’t going to succeed, therefore she was curious to see the data to support that. She argued that, there arc developments in other locations with more amenities and similar price points out there, and questioned why buyers would buy here. Fritzler stated that he could support the development, if enough distance for the loft building could be found. Fritzler continued that he was satisfied w ith the amount of greenspace and did not see the need for a playground. Gaffron asked for opinions with regard to tot lots versus picnic tables. PAGE 13 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DFATLOPMENT LLC, Continued Rahn stated that, in his view, he would support congregation areas or smaller sitting areas stylized after the main entrance. Mabusth asked if the Park Commission would preview the plan. Gappa suggested they take a look at the proposal brietly on July 29, 2002, prior to their annual Park Tour. Smith indicated that she would like to get the Park Commission involved in the process sooner than later. Since the City Council will likely ask for their comments, having them weigh in on the design might be useful at this point. Gaffron stated that they would not be making a judgement, but merely previewing the trails etc. since the project is not public parkland. Gaffron agreed that Council would likely want to hear their thoughts. Mabusth asked that Gappa make sure the Park Commission understand that this is private open space. Mabusth stated that she could support the 6 units per acre, since the wetlands and the amount of dry usable space, limit the applicant. In her view. Mabusth liked to look at the project as 4 units per acre plus the lofts. She was pleased w ith the amount of diversity and wisheil to see the wetland delineation report soon. Johnston stated that the fieldwork on the wetland delineation had been completed, however, he still awaited the paperwork. 1 o his know ledge, the boundarv* itself had not changed. Smith asked what further needed to be discussed this evening. Virtually, item 6 had been addressed, however, questions regarding item 4 remain. The transportation, traffic, and development of Kelley Parkw ay were areas for discussion. Gaffron stated tliat in terms of traffic generated by this development, and how it effects intersections on the north side, were issues to be addressed with development. As the planning progresses. Gaifron noted that direction will need to be obtained from the Engineer's report before deciding on internal road widths, addressing turn lanes, considering the widths of Kelley Parkway, and parallel parking, etc. Currently. Gaffron noted that the applicant had proposed widths of 20' for Kelley Parkway with 8* bump outs for parallel parking. Hawn left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Johnston noted that the w idths w ould be 22’ back to back on most of the private roads. PAGE 14 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o ’elock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gappa stated that code requires 28’; however, the Commission would be trading valuable greenspace for wider roads. He agreed that 28’ widths were not necessary on the internal spaces, and could find 22-24’ acceptable, with the exception for the 28’ parking bump outs. Krall repeated that studies had shown narrow streets tend to slow traffic down. Smith felt that 22’ to 24’ would be acceptable. Johnston pointed out that there are many rural roads, like Crystal Bay Road, within Orono who cany very high volumes currently and are merely 24’ wide. He asked the Commissioners to take into consideration the amount of traffic these rural streets are able to handle versus the level of traffic that would take place in the cul-de-sacs. Mabusth asked if school buses or emergency vehicles w ould need to travel through the development, would there be room. Gappa stated that school buses would likely pick up at the entry to the development, much like other developments in Orono. He stated that fire code is 20* and all that is required for access by emergency vehicles. For comparison purposes, Gappa pointed out that County Road 6 is 24’ wide and is a high-speed road. He believed 20-22’ would be adequate. Rahn agreed the wide roads would be promoting speed. Smith asked w here the issue of sidew alks fit into the discussion. Krall stated that if the roads could be kept more narrow, sidewalks could be considered. Mabusth indicated that she would support sidew alks in order to keep people off the roads and encourage a truly walkable community. Johnston stated that the traffic study of Willow View, where he resides, estimated 260 trips per day and no thought was put into sidewalks there. There are two cul-de-sacs without sidewalks and a w ide road. He questioned the need for sidewalks when the trips per day would be even less than Willow View. He did not want to pave more than needed at a loss of greenspace. Case stated that there are hundreds of miles around Orono where there aren’t sidewalks. He believed it to be a convenience issue, that sidewalks encourage social organizing, and suggested that a single sidewalk would not be a bad idea for a way to lead guests to their cars in the winter. Mabusth agreed, suggesting a sidewalk be run on one side of the street. PAGE 15 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o^clock p.m. (U2) MI2-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Frilzler pointed out that a sidewalk would adversely impact many driveways. They would virtually be taking away parking by adding a sidewalk in the cul-de-sacs. Fritzler stated that sidewalks were no big issue to him on the north or west cul-de-sacs for this reason. He maintained that people would prefer to walk in the street, uninterrupted, than to continually dodge bumpers in driveways. Rahn stated that his first inclination was to require the sidewalks; however, if they affect car stacking and grcenspace, he could not agree. Gaffron asked Rahn if 50’ lots and no sidewalks worked for his neighborhood, which has many similarities to the proposed cul-de-sacs. Rahn stated that he lives on a narrow road and it works for them. Mabusth indicated that she too had supported sidewalks, but cannot do so in lieu of the additional problems they will create. Krall stated that she supported sidewalks, however, not if they impact other areas. She indicated that the applicant would do their best to work them in, if possible, but understood the Commission would be satisfied if they were not a part of the plan. Fritzler stated that new issues arise with having to plow the sidewalks. Mabusth stated that she could support a compromise on Kelley Parkway as well. Gappa indicated that 41’ would be necessary at Willow and other intersections, and recommended that striping be used to delineate the entire Parkway. He favored the flexibility a 41’ parkway would allow. Fritzler asked if Johnston had included the parallel parking spaces on Kelley Parkway in his parking calculations. Johnston indicated that he had not included those spots in their required parking estimates. Fritzler felt the parallel par.<ing spots provided on the city street could adequately serve the development as well. Johnston argued that speed would not be slowed down efTecti\'ely by striping. He suggested that each end of Kelley Parkway remain 41’, and something less along the rest of the parkway. If turn lanes needed to be added later, he pointed out that the applicant would need to do so. Johnston PAGE 16 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5;30 o*clock p.m. iU2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued also suggested that the parking along Kelley Parkway be delineated to give the visual impression of a more narrow road. Gappa asked how the parking spots could be plowed. Krall indicated that, in other communities, standards exist in order to addess that question, and the applicant would help to research those Rahn asked if ther Parkway could have a true parkway feel with a middle berm and landscaping at a mere 41' width. Case pointed out that it is more complicated to plow; however, makes for a nicer street. With regard to the Parkway feel, the trees and landscaping would need to be 5-6 ’ off the road, require 7’ + feet for growth. Although the City could easily have no parking on one side of the street and retain a 16’ berm median. Case indicated that there would be maintenance issues and costs associated with these medians. Mabusth asked whether the Commission wanted to encourage this kind of median on public roads. Krall explained that there are typically two ways to achieve the parkway look. The first, which they had been discussing is comprised of two lanes with a 15’ green space between them, mostly found in suburban areas, thus eliminating parking. The other, would be streets lined by trees and landscaping on either side between the street and sidewalk. Smith stated that, to her, the later of the two made the most sense for Kelley Parkway, especially since the middle green space would require heavy maintenance. Case added that these middle berms do not normally provide much usable space. Krall suggested adding a bituminous bike trail next to the sidewalk. For review. Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to be moving away from the required 41 ’ and divided parkway, and moving toward a lesser width and canopied parkwav’. Rahn asked if the parking spaces should be defined. Gappa stated that he could see that he would not get a 41’ road; however, wanted to retain '•nough right of way. PAGE 17 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o*clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron stated that a 60’ right-of-way would be tight but workable in a residential/commercial area. Since this was not designated as a collector street in the code, Johnston believed 70’ to be excessive. In the code, collector streets require 70’, there is nothing in the code with regard to commercial industrial. Gaffron noted (hat it was originally platted at 60’. Gappa stated that they normally take 50* and if he is given 60* he would find that acceptable. Smith asked if all the Commission had asked for could be achieved with less than 60’ of roadway right-of-w'ay. Gappa indicated that with merely 10* on either side of the road, there would not be much separation with an 8 ’ trail on both sides. Krall stated that the 8 ’ trail might not be ncccssaiy on both sides. Mabusth suggested the bike trail be located along Kelley Parkway and not along Highway 12. Gaflron indicated that, originally, they had discussed that sidewalks along Kelley Parkway would be concrete sidewalks, and bituminous trails would run along Highway 12 and considered bike trails. To now change, and add bituminous along Kelley would be a new twist. Gappa stated that with a 40’ roadway, you could have a 5’ sidewalk and 5’ boulevard on either side. Gaflron stated that the Karl Berg medical office project had already been required to add sidewalk along Kelley Parkway and trail along Highway 12. He maintained that the Commission needed to be consistent with what had been previously approved. Mabusth asked when the trails were slotted for construction. Gaffron noted that, as in the Berg case, the segment of trail would be built at the time of construction of the medical office. Berg questioned whether the trail would be built over the commercial outlot as well. Gaffron indicated that it should be. PAGE 18 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________S;30 o ’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Johnston suggested, as a resident, that a trail along Highway 12 w ould be a waste of time. In his view, Johnston wondered why anyone would bike along the highway when they could bike along the Parkway instead. He suggested an 8’ bituminous trail on the south side of Kelley Parkway and a 5 ’ sidewalk be placed on the north side for walking. If a standard 28’ roadway were used, there would still be an additional 8-10’ for parking (at a 37-39 back to back ratio). Gappa agreed that many w'outd prefer to bike along the Parkway versus the highway. Smith asked if there would be a connection to Willow. Berg noted that the proposed bikeway would run along the commercial side of the parkway, and asked if safety were a concern. Would individuals heading to the commercial area be competing with bikers, cars, or people. Gaffron stated that he would recommend an uniterrupted solid bike trail along Highway 12. Johnston inquired as to the logic of three proposed trails within 300 ’ of one another. He wondered whether resources should be committed to such an effort and suggested removing the sidewalk from the south side entirely. Krall indicated that, likely, the commercial areas would supply their own on-site parking and would not require notched parking along the south side of Kelley Parkway. Case pointed out that, depending upon the commercial use of the outlets on Highway 12, the trail along the highway may be limited. Gappa agreed that less conflict c.xists to the south where it is currently wide open. To review, Krall stated that the Commission had identified a more narrow street within the 60 ’ platted area, notched parking along the north side of Kelley Parkwa>, a trail on Highway 12, sidewalks on both sides of Kelley Parkway or simply along the sou A side, and that additional work be done with regard to the widths of the roadwa> s. Smith inquired about the proposed bus stop. Johnston stated that they have proposed a bus stop at the main entrance across the street, if allow ed by .MnDOT, w hich would consist of a w idened out sidew alk and benches. Fritzler asked about the need for a shelter. PAGE 19 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________S;30 o ’clock p.m. (W) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Krai) indicated that they had merely proposed benches in the design, but that a shelter could be added. Smith pointed out that the wetland delineation report would need to be provided. Gaffron stated that the plan in a few areas shows a 20 ’ wetland buffer, where the Orono ordinance requires a 26 ’ setback. Smith questioned utilities. Gaffron asked if power lines could be buried. Gappa indicated that it is extremely expensive and cost $100,000 on the Dunbar project. Johnston stated that it would not be cost elTective. Gappa stated that the east lane cul-de-sac was \ et>' long and an emergency access would need to be designated. Fritzler asked what the water main recommendation was. Gappa stated that they will be recommending 8” for utility pipes. Fritzler asked if this would be adequate. Gappa indicated that a larger trunk main will be necessary and looked at closer during development. He recommended 8” throughout the development and 12” along Kelley Parkway Johnston stated that they would not argue with 8”. Gappa indicated that the applicant may need to bore a connection loop under the wetland. Johnston felt this would be difllcult. Smith asked for discussion with regard to the proposed landscaping and signage. Gaffron stated that dollar amounts will be determined; however, the City would like to see the applicant beef up the landscaping plan similar to what was shown early on. Mabusth asked who w ould decide the character of Kelley Parkway. PAGE 20 OF 22 MiMliai MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 _____________5:30 o’clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Smith indicated that it would start with the Planning Commission. Johnston stated that if the Commission agreed, they would be happy to put together a proposal for the parkway, its street lights, etc. He promised not to disappoint the Commission. GafTron stated the design would need to meet standards. Smith asked if anything further should be discussed. GafTron stated that the Commission had hit all of the items on his punchlist and that he would like to be given time to put on paper w’hat had been discussed. Within a week’s time, Gaffron would circulate the report for their review, ask for comments, and then take the recommendation to Council for consideration on August 12. Krall asked if the results of his analysis could be shared w ith them to ensure they had not missed any key issues. Smith stated that the traffic study would need to be performed soon, and a review of the market study would be interesting to ensure that the development will succeed. Johston agreed. Smith asked the applicant to compile a list of other places, somewhat similar to their proposal, which the Commissioners could visit on their own time. GafTron inquired as to the type oflighting proposed within the development. Johnston stated that they would light the main drive, and use security lighting along the other roads. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, recommending the approval of Application #02-2789, Dahlstrom Development LLC, 2550 Wayzata Boulevard, based on the discussion of July 15 and July 17,2002, and preceding, and based upon approval of the written report that Planning Director Gaffron will be preparing, the Commission would like to recommend based on that report a recommendation to the Cit}‘ Council that they would move forward on this application as presented in the w rite-up. Recommending Concept Plan Approval subject to final documentation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to close the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 21 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 ____________5;30 o’clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 22 OF 22 ORONO CITY COUNCII. MEETING MON»' Y, JULY 8,2002 ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jay Nygard, and J* i Murphy. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Council Member Jim White arrived at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Peterson called the mcettig to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGE OA 1. Approve/Amend Items 9, 10,10a, 11,12, 12a, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item 5 w as removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Na> 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of June 24,2002 Murphy m.oved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 24,2002. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott stated that the concrete pad, toilet, and screen had been installed in Navarre Park and were getting use. The plumbing for the drinking fountain at Navarre Park has been installed and the concrete pad will be in within the next week. The sidewalk proposal for along County Road 19 wouiu go to the State soon. The neighbors around Hackberry Park had selected green and white for a color scheme. The proceeds of the 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS —ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTA TIVE —Continued upcoming Dog Days of Summer golf tournament will be going to the Parks. He stated that the Parks Commission would like to be involved with the development of the Larson/'Sohn property so that all the design elements are done at the same time. He invited Council to attend the upcoming Parks Tour on July 29 ”* at 5:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—SANDEE SMITH, REPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. Minnetonka Art Center Ro.xannc Heaton, Minnetonka Art Center E.xccutive Director; Jim Dayton, architect; and Patrick Reagan, architect, were present. Heaton stated that Kurt Woodhouse bought and subdivided a property that included a guest house designed by Frank Gehry. He offered the guesthouse to the Art Center as a gin. She stated the guesthouse is a unique and valuable resource that needs to be preserved and opened to the public. Dayton passed out packets with information about the designer, Frank Gcliry, including an article about one of his houses that was demolished in California. Dayion stated that contemporary architecture needs to be preserved and the Art Center’s opportunity to do so has far-reaching impact. Mayor Peterson stated she had met with the Minnetonka Art Center staff regarding the house. She asked Gaffron what would be required to locate the house on the Center’s property. Gaffron stated they would need an amendment or CUP for an additional building that would be accessory to a school use, a variance for the setback on the north side, and a variance to allow a small portion of the building to exceed the 30 ’ height restriction. The major issue facing the project would be its impact on the neighborhood. Heaton stated that the house would mainly be used for small classes and studio space, but they may house visiting artists there as well. Sanseverc asked why the Walker Art Center had declined the gift. Heaton stated that they couldn ’t easily locate the house in their new construction plans and would need to store it ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 3. Minnetonka Art Center—Continued for some time as Woodhousc wants it moved as soon as possible. Murphy asked if the Art Center is linked to the City’s trail system. Moorse stated it will be once the Dakota Line trail goes through. Sansevere stated they would not make special exceptions for them because the house is not considered art; it would be used as a functioning building and therefore would need to conform. Nygard stated that because the house is a pre-existing structure and a gift, he would nc* oppose the extra 5 ’ in height. Mayor Peterson stated the Art Center should go forward and get the project on the Planning Commission ’s agenda. 4. Barb Sykora, Candidate for State Representative Gabriel Jabbour stated that he personally supports Barb Sykora. She has always been present at Mayor meetings and shown her support for the City’s missions. Barb SyV .>ra stated that she currently represents the southern third of Minnetonka and some of the smaller lake communities. Due to the recent redistricting, if she is reelected, she would represent most of the lake communities. She stated she was eager to learn about the new communities in her territor>' and that she welcomes feedback and comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 5. #02-2780 Often Brothers Nursery-, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard—Amendment to PUD Agreement #1 —PUD Amendment and Resolution No. 4829 Weinberger stated that some modifications had been made to the PUD agreement, amendment 2. First, he stated, the amendment would allow the Daisy Diner to continue to operate as a concession stand under certain conditions. They removed restrictions on allowed signage, and sen-ice will be pemiitted to individual tables. Also, Class 1 restaurants will be a permitted use on the property. He stated that the concession stand does not qualify as a Class I restaurant due to not meeting the parking requirements for a restaurant. The Daisy Diner would not be able to expand use, however, a separate Class I restaurant would be allowed on the property provided it met all requirements. Staff recommended Council adopt the revised amendment and resolution. Cliff Otten stated that the new resolution contained changes to items 3 and 8, and that he felt item 3B should be removed because the intent of allow ing a restaurant use was to 5. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 U02-2780 Otten Brothers Nursery, 2350 ff ’est Wayzata Boulevard—Amendment to PUD Agreement #/—PUD Amendment and Resolution No. 4829 — Continued prevent needing an amendment to the PUD. Weinberger stated that the new resolution allowed a Class I restaurant on the property in addition to the concession stand as accessor> to retail. Sansevere asked if the dance studio left, would a restaurant be able to take its place. Weinberger stated that it would, provided it met all the requirements. Otten stated that the difTcrcncc was between needing a review to install a restaurant and needing a PUD amendment. If restaurants were an allowed use, then there would no longer be a need for a PUD amendment. Murphy asked why they were allowing both a restaurant use and a concession stand. Weinberger stated it was because of the parking requirements. The concession stand would be allowed to remain without any changes to the facility. If, however, Mr. Otten wanted to install a Class 1 restaurant on the property, he would be allowed to do so provided he met alt the requirements. Barrett stated that item 3B could read; the present concession stand i se shall be allowed to be expanded to a Class I restaurant so long as it conforms to all requirements, and if not, it would require an amendment to the PUD. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4829 approving Amendment #2 to PUD Agreement No. 1 allowing a concession stand use within the nurser> area and adding “Class ! Restaurants'’ as permitted use for Lot 1, w ith the change to Item 3B stating that the present concession stand use shall be allowed to be expanded to a Class I restaurant so long as it conforms to all requirements, and if not, it would require an amendment to the PUD. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-iIie-Fact Conditional Use Permit and V'ariances Revis Stephenson, applicant; Greg Munson, attorney; and Ron Peterson, wetland scientist, were present. Weinberger stated that the Council had approved a CUP for land alteration on the property in November to create a gradual slope, rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the applicant's house. During inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside exceeded what was allowed by the CUP. The land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but was ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6, #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued beyond the property lines onto two adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where there is fill that was added within 26’ of the protected wetland. On May 2, 2002, staff sent a letter ordering corrections. Due to road restrictions, trucks used to transport the fill were not allowed on Fox Ridge Road. A May 16,2002 deadline was established, and at that time, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for after-the-fact permits rather than eorreet the problem. Weinberger stated that the issues were that the applicant altered the land in excess of what was allowed by the permits, ercroaehed property lines, and eame within 26’ of a wetland area. He presented a cross-seetion view showing the previous slope of the land, the permitted slope, and the present slope. He stated that the Planning Commission reeommended denial of the after-the-fact variances. The Planning Commission recommendation included a finding, based on information provided the night of the Planning Commission meeting, that a separate application is required for the adjacent property owners. Staff recommended that the variance to allow encroachment within 26’ of the wetland be denied as no unique situation exists that should require an encroachment into the setback. Also, approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur w ithin 26’ of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. The existing grade was not consistent with the City’s requirement of a 3:1 slope and should be corrected. The existing grades extended the back yard by 38’, when the proposed plan was to eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Also, staff requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in, or consent to, the application. Both adjacent property owners consented to the project in writing. Weinberger stated there was conceri over erosion and fill washing into the wetland. Stephenson seeded the slope and planted trees at its base in an effort to prevent erosion. Any resolution should include the following conditions: 1. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded with erosion control measures approved by the MCWD and City Engineer. 2. The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26’ to the edge of the delineated wetland and any fill within the area be removed, unless a variance is approved. 3. All soils within 26’ of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction activity. 4. The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any additional construction activity. 5. No pertiop of the hill shall have less than a 3:1 finished slope. Barrett slated that while he needed to review the new letters from non-adjacent neighbors. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued he felt that the adjacent neighbors did not need to submit applications since the changes to their property were basically committed by trespassing. Stephenson apologized for his ignorance over the entire matter and stated that he understood it was ultimately his responsibility and would accept the Council’s decision. He had a contractor that did not follow City instructions, and he stated that he did not set out to disregard the requirements of the permit. He stated that the topography map supplied by the City was not accurate. Mark Gronberg, an engineer, sur\ eyed the property for him and found the wetland delineation different from what was provided by the City. He stated that overall, the changes he made were an improvement with better drainage and a planted buffer zone. Gronberg told Stephenson that the current slope was graded between 2.1:1 and 2.9:1, and that the slope would compact and level out to the recommended 3:1 over the next year or so. Stephenson stated that he did not seed and plant the slope to influence Council. He informed Weinberger that he was going to do the plantings in order to prevent the fill from washing downhill, and if needed, he would tear out the plantings later. Stephenson passed out photos of the slope. Munson stated that the main goal was to protect the wetland and buffer zone. He asked Council for 2 weeks in order for staff to come out to the property and review the delineations, since they had originally been done in ,ntcr with snow on the ground. He stated that Council had the power to grant Mr. Stephenson’s request. Also, »hat Mr. Galatz’s letter to the City was intended to incite and that it was written after Mr. Stephenson had acknowledged his mistakes and begun working with the City. Peterson stated that he had viewed the property regarding the wetland protection issue. He did notice discrepancies in the delineation that was done in December He stated delineations could not be accurately made with snow on the ground. The wetland has a partial drainage under the Luce Line at the north end. It was common practice for railroad lines to install culverts under tracks so that every time water goes into the wetland, some goes out via that drain. He stated that the canary grass is non-native and inconsistent with the wetland. The area was a marsh before the drainage was installed. He stated additional time was required to refine the delineation.. Peterson also stated that given the stabilization of the slope, the landscape fabric and plantings installed, the recent rains have not caused any noticeable runofTinto the wetland. He felt it would be imprudent to tear it out. He added that the applicant had no intention of mowing the buffer zone or using it as a yard, and there is now a dip at the buffer zone with the wetland being elevated, w hich makes it more effective. Murphy asked Peterson to e.xpand on the discrepancy. Peterson replied that there is upland area designated as wetland, which is show n by the buckthorn and other plants ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUf.Y 8, 2002 d. U02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road —After~the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued growing there where sage meadow would have been originally. Murphy asked how much shrinkage had occurred to the wetland. Peterson stated he wasn’t 'urc at this time. Sansevere stated he was in favor of giving them time to gather information. He asked Stephenson if he had any recourse against his contractor. Stephenson stated he would be pursuing action against the contractor. Stephenson stated he did not believe granting his variance to grade in the buffer zone would be precedent setting. He found language in City documents stating that a buffer zone is not wetland and as long as it is restored to perform as a buffer, grading could occur. He stated that Spring Hill Golf Course had been allowed to grade extensively in the buffer zone of a wetland. Mayor Peterson asked if tabling the application would create an issue with the 60-day deadline. Munson stated that if it did, they w ould grant an extension of the 60-day limit. Eric Galatz, attorney representing Mr. Chafen at 350 Brown Road South, stated that he objected to including changes for adjacent properties w iihout requiring that they also pursue permits for the changes. He claimed that not all residents w ho should have been notified were. He stated that Stephenson was required to submit a professional survey, and he hadn’t. He claimed all three properties involved should be reviewed. He added that his letter was not intended to incite the Planning Commission. Galatz stated that Stephenson had blatantly and intentionally violated the law, and damaged w etland by running machinery on the wetland side of the silt fence. He urged the Council not to table the application. He stated that Stephenson had been on notice since February and could have stopped the contractor back then. He added that the small trees Stephenson had planted would be easy to uproot. Toby Dayton of 1895 Fox Ridge Road staled that he w-as in support of the icviscd permit. Throughout the process, he and Stephenson had had conversations about the fill and Stephenson had always been communicative and careful to make sure that Daylon approved of his action. He stated he favored allow ing the land to remain as it currently is. He look strong issue with Galatz terming Stephenson ’s action as blatantly disregarding the law . He stated that the drainage is much improved. He has 3 young children and the previous slope was a hazard. Mayor Peterson stated to Galatz that no amount of trees w ould stop Council from pursuing appropriate action. She asked if new surveys found discrepancies in the delineation, would the application go back to the Planning Commission? Weinberger slated it would depend on the findings, especially since time was of issue and there was need for a resolution. Barrett stated that the application would only need to return to the h ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—Afier-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued Planning Commission if the alteration was significantly different from what they understood it to be. Galatz stated that the Council could decide Stephenson start from the wetland and cut the hill back from there. Murphy stated he would feel better if the contractor was there to admit his fault in the matter. He felt that Stephenson was too knowledgeable and intelligent to not have had any idea what the contractor was doing. Sansevere stated he disagreed since people arc inclined to trust hired c.xpcrts. Da>ton stated that he had witnessed the whole process and it was impossible to know how much dirt was going in until after it had been graded. Mayor Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to table the application for after- the-fact CUP and variance for 1850 Fox Ridge Road. V'ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Council Member White arrived at 8:45, during Item 7. 7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard—Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Morric Wagner, ow ner of Monies Automotive Group; Steve Ficktel, architect, and Peter Johnson, attorney, w ere present. Weinberger stated that WJM Properties had applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property located at 2605 West Wa>7ata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). They wanted to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily seiA'ing the retail automotive operations under the Monies Automotive Sales Group. The use would be consistent with the current zoning. The building would be used for auto prep, a body shop, storage, central parts warehouse, offices, and an indoor sales showroom for fleet sales and leasing. Weinberger stated that parking w ould be added on the south and w est sides and a new serv ice road off of Highway 12 at the front of the building w ould also be added. New vehicles for sale would be kept at the front of the lots, and vehicles brought in for body w ork would be parked at the rear lot, w ithin a fence. The outside storage of vehicles required a CUP. A second CUP was required for an “open sales lot*’ for the leasing and fleet operation. The fleet sales operation would require 40 parking stalls, 15 at the north end of the existing lot, and 25 in the new- 45-stall lot to be developed at the north end of the existing ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002 7. U02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued building. Also, a new entrance and 4 large windows would be constructed. Weinberger stated that wholesale, or fleet customers, would fit under the current industrial zoning. Also, staff was supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation. Some changes that had been recommended were to screen the property with the installation of a berm with plantings. Other changes involved lower lighting at a 20 ’ height that would display the front end of the building. Current light poles would be removed and 4 new ones would be evenly installed with no part of the light visible from neighboring property lines. Signage would be limited to a monument sign at the Highway 12 entrance. Johnson passed out information to Council on the site plan changes, demonstrating that they had complied with the Planning Commissions requirements for better screening. Johnson stated that the outdoor storage parking restriction of 250 spaces should refer only to the east, c.xposed lot, and not to the fenced lot at the rear. Sansevere asked if customers would bring their own cars to the site for repair work. Wagner stated that repair cars would be delivered by staff from the dealerships, and they would have some insurance adjusters visiting the site, but not customers. Also, there would not be a gate at the entrance, so delivery trucks could enter and unload at any hour without backing up traffic on Highway 12. Nygard asked aboi t the daily traffic flow. Johnson stated that there would be 40 full time employees on site, plus trucks and cars being delivered. The site would primarily be used by the dealerships along 394. Nygard stated he docs not want Orono to be the center of Morrics Automotive Group. Wagner stated that the site would be used by only two dealerships, as the others have adequate room on-site. Mayor Peterson asked if there was a turn lane into the property. Weinberger stated there was n*. but there was no median in front of the site. Murphy asked if the landscaping was acceptable to the applicant. Johnson stated it was. Murphy asked if the fleet cars would have signs and banners advertising their sales. Johnson stated that they would be selling to professional corporate buyers, indicating they would not use such on-site advertising as is typical of car dealerships. Weinberger suggested Council consider the hours of operation. Johnson stated that the sales component would operate from 9-9 Monday through Friday, and 9-6 on Saturday. Sandee Smith stated that the Planning Commission felt the hours were too broad for a wholesale operation. Wagner stated that they needed to be flexible to meet the time constraints of their clients. L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002 7. §02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued Moorse asked if the planting islands would contain any over-story trees. Ficktcl stated they would only contain evergreens because they needed trees that would not be affected by the exhaust of the cars, and also that would not drop sap, etc. on the cars. Sansevere moved, and Murphy seconded, to approve the site plan review subject to the Planning Commission’s recommendations, with the clarifleation that parking restrictions noted in item 2 referred to the east lot onlv, and directed staff to draR a resolution for the next City Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. ^02-2796 Mark and Gina Kesek, 1875 Shadv^vood Road, Variance Gina Kosck was present. Bottenberg stated that the application was to construct two decks and a walkway. One deck would be at ground level, and the other off the second story. Currently there arc 3 patio doors on the lakeside of the home with no means of exiting the house. The total of the decks would equal approximately 110 s.f Bottenberg stated that the applicant had bought the property with the intention of remodeling the existing house. After reviewing the foundation and other structural limitations decided to tear down the house and then applied for a variance to allow a deck within the 0-75’ lakeshore. The request was denied at the Planning Commission level. The applicant then submitted building plans. At that time the hardcover complied at approximately 22% in the 75-250’ setback zone, leaving 485 s.f. of hardcover to use. The driveway and some retaining walls were constructed after the house was completed and the certificate of occupancy was issued. The retain’''- w alls were constructed to aid in the change of grade for the drivewaj' When the app. ronstructed retainitig w alls, she did not know they w ere considered hardcover. There • .Iso a second drivew ay on the property that has been converted to grass at the instruction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted to allow the two decks w ith the following conditions to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property: 1. Remove the south driveway and replace with grass. 2. Remove shed located in 0-75’ setback. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove all unnecessary boulder walls. Bottenberg stated that Kellogg had visited the site and determined that imnecessary stone wall lemoval would result in a hardcover reduction of 50 s.f (.29%). ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 8. 802-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 ShadywoodRoad, Variance—Continued StafTasked that Council consider allowing a 2 ’ x 60 ’ sidewalk be constructed from the driveway to the front door. Kosek stated that they did have a hardship for the variance request because while they own a large amount of land, only .82 acre is buildable. She argued that there was no difference between a small lot, and a large lot with a small buildable area. She stated that they had planned the deck location before the doors were installed. At the time that she planned the decks, they were not over the hardcover and deck construction diH not require a variance because it was outside the 0-75 ’ zone. She stated they informed staff that they were moving the location of the patio doors to install the oecks. At the time there wasn’t an issue with the patio doors because there was no variance required. Kosek stated that she disagreed with the suggestion she remove the shed from the 0-75 ’ zone because it would not affect the ha-dcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. Their overall hardcover was currently at 14% of the allowed for their total lot. She stated that the garden shed is ugly, but they didn’t want to remove it because it is in the 0-75 ’ zone and they would not be allowed to install a new shed in its place. She is an avid gardener and uses the shed to store her tools. Kosek stated that other residents have been allowed to go over hardcover with a small lot being cited as a hardship. Mayor Peterson staled that everyone is entitled to a minimum house size of 1,500 s.f, which on some lots requires going over the maximum allowed hardcover. Kosek slated that she didn’t see the difference between a small lot and a large lot with a small buildable area. Kosek stated that they would like a paved sidewalk from the driveway to the door, but if they had to choose, would build the deck and use woodchips for the sidewalk. White asked if staff had been made aware of the patio doors and their location before they were installed. Kosek stated that she had informed them of at least the first floor door, since the decks will be stacked one over the other. .Sandee Smith staled that the Planning Commission felt the overall hardcover had to be reduced in order to allow the decks, and there bad been no talk of a sidewalk at the Planning Commission. Kosek stated that they were unaware they’d overbuilt until April when Lyle Oman called and infonned her of the situation. She designed the house, and her husband built it. Wliile construction took a year, the driveway and retaining walls were installed quickly to fix problems with the land. Murphy asked why they hadn’t been aware of the issue earlier in the process. Kosek ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 8. 802-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road, Variance—Continued stated that nobody had told them that hardcover was going to be an issue. The size of the house didn’t change, so they thought they still had area to work with. The additions to the driveway and retaining walls happened as needed and did not require building permits. Smith stated that the driveway is larger than originally shown in the plans, and that at some point the applicant needs to be aware of what they’re doing. Sansevere stated that because they built the house themselves, and v ere not trusting outside experts, they had more responsibility to inform themselves and become knowledgeable. Kosek stated that at the time of construction they were at 22% hardcover. The drive addition and retaining walls pushed them over. They didn’t think that retaining w alls would count as hardcover, and they have about 400 s.f. in the walls alone. Kosek added that she felt having to remove the gardening shed was punishment because it w'ould not affect the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone, and they were still under the total hardcover allowed for the entire lot. Weinberger stated that she would be allowed to have a lock box on the property in the 0-75’ zone, size 4 ’ x 5’ x 4 ’ high. While moved, and Murphy seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution allowing construction of the decks .as requested conditional upon removal of the gardening shed and all unnecessary retaining walls; in addition to the decks, the applicant would be allowed to pave a 2’ x 60* sidewalk from the driveway to the front door and to place a 4* X 5* X 4* lockbox in the 0-75* setback zone. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. Extend Telec'«mmunications Tower Moratorium—Ordinance No. 220,2"'* Series Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 220, Second Series, extending an interim moratorium on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances, or other authority relating to the siting of wireless communications facilities and structures in all zoning districts in the City of Orono. Vote: Aves 4, Navs 0. M.AYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that they should spot-check cigarette venders agam to sec if they are complying with the legal age and carding minors. Sansevere stated he had received a letter from Dana Wells regarding the Orono Lane issue. Moorse stated that the residents w ere told not to install a dock before the house is constructed, but they are currently running electrical cable through the yard and it upset the neighbors. Gaffron stated they would prefer the residents not do yard work before ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 MA YOR/COUNCIL REPORT —Continued construction of the house, but they’ve complied with City requirements. Sansevere stated he’d received a complaint about a neighbor leasing out 3 dock spaces. He asked if the City should remain passive on the issue, or get more assertive. Nygard suggested they follow up on such complaints on a case-by-case basis and follow the LMCD rules. Gaffron stated that the Orono code prohibits slip rental, and the City only pursues such matters following a complaint. White stated that it would be too costly to pursue such offenses. Sansevere suggested staff send a letter to the Mound firefighters regarding Orono’s desire and intentions for a neighborhood station. Nygard asked about the house by Fletcher Channel. Moorse stated it would cost about S550,000 and that Gabriel Jabbour was checking into it. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *10. Easement Orono Orchard Road, Long Lake Creek Culvert Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of S4,000 to Edmund Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, for easements for the Long Lake C.'«*ek Culvert on Orono Orchard Road from the Storm Water Utility- Fund year 2002 budget with the appropriate budget adjustment approved to reflect the expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *i0a. No Parking Sandy Beach Neighborhood—Resolution No. 4830 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No 4830 authorizing installation and maintenance of’‘No Parking Vehicles with Trailers —Tow Away Zone” signs on the City streets in the Sandy Beach Neighborhood. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTR.ATOR’S REPORT *11. Pay Requests—Long Lake Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere - econded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $9,149.41 to BKV Group, and $254 J8 to the Laker and Pioneer, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 *12. Appointment of Ron Hendricks to Full-Time Police Officer Position Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the appointment of Ron Hendricks to a full-time Police Officer position effective July 9,2002, and to place him into the Police Officer pay schedule based on his hours worked as a part-time Police Officer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12a. Interviews for Planning Commission Alternates Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to schedule interviews to Fill the Planning Commission Alternate positions. Vote* Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *13. LICENSES SPECIAL EVENTS 1. Applicant: Tim Jaynes Event: Location: Date: Time: Corporate Party with Live Music 1121 Elmwood Avenue July 27, 2002 ! 1:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. BILLS Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All F:vnds Account. \'ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 15. Kcvitt Excavating Moorse stated that the item was related to the accidently sealed well. They had withheld the money from the demolition company, Kevin Excavating. The City negotiated w ith Kevin Excavating that they would put 52,500 tow ard the settlement over the well. The City had retained 55,000, so now had to pay 52,500 to Kevitt Excavating. Sansevere asked if there was a miscommunication. Moorse stated that there w as fault on both side: i he excavators didn’t understand where the well was, and so they went out and found the well next to the house to fill without first checking if it w as the right well. Mayor Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve final payment to Kevitt Excavating in the amount of $2,500. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 16. Land Donation by Mike and Monica Young Moorse stated that he received a call two weeks ago from property owners who own the property at the northwest comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Watertown Road. They want to sell the house on a 2 acre lot, and donate the southern 2.5 acres to the City. The southerly 2.5 acres is mostly wetland, though there is some dry. The City already has a conservation easement over the land, so it is protected whether the City owns it or not. There is only a very small drainage area that flows to this parcel. The only possible use would be to use the parcel as mitigation for filling wetland area somewhere else. Also, there is a portion that freezes and gets used as an ice rink. Moorse stated that typically the City does not ow n wetland areas. Gaffron stated that the City does not want to own w etlands. He stated that if it appeals to the Council, staff would find out if it is suitable for w etland mitigation before accepting the offer. Moorse slated that the Youngs would probably end up selling the entire 4.5 acre parcel together as one lot. Murphy moved, and Nygard seconded, to direct staff to thank the Youngs for their offer, but to decline the donation. \'ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor tmad MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere and Jim Murphy; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administtators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Oieg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Absent were Council Members Jay Nygard and Jim White Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. *1. Planning Commission Interviews Mayor Peterson welcomed the four of five applicants present for the interviews and invited the first applicant to be seated while the others remained in the lobby. Nancy Moc, Applicant - Sansevere asked what interested her in the Planning Commission alternate position. Moe, a resident of Orono since 1964, stated that she was very interested in how the land is used and would like to be a part of the process. Sansevere asked if she had experience in planning for other communities. Moe stated she did not. Sansevere asked if she had seen the Comprehensive Plan. Moe indicated she had not. Sansevere asked if she were to become an alternate would she be available or interested in becoming a regular member. Moe stated that she would be available. Murphy asked what she found attractive about Orono. Moe stated that she believes Orono is a gorgeous community, one they seldom leave even for vacation. It is accessible to the metropolitan area, has something for everyone, and the parks are beautiful. PAGE I of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. /. Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Murphy asked if she haa any concerns for the future. Moe indicated that her concern is to protect the assets of the community and still be consistent with the planning for the metropolitan area. Murphy asked if she had questions. Moe inquired whether alternates receive packets as well, or if they generally attend meetings to keep abreast of the issues. Gaflron noted that alternates do receive packets. While they arc not required to be present at meetings, Gaffron indicated that it is helpful for alternates to attend and become familiar with the issues the Commission is facing. S ansevere rsked if Moe had any preconceived notions of the roll. Moe stated that she would work to be consistent as possible. Sansevere questioned *.he acronyms of the organizations to which she belonged. Moe stated that AAUW stood for American Association of University Women, the PTSA was the PTA for Southvsest High School, and WAMSO w as the Women's Association of the Minnesota Orchestra. Sansevere pointed out that, on occasion, openings occur on the Park Commission and he asked if she were not chosen for the Planning Commission at this time, would she have interest in ser\ ing on the Park Commission at some point. Moe stated that she had familiarity with the City Council and Planning Commission, but would find that accep‘a»blc. Stephanie Zugschwet*?, Applicant • Murphy thanked her for coming and asked what she found attractive about the Orono area. Zugschwert stated that she felt Orono had many attributes, the country rural aspect, l.,e privacy, and the water or lakes within its boundaries. Murphy asked what she foresaw as future problems for Orono. PAGE 2 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. I, Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Zugschwert felt the biggest problems facing Orono were development and encroachment, as well as, water quality and ecology. Murphy asked how important it is to know the area. Zugschw'ert indicated that although she had not lived here long, she was familiar with the area since most of her family lives in Orono. She grew up in Minneapolis and was familiar with Orono growing up. Sansevere asked if she had experience with planning. Zugschwert stated that, while she was not familiar with plaiuiing, she has been involved with government at the state legislature level. Sansevere asked what was attractive about this position. Zugschwert stated that after stopping work several years ago, and since moving, she wanted to get involved once again and embed herself in the community. Sansevere asked if she had seen the Comp Plan for Orono or had any preconceived notions about the position. Zugschwert felt it would be important to weigh each proposal on its own merits based on the zoning ordinances. Sansevere asked if she had any conflicts attending meetings or if Park Commission openings occurred would she be interested if this does not work out. Zugschwert stated she would have no conflicts and would look at the Park Commission. Jule Hannaford, Applicant - Sansevere asked if the applicant had any problem w ith becoming a regular member if need be later. Hannaford stated that he has interest in the long term. Sansevere inquired as to what sparked his interest to serve on the Planning Commission. PAGE 3 of 35 j r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. 1. Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Hannaford indicated that he would like to give back to the community. We live here and want to see the quality of our community improve. Sansevere asked what he liked most, or least, about the course that Orono was taking. liannaford stated that he is very open minded and that his interest lies most in preserving a community with great residential and outdoor qualities. Murphy asked what quality of life means to him. Hannaford indicated that he would not have time to answer the question adequately, however, in his view, quality of life relates to living near the lake and using that resource, living near downtown, and wanting to preserve these things as the community grows and traffic impacts the area. Murphy agreed traffic to be an issue and asked what he would do about Highway 15. Hannaford acknowledged that there is too much traffic there, without a definite answer, he might try to divert it. With regard to density and zoning, Murphy asked how he would like to see Orono develop over the next 10-15 years. Hannaford stated he would like to see it develop slowly. Sansevere asked if a position on the Park Commission opened and this one did not w ork out, would he have interest in that. Hannaford stated that he would be willing to sit on the Park Commission. Rick Windenburg, Applicant - Having expressed interest on ser\ ing once before, Sansevere asked why the applicant had done so once again. Windenburg stated that he would like to become more invoU ed in the community and monitor the community expansion as well. Sansevere asked what he liked and disliked about Orono. PAGE 4 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. I. Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Windenburg stated that he cannot pinpoint an>'thing he doesn’t like about Orono and has the most issue with the LMCD. Some issues deal with dock rentals by individual homeowners. Sansevere inquired whether he would be interested in serving on the Park Commission if things don’t work out here or taking on a regular position on the Planning Commission. Windenburg stated as an alternate he would be willing to move into a permanent role on the Commission and attend some regular meetings in order to be up to date on the information being discussed. Murphy asked if, as someone in the building business, he was pleased w ith the rate of development in Orono. Windenburg stated that he owns a maintenance business, and is no longer in the building or inspection business. He felt the rate of development seemed to be going at a good pace and control needed to be maintained. Murphy asked what he felt the strengths of Orono to be Windenburg stated that the building department is veiy' helpful and knowledgeable. Murphy asked what his concerns for the future might be. Windenburg emphasized the need to stay with growth the City can handle, not too fast, CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 16A and B, 18, 19,21, and 22 were added to the Consent Agenda. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of July 8,2002 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 8,2002. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGh5of35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson, Representative Nothing new to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandra Smith, Representative Nothing new to report; however, would like to see the City Council appoint a new Vice Chair when ready. PUBLIC COMMENTS Michael Kuruvilla, 290 Ridgeview Drive. Wayzata, Director and owner of Orono Montessori School, he stated that as owner of Orono Montessori School, which lost its home w hen St. Andrews Church burned down this spring and had been temporarily located in Wayzata Community Church, they arc hoping to relocate to Highway 12 and County Road 6 August 1, 2002. Their current temporary’ location runs out on July 31.2002. The building they propose to occupy was previously run as a Little Acorns preschool, however, since vacant for more than si.\ months, he found out new papenvork needed to be filed when he stopped by City Hall. Mr. Kuruvilla stated that this past year has been very difficult for him and his students, fhey have a school, and children to think of. He urged the City Council to waive the lengthy paperwork in order for them to move in on August 1. GafTron confirmed Mr. Kuruvilla's statement, indicating that the building had been vacant for eight months. Built as a pre.school run by Open Arms and then Little Acorns, the .Montessori school proposed to occupy this space until the Church could rebuild. Since the previous CUP lapsed at six months, the new school will be required to file for a new CUP, however, the City Council would not be able to grant formal .approval for that CUP until its August 28th meeting, well after the Montessori school has lost its current lea.se. Gafiron indicated that the City- Council could allow the Montessori school to move in while they go through the CUP process. Galfron added that Lyle Oman had visited the building and saw no obvious problems with the CUP. He continued that this short-term use would be good for the community, the children, and, since the Church w ill be rebuilding over the next 1-2 years, this space oilers a good location for the school. In fact, Gaffron noted the Otten building will be taken as part of the Highway 12 expansion in 1-2 years anyway. Murphy questioned whether Gaffron foresaw any imminent reason to reject the CUP request. Gattron stated that this proposal provides a good potential short-term use for this facility, which unlortunately was caught up in the paperwork. Attorney Barrett reminded the Council that the ordinance states that the applicant must still go through the CUP process. Sanse\ere asked if they could allow the school to occupy the space while they were in process. PAGE 6 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Continued Barrett stated that while it could be allowed, the Council needs to make it clear that the permit could still be denied if something showed up unexpectedly. Sansevere indicated that, while emotionally he wanted to do what he could for the kids and the school, he needed to learn w'hat the legal suggestion would be. Barrett stated, once again, that tlie City Council had employed the right to waive the paperwork temporarily to allow the applicants to move in, but required the permit to be completed in a timely fashion. Murphy asked if staff could foresee any code problems. Gaffron indicated that the proposed Montessori School meets all the zoning requirements, the building allows 60 students, while the school has 56, they are not offering a school lunch program, there will be no changes to the facility, and the school found all conditions acceptable. Mr. Kuruvilla stated that all of the inspections are underway in order to meet the move in date of August 1,2002, and s,/ far the Fire Marshall and building inspections have been okay. Mayor Peterson stated that she had no problem allow ing them to move into the building in 10 days while they go through the CUP process. Murphy pointed out that the City finds itself in a unique situation and has been given tiie rare opportunity to do something for the kids. Murphy moved, to grant a temporary Conditional Use for the purpose of opening the Orono Montessori School pending approval of the formal process, with the understanding that if the City Council determines not to grant the permit this temporary use may be revoked. Mr. Kuruvilla asked under what condition the school might be asked to move. He reiterated that this past year had been very difficult, losing their home to arson and then being asked to move from a temporary location. He stated that they had been through quite a bit and would like to feel comfortable that they have found a semi-permanent location. Murphy indicated that it is the City Attorney’s job to look out for the City ’s interests, however, he believed the Council was committed to doing everything they could to lessen the burden for the school. Mayor Peterson seconded the motion. VOTE; Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 7 of 35 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *(#4) #02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4831 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4831, a Resolution granting hardcover variances in the 75-250’ zone and 250-500 ’ lakeshore zones, and variance to permit a 5 ’ setback where 10 ’ is required for the construction of a new 22’X34’ detached garage to replace an existing garage on the property located at 1447 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#5) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE - RENEWAL VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4832 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4832, approving variances and a conditional use permit for Hennepin County to construct a 7,200 s.f. salt and storage building and a stormwater management pond on the property' located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#6) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4833 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4833, a Resolution granting variances for lot area, lot width, and hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%, the Resolution also approves a 20’ w ide driveway and 60 s.f. sidewalk to the west-side entrance, to permit new construction on the property- located at 3490 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Aves 3, Navs 0. (#7) #02-2791 DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4834 Weinberger reported that the applicants have applied for variances to permit construction of a 24 X 24’ attached garage. The addition would include enclosed walkways intended to attach the proposed garage to the house. Variances are required to permit new structure and hardcover w ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshore and additional hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback. Previous variance applications for Rahn included; a 1997 variance to allow additional hardcover for an addition within the 75 ’ setback, since a finding made at that time found that a large portion of the center of the property was w ithin the floodplain, and a 1998 variance for a detached garage. Weinberger explained that in October 1998, Jim Hafner, a Technician for the MCWD. found that the property was not directly connected to the 100-year floodplain. PAGE 8 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. H02-279I DAVE AND JODIRAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission approved the application 6/0, subject to removal of the old driveway, stairway, and concrete walk. In the Planning Commission's opinion the property was fully developed. Staff observed that the new proposal was a net increase in overall hardcover of 866 s.f over that which exists, and 1106 s.f. over that which was allowed by previous approvals. Weinberger pointed out that the application is, essentially, an increase from 30% hardcover, where 25% is normally allowed, to 41.9% after even the removals recommended by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission and staff agree that an attached garage is a reasonable proposal, staff was unclear w hy the Planning Commission did not require that the existing detached garage be removed in order to keep hardcover on the site at a minimum level. Staff recommended approval of the variances for the new addition per Planning Commission ’s recommendation, but given the history of the property, questioned w hether there was valid hardship for allowing the existing 400 s.f. garage and 80 s.f of apron to remain. Sansevere observed that stall had used strong language in its recommendation, and questioned Sandra Smith, Planning Commission Representative, what transpired at the last meeting with regard to this application. Smith stated that the 6/0 vote came after lengthy discussion, and reworking of the hardcover percent, after removals, to 25.3% within the 75*250' setback. The Commission found this acceptable, especially in light of the floodplain findings of 1998. The Commission ’s view was that because the City had told the applicant of the floodplain, they rushed into development, and did not propose what they might have had the floodplain not been there. Rahn added that the walkway between the house and existing garage are actually mulch. He pointed out that he is below the 15% allowed structural coverage and not looking for a structural coverage variance. The home, with 168 s.f of small decks, has no concrete patios, and no need for structural coverage variances. Rahn maintained that the only applicable variance is the one proposed for additional hardcover. He stated that in 1997 they were limited in design by what they thought w as a floodplain, and that is w hy the home is on one side of the lot and the garage on the other. Sansevere asked stafl if the original garage had been attached and the applicant was asking for a 24X24 ’ addition to that garage, how would staff have handled that and would it still have been a hardcover issue. Weinberger stated that there would still be a hardcover issue. In fact, to clarify the hardcover, the 25.3% hardcover was for the entire lot, and you are allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback, so PAGH9of35 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (U7) #02-2791 DA VEAND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued actually, the area as proposed is about 41%. To answer the question, would stafThave supported this, there are other approvals in the neighborhood that have more hardcover than this lot, with somewhat recent approvals within the past five years. However, in most of those cases the property owners did not actually increase the amount of hardcover on their property, but instead were likely allowed to trade existing hardcover, that existed prior to the ordinances, in order to tradc-ofl lor new hardcover, i his said. Weinberger stated that staff would not necessarily have recommended approval just because they did not have 15% structural coverage. Weinberger maintained that hardcover and massing are important elements to think about, because if every lot were allowed to develop to 15%, there would be no need for the hardcover ordinance. Murphy asked why, in past variances, were they told in such strong language they could not have any additional hardcover ever. Murphy asked how the applicant planned to use the existing garage that would become a shed. Rahn indicated that it was his intention to remove the existing driveway. The garage would maintain its overhead door and likely become storage for a car or boat. Green space or mulch would occupy the space where the driveway had been and they would bring the boat or car out a couple of times a year. 1 le stated that the driveway was class 5 and would likely be difficult to remove even after digging down three feet, but they would do so. Murphy asked if class 5 was considered hardcover. Weinberger stated that class 5 is considered hardcover, if it is driven on and compacted by vehicles. The applicant would be required to remove the class 5 and replace it with grass. Murphy asked if the garage w ould still be considered a garage and hardcover as a function of the applicants continued use. lie questioned whether the City allows a garage to sit in the middle of a property w ith no bituminous roadway to it, but allow' access to it, and the access not be considered hardcover. Weinberger stated that these exist, as in the case of pole buildings. The idea is that if the building does not have a driveway, the City has not considered it a garage and it has not been a concern. With the situation on this property, and in past histoiy , where you have a garage that looks like a garage, the City has found that people will tend to plow them in winter and use them as driveways and garages. That would be staffs concern. He noted that if the building were actually converted to something else, without a garage door, that would eliminate that concern. Murphy asked why it was stated that no additional hardcover shall ever be allowed. PAGE 10 of 35 MIIVUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (i*7) H02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD-VARIANCES- Continued Mayor Peterson slated that although she was present at those meetings, she remembers most vividly the discussions of 1998. She believed that when he last came before the Council there was an animated discussion with regard to the detached garage around the floodplain. She had voted in favor of the additional hardcover for the detached garage in 1998, with the stipulation that she would not allow any more hardcover on that property. She stated she would stick to that position tonight and not vote in favor of what he was proposing. She stated that she would be more agreeable to his proposal if he were removing the existing garage and driveway, and replacing it with the new garage attached to the home. Rahn asked to explain what he believed happened, with regard to the approvals, but first, he reminded the Council that he had not been the one to consider this property in the floodplain, but it was the City that had determined it on their topography map. The City had informed him it was a floodplain, which is one reason he had been limited in obtaining his 15% structural coverage. The other reason, he believed, was that the property was presented as a minimum square foot lot. The house and lot were planned at 1490 s.f., to fall under the 1500 s.f. allowance, when in fact, Rahn maintained the lot should be allowed 2200 s.f. He stated that the lot next door was built just last year and was allowed 700 s.f. more hardcover on a lot that is 2000 s.f smaller than his. Rahn disagreed with Mayor Peterson ’s position that she did not support his proposal, when in his view, there were totally new findings since 1997 -1998 with regard to the floodplain. If this were a 1500 s.f property, Rahn felt the approvals and limits made sense, however. Rahn maintained that the property should have been viewed as 2200 s.f in light of the new' findings. He asked what part of the zoning ordinance he was missing w hich limits structural coverage beyond the 15%. Mayor Peterson maintained that she did not think they were talking structural coverage, but hardcover. Rahn stated that they were asking him to remove structural coverage and not hardcover. Mayor Peterson stated that her issue was with the fact that they have more than 25.3% hardcover. Rahn pointed out that, if the issue was hardcover, the City should take a look at his neighbors. 1 he new next door home to the south was allowed a total lot cover of 23.5%, almost a full % more than he was proposing at 22.6%. He maintained that, in fact, if he took the same percents that were allowed on the lot next to him. and used them on his lot he would be allowed 34.45%, when what he is proposing is 3 1.4%. The home across the street was allowed 29.8% total lot hardcover, whereas this is proposed at 22.6%. He added that the home down from him was allowed both 31.4% cover and to exceed his structural cover by 500 s.f, when in fact, the lot is smaller than his by 1500 s.f and has 700 s.f moie hardcover. He stated it was never indicated during any of the meetings he attended that the neighbor’s proposal had excessive coverage. PACK II of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (H7) H02-279J DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- Continued With this in mind, Rahn stated that, frankly, the strong language used in his approvals surprised him as well in comparison. If anyone shouk' have been allowed more hardcover or structural coverage, Rahn maintained that it should have been his lot. As stated in the ordinance, hardcover limits are set to stop the rapid runoff of water, his lot has the required low-lying area to catch the runoff properly. He believed that the home ne.xt door and his, truly, should have been Hip flopped with regard to what should have been allowed. Rahn continued that the homes next door and across the street tower above his in mass by 20’. He could not understand why he had been allowed a mere 1000 s.f footprint, w hile all of the homes around him had been allowed to tower above his. He stated that what he was hearing from the Council was that he would not be allowed the structural coverage that everyone has and more. Rahn reiterated that he would like to be allowed the same rights as his neighbors. He stated that because he has nothing else to remove from his property, no excessive hardcover, porches or patios, the City is now asking him to remove structural coverage. Murphy stated that he did not feel he was asking the applicant to change the existing shed, but now that he ’s been told that they plan to use it as a ^ ..rage, he questions the applicant's intentions. Rahn stated that the shed would be used in that regard. His intention is to keep the shed for storage, storage of snowmobiles, boats, whatever is necessaiy. Now the City is telling him that he eannot store his propeity there or drive on his lawn. He indicated that he pulis on the lawn to wash his car and that is not considered a driveway. Sansevere asked if there were any change in staff s position after hearing Rahn ’s statement. Weinberger stated that there was not necessarily any change in staffs position, and maintained that when some of the previous approvals were done and these homes were allowed to go up a certain percentage, they often had to remove hardcover to do so. Mr. Rahn seems to be requesting to be allowed 1 5% lot coverage and whatever hardcover is necessary to support it. Weinberger noted that the neighboring lot the applicant referred to had included the combination of two lots and removed driveways etc.; he agreed the current home docs exceed 15% and hardcover limits. einberger asked if Council’s position is going to be that eveiy one is allowed up to 15% of their lot area to be structure, regardless of the hardcover impacts. Sansevere asked if the neighbor w ould have more hardcover than he does if the shed remains. Rahn stated that the neighbor is at 23.5% and he is at 22.6%. Rahn maintained that his lot is larger than the neighbors, but yet the neighbor has been allowed more than he has. Rahn reiterated that for a long period of time this lot was view ed as a 10,000 s.f. lot, due to the PAGE 12 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#7) H02-2791 DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES^ Continued floodplain, when in fact it is a 15,000 s.f. lot, and one of the largest lots on the street. Me repeated that, in comparison to the most recent variance, he should be allowed at least what the next door neighbor had been given. Murphy asked if the applicant had water problems or if water accumulates on his property. Rahn stated that in heavy rains, the water ponds near the lake. During heavy periods they have been able to pump the water into the lake. The water near the garage runs down the gutters, goes thru the drain tile, and is sent dowm the street. GafiVon pointed out that anything removed needs to be filled with dirt and grass, and reiterated that the issue Council is dealing with here is purely the issue of hardcover, it has nothing to do with lot coverage. Lot coverage is not a privilege, it is a limit you are held to, 15 % on a lot less than two acres. You are also limited by percentage of hardcover, and are not guaranteed 15% lot coverage at the expense of having hardcover in the range of 30-40%. There may be a number of applications that fly in the face of that. He questioned whether Council were comfortable with increasing from 30% to 41-42% hard surface in the combined 0-75' and 75-250’ setbacks. Galfron stated that the applicant made a valid point that if all his drainage runs to a spot on his property where it has to soak into his property he is probably meeting the ultimate intent of the hardcover ordinance. The City needs to keep in mind the original intent of the approvals, the applicant has come to the City asking to add an attached garage, but let me keep the old one. From staff perspective, this is adding hardcover that is perhaps unnecessary and could be mitigated by adding more storage space by making the attached garage addition a little bit bigger. Gaffron stated that not removing the existing garage, seemed inconsistent witli what the intent of the City's hardcover ordinance had been in the past. Rahn asked if the Council was requesting that he remove the overhead door and limit the garage to storage of things that could not be driven in. Although that would be Murphy ’s recommendation. Mayor Peterson stated that she would rather see the structure removed. Rahn asked why he would tear down 800 s.f of garage only to be replaced with a 20’X20’ new garage. He would be giving up significant storage space Rahn reiterated that had the flocdpiain designation not existed, the house wo rld likely been moved to different location, or rebaih elsewhere w ith an attached garage versus the detached garage. Sansevere empathized w ith the applicant ’s position, asking whether the Council should take the floodplain designation into account when considering this application. He believ’ed the detached garage was built in its current location due to the floodplain concerns. PAGE13of35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (»7) U02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- Continued Rahn insisted that he had supplied the City with new findings with regard to the floodplain to support his application for the attached garage and urged the Council to factor this into their consideration. When he first applied for variances, it was the City's own topo map that indicated the floodplain, therefore, he designed his proposal around that feature. He asked what would lead him to question the City’s topo map, he believed the City had supplied him with accurate information. Only when he looked into purchasing flood insurance and invited the MCWD to look more closely at his property, did he learn that there was obviously no connection to the lake, which coupled with the elevation did not equate to a floodplain. He questioned whether it should be the resident’s responsibility to challenge the City's resources. Sansevere asked staff it there had ever been any precedent set where a resident had built using misinformation, and if so, what had been done to right the situation. Gaffron stated that he had reviewed the minutes from the 1997 and 1998 meetings, and argued that the application started out as an addition and rebuild. He questioned the intent of leaving the home in its current location all along. Rahn argued that he had looked into otlier possibilities, bu' once he had learned of the floodplain delineation, why would he have proposed the house in a location the City would not have allowed him to build. Rahn questioned why he would have ever been willing to swap the high ground for the low' ground, thinking there was a floodplain. Weinberger asked what prompted Rahn to contact Hafner of the MCWD. Rahn repeated that he had begun to investigate the need for flood insurance and found out that the elevation alone did not define floodplain. He questioned how the lloodplain delineation was never resolved back when City staff visited the property. Rahn could not understand w hy staff didn’t make the connection when they walked the property back in 1997, Sansevere asked for Administrator Moorse’s comments. Moorse stated that first it was an addition to a small cabin, and then the applicant needed a detached garage, both of w hich ma.\ed out the hardcover. Now the applicant would like a second garage without removing the existing garage. Sansevere asked, once again, if the misinformation about the floodplain should be factored in or if this w as germane. While it makes sense to allow the attached garage, Moorse questioned the hardship for keeping the other garage. PAGE 14 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (»7) U02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- Continued Rahn stated that the hardship was the hazardous condition backing out of the driveway created. Sansevere asked what the hardship was for keeping the existing garage. Rahn stated that, up until the very last minute of the 1998 meeting, Rahn had believed that he had an additional 1000 s.f. At the last minute, Gaffron asked that hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback be added to the 75-250’ hardcover when factoring hardcover. Rahn pointed out that the home meets the average iakeshore setback and at that moment, he lost 1000 s.f. Murphy questioned why the City ever allowed the garage to be put where it was if it were in such a dangerous position. Obviously, the garage was placed there to avoid the floodplain, but Murphy asked why it was moved up the hill. Rahn stated that they moved the garage to the top of the hill in order to allow for storage underneath. Sansevere asked if the current garage is still considered impractical and unsafe. Rahn indicated that the garage/shed would be used for storage. There is a definite lack of storage on this property, and in this area, he questioned how he could remove the garage or make it unusable when it was valuable space. Valuable space that many smaller neighboring lots have been allowed. Rahn asked if he could change his proposal by removing the proposed driveway and calling the proposed garage, simply, an addition instead, whereby keeping the old garage. He stated that it is the need for a new lengthier driveway, which puts him over on the hardcover, not the structure itself. Mayoi Peterson asked how this would affect his hardcover in the 0-75 ’ and 75-250' setback, respectively. Weinberger noted that they would lose 2’ in the 0-75 ’ setback (19.5%) and the 75-250’ setback where it is at 16% now, would be at 25.3%, an increase of 703 s.f. Rahn stated that he could supply them w ith comps from across the street if the Council w as interested. Sansevere asked staff w here there was consistency, by allowing the shed to remain would they be consistent, or would this be precedent setting. PAGE 15 of 35 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (H 7) U02-279! DA VEAND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Rahn stated that this is an unusual case, one that you might see once in 20 years. GafTron maintained that the City had typically held people to 25% in rebuilds in most cases. While they had gotten away from the 25% figure for a time, over recent years the Council has been much more strict. He stated that, obviously, they were not as strict on the neighbor next door, however there are nuances and exceptions to ever>' application. Since his comment from the minutes became part of the resolution, Gaffron felt it would be in the City’s best interests to see the 20’X20’ garage disappear. Consistency, in this case, must rely on replacing the old garage with the new garage. Murphy asked if the new garage addition could be reconfigured to add additional storage space that might be lost by removing the old garag.. Rahn stated that it would be difficult to build enough space into the addition to justify the removal of the two-story garage. Sansevere questioned why, or whether, the City had been more lenient on his neighbors than they had on him. Gaffron stated that, if forced to address that question, he would have to say that considering what was given to the applicant ’s immediate next door neighbors, the City is being more strict on Mr. Rahn than what past Councils might have been. Rahn argued that he had presented the City with a huge finding with regard to the floodplain that affected more than 1/3 of his property. He stated that this originally was a rebuild, but even so, it met and meets the average lakeshorc setback. Murphy asked Rahn, as a Planning Commissioner, whether he would have approved this application. Rahn stated that he would have done so. Afte.' looking at the 15% lot coverage, the Commission t>'pically looks at the existing footprint and how alterations can occur with the least minimum impact. Murphy asked if the 25.3 % hardcover figure reflected the removal of the driveway. Gaffron maintained that the 25% in the 75-250' has no relevance to the total lot. The applicant is not allowed 25% coverage of his total lot, he is allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback, minus what he has in the 0-75 ’ setback, based on old resolutions. All that the removal of the existing driveway from the 20x20’ garage does is reduce the hardcover down to something that could be PAGE 16 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (» 7) U02-2791 DA VE AND JODI KAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued reasonable. Gaffron stated that it is up to the Council to decide where he has met the reasonable standard and because the City has been inconsistent within the past few years with what it did the past 15 years before that, it was difficult in his mind to treat this as something that happened two years ago when there were commitments made on it five years ago. Rahn asked how the City could look at he and his neighbor's lot, which is a couple of hundred s.f. less than his, and say that he was not being held to a higher standard than they were. Mayor Peterson asked for clarification whether the project had started out as a rebuild or a renovation. Gaffron noted that this started out as a renovation and came back in as a rebuild. Rahn stated that, what it boiled down to. was that there was not much left worth saving, and the foundation would have required a great deal of engineering. Gaffron stated that it was concluded at that time that there was no other place to put a house, so they were told to go ahead and finish it off rebuilding it in the present location without a garage. A year later the City was asked to allow them to build a detached garage out of the floodplain on the hill with a short driveway that minimized hardcover etc. Sansevere asked if the applicant was still operating under the misinformation. Gaffron stated that they were. Since then, now that they have learned the floodplain is no longer floodplain, he has proposed a new driveway and new garage, that in the City's mind replaces what was approved in 1998, but he is not willing to remove that in e.xehange, due to storage and value it has to him. Gaffron pointed out that the question remains, is the applicant over in hardcover and are there things that could be removed. It would be consistent to remove things that are considered excess hardcover. If the Council concludes that the 20X20* garage itself is not excess hardcover, or although precedent setting, he could mitigate the impacts of runoff from the garage structure by letting it soak into the low spot in the ground that doesn't get directly to the lake but gets filtration before it gets there, then there is some logic in leaving it there. Sansevere stated that he was grappling with the fact that the garage was put there based on information about the floodplain. Now with new information, the applicant is trying to relocate near the house, where it would have appropriately been put originally, had they not believed it were a floodplain. Rahn stated that he was correct. PAGE 17 of35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 O'clock p.m. (#7) U02-2791 DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Sansevcre stated that the applicant went to an expense and a cost based on the information he was supplied with. If it had stayed a floodplain, the applicant would not even be here today. Rahn reiterated that the whole design in concept would have been different from what has been done, if the floodplain had not been there. Me stated that, quite obviously, they had planned cveiy thing around the floodplain and were bound by it. Sansevere asked what the Planning Commission felt with regard to the floodplain. Smith indicated that the floodplain became an integral part of their discussion. In fact, she stated that her closing comments were that the Commission had learned quite a bit about floodplains in this application and will hopefully not have to face this difficulty again, but will have a better understanding if they do. While it didn ’t resolve this applicant’s particular situation, she stated that it was part of their discussion. Sansevere stated that, while he might not have voted to allow the additional 20X20 ’ garage today had he been granted the attached garage back in 1996, the fact that he built the existing garage based on information he was given from the City, added a gray area for his consideration. Weinberger stated that because he had limited hardcover to work with in 1998, this was another reason the garage and short driveway were built in that location to begin with. Weinberger contended had they looked at the position of the drivew ay today, they may have reconsidered its location due to the difficulty in maneuvering. Sansevere questioned the City Attorney if it would be out of line to use the gray area pertaining to the misinformation when considering this application, or should he put this issue completely aside and only consider the hardcover issue of keeping this garage. Legally it may have nothing to do with the fact that, because he was given bad information, the garage was put there in the first place. Barrett stated that the floodplain argument might distinguish a decision from other ones, but the question of whether the garage should be removed or not, with respect to hardcover, is one that offers a pretty strong argument, and one that has been adhered to in order to keep to hardcover limits. Legally if you do decide to do it, you could cite the floodplain error as the reason. Otherwise Barrett suggested they require the old garage be removed before the new one is built with regard to hardcover, and not structural coverage. Rahn stated that the Planning Commission only recently approved a hardcover variance across the street from him. PAGE 18 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. m (U7) #02-2791 DA VE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Barrett stated that he was unfamiliar with the application, but guessed there might have been some mitigating factors that allowed those variances. Mayor Peterson asked, with regard to consistency, whether at some point couldn ’t everyone in the City come back and say you let my neighbor do this twenty years ago. Weinbeigcr noted that he had looked at approximately six neighboring properties, and noticed that in most cases there were mitigating factors. Rahn stated that although the Council was aware of the neighboring properties, the question remains whether the City will allow 15% structural coverage when you have minimal hardcover. He stated that he could have drawn the application with excessive hardcover in order to allow them to have something to remove, but he didn't do that. He felt that he drew the plan based on the bare minimum, which was where the struggle was, there isn't really an>ihing for the City to remove other than structural coverage, which goes back to his argument that it is the structural coverage that he believed he is short on. The footprint on the house is barely 10,000 s.f., whereas the neighbor’s home is towering above him right off the property line on a smaller lot than his. Originally he was approved to do some remodeling and realized that the work required much more, Weinberger questioned what impact the floodplain had on his decisions. Had he known the floodplain did not exist, and he needed to move the home further from the lake, would that have been a consideration for him. It would have reduced hardcover to do that. Rahn stated that had they known this, even though it met the a\ erage lakeshore setback, they would have likely moved the home 20’ back, so as not to be crowding the lakeshore, and had an attached garage. Rahn stated that to not consider the floodplain debate an issue would be unfair, since it is obvious that the floodplain impacted the whole design. Murphy stated that he struggled with the value of tearing down the shed, although he found the hardcover issue compelling. In exchange for leaving the existing shed, from his position, Murphy was inclined to leave the shed and invite Rahn to come back with a reconfigured shed, unusable as a garage, but still valuable storage area, with the overhead door and hardcover around it removed. Sansevere asked how this would impact hardcover. Rahn suggested removing the apron, a mere 100 s.f. PAGE 19 of 35 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.nt. (U7) U02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- Continued Sanscvere asked if this would be acceptable to staff. Gaffron acknowledged that this slightly affects hardcover. Murphy stated that this is the nearest compromise Rahn will get. If the floodplain issue had not been part of the equation, Murphy stated that he would have supported staffs resolution. Sansevere stated that he still grappled with the floodplain issue. Rahn questioned whether it was Council’s intention to maintain a 10,000 s.f. standard for a nearly 14,000 s.f piece of properly and literally just have the footprint of the house and maintain the 25% hardcover, that seems unrealistic. He maintained that, over the past five years, the City had not denied lots their 15% structural coverage. There may have been applications that have come in that have not requested their full 15%. He questioned whether an applicant should be penalized for not building their lot up to its potential the first time through. Mayor Peterson agreed that they should not be penalized, but this situation has to do with the hardcover issue. Again, Rahn slated that the lot next door has a higher percent of total lot hardcover that drains into the lake. His lot has a lesser percent of hardcover, that’s held in a storage area, which a section in the zoning code encourages ponding. While he could not identify the section, he reiterated that the code encourages just what he has, water storage areas. Mayor Peterson asked if Rahn were not agreeable to going back and coming back w ith a redesigned garage. Sansevere questioned whether the City encourages its residents to sump pump water into the lake. Rahn indicated that sump pumping does occur. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4834 granting variances to allow an attached garage and walkway to the existing residence, with the conditions that the existing garage be reconfigured in such a way, to City staffs satisfaction, that it will not sen e as a garage, but as storage only. Furthermore, all runoff from this 400 s.f of hardcover w ill be directed to the low level area of the property where it will be allowed to soak in, and finally, all existing hardcover around the building will be removed to City’s satisfaction. PAGE 20 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#7) M02-279J DA VE AND JODI RAHN, I3S5 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Rahn if this would be acceptable. Rahn felt he could at least work with staff to make it feasible. Sansevere asked how diHlcult this decision will make other decisions and applications that come before the Council when residents cite this property, for instance, in order to be held to a different standard. He questioned whether they could site the floodplain misinformation in the resolution and wondered how many more of these cases there might be. Gaffron maintained that this property is unique. Barrett suggested that the two things they have cited, which arc the rerouting of the water via ponding without sump pumping into the lake, together with the conclusion that the hardcover is going to be varied here in view of the error with respect to the floodplain, those tw o circumstances help mildly distinguish the result. Weinberger indicated that there arc always going to be unique circumstances. Smith asked if more hardcover lends to the dilemma of accumulating w ater in the water collection area. Rahn stated, as indicated in the code, that a suitable level of ponding w ould be required to manage floodplain management. Sansevere had further concern w ith regard to sump pumping. Weinberger stated that between now and the August 12th meeting Rahn and staff w ill need to determine how much runoff will head to the low area, what the capacity is, and if it is determined there is too much capacity, then there might be a hardcover issue. Weinberger noted that the resolution could be contingent on the results of this evaluation. Sans, .re stated that he based his vote solely on the misinfomiation about the floodplain V OTE: Ayes 2, Nays 1, IVlayor Peterson dissenting for rcai.i<iis cited earlier. PAGE 21 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#8) #02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES As Council was familiar with the background for this application, Weinberger indicated that he would share with them the findings since the last meeting. Weinberger reported that this item was tabled by the City Council on July 8.2002, at the request of Mr. Stephenson to allow his consultants to review the location of the wetland boundaiy. Ron Peterson, of Peterson Environmental, was hired by the property owner to do the wetland delineation and analysis. Weinberger noted that Mr. Peterson acknowledged that there had been areas on the property where an encroachment on the 26* wetland buffer occurred, however. Weinberger did not have copies of the report in time to include them in the packets. According to the most recent findings, Weinberger stated that Mr. Peterson depicted the wetland delineation further to the east than that of the December report. Although they were waiting for verification by MCWD, Weinberger believed the analysis to be accurate due to the December snow cover. Weinberger pointed out that, previously, it looked as if the entire width of the property had impacted the buffer zone. If the new delineation is accurate, only the mid point, 300 s.f., was truly effected. He added that due to settling, the slope is closer to the approved 3:1 slope. Weinberger indicated that the property owner had installed all the vegetation for erosion control on the actual grade, including grasses appro.ximately 1 * tall that have been reestablished from the end of the yard to the buffer zone area. He stated that when he recently visited the property, he counted appro.ximately 18 trees planted in the back yard so far averaging a height of 10-12*. W'einberger stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application on a 6/0 vote to permit an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for land alteration within 26 ’ of the wetland, the denial included any alteration beyond the previously approved elevations. As the slope is closer to a 3:1 slope, the minor impact to the wetland buffer is a mere 300 s.f. Weinberger stated that there arc four options for City Council to consider; approving the application as is w ith the addition of extensive planting and screening for neighbors; approve an amendment to the conditional use permit requiring the applicant to remove any fill that had been added w ithin 26 ’ of the wetland and move the hill back; approve a combination of option 1 and 2; or deny the application and require the finished grades to match the approvals granted in the original Conditional Use Permit. Upon meeting with Mr. Peterson at the site last week, Weinberger stated that Rene Schubert of MCW D was present. Tliey had talked about, it the grades were appro\ed as thev e.xist, staff would recommend that there would be fairly intensive vegetation plantings on the property and hillside. While the grasses work pretty well for erosion control, Weinberger contended that PAGE 22 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. m m-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD -AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued additional trees would certainly help the erosion control issue and give a more natural appearance to the area and also recommended more intense plantings in the flat area leading to the neighbors. He reminded the applicant, however, that if any plantings would be considered that go over neighbor boundaries, they need to get consent from those individual neighbors. This might help to mitigate some of the concerns that need to be addressed. Weinberger explained that part of the problem is that they have z conditional use permit approval, which approv ed a certain grading plan. He asked if the Council would have felt any differently, if back in 2001, the applicant came in and said “I would like to do this, but I don’t want to leave the large gulleys that are left, or areas where v ou are going to have low spots on the sides of the hill, but rather I would like to tie those elevations in to existing elevations on neighboring properties.” Weinberger asked if Council might have approved that application, and indicated that staff probably would have supported such a proposal, because by connecting existing contours to neighboring contours, it has created drainage areas that follow the property line versus keeping the drainage pooling on the property. Mr. Peterson stated that since his meeting with Weinberger and Schubert on Friday, he had supplied the City with data sheets and letter as to the revised delineation. He had also performed a GPS delineating the locations and boundaries from both before and after the project. He handed out the GPS data and reminded the Council that the original delineation was done in December, when snow covered the ground. He noted that the line, for the most part, was located further to the east except right in the center portion where the encroachment occurred. Sansevere asked when the aerial was taken. Peterson stated that it was taken in 2000, before any alteration occurred. Sansevere stated that, apparently, the neighbors on either side have indicated they were satisfied with the work, while there is one neighbor where there seems to be some conflict. Although it would not be up to the neighbor what Council decides. San.severc asked if any of these scenarios would seem acceptable to attorney Galatz’s client, Mr. Chalfen. Mr. Galatz stated that, what his client would expect, is that the plan would revert to what was originally approved in 2001. With respect to extensive planting. Galatz asked what the City considered extensive to be. He maintained that what he saw planted, mere 10’ tall trees, wis insufficient. He felt that Mr. Chalfen had no objection to the gulleys if the neighbors like them, however, Chalfen does object to the fact that Stephenson pulled the crest of his hill into the wetland an extra 30’ be>ond what was approv ed. By doing so, he created the gulleys and was forced to widen the fill. Galatz argued that there was nothing accidental about this application. PAGE 23 of 35 L______ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#8) H02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD -AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued Sanscvcre asked if the possibility existed to come to a resolution that every one could be satisfied with. He was hesitant to inconvenience the neighborhood further and disturbing the wetland further by requiring eveiything to be removed. He wished that the neighbor, Mr. Chalfen, were present personally to discuss the issue. Murphy stated that there was, obviously, no denying that the project got out of control. He suggested that Mr. Stephenson bring in a plan to reconstitute the forest without going back and ripping it all out. Galatz argued that Mr. Stephenson would never have been allowed to do what he has done. He had brought in twice as much fill as allowed, and extended his yard by 38’. Stephenson stated that the new drawings have indicated that he had encroached by a much smaller degree than originally thought. Murphy interrupted and asked Mr. Stephenson what he planned to do about it and what he proposed to do for mitigation. Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be willing to plant whatever he could get down the hill, which would be somewhat limited by the grade itself. He added that he would restore the bufler even more than he had encroached with oaks, birch, apple trees, etc., far better than the buckthorn he had removed. This would only improve the situation for the wetland. He maintained that what had been planted, thus far, was as big as they could manually get down the hill, a tree spade simply could not make it. He indicated that he would be willing to work with staff, his neighbors, Mr. Chalfen. and the City Council to accomplish this. He stated that what he has planted, thus far, is beautiful and full of native flowers, grasses, and trees. He indicated that he would be willing to plant whatever Mr. Peterson, an expert in reconstructive buffers, suggested and believed it to be a mistake to tear it up. Sansevere asked staff w here they were with regard to this proposal of adding additional plantings. Weinberger stated that stalT would be comfortable with that. He pointed out that what has been planted, and removed, has been positive for the wetland. The buckthorn was removed and poor unhealthy growth on the south side was replaced with new \egetation. He agreed with the applicant that the size of the trees would be limited by what could be brought down the hill, however, he would recommend additional plantings, trees, and understory growth. Murphy asked how the City could ensure that this happens. PAGE 24 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (U8) H02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued Mr. Stephenson volunteered the suggestion that the City hold his $5,000 in account until they would be satisfied w ith the project. Sansevere stated that it would be nice if Mr. Chaifen could come to see the Council for himself. Galatz maintained that his client should not have to be here. Mr. Chaifen was the one who was inconvenienced by the modifications and is forced to view a hump 8’ higher than what was approved, rather than the forest he so enjoyed. Sansevere reiterated that the City was attempting to make a compromise, and asked if Mr. Galatz had been authorized to do so for Mr. Chaifen. Galatz indicated that if the hump were 8’ lower and covered w ith plantings and trees far bigger than those presently being planted, which would take 50-60 years to mature, that might be acceptable. Sansevere asked staff if there was a mandate in the original application requiring the applicant to plant his hill, was he bound to do what we arc now asking. Galatz contended that there was a landscape plan submitted with the application. Weinberger pointed out that there were no tree preser\ ation mandates included in the application. Sansevere explained to Galatz that if the City requires Mr. Stephenson to remove the fill and return the hill to its original location, Mr. Chaifen may be even worse off than he is now. Sansevere maintained that if the hill w ere completely removed, the applicant would not be required to plant any additional trees. Not only would Mr. Chaifen have lost his original view, he would be in worse shape. Weinberger stated that the applicant, in the original proposal, would have been required to add approximately 12 trees with no real size requirement. Sansevere asked about screening or if the applicant was incumbent to put a certain number of trees on the hump. Since no tree preser\'ation requirement really exists, Sansevere argued that, if Chaifen forces the applicant to shave back the hill, there might not be any trees at all Galatz indicated that his client would like the hill to go back to what w’as approv ed and not wony about the screening becau.se it would grow back. PAGE 25 of 35 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (»8) 802-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - A FTER- THE-FA CT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued Sansevere asked how this could be acceptable if Mr. Chalfen ’s biggest objection is the lack of screening. He wondered how it would grow back without being planted. Galatz stated that in terms of what it would take to satisfy his client, Galat/ argued that it is not okay to break the law and then ask for permission. He believed this to be a bad precedent for the City. His client insists that the applicant do what the City told him he could do, and nothing more, even if that means restoring the hill and wetland. Sansevere asked if staff was uncomlL*lable with what is existing. Galatz stated that even in its most leni-mt r*.commendation, staff asks for some extent of modification. Assuming that Mr. Peterson ’s wetland delineation is c,.rrect, Weinberger stated that staffs recommendation is that there be no fill w ithin 26 ’ of the wetland and that slopes don ’t exceed 3:1. Weinberger pointed out that thru settling the slope might get to 3:1 and questioned whether it would be worth making the modification to the whole hill for 300 s.f. impact. He stated that the question now' is whether the further environmental impact on the wetland is worth miticatine for 300 s.f. Murphy indicated that the longer the process goes on the luckier Mr. Stephenson looks. I he slope is settling to 3:1 etc. In his view, the City has a couple of real options available. He would propose that they always have the fall back option 1. to remove and undo everything he did. but doesn t solve much. Option 2, allows the applicant to come back with an actual landscape desien that would incorporate everything that we have talked about, and although Mr. Chalfen would ^ not have final authorization on it. Murphy would like to invite him to review the plan, as well as. his attorney, stall, and Council. The fall back position is always present, but he felt it would behoove the interested parties to consider other options. Galatz maintained that Stephenson had already been allowed six months, and the City continues to allow him more and more time to get further into it. Sansevere stated that t''cy were attempting to acquiesce to his client ’s concerns. If issues had not been raised at the last meeting, Sansevere indicated that they might have been done with this already. Murphy contended that he drove out to Mr. Chalfen ’s property and sat in the driveway, and was hard pressed to see how awlul this is. I his being summer. Murphy recognized that the view might be somewhat difl'erent in the winter but not necessarily to the degree Galatz asserts. Murphy reiterated that every one w as well aware of the baseline, and w ould like to give the PAGE 26 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO Cn Y COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (H8) U02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - A FTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued applicant another shot at making it work. Murphy indicated that he would prefer not to make the applicant remove it all. Galatz stated that he would appreciate reviewing the landscape plan. Sansevere repeated that the Council is striving to be sensitive to the neighbor’s concern. Gappa noted that the 60 day deadline would be August 9,2002. Weinberger stated that an extension would be needed. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to table Application #02-2793, Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, at the request of the applicant pending a landscape design to be reviewed by sta^ and neighbors. Sansevere suggested Mr. Stephenson make a point of talking to his neighbor, Mr. Chalfen, about the design. Peterson stated that he anticipated the issue would be tabled, and staled that he would work with the applicant on a design. Although everyone is aware that the project got carried away, Murphy suggested Mr. Stephenson do anything he can about it and include lots of green, trees, plants, etc. Galatz stated that, in his opinion, the wetland variance issue was separate from the hill. Stephenson indicated that he was willing to do what he could. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#9) #02-2796 MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD • VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4835 Ms. Kosek stated that she and her husband have one issue with the proposed resolution. The rock wall surrounds a red maple tree and the applicant was concerned about the tree, tree roots and erosion as a result of removing the rock:. The portion that loops around the tree constitutes approximately 20 s.f. Engineer Kellogg .stated that he visited the site and also had concern about the tree, but felt with topsoil and addit'onal grading the tree could be fine. On the other hand, Kellogg suggested Council could allow the 7-foot boulder wall to remain. PAGE 27 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (U9) U02-2796 MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - Continued Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4835, requiring the removal of the shed in the 0-75* setback, removal and sodding o\ er of the southern driveway, removal of stone borders and unnecessary boulder w alls with the exception of the 7’ boulder wall around the red maple, the allowance for a 2’ X 60 ’ sidewalk from drive to front door, and granting approval for additional hardcover in the 75-250’ setback /one at 4,992 s.f.. for the p. jperty located at 1875 Shady wood Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#10) #02-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4836 Weinberger reported that the applicants had made a request for a conditional use permit to allow an additional horse on the property, making a total of three horses on the property. WTiilc 5 acres is required to permit 3 horses as an accessory use on the property when pasture land is required for feeding, the applicants have 3.6 acres and do not require pasture for feed purposes. Regardless of the size of the pasture, Weinberger pointed out that a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and elimination of odors. Jeremy Geske. of the University ol Minnesota Extension Serv'ice. determined that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed, the impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission included a sunset provision within the Conditional Use Permit allowing the property to be used for three horses for a period often years. Two neighbors spoke in favor of the application to allow an additional horse, while other comments were attached, including one objection. Weinberger indicated that stat) recommends approval of the application to allow three horses to be pemtitted on the property, since one additional horse w ill not significantly change the character of the property, and the applicants owti the property that has the most impact. Sansevere asked why the Planning Commission felt compelled to attach a sunset date for the third horse. Although arbitrary, Weinberger stated the Commission felt they should choose an adequate time frame to allow for the third horse. Sansevere stated that the Kokesh property was granted a CUP allowing 19 horses on 13 acres only recently. PAGE 28 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. 010) m-2797JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Continued Jonathon Tomhave, a neighbor at 1200 Orono Orchard Road, stated that the bam has been a pre existing condition that has housed many horses for nearly half a century. He maintained that every neighbor who moved to this area knew it was there, and in fact, it housed many more than the three proposed horses we’re considering today. Mr. Tomhave indicated that odor has never been an issue and that he believed the presence of the horses added to the value and charm of his neighborhood. He used an example from 9/11/01 in which the fundamental change felt at ground zero reverberates across the country into an acute sense of community. He added that the Council had a unique opportunity to say they support and understand the need of these residents. Sansevere maintained that Orono was once rich horse countiy. Although fewer remain today, Orono needs to preserve the flavor of having horse country . Sansevere was in favor of allowing the third horse and questi ned the rationale of the 10-year sunset date. Mayor Peterson stated that she believed the CUP should run with the property owner. Sansevere felt this was a reasonable assumption. Smith stated that she would like some latitude in keeping two or three horses, since one never knows what the future holds, and she was given the opportunity by her father to take in a third younger horse. Mayor Peterson agreed that it was enjoyable to see horses in Orono, and that she did not want to lose that aspect of the community. Sansevere reiterated that Orono has the unique opportunity to offer both horses and the lake to residents. Smith stated that on many occasions people make a point of asking to see the horses. Murphy stated that one of his neighbors along Watertown, whom he only recently met, has ridden his bike with his son to look at the horses every day over the past seven years. He thanked Murphy for keeping them and said how much he and his son would be missing them as they would be moving soon. Murphy stated that it is not his intention to impose on his neighbors, but he would like to keep the third horse. Sansevere asked if the policy should be rev iewed based on this and the Kokesh property-. Weinberger stated that each case should be evalurted on an individual basis versus the ordinances. PAGE 29 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o^clock p.m. (UIO) U02-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Continued Attorney Barrett indicated that the permit needs to run with the property and not with the property owners and suggested making the CUP a renewable thing allov\ing three horses without a time limit. Sansevcrc moved. Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4836, a conditional use permit allowing three horses to be permitted on the property located at 30 Orono Orchard Road North and approving the Planning Commission recommendation »vith the exclusion of the 10 year time limit, leaving the CUP open ended. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 0, and Murphy abstaining. *(#ll) #02-2798 FRED SHEARER, 1405 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4837 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4837, granting variances for side yard and front yard setbacks, and hardcover variance in the 75-250’ zone to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence located at 1405 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#12) #02-2799 TERESA KOCH, 2225 BAYVIEW PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4838 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4838, granting variances for lot area, lot w idth, and hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback to permit construction of a new residence and additional driveway for the property located at 2225 Ba>Tiew Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#13) #02-2800 MARLYS MCCARTY, 225 TONKA AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4839 Sansevcrc moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4839 granting variances for front yard, rear yard, lot area, and lot width for the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property- located at 225 Tonka Avenue. VOTE: Aves 3, Nays 0. *(#I4) #02-2804 PHILIP AND CONSTANCE MARTIN, 1230 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4840 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4840, granting variances for front yard and side yard setbacks to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the existing residence located at 1230 Arbor Street. VOTE: Aves 3, Navs 0. PAGE 30 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. *(#15) #02-2809 RICK AND KRISTINE STERLING, 1300 VINE PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4841 Sanso'cre moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , granting an average lakeshore setback variance to replace a portion of the existing upper level lakeside deck (8’ X 42*) and to construct a 2’ X 10* addition on the lakeside of the residence located at 1300 Vine Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that he had spoken to residents of Minnetonka Beach with regard to dock usage issues. Moorse indicated that he was awaiting an email for further guidance on the issue. Sansevere stated that he had spoken to Mike Gaffron about boats that don’t belong at the docks. He suggested this issue be put on a work session agenda for further investigation since there are rules about dock usage. Murphy wished to discuss the arbitrary laws that Minnetonka Beach puts into effect. Mayor Peterson reminded the Commission about the upcoming Park Tour on Monday, July 29, at 5:30 P.M. and asked if any Council members, beside her. would be present. While Sansevere could not attend, Murphy indicated that he would check his calendar. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *{#I6) NORTH ARM LANE STREET PAVING PROJECT A. ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT - RESOLUTION NO. 4842 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4842, Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility^ Study for the North Arm Lane Paving Project. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. B. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 4843 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4843, Receiving Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on the North Arm Lane Paving Project set for August 12, 2002, at 7 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 3, Navs 0. PAGE 31 of 35 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#17) ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION - LEE CARLSON BALLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT - TRAIL Gappa explained that the Orono Baseball Association was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an additional baseball field at the Lee Carlson Complex in September 2001. A trail connection is needed across this property to connect the existing dead end trail from the Willow View Subdivision to the Old Crystal Bay Road trail. Gappa noted that a retaining wall will be needed between the top area at the top of the hill and the county highway. While the original plan reflects the retaining wall and trail as part of the ballfield project, the baseball association has received quotations from contractors for the project, and the cost for the additional trail and wall was approximately $100,000. Gappa stated that the association has raised a little more than $200,000 for the entire ballfield project, money needed for the new field and related improvements construction, so they do not have adequate funds to complete the trail portion of the project. Gappa reported that several options exist for potential funding for the construction of the trail portion. First, one source could be Park Dedication Funds, which are available for use in constructing new park and other recreational facilities. Gappa pointed out that currently there are not sufficient funds to complete the project. Another funding option is Hennepin County cost sharing funding for trail construction. Gappa e.xplained that in this program, the County provides funding for 50% of trail construction costs with the City responsible for the remaining 50% of the cost. Conversations with Hennepin County staff have indicated that this trail is on the County Trail System Plan and would be a high priority project, and funds may be available in 2003, Gappa pointed out that a possible funding option for the City ’s share of trail costs would be to use Municipal State Aid Funds, which should be adequate when County cost sharing funds are available. Sansevere asked if Hennepin County is willing to give 50% and state aid dollars provide 50%, could they approve the project for OBA (Orono Baseball Association) contingent on receiv-ing these funds. In addition, OBA would be asked to leave enough dirt for the trail portion as they grade. Moorse stated that the only question that remains is to be sure we get the grant. He reiterated that if the City does not get the grant funds, they don t have the retaining wall or trail. Sansevere stated that he would not support holding up the ballfield project contingent on getting the funds. PAGE 32 of 35 A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (»I7) ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIA TION- LEE CARLSON BALLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT - TRAIL - Continued Moorsc concurred, stating that due to construction, Holbrook Park might be out of commission next year and the new field needs to be available to handle the demand. Sansevere reiterated that the construction of the fields should not be held un. Dumas, of Orono Baseball, stated that in reality the Association never really expected *o raise enough money to complete the trails and wall, but were told they needed to include them in the plans. Moorse asked if the City could grade in the area of the ballfield. Gappa stated that the City would request that the OBA store all the graded dirt up in the berm to use later on the trail area. While he was in support of the ballfield construction. Sansevere asked what the OBA would do if the Council said they need more money and could not get approval without it. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, that the Council is willing to allow the construction >f the ballfield independent of the construction of the retaining w all and trail, and the Coun .il is w illing to consider partial City funding for the trail, contingent upon OBA’s stockpilin'; of dirt on the berm. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *ms) PAY REQUESTS - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of S4,625 and S4,660 to Kirk Program Management, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund: SI334.55 to SEH, to be funded 50 ’5'i by the Cit>’ of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund, and S300 to the Hennepin Count> Surveyor to be funded 50% by the Cit> of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund. VOTE: Aves 3. Navs 0. *(I9) APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT NO. 3 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 from Rochon Corporation in the amount of SI03,750.50, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund. VOTE: Aves 3, Navs 0. PAGE 33 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#20) JOINT FIRE STATION ACCOUNT - EXCESS FUNDS Murphy stated that the time has come to split the difTerence of the estimated $850,000 leftover in the account between Long Lake and Orono. The Fire Station looks great and has come in within budget. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the withdrawal of $850,000 from the Joint Fire Station Account, to be divided evenly behveen the Cities of Orono and Long Lake. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#21) RENEWAL OF MAPLE PLAIN FIRE AGREEMENT Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize non-renewal of the Maple Plain Fire Service Agreement for 2003, if the Cit> of Maple Plain docs not agree to hold the 2003 fire service costs to the contracting cities at the 2002 level. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#22) RESIGNATION OF MARC DAVTS, BUILDING INSPECTOR Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to accept the resignation of Marc Davis from the position of Building Inspector effective July 9,2002. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#23) AGREEMENT FOR BAD CHECK PROGRA.M Sansevere asked if it was a good idea to submit names of first time bad check offenders into the program automatically. He stated that first time offenders often have inadvertently written a bad check and it would not be right to subject them to this program. Moorsc agreed, stating that the program seemed somewhat severe for someone who writes one bad check. Attorney Barrett questioned whether an offender would be someone who has already been charged with a misdemeanor and then put into the diversion program. Sansevere asked if Barrett was familiar with this program. Barrett acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with this diversion program and recommended holding off on enrolling until further investigation could be completed. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to table the bad check program agreement between Retailer’s Protection Association and the City of Orono until further investigation. VOTE: Aves 3, Navs 0. PAGE 34 of 35 b. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#24) SCHEDULE WORK SESSION Moorse asked that a work session be scheduled before August 2,2002 to discuss the boat/slip dock issues. He stated that he would send out potential dates and times. Moorse added that the Council should also schedule a work session the week of August 1 2th to begin the budget review process. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *25. LICENSES There were none. Sansevcre moved, Murphy seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *26. BILLS Sansevcre moved, Murphy seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 P.M ATTEST: J!’ _______ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor PAGE 35 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. j? ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim White, and Jim Murphy; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Absent were Council Member Jay Nygard and City Administrator Ron Moorse Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 6 -13, 15 and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item 5 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of June 10,2002 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 10,2002. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 3. Legacy Foundation As there were no representatives from the Legacy Foundation, the presentation was postponed. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Woife, Representative Pat Wolfe was not present, therefore no comments were provided by the Park Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS - Jan Berg, Representative Berg stated that she had nothing to report. PAGElofl? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o ’clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #02>2780 Otten Brothers Nurserj ’, 2380 West Wayzata Boulevard - PUD Amendment: Cliff Otten, Applicant, and Don O’Reilly, Otten ’s Garden Center Manager, were present. Weinberger explained that Otten Brothers had applied to amend PUD Agreement #1 that was executed with the approval of the East Willow Woods in 1990. The proposed amendment is to permit a restaurant use on the property and to lifl the exception clause within the PUD agreement that limits the number of B-1 permitted uses on the property. PUD Agreement ^1 defines standards and conditions for how the property may be used. The permitted uses for Lot 1 (which contains the building and greenhouses) include the nursery and office use of the existing building and property. Other permitted uses included items listed as permitted in the B-6 zoning district and B-1 zoning district. Both lot 1 and 2 of the Otten property are zoned PUD with an underl>ang B-6 designation. Any changes to the PUD, or to the zoning of the property to add new pemiitted uses needs to be done carefully, and in a way that ensures the use of the property fits into the City’s plans for the broader Highway 12 area. Weinberger reported that Otten Brothers is also requesting that Class 1 Restaurants be listed as a “permitted use ’’ to include restaurant use beyond the existing “Daisy Diner ”. Prior to 1996, Class I Restaurants were listed as permitted uses in the B-6 district. The Daisy Diner is open to the public, but does not have any exterior building signage. The restaurant is accessory to the nursery use of the property. Additionally, Weinberger noted that other issues including noise and screening need to be addressed. The Planning Commission recommended that the adjacent property owners and Cliff Otten seek mediation to resolve the ongoing issues. Weinberger pointed out that the City of Orono can facilitate the mediation, but the mediatioi. itself will be conducted by an outside scr\ ice. A condition of the PUD Amendment should be to begin the mediation process. With regard to restaurants, in general, as a permitted use to the PUD Agreement, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. They recommended denial of the request to include all B-1 uses as permitted uses as well. Mr. Otten stated that the Daisy Diner is a trial of sorts to see if the market will support this effort. Don O’Reilly toured the country in an effort to gauge the demand for such an addition and found it to be effective in other locations. Mr. Otten questioned why Class I Restaurants, allowed prior PAGE 2 of 17 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (U02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY-Continued) to 1996, were omitted from the permitted uses of his PUD and asked if they could be put back into the agreement. In fact, he questioned the rationale of many crossed out items on the PUD Agreement, and even some that were not. As staled in the staff report some such uses "could be seen as detrimental to the City of Orono..”, Mr. Otten questioned realistically how could his allowing a book store to occupy his property be detrimental to Orono. He asked why he had also been told that he cannot advertise his Daisy Diner, if it is to be successful, the diner must advertise its existence. There were no public comments at this time. White asked if Mr. Otten’s objections surrounded the ban on advertising. Mr. Otten stated that he also questioned why he could not have a waitress serve coffee or bring people their orders aAer they ’ve placed them. Murphy questioned staff if anyone could recall the rationale behind many of the stricken items being crossed off the list in the first place. He added that his only reservation in allowing restaurants would be that a fast food service might move in.W' Gaffron indicated that Murphy made a good point, no one could explain why some of the items were crossed off, while excluding others, like liquor stores. Weinberger noted that the diner is an accessory use to the garden center. If a freestanding structure or restaurant were proposed, the parking shortage would cause an issue. In fact, Weinberger indicated that if a restaurant were built, it would be subject to public review. Sansevcrc staled that he had no strong objections to allowing the diner as a pi.'miitted use and asked why anyone might object to having a waitress bring them a cup of coffee. White questioned what would be wrong with a tasteful neon sign in the window advertising the dmer. He stated that bookstores and others offer coffee etc. for spouses or visitors to enjoy as they browse, and asked what the problem would be with that here. Mr. O’Reilly mentioned that most of the comments he has received arc from people who have stopped for a cup of coffee or bite of lunch elsewhere, and then said if they had only known Otten’s Daisy Diner existed they would have waited to buy it there as they shopped. Murphy asked if Otten has been limited from advertising in the paper. Sansevcrc reiterated that he saw no conflict with allowing a restaurant at that location. He added that across the street there already are venues, fast food, coffee, etc. and this would not impact the intersection greatly. PAGE 3 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (U02-2 780 OTTEN BRO THERS NURSER Y - Continued) Mr. Otten stated that he would like to be allowed many of the crossed off items on his PUD, so that every time he has a potential lessee, he does not have to come in front of the Council to make changes. Mayor Peterson stated that Mr. Otten would like to make Class I Restaurants a permitted use and be allowed the advertising to support one. Mr. Otten maintained that he could not understand why the class 1 restaurant use was crossed off in 1996 in the first place. Murphy questioned if they might be opening a “Pandora's box ”, by allowing restaurants and asked staff if they foresaw any major issues with doing so. Weinberger saw no issue with the Class I Restaurant permitted use and stated that prior to 1996 it was an allow ed use. Sansevere indicated that if they tried to increase the size of the restaurant, the parking issue would limit what they could do, and a freestanding strueture would be subject to public review. Weinberger and Gaffron agreed that restaurant use should be reviewed on a case by case basis. The concession style stand that Otten proposes is an accessory use to the business. Sansevere repeated that he did not foresee an increased amount of traffic due to the diner business and pointed out that a great deal of traffie already exists at that intersection. Murphy asked if the whole building would be allow ed to support restaurant use. Weinberger stated that a restaurant could be allowed anywhere on lot 1, however, if an accessory building were built then they would have to come before Council once again. Murphy asked Mr. Otten if the City allowed the use as accessory to the nursery, was that acceptable to him. Mr. Otten pointed out that by limiting his PUD agreement, the City continues to diminish the value of his property, however, increasing his taxes nonetheless. Mr. White argued that Mr. Otten’s statement was unwarranted. Mayor Peterson asked for the definition of a Class 1 Restaurant. Weinberger read the following definition: Class I Restaurants are sit down restaurants where food orders are generally taken at a table, or a restaurant w here food is ordered cafeteria style PAGE 4 oft 7 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (U02-2780 OTTEiS BROTHERS NVRSERY-Continued) Sansevere was hesitant to tie the rezoning changes to the issues with the neighbors. He asked for clarity whether Otten Brothcis needs to be in compliance with the City’s requirements or the neighbors. Murphy asked for more specifics, stating that he had heard about the ongoing struggles, and questioned if the two were willing to undergo mediation. Mr. Walvatne, 710 Dickey Lane, stated that he did not have a problem with mediation. Mayor Peterson aeknowledged that other property owners to the north have expressed their objections to the noise level, as well as, Mr. Walvatne. While Mr. Otten had no objection to mediation, he staied that the “airport scenario” rings true in his situation. A few of the neighbors have moved in after Otten Brothers, knowing full well what to expect, only now arc complaining about the noise etc. Murphy reiterated that Mr. Otten seems to be in full compliance, and asked staff to confirm this. White asked if the equipment that the neighbors object to is running during business hours or after. Mr. Walvatne stated that the front loader runs all day, from 7A.M to 8 PM. Murphy asked if those were the hours that his business is allowed to operate. Mr. O’Reilly stated that the front-end loader runs during evening business hours unloading soil. Mayor Peterson asked how much the cquipmciu is used. Mr. Otten stated that it runs probably S times an hour. White pointed out that the hours of operation are nomial and within City rules. Murphy stated that although he would like to encourage these individuals to be good neighbors, the City should avoid getting involved in their issues. He added that he was hard pressed to understand why the City is involved at this point. Mr. Walvatne staled that the original screen required by the City was inadequate and several of the trees were placed on his property. Weinberger asked if there wasn ’t an agreement for the original screening. PAGE 6 of 17 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (n02-2 780 O TTEN BROTHERS NURSER Y - Continued) Mr. Otten stated that, at one time, he and the neighbors were civil, and the trees he placed along the property line to create the screen were for both he and them, and he had felt at the time if they overlapped this was not an issue. Mr. Walvatne o'.'jccted to the choice of trees used and pointed oui d,-'* seme have since died over the past 10 years. Mayor*Peterson stated that in the City ’s view, Mr. Otten has dr^^c X'hat w as requested of him and is still willing to seek mediation. Sansevere reiterated the question, why this issue is before thr '' ouncil if Mr. Otten is in compliance. He believed it was not the Council's place to get invovvcd. Mayor Peterson again stated that while Otten Brothers is in compliance, the argument is, if initially, the PUD should have gone further. Mr. Walvatne maintained that the equipment creates c.xccssive noise. Sansevere repeated that this has nothing to do w ith the application and should not be part of the PUD amendment. Murphy asked Mr. Walvatne if he would like Otten Brothers to get rid of their front-end loader. He asked what the underlying issues might be. Mr. Walvatne maintained that after monitoring, the front-end loader exceeded acceptable decibel ratings by 1 decibel, and stated that he would like to sec Ottens get a new loader. Murphy argued that the average person cannot distinguish between three decibels. Mr. Walvatne stated that, in 19S9, the noise that might potentially be generated by the front-end loader was a concern even upon its approval. He stated that the noise is constant and can be heard even within his home. Mr. Walvatne questioned the need for a piece of equipment that size. Mr. O’Reilly maintained that a bobcat would not suffice and would take ten times longer. Mr. Otten suggested checking to see if the reverse beeping mechanism volume could be changed. Mr. Walvatne stated that he is not alone in his complaint. Murphy pointed out that he was the only one present. Murphy then asked who would pay for mediation scr\ ices. PAGE 7 oft 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 oVIock p.m. (#02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY- Continued) Weinberger indicated that the mediation ser\'icc is a nonprofit organization, who enters into an agreement with the City. Weinberger stated that the neighbor at 725 Dickey Lane had voiced co.mplaints relative to the screening as well. Murphy maintained that, as long as Mr. Otten is and has been in compliance and is willing to enter ihto mediation, these other issues should not be tied into the CUP amendment. Mr. Otten agreed to enter into mediation; however, questioned if what is resolved will satisfy his neighbors. Mr. Walvatne handed out a photo of the screening that was placed along the property lines 10 years ago and felt it did not meet 100% coverage, especially since some of the trees arc dying today. Sanscverc at: .4urphy felt the 10-ycar-old photo did not give a clear picture of what was there today and maintained that even what was planted has likely filled in. Mr. Walvatne stated that a fence would be most desirable. Mayor Peterson asked if the two parties would agree to mediation and the outcome of it. Mr. Otten and Mr. Walvatne agreed to both beginning mediation and accepting the outcome as binding. Mayor Paterson advised staff to handle the process and notify Council of the resolutions. Mayor Peterson asked for further comment regarding the PUD amendment. Murphy believed the Daisy Diner would be an attractive ancillary part of the Otten Brothers business and had no problem with the diner. He did admit to feeling a bit uneasy over opening up Highway 12 to restaurants overall and asked staff if this would create problems in the future. Gafiron stated that B-1 allows restaurants and, in general, he did not view this to be a problem. Sanscverc, once again, stated he had no objections. Murphy moved, to accept the Planning Commission recommendation with the provision; however, that the City does allow restaurants in B-1. PAGE8ofl7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (U02-2 780 OTTEN BROTHERS NVRSER Y- Continued) Gaffron reminded the Council that the property is in the B-6 district and they arc amending the PUD that zones just this property. He cautioned the Council that they do not want to give he impression that they arc rezoning the B-I district. White indicated that he did not oppose additional signage, but did not want to see it all over. Murphy asked Mr. Otten if they would like to advertise that the restaurant exists. Mr. Otten indicated that they would like to include the diner in their signage and in their ads. Weinberger stated that the Planning Commission felt the advertising could refer to the diner subtlety, without large additional signage that would attract traffic. Mr. Otten suggested scratching items #1, 3, and 5 from the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. Attorney Barrett suggested omitting items 1 and 5 since a Class I Restaurant is beyond the cafeteria style proposed here. Murphy withdrew his earlier motion. Murphy moved, White seconded, to approve the request to amend the PUD Agreement to allow a concession stand style restaurant to operate within the building as an accessory- use to the nursery retail, subject to the Planning Commission and staff recommendations, omitting items 1 and 5. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to allow Class 1 restaurants, in general, to be added as permitted uses to the PUD Agreement. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Murphy suggested scheduling a work session to look in greater detail at the PUD list and make recommendations or changes to the line items. Mr. Otten inquired over the legality of the City to continue to revisit and change the PUD Agreement. Attorney Barrett stated that it is permissible and within the zoning power of the City to make changes to the agreement. Weinberger noted that the changes to the PUD Agreement will be on the July 8. 2002 agenda for adoption of the amended documents. PAGE 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.ni. LICENSES- revisited Jonathon Tomhave, 1200 Orono Oaks Drive, stated that he recently obtained a firearm license and wanted to share with the City the great lengths he had to go to obtain the license since 9/11/01. He stated that he had been interviewed by the department of treasury for 1 1/2 hours, in addition to many other interviews and background checks. The thoroughness was extraordinary in contrast to 5-6 years ago when there was little background checking. He cautioned the Council to take a closer look at the people who have been grandfathered in versus those who are new licensees. Sansevere stated that he had a greater concern over those who carry firearms and do not possess firearm licenses at ail. 5. #02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, 250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT, RESOLUTION NO. 4826 Brad and Carol Pass, Applicants, and Chuck Alcon, Project Manager, were present. Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a preliminary plat to divide the 14 acre property into two building sites, a shared driveway, and a conservation outlet (Outlot B). Outlet B is part of a much larger conservation casement area that will be dedicated as conservation land to the Hennepin Conservation District. A variance is required for a wetland crossing to provide driveway access to the properties. The driveway access is the only acceptable location on the property as provided by Hennepin County. Hennepin County has also requested a land dedication that would include a right-of-way dedication for all land 60 ’ from the centerline of C.R. 19, the purpose of which is for a designated bikeway. Weinberger noted that the proposed plan meets the requirements of zoning and subdivision ordinances, and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the staff findings and conditions, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the subdivision. Project Manager, Chuck Alcon indicated that the Pass’ had questions w ith regard to two of the fees to be paid and the right-of-way request. First, with regard to the storm water access fees, they questioned the 52,300 per acre storm water and drainage trunk fee as it pertains to wetland and non-sewer and water lots. At approximately 512,000 per lot this figure seemed high and Mr. Alcon suggested the w etland area be discounted. They also questioned the 55,300 park dedication fees and asked for comments. PAGE 10 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (m-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued) Finally, Mr. Alcon suggested that the City consider 33’ right-of-way, which would be consistent with what has been previously dedicated along the corridor, in fact, to go wider the wetlands w ill be adversely impacted. Attorney Barrett asked who currently owns the additional 20 acres that is to be granted the consetvation easement. Mr. Pass indicated that his wife’s family owns the property and they arc in negotiation to obtain the property in order to conserve it. Barrett questioned how access will be gained to the land. Weinberger explained that since there w ill be conservation land dedicated on most of this land, there is no need to improve the current access road. Barrett pointed out that the land docs not yet belong to the Passes and more needs to be done to ensure that the land will be accessible if the sale docs not go through and development ensues. Mr. Alcon indicated that the final plat w'ill not be filed until they own the property. He continued that due to a “like exchange swap” they are negotiating, they cannot do more at this time that might jeopardize them. Murphy questioned if the Council could simply limit the development on that property. Barrett suggested including such a development limitation in the motion. Mr. Pass pointed out that the City does have the ultimate control over what is developed on those 20 acres. He reiterated that they arc buying the property to save it from development. Barrett recommended that he be allowed to work with the applicant’s attorney to identify the appropriate number of homes to limit the development to if need be. Mr. Alcon gave Attorney Barrett a draft letter of intent for his review. Mr. Barrett felt this was a good start. With regard to storm w ater and dedication fees. Mayor Peterson asked for comment. Gaffron stated that the storm water fee rationale was based on properties 2 to 5 acres and the costs associated w ith developing and doing plans for these larger parcels. PAGE 1 1 of 1 7 I fmr-- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 oVIock p.m. (#02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued) Public Service Director Gappa stated that storm water trunk fee figures were based on an analysis of 10 different parcels in the City that were currently undeveloped and could possibly develop in the near future. The costs for storm water system facilities to ser\e these larger parcels were divided by the total acres in each parcel to determine an average cost per acre for storm water facilities. The average cost per acre for the 10 different parcels was S2,700. The intent of the fee is to include both wetland and nonwetland areas in calculating the fee for a new lot. Mayor Peterson asked if there were questions regarding the park dedication fees. Mr. Pass stated that these additional fees make it difficult for them to afford the whole project. He added that they are not wealthy people, and simply have good intentions, he hoped that the City might consider eliminating the wetland portion of the land in their calculations. Sansevere staled that while he empathized with their situation, it would be precedent setting to alter the fees. Murphy inquired over the possibility of the City giving consideration to dry versus wet land. Mr. Alcon stated that the Passes were hopeful that an e.xcmption for the wetland could be made. Gappa stated that both wetland and nonwetland areas wee used in determining the trunk fee. The cost for storm water facilities is fixed and if only nonwetland areas had been used to determine the fee, the trunk fee wouM be higher because there would be less area over which to spread the storm water improvement costs. Mayor Peterson explained that the City needs to treat everyone equally, therefore, they could not make the exception the Passes were looking for. She inquired over the park dedication fees. Gaffron «tated that this is not a new sale, therefore the park dedication fee may be less than the S5 300 cited, but not less than $3,200. Mr. Pass reminded tlie City Council that they arc working to give the City a park, an area of conser vation forever, and asked what the City could do for them to make it possible. Gaffron suggested they discuss the right-of-way issue. Recently, Gaffron explained, the County changed its philosophy with regard to trail access. Today, if the County requests R.O.W. and builds a trail, and the City did not originally mandate the R.O.W., the City is required to purchase the R.O.W. that was not acquired when the lot was sold. Murphy questioned, if not for this situation, what the park dedication fee was meant to help offset. PAGE12ofl7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (U02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued) Gaffron asked if the Park Commission had looked at this as a potential trail. Gappa indicated that the Park Commission recommends taking the easement dedication on roads where a future trail is planned. County Road 19 is a planned Hennepin County trail route and is a crucial link in trail netw ork around Orono. Mr. Alcon questioned whether it made sense to run a trail thru the wetland in the first place. Mrs. Pass felt that if a trail were to be constructed it would make more sense on the opposite side of the street versus running thru the w’etland. Gappa argued that this corridor could provide a valuable link for a bike path if it is meant to be. No matter which side of the road the trail is located on there will be difficult areas. Gaffron pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan indicates a R.O.W. requirement of a total of 100 ’ for a major collector road, like McCulley Road. He believed that 33’ was probably not enough, while 40 ’, or better yet 50 ’ would be consistent to what’s been done up north. Gaffron felt that 60 ’ was excessive and would recommend 50 ’. White asked what impact this might have on the placement of the potential home site. Gaffron noted that the home would likely be on the other side of the w etland. White suggested reducing the storm water fee for the R.O.W portion since they are donating a larger portion of their land for the R.O.W. Mr. Alcon asked for the attorney ’s comment regarding the letter of intent. Barrett indicated he would meet with the Pass attorney to work out details and suggested Council make a motion subject to City Attorney approval. White moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4826 approving the preliminar>* plat for the property located at 250 North Shore Drive West and a variance to permit wetland alteration subject to staff conditions and City Attorney approval. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #02-2792 PAUL T. AND KAY K. STUDEBAKER, 250 RUANN ROAD, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION NO. 4827 Murphy moved, Sanseverc seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4827 approving a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the lot located at 250 Ruann Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 13ofl7 n MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. *7. #02-2794 CHRIS AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 STUBBS BAY ROAD, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION NO. 4828 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4828 allowing a variance to permit a storage building to be located between the principal structure and the street for the property located at 200 Stubbs Bay Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT White'r^orted that he had recently attended the League of City Meeting in which he picked up an application for a grant to aid staff in developing historic preservation ordinances. The deadline for application is July 25. He also viewed a fire safety video, which suggested the installation of residential sprinkler systems. The systems were costly, but cost effective in the long run. Sansevere noted that the Summit Beach access at Long Lake had been closed for health reasons over the weekend. He asked how often the County performs tests to ensure no bacteria arc present in the lakes. White indicated that Hennepin County performs random testing, which can be impacted by many things. Gappa stated that two people were reported ill on Saturday after visiting Summit Beach and due to the excessive rains it has been difficult to obtain an accurate sample for testing. Sansevere asked if any changes will be made to the no parking signage along North Shore Boulevard in order to avoid further misunderstandings. Gappa stated that the police department sent a tetter to the County requesting different signage, but have not beard from them yet. Sansevere stated that people are parking cars and trailers here and causing safety hazards on the road and in the channel. He suggested the newspaper people pursue this story. Murphy reported that MNDOT is working to resolve issues with homeowners for the proposed Highway 12 access and recommended Council invite the R.O.W people to come in to give a status report to them regarding any outstanding issues. He indicated that there are questionable issues outstanding pertaining to some residences. Mayor Peterson urged the Council members and public to walk thru the new- Minnetonka Center for the Arts. The grand opening was held over the weekend and it looks great. PAGE 14 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT- Continued) Mayor Peterson read a letter from Paul Kade, a developer, who complimented zoning administrator Wendy Bottenberg for her professionalism, understanding, and clarity in handling his questions. He applauded the City on such an effective employee. The Mayor acknowledged Ms. Bottenberg and complimented her and staff on their ongoing efforts. *8. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PAVEMENT REHABII.ITATION PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the completion of a State Aid Funded pavement reconditioning project on Old Cr>stal Bay Road from TH 12 to Fox Street in conjunction with the new TH 12 bypass project. Project plans and specifications to be completed by TKDA Engineers with project construction administration by MNDOT. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the completion of a feasibility study, by Bonestroo Engineers, for a State Aid funded pavement reclamation project on Crystal Bay Road from TH 12 to County Road 6. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *9. CITY PARTICIPATION IN STORMWATER PERMIT GUIDE PLAN Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve City Funding of S5,000 to the League of Minnesota Cities for the development of a Guide Plan for the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit Application. Funding to be from the Storm Water Utility Fund with a budget adjustment to the year 2002 Storm Water Utility Fund Budget to reflect this expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ♦10. LONG LAKE FIRE STATION CHAI^GE ORDER NO. 1 AND SEWER FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Long Lake fire station project in the amount of $82,220 for the expedited installation of sewer and water lines to serve the fire station, and to amend the 2002 sewer fund budget to reflect the expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ♦I 1. PAY REQUESTS - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $12,507.50 to Kirk Program Management, and $17.41 to Benco M ;enger Service, Inc., and $74359.90 to Roebon Corporation to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund. Vote: Aves 4, Navs 0. PAGE 15 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 24,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. *12. PAYMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF WELL ON THE ED ^ULLER PROPERTY Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the payment of $7,372 to Mr. Ed Miller for the replacement of the well on his property, and to amend the General Fund budget to reflect the expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. CONTRACT FOR SQUAD CAR REPAIR Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to award contract for public safety vehicle maintenance and repairs to Chunk’s Lakeshore Auto for the period of July 1,2002 through June 30,2003. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. SCHEDULE WORK SESSION The work session will occur on Tuesday, July 2,5:30 P.M. Gaffron asked to schedule an additional work session in which the Council would join the Planning Commission as they preview a revised presentation by Dahlstrom Development. The proposed work session will occur on either on July 10 or 11 at 8:00 A.M , Gaffron will advise. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. *15. LICENSES GARBAGE HAULER 1. Veit Container Corp. 1400 Veit Place Rogers. MN 55374 HOME OCCUPATION LICENSES 1. Jonathon Tomhavc (sales of historically significant firearms) 1200 Orono Oaks Drive Orono, MN 55356 PAGE 16 of 17