The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-17-2001 Planning PacketMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (WI3) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Havvn encouraged the Planning Commission memben to itttaKi the City Council week session scheduled for December 7,2000. («15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 27,2000 AND DECEMBER II, 2000 This item w-as not discussed ADJOURNMENT There being no ftirther business, the meeting «-a$ sufioumed at 11 ;37 p.m. Elisabeth Hawn, Chair MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 20,2000 (W2640/264I ORONO AMHAR, Continued) Gaffron noted a work session is Kheduled with the City Council for December 7* to discuss this item. Gaflron stated a work session is also needed in order to discuss the proposed ordinance. Gaffron staled if this application is tabled, the Planning Commission w ill not see it n|.!.in until January. Gaffron suggested lliat a formal meeting could be held in December to discuss this project. Nygard suggested meeting sometime after the City Council mceiiiig Mayor Jabbour suggested tliat perhaps a joint meeting with the Planning Commission be held on December 7* Jabbour staled the City needs to look at pro\ iding higher density housing llawn inquired whether tliis matter could be sent on to the City Council without a recommendation Gaffron stated the City Council will probably send it back for review by the Planning Commission at some point. Gaffron stated the Plannii^ Commission could give conceptual approval to this plan. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to give conceptual approval to Application M2640/264I, P.U.DJSubdivision/Reroning/Ccmmcrcial Site Plan, and to send this application forward to the City Council for their comment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. I lawn noted there is not a consensus on the appropriate density. Dunbar indicated he is not opposed to cMciiding the 60 day time limit. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS («I2) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 23,2000 AND NOVEMBER 13,2000 This item was not discussed (N14) PLANNING CO.M.MISSION MEETING FOR OCTOBER 16.2000 Berg moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 16,2000, as submitted. \’OTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. Nygard moved, Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commiuion meeting of September 25,2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 (#2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) Gaffron staled the City could give notice to the affected property owners Gaflron noted the City* normally does not mail out individual notice of the upcoming meetings once the public hearing has been held Gaffron staled the City could send out individual notice of upcoming meetings if the Planning Commission so desired Berg requested the president of the Suganvood Homeo\\ncr*s Association be gi\ en notice of any upcoming meetings concerning this application Hawn commented she is unsure what action or recommendation the Planning Commission should give at this time since the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the City. Hawn stated in her opinion this appears to be a good plan, noting she would like to see a buffer along the front of the building Hawn requested the neighbors* concerns and comments be kept in mind when revisioirs arc being nude to the plan Lindquist noted he is in agreement conceptually with the plan Berg commented she is glad the developer is working with the neighbors Smith inquired whether the building materials could be specified. Gaffron stated the RPUD process will allow the Planning Commission to dictalc what they would tike to see for this development Stoddard stated in his opinion more discussion is needed regarding the height of tlie building and the parking. Nygard inquired how many employees there would be. Dunbar indicated 42 parking stalls would be a\ailablc to staff, with the majority of tlic parking area being utilized on the weekends Pat Brakeman, Suganvood, stated his major concern is w ith the size of the project and landscaping for the wintertime Brakeman stated he would like some idea of the developer’s agenda for this project Brakeman staled in his \ icw the City docs not need a city - wide ordinance in place prior to dealing with this project Gaffron stated Orono's current ordinances do not allow this type of density beyond w liaf s in the current zoning districts, and that this ordinance is needed to permit this type of housing. Dunbar stated he will need to meet with the City Council regarding the a\ailablc financing before bcint; able to proceed much further. Dunbar stated he would like to get some direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on which direction they would like this project to go Berg commented she is aware of other senior housing facilities consisting of two 30 unit buildings rather than one large building Berg suggested this application be tabled until the ordinance amendment is adopted PAGE2S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 (H26W2641 ORONO AMBAR. Conlimied) with the adjoining residential area. Dunbar stated as it relates to the senior housing facility, they have reduced the number of outdoor parking stalls to 50 and arc considering the possibilitx of increasing the indoor parking to 84 spaces Dunbar noted they arc looking at Staffs concerns and arc attempting to address those. Dunbar stated they could also remove the tower incorporated into the senior housing facility. Dunbar indicated they will need to discuss with ilic City Council any financing tliat could be made a^-aibblc on this project Dunbar noted a non-profit organization would own this facility once constructed, with the mission of the non-profit to provide moderately priced senior housing, which is somewhat dependent on the amount of financing provided by the City. Evelyn Schommer. 2106 Sugan\ooil Dn\e. inquired whether any fajuily members would be able to reside with the senior residents Dunbar slated under state law they are not permitted to have family members live in the senior housing facility unless tlicy arc married Schommer inquired whether there would be balconies on the building and what they would be used for. Dunbar staled lhc\ arc planning balconies on the facility, which will be used for sitting. Dunbar indicated there will be no electrical outlets located on tlic outside of the building for the decks A resident in the audience inquired about tlic lighting and air<onditioning of the building. Dunbar stated there will be air-condilioning units axailabic in each individual unit -* GafTron noted the City will require recessed outdoor lighting Dunbar stated thex need to construct a 70 unit facility in order to help keep the rent Increases to a minimum Karl Berg. 2112, Sugarwood Drive, commented he lias a number of issues he xxould like to see addressed Berg stated he would like to see the serv ice road pass in front of the prot>erty Berg inquired about the height of the building and lighting at night Berg commented in his view the senior housing dexclopmcnt would make a good neighbor, with the coneept plan being more positive than negative GafTron indicated the City could incorporate a height restriction for this zoning district if they should elect to do so. Schommer commented the neighbors wwld like to be kept updated on the progress of this project. PAGE 27 N H I u MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (1^2640/2641 ORONO AMIIAR, Continued) building height in addition to minimum setbacks on the property. The plan before the Planning Commission shows 40 feet between the building and the northern property line and 30 feet where the garage entrance is located and the interior property line. Discussions have been held between Staff and the de\eloper about the possibility of moving the building further to the south Weinberger noted a pond has been constructed in the area which is designed to handle the water nmoff from Highway 12. Weinberger noted the pond is owned and operated b> Mn/DOT. Weinberger stated the other access to this site would be off of Brown Road and could be located closer to the pond should the building be relocated slightly. However, this would result in the removal of some mature trees on the site Wcuiberger stated the de\ eloper is proposing one space on the interior of the building for each individual unit with tlie senior housing complcv with 83 outdoor spaces being shown for use by guests to tlie building Weinberger stated the City Engineer would like to keep the c.xtcrior parking away from the nuin traveled portion of the road Weinberger staled a portion of the parking area could be relocated closer to tlie building, with outdoor parking only on the north side of the road Weinberger slated the road would be b> easement and would not be platted, which would allow a lesser setback Weinberger stated the Planning Commission should be advised that per U k * Highway 12 PUD provisions by which this resiew will occur underneath, this proposal is in a general concept stage, which is equivalent to a preliminary plat application However, the Citv Council nuy hold a second public hcanng as allowed under the Pl'D ordinance and would require a 3/5*s vote Weinberger stated under the PUD ordinance, ihere is a mandatory 60 dav requirement for the Plamiing Commission to make a rccomrncndnt’on. and because the Planning Commission docs not meet in December, this application would go bc>ond the 60 day limit Weinberger noted the dev eloper may prefer to have a recommendation on this mancr before the end of the v ear railicr than Ubling of the application Dunbar commented he would like to address mo items relating to the office building Dunbar stated the five fool variance on the cast side could be adjusted to 35 feet, which would eliminate the variance request. In an attempt to get the office building to look more like the housing in the area, the tower has been eliminated and would not result in the need for any variances Dunbar staled their intent is to get a concept and a site plan that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. City Council, and the neighborhood Dunbar indicated they have a tight lime frame in which to get this project approved, and requested tliat concept approval be given as soon as possible Dunbar staled they arc willing to work with tlie City and the neighborhood in order to address the issues satisfactorily Dunbar indicated two neighborhood meetings have been held with the local residents. Dunbar stated they have attempted to locate the narrowest portion of the office building next to the neighborhood and to limit it to one story , with an 80 foot setback, to limit the impact on the residential area. Dunbar stated they would like to preserve the vegetation in the front and place some additional screening along the building Dunbar commented they have attempted to make the office building appear more residential looking to make it more appealing and to blend in PAGE 26 MINUTES or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (l^264<V264l ORONO AMBAK. Continued) 70 separate legal descriptions Under this l\pc of plat, the units uould be eventually owned by a non-profit organization and each unit would be rented to an individual occupant. Surrounding tliis individual lot is the Sugarwoods neighborhood to the north Weinberger noted a 40 foot outlol exists between this development and Sugarwoods. which is owned by the Homeowners Association There arc also covenants and restrictions in pbcc within the Sugarwood development that prohibit the removal of any trees greater than tw o inches in diameter. Weinberger noted there arc five lots that actually abut to tins proposed development. To llw south is the existing Highway 12, which is proposed to be relocated, and the existing Highway 12 would eventually be turned over and maintained by Hennepin County. Located cast of this development is Brown Road, and as part of the Highway 12 relocation, would fonn a complete lighted intersection with existing Highway 12 Weinberger indicated die City is considering the \arious methods tlut are available to offer financial assistance to this project Some options the City will be considenng is the creation of a TIP District for tliis area, tax abatement or bonding for the project that would allow this i\pe of development to occur and to keep the rents affoitbble Weinberger noted the City Council has not made a determination on wlut t>pe of financing should be offered at this time Weinberger staled the office building would consist of a 23.000 square fool oOlcc building with a 21 stall parking area underneath the building Hie actual size of the building is 172 feet by 80 feet, with the 80 feet being exposed to the residential areas to the north The building is designed to have a step-up appearance to lessen or soften the visual impact to the adjoining area Weinberger noted one portion of the building would consist of one storx*, with the icmainder of the building being two stones One access point would be off of the existing Highway 12 corridor Proposed landscaping on the site for the ofl'icc use consists of a number of plantings around the property and within the parking are«i. Weinberger noted the landscaping could be subject to additional requirements at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council Weinberger slated one setback issue tliat needs to be addressed further would be the setback between the building and the interior property line, which is shown at 30 feet The 0*6 district requires a 35 foot setback Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the height of the building, noting tliat tlic building docs meet the 30 foot maximum height restriction for tlie B-6 district Weinberger indicated the proposed tower on the building would liave a defined height of 32 feel, which is an architectural and design element on the building to help break up tlie facade of the structure Weinberger stated the senior housing facility has a clock tower on the Highwav 12 side of the building and also incorporates some of the same design elements as the proposed office building. Weinberger noted this facility would also have a step down from three stones to mo stones, which helps to make the mass of the building appear less Due to the topography of tlie land, half of the building would be located at a lower height, with the other half of the building being ten feet higher in elevation Weinberger noted the portion of the building facing Highway 12 w ould consist of the three stories Weinberger slated the setbacks that would apply in this situation arc up for some diKussion in relation to the RPUD ordinance. The propo^ ordinance would require setbacks based on PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (112640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) Weinberger stated they arc proposing to rezone this propertv', which requires a comprehensive plan amendment to change the guided land use designation for at least Lot 2. Tlic rezoning would allow Lot I. which is proposed to have a 23.000 square fool ofTicc building constnictcd on it, to be rezoned to the B-6 District The second rezoning would be to rezone Lot 2 to the RPUD. which w ould establish standards for a multi-family residential senior use of the building. The Applicant is proposing to construct a three-story. 70 unit senior housing facility. Tlie housing would be similar to other senior housing facilities Weinberger slated the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the revised Comprehensive Plan has this area guided for commercial use. The proposed senior housing would not fit under this designation, which results in the need for a comprehensive plan amendment for Lot 2 Weinberger stated Section 10.53 defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12 PUD. which is really the umbrella for this process being put in place to allow rezoning to occur on this property Weinberger noted Seaion 10.52 defines special requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 corridor The Applicant has provided site plans for botli projects. Weinberger noted a site plan review is required for each indiridual lot. Commercial site plan w ill hpically in\ol\c all of the reviews that arc typically involved in ain t>pc of site plan review, including such things as landscaping, lurking, lighting, traffic flow, biiildme height, setbacks, architectural materials, screening, and any other design or use issues that exist Weinberger noted this is a preliminary plat application, which also involves rcpiattingand subdiv ision of the two loti. Lot 2 consists of approxinutcly four acres in size and would house the senior housing facility. The 70 units would result in a density of 17 5 units per acre on the property, which is higher than any other zoning district within the Citv of Orono, therefore the RPUD ordinance would appl> in this ease The RPUD would rely hcav ilv on the Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot to guide the lot towards the tvpc of uses and densities that would be allowed on lhi!> property Hk RPllD v^ould also provide those incentives tluit arc consistent with Orooo's housing goals and includes modifications to regubr density requirements The housing goal in this case is to prov ide moderately pneed senior housing. Weinberger staled the office use being proposed for Lot I would not require a comprehensive plan amendment since the underlying land designation is for commercial use for the entire site. Lot I consists of 2.1 acres Weinberger noted the Applicant arc looking for a conceptual plan review and approval at this time Weinberger staled the preliminary plat would fall under the preliminary plat standards Because tills is a non-rcsidential plat, the City has the option of apply ing additional requirements tliat the City would help this development fit within the neighborhe^ and to protect adjacent areas fiom any nuisance uses on the property. Weinberger staled some of those prov isions vvxHild include permanent landscape buffer strips and any other additional Krccning or design ciements that would help it fit into the neighborhood better. The Applicant is proposing to plat Lot 1 as an individual lot. Lot 2 would be platted creating a building with 70 units, which would be accomplished by creating 70 separate ta.x parcels and PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (112631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) Lindquist commented in his view overall this is a good document in principal and he would prefer to deal with the height restnetions on a per unit basis Berg stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the height of the structure, where it is located, what it is adjacent to. and tliat there needs to be some guidelines in place to help give direction to the dc\ elopers Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application M2631, Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Residential P.U.D., to a work session in November or December. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (M9) ^2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45 Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application 1^2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45, to a work session in November or December in conjunction with Application It2631. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (NIO) M2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52 Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application ^2639 Zoning Code Ameiulmcnt, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52, to a work session in November or December in conjunction with Application )^263l. VOTE: Ayes 6, Na>s 0. ()tl 1) )I2640/264I Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wi>7ata Boulevard, P.U.DJSubdiviiloii/ Rczoning/Commcrcial Site Plan Review, 10:01 p.m. - 11:32 p.m. Tnink Dunbar, Orono Ambar, appeared Weinberger stated the Applicant has submitted an application for a two lot plat of a 6 7 acre property. The Applicant is proposing rezoning for the two propcnies from the B-l. Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD for office use of die proposed w est parcel, and RPUD/PUD for multi-family residential use of the proposed cast parcel. The intended use of the properties are a three stor>, 70 unit senior housing project, and a 23.000 square foot office building Weinbereer noted the subject pared is planed as Outloc F, Sugarwoods, which is the pared immediately south of the Suganvoods neighborhood The only buffer between the residential use in Suganvoods is a 40 foot w ide platted outlet that is own^ by the Suganvoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Suganvoods neighborhood that prohibits rcmo\*al of trees grater than two inches in diameter w ithin the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. In order for any development to occur on the property, the lot would need to be rcplattcd PAGE 23 i \ Public A ttendance Meeting D ate /- / '/ C /' □ Council ^ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please n ll oirr the information reqiestep BELOW FOR OCR Cm' RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2. (S/'/A/ /J^/‘A / . /A , h!T/'r, 1 V ’-y -Yr- oicn 3. J i/\H ^cIrt/U.'i A/V«S^II'•‘X’/ V 4.______ A tO«2 r)Ahll/^ 7/0 6-ttv.iiA ‘iSz 4. (ii^y Z5V <» wr 7. ^c-./i ) /■/ i. i *.^ c 8. -I r f < %.. 1 \\p. ^/. / ( ^ ,tr ^ V-*.*-1 ^ 77/' ^—f 9. i V ^ ^/ ‘/-. i -77/ - •;. '>7— lo; ^ /1,1 >iv > A.,/ / -V--* ' W7- ^ \/'A7 II. t 7l 7 ss 3- IS A 5 12.CW.«4vls IS.is Lu.... Plo«j ________1S; G7%7 13. )V c Y! Zli ----------------------J ] K /.? Z>V •x A iiAt l\ iXv.7* V - - /i/7 • cry2 / 14. 15. l.AAmWTfllNB»t>fPOCTJORMfflRUCAlT 4* i I I i___________ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Jmu«o‘ I‘7« 2001 2750 Kcilcy PTknay - Council Ch«mbcra AGENDA Council Kcprcscniath'c: Robert Sansct'crc AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for Ihc 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 advisoo' body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they w ill be scheduled for the Februao' 21,2001 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC IIFARINGS Review of these items will commence before or between sclu dulcd public hearings. I. #2M6 John Adams & CIca Altman. 4245 Chippew a Lane, Variance. (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. «2647 Robert Zaun. 1337 Rest Point Circle, Variance. (Staff; Wendy Bottenberg) 3. 112658 Tim & Amy i.andon. 1.360 Vine Place, Variances. (Stall; Wendy Bottenberg) 4. #2631 7.oning Code Amendment. Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance (R.P.U.D.) (Staff; Mike Oaffron) 5. 82638 Zoning Code Amendment. Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45 (B-6 District). (Staff; Mike GalTron) 6. 82639 Z.oning Code Amendment. Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52. (Staff: Mike Oaffron) SCilLDULF.D PUBLIC IIFARINGS 7:30 p.m. 7. 82550 Cha.les Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road S., Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing. (Staff; Paul Weinberger) t ki L SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED 8:00 p.ni. 8. M640/2641 Orono, Ambar. LLC, 2060 Wa>aafi Blvd., P.U.D./Subdivision/Rc-Zomng/Commcrcial Site Plan Re\icw’. (SUIT: Paul Weinberger) PUBLIC HE/\RINGS (CON UNUED) 9. #2648 Peter & Nicole Thomas. 1385 Orono Lane, Variances, CUP. (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 10. #2649 Charles Leekley, 1525 Long Lake Boulcs ard, Variances. (SlalT: Paul Weinberger) 11. #2650 Kristen & Patrick Burton. 2601 Rainey Road, Variance, CUP. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 12. #2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin & Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 13. #2652 Ron Lauer, on behalf of Dennis Anderson. 1720 Bohn’s Point Road, Variances. (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 14. #2655 Robert & Nancy Lu.\. 1209 French Creek Drive, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) IS. #2656 Surface Water Management Plan. City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 16. #2657 Clifford Otten. 2350 Wayiato Boulevard, Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) SKETCH PL.XN 17. #2653 Craig Alshouse. 4100 Walertown Road, Sketch Plan Review. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 18. Report of Planning Commission repicscntalives attending Council meetings November 27,2000 and December 11,2000. 19. Other issues for discussion. 20. Planning Commission approval of minutes for November 20,2000. t 21. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on Januar)' 22,2001 and I'ebruary 12,2001. ADJOURNMENT City of Orono, Minnesota Street Numbering Index Map Kiss as:Si ST f, »fi« t. »#•< t. »WI ORONO PLANNING CO>DllbblON Januao n.2001 ITSOKclle) Pirkuay - Couacil Cbsmbtrt AGKNDA Cenacil Rcpmeotaiitr: Robert SaA»evtrt AtT)ltNCE MEMBERS: PUais tlsQ la for Ibc public record at the front podtom If}ou lib la addrtM Ibf rUoalDf Commisiloo. AppUcanu wUI be niked to mo>f to the froot fable la aatwer questions « ben the Chair aaaounccs the appikntian. The Ptaaoiog Camolsstoo Is •a advbar> bod^ to the City CouocIL If action Is taken on nay Items on tbli agenda, they eetU be Kbadaled lor Ibe Febniofy 21.2001 CH> Caaoca meeliog unless otbenMae aaled by Ibe Cbatr. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resets of these items will carameace before or between sebedulrd public bearings. I 02646 JohnAdams A Ctea Altman. 4245 Chippewa Lane, Variance (Staff: Wer»d) Boncnberg) 2 b2647 Robert Zaun. 1337 Rest Point Circle, Va.nance. (Suff; Wendy Donertberg) 3. 026SS Ttm A Amy La.ndon. 1360 Vine Place, Variarvces (Suff Wendy Bonenberg) 4. 02631 Zonirg Code Amendment. Orono .Municipal Zoning Code. Proposed Rrsiientral (P R U D) (Suff Mike Gaffron) 5. a263S Zocung Cede Amend.*nenJ, Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Section 10 45 (B 6 Distnct) (Staff Mike Gaftron) 6. a:639 Zoning Code A.mendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Section 10 52 (Suff Mike Gaffron) SCHEDITED PUBLIC HE ARINGS 7:30 p.in. 7. lilJSO Chaiitt Van Ecchout, 120 Bronn RoadS..rrcliG;l6ax> Subdiililon- Pidrlic Hcanai (StafE Pa4 WcL-bcici) S;00p.m. I «640'264l Orono,Amber,LLC.2060Wayiafa Bhd., PUDySubdisis-on'Re-Zcnlni'CcnuBereial Site Plan Resiewr. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) CONTINL'nD PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. h264S Peter A Ntcoie Thomas. nSS Orono Lane, Varia-nces. CUP. (Staff Wend) Bosenbe^) 10. b2649 Charles Leekley. 1525 Long Lake Bouirsard. Vaharsces. (Suff Pail Weinberger) II . *2650 Kristen A Patrick Burton. 2601 Rainey Road, Variance. CUP. (Suff Paul Weinberger) 12. *2651 Stephen Longman Builders. Inc., on behalf of Robin A Jeremy Bupp. 2696 Caroline Asenne, Varunces (Suff. Paul Weuberger). IJ. b2652 Ron Lauer, on behalf of Denrii A-.icrsoa, 1720 Bobo's Polol Road. Variances (Suff. Wendy Bottenberg) 14 02655 Robert A Nancy Lux. 1209 Freoch Creek Driie, Variances (Suff Wend) Botuaberg) 15.02656 Surface Water Management Plan. Clt) of Orono, Corrpfchenriv e Plan (Staff NUe Oafhon) 16.02657 Clifford Oaen. 2250 WayMta Boult'ard, Vacahon cf Drainage A L’ulity EasemenU. (Staff Mike Gaf&on) SInETCH plan 17.02653 Craig Alhouie. 4100 Watertown Read, Sketch Plan Review. (Suff Paul Weinberger) TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner January 3,2001 SUBJECT: #2646 John Adams/Clea Altman 4245 Chippewa Lane Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District; RR* 1A One Family Rural Residential Distnct (5 acre) Lot Area: 4.89 acres Lbl ofEthibits A Application Site Plan Survey Floor Plan Permit Issued for Demolition Plat Map Location Map Permit Record Property Owner’s List B C D E F G H I Pertinent Code Section: 1. SecUon 10.27. Subd. 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is 4.89 acres where 5 acres is the minimum lot for the RR-1A zoning district for new construction. AnnUcation Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesung a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was construct^m Ae early 1960 s and an accessory building were removed per a demolition permit in June, 2000. Uie lot is approximately 4.89 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is 5 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new residence. John AdemsfOta Altman 424SCUpp€waLan* k'arianct 1/12001 Pagtl ANALYSIS ^ot Area and Yards RR-l A District Standards: RR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 5 Acres 300’ Actual 4.89 Acres 330’ The subject lot conforms to lot uidth. StatcBicat of Hardship; This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards and there is no additional land amiable to add to meet zoning standards. iMues for Consideration: 1. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 2. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 3. A residence has previously existed on the property. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Racomtnendatioii: Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance. To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all setback, hardcover and structural lot coverage requirements. ff2646 John Adams/Cha Altman 4245Chipp€wcUM Varianct 112001 Page 2 AppUcatioa # tG U(p ^ DatcRecriv«d lLhslco_ Amount Paid -^XSO CITY OF ORONO • VARIANCE APPUCATION ^ Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ___ Site Address HdAC Ckippf Property Idmtificati^n Nunmer ff.I.D.'l V arropcny lacmmcauon numDcr tr>i.Ly»j uk -er- - - - - -------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_________________l&fOOuaie rropctry /\cquueu______________ I fdol tfdo n~^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(month/year) other (specify )_1-reseat use of pnwtty: _^reside^ial Zoning District: QA omQ_____________________ APPLICANT , Pbone^Aaa ) Name riaWiJ rtlaA-KtS fAL?Tfn».>y Phonefwoikl b/a-3ia-iaOi> Address: <~4f<3 gA/.tAw/vW iOfeuy Citv:ft\\nrtg.TW>Kft^___Zip:$^i3 ^01 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)----- w____ -Name Address: Phone (work)______ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S 9gQ<QOO ------- Describe request in detail: P<irggf df /artel 4-'kH ac-frA, hihtfcK^ |k ^ltAh,^\v 4fvi^ S»0 artt< rtiXxxsftl^ OT>i/L. VNOUSCt H ... , , (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ •nme^'H\is ptoper-i-i Vv»d Vv3*y>c- on -»W , , VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ V 1 Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ___^Lot CovcIage"^^^. - ___Setback: __Front ___Side ___Rear ___ Average Lakeshore^ ___Other (specify)____________________________________________________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS f\Y Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmgV# compliance with Zoning Code leomrements : rPfl-g-*--------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) .f r. -:• ^v' .V ■• . :;V.^ • . . ♦.*• Kv’ .**• • c. iHTB. A 11 i si. J!J M-l I'ii i^vV-V::; 2. r ■ i*'-,V;i '. •^Tuo^ V*. 4 . V* •i'>*. •- ‘ * * ;r -1 ■• ; -4v..:- i;, #2O A.%J w5i'*''^ im ir •; • 0\ .* >• / ■ V .^^‘• V» .* *• .;^>\. ». • ? w’.. • I : ^ ■ 1 ] glfi%r F<-«»- la-^ l^tt.Uo» HM^ Jf' O ■i #264t> I I ^ -■ -V^-;’ • • • -Ns h ‘ ivy '.v,^';>'4;^ • . • / - V •* * 5: *• *• i ••* ‘ i •> I a:sF^S3i . •• • 'uC^I'-O* |«I4 AUTM<4^- AbJftH^KHE #264 ,♦ ** "'T • . * i i • . } ;• .>, ‘.-4f ."T• *. . • ;* « V-’ •• jVv'ti*.- ..\ n'' -*'v‘: . •:}< ‘i: i'txl'' '' V V.: 1 . :.* ' puM.- # CITY OF ORONO 2750 Keltey Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 (612)249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued: P02600 Demoliiiaa tawo SITE ADDRESS: PID: 31-118-23-42-OOOi 4245 Chippewa La MAPLE PLAIN, MN5S3S9 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Pennit Clau: Permit Type: Building Demolition Census Code 645 Permit Sub-typc(s): Demo - Principal Structure Demo - Accessory Stnicmre DETAILS: Approved per resolution #; Separate permits required: NOTICES/REMARKS: DEMO PRINCIPAL & ACCESSORY 5rnU?CTirRES Lfundsiions'sH demo debris to be removed from ground &, dlspo:ed cf off site per PCA rtgubtmns. Wells mist be abondoned. Inspection before backfilling. FEE SUMMARY:Perniit Fe«:SSO.OO Valuation: SO.OO Slate Surcharge Fee: $ O.SO TOTAL FEE:S 80.50 applkant: ROBBINSDALE.MN 33422 OWNER:JOHN GRANGAARD 1245 HUNTER DR MEDINA, MN 33391 TTHOH 1 li Copie*: City, Applicant, A»*e*»or, Finance Rage I Hennepin Cjipity Taxpayer Services Pepartone'rif J.-_ ‘ • 'i-O' * ..7 •)(3) «*» ,<s>J Ufl I' tjMM Imm omggwy. Information -;*j' «fepMnA e eo npirfan ., and SM» iiMd ei«»«M entf o«Mrf PERMIT RECORD Permit Wo. .^3*7 Type of Permit AjUOi . 3^7 PQ2CfiO £>-oO .A^jjr» Cfev^o 114*0'^ .-i' -"’*1 RUN OATC 12/OA/tt BATCH 512 licNNCfiH cduiry mpcRTV iworhation systih PROfCRTY OMHCiS LIST RCPOIIT NO. PXASSAtl PACC A PROP ADOt. OMNCR NAHf TAXPAYCR NANR/AOINI SB 51-118-25 Al M15 •A1A5 UAURTOWN RO N R A N C PLANK NlCHAtt R 1 NARY C PLAIRC 527 NORTH CARRINOTON BUffALO NY 82B5A 58 51-118-23 A2 0081 0A2A5 CMirrCWA LA J D 8 G N CRANCAARO J D I 0 H CRANCAARO I2A5 HUNTER DR MAVZATA m 555A1 58 51-118-25 A2 0802 8A24S CHIPPEWA LA T J 8 K L NCCATFRCt THOHAS J WCCAffREV A285 CIIIPPCWA LA HAPtC PLAIN NN 555SA PROP AOOR OUNER NANB TAXPAYCR NAttC/AOOl 58 51-118-25 A2 888b 88858 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO STATE Of NINN ONR REAL ESTATE HCNT ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 188 lAfAYETTE RO ST PAUL HH 55155 58 31-118-25 A2 8811 8A585 CHIPPEWA LA J L CORNICK 8 D L CORMICX JANES 8 DEBRA CORNICK A585 CHIPPEWA U HAPLE PLAIN HN 55358 58 51-118-25 A2 0812 8A228 CHIPPEWA U PANELA GAIL ANDERSON PAHELA 0 ANDERSON 8228 atIPPEWA LANE NAPLE PLAINS NN 55559 CO PROP ADON OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 51-118-25 92 8815 89548 ClllfPEWA LA n D LTNOINf ATT LLIIOINr. DANA 8 LCNOXNE 9548 CHIPPEWA LA HAPLE PLAIN NN 55359 38 31-118-25 92 8814 895SS CHirPEWA LA r r JR 8 J E r.llEHANIK rHCnCRfCK C siilnanik jr RT 2 BOX 14 HAPLE PLAIN NN 55359 58 51-118-25 93 8882 88858 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED STATE or NINN ONR REAL ESTATE HCNT ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 588 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL NN 55155 cnm PROP ADOR OWNER HANK TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 58 31-118-25 93 8811 88195 TURNHAN RO BEAL SAVINGS BANC DAVID A DETERS 195 TURNHAN RO HAPLE PLAIN NN 55359 38 31-118-25 95 8815 88858 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO W F 8 E KNAPP WILLIAN F 8 EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRXSTOfORI CIR HAPLE PLAIN NN 55559 58 51-118-25 99 8881 88858 ADDRESS UNASSICHED STATE OF NINN ONR REAL ESTATE HCNT ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 588 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL NN 55155 PROP ADDR OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NANC/AOCHI , I TOTAL BATCH 582 88812 h; TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Pianner DATE: January 3,2001 SUBJECT: #2647 Robert Zaun 1337 Rea Point Circle Variance -- Pubiic Hearing Zoning DisIricI: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 24,067 s.f. (.55 acres) List of Exhibits A Analysis B Application C Sun'cy D Floor Plans (New garage and existing garage) E Elevation View F Plat Map G Location Map H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record Pertinent Code Section: Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Side Yard Adjacent Street Setback: T^e mimmurn requirement shali be observ’ed for side yard adjacent street setback: 35 feet. To permit a residential addition to be 22' from the side yard adjacent street property line where 35' is required. Application Summary: The applicants arc proposing to construct an attached two stall gwge (2r X 33') with a second story. The first floor will be a two stall garage. The second flOTr will be additional living space. The existing garage will also be turned into living space. (Exhibit D). Floor plans for second floor living space over the garage were not submitted by the applicant. The existing residence was built in the I960*s and no additions have been constructed to the residence. The new garage location will allow the e.\isting floor plan to continue and will maintain the existing front entry. The property is unusual in it is surrouiided on three sides by road: Rest Point Road and Rest Point Circle. Structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application. §2647 Robvl Zaun IU7 Rat Point Cirdt Varianct l/JQOOl Pagtl ^tatfipgnt of Hardihip: The property is surrounded by road on three sides. The residence was built in its present location in the early 1960’s. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Imum for romlderation; 1. The proposed location of the garage addition flows with the existing floor plan. 2. The width of the proposed garage is minimal for a two stall garage. 3. The property is surrounded by road on three sides. 4. Structural lot coverage and hardcover are well below the allowed amounts. 5. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 6. The proposed garage location will not have any impact on the City’s ability to continue maintaining Rest Point Circle which is an usually narrow right-of-way. 7. The proposed location of the garage will not negatively impact adjacent neighbors. 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Regommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance. §26^7 Robert Zaun I3i7 Rest Point Cirdt yariane* l/S/2001 Page 2 hr ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 24.067 s.f. (.55 acre) Stnieturol CoveroKc ; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 24.067 $.f.Allowed; 3,610 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,643 s.f. (6.8%) Proposed; 2,343 s.f. (9.7%) Hardcover Colculatlont: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 75-250*24,067 s.f.6,016.75 s.f. (25%) 2,638 s.f. (11%) 3,342 s.f. (13.8%) . vV, m-. Application city of ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnictures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Rccchcdttlil/o O Amount Paid $IS0 Ca. ’ ^ ’wn C'i i PROPERTY INFORMATI9N Site Address I ^3 »<rV*GvJe Property Identification Number fP.I.D.l 07-//7-23 T/ 7____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _X_«S ‘dential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: Ll^-lfS_________________________ onth/y^hv^^ APPLICANT Name PaUe-vT Address: ") C 1 rr.lo Cit>: Phone fhonte) . ■ Phone (\vork> 71^-9811-^6*^/ “ • Zip: crrStV-, ‘ .) OW'NER (if difTercnt than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Cit>:.I. .2 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . . Estimated Construction Cost S_ Describe request in detail: r-—U.lK 4-.v J g<^.r (atuch additional sheeu if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED , ___Lot Area __Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback: __Front X Side ___Rear ___ Average Lakeshore ___Other (specify)___________________________________________________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTT' CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (anach additional sheets if necessary) i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the follnwiny Informallon mint he iiiibmiUcd hv the appllcntion dtndline date In order for vour application to he coiuidertd complete; 1. 2. 3. JL 4. 5. 6. 8. __ Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Owners List of oxsTters within 15ff, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\t Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Sur\*ey (signed by a licensed sur\*eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11” for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & clevaiion view^ (provide one (1) copy 8*/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include mintal status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include nme(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to tlie rest of hisher knowledge. Applicant’s Signature .Date ixh OWTSER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consulta.tts. agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature rn-.Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Cit>- offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, plew make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I frank R. CARDARELLE Land Surveyor, Inc. (612)941-3031 6440 Flying Cloud Drive Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Robert Sr.un Book 1337 Rest Point Circle, Orono . Page,File £,394. mm-' #2647 L. j 7 Wsw)m /V vS»^ H',^ ^:*»'i\,C. .# r> .. f}- £.■ /•. 13.141 SO SHUTS 13.141 100 SHUTS 33.144 300 SHUTS jrirwtvkov * 'vi’ C9 CQ =tfc Hennepin County T^ayer;^rvice8 Pepai^eilt^; Infpmatfon 1(711^^0017 [NameRESDROINTCIR '-rfnium Ijb: «K>deia Awn Oly.jpMniy, endaeieiSSftiiiSSSSJSSSr^ 400 BAIS MO out I V. Coir • Course 45^N ^ An is'.Colf- -rS "' ■ S/S---- • Course-^-v^'si.••• WtST tMICM r'o ■ • --■ ‘ \ X^- * .; • . U rVcv: ■■ i/ ”■' 0»H^OO^., :':. 'V;-.':V.:.'■•* . .r.:,7.'>. ■=<: . -S ’s. -iMaxweil^ .^y- c^:':.-: Skogsi^erg Point |« '.' : 5s ' West R5TM •.., ylA -—— Point A; • ]B DEERINQ V1 i H MItlllt ORONO i4rm M-@| JAo/J ■ (§L ., * I * • .. . Bay \^ y::i' Fajerness Point _iiii*o«i*i n~| rtSTWi»3 AVI ^ TOlO AO o [iulS. rMri IV j \. . _ |c«tn»|i n\^ GSdZJtdKZS■imaram Spring]%\ A m pun n *V^' / Carman gUN DATE 12/ll/8t PATCH 514 PROF AODR OMNCR NAHC TAXPAYER NAMC/AMR M 47-117-23 31 4414 #1347 REST POXMT CIR H C PIMCOAR IRA PlfCCAR M2LL1AH I REBECCA PINEGAR 1347 REST POINT CXR HOUND HN SS344 IICMIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORIUTIOH SYSTtH PROPERTY OWCRS LIST 31 47-117-23 31 0il7. 01337 REST POINT CXR ROBERT H 2AUM ROBERT H 2AUN 1337 REST POINT CXR HOUND HN 55344 REPORT NO. PX4354BI PACE 1# 36 47-117-23 31 #«16 41324 REST POINT CIR SHAUN fKAXXNS SHAUN HEAKINS 1324 REST POINT CXR hound HN 55344 PROP AODR OMHER NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AfiOR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOt .PROP ADDR ‘ OMNCR NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 36 47-117-23 31 4414 4454S NORTH SHORE DR C A A H U ALBRECHT TRUSTEES HAROLD L I CAROL A ALBRECHT 4545 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 • SB B7-117-23 31 4422 41342 REST POINT CIR n J ALTEHNOFEN ET AL HARK J ALTENHOFCN 1342 REST POINT CIR HOUND HH 55344 • 34 47-117-23 31 442B 44436 ADDRESS UNASS16NED RRUCf R RIRNELAND SU6J/LE R06CRT I HARXT 6IRKELAN0 1246 UXLOHURST TR HOUND HN 5S344 34 H7-117-23 31 4024 41354 REST POINT CXR JANICE K OE HATTEO JANICE X DC HATTEO 1334 REST POINT CIRCLE hound HH 55344 34 47-117-23 SI 0423 41346 REST POINT CIR K A B HAMtIHSCM KEITH 0 I DONNA N HANKXNSON 1346 REST POINT CXR HOUND HN 55344 34 47-117-23 32 4424 44415 TONKAVICU LA KATHLEEN 6 ASH KATHLEEN C ASH 4415 TONKAVIEU LA HOUND HN S5544 34 07-117-23 31 4#a 41344 REST POINT CIR JACK EDUARDS KUTZ JACK EDUARDS KUTZ 1344 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55344 36 47-117-23 31 0424 41354 iEST POINT CXR RICHARD L ANPINSON RICHARD L AHFIHSON 1354 REST POINT CIR HOUID HN 55344 34 §7-117-25 32 4434 41314 REST POINT LA E 0 I C L REINHART ERIC D REINHART 1314 REST POINT LA HOUND HN 55344 toa 34 47-117-23 32 0011 , PROP AOOR R1344 REST POINT CXR OWNER NAHE D I J ROIES JR TAXPAYER DAVID D 4 JENNIFER DOIES JR NAHC/AOOR 1344 REST POINT CIRCLE hound HN 55344 34 07-117-23 32 4434 41345 REST POINT RO THOHAS NICHOLAS 6ERSCHEX0 THONAS NICHOLAS 6ERSCHEXD 1345 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55344 36 07-117-23 32 4052 41315 REST POINT LA K J GROVER 1 S K GROVER KEVIN J GROVER AND SUSAN K GROVER 131S REST POINT LA HXI4CTR1STA HN SSS%4 ‘ ^ PROP AODR \ tSI pAYER* TOTAL BATCH * NAHE/AOOR 504 00015 i /337 louit P/ Cy> I PERMIT RECORD fO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bonenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 3,2001 SUBJECT: #2658 Timothy and Amy Landon 1360 Vine Place Variance — Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrirt: LR-IB One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 69,150 s.f. (1.587 acres) LislofEihibits A Application B Site Plan/SuTN ’ey C Oversized Accessory ’ Building variance (1976) D Permit Issued for Demolition E Location Map F Property Map O Permit Record H Property Owner’s List Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Width: The lot is 90 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.03. Subdivision 9: (Accessoo’Bolldlngs): No accessoo ’buildings or stiuc^ shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesting a lot wndth variance and an accessoiy building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1950 was removed per a demolition permit in December. 2000. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 90 feet wide where 140 is required in the LR-1B zoning district. An accessory building variance is required because Orono zoning c<^e does not permit an accessory building on a property without a principal structure. Currently there is an existing accessory ’ building (detached garage - 28’ x 42’) located on the property without a primary structure. A vanartce w« granted in 1976 to allow the oversized accessory building to be consuucted on the property. (Exhibit C). The applicants have submitted building plans for a new residence and the detached accessoo ’ building will remain. »26i8 Tlmo(ky'Amy London IJ60 Vino Hoc* Variancts L3/200I Pog*l ANALYSIS LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required I Acre 140 ’ Actual 1.587 Acres 90 ’ The subject lot conforms to lot area. Statement of Hardihlpt This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. Variance appnjval was granted for the oversized accessory building on the property. iMues for Consideration: 1. The lot ^^'as platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the propert)-. ‘j. The detached accessory building is in good structural condition. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the requested t'ariances. To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet dl setbacks, hardcover and structural lot coverage requirements. »26S8 Tlmoihy/Amy London nOOVintPloe* Varlanets l/i>200l Pogi2 AnnBoittoD # DateRewh^ /////?/ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 “ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOR^UTION Site Address /360 Amount Paid c'>/e.OAJO Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surtey. Date Property Acquired, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify) Zoiung District:__________________________________ _(monthfyear) APPLICAOT^ Name Address: U/Aft 0\VT<ER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone fhome ^ Phone fwoik ) 9 5Z ' */■? /-e? ? ^2- Cit\-: efjj.OAJO . Zip: Phone (home). Phone (wx)rk)_ Address:City:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S c? S O ^ <30 0» Describe request in detail: Co/^$7Teucr’ /Jj.i*' ____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ')C Lot Width Hardcover ,Lot Coverage __Setback: __Front ___Side ___Rear < Other (specify) __ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult}- or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^or _______ ^0/c fie^i//auz _______________________ (attach ad^^naFffibets if iScessary)-^'.* ff- REQUIRED SUB^nTTALS flf th# fflUowin^ infpnnation imnt ht xubniitt^il hy Ihg Application dgadling date in order for vour application to he cnntldettd compltle; 1. ___ Completed Application Form 2. ___ Certified Property Owners List of owners witliin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\l Center, 348-5910). 3. ___ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suncyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) cr , 8'/r x IT for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if r.ny changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition. pro\nde one (1) copy 8'/j' x 11" for reproduction. 5. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/j" x 11"). 6. __ 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). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign tliis application. Please remember that juuir variance apniicatlon is not complete if the above infm^atinn has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date 0\3'NER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees lo Ihis application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properly by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. 0\sner*s Signatui^ ^Date //y /^Oo/ Applicant must have all submittals into tlic City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the PUnning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangcmcnis to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I #2658 I » r, .. ■: : W ^ O cnYCFoSB,____ MlMSSOa CcnUtioul C». tfid Varimaa AppUcAtlcn IXSVSlQtl CF PHjREAL (or property) ’* «- ; ..4 .. ^ it 1 O#■ X O’ O TYPE CP I9QUE57 Adlzess /.5.<V Cbndltlouil Use Usgal Descriptlan VRrlanee PTUXOiC :Jaco /5* f i.ottvM-/.P»eno #7‘" Wetlands Varlanoo Fm Mixes* /.>i •» if, .. 4. . , OISR fixae 4 ' (. A/I-.v. ^ *-’L, -PItow « • FDR cmCIAL USB ttlLlf Oouncil action Date Address / 0* j .• /.^'■„, //.. ^Approved Present Zoning lK ' f f'Pteaer.t Cse P /• r/xing CteL-jaoa Section PcLitlng to request 3/- ^7^' ScpciSy 0:^.anoo Haguirenents >•' ■ •' .. Denied I>?Xain rtqaost Hc^tivc to Roquiroments .% i»,. \ j. /Ia- T i*.i •> j • • ♦ A /•, ; / i/ %• . i*/ •V.5 »• ? ?- 3b.ift.nt of :ix.-ccnfo=dty / 7/. /^. .hardships to Pteperty ;.. . K// ,, :/^ A ^ r.'/ J ^ lCj.^C [ff ..4* / ./J -U // ------------------------------------------- o .'23ERIAL tCCESSAR; TOR COytTn: APPLICAHON (Mist be sulaltted 1 mssJc prior to ceurcil (Veeting) 1. AppUciticn corpleted 2. Plat Mip Secticn 3. iStetch In proposal) A ■ / 4. Abstractor's Cartificate of Precerty Curers Within 300 rt. 5. 533.00 ree a’ .yCr* -y___^ ■>______Sisnatont ' / I /.'‘/j /ly.-f-'jl r •fj V. f;- h t:fMI 0R0::o couNCXtt NEErnsc held july as, i976 Dick Denson, City Adnlnlstrator, stated that the proposed Bike Trail project funded bv the State does follov the sare criteria as thc'f.A.U. Crant applied for by the City of Orono two years aoo. The present Federal Dcr.onstratlcn Project and the previously applied for F.A.O. Grant are entirely different routes that, if approved by the two -cqulre sone City funding. F.A.O. i9i-2'),000, F.D.P. S37,S00) which \*ould have to be supported by a nill levy. The question that always arises is, what will the environncntal nr.pact bo, hardcover, trees, other removal of natural obstructions, etc. n::cres30d the City Council in favor of the project and reviewed the entire project. Paurus roved, Butler seconded, to applv for the^Fodcral Djunonstration Project in’ the amount Oa. v37^500. Kotxon, Ayes (3) - llaya (0). ..avor Soarlcs spoke briefly of his concerns of P^lic safety on Lake Ninnetonka station that whis IS tho utr.ost importance to all residents end^ users o. the lake as recreation increases oac*i year. seconded, that the request of .red Ryu, 134S North Am Drive, for a setback ® referred to the Planninq Commission. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). roved, Butler seconded, that the request of Robert Sdwall, 2640 Kelly Avenue, forTlor area and width variance, bo referred to the Planning Comnission. Notion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Oa. .L.avis S..ith, 1945 Fagerness Point noad, for ^*5** setback variance, be referred to the Planning Comission. Notion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0), seconded, that the request o. _arl Norwood, 1360 Vino Place, for a varicncc. A?er(!"- t:ays*''jo)!^*”"^"^ Comission. Notion, Page 3 BIKE TRAIL PROJECT 1 rocc...cnd we apply for tho project now and if aeproved by the agencies, then allocate monies fer an environmental study, if this is a charnable expense to the project. r:i er.) % LAKE MINNETONKA SAFETY VARIA.\'CE 1345 North Arm Drive VARIANCE 2640 Kelly Avenue VARIANCE 1360 Vine Place £ ■-' I i ' VARI,VVCE 1»45 Fagerness Point Road TC*; F?fM: r.\rd: R7.!ta: Pick rca'cn. City AA’.lnlstrntcr Ikink >\**.ch, Tmlnj; /Vt-lnlstrJtor .July :s.#153 it llirl Xcr-oot! • Vine Place Variance • Cor4,iC Area T>.c rweest here l5 for .irprov.il of a »nrinnc» freo our OrOlnmcc Sccticn 5l.5.V> vhlch Units the .are.-* of any accessora- hmlJinc to l.OW sq. ft. f!r. XorrecO >oats to hull^l n JI* .x 2'* r.*arasf (l.l'*’ >n- ft.). This *>-eul«l require a varlxnce of lT^*. Mr. Xor.ood Infoncs ne he Is caVlnp this rcpiest for the purpose of storing and screening all his recreatlcoal cqulprent sucli as boats, campers, sn<n#* roSiles, etc., as veil .as his vehicles. This soinds like a rcxsonablc nx^irst 55 It vculk! eliminate OfC.i 5toraj:c anJ po55lblc compl5int5 fion mi^hOTS. Cctricil arprovra a previous 5trect 5ctback \-arlxncc the required 3S* to S* on .So-.Tsber 24, 197o, subject to Ucllnqucnt taxes bclnf: paid aikl the 4 lots be corbined into cnc parcel. I St cncloslnj: a cop>- of >?r. .Vorvooi!*5 .applic.ntlon for a c^Mn.atlon of the four lots as stbaitted with the West llcimcpin .Vsscssrvnt District. PLVsSiNT. crst'issKTc'SirriNC • au-un: The rcnir.c ACr.ini si rater inferred the remission and Mr. USov'sky, an interested neighbor, that ?!r. was rcmx'srln^: an approval of a variance of 17p sq. ft. In a^'3 tc build a 42* .x ;:3racc vhich would \k used to store his recreaticnal equijr-ent. I'hc Plannir.j; fVmlsslon rcccmondcd approval on the basis there has teen no corplaint on t!:c proposal and all the individual parcels ha\r been ccthincd after having paid up all dcllnqurn: taxc.^. cx^x:lL ?53mNr • .auvu';: \k i‘.»**» A.mrr\X'J. li^r. ;n.vyres of a ru-jjn.'c ca:r:ssiofj ?srn?.t; .ew al^cust 2. 197« • pace 3 ;tr. talovi'sXy >as present and Lntcrested in fauvinj; whflt this wriance vas accut. Frsc IcnL-.g AcMnistrator InfofflcJ th* Cccnissicn ind >5r. Laic%-5V.y t>jt Jlr. fJorveed ws request* Lng an app7o\*al of a xariance cf 175 sq. ft. in area to r.dld a J2* x 2S’ jrara{:c. This wjuld be used for tforing his rKrtaticnal cqalyncnt su:h as bents, cjufcrs, —oxrobiles, etc. Van Nest roved. I'annah second^, to recemend approval on the basis there has been no cen* plaint en the prcpcsal and all the individual parcels have been coebined after hivin;: paid up all cSelLnquent taxes, ibticn • Ayes (5), Nays (0). *!:. iiisscncnlc was in attcn^tncc. The lonlm: Adnlnlstrtitor fcLntcd cut tiie dlronslccji cf the .vrs.i. There Is no way the dl-rnslcns en be L-.creased. I’.v ’<c Toved, Pcsci. soicrsded, to approve this variance based en the fact there is ro other land nvalluble and the area is sewred and his water, lirtlon - Ayes (8), .':ayj (0). t'.r. Nhltney is rc<?»$tlnr n;vroval of a varlanrc to aikl to his cxistinp. residence. Van ^:cst r-o%evl. Cos field seconded, to recrrxr.d approval in vic-v of ti:e fact tlut this Uo-isc .-.Ireai^* exists en a nca-stxndard lot xnd the prwposcxl niditicn weald not result In ;tnv cncreachr«,'nt of the exist* int s?tb3cl.s. :i?tlen • Ayes (3). .‘.‘ays (0). ,.e ?:.w.ir..c Cen-issioa scltedulcd a IValic licarin: for fepteri-cr T. irc*. a: 7:3-? p.n. *!r. Ficbnrds was present xml explained to t!»e Coreussion •Jra: hr *05 pl.e-.rini: to rercdel his !.itchcn and adil a scccrj story ever that par: of his house. Van Nest roved. rcrcnalJ seconded, to rcccrrond approval of tills variance for lot sice xnd width for this ail-.tlcn inasnjch as it is consistent with the nci.chbors xnJ en the condition that no adiitlcral variances will be required, ‘totion • Ares (3), :i:y5 C). . V :!r. I Mrs. Sta-v were present. Mr. Shaw e.xplaincd to the Plaml.-.s CCmissicn that he received a building perait for his garose about three years ago, and at that tire felt the carape was being built within the required setbocks. Ibiicc roved, Pesek seconded, to recccrjtnd appicval based en the fact that It was built tliree years ngo with the understanding that the location ret all setback rcqvireevnts. Itotlon - Ares (3), h’avs (0). LMU. NOIbiOnD 13«0 VCIE PLACE V,V^IA'« • CARACr ATIEA L. >;\LUit HVSSKIGUE ;IT; KELLY AVENUE VA.^,VO; • LOT ARLV Cwnmi .'oani MimxY ?i0 OLD LONG LMO; ROAD •AVtlANO: • LOT ARL\ 8 TCAD SCnViCX FOR ADOITiai TO REStnENCE ttl JUDSTANDARC LOT :zxxi ca-Kn Sll A. FERI'O/UE S.:.inSI0N (PKlLPtl'aTY) J. r.iatxRDS 52ii CASCO CIRCLE VARIANO: - LOT ,\R£,\ C IflDTlt I I LVLTY SllVW 1940 Ca'<3JRDIA V.«IA.'«E - SIDE YARD SCTE,\OC (r.VRAOi) The PlaaaLng Cemissien went into work scs Park Cln Club nd Ken l.'ercat.ff ^ V 'LJ CITY.OFORONO 2750 Kaliey Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 (612) 249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued: W3295 Demolition 12/19/20 SITE ADDRESS: PID: 07-117.23-42-0037 1360 Vine Pi MOUND, MNSS3M DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Pemit Class:Building Permit Type;Demotitlofi Peimlt Sub-type(s): Demo - l*rincipal Smicture ---------------------------------------------------------------------Ch'iDETAILS: Approved per resolution •: Separate permits required: NOTICES/REMARKS: 11 t:nda:!cr.t'3!l demo debri: to be removed fre.r. ycusd & disposed cf offsia per PCA rtpuiattoas. Weils mist be abondoned. Inspeaion before backTilling. r J ; -3 FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee:S 50.00 Valuation: S 0.00 State Surcharge Fee: $ 0.50 TOTAL FEE:S50J0 APPLICANT: timothy landon 1360 VINE PI MN OWNER: ® * GAILENE J NORWOOD 1360 VINE PL MOUND MN 55364 STATE OF NONNESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. l a . l. w Ae u ----X pplicant RI^uai(jriAiiJKi& &fyt eM/ lUttEOBV^dkAlutlE **’ Copies; City, AppUcant, Assessor, Finance Pagcl ■ --I-"Qi>s III s mo OMI {Qourse I *’'flf AW ifj-;: .Course. :' ib • t** « WffSTtWCNAO -v Yj ”'° <S)>iv • - IVor, r ORONOi Arm SAKW St L=/C ••••• OIRO MiS*t •OHMS S WWf 5'“ iii 9^31 co’iw'. li' * • ■ i ■ \-Bay]:- ♦ V SMOAIilAIliPlno—»w \ • • : ::•••• F I-. -/ ^fUTitlC cr li s iiy l ^ (30) :h/, ~ 9 ^ (35»*c* (D^Wvl / ■ «K OOC •• M S* \ f 1 4*• ill -j f?)::-----------11■e 4 »;1 J J ^ : • t , ) .. (le: ❖ »» *" *"1 ••••••••*»» i. |(29)( /S^(^ 0 U/'^ 'P/c<c.< PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo. //»7 Pate. 35-39 //'^ <^7 I G Type of Perait #g <0 r I lii-amii y iWl RPUD Orditmnce » 5*^ Prafl Januaiy9.2001 Page II foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value (Including building construction, site prqunition, and site improvements) Minimmn Landscape Value Below $1,000,000 2.0 % of Project Value $1,000,000 - 52,000,000 $20.000 ^ \% ofPrQiect Value in excess of $ I.MtJUMi $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 \ .4% $30.000 0.75% of Project Value in excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 4tW<i$37,500 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 Over $4,000,000 1.0 of Project Value In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section mav be adjusted by the City lo allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent w ith the intent of this ordinance. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserxe as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. All new oversiory trees sliall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2% incht^s. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees sliall have a minimum caliper of I % inches. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurfacc materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply lo site areas retained in a natural state. RPUD OnUmwcc - S'* Draft January 9.2001 P«KC12 In order to prox ide Tor adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, on underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do nut at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall l»e composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. Ed Note: Keep a uparate schedule of prohibited species such as this: No required tree shall be one of the following: 1) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease; 2) box elder. J) II species of the genta Populous fpoplar): or 4) female ginko __________________________________________________________ laferior Parking Lot Landscaping. All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which ore necessary to promote the safe and eflicient flow of traflic shall not be subject to the “ISO stall'* standard and sliall be required by the city when warranted Parking lot landscape arras, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape shall be provided with deciduous shade trees.areas ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each IS surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping RPtJP Ordtoancc - 5*" Dmfl JanMafy9.200i Page 15 shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. Maintenance of Landscapings llie owTter, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the lime for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property arc required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owiier in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the \ alue of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection w ith making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one iwQ full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the awner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are rrx>onably RPUD Ordlwacc - S* Draft Jsauanr 9,2001 Page 14 beyond the control of the developer. Hxtensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. Scrccaiag and Buffcrlag. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision; I.Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure acccssoo' thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R” district 2.Off-streel parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within SO feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landseaoe zones . Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. Trash ttoiagc facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. Access roads serving multi-family buildings shall be screened as necessao' to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. Ail walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. RPUD Ordinance-5* Dniil Jannnry9.2MI Panels All required screening or bufTcring shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or bufTcring shall be located on any public right-of-'S’ay or vsithin eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. Screening or bufTering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating nwfs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be requierd. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of insunllation. O. Architectural Standards. 1.It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all structures other than single family detached dwellings: a) b) c) d) e) elevations of all sides of the building: type and color of exterior building materials; n ty pical floor plan; dimensions of all structures; the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment li if i RPUD OrdInaBcc - S* Draft L January 9.2001 Page 16 Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may. at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. Accessory buildings shall be orchitcctumlly compatible with principal structures. 4,All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas sliall be fully enclosed or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. 5.Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation value of the structui c). Flexibility'. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily gcn cming them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which arc not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety' or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the sunounding area or the city as a whole. Traffic Studies. 1 he City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road sy stems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road sy stem improvements. j RPUD Ordinance >y*Dnifi January 9,2001 Fane 17 Building Pemiti. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development. General Regulations Applicabllit}*. The requirements contained in this ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards sliall apply to a RPUD development as deemed appropriate by the city. Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures. A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance In the design of a Ri’UD prior to submission of a formal application, nn applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and cit>' council Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific infomiation as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: 1 ) approximate building and road locations; 2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings; 3) type and square footage of specific land uses; 4) number of dwelling units; 5) generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and preserved; and 6) staging and liming of the develop.aent. Tlte comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted. B, Master Development Plan and Rezx)ning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: RPUP Ordinance - S'* Draft Jaauan'9,2001 Pace 18 C. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) building location, height, bulk and square footage; type and square footage of specifle land uses; number of duelling units; detailed street and utility locations and si/cs; parking layout; drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; grading plan and drainage plan including 2*foot contours; generalized landscape plan; generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting: plan for liming and phasing of the development; covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; and 12) renderings or elevations of ail sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rczoning of the property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance w ith the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance. 7) 8) 9) 10) II) Development Agrcement/l-inany|)^| tjf^j^rantce. Following the approval of the Mxstcr Development l*lan but nriorto final plan approval, the apnlicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the RPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees ns the City requires or deents pecessarv. Such agreement may take the for.o of: Da development contract: and/or 2t a Site ImoroNcment Performance Agreement: and/or 3 > another form of binding instrument as mav be required bv the City. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the cit>’, including the following: 1 ) deuiiled utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; and 3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans. ii i HPI in Ordinance - 5* Draft January 9.2001 Page 19 L D.Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: 1) buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially the same location os previously approved; 2) the number of residential living units has not increased or decreased by inoit. tluii 5 percent from that approved in the master development plan; 3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not been increased by wore than 10 pereent from that approved in tlie master developntent plan; 4) there has been no increase in the number of stories in any building; 5) open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original design or intended use; and 6) all special conditions required on the master development plan by the city liave been incorporated into the final site and building plan. Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to confomumce with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals by the city. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and building plan review with the master development plan review by submitting all information required for both stages simultaneously. Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a consideration of the following: compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals, policies, arul objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan; preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearatKe of neighboring properties; * ‘1 ! 1 w iHIkla RPUP Ordljimcc - 5^ Pnifl January 9,2001 Fate 20 creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to. a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; b) the amount and location of open space and landscaping; c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. promotion of energy^ conser\*ation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of gloss in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preser\ation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial efTects on neighboring land uses.; and such other factor as the planning conunission or cit>' council deem relevant. The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. RPUD Ordiwancc • S* Draft Jaimary9,2MI Paiell Stibd. 7. Tcnn of Appro\-al. If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the RI'UD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city council may re/ame the properly to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning. the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing dt . *lopmcnt of the property included within the RPUD. If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or if building constrxiction In a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in phxscs has not started within this period or if within tluit period no extension of the time has been gntntcrl. the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zxming classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of rezoning. the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal conUol governing development of the property included w iihin the RPUD Subd. 8. Amendments. Major amendments to on approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning comntission. The notification and public hearing poKcdure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: a) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; b) increa.scs or decreases the number of residential dwelling units by more than 5 pereent; c) increases the gross floor area of any individual building bj' more than 10 pereent; increases the number of stories of any building;d) e)decreases the amount ofopen space by more than 5 pertent or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or f) creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majorit)' vote of the «2638 B-6 Amcndmcnl January 12,2001 Page 3 Stair feds it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the list of permitted uses in B-6. This would more correctly accommodate the medical olTicc building proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City’s intent for the B-6 district ns identified in CMP Amendment «2 (the 1988 Highway 1 2 Corridor Study) which is carried fonvard in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attached as Exhibit D). Unfortunately, this did not come to light until after the notice for the B-6 amendment was published in November. This item was tabled at your November meeting w ith no discussion, and the "Clinic" amcndmcnl has not been noticed for a public hearing. I f Planning Contmission feels this is a non- controversinl amendment, a hearing could be held ot the Council level in Icbruar) if Council agrees, or this could be noticed for your review and recommendation at your February meeting. Staff Rccominciidation Planning Commission should recommend that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the landscaping and architectural standards of the B-6 District per attachments A and B. Planning Commission should recommend that Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of adding "Clinics. Clinics tor human care on an outpatient basis only." to the list of B-6 permitted uses. § 10.45 SEC 10.45 B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. I. Purpose. l*hc purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any "D-O" Highway Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6** Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Onices (business and professional). B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. C. Restauran ts (Class I): Deleted via Ordinance No. 1 52,2nd Scries EfrcclivcDatc: 10.28-96 Subd. 4. Relationship vrith Chapter 1 0.53 Planned Unit Development. Other types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning district Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses. A. Within any "B-6” Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses c.xcept by conditional use permit: 1. Restaurants (Class I). 2. The following uses when such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Source: Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series Effcctiv'c date: 10-28-96 § I0.4S Subd. 5. Accessoiy Uses, Within any "B-b" Highway Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessoiy use as regulated in the "B-l" Business District. Subd. 6. Area, Height, l,ot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements and exceptions contained in Section 10.52 of this Title. A. Lot Area;two acres B. Lot Width:100 ft C. Setback - Principal SUucture: Front 30 (35) ft. Side Interior 10 (35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear 30 (35) ft. D. Setback - Accessory Sinicturc Front 30 (35) ft. Side Interior 10 (35) ft. Side Street 30 (35) ft. Rear 30 (35) ft. E. Setback - Parking Front 15 (20) ft. Side Interior 5 (10) ft. Street Side 10 (15) ft. Rear 10 (10) ft. Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts. •30 (35) feet or 1 1/2 times the building height whichever is greater in determining front setbacks for principal and accessory structure only. F. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans ORONOCC 351-2 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) I ii J § 10.45 shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission lo the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required lo be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction o\ er the area affected by the drainage. G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1 fl stories or thirt>* feet in heiglit except ns provided in Section 10.75. II. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: Overstory Deciduous Trees Ornamental Trees Coniferous Trees Major Shrub Plantings 2-1/2 inches In diameter 1-1/2 inches in diameter 6 feel tall 5 gallons I. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties If accessor>' structures are proposed, they shall he constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily scrx'ed through swinging doors. J. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. K. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the urincipal structure. L. External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets* except at access points. M. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. (Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future e.xpansion.) ORONO CC 351-3 (Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89) ^///4/r 6 hn 'Oj Proposed amended LandteapiuK reqniremenls lo replace 10.45 Subd. 6 (II, I, K, L, M): **11, Landscaping. I. a) b) c) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be required for an> proposed commercial site and sh^l be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualined person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a) boundao ’ lines of the property w ith accurate dimensions. locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intenals; location, approximate si/c and common name of existing trees and shrubs; a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; location and details of irrigation systems; and details and cross sections of all required screening. c) h) i) 2.Minimum Landscaping Requirements. a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, sluubbery. trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Prwiect Valu e ---------- (ImluaiintwiMmeonw -Minii i-Vak etien ITT’Orf^ltCTfWproTCflWfltj) ------------------------Below si.ooo.eee --------------------------------------- --------------------------0ycr$4,000,0ee ------------------------- 1 • 1 /V -----------------HMk Pm|tci Vilue (Including building conilniction. site pcepanilion, and site unprovemenli) _________ Below $1,000,000 $1,000,000 • $2,000,000 $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 $3,000,001 • $^1,000,000 Over $4,000,000 Mlninmin Landacapc Value 2.0 % of Project Value $20.000 + I V« of Project Value in exccstof $ 1 .000.000 4-4^ itO OOO 0 7SV. of Project Value in excecs of $2,000,000 +r«H$37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 1 .0 % of Project Value In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow cmdit for such material, provided tliat such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordiiuince. A reasonable attempt shall be made to prcscr\e as many existing trees os is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlappcd or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'4 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feel in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 *4 inches. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurfacc materials shall be covered w ith sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for ail landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. » i Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. Ed. Sou: Sample Uu “So required nee shall be one of thefattembti: !} a species of the genus VInuis (ehn). except those elms bred to be Immune to Dutch Elm Disease; 3) box elder; J) a specks of the genus Populous (p^ar); or 4) female ginko". 3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved. landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which arc necessary to promote the safe and eflicient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the “150 stall" standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. b) Parking lot landscape orea.s, including landscape islands, shall be rca.sonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so os to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provide with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approsed by the Planning Commission. 4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which ore required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allowr for seasonal or weather conditions. ..L Retaining Walli. Retaining walls exceeding four feel in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property arc required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. I he letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of lime equal to one iwsj full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other fomr of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may. at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the awncr and the surety. The city may allow an c.xtendcd period of lime for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which arc reasonably beyond the control of the developer. I-Atensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to sca.sonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. Screening and Buffering. The following uses shall be screened or bufTcred in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: I.Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto located in the B-6 zone shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R" district Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. 1 d 3. External loading and serv ice areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. 4. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures arc proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily scr\*ed through swinging doors. 5. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure. I 6. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened w henever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. Required screening or bulTering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All wnlls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:!. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use. building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage. oy mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings mav be required. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation."" ^/B/r C Proposed ameaded Arcbitcclunil re«|uircnicDls to replace 10.45 Subd. <(J): Archilectural Standards. I. 3. 4. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the follow ing for all structures in tlic U-6 District: a) elevations of all sides of the building; b) type and color of exterior building materials; c) a typical floor plan; d) c) dimensions of all structures; the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipntent. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal sliall not be permitted as exterior materials for principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except tho se not visible from prope rty line, llie city may, at its discretion, allowAJiy c?rtCT architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with pri ncipal structures. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and e.xterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fuUv enclosed or screened so as to not be visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. Lo w"pro filc» self co ntained mechanieal units which blend in the building architectufe are exempt fro m the screening requirement. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures rsubstantially reno\*oted shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation value of the structure V i i! i D CMP Pari 3B. UmJ Ui« Plan Urban Commercial Land Use Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which ore provided with alt the necessary urbim services and facilities. Ilte major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important development parameter for the Navarre commercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow for on expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities. An additional commercial area is designated along Highway 12 where the availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make commercial use appropriate. Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to Highway 12 area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. The retail development in the Highway 12 area will be community/neighborhood scale rather than ‘big box’ regional scale development. The types of reuil uses will be those that focus on providing scivices to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono, while also drawing from the traffic stream that will be on current Highway 12 offer the Highway 12 Reroute is open. 1 lowever, the retail development is not to draw substantial traffic from beyond Orono. The development plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally- owned and operated businesses that pro vide services to Orono and Long Lake residents. Additionally, the Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian- friendly area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the public. The two commercial areas along Highway 12 within Orono are identified in Map 3B-7 and include the following: City ofOrMO Connaaliy MaMgnacai rtea S«y<raik(f_.MO» Pag«3B-37 CMP Part 3B. Land Uk PI«w 1.Properly abutting the north tide of ciitling Highway 12 (Wayuta Boulevard) from Brown Road North lo Willow Drive. This area was reviewed as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1989, resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uses abutting Highway 12. with primary access to a service road connecting from Brown Road to Willow Drive, and elimination of direct access to Highway 12. The area b currently bounded on the north by existing residential development at densities ranging from 1 unit per 2 acres to I unit per 1.3 acres. The western half of thb area has since been developed via PUD as a nurseiy/garden center with included leasable commercial spaces. The cast half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000 s.f. ofTice building, and a vacant 6.5 acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Drown Road and Highway 12. The City Council in February 1998 adopted a General Concept Plan for development along Highway 12 indicating that the Council's vision includes community scale retail development (as opposed to regional or ‘big box' scale development) focused in a more compact area in or near downtown Long Lake (closer to Brown Road than to Willow Drive, at least in the short term) for the following reasons: I.Focuses on downtown Long I.ake remaining a strong retail area, and helps preserve owner-operated small service businesses in Long Lake which arc vital to Orono and Long Lake residents. Focuses on maintaining a vital downtown and "sense of place" for both Long Lake and Orono. 3 4. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity. It is easier to plan, coordinate and control the development of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability to obtain desirable development on the north side of Highway 12 cast of the Otten Brothers Nursery. 6. 7. Enables better control over the amount of retail development that occurs along Highway 12. Provides the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high tech, medical, etc. City of Orono Community Minae«mcnt Plan S(ft«ma(r_,iaas Pa|t3B-38 I 1 To: Chair I lawn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator I From: Mike GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: November 17,2000 Subject: ^2638 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: 1 ) Revise “B-6 Highway Commercial District” standards to incorporate more detailed landscaping and architectural standards. 2) Revise B-6 list of allowed uses lo include clinics. ListofFxhibits A - Zoning Code Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District B • Proposed Replacement Section 10.45, SuM. 6 (II) C • Proposed Replacement Section 10.45, Subd. 6 0) D - Highway 12 Corridor Excerpt from 2000-2020 CMP The landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD District can be equally applicable to the B-6 Commercial District The B-6 landscapinu standards in place are relatively minimal, contained in Subd. 6 (H), (K), (L) and (M) as follows: //. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: Overstory Deciduous Trees Ornamental Trees Coniferous Trees Major Shrub Plantings 2-1/2 inches in diameter 1-1/2 inches in diameter 6 feet tall 5 gallons I. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screenedfrom eyv-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed they shall be constructed ofthe same building material as the princifHil structure and be readily sen ed through sw inging doors. K. The ground level view of all meclutnical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and eidjaceni streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the urincipal structure. L External loading andser\ice mas must be completely screened from the ground level viewfrom contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. A2638 B'6 Amendment November 17,2000 Page 2 A/ The light from aulomohlle headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may he directed onto adjacent residential waulows. The proposed standards for landscaping are attached as Exhibit B. and would replace Section 10.45 Subd. 6(11). Note that the standards in the current subsections II, I, K, Land M arc incorporated into the new Subd. 6(11). J. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall he of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The proposed architectural standards arc attached as Exhibit C. would replace subsection J with a new Subd. 6(1). The proposed landscaping and architectural standards arc nearly identical to those proposed for the RPUD district, but an attempt lias been made to eliminate residential use references, since the B-6 is a strictly commercial zone. Note that the office portion of the Dunbar project is being reviewed as a rezoning to B-6, and these general standards have been for^^ardcd to the developer’s landscape architect as a guideline. Add Clinic (o List of B-6 Pcraiiltcd Uses During the review of the B-6 Section and in attempting to determine which zoning district the Dunbar office project should fall under, staff concluded that rezoning to B-6 would be necessary as oppsed to B-4, because B-4 does not allow PUD's. While the B-4 Office and Profcssioiuil District lists "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" as a permitted use, the most closely related B-6 permitted use is "A. Offices (business and professional)". Stall feels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the list of permitted uses in B-6. This would more correctly accommodate the medical office building proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City’s intent for the B-6 district as identified in CMP Amendment H2 (the 1988 Highway 12 Corridor Study) which is carried forward in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attached as Exhibit D). Unfortunately, this did not come to light until after the notice for the B-6 imiendment was published. Consequently, no formal hearing can be held on this element of the proposed amendments. I lowever. if Planning Commission feels this is a non-controversial amendment, a hearing could be held at the Council level in December or early January at the discretion of the Council. ^2638 D-6 Amendment November 17,2000 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should recommend that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the landscaping and architectural standards of the B-6 District per attachments A and B. Planning Commission should recommend that Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of adding "Clinics. Ciinics for human care on an outpatient basis only." to the list of B-6 permitted uses. To: Chair Ilaw-n and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Niike GafTron, Planning Director Date: January 12,2001 Subject: t^2639 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Add *'RPUD*’ to List of Available Zoning Districts under Section 10.52 Note: This item was tabled without dhcussioii at your November meeting. LUt of Exhibits A • Zoning Code Section 10.52 B - Map from CMP Amendment ^2. May 23. 1988 Background In 1988 the City studied the Highway 12 corridor and made specific Comprehensive Plan (CMP) changes for certain groupings of properties along Highway 12. Those changes carry' through to the 2000-2020 CMP, and allow for future development of commercial or medium density residential uses on those properties. 'Die Highway 12 Corridor properties subject to tliosc changes are along the north side of 12 between Brown Road and Old Cr>stal Bay Road and are defined in CMP Amendment ^2 adopted May 23. 1988. Subsequently, the City in 1989 adopted Section 10,52 “Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area", which sets out criteria, standards and requirements which must be satisfied before rezoning of any of alTected properties w ill be approved. Section 10.52, Subd. 5 establishes a short list of zoning districts to w hich the Corridor properties can be re/oned. as follow s: Suhd 5 Available Zoning Districts Due to the tauque set of cofistraints and op/H}rtumties that affect future decisions ref*ardin^ development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned loiit development approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance How ever, applications w ill be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the follow ing existing zoning districts w ithin the City, consistent w ith a finding of consistency w ith the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section: B-6 Highw ays Commercial District PRD Planned Residential Development R-1A ()ne Family Residential District R-lli One Family Residential District A/-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as a Planned Unit Development. L #2639 January 12,2001 Page 2 The proposed amendment Is to merely add RPIID Resideniial Planned Unit Development to the list of zoning districts available for the I lighway 12 corridor properties. This amendment is consistent with the 2000-2020 CMP which guides certain properties between Willow Drive and Old Cr>stal Day Road for medium density residential uses, which would be more appropriately developed through the RPUD process than via the old PRD which has few procedural or performance standards. In the future we may conclude that the PRD Planned Residential Development option should be dropped from the list in favor of RPUD; but stafThas not yet fully assessed the ramifications of that, so we suggest leaving PRD in for now. Staff RccoaiBcndatioii Planning Commission should recommend approval ofthc proposed revision of Section 10.52, Subd. 5 to add “RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development” to the list of zoning districts to which properties in the defined Highway 12 Corridor can be rezoned. ,v ’.■v'-yt- Ai.- h § 10.52 SF.C. 10.52 .SPECIAL KEQUIKEMENTS FOR KEZONINU IN HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. THE Subd. I. Minimuin Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the 1 lighway 1 2 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning w ithin the study area must include a minimum of five acres. I he plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough infonnation rcganling the elTect of the propo.scd development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is K>th compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Subtl. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. I hc plans submitted along w ilh the application must propose access to the pitrpo.scd development which is consistent with the 1 ransportation Planning Objectives of the I lighway 1 2 Corridor Study. All public easemenls and road right of way that is needed to allow the construction of ser% ice toads aiui'or the expansion of 1 runk I lighwny 1 2 past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City. Source: Ordinance 6“^. 2nd Scries Adopted: 5-8-89 Subd. 3. SanitarN Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. Tlie available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the dexelopnient of this corridor is currently very limited. I herefore. any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer and water allinrations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity ot the sy stems serving this area. If juinitary sewer or municipal water sy.slem intprovements are propiiscd as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this sen ice w ill also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development. Source: Ordinance 78, 2nd Series Adopted; 1-22-90 Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the Stomi Water Management objectives oftlie Highway 1 2 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure ho\\\ that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sulTicient storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of runolT from the site, meets or exceeds the City ’s standards. SuKl. 5. A\ailable Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and opportunities that alTect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rc/oning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development ORONO CC 359 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) § 10.52 approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. 1 lovve\ er. applications will be accepted for re/oning requests for any of the following existing /oning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Slud> and subject to compliance w ith all of the additional requirements established in this section: B-6 I lighway Cotnmereial District I’RD IManned Residential Development R-1A One Family Residential District R-IB One Family Residential District M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District Any proposal which requims a modification to zoning or subdivision iei|uirement.s must be done as 0 Planned Unit Development. Siibd. 6. Building Design and Con.stniction. In addition to other restrictiotts of this Chapter, the use. construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: A. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or (b) N.itural stone, or (c) .Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or (d) Factory lubricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials K* of any of tlu>se noted in items a. b and c above, or glass. |e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall K* permitted. B. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and sitall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. C. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, bxsement. tent or shack shall be constnicted, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of pennanent buildings. Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits authorized w ithin the I lighway 12 Corridor Study Area .shall be subject to the execution of a ORONOCC 559-1 Onlinance 67.2nd Scries Adopted: 5-8-89 J § 10.52 dcvclopmcnl agrecmcrn. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of all of the public improvements asstK-iated with the development and the developers’ financial commitments related to these improvements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions ol approval deemed ntxessary to insure compliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for Re/oning the I lighway 1 2 Corridor Study Area, as well os the goals and objeetix es of the I lighw^y 1 2 Corridor Study. Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Scries Adopted: 5-H-89 SEC. 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (I'l l)) Subd. 1. Authori/ation: Planned unit development authorization may allow : A. Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mi.xture of land uses, housing types and densities. n. Sensitis ity: Tlirough the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards assiKiated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while u.iiaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. C. Efllciency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. D. Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. zoning districts such as within the pmjcct. 1!. District Integration; The combination ofuscs which arc allowed in separate I. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied 2. Mixed a^sidcntial w ith increased density acknow ledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. . . 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the I lighway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono ’s Comprehensis c Plan Amendment «2 adopted May 23. 1988. ORONO CC 359-2 Ordinance 67.2nd Scries Adopted: 5-8-89 ■ f, Mwto PiidR-Uno UlM lntare«)tor -•— M0dntt-Oron»Hjono Uk« Mero^tv ------ W«tor Main ^ * N«w Roads mm, Currant MUSA aoaos Propotad Extansion of MUSA City Of Orono HK)HWAY 12 CORRDOR STUDY WMtam Portion Summary of Rocommomlod Changos Fly. 34b Applicatioa Dale: 60 Day Dcadliac; 12/20/00 2/l8«I XO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator FROM; Paul Weinberger. Zoning AdminisiratorTlanner DATE: January 9.2001 SUBJECT: #2651 Stephen Longman Builders Inc. on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp 2696 Caroline Avenue Variances — Public I learing Zoalog DUlrici: Lot Area: LislofEshibib: LR-IC One Family Lakcshorc Residential (Vi acre) 33.076 s.f.(.76acre) A Application B Hardship Statement C Site Plan (11/28/00) D Site Plan (12/28/00) I; Plat Map I’ Comments (James and Peggy Kadlec 1 /9'01) G Property Owners Notification List Background: A building permit was issued June 20,2000 to construct a new house. ITic house is nearly complete and a Tempc'raiy Certiftcate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) may be issued in January. 2001 At the time the building pemtit was approved, the submitted site plan met all requirements ofthc zoning ordinances and building code. After additional review of the site plan it was discovered the 75 ‘ lakeshore setback was not measured correctly. I hc site plan indicated a 75' setback to the lakeshore (cast side of the property). I lowcver, it was discovered the lakeshore bends around an adjacent property w ithin 75 ‘ of this property. Ihe area that should have, but was not originally included, in the 75 ‘ setback is shown on Exhibit C. also note the irregular lakeshore. As a result, the area of the 75-250* zone is actually smaller than initially indicated, and the owners have had to omit ceru in items of hardcover to remain at the 25*/'» level. When the setback issue was discovered construction of the new home had begun. Most of the structure was built. Since the house was nearly complete it was not possible for the property owners to reduce the size of the structure. To conform to the hardcover requirements the property owners had to reduce the size of the driveway, and remove a concrete patio from the plans. Neither had been constructed. A revised site plan, dated 12/28/00, has been submitted. i:6$ I Sieptun iMfnun tluildcn Inc on behalf of Robin am) )««n) Bupp 269$ Cvolinc Avtnuc Smmm -PUMicHanit P«(lor4 The site plan, attached as Exhibit D. is the site plan that is approved by Staff and meets the requirements of the zoning chapter. The grading plan has addressed the concerns by Staff regarding proper drainage on the property. Swales arc being provided around the house to direct water from the road, driveway and roof around the house and beyond the adjacent homes where the water will then naturally flow towards the lakeshore. In addition to the drainage s\sales. gutters are being added to the northeast roof line to direct water towards the front of the house and not towards the neighboring house. Draintile will also be installed to take the w ater from the house around to the front of the bank. Final grading and the draintile w ill not be completed until the ground thaws in the Spring. Because the additional grading and drainage improvements can not be completed until Spring, staff will be issuing the (T .C.O.) rather than a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). When the improvements are complete a C.O. could be issued. The City of Orono has routinely allowed individuals to occupy a home by a T.C.O. without all the exterior work being complete subject to a defined time period to complete the work. T’ariance Request: Driveway The property owners have submitted an approved site plan, revised 12/28/00 by Alta Survey Company. Exhibit D. As previously stated the plan removed a portion of the driveway and a paving stone patio. Staffhas determined the approved driveway is acceptable to provide access to and from the street and garage. However, the property owners had originally requested a wider drive to allow more space to maneuver a vehicle, and are requesting approval to install the wider driveway. Patip/Steos Secondly, the paving stone patio being requested is a ground level patio located below a patio door. The second issue is how to access the patio door since placing a small stairway with a landing up to the patio door absent the paving stones would also constitute hardcover. Two issues to discuss are the 1 ) variance to permit a patio and/or 2) variance to permit hardcover to allow a stair access to the patio door. There would be about a 3-4 foot drop to the ground without a stairway. The State Building Code does not permit patio doors without a safe landing. The City has required the property owners block the door so it cannot be opened more than 4 inches. Without blocking the door the home could not be occupied. Patio Dbcuuion: The natural grade below the patio door has been altered to accommodate a raised area. The grade can be changed in this area by 2 '/j feet. Ihc raised elevation is equivalent to the height of a patio/deck that is permitted without being considered ‘•structure’’ ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Most of the patio would be closer to the lakeshore than the average lakeshore setback line. The code prohibits any patios/decks over 6' in height from being located closer to the lakeshore than adjacent residential buildings. A patio or deck more than 30 inches above the natural grade would •»5t Suphoi toojmiB BuilJtt* liK on bdiairontoSiii nd Jcr^ Bapp 2696C«slifl(A«Mu( V«i«cn P«t2or4 constitute an encroachment because the Slate Building Code requires railings wiMn patios/decks are more than 30 inches above grade. The Building Code requires railings to be 3 Vi in height. The total height of the deck/patio would then be 6 feet. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: ‘Tennis courts, por/oj. decks, and ail similar “open” structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6* above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage.” The City of Orono has interpreted this section of ordinance to include anything that i. considered lot coverage or structural coverage to be structure and those structures are not penniited to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Required Setbacks LR-IC Front Yard = 30* Side Yard-10' Lakeshore-75' Hardship: I, Approval of a variance would require a hardship be inherent in the land. The fact that there may have been an error in a site plan would not necessarily be an issue with the land. However, the irregular shape of the lakeshore does have an impact on the property. The City of Orono has been consistent with ikw construction that lots develop to not exceed allowed limitations for hardcover. The lot has been developed to use all the allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Any additional hardcover would require a variance. Staff Recommeudatlon Staffrecommends denial of the application based on the Staffs finding that no hardship exists that would allow additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Orono has been consistent with new construction that lots develop without requiring N-ariances. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. •265ISlcptMfiL<Mi I lac M bcMfor aob« nd Icfiaiy 2696 CarolifM Avcmic Wmmea * hMic He«iag Pite3or4 jm STEPHEN LONGMAN BIIILWS IS December 18.2000 The Planning Commisxion Ciiy ol Omno 2750KcllcvParkuav Orono. MN 553.V> ' Vanance Rcqucsi The Bupp Residence Caroline Avc. Members ol ihc Planning Commission: We are asking fiK a \ anance Irom ihc allowable hardcover of 25% in ihc 75-250 zone in ihe follow ing iw o ai cas appro\imalcl> di\ ided as follow s: 1. An expansion of the driveway of approximately lOt) additional square feel or 0.4401 of additional luidaner; 2. The consiructum of approximately 250 square feet of hardemer paving stone patio, as shown on the registered land sur\cy dated May 10, 2000 and all subsequent *^As Built*" suneys. or I. ol additional hardcover. 3. The complete request is for an approximate total ol 350 square feet, or ISVX of additional hardaner. Rease be aware that the expansion of the dnveway and c\)nstruction of the patio iicmi/cd above would m>l exceed allowable hardcover in the 75-250 /one were this lot calculated independently from the neighboring lots. At the lime of permit application the surv exor and the city staff believed us to be in strict compliance with Orono’s hardcover ordinance. Our building permit was approved and issued on June 20th, 2(XX) and we began consiniclion. In November, at the request of a neighbor, the city again reviewed our suney and hardcover calculations and we were informed that, as our lot is situated on a point, it was necessary to establish the 75* setback line from the ordinary high water elevation even if it required measunng across someone else's adjacent property. (Sec suney). Unfortunately Alla Survey CiHnpany, Inc. had never heard of this requirement and the Orono city staff did not enforce it at the lime ol permit application. In June it would have been a simple matter to adjust our design to conform. 10012 CRISTMILL ridge EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55347 9S2-943-8226 C../»s Blbi 11 111 I itf ■■iiffliiPM I However, in November ihc house was appruximalcly 90Q built and we were pul in the impossible position of being asked to eliminate hardcox er essential to the existing design and clearly shown on our application documents. How can xvc now be asked to settle for less driveway than our neighbors enjoy and a patio door and stairs that go noxxhcrc? The vanance you would be granting is minimal and would have no impact on the lake nor any impact on any neighbors sight line. In fact, if it w ere not for the shape of the ncightx>r’s lot to the west we would be in complete conformance with the letter of the hardcover ordinance. VVe hax e even gone so far as to prm ide gutters and drainage sw ales to the west side of the house and garage to lessen the impact of any roof run off on our neighbors. Obviously we arc in conformance w ith the spint of the ordinance and we feel it is unfair to hold us to a stneter interpretation than our fellow lake shore owners. Therefore we ask that you recogm/e the unique situation and hardship that is created by adjacent neighbors lot and the unumely enforcement of this ordinance and grant us our variance. Thank you in adx ance for \our consideration. Respectfully submitted. Stephen Longr President STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS. INC. Minnesota C(xUrattor*s License #2166 Homeowners: .• . V j:■! Robin H. Bupp c \ \ \ SCALE 1" = 30 ’ PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ' o GARAGE FLOOR-951.0 z° TOP foundation-952.8 02 LOWEST FLOOR- 944.0 H= \ <«0 AREA CALCULATIONS 11/28/00 LOT AREA (TOTAL ABOVE OHW) - 33076 S.F. / 0.76 oc X 15X - 4960 S.F. ALLOWABLE STRUCT. AREA 4194 SJF. - 84.5% OF ALLOWABLE LOT AREA (75-250 SB FROM OHW) - 22500 S.F. X 25% - 5625 SF. AUOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 5614 SF. PROPOSED - 99% OF ALLOWABLE HOUSE - 4194 SF. STOOP - 268 S.F. RETANNG WALL - 45 SF. DRIVE - 1114 SF. TOTAL - 5614 SJ. 5614 SF / 5625 SF (99 % AaOWABLE) LOT AREA (<250 SB FROM OHW) - 60 Sf. X 30% - 18 SF. AaOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA 9 SF. PROPOSED - (50% ALLOWABLE) «(0 REV AREAS 11-9 REV HOUSE 7/24/CO REV-ASatT HSE. HARDCOVER. DRIVE. CRAOWC 10/6/00 lU* T OO HSI OCT 2S. 99 4,4. v: 99056 1 05/20/1908 04:43 KnDLEOPSSOCIATES. Jai»iaiy9.2001 Mr.lbanldMootse bjr Fawiwlc A U S. Mail CityofOnmo rObox66 Coi^Day.MN 5S323 Re: 2696 Caroline Axe Vviaacc Noiice -^26$ I Deaf Mr. Moone: Ai rcvidcuU uf llie aiyoiiiiiis lot to the cut at 2726 Caroline, this kcicf docmnciils OUr oonoeffi regai^g itM itqoesif for variance to city ordiuuices and the gninliiig of lem|XN«iy occupancy for the huUding litc at 2696 Caroline A%v Having huUt a home ourselves in 1988/89. \^c aio very fiwtiillar with the city of Orono bihlding ordnanoa and rules for building on lakcslioic property The building ncia door has been riddled willi issues (tocu the beginning. There has been appaimpitmedlialoJ disregard ofeUy ordnances and intent to defraud the city and neighbor! Specincally. false house plans and survey documents were sidmulled to the city for building approval. The house %ras then built to a nmchUiper sente Having bnilt our home, we aro aware that to bidid a larfcf home than the originally stated fooipriiil, ii^jor changes to foundation, the ordering of roof Irusacs. etc etc. in advance is required Having the liouse‘ happen to end up larger** is au impossiblUty. Disregardfor ttie hafikuver ruluireniciiis is just one of se\era1 outitanding isms. To our knowledge n dminage plan has )ct tt be sdbimned. intended violatiori to llic ki back roquiieowiu caiif -• two retaining walls haso been buill aud a deck which if being called a patio During lliis eulire cousiructioa process, the city vras made aware of the coucerns of the ndghbofhood. We as well as others, have liad to hire outside fuivcyors and consultants to fcchcck the work iw progreo rnther ihan rely on the city to monitor ii We bclioc llic cily lias been derelict in iu responsibility 10 piote^ us from this sort of fraudulent building actiWiy We can undemand and support requests for vnnnoce approval due to “human enor**, bol this liluatlno was prenieditalcd and planned wllli no coocern for the neighborhood and wiili ioul disicspeel for ibc ordnances iluii average rcsldenis must adhere to In July %vc bclicvu the builder stated his intent -“You can liy and slop me. but I am building us fast hs I can Otiu: il U buill. aU I have lo do is leqnesl a variance** It would be of mlcresl lu kiuiw buw umu> umes this builder louiinely reqocsia variances ns a oonvcaieiil after ihoughc. We will have to live wiih the resulU of this cuusUuctiim foe the fcmalnder of our roldcncc at our home, ll hasuiafoublablyitdiiuallliesaiueoroutlioitie UUobvious tocvciymthaf ihcbuildiiigUiiiappropdale loibelotonwhkhitsunds It wiUbeacoiisumiemiiiderc^theielccriroapplicaiionQfthelawsaBd ordnances by the City of Oroiio 05/2B/1900 04!43 KADLECSASSCCIPTES.6124717043 P.02 RoaMoom JnMiy 9.2001 Pligo2 AOtf adborini itficlly to the city cmliuiicca i n buildi ng our boUii^ wo led it ii uiyi^ ^ ulildi to icwanl ddiberalc and preroodiUMod acu of doflauoe lu lUc rules by graiiting viuiaiioce mid Mnporvy ocotpiiKy oenifkatet. Re^iecttttlly. Oe; Hooartbl. Batten Fttefen lqrNy«wd Bob SaoMMic fmm :> iUN DATE 12/19/I0 iATCM S10 NfNNIPIN COUNTY MOfCRTV INrORIUTlON SYSTCH PROfCRTT OMNCRS LIST ■CPOtT NO. PZASMIi PAGE 30 PROP AOOR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOt M 2f-U7-23 MtS •m4 CAROL INC AVE J N RAOLEC • P L RERNIUROT J N KAOLEC • P L RERNNAROT 2724 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA NN S5S91 M 2t*U7*23 24 •••7 •27IS CAROLINE AVE T N t L R REJZER TEL REJZER 2715 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA HN S5S91 IR 2R-117-2S 24 RRU •27RR ETHEL AVE JULIA 5 JENSEN JULIA S JENSEN 27Rf ETHEL AVI NAYZATA HN 55391 J 1 \ ^ PROP ARM OHNER HAHi TAXPAYER NAHE//U»R 3R 2R-U7-23 24 1025 02491 CAROLINE AVE THELNA J PULVER THELIU J PULVER 2491 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 M 20-117-23 24 00» 02490 CAROLINE AVE J S J CLEHONS .JOSEPH t JANE CLEHONS 2490 CAROLINE AVE 5 NAYZATA HN 55391 SR 20-U7-23 24 0034 02494 CAROLINE AVE JERENY 0 RUPP t RORIN H RUPP JEREHY D RUPP i RORIN N RUPP 19735 CARTNELL HILL SHORENOOO HN 55331 PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SR 20-117-23 24 0041 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES I SUSAN PftCIVAL CHARLES E SUSAN PERCIVAL 2752 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA HN 55591 TOTAL RATCH 510 0R007 10 CD (M I CERTlfY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INPORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS RATE ON THE RECORDS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OP OP NY KNOHUDOE ANO REUEP. PROPEWY TAXAHON, TO THE REST i THOMPSON&THOMPSON 0«7 A- Tl»omp»oo* K«r M. Thompton Ci^bUWWwMuGtu* ■mJUmmVm LAW OFFICE PLU> 17717 Ififbwsy Srrra Minn«tonl*.MN 66345 Jamuiir 15.2001 PloM 952-474-3221 Fu 962-474-2575 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S.;«IA1L Planning ConunUsion CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Paifcway. P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, KCnnetoU 55323 Re: 2696 Caroline Avenue Variance Request No. 2651 Our Client: Joseph Clemons FileNo. 1024-1 On behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons of 2690 Caroline Avenue, I urge the Planning Commission to deny the request for variance for 2696 Caroline Avenue, the property adjacent to the Clemons property, I will make three points; (1) The amount of hardcover already allowed before the variance is in dispute and has not been verified by the city. (2) The city has not yet required from the owner, nor has the otwner submitted, a drainage plan to solve the drainage issues resuhit^ from the constniction. (3) The patio for which the variance is requested, as well as the existing retaining walls already built around it, are structures which enaoach acrou the building setback line and will also require a setback variance which has itot been requested from the owner. First, the smount of hardcover resulting from the new construction as rqrreiented by the applicant was questioned in October by neighbors who had a consulunt calnilatc from the builder’s own survey drawing the hardcover resulting from the house, not including the patio, driveway or eaves, at 4,748 square feet The city coiresponded with that fjHimlfnt about his calculations which are on file with the city. Since the square fisotage of the house as reptesenled by the applicant is 4,194 square feet, that oonsidenble difference should have caused the city to verify the numbers with its own calculations. The neighbors believe on November 1, 2000, Mayor Jabbour instnicted the city staff to have the Bonesuoo engineering firm make those calculations u wdl as the lot area csieiiiitfiont to dctcnninc which represcmatioiu were accurate I undcrOaiid that Bonestroo was asked by the staff ooly to verify the exterior dimensions of the house as 9/Z -d 0618-ON D99S lldf5:E lOCJ ‘Sl-'if The punning Conunission January IS. 2001 Page 2 built and not to calculate the square footage of hardcover, already created by the bouse is still in dispute. Therefore, the hardcover The applicant’s survey drawing showing hardcover of the house, stoop, retaining wall and drive incorrectly totals their own numbers at 5,614 square feet when the total U actually 7 square feet more. Also, the applicant oiiginaliy represented the lot area to be 35,000 square feet and only recently amended that number down to 33,076 square feet. It would seem all these numbers should be verified independently by the city. In addition, the applicant's hardcover totals do not include an extra column and stoop not shown on the “as built” drawing on the northwest ade of the house and whatever cement dab will be built to hold an air conditioning unit on the ootthwett tide of the house (tee photos). Will there be a sidewalk along the northwesterly side of the houM to reach the door there? These addhional hardcover elements must be figured into the total hardcover. Because the total hardcover has not been verified by the dty, the city should not entertain a variance when, wo submit, the hardcover requiremenU are already exceeded. Second, the new construction and change of grade on the applicant's property creates new drainage problems because of the close proximity of the Clenun’s hmue to the new house. However, as of yet, no drainage plan has b^ submitted, which any qualified person can verify will solve the drainage issues presented by the large roof runoff on the demon’s side of the new bouse City Ordinance 10.03, Subdivision 21, provides that when substantial earth is moved, such as occurred here, at the time of issuance of the building permit, the Building Inspector will approve of a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property. Not only was a building permit issued without an adequate drvnage plan submitted, recently a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for this property without a proper drainage plan having been submitted. The city staff seems to feel that a proper drainage solution can be achieved in the spring and all parties will cooperate However, this ruiu counter to your own ordinanK which requires submission of a proper drainage plan before issuance of a building permit so that the city can atsesa before construction begins whether drainage problems will be solved. The neighbors do not understand why this procedure was not followed for their protection. The applicant asserts that they have “gone so far as to provide gutters and drainage twails to the west side of the house and the garage to lessen the impact of any roof runoff.” Neither the gutters nor the swwli have been yet TluO wUl be the niinimum that would be required fix an adequate runoff protectioa for the neighbonng properties. Because this new construction which moves hardcover so dose to the adjoining pnqiertiea presenu new and Irklcy drainage problems for this she, no rerpicat for variance 9/f ’d 0518'ON S?9S Hd85:e 1003 7 To: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: January 8,2001 Rc: 112550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Broun Road Zoning District: Site Area: Request: RR-iB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size 2v> acres (14.1 acres dr>- buildablc) Proposed four lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) of a 20 acre propem' located at 120 Brown Road South Lbt of Exhibits: A Revised Concept Plan B Summary of Request (Chuck Van Eeckhout - 120 South Brown Road) C City Council Minutes D Plat Map E Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact (November 8,2000) F City Engineer Comments (August 14,2000) 0 DNR Comments (November 10,1999) H DNR Comments (December 6.1999) 1 Comments Regarding Apple Glen Road Extension • Apple Glen Residents J Property Owners Notification List Application Background: On December 14th StafThad a meeting wiiii Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss a revision to the lot layout. Previous proposals had requested 7 lot arrangements, this most revised plan would eliminate 3 lots, reducing the total lots to 4,2 with driveway access to Brown Road and 2 with driveway access to Apple Glen Road. The City Council voted to rentm this item to the Planning Commission to review a new four lot concept. Please review the minutes of the December 18,2000 Council meeting anached as Exhibit C. The primary issue with the seven lot requests was access to the properties since Mr. Van Eeckhout did not have access to the property. •:no CkatUs y»> &.•**«« i:0$n».i,Rat(ISnlh SkMnUMK I IT«I f^-l •7 Chair Hawn and Orono Planning CommissionefS Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Froai: Date: Re: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planncr January 8.2001 #<2550 Charles Van Ecckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning Diitrict: Site Area: Request: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size 20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) Proposed four lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) of a 20 acre propertx located at 120 Brown Road South List of Exhibits: A B C D E F 0 H I J Revised Concept Plan Summary of Request (Chuck Van Eeckhout • 120 South Brown Road) City Council Minutes Plat Map Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact (November 8.2000) City Engineer Comments (August 14,2000) DNR Comments (November 10,1909) DNR Comments (December 6,1999) Comments Regarding Apple Glen Road Extension > Apple CIcfl Residents Property Owners Notification List Application Background: On December 14th StafThad a meeting with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss a revision to the lot layout. Prc\ ious proposals had requested 7 lot arrangements, this most revised plan would eliminate 3 lots, reducing the total lots to 4,2 with driveway access to Brown Road and 2 with driveway access to Apple Glen Road. The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review a new four lot concept. Please review the minutes of the December 18,2000 Council meeting attached as Exhibit C. The primary issue with the sev n lot requests was access to the properties since Mr. Van Eeckhout did not have access to the property. •2no CkarUt t om 120 RojdSetjM SiMnUtoit I 1701 pagt-l A ir ic (C’vUAa*. Ap^iC Glen Road The City of Long Lake has requested a cul de sac be constructed at the end of Apple Glen. The cul dc sac would provide adequate space for commercial and public safety vehicles to turn around, and minimi7e the use of private driveways for maneuvering vehicles. The subdivision request would require the following approvals: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development — This would allow the property to develop at a twx) acre density using cluster development and preser\ation space. 2. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUS.A amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to allow sewer connection to the site. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as approved by the City Council, has included the 120 Brown Road South property in the MUSA. The CMP has upl yet been approved by the Met Council. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties arc prosided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and wost abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-1B. To the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots aveiagine I acre in area, developed in the 1960’s. Easements 1. 4. 5. Standard drainage and utility casements along the prope. ry lines w ill be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flo wage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the casement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and w ithin 75’ of Long Lake Creek. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3.4. 5 and 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainagew*ays and pond areas Utility and Roadwoy easements shall be granted over Outlot A. •:SS0 CharU$ IVm Ettkhotil 120 Bronri KoodSouA Subdnutom hnoi Park Dedication Fee 8% of ihe land value, to be detennined by the Cit>- Assessor, will \x required for Pork Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of S3,100 and a maximum of S5.300 per lot. Shorcland Overlay 1. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75’ setback for hardcover and structure. The portions of the lots wthin 300* of the high water mwk of the Creek are subject to hardcover regulations as regulated by Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L). Staff Recommendation The proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicant shall secure access from the Cil> of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road. Road cul de sac shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be consulted for comments regarding eonstruction and maintenance of a cul de sac. Standard drainage and utility easements alone the property lines will be required for the final plat. Granting of Conservation and Flowage easements/Drainage Easements shall be dedicated on the final plat across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. Detailed Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and Cii> of Long Lake. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. The stonmwatcr management plan shall be designed to handle run off from Apple Glen Road in addition to the proposed development. •:5W Obrfc.* r« f«tw 120 Brvtn Rood South StMmMtoo IT 01 pogt-d 7. Applicant shall obtain sewer service from the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono enter into a sewxr agreement with Long Lake or applicant shall provide septic design for two site (one primary and one alternate) for each of the four lots. i i:SiO a>ark$ rm Cfctkatf nOBnmntoiSomA 1,17/01 pati-S L.. VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES 120 South Brown Road Long Lake. MNS53S6 City of Orono 952-473^25 Mayor Jabbor, City Council and City Staff Re; Application #2550 6 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my application #2500 at the City offices ywterday Dec 14,2000.1 requested the meeting to review some options and I appreciate your willingness to review this matter. So that I might verify that vx came away with the same general conclusions I would like to sumniarizc my thoughts on what was discussed (and a couple of things not discussed) Attending were Ma>-or Jabborc. Ron Morse, Mike GafTron and Paul Winberger and the undesigned. Problems; 1) The City seems to prefer 6 Lots on the 14 acr» of “high buildable” rather than the 7 lots in the application. 2) The City has stated a preference to exit the project off Brown Road rather that off Apple Glen Road which seems to be very unpopular with the residents of Apple Glen. The City of Orono is vcty’ concerned not to support any actions that would be viewed as offensive by the City of Long lake that could damage the spirit of cooperation that is currently in place between the two Cities. The City of Orono has tire opinion that the present driveway casement is inadequate to serve a seven lot subdivision. The owner of the easement has refused to sign any of 3 separate purchase agreements, to expand the permitted use.that have been submitted to him and even though he promised to do so. He has never made any offers or counteroffers to my purchase offers. 3) It appears that it will be quite difficult to obtain permission from Long Lake to Access Apple Glen Road and access the sewer at the end of Apple Glen. 4) It seems unlikely that all parties will agree to the application In it’s current form and It is important to me and I am sure the others involved that every effort should be make to achieve a result that can be widely supported. I therefore make the following requests of the City council; 1) That the application be tabled so that a proposed modification can be presented to the Planning commission which after their review can be considered by the city council. If the proposed modification is supported by the Planning commission and council I would then agree to modify my application #2500 to be consistent the proposed modification. VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES 120 South Brown Road Long Lake. MNSS356 952-473-0a2S JSSSSaSSS: acquifcd. 3)The proposed modification includes the following differences from the proposed plan; a) reduction of lots from 7 to 4 b) Two lots would enter off Apple Glen c) 1 wo lots would enter off Uic present driveway off Brown Road d) •nierc would be no public or Private Roads or Public Sewer. The sewer if obtained from Long lake would be utilized with individual service lines. e) The applicant would agree to hold the City harmless should any issues be raised concerning the access from Brown Road. 0 The applicant will make make an effort to meet with the City of Long Lake rwidents and other interested parties prior to the matter being considered by the Orono City council. g) Open space and other casements would be limited to an open space easement over the delineated wetland area plus the usual property line utility easements. h) The City and the applicant would use their best efforts to obtain sewer service from Long Lake since it has been concluded that given the environmental sensitivity of the area that central sewer would be in the public interest. c) Should central sewer service not be provided by Long Lake tire applicant agrees to ure septic systems and should that prove to be unworkable the applicant agrees to access the existing sewer line in Brown Road. Should you not agree with the content of this summary please let me know so we can work on any problems. Sincerely.-' ^hucic Van Eeckhout MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. December 18,2000 (#2 Recognition of Desyl Peterson, Continued) ‘ Mayor Jabbour, on behalf of the Cities of Long Lake and Orono, prwented a plaque to Desyl Peterson in recognition of her contributions to the Consolidation Committee. Desyl Peterson commented she has dedicated the majority of her career to public glad to have the opportunity to serve her own community by being on the Consolidation Comminee. Peterson slated she would like to sec the other members of the committee recognized as w cll, noting the comminee came tt^cther as a group over time and in her opinion made a good decision regarding the merger. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#3) *»2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 DROWN ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Charles Van Ecckhout. Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated City Staff has met w ith the Applicant to diKUSS a revision to the lot layout. The re*, iscd plan would eliminate three lots, reducing the total number of lots to four. Two lots would arcess off of Brown Road and tw o would access off of Apple Glen Road Weinberger stated Staff would prefer to send the revised plan back to the Planning Commission for their review and comment on Januarv- 18*. Van Eeckhoul stated he is anempting to reach a «oh tion that is agreeable to all parties Van Ecckhout stated he would like the City Council to table the existing proposal to allow hitn time to discuss the proposed change with all the appropriate parlies involved, and if a consensus is reached among the panics, the revision would be made to the plan. Van Ecckhout slated the revision would consist of tw o lots being served off of Brown Road and two lots off of Apple Glen. Van Eeckhout stated he would like to review the proposed change with the residents of Apple Glen and the Long Lake City Council and Plaiming Commission, and if a solution is reached, the plan would be revised accordingly. Mavor Jabbour inquired whether the Applicant would like to get some input from the Orono City Council regarding his application Van Eeckhout stated he would like the application to be reviewed by the other parties Ma\or Jabbour stated he has spoken w ith some representatives of Long Lake, who indicated they arc not in favor of this proposal doc to some stormwater issues that need to be addressed Van Ecckhout stated he w ill look at his options if no consensus is reached on the new proposal. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the 60 day time penod would need to be c.\tcnded on this application Van Eeckhout stated he has v%Titten a lencr to the City of Orono detailing his irueniions for this PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. December 18,2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development. Moorse indicated this application has been going on for a considerable period of time, \\ith the review period hav ing been extended a number of times. Moorse stared the Applicant s letter indicates that he is willing not to exercise any rights he may have acquired regarding the 60 day time period at this time. Moorse staled the Applicant’s letter is not a formal extension of the cj day time period but in his view a request to table the application to allow the Planning Commission another opportunity to review his application Van Ecckhoul stated in his opinion tiK 60 da\s has expired, but as his letter indicates, if he has acquired any rights with regard to the 60 davs, he is agreeable to not exercise those nghts dun.-.g this process Kelley staled in his view the City Attorney needs to get involved in this matter in order to ha*, e the proper paperwork signed by the Applicant Mav-o; Jabbour stated the City of Orono needs to have in writing an agrtement b> the Applicant to extend Uie 60 day lime period. Van Ecckhoul slated he agrees not to exercise any of his rights regarding the 60 da>s Ma>t)r Jabbour inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to sign a letter indicating he is willing to extend the 60 day lime period. Van Ecckhoul staled he has been instructed to not sign an extension Icner. Moorse indicated that early on in the application process the City received a general l^cr the Applicant giving the City an extension of t.mc until the major issues were resolved, which have not fully been resolved at this time Moorse stated as the application process coniinuew each 60 day time period elapsed, the City requested the Applicant sign an extension letter. wh::h was done. In the middle of the process, one 60 day time period elapsed and an extension lene: wds not signed by the Applicant Moorse stated it is unclear whether the Applicant has gain:, any rights from that failure to sign an extension letter Flint stated in his \ icw there arc two issues before them One is whether the time period elapsed and it is his understanding that the Applicant docs not wish to give those rights up a. uus lime The other issue is the ongoing period of time and whether or net there has in fact been • waiver of the 60 day time period Van Ecckhoul stales his letter indicates he is willing to not exercise any rights he may have acquired. Flint stated in his opinion that is different from an actual extension of 60 day lime period, and at the end of this process the Applicant may choose to exercise those rightt that be may e acquired. Flint slated in hU view the letter should be amended to say that the Applicant does cot waive any rights as of today. Flint stated that wouldpreservc any rights the AppUcant may have PAGE 4 II Minnehalia Creek Watershed Disfrict Improving Quality ofWatrr, Quality ofLifi MEMORANDUM Date: November 8,2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafher, Senior Technician RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District). Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil R^urces), and Jim Hafncr (Minneluha Creek Watershed District) visited the Vau Eeckhout site on October 16.2000. Others present v-cre Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil suive>' for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fifty > ears ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to ex a mine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary* photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show stiyling water when adjacent wetlands did w'>h some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in lime. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for h>'drolog>* did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving mto the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour Um which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small bstin that does show hydrology m the part of the property east and south of the existing bouse. The LOU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distriei (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out to that coolour as port of the MCWD pennitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffera will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP %vas comfort^le with the delineadoo line u prmented by SES. X-' WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Datr Oclobef 24.2000 raunlv; Henneotn mU: MinnehriMCrtdcWaterahed District LOUCooliCi:_MHifiia_________________ Pn»ctNime«r: VwBwMwtf Phooei: WS71471-0590 Location of Pmlect: T117N R23W 03 NWI/4ofNWl/4 Orooo Henneoh Tow^ IUi«t, SacOo^ Qa SMta. Loimeck. Cay. Ooaaiy TEP Membm (md othen) who reviewed project: (Oacfc If vinwd preiwlMe) nt)SWCD: David ThUI_________________fX \ BWSR: Doun Snvdcr____________ OOLOU: rmHaf Other Wetland Experts present:. TEP requesu-d bv: CitvofOrono Type of TEP detenninatioo requested itaM X DeUneatioo check ___Exemption Detcnninstion(WCAExempdoo I___) ___No-Loss Determination ___Replaoeacnl Plan Description of Wedand with proposed impect a. Wctiand Type (Circular 39).(Cowanfin). b. Size of Proposed Imped (tenths of acre). Have sequendogrequirenieali been addressed?__yea ___no Is the project conahtent with the inaenl of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed tfistiict plan, die metropolitar. surface water management pim and metropolitan poundwatcr management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes( ) No( ) The project will afiect the following wctiand ftmctioos: £U0£!ifim Floodwatcr Storage Nutrient Assiinilatioo Sediment Entra pment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Acsthetica/Reatation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/Anima) Habitat Commercial Uses tattlSL _2L_ Inmrove 7. For replaccmeri plan or no-loss desctaainMions. are wetland ftmctioos taaknained at an equal or greater level? Yes( ) No( ) Does Technical Evahration Panel recomoiend approval ofihe activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No( ) If no, why?. 8. SIGNATURES rtf TEP didH(w if iw# a MW M uA at oMrrtit OMd aytsW on <4r tael efite « I1/8/D0 / ^ ' 1H/g/70QQ SWCO BWSAIl^ SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consulting April 4, 2000 Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Adminlstrator/Planner III City ofOrono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 m -I j CiirtJrVnOAo . RE: SER Project Name: Van Eeckhoul - Orono Parcel Delineation 5ER Project No.: 98-060-03 Dear Mr. Weinberger, The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the above project. To briefly review iu status, this parcel wa^ visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on (3ctober 14, 1998. At this time; two areas were determined to be jurisdictional uxtiand and were delineated by SER (see SER Repod No. 98-060-03 for more detail). The ed^es of these wetlands were located by SER using a Trimble Ag |32 GPS equipped with a. Juniper Systems Held data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard sution in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. In 2000, SER determined that the boundaries of Basin. I needed revision due to factors that were not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure I). This. revision was due to the presence of sand and gravel fill found in this area, which indicated that it would not meet jurisdictional wetland status. In aildition, the boundary of the northwestern finger of this basin was redrawn and reduced (Figure 1). This reed canary grass domir»ated area .recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland bouiidary as was determined in 1998 was decided to over-exaggerate the scope of the northwestern wetla^ edge. Please note that the , modified boundaries on Figure I are not exact and are subject to field verification. . . • • Should you have any questions about these revised boundaries, please call me. Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources Franklin J. Svoboda, CH'B, Pf^S President cc: Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 2477 Shadywood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Oflice) • (612) 471-0007 (Pax) V . P 4 A ^ ^if<* iT7 ^ >^ 4 : •«<'' *'^ r"- Sflf-'V* !i?^ ‘ ijvutHKLi I’-vulogiiJl Ki’-vi'Uiio Aerial I’huto of She A()proji mate Basm Edges &' • >: <. y 'Sl^^. . ■ Van I fvVJu'iJt Paiccl hgiuc I l/leonestroo ^^Rosene vSAnderlik& |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planncr City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS323 Re: Van Eeckhout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is locai^ east of South Biowo Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line ttail in the northeast quarter of Sccuon 3. We have the following conunents in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Strecls: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximate!) 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feel. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved w idth with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to incli^ 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 iggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We reconunend 1 VI inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of T)pe 3lbiluminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the sueet design 2. rrodlng: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland The erosion control plan may ne^ to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes. A wetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should he in place prior to any griling. particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s ’ Comprehensiv e Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn D.SR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (N’VV’L) and high water levels (JDVX) The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10 I aquatic bench lO-feci wide at the pond NW'L The pond design should also include in outlet structure that provides I-foot of skinuning to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be rotMed directly to a pond. A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewrr system. A wTitien sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono wnll be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets 'The City of Orono should review the unilary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot 1. Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlot A. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lii^ arid 10 feet wide along the roadway righi-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651*636*4600 • Fax: 651*636*13)1 BonciKM. AiWtfl** «n« AiMCtM**. IBC. Il Atlumsu^ A<li««/lB>*“ Oppottutot/ tmptmft «n« tiyWy PilntipsU Olio O ■o/'f(--:o H Io'kju. ri • O r»^ • C®o* rC • VOM'I a • .t-»* A Boxj'Oo^ S«n»a« CantirflMtt: nett-: W Pt • JCirpfi C Aripri-t PI • Pt • tuljf' M IM'IO C AttOilPlP PfttHipMt K£*»»a A lonfp’4 Pt • A Ce-«9« fl • • Aftffcri*. PI • $^no>a W roiief M • « O le»oU Pt • C AIA . M«rk A H«non. PI • I PA.l”Pnr, fl • *»d I r.«k> PI • tt^nptAP ArSt'tOti.Pt • Mj*» ■ •o<»l Pt • 0«««d A Bon«it'30 MS A • s.>wy P IS • Pgr** M Ml A • AajnS<« S*nj-m*. H OlfWti. Si PaP St Osws »ein*it*i •<W »m • \a »aApp. Wi WMUM. w«r«BerWUfCC :t" 6.' Financial Gttaraoltt: When ihe plans have been completed «« will prcfMre an estiimieofihetattl cost for the ihe improvemenu to detonnioe the nmount of the financial fuarantee icquired. Please contact me at (6SI) 604-4S63 if you have any queatioM rcfardiog this nutter. Youn very tnily. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom KeUogg ^ Cc: Oref Gappa. Gty of Orono Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, KIN 55344. Office (612) 826*6764; (Fax) 826-6767. November 10,1999 POV ’ 2 '559 crrYv *-.:o City of O.'ono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger. This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for propert>* located at 120 Bro>\‘n Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state ’s concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Miruiesota. Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line Slate Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the slate trail or adjoining state propert)’. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line r\mning from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer w ould be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono (^hard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for the horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and future landowners be made aware of propert) boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DSR Infcwnuium 6157. I »uo :tX» 6000 • TTY 6l2-2<»6-5Ji4.1.M04S7-3929 \n I41MI 0»rrMi> frmtt4 <m IU««M * •< l*» December 6.1999 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails A Watem-ays, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie. MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waicrv,ays Unit in regards to the applicaUon #2550 submitted by Chuck Van F^khout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state ’s concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot # 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails A Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the de\elopment plan. As it exists on the preliminary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brotm Rd. S. Trails A Waterway ’s preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. We also support the City of Orono’s position that Lot # 7 be set aside as a conserv ation outlot This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us Informed of future plans for this development Thank you, Suzann Willhite Metro Trails A Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Regef DNR tnfooiuiion:612 296^l57. I . TTY: l lfl0^5T-.W2» An C«mI OyfOfKHUi) Eaifla)Ct ftir ti da Cdwjduai 4 MjusuMaf Ur. rSM<'aa<a*r> be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation a4j«cent to the tniL This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establidi a conservation easement of 10 to SO feet along the entire souths border with the Luce Line State Trail. This wt)uld benefit both the landowner and the trail users 1^ providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their properly in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement The DNR would be willing to vrork with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development Thank you. Suzarm Willhite Metro Trails A Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger ■w : ■* i.<k -1- — a Arlo R VandeVegte Pamela S. Vande Vegte 50 Valley View Road iuOngUke.MN 55356 August 21.2000 VIAFACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO thi City of Long Lake ft tht City of Orono Our homaftaad adjoins Apple den Roid in Long Lake. Wo see no benefit and only burden totlwdtiaasofLonglekattidtfaepfopefly ownen along Apple Olen Road to the extension of the road into any part of Orono. yours,Very^y; ^ ^jJie IliJ^ande Vegte r ^ 'OjruJla. Pamela S. Vande Vegte 2 -daoio-oH teJO Sl> H9 3193A 30NVA Nil20:E 1002 *12'»V X Au#ull9. aooo 1:3am TothicityplaaiMnofOrofioAUiagLakt. Mr.miWtlibwprAMiitGriditita. Tte Bcluiisn RiBOB A Omldlas tn oppoftd to the DttQuIoii of Apple CMcn fisr the yuiywe of hfr. Beehhwiti AillAoi pHeel ■ -----------___Miitfl:! flPiiZ ;irj"v August 21.2000 CKyofOrono City PIf nntr Paul Wainberga r 2750 Kally Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Daar Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Craakside Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are §g§lnBt the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: • In 1997 Apple Oien Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft. width that vtras originally proposed as part of Long Lake's plan to have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple Glen Road a narrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which Is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road H appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the street to go by hia front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic created by the new homeowners driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). • Apple Glen Road is having a sort of turnover of young families living on R. These fomilies have young children and any increase In the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing in the neighborhood. • It Is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed In 1 997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the ^rder for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake’s request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposed to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono In which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Ailosring the use of Apple Glen for this development would pready Increase the antl-Orono sentiment £ -d SOiO-OH (over) rego c/t n? aisg.* i:his mwi 0002 ‘U-Inv Peg«2 It It dear that tha batt way to allow for tha davalopmant of lha Craaktida Foraat for all • Involvad la for Mr. Van Eackhout to puraue acquiring propaity from hit nalghbor to tha north ao that aoeau to tha propoaad propartiaa can ba via South Brown Read. ‘ It la our undaratanding that tha property owner la willing to antartain lagitimata offera from Mr. Van Eackhout to obtain a portion of tha proparty. Thia acanario affecta by fir tha least amount of property owners (2 varaua 14). Thank you for reading our ooncemal Blnoaraly. kariM a AfirfMa illMr 0 ■ :Charlai & Andrea Miner 69 Apple Olan Road. Long Lake (952)4764049 \ ■ i. * •! * i' * oc; Matt Ootdatiln. Long Lake CKy Ptanntr Fax: (952)476-9622 I ■. ! • •. t ' # * .. .• .. . » •*.. •. t **. . • t •. * « .1“ , ^ •4.' . •*•1. ■ . * * t -i mo «M too sit 119 3193A aONtA HOtO^O 0011 . :rc \: A^AR'vr-. i cITT or 0 R 0 N 0 MINNESOTA HANSOM \MCSTBWICK BEfKiER, MC w w-Mi tu %j atWt n i *'< -,-J_----------- Ei_I£S'. p:= I » M C K A ssociatb 51 ruw :-2- r B3 ■ iitiTliffirt> *■»«■< By iLT^ scAU PI rtiT S S’ % ^ ' ‘r‘ •• .f mr-' r ^{p MUi Daria QRONO SENIOR HOUSMQ ORONO MMNESOTA MtLLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC Mtc>«n:T« t luMMns itoi mantmornc avt*cc MDM4MX4 MMMt* t»40t nutuKfutm iuuH FM8T level vie**r 0* A2.2 r^LLER ^NSON RBECK R. INC»* C AVCMLC 9CU M441 ra HI »4H B7 ■aut MO :a*t« ORONO SENIOR HOUSING ORONO MINNESOTA L.»1 <1 ,t tr.ii • , MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC MC>*Tic-s t IMI MtATMOfSVt •^IHUC mkmk:-* luoi tt> lU MS rS Ui'MH SECOND LEV£L wie*-r-o* 5- -JLl E8 1 J ............ ■■H •M M0 aiVMM B«’U ORONOSENIOR HOUSMQ ORONO MINNESOTA MM** ftmm «tr^ * **• ti» »u« *p^ ■ f afstA M ti».-«f «M • «• m ►••.- » • *v* ^ tt r« MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC *K>ricti I K^<^€n□ e?l NAWTMOMNi AVfVUt MM/VOLS MMW* u*ai t-2 muiciuta jumm B1 G»w“ So ROOT PLAN i/ie*-r 0* A2.5 % 10 mmMtmmvmmoAtu ORONOSeniorHOUStlQ ORONO MMNESOTA u«* •# tM M*!# r# MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC OC< NAWTMOMM AVtNUa MMJOtt tMOtM uiwjo 1*1 n m»*a ■i^Aiib I ^ - * - sn ■M «M> M««0« MTI* ORONO MMNE80TA m wtttt m w**a«vt* MH.LER HANSON WESTERBECK BERQER. INC tMMTKT* I aMM OOl HAWTHOIMI AVtMUS MMtfa* MMtOtA U401 M a> VUO FAl t« »M *0» ^ : s^ 01 r 1 n.ihiaoC? *m A-A.A. A- A. A- A.A. ■55SSS*warn convicMoi iAiil StTt MAN 11/Mi itQWQEL»B.RjOOWWJ>N C2- Mm •m »■! m mt mm cvrrcATtm CAAjCtnocm AO iteoiiiilttiiiiiilliMiii ■ u '■ w« HHisr Q =j m m ill comncAnoH r«ST OOM PUM i|/nt^looo i'*'g>1~ri~ nil ci ($JEsaCAfifiOA^1^ • r-flr m^rnm AM-Hfe mill «M •<*•«»■ l}1f ctRWiCAnoN UCONO »\00N n>M <J/"/ A2 -ir iiiTUrT—r iirrtin—rm-ifUiiTnnaiMfr L.rvm^t-r IIL - __ §K... SEC. 10.52 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Subd. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of w-ay that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12 past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City. Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8*89 Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer and water allocations or they must inclv.de improvements to increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary* sewer or municipal water system improvements arc proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this serv'ice w ill also be scrutinized along w*ith an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development. Source: Ordinance 78,2nd Series Adopted: 1-22-90 Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the Storm Water Management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed siomi water ponding areas contain sufficient storage capacity and whatever additional measures arc necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or e.xcceds the City's standards. Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development ORONOCC (4-1-84) (5-8-8?) § 10.52 approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordmancc. However. appUc^ons will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning disincu witl^ the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Comdor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this secuon: B*6 Highway Commercial District PRD Planned Residential Development R. IA One Family Residential District R-IB One Family Residential District M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as a Planned Unit Development Subd. 6. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictioru of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within e district shall meet the following standards: A. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or (b) Natural stone, or (c) Specially designed preces: concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in items a. b and c above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be appros ed by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. B. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of nateriah coinparable to those us^ in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner co.nforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. C. No building or structure of a te.Tiporar)’ character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall b»* constructed, placed or maintained upo.n the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanen* buildings. Subd. 7. Requircmeii*. of Development Agreement. All development permits authorized within the Highway 12 Coniour Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a ORONO CC 359-1 (4-1-M) (5-8-89) r § 10.52 development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of ell of the public improvements associated with the development and the developers' fmancial comrmiments related to these improvements. The agreement shall also Include any wd all other conditions of approval deemed necessary to insure compliance with the Special Mmimum Requirements for Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, ns well as the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. n 4 c •Source; Ordinance 67, 2nd Senes Adopted: 5-8-S9 SEC. 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Subd. 1 . Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow: A. Variety: Witlib a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. B. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance . standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural charactenst ^ Efficiency: The consolidatio.t of areas for recreation an I reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. D. Density Transfer The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. E. District Integration; The combination of uses which arc allowed in separate zoning districts such as: . • j 1. Mixed residential allows both densiues and umt t>-pcs to be varied within the project. 2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD. is utilized 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment U2 adopted May 23, 1988. ORONOCC 359-2 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) § 10.53 Subd. 2. Allov-TdUses: Uses vsilhin the PUD may include only ihose uses designated on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allou-ed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development pljm shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permmed uses wtn the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the deyeloprncni plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and xsill follow the procedures specified m Subd. 6 of this Till 3 Required Standanis; For the purpose of administering this orduiance, the City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most sirnilar to the proposed development. In the event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning-Adn^strator shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the i y Council. Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation wetlands, the protection of health, safety and xvrlfare of the community and resident of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, corapaubility, parkmg ar^ and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features suA m streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of mtcmal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may fmd to have a matenal bearing upon the statrd standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Subd. 4. Coordination W'i'h Subdivision Regulations: Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The pl^s required under this Chapter shall be submir.ed in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminar)' and fmal plat. Subd. 5. Revisions and/or Changes. A. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of struc^es may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed \rith the Zoning Administrator. B. Changes in uses; Significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any reanangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of comrnon open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only a er a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. ORONO CC 359-3 (4-1-W) (5-8-89) § 10.53 C. All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district \^ithin v^'hich the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherv\ise provided in approval of the final plan. D. Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District as set forth in the Developer's Agreement, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council lo find that the rezoning was in error. Subd. 6. Phasing and Guarantee of Performance. A. The Planning Commission shall compare the actual de/clopment accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. B. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. C. The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public and recreational facilities which arc shown on the final development plan must proceed at the sj^e rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Re\iew Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. D. A letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. . Subd. 7. Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion. A. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. B. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below: 1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are ORONO CC 359-4 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) § 10.53 consistent with the purposes and Intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of anybuilding or structure by more than ten percent (1054). 2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconsmicted only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. 3. Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. Subd. 8. Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development. A. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall bt to pro\ide the applicMt with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed arul its conformity to the provisions of ilus Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. 1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: a) b) c) Overall maximum PUD density range. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. General location and extent ofpublic and common open space. d) General location ofresidential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e) Staging and time schedule of development 1) Other special criteria for development ORONOCC 359-5 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) 1 « li.: .• '» rTTiL«. i,'-^ 1’I II II HITMI I § 10.53 2. Schedule: discuss the proposed developments. a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to b) The applicant shall file the concept stage applicadoii and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. c) Wj-iiin thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Plarming Commission shall hold a public hearing. d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recoramendat! ins to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the heanng and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350*) of the boundary of the property in question. e) The City may request additional information ftom the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f) The Council may hold a public hca.’ing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Pla.ving Commissioru If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. 3. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(D) for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. 4. Applications: Ten (1 0) copies of the Mowing e.xhibits, analysis arid plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdi^osion Title. ORONO CC 359-6 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) § 10.53 b) General Informatton: 0)The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. (2) (3) The applicant's name and address If different from the landowner. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submined, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effecniate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. c) Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the Propert>'. The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property. A map depict'mg the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, proper^ lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing Its relaiioiuhip to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how- the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property In accordance with the applic^le regulations of the City. ORONOCC 359-7 (4-1-W) (54-89) ORONO CC § 10.53 Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" ■■ 100). (a) (b) (c) (d) Contours; mininium two fool (2*) intervals. Location, type and extent ofuec cover. Slope analysis. Location and extent of water bodies,* wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (c) (0 (g) (h) Significant rock outcroppings. Existing drainage panems. Vistas and significant views. Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. A statement of the estunated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (a) (b) (c) Area developed to residential uses. Area developed to residenUal use by building type. Area devoted to common open space. 359-8 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) I § 10.53 (d) Area devoted to public open space. (c) Approximate area devoted to streets. • (f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (h) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of dev'clopmcnt to be followed from stage to stage. (9) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to propertj' included in the proposed PUD. (1 1) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13) The City may require the submission of any additional irfformation or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. ORONO CC 359-9 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) § 10.53 Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implemenlaliom of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions include but not be limited to: a) A fuial plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. b) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (I" •• 100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (1) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the count>* where the subject property’ is situated). (2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (3) The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feel and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. (4) Locauon, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (6) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, bcluding parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (7) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (8) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. ORONO CC 359-10 (4-1-84) (5-8-8?) § 10.5: Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landKaping. (1 0) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (11) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in cor\junciion with the approval of the general concept plan. c) An accurate legal description of the entire area \sithin the PUD for which fuial development plan approval is sought. d) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. e) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial wd industrial floor space by type of activity (e.t. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). 0 Preliminary architectural •typical" pla.ns indicating use, floor pla^ elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. g) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets. <:asemcnts. rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, stnicture, including mobile homes, and uses. h) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. i) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance wi'Ji the Subdivision Ordinance. j) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts. Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Ser\ice, or any other agency wih review authority clearly illustrating erosion co.-.^ol measures to be used during construction a^ as permanent measures. Source: Ordinance 67,2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 ORONO CC 359-11 (4-144) (544^ Landscaping. 1. b) c) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feel and shall show the following; a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; proposed grading plan with 2-fool contour intervals; location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plan: materials, root condition and special planting instructions; planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; locations and details of other landscape fe**fMres Including berms, fences and planter boxes; details of restoration of d-' bed .nrcas including areas to be sodded and seeded; location and details of irr .lion systems; and details and cross sectic-^ •• all required screening. c) 0 6) b) i) Minimum Landscaping Requirements. a) All open areas of a lot which arc not used or Improved for required p?*king areas, drives or storage shall be U«.-*dscapcd with a combinauon of o%crstory trees. u;»lcrstory trees, shnibs, flowers and gmundcover materials. The plan fur landscaping shall inclr-'e ground cover, bushes. shrubbcr>. trees, sculpture, foundall .ns. decorative walks or other similar site design feamres or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value Gncluding building constniction, site preparation, and site improvemenu) Mirnmum Landscape Value DeIowSI.000,000 51.000. 000 • S2.000.000 52.000. 001 - S3.000.000 53.000. 001 -$4,000,000 Over $4,000,000 2.0 n 1.7% 1.4% 1.15 % 1.0% In instances where healtliy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, th.c application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incoipwrale them into the site plan. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or mo\ ed from the growing site by Uee spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/a inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 Vi inches. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, drivev^-ays, patios, or similar hardsurfaec materials shall be covered with >od or an equivalenf ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained iu a natural state. In order to pro\ide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures w*hick do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural sttte. 1 - f)Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. No required tree shall be one of the following: I) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease; box elder, a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or female ginko. 2) 3) 4) Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. All parking lots contoining over 150 stalU shall be designed 0 incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which arc necessary to promote the safe and efficient Low of traffic shall not be subject to the “150 stall" standard and shall be required by the city when warTanlcd. Parking lot landscape areas, including lands< s islands, shall be reasonably disliibutcd throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parkin'* lot landscape areas shall Se provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Plannhig Commission. Maintenance of Lanr!»caplng. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a.hcaltiiy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape 4 * f A plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. Retaining Walls. RelaLiing walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feel in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape aicliitect. Lnndsc.'iplng Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the ovsner m ail amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contra-ting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a 'etter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the lime prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the exper.se of the awner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed iiine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather CO .ditirns. When an e ttension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. . Screening and BufTering. a) Ths following uses shall hi screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivisloni 1. Principal buildings ar.d slruclures and any building or structure accessor>* thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R” district. 2. Off-street parkinii facilities containing sLx or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within SO 3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. 4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roeds. Required screening or buffermg may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be erchitccturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facilit)* or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. Screening or buffering required by this section shiU be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. Memo i( i Ocnniroo Hotcne «rjB A.'vJ«t1A c |\|| Auod«tes AnMitni Project Name: Orono Apartments Traffic Review To: From: Bryant Ficek Re: Traffic Flow for the Orono Apartments Client: City of Orono File No: 139-98-000 Date: 11/07/00 The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tnmk Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this site. The current site plan, dated October 17,2000, shows hvo buildings. One building is proposed to be an apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the cast side of the site, next to Brown Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet of area and would be located on the west side of the lot. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates for developments of this kird, the following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site. Time Period Office 1 In luilding Out Senior I In dousing Out Total Site In Trip Ends Out Averaee Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250 am Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 1C PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35 Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120 Average .Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105 As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a l)pical weekday according to the size and t>pe of these dcvelopr..ents. Site Access The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. T^c first access drive connects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site access drive, if possible, with the access to the bar\k and private homes on the east side of Brown Road North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced *T’ intersections. One lane in each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brewm Road North with TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection of Brown Road North and TH 12 due to the traffic volumes on TH 12. We would not recommend a signal at thisTH 12 intersection since other nearby intersections in both directions on TH 12 have existing signals. The current geometries at this TH 12 intersection are also a.*-quate for the expected amount of traffic. Bonestroo. Rosena, AnderTk and Assoefatas 2335 WestKiahwa/36-»^ St. Paut,MN531l3-»> Phone: 651-636-4^00 ♦ Fax:651-636-1311 * • Hovtmbtr 7,2000 P^e2oJ[2 The second access drive connccls directly to TH 12, south of the propos^ site. At the location of this access TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/n^t out only access at mis • * «___•________*rtJ 1 o Vt/* AiriK^r r^mmmend A stlOft flSHt tUm lAHC DC CrCBtCu access TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a ngni iivn^u out omjr m location leaving the mediaaon TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short nght turn Iwe be created from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately r_ii__n Airi Mnrth ihic Ian?? rotilrf hc crcdicQ without Widening TH 12. One lane in each from TH 12 into the access anve. uy re-sinping me c^imhijs maiivii.5- - -------------- --------- following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each direction would suffice for me amount of traffic expected for this access drive. A third access is in the northwest comer of the site Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance, we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before ma^g a recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects mto a rwdcntial area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 frorn the side streets it is likely that many motorists would seek tliis route as an aUemative to the other ac^s dnves. Thus, the amount of‘cut-thru* traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramaticclly. yttfi rnal Traffic Flow From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and able m choose to go to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle tnpi to and from each building /ij.nintjfm of aclivitv at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide thw require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include. . Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the cast side of inc lot.'d the senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situa^oM of opartmrnl residents driving through the office parking lot. office users arc generally used to more vehicle actisnty in their building’s parking lot.vehicle actmty in their building’s parking lot. . t - 1 • Provide a separate drive aisle .0 the south of the senior housing parking. Tlus pu^ the parking close to the building while alloving other vcliiclcs to continue through the lot without disruption from • Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain as sho'A-n or be shifted to the nortn side of the building as well. Either option would allow office users to use this drive iiutead of going through the apartment parking area. 4 Changes should he made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas. The access drive in the northwest comer of the site could have motorists from the senior ho-.ising driving access drive and -ts relation to the internal iraffic (low should be re-assessed when more infurmaUon is known. p^c«^<fr;an Movements people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise. nanastroo. Rostnt, AndtHik 9nd^8tocttt6^ 2335 West Highway 36 4 St Paul, MN 55113 ♦ Phone: 651-635-4600 ♦ Fax. 851-636-1311 Memo mlm Doncstroo aSRotene AnderiJ(& |\|| Auod«i«t Project Name: Orono Apartments Review To: Paul Weinberger From: Bryant Reek, Tom Kellogg Re: Traffic Flow and other Issues lor the Orono Apartments Cf/ent: City of Orono F//a Wo; 139-2641 Data; 11/14/00 The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North i.t Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this site. The current site plan, dated October 17,2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the cast side of the site, next to Brown Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet of area and would be located on the west side of the lot. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site. Time Period Office I In luilding Out Senior 1 In riousing Out Total Site In Trip Ends Out Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250 AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10 PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35 Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120 Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105 As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a typical weekday according to the size and t>pe of these developments. Site Access The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access drive connects to Brown Road North on the cast side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the cast side of Brown Road North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced ‘T* intersections. One lane in each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection if this project is completed before MNDOT's realignment of TH 12. As pan of the MNDOT TH 12 project. South B. )wn Road will be realigned to bo the fourth leg of the Brown Road/TH 12 intersection. MNDOT plans include signalizing ims intersection. Boneatroo, Rosene, Andcriik and Associates 2333 West Hifhway 36-I- St. Paul. MN 33113 4- Phoae; 63I-636-4600-I- fax:631-636-1311 Sovtmbtr 14, 2000 Pagt 2 of 3 The second access drive connects directly to TH 12. south of the propos^ site. At the locaUon of this access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/iight out only access at^s location, leaving the mediairon TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn Iwe be created from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short uper immediately following Brown Road North, this la.ne could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive. A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site plan t^wirigs and field reconnaiss^cc. we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be ® recommendation. However, we would no* recommend this access if the drive connects in^ a residential area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for ™ streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an ^tem^ivc to the other access drives. Thus, the amount of *cut-thru ’ traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically. Internal Traffic Flow From the access directly off TH 12. motorists proceed to an internal intersection and ^*We to cho^e to go to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and frorn each buildmg without disruption of acUvity at the other. The access drive connecUng to Browii Road Noi^ docs not provide llus type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would ^ dnving through the middle of the senior housing parking, erecting safety concerns. Correcting this potenual problem would require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include: • Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the cast side of the lot wd the senior housing is on the west side cf the lot. Although this may result ii; the undesirable situation of apartment residents driving through the office parking lot. office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building's parking lot. • Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puls the parking close to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lol without disnipuon from parking acliviiies. This will require locating the drive aisle a bit further south than onginally shown. This will not impact the site any more than shown on the proposed grading plan. A sketch of this option is included with this submittal. . Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment pi^Wng could remain as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as w'cll. Construcuon of this dnve aisle would impact an area north of the buildings not shown to be graded on the proposed grading plan. Either option would allow office users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area. Changes s'nould be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas. The City should evaluate the proposed access drive in the northwest comer of the site. This access could, at a minimum, provide access to the City’s pump house. P^^Mtrlan Movements people from cither building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise. tioneBtroo, ffosene. Anderllk and Associates I 2335 West Highway 36 St Paul. MN 55113 4- Phon«: 651-€36-4600 Fax: 651-636-1311 Kovtrnbtr t4, 7000 PoitSofS nradlng find Dftnage The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot In the northwest comer of the site approximately 10 feel higher than the adjoining property to the south. We recommend this part of the site be lowered at least 4 feet. The retaining wall could then be elimbated and 4:1 slopes graded between the parking lot and the adjoining property. If the proposed grades are not revised the developer should work with the adjoining property owner to replace the existing timber wall with a segmental block retaining wall. The developer should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for our review. BonMtroo. nooeno, And^rtikandABMOdotu 2335 West Highway 36 -s SL Paul.MN65113-f Phont: 651-636-4600 > Fax:651-636-1311 ■UN 0A1S 10/27/0■ ■ATai soa fROr AOOR OMNER NANE TAXfAYER NAHE/AMR fROf ADDR OUNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNCR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNCR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER SO SA«lia-2S 12 ROM OOASO BROUN RO N TANA R SEIROLD tana r oarrctt A'.O BROWN RO N LOIIO LAKE NN 5SS54 sa SA-iia«2S 21 oeis 02100 SUOARWOOO DR DIO ANLERS DAVID N I DIANE R ANLERS 2100 SUOARWOOO DR LONG LAKE HN S5S50 SO SA-118-2S 21 OOia 021OS SUOARWOOO OR It J I S 0 HOGAN RANDALL J I SARA 0 NOCAN 210S SUCARWOOD DR LONO LAKE NN SSSSA Sa S0-1IR-2S 21 0022 02100 SUCARWOOD OR 0 Z OILL IPS GILL CRCTCHCN Z I FRANCIS S GILL 21M SUOARWOOO OR LONO LAKE Nil 55S54 SO 5A-110*2S 21 0025 02110 SUOARWOOO DR )C TAXACM I N 0 TAKACH CSARA I HARIA 0 TAXACII 2110 SUOARWOOO DR LONG LAX Ml S5SS4 HLiaiiriN COUNTY PROPERTY 1NF0RHA110H SYSTLN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST sa SA-118-2S 12 0007 00410 BROWN RO N ERIC J URSON ERIC J LARSON 410 BROWN RO N LONG LAKE NN 5SSS4 SO SA*118*2S 21 0014 02107 SUCARWOOD DR T J I V A SNITH TNOHAS J SMITH 2107 SUCARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN 55S54 sa 5A-11S-2S 21 0011 02101 SUCARWOOD DR RICHARD J I CONNIE L APPLE RICHARO J 1 CONNIE APPLE 2101 SUCARWOOD OR LONO LAKE NN SSSSfc 1R W-IlR-21 21 002S 0210A SUCARWOOD DR R H SCNONNER A E N SCIIWWtCR R N SCHONHCR I C H SCHONNER 2104 SUCARWOOD DR LONG LAKE NN SSSSfc sa SA-118-2S 21 0024 02112 SUCARWOOD DR K C DEM a K N D BCRC X 0 BFRO a X N D BCRC 2112 SUOAmOOO DR LONG LAKE HN 55SS4 sa S4-lia*2S 21 0028 ooosa ADDRESS UNASSICNEO SUGAR WOODS HOHCOWNCRS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC sa S4-lia-2S 21 0030 ooosa ADDRESS UNASSICNEO SUGAR MOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HONEOWNERS ASSOC SB S4-1U-2S 21 0002 02140 WAVZATA BLVD H HILLUN W WEAR R WIFE WILLIAM W WEAR . 2148 WAYZATA BLVD IS04 LONO LAKE NN SSSS4 SB SA*U8>2S Z1 0017 ozies SUOARWOOO OR TNOtUS J I VIRGINU A SNITH THOHAS J I VIRCDOA A SNITH 2105 SUCARWOOD DR LONG LAKE HN S5SS4 SB 3A-lia-2S 21 0021 02102 SUCARWOOD DR T H KINNES I A E KINNCS TOGO N I ANITA E KITtlES 2102 SUCARWOOD DR LOflC LAKE MN S5354 SA S1-11A-23 21 0121 02108 SUCAOWOOD OR N L RICKS A J N RICKS NICHAEL L/JACQUCLINE N RICKS 2108 SUCARWOOD DR LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SB S1-118-2S 21 0027 02111 SUOARWOOO OR NCOONALO CONSTRUCTION INC NCOONALO CONSTRUCTION DC 7001 115TN ST W APPLE VALLET HN 55121 SO S1-118«2S 21 OOSS ooosa ADDRESS PEWINC GREEN VAUEV ASSOCIATES INC GREEN VaLLEV ASSOCIATES INC cn :{■' iuil OAU i«y2i/oo BATCH StB nw ADM OWNCR NAttC TAXTAVIV NAMC/AOO* MOr A08B OMNCI HAHC TAXFAVEt HAm/AOOB MOf ADDt ONNfB HAfie TAWAVf* NAHC/AOOt MOP ABM OtMCR KAHC TAXPAVCR NAMf/ABOR PROP ABM MNCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ABOt PMP AOOR OWNER NAHt TAXPAYER HAHE/ABOR SB SA-11B-2S 72 BBIS RMSB AOORESS PCNDINC C I L OTTTN CLirrMB A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 2Af LONG LAKE HN SSS5A SB SA«11B*23 2A B05B •0«Sa ABORCSS UNAS5ICNC0 SIDNEY B B BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B B BARBARA RCBCRS SS2R WEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK NN S5A1A 72 SA-:ia-2S 24 0B02 B2B7S HAYZATA BLVB N OREOORY N SHAU6HWCSSY LONG LAKE PORB TRACTOR 2I7S W HAYZATA BLVB P 0 BOX 4Y7 LONO LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S 24 OOlS B0S12 VIRGINIA AVE THOMAS JONN KIELEY TNONAS JOHN KIELEY 512 VIRDINIA AVE LONO LAKE NN SSSSB 72 S4«lia-2S 24 BB27 BB5SS VIRGINIA AVE KEITH D HILLER KEITN D NILUR 5SS VIRGINIA AVE LONO LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S 24 OBSB a2BB9 HAYZATA BLVB H HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL HIBNCL BUDeiT RENTAL 2BB4 HAYZATA BLVB H LONO LAKE m SSSSB HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SB S4-11B-2S E2 BB2B •BOSa ADDRESS UNASSICNED C B L OTTEN CLIPFOBO A LOUISE OHEN BOX 244 LONG LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S IS BOia •1477 HAYZATA BLVB U P S t P A COSNOARIAN PAUL B PATRICIA COSNOARIAN S4BS LAXEVIEW DR HOUND IM 5SSB4 72 S4-11B-2S 24 BBIS BBS22 VIRGINIA AVE J J B S N RUFF CHERYL LVN RUFF 522 VZteiNIA AVE LONO LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-1XR-2S 24 002S B2B4S HAYZATA BLVB U D CREAR B H B CREAR DAN CREAR 19B0 SPATES AVE HAYZATA MN 5SS41 72 S4-I1S-2S 24 BB2B BB57S VltOINIA AVE CUY H FCLDHANN CUV H FELBNANN 525 VIRGINIA AVE LONO LAKE W SSSSB 72 S4-1I8-2S 24 BBS4 B2B4S VAYZATA BLVB H J B H rNVtSTHCNTS J B N XNVESTHENTS BS41 RINOSVZEH U N HAPkE CROVE HN 5SSU REPORT NO. PI4SS4B1 PACE 2B SB S4-lie*2S 24 BBBl •2120 HAYZATA BLVB U HILLZAH WEAR ETAL . HlUXAN H HEAR • SB HACXBCRRY KILL LONG UKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S IS BB71 B1TB4 HAYZATA BLVB H STATE BANK OF LONO LAKE STATE BANK Of LONO LAKE 19B4 HAYZATA BLVD H LONO LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S 24 BS14 00522 VIROZNIA AVE J J B S H RUFF CNCRTL LYN RUFF S22 VIRCZNIA AVE LONG LAKE NN SSSSB 72 S4-11B-2S 24 BB2B 00S45 VIROZNU AVE D CREAR B H B CREAR DAN CREAR 1410 SPATES AVE • HAYZATA HN E5S41 72 S4«UB>25 24 BB24 •05.1> VIRCINU AVE 0 1 C SNUV OMEN H SttEBY SIS VIRCINU AVE LONO LAKE HN SSSSB 72 S4*11B<23 24 P*T0 •2BB5 H4VZATA ILVB H JOHN S BRISCOLL JOtM B DRISCOLL C/C PCX SS2 NXMNESOTA ST intt ST PAUL m ssm carssi; €0 CM % ro • MM DAU lt/27/0« lATCII SM MCMNCfIN COUNTY MWfftTV IMTOAtUTIOM SVSTtN niOrERTY ONNERS LIST RCHMT NO. fIAS5«n RACE Z1 rROr ADDR OUNCR NAME TAXRAVER NAMC/AOOR 72 SA-UA-2S 24 1040 02a7S WAYZATA BLVO U etCCORV N SlUUCHNCSSV LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2R75 W VAVZATA OLVD r 0 ROR 447 LONG LAKE tM 5SSS4 72 S4-11A-2S 24 *#44 •0540 VZRCINIA AVE RAUL S COSHCAR7AN ET At P S i P COSHCARIAN S94S LAKEVIEW DR *n-<JIO ^ U144 72 S4-11R*2S 24 00S2 C200S DANIELS ST QUENTIN P NEVSTROH ET AL LAKE ENOZNCERZNO INC P 0 MM 7*7 20aS DANIEL ST LONG LAKE HN S5SS4-I7R7 72 S4-lia*2S 24 •047 PROP ADM * ••••! PREMIER DR OMNER NAME RJR NOLOXNCS CO INC TAXPAYER RJR HOLOINCS CO INC NAHE/ADOR X PREMIER DR LOMC LAKE HN 5SSS4 TOTAL BATCH 50R 00040 it iCi~':£ Ji Z CERTIFY TNAT TNE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RCPRESCNTATION OF INFORNATZDN AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OP THE NDOMPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OP PROPEITV TAXATION* TO THE REST OP NY KNOVLEOCE AND BEUEP. DATE )]:^±£w NnNUTES OFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) Lindquist commented in his view overall this is a good document in principal and he would prefer to deal with the height restrictions on a per unit basis. Berg stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the height of the »*™cmre « locked, what it is adjacent to, and that there needs to be some guidelines in place to help giv direction to the developers Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application W631, Zoning Cod^^^^^ Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Residential P.U.D., to a work session in November or December. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED («9) ft2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45 Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application #<2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45, to a in Noveinber or December In conjunction with Application «2631. VOTE: A>es 6, Nays 0. («10) <<2639 Zoning Code Amendment. Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.51 Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to tabic Application «2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Section 10.52, to a ;^ork session in November or December in conjunction with Application «263I. \ OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. («11) «2640/264l Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Way^ata BouLrard. P.U.D./Subdivision/ Reaoning/Commcrci.M Site Plan Rcsiew, 10:01 p.m.- 11:32 p.m. Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar, appeared Weinberger stated the Applicant has submined an applicat an for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre rrorertv. The Applicant is proposing reroning for the two properties from the B-l, Retail Sales Business District to P.-6 TUD for office use of the proposed w est pa^el. and RPUD.TUD for multi-familv residential use of the proposed east parcel. Tne intended use of the properties ar e a three story. 70 unit senior housing p.'ojcct, and a 23.000 square fool office building. Weinberger noted the subject pared is planed as Outlet F, Suganvoods, which ts the immediately south of the Suv'-r.voods neighborhood. The orU> buffer l^veen the use in Sugarsvoods is a 40 foot wide platted ouilot that is owned by the Association Restrictions were placed cn each lot within the Sugarwo^s ne j . o'bo^ prohibits removal of trees greater than Mo inches in diameter xdihin the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. In order for any devdopnr.mt to occur on the property, the lot would need to be replaited. •--------------------------------------------PAGE 23 i>nNUTESOFT^IE ORONO PLANNING CO>LMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (1^2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) Weinberger stated they are proposing to rczone this propert>% which requires a comprehensive plan amendment to change the guided land use designation for at least Lot 2. The rezoning would allow Lot 1, which is proposed to have a 23,000 square foot office building constructed on it, to be rezoned to the B-6 District. The second rezoning would be to rezone Lot 2 to the RPUD, which w ould establish standards for a multi-family residential senior use of the building. The Applicant is proposing to construct a three-nor>*, 70 unit senior housing facilit)*. The housing would be similar to other senior housing facilities Weinberger stated the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the revised Cemprehensive Plan has this area guided for commercial use. The proposed senior housing would not fit under this designation, which results in the need for a comprehensive plan amcndrr.ict for Lot 2. Weinberger staled Section 10.53 defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12 PUD, which is really the umbrella for this process being put in place to allow rezoning to occur on this properQ'. Weinberger noted Section 10.52 defines special requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 corridor. The Applicant has provided site plans for both projects. Weinberger noted a site plan review is required for each individual lot. Corrjnerctal site plan will tvpically inv olve all of the reviews that arc t>pically involved in any ivpc of site plan rev lew, including such things as landscaping, parking, lighting, traffic flow, building height, setbacks, architectural matenals, screening, and any other design or use issues that c.vis: Weinberger noted this is a preliminarv p!a: application, which also involv es replatting and subdiv ision of the tw o lots. Lot 2 consists of appro\imately four acres in size and would house the senior housing facility. The 70 units would result in a density of 17.5 units per acre on the propertv, which is higher than any other zoning district within the City of Orono, therefore the RPUD ordinance would apply in this case. The RPUD would rely heav ily on the Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot to guide the lot towards the tvpe of uses and densities that would be allowed on this property. The RPUD would also provide those incentives that arc consistent with Orono's housing goals ar.d includes modifications to regular density requirements The housing goal in this case is to prov idc moderately priced senior housing. Weinberger stated the office use being proposed for Lot 1 would not require a comprehensive plan amendment since the underlying land designation is for commercial use for the entire site. Lot 1 consists of 2.1 acres Weinberger noted the Applicant arc looking for a cone* “ual plan review and approval at this time Weinberger stated the preliminary plat would fall under the preliminary plat standards Because litis is a non-residential plat, the Citv has the option of applying additional requirements that the City would help this development fit within the neighborhood and to protect adjacent areas from any nuisance uses on the property. Weinberger fiated some of those provisions would include permanent landscape buffer strips and anv other additional Kreening or design elements that would help it fit into the neighborhood bencr. The Applicant is proposing to plat Lot 1 as an individual lot. Lot 2 would be platted creating a building with 70 units, which would be accomplished by crying 70 separate tax parcels and PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Conllnucd) 70 scparaic legal descriptions. Under thU t>pe of plat the a non-profit organization and each unit would be rented to an individual j . a complete lighted intersection with existing Highway 12. Weinberger indicated the City is considering the various methe^ tliat arc ^ . financial assistance to this project. Some options the C*ty will be coiuidenng is *e i TIF District for this area, tax abatement or bonding for SS^has of development to occur and to keep the tents ,^ not madea determination on what t.vpe of financing should be offered at this time. Weinberger stated the office building would consist of a 23.000 a 21 stall parking area underneath the building The actual size of the 72 feet SO f'Ct with the so feci being exposed to the residential areas to the north. The building is SJs^n'rtolivc a step-up apVmnce to lessen or softer the «.r.-i Weinberaer noted one portion of the building would consist of <me story, ith t designed to have a step-up appearance to lessen or sorter^ rnc sisua. w ^ area. Weinberger noted one portion of the building would consist of <me ^ . . remainder of the building being two stories One access point would be off of the c.MSting Highway 12 corridor height of 32 feet, which is an architectural and design clement on the building to help break up the facade of the structure w ould consist of the three stories. L.PACE 25 K A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 20.2000 (M2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR. Continued) building height in addition to minimum setbacks on the propert>*. The plan before the Planning Commission shows 40 feet between the building and the northern propert) line and 30 feet where the garage entrance is located and the interior property line. Discussions have been held between Staff and the developer about the possibility of moving the building further to the south. Weinberger noted a pond has been constructed in the area which is designed to handle the water runoff from Highway 12. Weinberger noted the pond is owacd and t^erated by Mn/DOT. Weinberger stated the other access to this site w ould be off of Brown Road and could be located closer to the pond should the building be relocated slightly. However, this would result in the removal of some mature trees on the site. Weinberger stated the developer is proposing one space on the interior of the building for each individual unit w ith the senior housing comple.x, w ith S3 outdoor spaces being shown for use by guests to the building. Weinberger stated the City Engineer would like to keep the exterior parking away from the main traveled portion of the road. Weinberger stated a portion of the parking area could be relocated closer to the building, with outdoor parking only on the north side of the road. Weinberger stated the road w ould be by easement and would not be platted, which would allow a lesser setback Weinberger stated tlie Planning Commission should be advised that per the Highway 12 PUD provisions by which this rev iew w ill occur underneath, this proposal is in a general concept stage, which is equivalent to a prcliminarv plat application. However, the City Council may hold a second public hearing as allowed under the PIT) ordinance and would require a 3.'5*s vote. Weinberger stated under the PUD ordinance, there is a mandatoiy 60 day requirement for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, and because the Planning Commission does not meet in December, this application would go beyond the 60 day limit Weinberger noted the dev eloper may prefer to have a recommendation on this maner before the end of the % car rather than tabling of the application. Dunbar commented he would like to address wvo items relating to the office building. Dunbar stated the five foot variance on the east side could be adjusted to 35 feet, which would eliminate the variance request. In an attempt to get the office building to look more like the housing in the area, the tower has been eliminated and would not result in the need for any variances. Dunbar stated their intent is to get a concept and a site plan that is acceptable to the Planning Commission, Citv Council, and the neight^rhood Dunbar indicated thev have a tight time frame in which to get this project approved, and requested that concept approval be given as soon as possible Dunbar stated they are willing to work with the City and the neighborhood in order to address the issues satisfactoril>. Dunbar indicated two neighborhood meetings hav e been held with the local residents. Dunbv stated they have attempted to locate the narrow est portion of the office building ne.vt to the neighborhood and to limit it to one storv. with aa 80 foot setback, to limit the impact on the residential area Dunbar stated they would like to preserve the vegetation in the front and place some additional screening along the building Dunbar commented they have anempted to make the office building appou* more residential looking to make it more appealing and to blend in PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (D2640/2M1 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) with the a4iommg residential area. Dunbar stated as it relates to the senior housing facility, they have reduced the number of outdoor parking stalls to 50 and arc considering the possibility of increasing 10 84 spa^. Dunbar noted they are looking at StaBTs concerns and « those Dunbar stated they could also remove the tower incorporated into the senior housing facility. EvebTi Schommer. 2106 Sugarwtiod Drive, inquired xshether any family members would be able to reside with the senior residenU. Dunbar stated under state law they arc not permitted to have family membera live m the senior housing facilib unless they are married. Schommer inquired whether there would be balconies on the building and what they would be used fcr. A resident in the audience inquired about the lighting and air-conditioning of the building. Dunbar stated there w; 11 be air-conditioning units a\ ailable in each individual unit Gaffron noted the Cit>' wiW require recessed outdoor lighting Dunbar stated they need to construct a 70 unit facility in order to help keep the rent increases to a minimum Karl Berg 2112, Sucarwood Drive, commented he has a number of issuM he \vould like to see addfrtsed Berg’stattd he would like to see the service road pass in front of the pn^rty Berg inquired about the height of the building and lighting at night. Berg commented in his v lew the senior housing dev clopment would make a good neighbor, with the concept plan being m positive than negative. Oaffron indicated the City could incoiporau a height rwtriction for this zoning district if they should elect to do so. Schommer commented the neighbors would like to be kept updated on the progress of thU project. PAGE 27 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (W2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, Conlinued) GafTron stated the City could give notice to the offccicd property owners. Oaffron noted the Cit>‘ normally does not mail out individual notice of the upcoming meetings once the public hearing has l^en held. GafTron stated the City could send out individual notice of upcoming meetings If the Plaiming Commission so desired. Berg requested the president of the Suganvood Homeov\Tier*s Association be given notice of any upcoming meetings concerning this application. Hawn commented she is unsure what action or recommendation the Planning Commission should gi\x at this time since the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the City. Hawn stated in her opinion this appears to be a good plan, noting she would like to see a buffer along the front of the building. Hawn requested the neighbors' concerns and comments be kept in mind when revisions are bemg made to the plan. Lindquist noted he is in agreement conceptually with the plan. Berg commented she Is glad the developer is working with the neighbors. Smith inquired whether the building materials could be specified. GafTron staled the RPUD process will allow the Planning Commission to dictate what they would like to see for this development. Stoddard stated in his opinion more discussion is needed regarding the height of the building and the parking N>gard inquired how many emplot ees there would be. Dunbar indicated 42 parking stalls w ould be atailable to staff, with the majority of the parking area being utilized on the weekends. Pat Brakeman, Suganvood, stated his major concern is with the size of the project and landscaping for the wintertime. Brakeman stoicd he wt)uld like some idea of the developer's agenda for this project. Brakeman stated in his view' the City does not need a cit> *w ide ordinance in place prior to dealing with this project GafTron stated Orono's current ordinances do not allow this t>pe of density beyond w hat's in the current zoning districts, and that this ordinance is needed to permit this t)pe of housing Dunbar stated he will need to meet w ith the City Council regarding the available financing before bein^ able to proceed much further. Dunbar stated he wx>uld like to get some direction from die Planning Commission and Cit>* Council on which direction they would like this project to go. Berg commented she is awiire of other senior housing facilities consisting of two 30 unit buildings rather than one large building. Berg suggested this application be tabled until the ordinance amendment is adopted. PAGE 28 A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondtyi November 20,2000 (M2640/2041 ORONO AMRAR, Continued) Gaffhm noted a work session is Kheduled with the Cit>- Council for December 7* to^scuss this item. Oafftoo stated a work session is also needed in order to discuss the prop<^ ordinance. Oaffron stated if this application is tobled, the Planning Commission will not see it again until Januao'. Oaffron suggested that a formal meeting could be held in December to discuss this project. Kygard suggested meeting sometime after the City Council meeting. Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps a Joint meeting with the Planning Commission be held on December 7*. Jabbour staled the City needs to look at providing higher density housing. Hawn inquired whether this matter could be sent on to the Cit>* Council without a recommendation. Gaffron stated the Cit>- Council will probably send it back for resiew by the Planning Commission at some point. Oaffron stated the Planning Commission could give conceptual approval to this plan. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to give conceptual approval to Application 1/2640/2641, P.U.D./Subdivlsion/Rezoning/Commerclal Site Plan, and to send this application forward to the City Council for their comment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. HavMi noted there is not a consensus on the appropriate density. Dunbar indicated he is not opposed to extending the 60 day time limit PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS («12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 23.2000 AND NONTMBER13.2000 Tliis item was not discussed. («14) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR OCTOBER 16,2000 Berg moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting ofOctober 16.2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. Nygard moved. Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting ofSeptember 25,2000, u submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 29 1 SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 7,2000 WORK SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSAL There was general agreement among the Council Members and the residents in attendance at the work session that the concept of a senior housing development on the site is acceptable. However, there were concerns regarding the height and massing ofthe proposed building. There was substantial discussion regarding options for addressing thb concern. The option determined to be both feasible and effective in reducing the impact of the building's height on the neighbors to the north was to eliminate the top story of the easternmost portion of the building, which is closest to the neighbors. This would result in a reduction in the number of units from 70 to 62. There was also concern regarding the City’s ability to ensure the building would continue to be used for senior housing, both in the medium term (20-30 years) and in the long term. It was discussed that the City’s financial participation (i.e.. through TIF) gives the City control for the duration of this participation (20-2S yean). Thm were two options discussed for maintaining control of the use of the building in the long term. One was the imposition of restrictive covenants that would require the building to continue to be used for senior bousing. It is questionable whether the owner of the building would agree to such covenants, and whether those covenants could be extended fitf into the future. Another option considered was the City’s purchase of the land. This would enable the City to control the use through a long term lease arrangement restricting the use of the land to senior housing. These options need to be further explored. Mr. Dunbar indicated financial assistance, i.e., TIF, was essential to the feasibilit}* of the project. Council Member Kelley indicated it was his opinion the City should not be involved financially. Jabbour indicated there is agreement regarding the need for the project. The City’s financial participation provides two benefits. First, it makes the project feasible. Second, it provides the City with control over the project, at least in the medium term. It was determined that the use ;n| ni[ffl|! l.B /-4T ON (7) E.E/A-CN 0 E.E/-*CN 0 .e/--ss 0 r !—rr L_ BBS* 5N En'^ •CeB'E.E/-’CN 0 E*E/-*CN 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS t SECTION (!> f •ELEVATOI RfFMMCC BUM4 t -1- .'SL'.ji.Lwirf^—IV nd. - - •• . jl . rt-■•V'Ul*- - I'l'j II. f. Ml fwm H8MA1M0 oum m Moonco muiMUM S5K~ meam EfflSfflfflfflfflSfflffl ----=---------r-.==^=r=r------------------------------ ooBmM. tmm9U0CM MC / rouMttftiOi MU ii.1 r ^ ^ SSL Kiiif A. tz A. A- A. A. { CCTTinc»no* CUMnONS <!/*</ A3 -T* % • MZ A9N4T P«ClC rnno mauuam outs M motMitD inummm Oicomnft comchctc HOCK m§i / ijr • r-r AtMULT tMNOU occoM« csMcm aoca MC / roynOftnonwa L • THT »lii^ U S: ii^ 1 ammoam ir/ii OfMIM 12/iT A4 CompIcliM Dale: 10/30/00 AppUcalloM Dradliac: 3/2/01 FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Cit>‘ Adminisiraior Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator Planner January 12.2U0I SUBJECT: Orono Ambar. LLC. 2060 Wayrala Boulevard #2640 Preliminary Subdivision/CUF-Rczoning'Comprehensivc Plan Amendmem #2641 Site Plan Reviews Public Hearing - General Concept Approval Esbiing Zoning: Lot Area: LbtofExbibili B-l. Retail Sales Business District + 6.7 acres A Plat Map n Site Plan/Scnior I lousing Plans C Ofilc* Building Plans D Section 10.52 Hwy 12 Rc/oning E Section 10.53 Hwy 12 PUD Ordinance F 1 raffic Consult. Review I (11/7/00) G Traffic Consult. Review II (11/14 00) 11 Property Owner Notification List I Planning Commission Minutes (11/20/00) J City Council Work Session Review (12/7/00) K City Council Minutes (12/1 l/OO) L Eles'ation Views - Senior Building M Elevation Views - Office Building Application Summary Orono Ambar. LLC. has requested General Concept Approval for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property. Proposed is a rezoning for the two propenies from B-1, Retail Sales Business District to B-6PUD (for office use of the proposed west parcel) and RPUD /PUD (for multi-family residential use of the proposed east parcel). The intended use of the propenies are a 3 story 62 unit senior housing project and a 23.000 s.f office building. The proposed residential use of the propert) would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the property Is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Plan or the proposed Comprehensive Plan (CMP). TheCity hasaHighway 12 PUD procedure and a Highway 12 rezoning procedure established that provide the process the review requires. OnM>Aobtr.LLC 2060 Wa)Ott Bonin vd •264(Vf2641 Pigi lof 7 Section 10.53 is the Code section that defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12 PUD and Section 10.52 defines the special requirements for rezoning along the I lighway 12 corridor and study area. Those Code sections have been attached as exhibits to this report. General Concept Approval The General Concept Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rezoning and development plans. A General Concept Approval would be similar to a Preliminary Plat approval without actually giving the Preliminaiy Plat until other issues have been resolved. A resolution could be adopted by the Council for the Concept Approval with all conditions that must be met by the developer for the Plat approval. The City is noj in a position to approve the rezoning or plat until a TIF option is approved by the Council. State laws require notification and public hearing for a Til* that would not be hearf by the Council until this Spring. Conditions of the General Concept Approval would include that the financing be approved and the Council adopt the RPLD zoning district with the final development plans. Review of Issues Discussed Previously bv the Planning Commission and City Council The Orono Council did recommend the applicant proceed with the request to the Planning Commission for General Concept Plan approval. 1 he primary cliangcs to the proposal since the November review are the total units in the senior building have been reduced from 70 to 62 a trail connection has been added to the plans to provide connections to the regional trail s\stern, the senior building has been relocated further to south to minimize impacts to the residential properties he north, and the through street has had the tsvo sided parking aretu relocated to avoid hacking out into through traffic. Idle applicant has provided site plans for Knh properties. A commercial site plan review for the office and senior housing properties and buildings will include a full review of the following items: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Landscaping Traffic Flow/Road System Parking Arrangement Building I leight/Setbacks Review of Architectural Materials^uilding Design I.ighting Screening I. PrcUniaary Subdtviskm/KrzoiiiBg/CoBprchrnsivc Pbn Amcadmeni Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensiv e Land Use Plan. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan Amendment had guided the property for commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan (CMP) as preliminarily approved by the City Council in Scpiemlvr designated several Orono properties as areas that would allow medium density. The density proposed in the CMP does not have an existing zoning district that would allow the types of housing that would be offered by as proposed in this application. The proposed CMP did not include this property as a residential site. In fact it has been guided for commercial use as was the case with 1989 Orono Kmkm. LLC :060 V»i>/au Boulevard »364ai264l r^3or 7 J CMP amendment The entire property has been zoned B-1 since ^ least 1967, |xrhaps earlier. To rezone the eas; pioperty would require changing the land use designation to rcsidential. Tlie 62 unit building on the 4 acre site would provide 15.5 units'acre of senior housing units at a variety of unit sizes and reniul rates. Ilic proposed Rl’UD zoning district would be the appropriate zoning district to pnivide die units/acre density requested. Section 10.33. Subdivision 5(E) in the proposed R1»UD district would allow the City ofOrono to provide inceniis cs to encourage projects which are consistent with housing goals. “Incentives may include modification of density and floor area ratio requiremcnb for developments providing lifecycle housing and low and moderate cost housing.’ The City has tlie ability to ensure the housing need, for lifecxclc housing, is met. The RPUD district would rely heavily on the CMP designation for housing density and the ahility of the developer to meet the housing needs of the community. The office use would not require a CMP amendment as the underlying land u.se designation is for commercial use. The property is proposed as a 2.7 acre site. The use of the property as officc/clinic would be pemiittcd under the B-6 di.strict should the Council approve an amendment to the pennitted uses in the B-6 district to permit clinic uses. Platting Process This review is at the preliminar>’ plat/general concept stage. A complete rc\ iew of the preliminary plat will require review and approval of the proposed site plans. 1 he plat would result in two lots. Lot I (west property) = 116,832 s.f. or + 2.7 acres Lot 2 (cast property) = 173,871 s.f. ori 4.0 acres The preliminary plat review falls under the standard platting procedures as established in the Subdivision Ordinance, but would not be approved until sometime after the City and Developer have entered into a financing and development agreement. Additional requirements may be imposed by the City on non-residential subdivisions to protect adjacent rcsidential areas front potential nuisance from a proposed conimcrcial/office development including for provisions lor a permanently landscaped buffer strip if necessary. Additional special requirements ma\ be imposed to protect the rcsidential areas surrounding the development. The developer has propo.scd to plat the senior housing project as condominiums. Each unit would hav e a separate legal description and ta.x statement. Under this type of plat the units wxjuld be owned by a non-profit agency and rented to the occupants under the agreements established for the building. Surrounding Land Use The subject parcel was platted as Outlet F. Sugarwoods the parcel immediately south of the Sugarw oods neighborhood. The only buffer between the residential use in Sugarwwxls is a 40* wide platted outlet that is owned by the Sugarwoods homeowners association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarwtx>ds neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2" in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The property is located on Highway 12 and the City of Long Lake is located south of Highway 12. Two lots that arc located west of the project are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station. Orono Aflitaf. LLC 2060 W a> rju Boulo ltd •2640/V264I U.S. Highway 12 is proposed to be relocated to the south and the existing I lighway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the existing 12 and Brown Road intersection. Currently, Brown Road North ends in a T inlcrseclion with 12. The Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a signal light would be installed at that intersection. The property east of Brown Road is the Long Lake Stale Bank site, in the City of Long Lake. lA. Financial Consktcrationi Briefly, applicant has requested the Council consider various methods of flnancial assistance to make this project feasible. Such methods include the creation of a TIF district or similar provisions or reimbursements. Council has had early discussions regarding this and has indicated it is willing to consider this. The City’s financial consultant is also reviewing the request. II. Site Plan Review (Lot 1 • Office Building) The proposed office building is two stories with approximately 23,000 s.f. of gross floor spwe. Under the building is a 21 stall underground parking area. The actual building size is 172* X 80 ’ or 13,760 s.f The building Is designed to step down from a two story structure to one story immediately adjacent to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The building would be constructed to only expose the 80* width to the neighborhood. Site Characteristics.B-6 Conformity (Note: Needed variances arc shown in bold type) Requircd/Al lowed Existiny^roposcd Site area:2 acres 2.7 acres Defined lot width:IOC 195 ’ Parking setbacks: Required front yard:15 ’15 ’ Required rear yard:10*35 ’ Required side yard adj. to "R” district:10*125’ Required side yard a«y. to "B" district:5 ’15 ’ Building setbacks: Front lot line:30*19(r Rear lot line:35*35* Side lot line adj. to "R” district:35*35* Side lot line adj. to "B" district:10*70* OronoAotte. LLC 2060 Wa)UM Boulevanl •2640«2MI pi«(4or 7 Building Height: No. of Parking Stalls: 30* (2 '/i stories) Required = 1 per 200 s.f. Required » I per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office use’ Total stalls required = 97 Total stalls proposed =97 Signage Allowance 190 s.f. Not known Additional Standards required by the current B-6 zoning district (Section 10.45): A.At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be r^ily served through swinging doors. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure. External loading aiKl service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows. ♦ Note that the proposed B-6 landscaping/screening and architectural standards (application ii/2638) will be much more detailed than the current sUindard. The proposed standards have been fonvarded to the developers landscape architect for this project Orono Aabm, LLC 2060 Wa>nu Bodcvtrd »266(V«2*4I P^SoT 7 I i III. Site Plan Review (Lot 2 - Senior Homing) The senior housing building is designed wilh the same concept of stepping down to decrease the mass of the ends and along the north property line 3 stories to 2 stories. One significant design element of the building is the clock tower, designed to break up the roof line of Uie building. I he building is designed to have the east '/j of the entire structure located 10* lower than the west 1/2 due to the existing topography. A MnDot stormwater pond is located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. The pond is owned and mainuined by MnDot. Developer has indicated this pond has existing designed capacity to serve both proposed structures as well as other existing/futurc development in the area. Site Characteristics. Conformity with the proposed RPl ID zoning district standards Rcquired/Allowcd Kxistinu/Proposed Site area: 5 acres 4 acres * llie Rl'UD district allows the Council llexibility to this St.uidard when findings are made as listed in proposed Section 10.33, Subdivision 3 (A). Parking setbacks: Required front yard:2Qt 4(y Required rear yard;2(f NA Required side yard 20*60* Building setbacks: fhe setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD lot lines would be 35* except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. One concern is the building location being proposed at 60* to the rear lot line. Building Height: fhe intent of the RPUD district is to provide housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs. As discussed w ith the review of the RPUD ordinance, the housing types may require buildings to exceed tbe 30* standard that applies to single family residential homes and office buildings. The only district that could allow a building greater than 30* is the Industrial district which ail 3 stories or 40*. The proposed building would have a peak height of close to 50* as viewed from the back side of the structure. Staffs determination of the defined height of the building averages 38*. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would defme the height at 45', lowest grade adjoining building to highest midpoint of the roof. Because the RPUD ordinance has not been adopted, no standard exists for building height in the district. The developer has stated to allow the project to work the building would have to be three stories or moderately priced senior rental units would not be feasible. Orono Amtef. UC 20M>Ma>uuBoUlcv»4 •2M(V«:MI P^Sof 7 No. of Parking Slalls: Required = 2 per dwlling unit (Section 10.61) Required “ 140 spaces Total sudls proposed * 83 interior spaces 50 exterior spaces The standards for a building designed for senior housing use may not require the same parking standards. The applicants have stated they do not feel all the parking proposed on site will be necessary for the use. They will be providing additional information as to parking needs for other similar projects to justify the amount of spaces provided. IV. Grading and Drainage The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the norlh\sest comer of the site approximately 10’ higher than the adjoining property to the south. The City Engineer is recommending this part of the site be lowered at least 4*. The retaining wall could then be eliminated. Additional engineering is required for further review of the proposal. The developer should Provide storm sexver and ponding calculations for review. V. Landscaping Plans/Pcdcstrian Ways The revised set of plans show a 6* trail that connects the existing trail on the east side of the property to the west side of the property. This is a change from the last set as no tmil was pro> ided. The RPUD ordinance has proposed a landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project value. For a development greater than $4,000,000 the mirnmum landscaping value that must be provided would equal \% of the project value. Wally Case, the City’s landscaping consultant, would complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the proposed ordinance when final plans have been submitted. Some of the existing trees would be removed to make room for the project. The plans submitted have been designed to protect several mature trees that are located between the proposed building and I lighw ay 12. Protection of those trees requires the building and access road to be shifted to the north. An adjacent property owTier to the north has expressed concerns about the location of the building being 60' from the rear property line. Options for Action Planning Commission is advised that, per the Highway 12 PUD provisions of 10.53. this proposal is at Uic General Concept Stage, equivalent to the preliminary plat stage of a subdivision. The General Concept Plan can be approved by the Orono Council and bind the approval to a resolution. Council approval of the concept plan requires a 4/5 vote. Staff Recommends the Planning Commission Recommend approval of the General Concept Plans and forw ard the plans to the Council for adoption of a resolution approving the General Concept Plans. OronoAint^ lLC 2060 Wa>rju BoukvwS •2Ma«2»4| P<fc7or 7 1 TO; Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Admlnistrator/Planner DATE: Januao’12.2001 SUBJECT: #2648 Peter and Nicole Thomas I38S Orono Lane CUPA^ariance - Public Hearing LR-IA One Family Ukeshorc Residential District (2 acre) 57.848 s.f. (1.32 acres) Zoalag Disirici: Lot Area: UitofEahibiu A Application B Written description of projects C Pictorial description of projects D Written hardship of projects E Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan F Site Plan/ Survey G Plat Map H Location Map I Property Owner's List J Permit Record Pertinent Code Section: L Varianceforlandalterationswiihin75'oftheshorclinc(10.22,Subd.2; 10.55.Subd.8, l0.56.Subd. I6U1). 2. Hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8. Subd. I6(L]). 3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (10.03. Subd. 21.10.56, Subd. 16 (5J). Application Summary: The applicants arc seeking approval to rebuild, build up. repair several retaining walls and construct steps on the property. The residence was built in 1929 and in excellent condition. The property is on a bluff and has significant elevation changes. Because of the age of the property there arc several areas that need to be repaired, replaced and added to for ero.sion control, soil retention and safety. The proposal is ten different projects (A-J) on the propert)’. The ten projects arc listed in great detail in E,\hibil B, C, D. Exhibit F is a colored city plan showing the locations of the projects. Improvements A-F arc within the 75-250* setback area. The allowed hardcover in this zone is 7,299.75 s.f. (25%). The improvements add 85 s.f. to the hardco\-cr total 7,433 s.f (25.45%). Improvements G. H. 1 and J are within the 0-75* setback area. The allowed hardcover in this zone is 0 s.f (0*/i). Currently there is 3,216 s.f (11.22%) hardcover in this area. The improvements increase the hardcover by 42.84 s.f Two improvements (I and J) arc portable fountains (33 s.f). 12648 Ptier/Sicolt Thomas 1385 Orono Lane Variance/CUP 1/12/2001 Page I Siaigmgnl of Hardihip t The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit D. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Coiprehensivc Plan t (Retaining Walls) The 1980 City ofOrono Conununity Management Plan (“Comprehensive Plan**) contains a number of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be consistent. Without the retaining wnlls erosion or freezing woidd be a problem. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). These same goals and policies appear in the 2000-2020 CMP. p.ngineeriag RcviewtfReUlipmE Walls) Tlic City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint. The applicants are not adding but replacing retaining walls. A wall higher than 4* must be engineered and approved by the City’s engineer and building oflicial, these walls are not 4' or higher. The applicants will be required to submit detailed plans prior to issuance of a building permit. Issues for Comlderalioat 1. The retaining wall located by the boat house could be eliminated by grading, howcv er that could cause a frost footing problem. The wall is needed. 2. The portable fountains arc included in hardcover calculations. Should they be considered portable or permanent? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff ReeommeiuialioM ; Staff reconunends approval of the conditional use pennit and the variances. 92648 Pettr and Stcole Thomas 1)85 Orono Lana yarianc* 1/12/2001 Pagf2 Amiikaifcwi IP ^^*^6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S950.09 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Hfr _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Date Received i^/i9/0O AinoiyrtPaid ------- C.uP/\}ac rS’S?/ t'ropeny lacniintonun iiuinu«i v* J*/—-------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProjjttlyAcquired 2/fA/----------------_ I (do) ^M^ioi))lso own the adjacent parcels of land. PresentiBSTTproperty: *^rcsidenti^ ___^other (specify)------------- Zoning District: WA?________________________________ _(month/year) 00 applicant Name Address: f (♦’City:. Phone fhome) ffl -ilC'flfS- _ ^ Phonefwurk) Cfl ~TVf JP;-• •; \ Zip: ^ OWNER (if difTcrent than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ /Of ,coc VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area __ Setback: (attach additional sheets if necessary) ___Lot Width ^Hardcover Front __Side tQ _Lot Coverage __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 lequirements: ie< .----------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary ) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submUled by the application dgadline d«t« in order for your ■pplication io hr considered complete: 1. ly Completed Application Form 2. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hemieptn County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). 3. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/*" x II" for reproduction. 4. Topographic sur\cy (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'A" x 11" for reproducUon. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x IT). 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 owncr(s). 7. i/ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. ✓ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been Included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature . /Date Ao 0\>'NER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of 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 are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CounciL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please moke arrangements to have on authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ARTGARDEN i LANDSCAPE DESIGN I95NORTHFAIRVIEW SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 551W PHONE/FAX: (651) 647-9426 Client: Pete and Nicole Thomas Proposed Landscape Alterations at 1315 Orono Lane« Oroao, MN: A. Eliminate 21 linear feet of the existing aggregate wall (orange color on snrwy. marked 'ACut remaining existing wall to just below grade and overlay with new brick (pink). Brick veneer will be applied to exposed north side of existing wall (ice dranir^s and photos for section A. pages 1-3). The finished wall will be 16” wide and 18” tall from the black top There will be two 20”x 20”x 3*-4’ columns located along the wall. Wrought iron fencing, 14-16” high, will be installed between the columns and on top of the low 18” wall Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 2.44 square feet B Remove existing stone wall (pale lavender color on surwy, marked 'B') closest to driveway and build a new brick wall that will extend 70* to the west beyond the existing aggregate wall. It will be construaed with 3 columns and fencing to match description in ‘A’ and supported by a 48’* frost footing (see dronings and photos for section B. pages 4-7). Some blacktop (light blue) will be added to the driveway to create this section, however more will be removed (purple) in this process. Proposed improvement results in the removal of hardcover area equal to 63 .14 square feet. C. Install 4* wide stone steps (gray color on surxvy, marked *C V with 12” tread going from driveway to lower lawn area (see droning and photos for section C. paffts 5-8). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 38.88 square feet. D. Remove existing stone wall (red color on survey, marked 'D') surrouiKling large maple tree. Tear down the rest of the existing retaining walls, shift position of some of the wall slightly to improve soil retention and rebuild them with dry laid bluestone boulder walls (brown color on surxey, marked 'D') (see drawing and photos^ section D, pages5-7 and 9). An additional tier will be built to help control soil erosion (brown). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover of 41 square feet. E. Rd)uild existing stone steps (teal color on survey, marked *E') on the west side of the house to miinuin a uniform width of 30”. Existing steps vary from 18 to 30 ” (see photos for Section E, pages 10-N). More stone steps (coral) will be built to extend the steps to the driveway, maintaining a 30” width The steps will be built with dry laid bluestone flagging for the tread and bluestone boulders for the rise (see example photos for Section E page 1 1). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 65 84 square feet F. Repair existing brick retaining walls (dark orcotge on survey, marked 'F') on east and west sides of house (see photos for Section F, pa^ 12). Remove small limestone wall on east side, dig frost footing and replace with a low brick wall that is incorporated into the adjacent brick wall. Please note the following: I.) The survey identifies the west wall as stone, but it is a brick mortared. 2.) Existing limestone wall on east side does not overlap brick wall as shown on survey. Proposed improvement results in no additions to hardcover area. G. Remove concrete retaining wall by boathouse and replace with a tiered, dry laid bluestone boulder wall (blue color on surwy, marked 'G ) (See drawings and photos for Section G, page 13). This will be the same type of wall as what is proposed for Section D (see example photos and drawings for section D, page 9). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of9 84 square feet. R Repair stone walk by boathouse (yellow color on surxey, marked '// V (see photos for Section H, page 13). Please note that the survey identifies this as a concrete walk, however, it is a stone path. Proposed improvement results in no additions to hardcover area 1 Install portable, tiered fountain with gravel base by boathouse (green color on survey, marked V ’) (see thawing and photos for Section /. pages 14-16). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 6.12 square feet. j. Install portable, 9’x 3’ cistern fountain with gravel base by patio (rust color on suney, marked *J') (see photos for Section J. pages / 7-18). Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 27 square feet. I! Section A.c LliiiimJtc21 linear I'eet ol ilu* e'l-'tme aeeuy.irc wall ’ i/uirki J I I ( lit lemainine exi'liny wall to I el*’w yiaJv an i »• cila. n* w In Ilk l/'tnUf liiiik \i iiiei will I'e applied lo expose*! ii'ftli M-t* i. *11 <s.. thihxin.:^ ti-:I f’ u , lh>n ? /.le* ' / *' I lie I'lr'stuJ v..*H ■ 11 I'e i' wi\- aiiJ lb' tail Irnm the hlask tup I here will he two ^ y : , oImm ^ alone the wall Wioiieht non teneine I * I'* h.yh will be in't il .. het'-Mi. t- . ee>lum:is and em lop e'l lhe low Is wall I'toi *m.v! in*proi»T i ir !• ' h* " ' ! *^ to hatileover area e>t ? 44 Si|tiaie Icvt d \ -1 tfll : . , fK JJj % ■*>«> > — V. •' V t i.4 ?ii •*S- V ■4<l^^'‘'-rs9*.*sscai 1 ^ - A . :^5 Section A. LlitiiitMtc . I linciU tcct <t| llic cvl^lltl^J aceicy-iti u,ili h‘‘tut ’t , i»»' v;.i i, •. tfiiifki J •.? 'i ( lit iciiMinmu' cMMiiie vs.ill i.« ju't tAl.'w ^uvk .m i o.crl i. \.o.V. n- v. l>ruk I hfitk \i iKVi vmIM'v app!n.\S t.t«, vpm i i .iom.-v. ii; / •„ . V.,f <4 Iho fiinstu.l V...I . .1! ^ i-. ui.:.. and Ib' iall lYom the hl.Kk ».ip I hciv uill hv ino ■ \ :m v : i • •I r-,.-- I alone the uall Wiuuelu non tcnciny I i |o |,i_>li uitl K* ito: s! o: vr. t! toluiiuiiat J o!itopoHhclov\ is wall Pro; -mJ rnf-'o'., nu jr .. s .r ‘ i-j. lo haitlioNc! .lu-a ot ? 44 square lee; h •59 ' 4U»' •r ^ .* *T mn ■IV ■(r:& FSWeiUffo! -dm ^■m. 's-m' I w- ta (' ■/ ^ r'tj. • " y :-.■ Section A. t * /. (Af \ acjicA 3«>r0^ty* j. ^yLi±Ynl£n //•HXx Cn<W?e >r gr/irr?N«r viAu^ iv/rTH* >fev/ ^^zicx y Cross Section of Wall Proposed For Section A. Section B.c B. Remove existing stone wall (pah tavtmkr color on survey, mmked 'B') dof^ to driveway and build a new brick wall that will extend 70 ’ to the west beyond the existing aggregate wall. It will be constnuaed with 3 columns and fencing to match description in ‘ A’ and supported by a 4«- frost fooling (see drawings mdphotos fiw section B. pages 4-7). Some blacktop (light blue) will be added to the driveway to create this section, however more will be removed (purple) in this process. Proposed improvement results in the removal of hardcover area equal to 63.14 square feet srvno' If* TSnhO • 1__1 ^1 1 ! !1 !L* y /W 7 ■* ‘fp'yOCX. •//.'Tjf' er/f " ^ poariNtt l^oorihkn 5e<yftONJ . Cross Section of Wall Proposed For Section B. Section B.c B. Remove existing stone will (pai* lavenekr color on survey, marked 'B') doiest to driveway and build a new brick wall that will extend 70' to the west beyond the e«isti»^ aggregate wall. It will be coostmcted with 3 cohinuis and fencing to match description in ‘A* and supported by a 4S" frost fbotmg (see draedngstmd photos far section B. pt^ts 4-7). Some blacktop (light blue) will be atMed to the driveway to create this section, however more will be removed (purple) in this process. Proposed improvement results in the removal of hardcover area equal to 63.14 square fcet. ____V £V0t» CAt' j • I tg ’* f&mu r^i6»*r( • r;::! 1 ^ 1 1 1 ^✓^IVACV >• !2* fooftBQ f^corihkt 5egri"»0NJ *gt Cross Section of Wall Prqiosed For Section B. Scclion n.. C. & }). mm ■■ ;. :* ' V .vwv^ "* ^ ,~ J '■ - ,:• '. rli^Vr ' .--^v*v >ii Vi- rv^n ii 11 |.‘‘l 'iii;!i' !!!! iij;ii!l m:\ >K'* 7 wV -V/^V ■• . < . .1-- ' Section B.. C. ^ 1). I mffmWi R; ■ ■• *:' •M V '' ' ^ -‘ \\ • / sSr '■:V,. S-1’’ > iV ,.. >u • ■ -*i^. ^'ir '4'e* "y»2 i;-> ^ m ,ri^i' A<-”- • ..f-^H. ;1m-: - •. mrnmm^ m »?ft .,v _ — < -i y"iE '^1 • ■. *•Wrnm > >r Section D. L> KcJiiovc cxistitu: stone wall fn'iimhtr on sinwv. ntiirUtI /» < sviriou.Klme latue luiiple liev ieai down the lesl ofllur exisiine ictainmu walU. sluU poiilion ot wme ol ttie wall slii’.litly to impcoxc soil icteiition and icbuilJ llicin witli dt \ laid blucMone bmiliiet walls iho\m n»lor on .v«rivv. tmnUti 7»7 r\«v anti f>hoio\. tot \i\//•*//1K f anJ '>/ An additional tiei will be bnill t'» l.clp co-itiol vil »T»»siv*n (humti) 1'iopose ‘d iinpioxeiiicnl usults in an aJdiUou \o li,iuK».'V»i ot ll snaau lect r-^-l ' » rfe %'t V?,' '■ ;■ i'w mM ,, SR' " 7 44 mmmt I \amplc of Slone Retaining Wall Proposed for Section D. Section D. D I'vistiim >ionc wall (n'Jinlor on wncy, nuirU-i/ 'f* 'i Mirrouiuliiui lafiic iiuplc tUT 1 f.u douii till* icii ot iho cvi^titu’ u*i«umiu ualli. sluU position ot some of Uic wall slii'litlv 1l) impiovc soil ictcntioii and icbiiild ilicm vulh di\ laid blucstonc boulder ualls fhntwn n>h,t ,>n tmnUJ 7*’> r v*- liui^nny anJf»hot4»\ for s4\ nonl>, An additional iioi uil! be Innli to help eoniiol soil erosion ihnnxnf I'lofK'sed inipioveuieiii usiilts in an addilum tv* h.udeovei ot 41 st|uaie leel ■/' i . ^ I' J.O . .1. \ ft ' •‘rj* . > - - - , ■'s:' :: V - ^ ikM - n.V ¥m m MM ij, I-Aamplc ot Slone Retaining Wall Proposed for Section D. > 01 Section I'. L Kebuild evislinu stt>ne step.> (tx\i! xt>l><r >'n xufxi}, nntflwi 7. ’> on tin. v.e-t '‘•.le •'! '■ * house to niaintam a unilotm uidlh <4 >o Lsistmp step-- 'kaiN IriMn IS t«i .*'* o,-t fhtifiix for St'i thtn / /■-re* ' lO-i 1 1 M.'ie stone step? n <>m/' \m11 be l"i'lt t-- e\ti n I ihe Steps to llie diivi u i\ inaintainifv .i * ' \Mdlh I he '-tens vsil! be b id’ unh i!i \ laid i'lue'-tone Ibici'in l-u the tie.i I and bluest'<ik bnutdeis lot the ii-e • i «0'.p»v', f>ho!,>\ (ot Si'i tion I /MC< //f l’ioj'o>ed iinpio\emen: !e>ulls in an ivi ii’i"*, t • haokovei aiea ot !•■' S'* s'|.iate t«ei pill * • .1^ r - 'i J • ■'T 5.V, ■ \ -----• ^ : 1^^r-. *'ii^ ■ 1 ^ - . o ■» *-M 1 . •■r. ■'. i ’Mmm Sil \ -i. ^ .1 ^ Section I .p7 ln'<! laM.v S' l!!::!!!B ; ' Scclion I’. L Kclniil.i cvistinu >>n 1. 't <»ii tin. x Jl *>t il ■ Ikuixc to in.unt.titi a iinitoini vvk IiIi ot l.xiMim: sttj" \ai\ lu»tn IS to t<>t S.V/iO>» / » //» / J t Mote s'ofK' btl'P? (. om/( UlU I'C (villl to r\f« !> I tlif to tlu'litiv^A\.1', iiiaiMt.iirir ;■ ii *“ uulth I lie step'* v\t!l I't Iniil'vvitti i?!\ l.tKl l UloloUC II.IUIJIIU. |o| it.c tJC.i'l ailJ l'luC**toIK I'o.ilJvfS l»»I lllv Jl>V ' V . . la"’;*/ /•/;oi*o\ /<»/ .Sit//<v/ /' III |‘iopoM\I impii*vement icsull*' it: a” a i • liaiaica ot t*' St s.|,ia:c ttci ^ /i *» *'V *' I *■.'ik B. a J-sriy lb/ ■ ->• , 'W>r-. : . SLS'■’•'•- ' mM ___ » / I? ^:.J fl -IT-T:: i-31' Scclion IA pi 1 inHHr:ii *. LJ^ l-iyiB, :rr^ *•■ .• '• . • -‘ ' .• . ' 4 *••**, mmmm RR??■111*.“1: liinijoki^ ■!!!!!! pfiasi^'^sOT A-v:*.A • _mm. ,^.-a .'' ^ f :v^, V, ^ . t/ i • :v ' ■' * ^4 ’ a .'j. * ' '...;.■ .. v«. section I . i! ................ : ■ I ■ ■: •■ fa mi u-m'-' : ■ A:r._^-. m V}r^‘ A s .. y^- I m I )i i^ \\ ,ll i ( 'll \\ c' afesaas isj-l WH ■ ♦; ,4iS^- :3^'r Hi ic k \\ all on I ast Side i I ■!,!':, A otu • .:.!in o.: ^c^ Sect CClIOll il-ry k/ Cl Remove concrete rctaimnu wall blucstone boulder wall f/t/uc ca for Si'i Uon (J. pat:,- /.?y This \s Section D example phot(t\. improvement reviilis in an addit ' . '••A' *' ’-'rr It' - ■" • II Repair stone walk by boathouse SWnon II, po^e 13/ Please not ho\se\ cr, it is a stone path Pro; hardcover area . • vn- - tS£fZ'&^ .• ■' ■.-.'ll #i.-- ‘>F - -1 ' 'Ari n- >cclion y j V J1 ' ^r i: i :l-. ^|i p. A.VT'* « _ >ml •• ...• ^ t*'h >>■• .« ’■yf.ft' "Ar;- II fiM JH *1 IL \\ i' 1 I‘ll \\ C>1 S'klc iW I ■'%:' ) If i isyis^^^ nVf ^ . * ••.V . e»r’^:r.f2; - .:— •V>-- , 1^1 uk W all iMi I asl Sick* i>f 1 loii^'C i‘, . » ,' • Oi.i- t':; ! .ll.lOlu- \s. -:m •:a * -'.-.'K s St I. K p.-P^*Mm s!mti: :.rk fa hm J-a '■";■; "■ k ■ -Ij % ■\- •*fV iiSIWK^S-» Scclion G. & H. (i Remove concrete rclaininj; wall by h<iatluui>ve and replace vvifli a tiered, dry laid bluestone boulder wall (Hue color on Min^y, tnarkei! '(>’} (See (lni\iiny\ onJphotos for Section G, fm^e !3) This will be the same type of wall as w hat is proposed for Section D ^\ee example photos and draw tn}>\for section />. fHifje 9j Proposed improvement results in an addition to hardcover area of 9 84 square feet 11 Repair stone walk by boathouse (yellini color on survey, marked 7/') (see photos for Seetton n. po}>e 13) Please note that the survey identities this as a concrete walk, however, it is a stone path Proposed irnprovemerrt results in no additions to hardcover area fU/~imm mlUnufn' g Please note walk is made with stone not cenietit, as staled on survey. Y- ^frf'3 ■ .‘-Ml 1 'z \ ilSJ t IK I ii y j «jlQ ] .’;tW i>: -w:- • ie'^ .^y , 'i' .■rf f/w, '-■- r v.. .J! y-. ,.r"r^. ^ J • » • ■—? *v < * ' '. *■ - C- • Vi Dttlail of Spout Photo of Fountai ■i X m Vrr a t. I. ' Vx3 Ciiteni Lead ciitcrns were popular in large hou*e4 from ihe middle of ihe 17ih century through to the early I9ih century. They \*ere used to collect rainwater for uw in the house and garden. Most of the 18th century e.vamples make use of the geometric pattern and quite often have heraldic devices incorporated Many are dated. I I PI8 Double fuo Fool Ceometrie ' ■ V .' . <i nSMiv ^ 1 Detail of Spool C5 Reclangular Cistem Photo of Fountain Proposed for Section J. * . • .. .-‘•u jry Section I. Cross Section of Tiered Fountain Proposed for Section I. c 4- Section I. C. k Arcadijii Double Fuuiiuin CC300 fthown in -CO) hfntftrii t)fug» AffthMtoM \m JO>XWi I H006 im Hofhi: Ma\. wi«lth' Totd HTijrfll Hrj«icii tumponmi K4^mm LD'/:*) («*4lh) (lOlth) ruk( ’.H* Photo of Fountain Proposed for Section I. Peter & Nicole ThomAS 1385 Orono Lane HanUhtoReaneatt Our house is very unusual because it is located on a large bluff with significant elevation changes throughout the property with lots of steep slopes, hills, and ridges. These severe elevation changes are creaUng two major hardships for us. Safety for young children. #2 Erosion control and soil rctentloa. We have a sixteen month old daughter, and we hope to have several more children, so the safety of the property is large concern for us. We just purchased this old home (built in 1929), the house is in excellent condition, however, there are a lot of landscaping issues that need to be shored up for safety and erosion reasons. We just had a very detailed topographical survey of the property completed, and we found out that within the 75-250 foot setback lines, the main areas that we would like to address, we are over the allowed hardcover percentage by .45%. Therefore, we arc seeking your permission for the following improvements through the Variance Application process. There arc eight projects that we would like to do to help improve these hardships, they arc all listed in great detail in the following pages. The requests arc divided into sections A-H. The summary for Hardship Requests for the projects are; Section A & B To the North side of the driveway there is a sleep ridge that leads down to the lawn. Approximately 8-lOft in elevation drop. We arc very concerned that a young child could bicycle / rollcrblrH-/ fall down this ridge and incur serious injury. Therefore, we are trying to build up a retaining wall around J. ^ driveway, and put a small iron fence on top of the wall to prevent anyone from falling dow n the ridge. Mix additions to hardcover area. Section C On this same ridge between the driveway and the lower lawn, we would like to put in some steps so that children and elderly adults would be able to safely walk down to the bwn w ithoul getting hurt by falling down the ridge. Section D We would like to do some repair and maintenance of a retaining wall at the bottom of the same ridge to help improve soil retention and prevent erosion. Minimal addition to hardcover. Section E On the West side of the home, there is a very significant hill to get from the front to the back of the house. This slope is approximately 12-15 feet high. There are existing steps to help walk up a^ down this steep grade, but the steps are very old and falling apart The steps are so beaten up and narrow that they are almost not functional. We would like to redo these steps for the safety of young children and older people to be able to walk from the front to the back of the house. Minimal addition to hardcover. Section F Repair existing retaining walls on the East and West sides of the home which are built into the side of a hill. The walls are old, cracking, and in need of maintenance. No addition to hardcover. Section G Rebuild an old wall that is built into the side of a hill next to the boathouse. The wall is so old and in such bad shape that it is cracked and buckling. By rebuilding this wall we will preserve the soU retention of the hill and pi event erosion. Minimal increase to hardcover. Section H Repair the stone walkway on the slope at die bottom of the hill next to the boathouse. The stones arc very old, cracked, and sunken. Repairing this walkway will help improve the erosion control of the hill. No increase to hardcover. pf^yiPfiNHENl JUNE, 1980 6. 7. © c.-fACA Water Hanaqement Plan all racoaaend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono plirg2« on to identify individual wetland, and mar.hlands that reJui^rprotection a. pkrt of the City, .tora water It^i. the policy of thi. plan to effectuate the policie. and recommen dation. of the 1974 Orono Surface Mater Management Plan. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS INCLUDE PROTECTION OP ADJOINING LANDS AND °?!^J^i°wIll FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION PXMOVAL. O'? e.tabli.h aetbacka for all land alteration or conatruction. poaaible, the City will acquire open apace and flowage eaaementa for conaervation of theae land.. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE enjoyment while preventing OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACH.-NT. in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management ^®9“J»tiona recreational development lake., the City will prohibit overly development within 1.000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake uae will be promoted to limit exceaaive boat denaity and overuae of J®”®^ baya. Land uae regulation, will be developed to control over building denaity, land alteration and lakeahore encroachm LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural ^®9®t«tion in ahoreland area, will be preaerved in.ofar aa practical and reasonable in order to retard aurface runoff and aoil eroaion, and to utill exceaa nutrient.. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In area. J*®**,, •or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection be encouraged. 10. lAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SKORT-TEW AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dr.dging of l.k. b.d. large amount, of otherwise trapped nutrient, and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new char\nels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian ®==®®® where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in lioitea circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. 9.', CMP 3-20 JUNE, 1980 F^VIpnNMENX i % development or m-teratiom op r^DP^iKS io«tea “on^^rihot.im. .“rj n con.»u^ «.vo.. cctxv flood damage or pollution dangers.XXOOu - natural resource investigation will BS^QUI^^ information. development proposals . This will P ; erosion control Sou analysis, drainage plans. v.9*tatton whether public neasures and similar ^ review will be determined by or orlvate. The extent of each . v be required of probable environmental impact. proximity to Lake Minnetonka .r. ?». .n. co„c.» in direct proportion 13.ON-SITE MATER RETENTION 1;*CJ“®|||i^‘^eVELOpSnT^PRWE^^MSIDENTIAL, commercial or IND^TJ^ DE^WPnt bonoff necessary to maintain or improve the -XISTin scope or hardcover PAMEWS. Mh.n.v.r . d.v.lopm.nt•. th. .p..4 <>‘ would t.nd to lnet«»«. th. th.t d.v.lopm.nt will b. runoff, or d.ct.... th. qu.llty »' .ufficl.nt to «.lnt.l r.qulr.d to provld. on-.It. ’'***"*^°" * jeiuitlnq runoff by r.duelnq the existing situation or to improve .. No development wl) *S.ntlty. rlduoln, .p..d th. City, by^h.s;”rr«ir.,:Ttr.i}:.^rbj Uhi.-wi.i .dv.t..iy .ff.ctm, .tom water drainage.-- -- land use and development mill not ®^,^J‘^”“,itMd^to ’'be**tubdlvld.d miRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Ho ^ ,or th. propo.od „ built upon which 1. h.ld formation. b.c.u.. of flood “nt^riro.lon pot.ntl.l.with severe limitations for development, •®^® ,«wage disposal unfavorable topography, inadequate ^*J®*/""bS harmful to the health capabilities, or any other feature proposed subdlvlslo :r.rit’ri'.i:rd::t:‘:imt“rn;! rr-mn::ion ponution. CMP 3-21 PfiyfRONMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will bo required to mininire the probability of soil eroeion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilised for permanence. URBAN ARFA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. ((> 3. 4. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Kininun green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on elopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DMR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlandi would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on>site retention on all new developmenta and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before* environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 1 % ♦ tMi.ja I LOT CAsriWor WOMTS tAV* PAROa MCA t\M» AOKS ' 4 13080 1 ^e* «r, LO* L •f030.W^ f-f830«3 J^Sa4t )4 83a(0' »* MUO« 8* WUOW \ ;8SZ84 n* A*83L0IXI CAST UMC or - -- ., ^ ^Hoalii'w ■w»<» Mr ♦ Mt», LOT 2 ^T uc or iM or ^ fflis « 8P0i8rs •At- iSo« « momtt iAf BAX M01C: NO MPAouniT CATCH I „nuxD mjH i?!r oir^ ^ ♦ 83178 ) IPOH PTC 4 832.41 |3rlo la/ 483238 y 4 83187 \8310S 4 833.18 T'-r 4 8S1M ^i33J3\ 4 83183 22* asm 4 834.38. 4 83480 10* n:< ,f-X: to’ Ptf.E 18 V «840i38 4 843.78— 38.01____ C miTUNP MON li ‘^s:* 4 83138 -•«#-----^-----------44 ------Thi^ia—Z ^ '4 848 88 1 |HH 4: 8C^^«^ 18" 4SH zll • U»<ctl 4 84128 4 __ 'Xtr * I I ( **_4.Wtr^ 4 84134 ^ ill- 1. \ 4/ ■•y OROMAAT WO« «ATDI in OlVATCN - 838 40 y M01C: MPWOWMAIf rOOTAOC ON LARS UMCTCKiU • 8437.88 TUT. :r rouw I* 8I0N PPC •408OMC or LARC MMCTONKA 0C1Q0CR 37. 3000 umiuvaimn • 837.43 LAKE MI wcmcst rccoroco atAT LOACST RCCOROCD WAIT AM7MCC watch LCIVL CN R arvATTON - OATL'M. MrCWHATTON PDI ONW MPCMMA1I0M CCNP •Anr •tot*.i*WM«/p«1/W LEGEND ffcAce : OtigfffcH e^o/>ls Feer CATCH BASH SANITARY SDHER MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER TELEPHONE RISER G- Hmnepin County Taxpayer Services Department Pant! MotmuUon Pareal ID 0211723340003 HouM Nwnbar 1385 StrMtNwmORONOLA CondofniniufTi m*itncfla^m>oid»6nmfi.»np mmfnn^Mtondinhmmen anrf<iii<ciiiQ^, Oiw^f.eneaiinoetfeiiiWeiaarfq^eraoMeML / 14/f ij t/Ja i I I MAHAU 1 MM CM 3 ••otmmmI! !S I tAMMIT 2 NWiU itMmca fOMMmu 8 vMni, IMMMM VAf ORON I Si:i unit 8^4 y- V t I* V ‘mTanaifr rLake {l( ' Vjv/- * . •'' ** *,* • :.*.vX;‘V r . • --r^v; vV/>'-‘ .;• -.^ , v;:V i'.' ^French Lake'^ L **Bi SHH pnom ■ V ■".;./V r/. SmlthB\iy'”:; y ' •* j... .• f v : . .»v* . i • , ■ Braekttts Point •• •• RIM MTf 12/lR/tR MTCN S§2 NCMMfPIN COUNTY PROPCRTV nrORtUTlON SVSTCH fROfCRTY OMNiRS LIST RCPORT HO. PA6f S PROP ARM ONMR NAfK TAHPAVCR NAfK/AOOR M •2-U7-25 M tMS •ISOS ORRHO LA J P SPOONER S K R SPOONER JOHN SPOONER I KARLA SPOONER ISAS ORONO LA WATZATA HN SSSSl SA t2-117-2S SA AiAA •1SA7 ORONO LA MIIOLAS C NOEN ET At 00U6LAS S JUDITH NOEN 1SA7 ORONO LA MAVZATA NH SSSAl SA A2-U7-2S SA AAAt AISAA ORONO LA N M SEE S O S SEE HENRY W S CAIL S UE ISAA ORONO LA MAYZATA NN 5SS91 PROP AOM OWNER HAHC TAKPAVER HAIC/AOOR SA A2-n7-2S SA AltA •ISAS ORONO LA HORWEST RK HPLS'NTL ASC TRST S THOrUS/RE*ASI2A7 C/0 NORMEST TRUST REAL EST ATH A HAROUETTE HAC NAS«SIA2 HPLS NH SSA7A SA aZ-llT-ZS SA iill A1S25 SHORELINE OR LYNN NARIE OUOOS LYNN NARIE OUOOS 1S2S SHORELINE OR MAYZATA HN 5SSA1 SA az-iiT-zs SA aaiz •1S55 SHORELINE OR OSH JOHNSON DOUGLAS D JMMSON AlAA CENTER SOARO USE STUART FL SAAAT-kl7A PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOM SA az-iiT-zs SA aais •ISaS SHORELINE DR W J POPP ATE POPP WILLIAM J S TCRI E POPP ISaS SNORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA NN SSSSl TOTAL RATCH SR2 IAAR7 I CERTIFY THAT TME FACTS RSPRESCNTEB ARE AM ACCURATE ANR TRUE REPRESENTATION Of INTORHATION AS IT APPEARS TMS RATE ON TNE RECORM Of TNE IKNNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHCNT Of PROfERTV TAKATION, TO THE REST OF NY RNONIERGE AND RELIEF. RATE #2648 n■ tiMPPP r—ai^».j*w< Peftt Wo. ^9-t ~>S I ^ fy O I/O 90 'In 56 lo'i' S3Jt) PERMIT RECORD JSfiis. lhl*4'L^ Type o£ Permit UiBLL. JjJO-tt ti:/ (^- V6'c ‘5 '/y - 9 s' t- /y- ‘;c- iP/k5 ‘/y ‘? -a-‘9 (p H 20*97 (Ke^^esL. • !^C Ji <.-0-f{r ZT . .7 >n- .-y, ^ ^<y \S^lAx ytUCJilL I Application Dale: 12/20/00 . 60 Day Deadline: 2/18/01 FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planncr January 8,2001 SUBJECT: <*2649 Charles Leckley 1S25 Long Lake Boulevard Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR*1A Two Acre Lakeshore Residential 16,175 s f. (.37 acre) A Application B Plat Map C Site Topography D Site Plan E Hardcover Calculation Worksheet F Garage Plans G Propert)’ Owners Notification List Application Summaiy: The applicant has proposed to replace a one stall detached garage with a 20’ X 22’ two stall garage located 5’ off the front property line and 5’ off the side property line. The existing building is 3.5' off the front property line and 2’ from the side lot line. Construction of a garage would require the building to be located along the front property line due to the property beginning to slope towards the lake. Discussion: The topography of the lot requires a garage to be constructed near the front property line. Long Lake Boulevard is located approximately 10' above the ground elevation of the house. If a garage were located attached or near the house a driveway with slopes at or near 15% would be required along with extensive grading and installation of a retaining wall system. Normally the City suggests driveway slopes not e.xcecd 8*10% depending on the individual lot Only the northeast comer (w here the e.xisting garage is located) of the property is located above the hill. The existing garage is located only 1' below Long Lake Boulevard. Another factor in determining the garage location is the well. State Building Code requires structures, or any part of the structure, to be located 3’ from a well. The well and slope of the land *2S49Ch«1ciLc«Ucy 152) Loag LiSc Vmance* Pa|«l have restricted any gamgo construction to the area where the existing garage stands. One outdoor parking space is currently located north of the existing garage. This space is partially off the property into the right of way. The space may also encroach slightly onto an adjacent property. The outdoor space would be eliminated if a new two stalled structure is built. The building would be a two level building with the lowest level access being located towards the house below the hillside. The purpose of the lowest level is to provide indoor storage on the propeny. A small shed would be required to be removed to accommodate a larger building resulting in a loss of storage on the property. Hardcover: The property would not e.xcced the allowed hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback. The tt lal hardcover would be appro.ximalely 1,850 s.f. (21®o). Existing Total Hardcover 75-250 ’ setback " 1,699 s.f. (20%) Setbacks: The 5 ’ proposed front yard setback would allow for off street parking in the driveway. Long Lake Boulevard is a narrow street that docs not provide on street parking. The code requires a 30' setback for garages when the doors face the property line. The building is required to have a 10’ setback to property lines when no access is required. Long Lake Boulevard is not a through street and does not carry hea\y traffic, mostly local traffic. There is no proposed change to the access to the property. The 5 ’ side yard setback would allow another building on the adjacent properly to be located 5 ’ from the lot line and maintain a 10’ building separation as required by the State Uuildtng/Fire Codes. Review of Hardship: 1.The site topography restricts a garage to only the northeast comer of the property. The properties along Long Lake Boulevard slope to home building sites, 'fhe garages must be located at the lop of the hill to avoid unsafe drivev\ay access to the properties This particular lot is unique by the fact the only high point is to one side. The northwest comer of the property slopes ofTmuch closer to the road not leaving adequate room for a building. A well is located between the house and garage. State Code requites a building, or any portion of a building, to be located no closer than 3 ’ to a well. A minimum two stall garage would fit into the hillside without •equiring the well to be relocated. A building below the hill would have driveway slopes up to 15% which is for greater than what the City suggests for safe access. The garage entrance would only be about 1* lower than Long Lake Boulevard. The lower level storage area w*ould minimize the need for additional storage buildings on the propert)’. «2649C; tftci Lccll«> 152S Long Lake Boutetard Vana.'!^ PifcZ ^ 4 Staff Reconmcndalion: Staff has reviewed the site and recommends approval for construction of a 22* X 2(f pa-o level t\vo stall garage 5 ’ from the front property line and 5* from the side property line based on the hardships noted above subject to the following condition: 1. The garage is located in substantial conformance with the site plan attached to this report. Any major altenUion to the site plan shall require additional review. nptioni for Action; 1. Recommend appmval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. mnOaAaUOMy 1535 LoAi Llk« Bonlmt4 Vanauc* Part L ApplicatioD if ^ Date Received 7#/^o/oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from origmal application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After*the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid 1 1 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address i^3lS Lor^a LaWt. Boo\c\/ardl _________ Property IdeotifiCTtion Number TP.1.D.) » 1 \ ^> 3t3• 23 • O00^:1 Attach legal description to aoplicalioo if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquiied M//\ I (do) G^o nol ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presait use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: _______________________________ _(monthfyear) APPLICANT Name C.V>nr\p_S V. LpfWlg Address: P.O. Sox 5^1 Phone (home) _____ Phone (work> "3a»vi €_ City: WavyflTrt 5^1413-fe'73 ’7 OWNER (if different t^n a Name' Address yyfltrt______Zip: $53^ Phone (home) ~)G5 CO (if different than applicant) Phone (home) rAofie T - Phone (work) N /A i-inSOS OWS^ockVorcy R<g. City: Ry^v.Qo^'k Z CQ Zip: SSHHfe DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constn»ctipn Cost $ 2LO QOO .QQ-i- Describe request in detail: VarinKcP ?nr Re.v^Qvjg'ViOK T p^ Jowrv g.xi^'riK^ \ S^ah t^f. roicVNe^ RuilJ Kevs/ 3 ctoH ~ ?lfc QQvOQt flir^eets/il(attach additionaif sheeta/if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage X Salack: ^LF toi U J<.Si<le XR*«f ___Odi ;r (^wcUy)_____________________________ Average Lakeshore i HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hard>hlp or pracUcal difficult)* or unusual property conditions preventing comphjance with Zonir^ Cjdc requirements: S\ ^ ^ n S opt A ryrive\Ayay_ ruvx- M V bodf (attach additional sheets if necessary) « % 0- > t a O a ,/2rf Z, 'O ^ £ CERiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR • CHARLE3 LEEKLEY W lots 20 Sc 21. ALBEE* S LO^JC LAKE ADOiTiCN HENNEPM COUNTY MINNESOTA UM S* MMit**•*!•• :: M w ««i««• m—t COFFIN k GRONBOiC. INC. m i^MOt ifl* % I \M<n MM. iM %•< «• nm <«A»* •i— *-m M« ^ A#%» •• l^l* “inr -ar^ 00447 l6)^ao Le£.ni^e.i ,^lakzofz/. l.om6 cAkie BETDACKZONEt (CIRCLE ONE) HARPCOVER IN ZONE A. Howe _____________ HARDCOVERiZALCULATION WORKSHEET ----------- «A. 250-500* Lng!Ji a Oiraie X.' Driveway D. Sidewalk 7.^ F. Landscape Uoderiite ByPlaRio Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 93 __ ‘ B WARD COVER IN ZONE* A Howe -________ B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_____________‘ » 75-250*500-1000* ADDtTJOf^ E Wi*h i.r A.g o,S M # /»f 0.4» 5 17 7S7f x!00 - 7S7S (.13 WMOi _______________xlOO ^S040 3 S.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ’S.F. SJ. ’SE. S.F. S.F. SI. SI. SI. SI H SI. SI. _SI. SI. S.F. S.F. «i1 •i S.F. S.F. S-F. S.F. SE. S.F. ’S.F. S-F. ST. M A B •• t / "1 • • , .. » UARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ 0.75'250-500' t4nglh WiAh B. O&rsge C. Dris-eway D. SidcNvalk // if S E. Pa«ieOedt F. ^yd3Clpc UMerlain ByPtutic STarJ4 OrFaBric 0. OOvcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONH TOTAL P7.0PF.RT Y AREA IN ZONE A /<ff9 * B xlOO - PROPOSED HARPCOVEn IN ZONE‘ K House WiAh B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Faiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By PloMic Or Fabnc C Other TOTAL HARDCO VER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B XlOO - 500-1000* sF. /88 *58o // 24^ sr S.K SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. SF ? y s F. SF. /?, 7£___ S.F. SF. SJ. SF. S.F. SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. H #2649 SF. S.F.* ■k •1 Northwest Elevotion west #2649 1 MM DATE ll/9l/«* BATCH SI2 HCIMtPlN COUNTY PMKtTV INrOMUTlON SYSTTH PBOKJtTV OIMCIS LIST REFOtT NO. PXASS4I1 PACE B 3S 24-118-ZS S3 IMZ Piror ADO* BIO* LONG LAKE 8LV0 OWNER NANE .T 0 ANOCRSON I C A AHOMSON TAXPAVEB /TROY I CATHERXNC ANDERSON NAHE/AOOR 149B LONG LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE IM 5S35A SR 2A*na-Z3 S3 *00^ •ISl* lONO LAAC BLVO CINOY J FHIMXCRSON \ CXNOY COX ISIA LONO LAKE BLVO LONO LABE HN SS3M 3A 2A-11B-23 S3 OOOS /•isz* LONG LAAC BLVO •/ RAYtlONO CORDON JOHNSON RAYMOND TOROON JOHNSON 1520 LONS LAKE BLVO lOMC LAKE rW BS354 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOX 3B 2A-11S-23 33 000* 01530 LONO LAAE BLVO GRANT 0 ECGENBERO GRANT D CCCENBERO 1530 LONO LAAC BLVO LONG LAAE NN 5535* SB 2«>UB>23 SS 0007 015*0 LONB lake BLVO HONE RtFLECTXONB XNC NONE RErLECTXONS XNC 5000 nOMETONKA DR SNORnOOO HN SS331 SO 2*-110-23 S3 0012 015*5 LONB LAKE BLVD J E BXCHAH A C A BXCNAN JAMES A CVNTNXA BXGHAN 15*5 LONG LAKE BLVD LONO LAKE MN 5535* mb-c)^3y PBOP ABOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 2*-110-2S S3 001* •1535 LONO LAKE BLVD CHARLES N HARVIN C 'LES N NARVXN 15^ LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE NN 5535* Dtb OsjoocS 413. yfcia \ (k^'^NAR SO 5S-11B-2S 22 BB02 •1525 LONO LAKE BLVD IE E WSMOT TRUSTEE NARIE WENDT 17505 OLD ROCXrORO RO 1*21* PLYMOUTH IM 55*** / 80 SB-110-2S 22 OOtS blSOO LONG LAKE BLVD TNONAS W CASHNAN THOfUS W CASmAN ISO* LONG LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE IM 5535* m3 c>s^\S53 iyS3 90 35-110-23 22 000* •1505 LONG LAKE BLVDPROP AODR yOlAOB LONB I OlOfeR NAlfe V JANES 0 WEYHE TAXPAYER • JAMES D WEYHE NAME/AOOR 1S«S LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE HN 5535* a CO CQ =tfc •TOTAL BATCN 502 00010 I'.I CEKTXPV THAT TNE PACTS REPRCSENTtO ABf AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPtSSENTATTON OP XmRHATXON AS IT APPEARS THIS BATE ON TNE OP TNE NEMNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OP PNOfERTY TAXATION, TO TNE BEST OP MY KNONLEOGE AM BEUEP. DATE c - •••*- ■ ^ - i- ^itiAiin I* // Application Dale: 12/20/00 60 Day Deadline: 2/18/01 Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 8,2001 SUBJECT: #2650 Kirsten and Patrick Burlon 2601 Rainey Road Conditional Use Permit and Variances Zoning District: lx>t Area: RR- IB Two Acre Rural Residential 5.25 acres (non-wetland area) List ofEahlblls: A B C D E F Application Plat Map Applicant Letter of Request Main House Plans Guest House Plans Property Ow-ners Notification List Application Guest House: Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application to permit a "guest house". The lot is a vacant 13.8 acre site, with 5.25 acres that is considered dry buildable land. The applicants have requested to build the guest house building before beginning construction of the principal residence. Upon completion of the guest house, consuucUon of the primao residence would begin. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as “a separate dwelling constructed on an e.xisting undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or titclr non-paying guests”. A condition of approval shall be the property owner file a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house may only be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property. The applicants have provided such a document that w ould be executed and recorded in the chain of title of the property- should the CUP request be approved. The guest house can not be used as Home Occupation. Site Analysis: The property contains about 13.8 acres of which over 5 acres are dry contiguous buildable land. Lots in the RR-1B district require two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house CUP requires an additional tw o acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than one dwelling unit per 2 acres. I36SO Kifttni mi famck B««toa 2fe0l Rwir) Road Coodiiioad Utc Penmt nd Vasiancn Pi«cler 3 Guest houses must meet minimum princi(>al building setbacks and be located behind the principal residence. The RR-IB zoning district requires the following: RR-IA (acre) Lot Area Lot IVidth Front Yard Side Yard Rear Y'ard Required 2 acres 4 ocres for a guest house 200'50*30'50* The property does meet the minimum requirements for a guest hou^e. Septic: Septic Design has been provided to the City of Orono. 1 he design work shall be approved by the On-Site Systems Manager prior to a building permit being issued. Guest House Variances: Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A) establishes the ma.\imum building height for structures to be 2 '/j stories or 30 ’ in height. Technically, the building would require a variance for height because a part of the house is 3 full stories. A '/j story would be the portion of living space within a gabled roof line, for example. Because the architectural style has a flat roof, it leaves a full three story house 30 ’ in height. A second height variance is required for a 30" high railing that would be located above the roof line. The railing would be placed on the roof for safety purposes. A variance is required because the railing is considered part of the stmeture over 30* in height. Conditional Use Permit - Primary Rcaidence: Section 10.75, Subdivsion I would allow height limitations for chimneys to be increased by 50% if the Cit>' Council approves a Conditional Use Permit. The Building/Firc Code requires chimneys to be 2* higher than any portion of the house within 10’. The proposed chimney is for a total of 6' in height where 2’ would be allowed. The added 4’ of height requires the CUP. There is one chimney on each end of the house, each with a defined height of 35 feet 8 inches. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the proper^ owners agreeing to file a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants, guests or domestic employees or by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property, and that the guest house could not be used for a home occupation. >2650 Kimcn miO P«ndi B«tM 2601 IUifK> Road CorKliiictuI L’i« Pcrmil and Vviancct p^3or) 1 •i OptiiiBi for Action; t 1. Recommend approval. A) CUP Guest House B) Height Variances Guest House C) CUP Chimney Height 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. A) CUP Guest House B) Height Variances Guest House C) CUP Chimney Height 3. Table. 4. Other action. •2650 Kinufl mi fmitk Bma 2601 Haimy RmS CooOiiioMl Um NraiH m4 VhImmi Otc-14-2000 IO:S«ai Fror^lTY OF ORONO ♦IS224S48II T-ir p 006/czr f-«o Jl Application U P- Dalc Rccchcd^z/toioo Amoiut Paid ^21.^ city of ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Phone (horned . ^AAr^H iT^t/ C\Vi Zip, XM.------- OWNER (if differe l»jamehtite*v ____________ Addre^^/ /2afrtAteu> Tet^f-^ce Date Property Acquiied ------- I (do)-(de-.«it. o\sTt the adjacent parcel/ of B,Tf i TO B FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEKNHTS • S 75.00 For each variance request wih CUP appl ealioa ' S175.00 Residential Accesson' Use S250.00 Instinitional (chcrch, school, etc.) xtr^iet^* ygA>4^^______City /vJ Zip 7£. y S225.00 Quest House/Ouest Apartraeois 5200.00 Duplex Credn/Bldg 5300.00 Comracrcial/'nduslrial Use “ S250.00 Und Alierati;r. „ ^ . Grading and fi ling - desis.iatcd wetland or floodplain Grading and - 501 cu. yd. or more ' Grading, seuv'all, retaining wEb within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - sec Fee t:chsdule ” 5150.00 Renewal Fee (ao change Srom original appr.cation) “ After-the-Fact Fee - Dcuule Cunenl Application Fee _____S250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consulta.-:’. fees) _____S300.00 Vacation S200.00 Easement Vacadon --------$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision --------$350.00 Rexoning (PUD - refer to fee Khcdulc) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals - - ^ _____Other - see Fee Schedule #2650 County Taxpayer Seryjcea Dep^^pyit^p•. ‘ ■m; —1 1 !1 1 L_ .. -...i_■“-----------------* - -*• -1 -^.1i. ,_j |-4___-t. -"‘l; I4l !(H|| ,l:^ .-i ■ . V 0'V-V/‘^^¥j /2y^/ ?■MLt . ;• -.t-*’! 0ci-nv^3 ‘{9. »6» LMCOFCROM) 1 (10} jOiimeNtriwio< lmv*. 03» . I * t GONDMXM • *• \ ;> •‘•.V • Pancel ID,041 StrertNwneADD^^ i 1 1CoodocnlnlMin ;1 _4J Addendum # I to CityofOrono General Land Use Application Submitted 12/20/00 Request for Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Richard B. Peterson, Attorney for Owners Owners: Kirsten and Patrick Burton The Applicant, as representative of the Owners, and the Owners hereby request a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Orono for the Owners’ property legally described as: Lot 3, Block 1, Trees To Be Address: 2601 Rainev Road Orono, MN 55391 A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the following: 1. That the property be approved for two dwellings, one of which is to be the guesthouse and that the Owners be allowed to construct the ^eslhouse first The site plan submitted with this application shows the location of the guesthouse and the primary dwelling. The Owners are willing to subject the property to Restrictive Covenants in substantially the form attached hereto. 2. That the chimney of the primary residence and guardrail for the roof of the guesthouse may be constructed as shown on the plans submitted herewith notwithstanding applicable Buildir Height standards in the City Ordinance. f: i- •w-** ^ rmtiTcatat-^r NORTH ELEVATION r*w j f*r ».r M lor • D^*- — ».|‘ Itaea ----------------- li I I rOftlN Wovjse PtANS rrtf U4i*Cl *M*r SOU1H OEVA1KM r...u I: IQ m m m I EAST EIEVATWM >fr_„ MS^ tSSSmOm^ SliSL Frjntt ♦ At*ac jsyss- i/sV -© EXTBWn 6LEVA110W A-201 Di •' •’ ) #**. •» V. .; > * S'. -V '«»*•« . '-fb *9 • MS&R ftAMipMli Ml I stusaser SESfis?*' aftifif*' iSV iwauMCTwn I MMM M M • W • «M «MM MM «— ^mm -©■ FfSTIJEVa. RJOORPLAN A-101 LO =tfc i. I. O' o r I rt -C o Ii I .V SOUTH ELEVATION ICAO. 1/4- • l -r w-r 10 tor or- jor-o* 10 i» or- rOAfCI -A •ooricvcL-a ^ iu-r -0 i«0U41-CV 0in r«T UNCl-Ci A Q WEST ELEVATION f fDia 1/4* • r-r f •Jn • ■•'?!: * V- ;• - .•• -1^ S-: liilt ! I 3 > ! @ SECTION scMC i/«* • r-r MoriMi-a ^»r-<r ^ MQlML-atsr-v acocu«.-a ^ *«r-r- mrma-a ^ *jr-«r ^ MscMNi ^»w-*' 1---------1 III 1 w 111 1 1 nni=A=t fill ItI J=f4- ■ \=L 1 1 nHLttP 1111 @ NORTH-SOUTH SECTION SCAlfc •/«* - I I I I I I I EAST-WEST SECTION 0 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION L KUd I I f3 MS&R MmMmi k kuftoiris tj«. <iilki*iKiiMiiiini^ MiUWaDu^ <11 M Pwck + Amoc SSr- tisbWd.* gcSzr- ■•vM* sTm r«k BURTON GUEST HOUSE Rainey Rd Ororvo, MN -© BULOMQ SECTION A-301 • ‘f i \ i t. -iirT ' ijT i * I • IM Xr SITE PLAN MSdcR AkLmM. kMh) tM» mUIMmOmIb • If H^iaAlMn IBi infill MN iifii.iiM lit hi £s35SF*+*~ rnmm BURTON GUEST HOUSE Rainey Rd Orono. MN -© SITE PLAN A-100 '■■ ■■ I ■: y e =fe m •UN DATE l2/ID/t« •ATCH S12 NCNNeriN COUNTY PROrCKTV ZNFOAHATXON SYSTCN fROTERTV OWNCRS LIST RCTORT NO. PIASSAIl PACE S2 PROP AtHM KR NAnC TAKPAYfR NAI1E/AOOR PROP AOOO OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANCyAOM L... 58 RS'llP-ZS 53 ROOl •••58 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O BOX 4A CRYSTAL DAY NN SSS25 58 OA-117-25 A5 0012 •2725 RAINEY RD H F KAMLER t E KAHLER N F KAKLER S E KAHLCR 2725 RAINEY RO MAVZATA NN .55581 58 »A'117*25 A3 OtlS •2485 RAINEY RO R S • S S VICKERNAN R SCOTT VICKERNAN SUSAN S VICKERNAN 2485 RAINEY RD MAYZATA NN 55381 58 •4-117-25 45 ••15 •2755 RAINEY RO NARY STUART FOX NARY STUART FOX 2750 RAINEY RO WAVZATA NN 55581 58 •4-117-25 45 ••lA •248* RAINEY RO J T DUCNARNE • S N DUCNARHE JOHN T i SHERYL N DUCNARHE 2480 RAINEY RO WAYZATA NN 55581 58 •4-117-25 45 ••!? •••58 AOOtCSS UNASSlflNEO TREES TO DE PRIVATE RO ASSOC TREES TO 8E ASSOCIATION 277S RAINEY RO MAYZATA NN 55581 O PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 04-117-23 45 0018 •••58 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO X N • P N BURTON KIRSTEN B PATRICK BURTON 81 OAXVIEW TER SHORT HILLS NJ 07876 58 04-117-25 43 0018 •••58 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO TREES TO RE PRIVATE ROAD ASC TREES TO 8E PRIVATE ROAD ASSOCIATION INC 2778 RAINEY RO MAYZATA HN 55391 58 04-117-25 45 0021 ••750 OANDCR RO NARIA S ANDERSON NARIA S ANDERSON ■750 OANOER RO MAYZATA HN 55381 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 •4-117-23 45 0022 •••58 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO 0 F KUHLIN ET AL DENNIS F KUHLIN PO BOX S5S MAYZATA NN 55581 58 04-117-25 44 0002 •2555 FOX ST P E ECXERLINE/N A ECKERLINt PETER E ECKERLIHE 2555 FOX ST ORONO HN 55591 58 04-117-25 44 ••04 •2441 RAINEY RO K N 8 P N BURTON KIRSTEN B PATRICK BURTON 81 OAKVIEM TER SNORT HILLS NJ 07078 58 04-117-25 44 0005 •0714 OANOER RO D L DANIELS • K B BURNS DAVID B KATHLEEN DANIELS 71B OANOER RO ORONO NN 55581 58 08-117-25 11 0007 •••88 OLD CRYSTAL BAY CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO 555 BROMN RO CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 RD S 58 08-U7-25 11 ••!• •2445 FRENCH LAKE RO ROBERT J 8 JOAN L DAYTONRobert j b joan l oayton 1 FRENCH LAKE RO MAYZATA NN 55581 CD ) \) J J PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 08-117-23 12 0001 •••58 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO ORB MUST CEORCE A MUST 820 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO MAYZATA m 55581 38 08-117-23 12 0002 •8840 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RO S A J EUZS A J ELLIS 840 CRYSTAL BAY RO MAYZATA HN 55581 58 10-117-25 22 0002 •0845 MIUOM OR S 0 A' 8 A E ANDERSON eiLBEtr A ANDERSON 845 S MILLQM OR • MAYZATA PBI 55581 I Li ■jLwxiNBJl 13 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorsc, Cit> Adminislralor Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning AdminisUator/PIanner January 10,2001 SUBJECT: #2652 Ronald Laucr for Dennis Anderson 1720 Bohn’s Poini Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Pistricl: LR-1D One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 64, 830 s.f. (1.48 acres) List ofEihibils A Analysis Application Site Plan/ Suncy Plans/Elevation View Hardcover Resolution #4006 (Regarding plastic and landscape fabric) Plat Map Location Map Property OwTier’s List Permit Record I Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2): Hardcover In the 75-250 ’ setback zone: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a variance to allow 13.045 s.f. (49.3® o) of hardcover where 13,045 s.f. (48.7%) exists and 6,687.5 (25®/o) is allowed. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit a variance to encroach 88' and 92’ into the a\ cragc lakeshore setback. Application Sunimar>: The applicants arc seeking approval to add a second story to the existing residence, a concrete paver walkway, and to enlarge an outdoor stairx\-ay. The second story' addition is located in two different areas of the residence, it does not cover the entire residence. One section is 22' x 32 ’ located on the south side (over the master bedroom) and the other is 22’ x 34 ’ on the northeast side (over the guest suite). 02652 Ron Lover (Demis Anderson) / 720 Bohn‘s Point Road Variance 1/10/2001 Pme I I i • The siair addition is to odd 17 s.f. onto the existing stairs located between the driveway and residence. • The paver walkway will be between the house and the driveway. It is in two difTerenl locations, south ajid cast of the driveway. Combined they will total 147 s.f. These areas ore currently grass. The entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line as drawn between the two adjacent residences. The house sits on a point of the lakeshore (Exhibit C). Tlie adjacent residence to the west is on higher ground, and may currently enjoy minimal views over the existing residence, which may be reduced by the second story addition. However, the main view s of the lake for that house arc to the south and not affected. Existing vegetation will also act to limit neighbors’ views hence it is tmlikely that average lakeshore setback is a significant issue for this propertx. No neighbors have indicated a problem to staff as of this writing. Lot coverage by structures currently is approximately 7.9%, will remain the same and well within the 15% limitation. The paver w alkway and stair addition w ill increase the hardcover in the 75-250* setback area by 164 s.f. The applicant is proposing to remove 393 s.f. The 393 s.f. is landscape fabric under rock. This is considered nonconforming and should not be included in tlic calculations. (Exhibit E). The amount of hardcover currently in this setback area is 13,045 s.f. (48.7%). The additional 164 s.f. brings it to 13,209 s.f. (49.3%). The residence was built in the early 1950*s in its present location, prior to current zoning ordinances. There have not been any additions or variances to this property. Staffhas rev iewed the addition in regards to city ordinance code requirements. Lyle Oman. Building Official did conclude it does meet the 2 % story or 30* criteria, measuring 29.5 feet. Statement of Hardship ; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration; 1. The second story is not changing the footprint of the existing residence. It is increasing living space but not increasing structural coverage or hardcover. 2. Is the shape of the lot and the curve of the shoreline, os well as the fact that lake exists on both the east and south sides of the property hardships that are unique to the proper!) ? *1652 Ron Lauerfor DinnU Anderson 1 720 Bohn *i Point Road yoriance l/IOflOOl Page! 3 Are any neighbors’ vic\%-s of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the second story? Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance? 4. Structural lot coverage will remain at 7.9%, well below the required 15%. 5. Hardcover in the 75-250* setback area will increase by 164 s.f. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore variance. Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance in the 75-250* setback area if hardcover is removed elsewhere in the setback area to maintain the current amount of 13,045 s.f. (48.7%). »2652 Ron Leattrfor Donnb Andtnon 1720 Bohn’s Point Road yarlanc* 1/1072001 PagtS Ufa ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Alta; LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 64,830 s.f. (1.48 acres) Stnicturol Coverage! Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 64,830 s.f.Allowed: 9,724.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 5,148 s.f. (7.9%) Proposed. 5,148 s.f. (7.9%) Hardcoygr Calculotiom: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’38,080 s.f.0s.f 932 s.f (2.5%) 932 s.f (2.5%) 75-250*26,750 s.f 6,687.5 s.f (25%) 13,045 s.f (48.7%) 13,209 s.f (49.3%) CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S250.00 After>the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 2 (aS2m Date Received >«/i<>/o o Amount P^ JZSO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address t720 Bohn's Point Road Property Identification Number (T.I.D.1 0CO^_AWaa^M«w«MSwaa a-vvasaiv^ \a ----- ----------■■ — Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, I (do) (do not) also own th^^^acent parcels of land. Present use of property: residents ___pother (specify) _(month/year) Zoning District: APPLICANT-NbjVXS Name Ronald d. Lauer Phone (home). Address: ^01 £• St. _____ Phone (work) City: Wayzata___________Zio: 55391 0\>'NER (if different than applicant) Dennis Anderson______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address: i7?o Bohn*w Pr. Rd,CilV: Uaveaca Zio: 55391 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Consuuclion Cost $, Describe request in detail: Variance for Average Lake Setback__ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Setback: ___Front ___Side Other (specify)__________________ Hardcover Lot Coverage ___Rear Average Lakeshorc HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:. The hardship Is caused because the house aits on a point. (attach additional sl^e^ if qecessary) f ♦ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 5. 6. 8.__ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In audition, provide one (I) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include rtame(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered by odginal fee payment) and'or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true^^d c<^ct to the bc^^f his/her knowledge. / Applicant’s Signature / /U Date /r‘_____ ' r ' ‘ OWTSER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members lor 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 Plaiming Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants roust be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the BuUding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .r.s r .«n*CL ,n I ^ I l«l ■ «V« •^••* •••••• •• tMMM •• •- *.1 •• # ••• I CW«f •*!«•••-* •* • ^ >•# r« ni^ f - — —- ------------------- «« .• » J Wi»**'*f M i«it I r« • • •• •••M M •• «r«i # m4 1^ MV* •• •• ••• •» ^ i« »• •*• ••^1 !••• 1 M • • •• r«« 4 *K •••. •*%«••• '* !•• •* • • W *--------------- . •, 1^9 •• «V«V » »«»• •• M ««I4 I •>« I «» M« «« M ^ «iw» •■<«•• •• •••■^ W •••• ^ W •••. M«« ««i»^4i • •• •• •* tZU _ ------------ M »« P« * ••• r*«« •* •«• 01 t ••••<••• •« «%« w«t —~ «• ^ «gM» •• •* ••••-n ^ fcal^^ »> mmm ¥ m < «n« ••• »* • I • ■■rn #2652 —I IT a PROJECT c. :sT ‘‘pEJEElt '■■'■'xiS.% H;w.v, 3r** aMuir MV*«rtr.*Tii»i mFIFi L—-T- ^ _____^ppnni iHJI "^■7" .4^-^ L .ii- )H1 . ___ ‘v. I I •.*>...•■ I M I I I r ^ ^ ^W“illML © ::::tt . v — V/.-I12::::: ___________‘ - • -•♦I "*S? * ~dMi- iiLl/ io*^ '1 SrJH- U— i i|i<| V -- ' V r--- 4ZI . __'. 1__J_) *« »! 4 [f N^■.-4i^]>==~ iHHi V i mi Ai Ol'.l ’]( 1 :l \ ,■\ rnir --ir 111-U I 1J J, .111.. Sfi: j; m;. !•« IkVWMI/' rsrrr.-:^ :x:wis:. . £^.i= rr.rrr“ tZUJ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^006 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING THE HARDCOVER STATUS OF PLASTIC AND FABRIC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS and defining THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTUR.\L HARDCOVER WTHEREAS, ihc City of Orono since 1975 has regulated the use and placement of hardcover on land within 1000 feel of lake shorelines; and WHEREAS, City Ordinances define hardcover as "Any structure, blacktop, or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground"; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinances placing limitations on the use of hardcover divide the 1000-fool regulatory zone into four tiered "hardcover zones" which are commonly referred to as "the 0-75* zone" "the 75-250’ zone", "the 250-500’ zone", and "the 500-1000* zone"; and said zones arc respectively allowed 0% hardcover, 25% hardcover. 30% hardcover, and 35% hardcover; and WHEILEAS, the City Council has long considered that plastic sheeting and weed control fabrics (hereinafter referred lo as ’plastic or fabric*) shall be considered as hardcover for the purpose of administering the hardcover ordinances, regardless of the extent to which such matenals are actually permeable; and WHEREAS, the City has never issued permits for placement of plastic or fabric on private or public property, and all such material where it cunently exists in excess of the allowed hardcover percentages on any given propertv, is considered as non-COnforming ; and WHEREAS, the City is continuously faced with requests for variances lo the hardco.cr ordinances wherein applicants are required to provide calculations identifying the various types and square fooiages of hardcover within a property ; and WHEREAS, hardcover variance requests are commonly reviewed by the City* with the underlying intent that the percentage of hardcover be reduced from the pre-e.xisting condition; and Page 1 of 3 •^r-iinrtrirnn-i n CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 0 S WHEREAS, propcrt>- o\Micrs conunonly request hardcover variances for \s-hich their proposal includes a reduction in the overall hardcover, but typically by an increase in the amount of'structural hardcover* N\ilh concurrent removals of'non-structural hardcover*; and WHEREAS, the Cit>* has not previously formally defined by ordinance or resolution the distinction between 'structural' and ’non-structural' hardcover, but has commonly considered such a distinction when reviewing hardcover variance requests; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be beneficial to formally define the distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover; and \MIEREAS, the Cit>- Council finds that it is inappropriate to consider the removal of nfilk rnnforming plastic or fabric as a good-faith hardcover reduction when considering hardcover \ ariance requests; and WHEREAS, the Cit>- Council finds that to the extent practicable, all non-conforming plastic or fabric should be rcmo\ cd*from properties for which a hardcover variance is requested, to reduce the potential for 'trading' non-conforming non-structural hardcover to gain structural hardcover. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirmcsoia: 1. Structural Hardcover shall be defined as those items of hardcover which require a building permit, which extend above the ground surface or into the ground, or which arc constructed rather than placed. 2. Non-structural Hardcover shall be defined as those items of hardcover which do not require a building permit, ''Wch exist on the ground surface but do not extend substantially above or below grade, or which are placed on the ground siuface rather than constructed. Page 2 of 3 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A O 0 The following items are considered as hardcover: Structural Hardcover Buildings Tennis courts Pools, inch water suffice Decks, regardless of spacing Roofs of any sort, Incl. some roof overhangs Play structure platforms Temporary buildings Any vehicle, material, or equipment which prevents direct absorbtlon of rainfall into the ground and which is stored for an extended period of time Nf>n«Structural Hardcover Roads and shoulders Driveways (Concrete, asphalt, gravel, dirt) Sidewalks, ramps, etc. Any surface intended to be driven on Landscape beds lined with plastic sheeting Landscape beds lined with weed-prevention fabric Tops of rock or timber retaining walls Patios, stepping stones Porous pavements (various) All plastic or fabric located in the 0*75' hardcover zones within the City is considered as non-conforming unless specific approval for same is granted by the Cit>- Council at some date after the adoption of tlus ordinance. 5.All plastic or fabric in hardcover zones other than the 0-75* zone is considered as non-conforming when the co 'bined structural and non-struclural hardcover in said zones exceeds the allowed ha*dcover percentages for said zones. For any project that has been the subject of a hardcover variance approval, no building permit will be issued until all non-conforming plastic or fabric hru been removed from the property. Hardcover calculations presented at the time of variance application shall reflect all hardcover remaining on the propert)- after the non-conforming plastic or fabric has been removed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 24ih day of November, 1997. Dorothy M. I^in, City Clerk Gabri^ Jabbour, Ma^ Page 3 of 3 J Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department * Paraef Information 1 1 1 Parcel ID 1611723220004 1 House Number 1720 Street Name BOHNS POINT RO i CoTKlomlnium I•III!a1midd$t»flvmC»y.Coi0ity.tndSM»m$dmMhora0Btndoltmi . - >4^ RUN DATE 12/ll/aa BA1CH All PROR AOOR OMMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AODR PROP AOOR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER fUNE/AOOR M 1A-117-2S 22 aaai aiaaa rohns point ro CONNIE R SWEEN CONNIE R SWEEN l«>aO BONNS POINT RO mavzata nn sssai SB ia-n7*2S 22 aaaA 01720 DOiatS POINT RO DENNIS 0 ANOERSON DENNIS 0 ANOERSON 1720 DOtRIS POINT RO WAYZATA NN SSSYl SB 17-117-2S 11 OOON aoaSB ADDRESS UNASS16NCO OEMUS D ANOERSON DENNIS 0 ANDERSON UNOIVIDCO HENMPIN COUNTY PROPERTY ZNPORNATXON SYSTCN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SB lh*117-2S 22 0002 OIBAO BOHNS POINT RO T L TRAPP I E TRAPP Y L TRAPP A E TRAPP 27 CLANCY ESTATES RANCNO niRACE CA Y2270 SB IB-117-25 22 OOBk 0172S DOMNS POINT RO H L HOCPT BAD NOCPT M L NOEPT BAD NOEPT 1725 BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATA NN 55301 REPORT NO. PIAS5A01 PACE 51 SB 1B-117-2S 22 OaOS 01700 BOHNS POINT RO R B C OWENS ROBERT H OWENS 1700 BOIMS POINT ROAD WAYZATA NN SSSYl 5B 17*117-25 11 0002 01B55 BOHNS POINT 10 6 R NCWIUN JR B H n C NEMHAN CRAYDON K NEWNAN JR NZCHEUE N C NEWNAN 1055 BONNS POINT RO ORONO NN 55501 TOTAL BATCH 511 B00P7 CQ C0 I CERTIPY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATXON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS Of THE HENMPIN COUNTY DEPARTMNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THL BEST OP NY KNOWLEOCE AND BELIEF. OATleZ?BYc Pecroit No, / AT- r - ia “7'Hl\ ^-/ V (* f ■7 5(D ' r PERMIT RECORD Pate IO--(%-‘S~7 Type of Permit ~5 ~~5~ hh - -^S-A4- ±m:Op /Tuy\ 7 - r^)-^^- 7.-^-'55 ij.cvx.i \(lA"VNii-cb- e>- I -^- Olu’-krtAtuLOi fc?yr^''^(jV /c ^•■•57________ H TO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cily Adminislralor FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Adminislralor/Planncr DATE: January 10.2001 SUBJECT: «655 Robert and Nancy Lux 1209 French Creek Drive Variance - Public Hearing Zoning DisIricI: RR-1B/PRD One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area: 59.314 s.f. (1.36 acres) List of Exhibits A Analysis B Application C Site Plan' Sur\ey D Floor PlansA^'icws/lilevations E Septic Report F Plat Map G Location Map H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (CXI): Structural setbacks for Natural Environmental Lakes: To pemiit an addition to the w est end of the residence and replacement of an existing deck. Application Summary: 1 he applicants are seeking approval to construct a 13‘ x 36' (468 s.f.) addition to the w est end of the residence and to replace an existing wood deck that is deteriorating. Both the addition and dtnrk replacement arc w ithin 150* of a Natural Environment lake. The lot was developed in 1985 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance (1992). llie Shorcland Ordinance created a 150* structure setback from Natural Environment lakes, whereas, 75' was required before 1992. The ordinance was adopted with the understanding it would create non- conforming lots in the French Creek Subdivision. The subject property owner’s house now encroaches into the required 150* setback. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance the lot was confomiing. ^2655 RohertTiancy Lux 1 209 Ft inch Crtfk Drive Variance 1/10/2001 Page! Ilic property is seized with a septic system. The septic s>stem is currently compliant and hiw a capacity lor 4 bedrooms. This addition will not odd to the total number of bedrooms, but rearranging them within the residence and add a room off the master bedroom suite, labeled office on plans (Exhibit D). Therefore a larger .septic system is not required at this time. Orono septic code requires structures meet a 20* setback from a septic drainficld. The addition docs not meet this requirement. However, septic inspector, ('hris Pence, granted a variance so the addition may be located 10 from the drainficld. Structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application. No neighboring residences will be impacted by the addition or replacement of the deck. Statcroent of Hardship ; The property wns developed prior to the adoption of the ShorelanJ Ordinance. A large pv)rtion of the lot. including the existing home encroach into the 150' struclurc setback from Natural Environment Lakes. Pssucs for Consideration ; 1. TlielSO’ lake setback was adopted after the residence was built. 2. The addition meets side yard setback requirem.'nts. 3. The proposal diK*s not exceed structural lot coverage or hardcover requirements. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. ^laff Rceommendation ; Staff recommends approval of the variaiKC for the addition and replacing the existing deck. Staff has notified the property owner and architect that the addition to the west end of the residence is on the septic drainficld. City ordinances require a 20 ’ setback. They have stated they arc to put in u new septic system. This application may proceed to the City Council for approval with the condition that a building pemiit for the addi’.ion will not be issued until a septic design showing a primary and alternate site is submitted and approved by city staff. The building permit for replacing the deck can be issued once the proposal is approved by the City Council. H2655 Robert and Sancy Lux 1209 French Creek Drive I 'ariance 110 2001 Page 2 J Lot Area: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET RR-IB/PRD Lot Area Required PRD Actual 59,314 s.f. Structural Covcmgc ; Total Lot Si/c Total Structural Coverage 59,314 s.f.Allowed: 8,897 s.f. (15%) E,xisting: 6,752 s.f (11.4%) Proposed: 7,273 s.f (12.6%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75"5,456 s.f Os.f Os.f Os.f 75-250*49,708 s.f 12,427 s.f (25%) 10,664 s.f (21%) 12.349 s.f (24.8%) 250-500*4,150 s.f 1,245 s.f (30%) 415 s.f (10%) 726 s.f (17%) 500-10UO*Os.f Os.f Os.f Os.f aXY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renev^-al Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Applicatioo I^te ReccHtd ;a./x iIdo Amount Paid O PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address______________1209 KRPSrH orivk Property Identification Number fP.I.D.I 10-117-23 23 002 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______________df .cembkr 5. 1996 ______________^(montlVyear) I (do) (do not) also ov,-n the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: xxx residential ___other (specify). Zoning District: RR - IB_____________________________ APPLICANT Name & Nancy Lux ' Address: 1209 French Creek Drive Phone (home) rQsyt^49-ni2i Phone (work) (952)545-1419 Orono___________Zip: 55391City:. 0^^*NER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:. in fO DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ $100,000 Describe request in detail: Renlaco exlatiny wood dock that has detertoratgd with new patio and deck. Wc are also proposlnR to add 13 feet onto the west end o ot the house for additional sheets if necessary) kids budroons. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width ^ Setback:Front Hardcover Lot Coverage Side Rear ___ Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Anv addition to the existing structure requires a variance because the entire home Is within 150 feet of tbe lake. (attach additional sheets if necessary) K r y< cK. |Lu ‘ (S ‘^ ij6 o4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the folln%ving information mmt be aubmitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to bp comidcred complete; 1. 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Go\t Center, 348*5910). Certificate of Suney (signed by a licensed 5ur\eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi** x II" for 4. JL_ 5. 6. reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8Vj" x II" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/j" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ymir variance application Is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.xpenses incuned in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to Utc best of hisTter knowledge. Applicant's Signature rue 1^ correct to Utc b Date Kovcober 1,2000 OTOTR’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Couiicil members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Noveaber 1. 2000 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before Uie 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 meeang, plcMC make arrangements to have an authori^ agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to Ute meeting. <* • ••» vm o TK»:r DETAIL trERcrrEN nmit SlIRtTO DETAIL ajr^,jL;j=rs=jrr -n— L.TS£.‘=£=7^e LA»oaeiU»g W.4N .,,. ....»■—----------------------------------------- D L m -r y t >>V V. 1 1 -4- lllillll v,r::c.— ✓ Cn.'T I »•-• —1 ' ,,‘irnoH Tfcu 1^ AOOfnoww; i . i9im I.1 I s!i rsr- A4 KIM SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 1209 French Creek Dr. PID: 10-117-23 23 0002 Building Typ residence #BRs/GPD: 4 ^Systems 1 Units Billed 1 Permit#: 7916,122l4Datc of Permit: 5/13/85,11/30 Installen Wcstonka Plbg., Sullivan System Type standard trench Experimental: no Appliances lndry,dshw SYSTEM commos Conformit}” 1 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: II Failure Pol: low SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: 500,600 Cesspool: no DRAINFIELD Ungth of Lines 330 # Lines: 5 Trench Width: 3 Treatment Area: 1000 T>*pe of Filler rock Soil Boring: no Tile Size: 4 Under Tile 12 PercRate: 7 Setback DF-Bldg: 20 DFHt above Wt: 3 Soil Type: sandy loam,loam Limitations: none }}ELLDATA Setbacks-Well-Tanks: 50 Well-DF: Pun;pType: subm. Depth: 160 INSPECTION RECORD 75 Report in File yes Diameter: 4 Method: drilled PUMPOUT RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 5/20/85 installation 1 8/1/90 2000 8/4/87 no surfacing-need risers 1 10/6/93 2000 7/9/90 no surfacing 1 8/7/97 2000 7/9/92 no surfacing-need risers 1 10/2/99 3000 5/10/94 no surfacing-need risers,pump tanks 1 11/8/96 no surfacing-pump tanks 1 4/24/97 no surfacing-pump tanks 1 12/4/99 added 600 gpd aerobic unit 1 6/7/00 no surfacing 1 F M..jiL ymM CM e*wt-Hvu 0 S ^ WATilltOira «0 tOMtMIT mini 400 ! F ^BOO % •■ •• •••« J;' 1*“ ‘ V. insPotm Crystal Bay \ * * * * - • ;Lifiyeii i - f > -*:r‘^ouniry C ub MV«U imVIEW CA 1 ”.......{■ MAMOR VAT ORON < 1 \ DCUatOR I .J'. I ® €\l^ - i„n' ^ Smith ^roncm ; vr. . -’ • 1600 '■•<0/ ^ . V. .: y r vr//.. •,.■., »■•,'••. .'.iK . Bracketts Point ** ..*•• •;..# •. . .V: •• * • ±MM OATI lt/Sl/l« MTCN SI2 IM COUNTY PYOrCRTV INTOMMYXIM SYSTCH roorcRTv omncrs list RCrORT NO. Pl«aMRl fAOf t ftOf AOOR ONNER NMK TAXPAYER NAKE/ADOR M lt-117-25 2S RMl •12tS TRENCH CREER OR C J MINSLOW A S L MINUOH SHARON A CtARR MXNSLOM 12AS TRENCH CREEK DR HAY2ATA HN 5S991 U 1A-117-2S 25 AKA2 012A9 TRENCH CREEK OR R C A N LUX RORERT C A NANCY LUX 12A9 TRENCH CREEK OR HAYZATA HN SS591 SA 1I-U7-25 25 ■•A5 A22AA TRENCH CREEK CIR J S PETERSON A J C PETERSON JANES A JULIA PETERSON 2»A TRENCH CREEK CXI MAYZATA HN SS59X PROP AOOR OMNER NANR TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR SA 1I-117-25 25 ••ASA ADDRESS UNASSXONED CLARK J HINSLOM ET AL SHARON A CLARK HINSLOM 12AS TRENCH CREEK CXR MAYZATA HN 5559X 3A 1A-X17-2S 52 AA12 A12AA TRENCH CREEK OR 0 H HYCE A J V HYCE JANES V A BEVERLY H NVCE 1249 TRENCH CREEK OR MAYZATA HN 55591 5A IA-IX7-25 52 DAIS A125A TRENCH CREEK OR J T AOANS A R L AOAHS JOMN T A RONOA L AOAHS 125C .‘RENCH CRETK DR W.4VZATA HN a PROP AOOR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SA 1A-117-2S 52 AAXO AAASA AOORESS UNASSXCNEO CLARK J HINSLOM ET AL SHARON A CLARK HINSLOM 12A5 TRENCH CREEK CIR HAYZATA HN S559I TOTAL BATCH SA2 AAAA7 41 ft ^4 5S X CERTIFY THAT THE TACTS RCTTvSENTCB ARC AN ACCURATE AMO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS Of THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DCPARTHCNT Of PROI^TY TAXATION, TO THE BEST Of HY KN0MLED6C AW SELXEf. OATEi 'T {/ jT Permit No. •7 96>0 i TtdJU JJSL(a___J 793^ __________ __________ m /■3j2A/ X PERMIT RECORD Date iH-gi-r- Type of Permit /UjjU ' AJUo. COjJli S-t3-P< 4cJ^S_ MszzSs. IhJAlZ ---e.Zu. k:: CD. //z3-Q^JL^______ iimiiiA.liMiiirli iM SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL O O GITYofORONO Mualdpal Ofllcts Stntt Mtfrau: 2750 IMIey P»rtr*ay Orono. MN S5356 Maaiiii Mdrtu: P 0. B« 66 CfysUI Bay. MM 55323^ 1 OvNiicr Cif/ Address / ?r/7 ^ Site Evaluator -3-/* Type of Establishment: Commercial_____ ________________Phone (I lomc) HU f'LVit (\Vork)_ />A’ City />aV’a:State______ Zip, State License ^ S/>/ PhoncM ^ 7?^-j^ ^ ' Single Family /<Multi Family, No. Potential Dedrooms — Water Meter Required: Ycs_ Pcrc Rates P-1 ___ P-2 No P-3 Garbage Disposal Est. Gallons Per Day_ Soil Sizing Factor F-4 P-5 P-6 Yes - Restricting Layer Depth B-1 ___ I Type of Treatment System: Standard Experimental,Alternative Pressurized Mound System, Gravity Trenches System________________ Gravity Trenches W/ Lift_______________ I lolding Tank W/ Alonn________________ Septic Tank SizctVr’.. y-t # of Tanks_ Pump Brand. oPM____ At-Gradc System_ Pressurized Trench System. Pressurized Bed System__ /Lift Tank Sizc_ Head Treatment System: Minimum — Type of cosering Fabric__ Square F'eet \%ith inches of rock below pipe Other - THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which mioi accompany the site plan. A permit must he issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. NOTICE TO INSTALLEICS: An\ changes to the approved plans must have prior approval of the inspector (249-4600) Call for inspection 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MIST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing mu3t remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspections Department has verified the primary and alternate sites arc protected. NO \’EHICLLAR TR.AFFIC OF AN^’ KIND is allowed within 20’ of tested drainfield sites ever. ACCEPTED A-DEMF.D the following conditions:. Bv the Citv of Orono su^ect to c.xisting regulations and / )________________ // / B IA i^!CiJ' Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager lUcphooe (612) 249-4400 • Fox (612) 2494616 10/20 99 11:99 F.U 6124975U11 S P TESTI.su l.NC Rul S^P TESTINGf INC, stev»n B. SchlfTHQrs ■ MPCA Cert.No. 627 9S1 Katydid Lano NE • SL Michael. MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 FAX *(612) 497-5011 State Lioente #394 PAX TO:Pi •1 i^Ar>Arf o .PAX NUMBER .3 *•/*?- ORGANIZATION Cy' crvo.. SUBJECT — r2-0^^ s Oa . REMARKS__________________________________________ PAGES TO FOLLOW__ m 10/20/99 11:30 FAl 6124975U11 S P TESTING INC Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softener etc. should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Iron ntters must be (Uveded out or the system. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amount* of soaps, anti>bacterial soaps, cleaning agents & chlortne agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Steven B. Schirmers ■ A-: im i ^ g#l I\ \ ' ~ . - \ e*»v-iV<M' f<U. • «-V^ - «l <i. ^ __L.I ■ Vi^J ' '. A TSP. n-^ / \ -ij CX\ir5>VV» Wouv-C-. I__r J- ~f \rCiO'£^. y ^ ^ ♦VJ^ ' V^ n ^*L. ^ I X ?TerHOs<V> <=nV<vJT^ S><^ /OOO iar^' • A? L.. Choir I^lown and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director^^^^^^ January II, 2001 #2657 ClifTord Otlcn, 2350 Wuyzala Boulevard - Faiscmcnt Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning DbIricI: B-6 (PUD-1) Highway Commercial District, Planned Unit Development List of Exhibits A - Plat of East Willow Woods showing Proposed Easement Vacation B - Drawing showing Proposed Vacation Relative to Adjacent Properties aiKl ROW B-2 - Legal Description for Vacation B-3 - Suggested D&U Easement to Eliminate Gap C • Documentation from Brimhall Triangle Road Agreement D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List E-2 - Utility Companies Mailing List F - Letter of Request G - Letters from Utility Companies Summary of Request 1 he City is requested to vacate a portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement granted along the perimeter of the Plat of East Willow Woods, in fulfillment of the conditions of the Road Agreement executed by and between the City, Otten and • .ccn Valley Associates (Serv ice 800) in Eebruary 1999. The Agreement resulted in Otten’s acquisition of the ’ Brimhall Triangle", a small parcel of land in tlie Cit> of Long Lake adjacent to Highway 12 across from Brimhall Avenue. This land wiu. encumbered by Highway Easements which MnDOT concluded were no longer needed, and Otten was enabled to acquire the parcel from the underlying owners, subject to conditions which gave the City and Service 800 certain drainage, utility and road casements to make this a useful vehicular access point for Serv ice 800 and the adjacent properties in tlic future. As part of the Agreement, the City agreed to vacate tlie 10' Drainage and Utility Ea.sements In Oticn’s property adjacent to the triangle, in exchange for new casements along the new I lighw ay 12 right-of-way line. This application is in fulfillment of the City’s obligation under the Agreement. 1 #2657 - Otten Easement Vacation January 11,2001 Page 2 Existias UHUtkt I j.. asc review Exhibit B. City sewer and water lines fall within the new easements granted by Otten adjacent to Highway 12. Existing power lines are located along the right-of-way of Highway 12 and are not affected by the proposed vacation. The only other potential utility use of the easements to be vacated are for gas, telephone and cable TV, all of which have been asked to comment on the requested vacation. As of this writing, only Min* cgasco has confirmed no objection to the vocation. Replacement Eatcmenl In addition to the casemcnis granted by Otten via the Road Agreement, a replacement casement should be requested by the City along the cast line of the triangle (sec Exhibit B-3). This would be a reasonable extension of the existing 10* D&U casement along the cast line of Lot 2 and provide continuity of the width potentially needed for future drainage purposes if not for utilities. However, granting of this casement by Otten was not a condition of the Rood Agreement. This casement would actually be in the City of Long Lake. Staff Recommeadatkm Pending confirmation that no utility companies have existing or expected needs for the easement proposed to be N'acated, staff recommends approval of the casement vacation as presented, subject to Otten granting the replacement easement os shown in Exhibit B-3. ^.^• ,. A'- dtAf. \ H A ]? 8*2. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN LOT 2, BLOCK I, EAST WILLOW WOODS The following portion of Drainage and Utility Easement granted to the public in the plat of East Willow Woods. Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed to be vacated: That portion of the 10 foot Drainage and Utility Easement located along and abutting the south line of Lot 2, Block I, East Willow Woods. Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that portion lo ted wthin 10 feet of tiie east line of said Lot 2, and except that portion lying within 15o teet of the south right-of-way line of U.S. Trunk Highway 12 as shown in the plat of LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PARK i PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN LOT 2, BLOCK 1. EAST WILLOW WOODS The ToIIowing portion oF Drainage and Ulilily Easement granted to the public in the plat of East Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed to be \iicated: That portion of the 10 foot Drainage and Utility Easement located along and abutting the south line of Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods. Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that portion lo ted within 10 feet of the east line of said Lot 2. and except that portion lying within 15u lect of the south right-of-way line of U.S. Trunk Highway 12 as shown in the plat of LONG LAKECOMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAI. PARK * , / Vi A eAsScfiJcEL 342A MnDOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-70 'TO ci^fMiAiAre ^/4/» / q^-rlCt'LlV) r--••^'*' . CnTXy^ < C^Ul:^ i'^LCxSy ^ J d OtUa hw«by gnzjts to fi:t City of Oraoo perpetual, nonexclusive cascm«ts tfiroug}i the Brimball Triangle for g public road and public utilities. The easements shall become effective if and when Otun acquires fee simple title to the Brimball Triangle free of the State of Minnesota's highway easemscL There shall be a north-south right*of*way and an east-west right-of-way. The north-south right-of-way shall be 70 feet wide and its centerline shall be the northeasterly extension of the ctnterlics of Brimball Avenue, as planed in LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL-INDUCTRLU PARK. The cast-west right-of-way shall be that part of the Brimball Triangle lymg within 150 feet of the south right-of-way line of U.S. Trunk Highway 12 as shown on the plat o^LONO LAKE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PARK Within the north-south right-of-way. ihe Cir>’*s easement shall be for a public road and public utilities. Within the east-west ngbt-of-way. except its intersection with the oorth-souA right-of-way. the City's easement shall be fbr public utilities only. See the sketch of Option I anached as Exhibit E e. Onen hereby grants to Developer a perpetual, nonexclusive easement through the DrinohiU Triangle for a pi^e road and private utilities. The easement shall become effective if and when Otten acquires fee sisple tide to the Brimball Triangle free of the State of Minnesota's highway casemcni The casement area is the 70-foot wide right-of-way described m the preceding subparagjraph and that portion of the Brimhall Triangle lying easterly of that 70-foot wide right-of-way See the sketch of Option 1 attached as Exhibit E. f Witlun four months after the Option 1 easements become effective. Developer shall build its pnvate road as sl^wn ca^xhibitB at Developer's expense and the City of Orono shall vacate the 10-fcot wide ublity and drainage easement along the south line of the Otten Parcel 3. Option 2 — Turnback of Brimhall Triangle. ff Onen docs not acquire fee simple tide to the Brimhall Triangle by March 15, 1999, or if MnDoT docs not approve rcconvcyante of the Brimhall Triangle to Otten by Apnl 30,1999, then perma.nent access between the Service £00 Parcel and Wayzata Boulevard shall be acquired as follows: a. The City of Orono shall apply to MnDoT for a permit to install a public road in the Brimhall Triangle as sbo^ on ExUbit C. Developer shah provide all ph^ and speciftcahoos required by MnDoT at Developer's expense. The plans and spedficauans shall be revised as necessary to meet any reasonable demands by MnDoT, such as extension of the pubHc road to reach the Onen Parcel as well as the Service 800 Parcel b Within four months ahe: MnDoT issues the public road permit. Developer shall install the public road at Developer's expense and shall dedicate it to the City of Orono The City of Orono shall accept the dedcaooc, if the road complies with the requirements of this Road Agreement and the requinemec3 of Mi:DoT. The designation of the road as public and the acceptance of the dedicaooo of the road shall not change the mainisnance and repair obligadocis set forth in paragraph 6 bdow iirrma* 24 <c: E «*.n- (16) I* M0*^)4 « ’^A‘, I? /101.05 •.M . 2 (?3) fi (/O -M6>«—laa. Jn _^*y _ ^ _____I____________ -i ’ 0:4 jLv. - - -.--™^-/^??^.'J*i-.<'i lujiitf. r^*" ^ »__ > , A g PuT.......• r- '''' ri«,*»"'"' \ . «:WAYZATA~~—12. • . fMCa H4I »sr9S6^»K.r (39) 2225^^5 j0\ ^ ? (?5) .•••f (3« S!..: r sv*7 A r r -> <• • * » <1 -J ! i (« «i kX (10) }. fi 5 v(") . 1 ^-i ' R/H 90 II*. 90 QC f 1 O ^(36>5* (3 MLOt «>8 1 /^Ql » 2657 OttcB Brolbcn 350* Property Ownen List 34.MS-23 22 00I4 34-118-23 22 0015 34-111-23 22 0017 34-118-23 22 0018 34-118-23 22 0020 34-118-23 23 0057 Clifford & Louise Otten Box 249 Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0006 Patrick & Karen Pugh 725 Dickey Lake Drive Ung Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0CI6 Joel ft Diane Walvalne 710 Dickey Lake Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-2321 0031 34-118-23 22 0019 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 34-118-23 210028 Sugar Woods Homeowners Association c/o Rebers Construction Co. 3525 Webster Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55416 34-118-23 210021 Todd M. ft Anita E. Kimmes 2102 Sugar Wood Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 210022 GretchenZ. ft Francis S. Gill 2104 Sugar Wood Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 210033,0034 Green Valley Associates, Inc. 2190 West Wayzata Boulevard Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 21 0002 William W. Wear 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard #306 Long Lake, MN5S3S6 34-118-23 23 0023 34-118-23230053 Perry’s Ventures, Inc. 2205 West Wayzata Boulevard Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 23 0056 John S. Sheldon P.O. Box 274 Long Lake. MN 55356 34-118-23 23 0044 Georgayn C. Kramer 2990 Somerset Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 23 0045 Elile Auto c/o Richard Ruud 2325 West Wayzata Boulevard Long Lake. MN 55356 34-118-23 24 0048 Gregory M. Shaughnessy do Long Lake Ford Tractor 2073 West Wayzata Boulevard P.O. Box 697 Long Lake. MN 55356 #2357 '<4 Notice to Utilities Mailed 1-5*01 Minnegasco Steve Von Bargen, Real Estate Specialist 700 West Linden Avenue Minneapolis, MN SS440-1165 U.S West Qwest Communications 5910 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Triax Cable Co. Attn. Robert Craig, Plant Manager 2381 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 E.xcel Energy/NSP Attn. Lisa Rainbolt 5505 County Road 19 Shorewood, MN 55331 MUMili m CITYOFORONO 2750 KcHcy Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay.MN 55323 Phone (952)249-4622 Fax (952)249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Wednesday, January 1 7,2001 to review application #2657, a petition by CUfTord Otten requesting vacation of certain drainage and utility easements located within Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods adjacent to Outlot I, Long Lake Commercial-Industrial Park. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A map showing the easements to be vacated is available at the City office for review. CityofOrono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Planning Director To be published the weeks of December 30.2000 and January 6,2001. ij ¥ LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD r»0||«St0NAl At%UCIAftaN F November 18,2000 Hugh M. Maynard 612-335-1562 hugh.ma>TurJ@lconard.com Michael Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesott 55323 Re: Road Agreement for Btirohall Triangle; Our File 15251-1. Subtile II.D Dear Mike: Enclosed arc copies of the February 12,1999 Road Agreement and both amendments. The parties proceeded under ^2 of the Road Agreement (Option I - Reconvev ance of Brimhall Triangle to Otten). Pursuant to 1i2.a. Mr. Otten purchased fee simple title to the Brimhall Triangle from the heirs of Franc P. Daniels. See the following deeds, which are enclosed: • June 23. 1999 Deed of Distribution from the personal representative of the estate of Franc P. Daniels to Helen D. Cochran, Franc P. Daniels, Jr. and l^therine F. Billman; • March 26.1999 Limited Warranty Deed from Helen D. Cochran and her husband to Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Otten; • March 26.1999 Limited Watrant>’ Deed fiom Franc P. Daniels. Jr. and his wife to Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Otten; and • March 30.1999 Limited Warranty Deed from Katherine F. Billman and her husband to Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Otten. Pursuant to 1|2.a and 1|2.b, Mr. Otten successfully petitioned MNDOT for the reconveyance of the Brimhall Triangle to him. See the eiKlosed Quitclaim Deed Easement from the Slate of Miiuiesota to Mr. and Mrs. Otten dated May 23,2000. Pursuant to 1|2.d and ^2.e, the public lOad and public utility casements from Otten to the City of Orono and the prisute road and pn\'ate utility easements from Onen to Green Valley Associates (the owner of the Service 800 Building) automatically became cffectise when Otten acquired fee simple title to the Brimhall Triangle free of MNDOT’s highway easement. Those easements became effective on May 23,2000. Pursuant to t2.f. Green Valley Associates built its private access road through the Brimhall Triingle, so it is now time for the City of Orono to vacate the 10-foot wide utility and drainage easement along the south line of the Otten Parcel pursuant to ^2.f. MIS«99vl ISO SoyiH Fiitk Stmit Suiri ijoo MiHHiAfOiti, Mivniiota f 5401 Til 4ti-S)$*>Soo Pax 4ii-3SS*t<S7 LAW OiriCIf IP* MINNCArOLII. lAINT fAUL ASD MANKATO November 18,2000 Michael GaOron Please consider this tcner lo be a petition from Mr. and Mrs. Otten to the Orono City Council asking them to vacate the platted utility and drainage easements along the south boundary of Lot 2. Block 1, EAST WILLOW WOODS adjacent to Outlot I. LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PARK. Please ask your City Engineer to prepare a precise legal description for the easement area to be vacated that assures that the remaining public utility and drainage easement in Lot 2. Block 1, EAST WILLOW WOODS, dovetails with the new public utility and drainage easement in Outlot I, LONG LAKE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PARK. I would like to review the City Engineer’s legal description and sketch before you present this matter to the City Council. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Hu^M. Maynard Real Property Law Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association 1 k.,GITYorOBONO MHridHOfficw % SMMM*mt; 27SO KtOiy Parimy OWM. MN 5S3S6 Jaiuiaiy 5.2001 MiNvMImi: P.O. tm K Ml SS323«K6 Minnegosco Steve Von Borgen. Real Estate Specialist 700 West Linden Avenue Minneapolis. MN 5S440-1 165 . » 'ivo' w..CJ<0 re: Proposed Vacation of Utility Easement. 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard Dear Mr. Von Bargen: The City of Orono has been requested to vacate a portion of drainage and utilities easement within Lot 2. Block 1. East Willow Woods. This propert>’ is located at 2350 West Wayzau Boulevard. Enclosed arc drawings identifying the proposed easement vacation, as well os the proposed replacement easements. Because the property owner. Clifford Otten. has acquired a parcel of land between Lot 2 and Highway 12. he is proposing to vacate a portion of the easement in Lot 2 and grant a new easement to replace it along the Highway 12 frontage of the newly acquired parcel. Please advise whether you have any objections to vacation of the portion of easement shown. This item will be on the January 1 5 Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing, so receipt of your comments before that date would be appreciated. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Thank you for your input. Michael P. GafTron Planning Director Raliant Eneroy Mlnneg«co has no facilHias within tho abov»<3escribed ot^ion to its vacation. a and has no Thank you for tha advanca notice. Steven Von Bvgen RigN-of*Wlm AdmWstraior /7. TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: PauJ Weinberger, Zoning Administralof/Planner DATE: January 9.2001 SUBJECT: /<2653 Craig Alshousc 4100 Watertouit Road Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: RR-IA One Family Rural Residential (5 Acre minimum lot size) Approximately 37 Acres A Application B Site Location Map C Plat Map D Site Topography E Resolution No. 1894 F Welland Invcntoiy ’ The applicant has requested a Sketch Plan Review for a Class Hi subdivision for property located at 4100 Watertow-n Road. The property- consists of approximately 37 acres of which approximately 2 acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the City Wetland Maps. The applicant has submitted two proposals for discussion with the Plaruiing Commission. Proposal I: Six lot standard plat Proposal 2: F ive lot standard plat 1 he primary difference between the two proposals is the size of Lot 5. Because Lot 5 contains a large barn and indoor riding arena, the second option would be to create a larger parcel of land to create an individual lot with more pasture land. Staff has had several discussions with the applicant about the future use of tlic property as a -community horse farm". The concept would have created an Outlot over the property contammg a bam and 10,000 s.f. indoor riding arena. Acres of pasturcland would be left with the buildings and would be owned by a Homeowners Association. The subdividcr had done some research on this issue and determined other “community bams" have not been successful. One re^n noted wns show horses and other horses not familiar with one another may not adjust well to this environment. Maintenance and care for the horses has also been a concern. f26S)Cni|AlilwiM 4100 W«efto%m Road Sketdi PUn llaic« Lot llistoiy* In December of 1985 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1894 for variances and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the property for a public riding stable based on conditions that the total employees hired by the applicants to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed five full and part time employees, except for special events to be approved by the Council. The riding lessons are to be provided by members of the applicant's family. One additional important condition was the City shall review the Conditional Use Permit annually, however annual reviews had not been necessary. llierc are two residences on the property one primary residence and a second residence that is located at 505 Orchard Park. The lot was purchased and combined in 1996. Surrounding Properties The property is located in the RR-IA (5 acre zoning district). The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code intent for properties in the zoning district is to provide a combination of low dcnsit>' residential development and limited agricultural activity. The property has a stable for the keeping of horses which arc cared for by employees that reside on site in the house located on the previous 505 Orchard Park Road residence. The lot is surrounded by properties that arc developed as low density residential developments and small horse farms. Primary Issue: Oversized Accessory Buildings Two oversized accessor)’ buildings are located on the property. The Zoning Code uses the following regulations for allowed oversized accessory buildings in the City: In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1.000 square feet of footprint area except that accessoiy structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions; 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet »M5JCni,AIibo*K ■IIOOW«tfW«nlto»l SlMcknMlU«icw Piet2or4 2. Oversized Accessory Struclures are regulated by the following table: Nfaximum Individual Acccssoiy Structure Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* I.ot Area Footprint Area on a ProDcrtv 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f.2.400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3.000 s.f.6,000 s.f. The property contains two oversized accessor>- structures. Pole Shed (Arena) Dam Total 10,267 s.f. 4.230 s.f. 14,497 s.r. If the property does receive subdivision approval the following variances would be required. 1. To permit two oversized accessory buildings on one lot where one is allowed. 2. To permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 s.f. maximum allowed for oversized accessory structures. 3. To pemiit 14,497 s.f. for all accessory buildings where 6,000 s.f. is allowed. 4. Under a standard plat the property has several lots that would not meet the minimum standard for lot width. Primarily those lots at the end of the proposed cul de sac. There a numerous accessory buildings located on the property that wt)uld be removed to accommodate the road and building sites. Stables and Bams The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. •26S3Ctut AlthouM 4100 SUtdi PUn Review fi«c3or4 A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. WTren the horses arc kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum posture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in the paragraph above (Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M). Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident requires a conditional use permit. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Right-of-Way Dcdicalioo Watertown Road is a City owned right-of-way. The property was platted to the center of the street. Subdivision Code requires the land shown as Watertown Road shall be dedicated to the City. The portion of the property dedicated is not considered as lot area. The west 33’ along Orchard Park Road shall be dedicated for right-of-way purposes. Issues for Discussion 1. Lot 5 contains the two oversized accessory structures requiring variances to permit two oversized accessory building;' n one lot, to permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 s.f., and to jx • ./ 14,497 s.f. for all accessory buildings where 6,000 s.f. is allowed. Is it the position ol : ' Manning Commission the arena and bam are compatible with the use on the property and warrant variances on a smaller lot, where they currently e.\ist on a 37 acre site? The bam has been on the property for many years. The riding arena was constructed in the early 1970s. At the time of the arena construction the lot w as about 7-8 acres in size. Over the past 3 decades property owners have been purchasing adjacent land and combining to this property. 2. If future property owners wish to use the property for commercial purposes it appears the Conditional Use Permit, adopted by Resolution No. 1894, would no longer be valid since the property will be reduced in size. 3. The Comprehensive Plaii recognizes the rural character of the land in the 5 acre district. Losing horse forms has contributed to a change to character of this part of the City. Does allowing one smaller lot to contain these individual buildings maintain some of that character? CS'tCnitAlihooie 4IC0 Wairruun Ro*J SkfltbPljaRnk« Pi(«4er4 A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. W'hen the horses arc kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisiorts of the City Code. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in the paragraph above (Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M). Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident requires a conditional use permit. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Rigbt-of-Way Dedication Watertown Road is a City owned right-of-\«y. The property was platted to the center of the street. Subdivision Code requires the land shown as Watertown Road shall be dedicated to the City. The portion of the property dedicated is not considered as lot area. The west 33’ along Orchard Park Road shall be dedicated for right-of-way purposes. Issues for Discussion 1. Lot 5 contains the two oversized accessory structures requiring variances to permit two oversized accessory building.' n one lot, to permit two oversized acccssoo' buildings larger than the 3,000 s.f., and to pi - . • 14,497 s.f. for all accessoo' buildings where 6,000 s.f. is allowed. Is it the position o.* < ■: Planning Commission the arena and bam are compatible with the use on the property and warrant variances on a smaller lot, where they currently e.\ist on a 37 acre site? The bam has been on the property for many years. The riding arena was constructed in the early 1970s. At the time of the arena construction the lot w as about 7-8 acres in size. Over the past 3 decades property owners have been purchasing adjacent land and combining to this property. 2. If future properly owners wish to use the property for commercial purposes it appears the Conditional Use Permit, adopted by Resolution No. 1894, would no longer be valid since the property will be reduced in size. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the rural character of the land in the 5 acre district. Losing horse farms has contributed to a change to character of this part of the City. Does allowing one smaller lot to contain these individual buildings maintain some of that character? ntfi Cm| AlihouK 4IC0 Wauiv>nn Roa<l SkrafePIsi Rnriew I>ite4ar4 Appliaition # 2 Date Recelyed / Amount Paid -^2SZ> CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ,,t\ p f, Site address f//00 ______________ Property Identification Number (PID) 3/- nT" X3 -//- ^ooS^_ Please check one - Property X abstract or _____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT N^nc AlsLus<^ Address IVilltuAj krso !C Cjci^ MOLxjyL ML),) _______Phone (home) )/75'09CS , Zipjy»y/ Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____3<gtf /SAo(l 4 Inn'Address. City. . Phone (home) YoV-ga? ZipiTjr?Phone (work). (attach list if mote than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.\ Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL fZ, - lA Acres Diy Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units. Other (specify)______ 7 ________ Division for Ta.\ Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units S' New Units C, Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) . Units per 0-l7 Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land . Residential . Other (specify)________ eo ©} s •••.■■ l-v'^a li • V .' nS? ?;. 1 X ORONO BAYSIOE 8 •-.. oFOHi cm 0 ® 0 HIGH^ s® SCHRBTiNE OR EtlEEN ST .11. /-■. 400 v'^-^ 'i- Msr liKk^T iJ BAYS I BAYS fci®'':'.'-?:- •; /kK-.r • RED OAXli ?oJcv AW Bay ■ WEST BWiUlCM rV ““ ® \*;; v ^«.V\-'..’.W.-j4-:c:iS;■ "■ '• i A 4fN •■' ‘; y--'-’ •• p^JIs •*si ♦ I . l»k>1 wifx City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1894_ _ _ _ _ A RBSOLOTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO konicipai. zoning code SECTION 10.27r SOBDIVISION 4 (AV AND A CONDITIONAL OSE PERMIT PER MONICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBniStfSION 3 (P) F1LBCJ994^ WHEREAS, Frank Kokesh (hereinafter the th^ Citv owner of the property located at 4100 Watertown Road ^e City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows. The west 316.50 feet of the South 1088.1 of the West 1/2 of the south 27.50 acres of the West 1/2 of ®J-^thNortheast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23 lying Wortn (of tSrlenter line) of the Minneapolis and Watertown Road, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application for a variance Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #994. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The property contains approximately 35 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this November 18, 1985, and recommended approval of the P^®P , ,v.r* isir^iiAv. 37*. -a use based on the following findings: A) Applicant's principal residence is located on a 35 acre site. B) No other variances are sought to Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A) - keeping of dome animals. Page 1 of 4 I City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1894__________ C) The proposed level of use is compatible with surrounding 5 acre “hobby farm** neighborhood. D) The property has been used as proposed in this review for over 15 years and has not resulted in any harn to the publics* safety or welfare. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions# light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the appli cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a public riding stable will not be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public# would not ad versely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to »ieighbori*;y properties# nor will it 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. CONCLUSIONS# ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27# Subdivision 4 (A) to allc the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and per Section 10.20# Subdivision 3 (F) grants a conditional use permit to permit the continued use of applicant's property for public riding stable use subject to the following conditions: 1. The total number of full and part time employees hired by the applicants to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed the level of 5 employees except for special events at which large assembly permitting process shall establish level of temporary employees. 2. Riding lessons are to be provided by members of applicant's family. 3. Horses maintained on property shall not exceed the number allowed per Section 10.27 Subdivision 4 (A). L 4. Applicant shall renew conditional use permit annually until Council specifies otherwise. Page 2 of 4 CityofORONO IlSp^CITY OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL WO. X894--------------- December Zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant agrees to the terms of this resolution ^d on *»®*}*^5 his heirss successors and assigns# hereby agrees to the reco g of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of 1985. Hary cT Bitb}.er,' Mayor N v<‘ Page 3 of 4 City of OROIVO 1^‘ciTY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1894________ Innesota ) ) 8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of fucus.r~ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared S>JSA^ MA, the personTsT describeo __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be in and who executed the foregoingthe person(s) - - - - - - ^ instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC / '/oP MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ie>'^On this . . .. . . . . a Notary Public within and for' day of said ,s.7~_ _ _ _ _, before me County, persdnally appeared known to me to be the(tary Public rc-U-esM _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Known ro me ro oe cne person!^ des«iD^ in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC /'/// MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 \ wm LiJ-d... ^ k- ::■>'! .>••■ r'V --V ^!:&aslii iSSEi z*e>‘5? Siliiiii I |M|£^^ •’'^-•’>>I*537?'^!5rT*^i'v;;,( It'.,:; ■•'. ■ ■<;V... S4^ ■ -'-.er- -.*', vf- i«i^^ l'< i^2«.-,-, If^i rr 4^ gr— m j.ft. -'' ''m iLmi s. ;i' ., if>A* ■/• '■ ^-4 ^Pll *’r* .iitr iS n •; .V-,-' F' - /5 To:Choir iloun and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Fron:Mike GafTron, Planning Director Date:January ll,200t Subject: Attaebneuto Surface Water Monagenuent Plan T Public Hearing Notice Surface Water Management Plan Final Draft, October 9,2000 with sample appendices (complete appendices can be made available if you wish to review* them) and representative section of System Map Background The City* of Orono concurrently with adoption of the update of the Community Management Plan (CMP), must adopt and implement the City of Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), a final draft of which has been complet^ by the Cit>*’s consulting engineers. Boncstroo and Associates. This is the first comprehensive document for addressing the management of surface water in Orono since the original Surface Water Management Plan completed by Hickock and Associates in 1974. Adoption of the new Plan technically requires a public hearing, as it constitutes a separate clement of the Community Management Plan that was not ready for review and approval at the lime the full CMP was approved by the City Council in September 2000. Work toward completion of the S WMP actually began as early as 1992-93 when the City contracted for 2' topographic map coverage of the entire City. A first draft of the SW'MP was completed in 1997. How*evcr. the SWMP has been significantly reworked since the July 1997 draft, in response to comments and concerns raised by Council and staff during a number of work sessions held during the past 3 years. Plan Objectives The general objectives of the SWMP are: • Preserve Orono ’s wetlands, streams and lakes, especially Lake Minnetonka. • Reduce capital e.xpenditures needed to meet water quantity and quality* standards. • Minimize c.xisting flooding, erosion and sedimentation problems generated by surface flow's* i SWMP January 11,2001 Page 2 • Improve stormwater quality in waterbodies by maximizing the amount of areas available for Ircaimeni. • Protect groundwater quantity and quality by allowing for passive treatment and infiltration of stormwater. • Promote groundwater recharge by creating additional ponding aa*as. • Protect and enhance water recreational facilities and fish and wildlife liabitat* • Prescr%'c vegetation around stomiwater detention areas by leaving them in a natural state, thereby reducing maintenance. •nic objectives of the Orotio Surface Water Management Plan conform with the goals of the MCWT) plan, and the Orono Plan conforms to all Regional. State and Federal requirements for local plans. Plan Highlights Highlights of the Plan include: • Establishment of surface water management goals and policies in Chi>Pltf-2 • Discussion of Orono’s physical environment in ChapKT 3 9 Technical background in Chanter 4 including: o Surface water system design considerations; relationships between land use and runoff quality/quantity; modeling of ronoff rates, storage needs o N lethods and systems for capture, conveyance and storage of runoff o S> stems and design considerations for treatment of runoff • A new section on wetland management lus been included (ChaPlCf.S)- discussing water quantity and quality intpacts on wetlands; assessing the characteristics of 85 selected City wetlands in terms of stormwater susceptibility; suggesting strategics for wetland protection; and proposing a restoration and enhancement program for four specified wetlands, including a discussion of estimated costs and ..otential funding sources. • Chapter 6 discusses each of the 18 major drainage districts in detail, identifying areas with issues of concern in regards to water quantity and quality, and recommending specific actions or projects to address the identified problems. SWMP Januar>’ IK2001 Page 3 Chapter 7 discusses impIcmcnUtion strafegicf: o Water quantit}' manaRcment s>*stem - the system ofsiomi sewers, ditches, swales. emergency ONxrflows and ponds to collect store and convey surface water, o Water quality management system - a holistic approach that requires water quality monitoring, public education and involvement, and strategies for determining appropriate management alicmalives for various development conditions, as well as a system of water quality ponds. A wide range of activities is suggested, noting that water quality management requires community cooperation. Note that hardcover management is only a ver>* minor component of this plan...we will be conferring with the people at Boncstroo as to how a discussion of our hardcover standards can be added to the Plan text. o A cost estimate for completing the system is provided, including a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) totaling approximately $2 million (sec pages 7-20 thru 7- 25). Total long term cost of the system is expected to be around SI 1 million, o Methods for financing construction of the system are discussed, summarized as follows: New Development 1) Developer construction of system or components; and/or 2) Trunk Fee on a pcr-acrc basis for regional system impacts, adjusted for land use type Expansion of Existing Structure Partial Trunk Fee based on impacts and site ability to obtain 60% nutrient removal IXw eloped Areas 1) Direct assessment of contributing/benefitting properties 2) Stormwater Utility Fee - an annual fee charged to all properties based on the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the property A number of grant programs for surface w atcr management act i v ities or s\ stem construction arc also identified. • Chapter 8 includes a summary and recommendations for the Council ’s consideration. • Appendices A thru I contain the data for each drainage area, proposed s> stem parameters and cost estimates, wetland data, and a complete Surface Water System map. (The appendices arc rather voluminous and have not been copied in their entirety for you, but can be made available if you want to rc\ icsv a specific drainage area) Aside from a few paragraphs that staff proposes be added (primarily in the introductory* sections) to more clearly establish Orono ’s historic philosophy on slomuvalcr management as related to the protection of Lake Minnetonka, the Plan is complete. SWMP Jonuao’ 11.2001 Pafc4 Items for Council Discussion Two significant topics appear to require further discussion by the City Council prior to adoption of the Plan: 1. Acceptance of the 5-Year CTP (refer to Pages 7-1 thru 7-25) The 5-Year Capital Improscmcnt Plan includes the planning, design and construction of a numK*r of stonnwatcr management facilities including: a) construction of system improvements associated with new development on parcels expected to develop in the next 5 years; b) construction of system improvements in arexs of Orono that arc already developed; and c) implementation and'or construction of techniques or system improvements that ate aimed at protection and'or enhancement of priority wetlands or Lake Minnetonka bays. The 5-ycar CIP has a total price tag of approximately S2 million, a portion of which will be paid for by new development. StalYis relatively comfortable with this ambitious pro^^l; it will, however, require ongoing attention and a pro-active approach toward project initiation ond completion, xs well as a clear plan for funding, financial impacts could increase the time period for completion of the CIP. 2. Acceptance of the Trunk Fee Schedule for the various land use t> pcs (refer to pages 7-25 thru '7-.10) Under the proposed Plan, financing of stormwater facilities will be via a number of methods. Water quality and quantitx projects for developing areas will be financed by Trunk Fees charged to the developer, which may involve creation of new facilities or expansion of existing systems. System improvements in developed areas may be by direct assessment of benelitted properties or by "stomtwater utility" fees, f unding grants from various state, federal or local agencies may also be available from time to time. While the establishment of a Stormwater Utility is left for future consideration and is not pan of the SWMP. the Trunk Fee sy stem is a key element of the Plan. The Trunk Fee is simply a fee charged to developers on a per lot or per acre basis, similar to the park fee. The numerical basis for the proposed Trunk Fee was devised based on 12 parcels City suiff expects to be developed within the next 5 years. The cost of stomtwater improvements needed to serve those parcels was estimated, and divided by the total acreage to get a cost per acre; this figure was then adjusted based on the type of land use, with the cost per acre increasing as density and surface runolTincreases, fhe result is as shown in Table 7.20. Council will be asked to detemiine whether the Trunk Fee schedule as presented is acceptable. SWMP January 11,2001 Pages Staff Rccoaiaicadalioa Planning Commission is asked to review the SWMP. concentrating on the Goals and Policies section (Section 2). Staff recommends approval of the SWMP subject to minor text revisions regatdinc hardcover and related to protection of Lake Minnetonka. CITYOFORONO 2750 Kelle> Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Cr\stai Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952)2494622 Fax (952)249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamben at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Wednesday, Januaiy 17, 2001 to review and niake a recommendation to the City Council regarding application #2656, the proposed Orono Surface Water Management Plan. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Wntten comments ate solicited. A copy of the proposed Surface Water Management Plan is a%-ailable in the City offices for review. City ofUrono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron. Planning Director To be published the weeks of December 30,2000 and January 6,2001. iLaV ‘^ /.• ..-i ••. .. * "**»*^*fW-,r,*. ^V V, L7:'V » 111 W \ ■mi: pi MtefiSS; |?i'S I- iili Iff?’ lifgfl ?n;v If f?Aff M-I fc-s P?':te ff Draft Surface Water Management Plan m i. fc if m K» ^ 'M , Aim " Mr ■ liE=Pi|: ■. -.r -.V-; i t ■■)■ .*■:■.^1 ;|iSSBIB' i>39^HjiHI 4 A' r i;; r • : smu iiiliASRffSfai'm^m ___ y mi Table of Contents Page Number Section 1 Introduction M Background .........................................................1-1 1.2 Study Area ..........................................................I-l 1.3 Land Use.............................................................1-2 r 1.4 Population Projections.........................................1-4 — 1.S Water Quantity ........................................ 1.6 Water Quality .......................................... 1.7 Jurisdiction of Surface Water .................... 1.8 Plan Preparation and Content ..............................1-6 Section 2 Coals and Policies 2.1 Coals and Policies...............................................2-1 2.2 Watershed Policies...............................................2-5 2.3 Agency Requirements .........................................2-7 r 2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)......................2-9 n. 2.5 City Ordinances .................................................2-10 f Section 3 Physical Environment L 3.1 Topography ........................................ 3.2 Geology ....................................................3-1 3.3 Surface Water Resources.......................... 3.4 Soils .....................................................3-4 r 3.5 Groundwater Resources......................................3-4 3.6 Ecological Resources............................... Section 4 Technical Background 4.1 General ......................................... 4.2 Capture and Conveyance of Runoff..................4-12 4.3 Storage of Runoff..............................................4-15 4.4 Treatment of Runoff................................ Section 5 Wetlands Management 5.1 Water Quality Impacts to Wetlands .....................5-1 5.2 Wat-tr Quantity Impacts to Wetlands .....................5-2 5.3 Assessment of Wetlands ......................................5-2 5.4 Stormwater Protection Qassificatlon for Wetlands 5-5 — 5.5 Proteaion Strategies ............................... 5.6 Wetland Restoration/Enhancements ......... OfyofOnono Rnai Drwtt Surf^ Witter Msntsfemmf Plan TMeofConMs I II 1! (1 U C li I H L a 'a i Section 6 System Description 6.1 General ................................................6-1 6.2 Browns Bay ..............................................6-2 6.3 Carman Bay .....................................................6-3 6.4 Crysul Bay .....................................................6-4 6.5 Forest Lake .....................................................6-4 6.6 French Lake .....................................................6-5 6.7 Hadley Lake 7 6.8 Lafayette Bay .....................................................6-7 6.9 Lake Classen .....................................................6-8 6.10 Long Lake ...................................................6-10 6.11 Maxwell Bay ..............................................6-11 6.12 Mooney Lake ...............................................6-12 6.13 North Arm ...................................................6-12 6.14 Painter Creek ...................................................6-13 6.15 PeaveyLake ...................................................6-15 6.16 Smith Bay ...................................................6-15 6.17 Stubbs Bay ...................................................6-16 6.18 Ta'iager Lake ...................................................6-17 6.19 West Arm ...................................................6-18 Section 7 impiementation Introduction ......................................................7-1 7.1 Water Quantity Management..................................7-2 7.2 Water Quality Management...................................7-2 7.3 Education Program.............................................7-13 7.4 Cost Analysis ....................................................7-19 7.5 CaplUl Improvement Plan (CIP)...........................7-20 7.6 System Financing...............................................7-25 Section 8 Summary and Recommendations 8.1 Summary .....................................................8-1 8.2 Recommendations................................................8-3 OtyofOnono Final OnttSurtkoeiVt^Hantgement Pint Table Of Contents List of Tables 1.1 1.2 Recent Population Projertions Surface Water Jurisdiction 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Runoff Coefficients Phosphorus Concentrations and Export Coefficients Benefits of Wet Detention Ponds Bioretention and Media Filtration Methods Mechanical Devices Lake Frontage Techniques OtyofOrono MDnnStMf9ce\VaUrMansgcfnentPUn 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 Water Quality Evaluation Strategy Baseline Water Quality Strategy Water Quality Monitoring Strategy New Development / Redevelopment Strategy Developed Areas Strategy Roadside Discharge Strategy Ravine Stabilization Strategy Phosphorus Reduction Strategy City Staff Education Strategy 7.1 0 Residents' Education Strategy fi 5.1 Buffer Strips per Wetland Size 7.11 Public Involvement Strategy 5.2 Funalonal Values Under the New 7.1 2 Developers' Education Strategy Hampshire Method 7.1 3 System Costs by Drainage District 5.3 Wetland Protection Strategies 7.1 4 Water Quality Projects 5.4 Project Cost for Wetland PC-L-31 7.1 5 Water Quantity Projects 5.5 Project Cost for Welland PC-M-31 7.16 Wetland Restoration Projects 5.6 Project Cost for Wetland LL-C-26 7.17 Priority Resources 5.7 Project Cost for Wetland SB-E-31 7.1 S Priority CIP Projects — 6.1 Major Drainage Districts 7.19 CIP Summary 7.20 Adjusted Trunk Fees 7.21 Water Quality Trunk Fees — 7 22 Grant'Cost-Sharing Opportunities « List of Fiaures List of ADoendices 1.1 Location Map A. Drainage Areas B. Existing and Proposed Pipes 4.1 Precipitation Frequency Curve C. 100-Year Pond Design — 4.2 Residential Hydrograph and Orifice D. 1- and 10-Year Pond Data Outlet Rating Curve E. Water Quality Pond Data 4.3 Typical Pond Inflow and Outflow F. System Cost Estimates Hydrographs C. Water Quality Design Criteria 4.4 Pond Planting Plan H. Wetland Stormwater Susceptibility 4.5 Water Quality Alternatives Graph 1. Wetland Functions and Values 7.1 Alternative Methods Flowchart — 7.2 New Development Flowchart 7.3 Structure Expansion Flowchart “ \ TMeof Contents I n II 11 u 0 c 11 L L li E E L 1. Introduction 1.1 Background This fepc't provides the City of Orono o Comprehensive Surfoce v/oter Vonogement Pion (SV/MP) that will seive os a guide for the expons on and development of the surface water system throughout the City. This report builds upon the Orono Storm Dro ncge Plan developed in 1974 ond utilizes the latest In modern computer technology. The 1974 Pkan vras bosed on droinoge districf deiineotions from *en foot USGS contour mops and oddressed only surfoce water quontity control issues, whereos this report is Dosed on recent gradii .g plons and computerized two foot contours and odditionaiiy incorporates surface water quoMy assessments ond quontity control. The Metropoliton Surfoce Woter Monogement Act, p<Ksed by the Minnesota State Legisioture in 1982, required the formation of watershed districts ond preporatton of watershed management plans "he purpose of the present Surface Water fvianogement Plon is ident col to the purpose of the Surfoce Water Moriogement Act; tho* is to CJreserve and use rxjtural surfoce woter systems to: ^ Recuce to the greatest procticoi extent the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rotes of runoff, ❖ improve and preserve surface woter quoBty, ❖ Prevent flooding and erosion from surfoce flows, ❖ Promote groundwoter rechage, ❖ Protect/enhance fish and wildlfe habitot and recreotlonol foci tes, ❖ Secu'e the benefifs of p'oper morxagement of surface water, and •> Preseve wetlands, lakes, and streams. .4 1.2 Study Area The City of Orono is located to the west of the Metropolitan Area In southwest Hennepin County, as shown in Figure 1. Orono Is bounded on the north by the City of Medino; on the eost by Ptvmou*n and Wayzoto; on the south by Tonko Boy; and on the west by Mound. Minnetristo. and Indeperxlence. The City encompasses Ofyo^Onyjo DmftSuri^ water Msnsgement Plan II Intro^Kton most of tne southern quorter of Township 118N, Range 23W ond the northe n hoif of Township 117IM. Range 23W, and lies entuely within the tx>dndaries of the Minnehoho Creek watershed. The Minnenoho Creek Wotershed District crosses nrwniciXJl boundories. therefore cooperotion between communities within the watershed is necessory to etIectiveV monoge its resources. ^1.3 LAND USE Orono. located within the Central Hordwood Forest region of Minnesota, was origincrtv covered with hardwood forest vegetation intermixed svittt proirie, lokes. streams, and wettonds. The *Big Woods . os this region is often refeaed to. is on oreo of hardwood forest consisting of prinTwrllv mople. basswood, white elm and red ook trees. Behveen 1850 ond 1880. the forests were extensively cleored. primarily for agricutturoi use The C'V of Orono wos creoted by incorporating small settlements such os Tomorok. Lyndole, Boyview Pork. Crystal Boy, Orono, and Ndvor ’e. The open aeos between these smoii settlements vore developed os single family housing, industrial sites, rallrood rights of way, end o state ond county rood nehvork The courrty olso Incorcorated drainage ditches throughout the choin of wettonds. morsr.es, and lakes. Oronos development has followed on eost to v^est pottern over the yeors. Currently the lond within the MUSA bound ory hos been largety corwumed. leaving only In-fffl deveopment remoinirrg. Tne development within this portion of the City is largely o mix of residential, commercioi/lndustrioi, porks, ond public land The northern one-third of the City has retained o predominontiy rural chorocter, with occurrences of estote residentiol developmenfs. I 1! U y I’ «; ■ 1 Otyof Orono DrwftSurUoe WMerMmgmMP^ 1’2 Introduction I II t II ll i! t! I I i L LOCATION MAP ORONO. MINNESOTA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN \t35\1393C':«3\ce3\<3*9\iJ95iw02 CA3 -lOC iC-2-00 Bonestroo Rosene AnderllkScMnaeriiKoc FIGURE 1.1 Associates En0in«ef« i*ArcMl«cU 1.4 Population Projections Ofono hos experienced o steady gtov/fh ovei tne post thirty yeors Tne population hos increosed trom 5.643 in 1960. to 6,787 in 1970, to 6,845 in 1980, to d 1990 population of 7.285. Ihe City is expected to continue its growth. ToDte l dep cts tne summary of recent populotion proiecfions. Table 1.1 Summary of Recent Population Projections Responsible i 1990 Entity j Census 2000 2010 City of Orono 7.285 7600 8000 Hennopin County 7.285 7.847 8.228 ItetropoUtan Council 7.285 7.800 8 350 2020 8.600 N'A 3.8S0 The populotion projections for the City were token from the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Both the Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council projections were developed in 1992 The Citys populotion grew ot on overage onnuoi rote of 44 people ounng the post ten yeors ond is expected to increose to 52 peop'o per yeor over the next ten years (according to Metropolitan Council estimates). A 1.5 Water Quantity stormwater dromoge facilities ore on essentiol port of the development of ony municipality. As on area develops from ruro! uses to urbon uses, culverts ond droinogewo.s that were odequote for rural runoff become overiooded and flooding occurs, frequently resulting m property domoge. atyofOmno Dratt Suffice Water Management Plan 1-4 IrmrPxoon I One of the ptimory functions of on urban storm drolnoge system is to reduce economic loss one inconvenience due to periodic flooding of streets, buildings and low-tying oreos Cities invest in surfoce water focilities in order to oddress the problems ond costs associated witn flooding The desirable economic enopoint is reached when the cost of donnage ottnbutoble to stam flooding plus the cost of storm sewer Instollotion rooches o minimum. Economy is not the only consideration, since well designed storm drolnoge focilities not only reduce nozords and inconveniences associated with flooding, but also serve to protect or enhonce surfoce water quoiity. i i1 11 11 11 B a 0 a 11 B I I L A well thought out suftoce water nnanogerhent plan takes into considefotion each drainage basin in rts entirety, under future sotufotion development, to minimize capitol expenditures. The most economicol system is achieved when o planned pfogrom of surtoce v«jte» nr>onogement i$ established in the earty stoges of development, ond the plan is Implemented throughout all subsequent phoses of development. Surtoce water mavogement features can then be incorporated into each developer's plan. A 1.6 Water Quality Oronos noturoi setting and proximity to Minneapolis orxJ St Paul have mode it susceptible to an increosed rote of development. As the population of Otorx) hos increosed. the desire for maintaining ond improving the quolity of the Citys waterbodies hos also increased. Because both urban development and existing agricultural uses significantly impact dowristreom water quolity. the degradation of wetlands ond lakes in Orono hos become o general concern. Surface woters ore bioiogicoi systems thot can be affected by irx:reases in nutrients and toxic chemicals. Phosphorus is the nutrient most commonly morxjged becouse it promotes tne growth of oigoe ond vegetotion in the City's lakes and wetlands. Soil erosion arxJ sedimentation o'so degrade the quolity of water resources. A 1.7 Jurisdiction op Surface Water Tobie 1.2 summarizes the responsibiiittes of the entities with jurisdiction over surface water in the City- OtyofOrvno Ors/tSurrsce W9ter Mansgement PUn 1-5 mMuCGon Table 1.2 Surface Water Jurisdiction 1 Jurisdictional Entity Jurisdictional Rasponsibility us Army Corps of Engineers 1 (Corps)All wetlands: entire wetland 1 Minnesota Department of j Natural Resources (DNR) DNR Protected wetlands and lakes to the ordinary high water elevation. DNR Protected watercourses: to the top-of-bank ' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Water quality protection through administration of Section 401 certification program and NPDES permits ; Minnehaha Creek j Watershed District (MCVi/D)Review of all activities that affect surface waters j City of Orono ____ Wetlands: those under the jurisdiction of WCA Review of all activities that affect surface waters For the purposes of this report, surface wo»ef resources include loke Mmnefonko ond its txjys, watercourses, v/ettonds ond other lakes. ^1.8 Plan Preparation and C ontent Ihis SWMP nneets the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8410 and the Metropouton Councifs Local Pkyining hkyxXxx*[Mai 1997) Sources of information for this the SWMP include the Soil Survey foe Hennepin County, the Excelsor, Mound, and Hamel USGS Topographic Quad Maps, the Metro Area Bedrock Geology Mop, and the DNR County Biologic Survey Mop for Hennepin County. Addittorwl information was provided through coordinotion with City of Orono staff and MCV/D staff and documentation. An outline of the steps involved in the preparotion of the SWMP Is presented below. 1 . Estobiish o set of Surfoce Water Morogement Goa s ond Policies for the successful implementation of the SV/MP. 2. Consider existing ond future lend use os presented in the 1995 Comprehensive Plon to determine the onticipoted amounts of stormwater runoff. 3. Determine district and subdistrict dio noge boundaries based on two-foot contour nxjps and fina' grodif>g plans. CXy of Orono aj/tSurtice y/Jter Mtnogtment Pitn 1-6 introduction I I I I I I I I li 4 Estobiish routing of stormwoter conveyance lociiities. 5 Establish location, size, and flood elevotions of stormv/oter pOfxJing areas for wafer quantitv control. 6 Determine design criterio for nutrient treatment ponds to improve water quality. Establish pond v/et volumes to ochieve ^voter quality goals for these woterbodies. 7. Investigate and recommend alternative water quality methods 8. Develop o program for implementing the SWMP. 9 Estimate the cost of surtoce woter facilities to provide o guide for development of a sound ond equitable finoncing program. SpecificoBv. the SWMP contains the foiiov/ing chopters; Section / contoins general information ooout Orono and the development ond preporotion of this plan Section ^ is a summary of Goals end Policies established by City staff ond other ogency requirements Section 3 describes the londscope of Orono and its physical and biological chorocteristics. Section 4 \QM\em technical stondords utilized in developing the City's surface water nnonagement system Section 5 describes the wetlands evaiuatea for this report, and introduces management recommendations (or the wetionds selected for enhancement In the (ive-yeor CiP period. Sec/ion <5 discusses the proposed system, its dromoge districts ond any speciol issues. Section /detoils the process, schedule, costs, and funding to Implement the SWMP. Section 5 is a summery of the SWMP ond general recommendations to ochieving success The SWMP also contains appendices intended to provide more defoiied mformotion obout droirxjge areos. water quantity orxi quoiity ponds, and cost estimates. The surface water system map at the bock of the report presents the existing and proposed system, dromoge districts, and various design details. City of Orono Draft Surface Water Management Pian 17 Intwduction 1 I II c L H B D L I I I 2. Goals AND Policies Th© surfoc© water management Goals fof the City of Orono ore In concert with mose of the MCWD. The describe how the City intends to address each of the Goats. The Goo's andPoSctesosQ a reflection of the City Councils desire to improve the quoirty of life for the residents of Orono and surrounding cities Nvhiie minimizing impacts to City and regional surface water resources. Information regarding the GooS and PoTicleso^ the City of Orono IS not Timlted to the discussion below. Specific requirennents ond detoits deoiing with unique circumstances orKl situations con be found In ordinances that oddress specific land use districts, building Stes, arxl erosion control, omong others (see Section 2.5J. .4 2.1 Goals and Poucies This section presents the goals ond policies that vrtll form the fromev^ork of the su»foce water monogement strategies of the City of Ororo The generoi obiecfives of the SWMP ore as follows; • Reduce capital exper>dituies needed to meet water quantity arx3 quality standards. • Min.mize existing flooding, ond erosion and sedimentation problems generoted by surface flows. • Improve stormwoter quality in woterbodies by moximizing the omount of areos ovoiiabie for treatment. • Protect grourxtwater quantity and quality by oBowIng for passive treotment and infiitrotlon of stormwater. • Promote g:ound\’/ater recnarge by creating odditionol ponding oreas • Protect and enhonce water recreationol facilities ond fish and wildlife habtot. • Preserve vegetotion around stormwoter detention areos by leaving fnem in a noturai state, thereby reducing maintenance. Oty of Orono cmtaMfltoeWMermntgementPbn 21 Go^andPOUes i GOAL • To provkte 100-year flood protection tor all residents and structures. Policy 1 Establish high water levels gcveming building elevations adjacent to ponding areas and floodploins as on area develops or when dfoinoge (ocilitles ore constructed. Freeboord of 2 feet Is required from the high woter level to the lowest exposed floor or opening of an adjacent buWmg Policy 2 Establish ond rminfaln emergency overflow routes, at ponding oreas that ore a minimum of 2 feet oetow the lowest opening of adjacent structures, where possible, to provide relief for storms that exceed design conditions. Policy 3 Identify areas where 10O-yeor flood protection b not possible and/or feasible and develop an emergency response plan for those areas. Policy 4 Estobiish a cropiond erosion ond sediment control policy os defined in the Minnehaha Creek V.'otershed Monogement Plan. GOAL - To promote the reduction of phosphorus loading to waterbodies by regulation, municipal management activities, and public education. Policy 1 Categorize each waterbody in Oronos surfoce water system occorcfing to the closslflcatton SN-srem described In Section 6, ond managed to best meet the sfondcrds of the classification criteria. Policy 2 Require eroston and sediment cortiol on o'! construction sites according to City ordinances ond s’ondards established within this SWMP. Policy 3 Bose sizing and design of nutrient conds on the PondNet model ond the phosphorus temovoi effic^erxies presented in the SWMP (see Appendix E) !' atyofOmno Dnlt Surtax Wsttr Mtnagement fUn 22 GoibandMides - n Q L a i i I i i i L Policy 4 Require, ot the City’s disciefon. the constajctton ot mote man one pond even when a pond meets the phosphorus removal effidency criteria. In pnority subdistilcts. those wim high stormwater susceptibility waterbodies, addrtionol water quality treatment (2-3 cell) ponds will be required, il necessoiy to molntoin the integrity of the downstream priority waterbody. Policy 5 In addition to proper ponding, require new developments to provide mitigattve measures if the development results In on increose in phosphorus concentration of dov nstreom waterbodies having high stormwater susceptibility. GOAL - To monitor water quality and attempt to maintain the water quality of surface waters In the Oty. Policy 1 Cooperate wim other agencies for monitoring the long-term water quoiity trends on priortly waterbodies. Policy 2 Focus mGnagenr>ent activities and capital improvements based on a piiority-ran.<lng scheme. Policy 3 Establish the phosphorus kxxJing values and stormwater runoff coefficients for use in the PondNet model based on the best avoiloble Itterotue voiues ond/or from significant dota colected in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. GOAL • To equitably finance the construction and maintenance of the surface water management tystem. Policy 1 Require oil new developments to pay me prorated cost to dedicate land and construct o nutrient detention pond to treat the irrcreosed phosphorus runoff generoted by the subject development. Policy 2 m developing oreos, the cost of sweeping sediment from the streets shall be borne by the owners of the develoc>ment. The cost of instoliing and maintaining erosion control devices ond the removd OtyofOono Dr9tt Surface Management Ptan 2-3 Goats and Pobdes II of deposited earthen matertol occumulafed on the streets from the site shol be borne by the controctor, developer, or owner. Policy 3 Storm drainoge system financing shall be by trunk area assessments ogoinst responsible properties. GOAL - To Involve the puWk In the City's water quany management efforts. Policy 1 Develop a public education program to promote the reduction of phosphorus looping to woterbodles. Policy 2 Coordinate the pubHc education program with neighboring cities, local service clubs, ond schools. Policy 3 ' Require lawn core companies and retailers operoting In the City to — hove ovoiloble phosphorus-free fertizer for lawn oppUcottons. GOAL - To successfully operate the surface water marwigement _ ^tem. Policy 1 Properly operate and molntoin the surface water system. Continue to work with ond the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to maintain the public ditch systerris throughout the City. “ Policy 2 Provide skimmers or other outlet controls In ponds located upstream of priority waterbodies ana wetlonds that have hl^ or moderate susceptibility to stormwater (see Section 5)-I Policy 3 Implement o street sweeping program porticulorly in the areos undergoing extensive development. The Minrrehoha Creek Watershed District requires streets and parking lots in urban areas to be swept ot a minimum m the spring and fan of eoch yeor. OtyofOnno DnttSurt^WttirHantgmentPlui 2-* Godh and PoUdei I II E E E D G C I I I I GOAL - To prevent hazardous waste from entering the stormwater drainage q^stem. Poiicy 1 Rohibii the unncjturol dischorge ot foreign materiol into the surface woter system. Such moterfol shot include, but not be iimrfed to. woste oil. point, gross clippings, and leaves. Policy 2 Develop a spill response program tor City personnel to prevent dischorge of spilled materials into the storm sewer system. The response program should focus on containing, neutralizing, ond properly disposing of spilled materials. The Fire department. Police deportment, and Public Works deportment should hove o teodiV available supply of response material including oil-absorbing pads. GOAL - To adhere to federaL state, and watershed policies and iregulations. Policy 1 Adopt a pollcv of compliance with the Minnesota Wetlonds Conservotion Act of 1991 and subsequent amendments Policy 2 Continue to comply with oil the policies within the Minnehoho Creek Wotershed Monogement Plan. Policy 3 Adopt the MPCAs Best Monogement Practices for the control of erosion and sediment. A 2.2 WATERSHED POLICIES The Cily of Ofotx) is located in the Minnehoho Creek Watershed ond therefore the requirements of the MCWD Watershed Morxjgement Plan must be followed in a City-wide plon. This S^VMP creates a uniform set of requirements covering the entire City and meets all oppBcable rules. The following is a summary of MCWD requirements. 2.2.1 Standards for Local Water Management Plans 1. Prepore a plan that conforms to the guidelines estabTished in the Minnehoho Creek Wotershed Manogement Plon. atyofOnno OnnSurt^WMer Management Plan 25 GoahtandPoSoes S i 2. Define ctrolnoge areas and vofumes. rotes, and potns of stormwater runoff. theMCWD. 2. Accepted en^neering practice sfxjil be used m me determination of erosion potential. 3. All ponding areas stxall be desigrved for the 1; 10; and 100-year cnticai storm events. jL atyofOrono OnfiSUrtlKtWMtrMtnsgenteotPlin 2-6 Coils and PtiUes A • Design criterlo: 1:10; and 100-yeor crltlcol storm events. • Identify preiimlnoty sizes for future pipes or channeb. • Identify minor wotersheds within mose Identified in the Wotershed Manogement Pion. • Identify locations of waterways. • Demonstrate conformance wtth the hydrology of the Watershed Manogement Plan. 3. Identify storage sites Including weflarKis. . Design crfferlo: 1; 10; and 100-yeor critical storm events. • Define storage volumes. • Define rrotmol water elevations. • Define 100-yeor high water elevotions. • Define outflow rates. 4. Define water quality protection methods odequote to meet standards established In fhe Watershed Manogement Pion. 5. Identify regulated oreos. 6. Set form on implementation program, including: • Description of official controls. • Capitol Improvement Program. 2.2.2 Storm Runoff and Discharge Standards I. All proposed storm sewers will be capoWe of discharging me 5- year storm rurroff wfthout bitroduclrrg sediment into the waters of W ' L. 2.2.3 Flood Plain Management Standards 1. 100-yeor flood levels shaa be determined based on ultimate development of me tributory wotershed. 2. The minimum building opening elevation shall be of leost 2 feet obove the 100-yeor flood elevation. L I t II L a a a a L 3. In takes, ponds, wotetwoys, and upland storage sites as Identifed in me Minr.ohoha Creek Watershed Monogement Plon, fining will be limited so that the cumulotive effect of all p)Ossible fiUirrg wt!l rtat raise the 100-yeor flood. Aiterofions to the floodplain Identified in the MCWD Watershed Management Plon. which will unreosorxjbty impact another community will not be permitted (e g., discharge of londtocked ponds to onother commurHty and imocSfying take outlet elevofions). 5. Permo lenf easements or dedicated nghis-of-ways on flood storage wetlands shall be obtoined to the 100-year flood elevafion. 2. 3. 2.2.4 Sediment and Erosion Control Standards 1. The Board of Water arxJ Soil Resources (BWSR) ‘Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook* and Hennepin Conservoton District (HCD) ‘Fact Sheets* shall serve os minimum guideBnes fa erosion control. Temporoty sediment ponds shoB be designed to hold ot least a 50-year event. All dikes ond ditch checks snail be designed for the 5-yeor event. 4. Plans shall include commonly occepted restordtron methods. 5. Disturbed aeos shall be seeded ond mulched within 7 days of finol grading. 6. Alt erosion aixJ sediment control measures sho'i be instoiled pria to oiterotlon ond mointolned until turt is estobiished. 7. AB construction reloted seefiment wffl be removed from ponding areas upon completion of construction. 2.2.5 Wetland Martagement Standards 1. No runoff sholl be discharged Ihto o wetland if the discharge is sediment laden a contoins toxic substances. A 2.3 AGENCY REQUIREMENTS Wetland regulotions continue to evolve and the trend is toward more restrictive regulations. This section of the SvvMP presents a synopsis of the current ogency requirements while acknowledging the existence of omer requirements thot may be oppBcoble. The City of Orono is committed to the preservation and enhancement Otyc^Orono Dr9n Surf^ WHer Management P!§n 2-7 *nd Pobdes « I of its wetkDnd ond water resources ihrougn full complionce with local, slate, and federal wetkand regulations. 2.3.1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR| The DNR regulates putslic waters, stteoms. and wetland Types 3,4. and 5 os defined In the U.S. Fish and WUdiife's (USFWS) Citcuiat No. 39. Minimum wetlond sites for DNR jurisdiction are 2.5 acres in Incorporated areas and 10 acres in unincorporated areas. Wetlands may oe postured or cropped dunng periods of drought if diices, ditches, t<e lines, or txjfldings ore not constructed, ond the ogricutturol use does not result in drainage of the wetlond. Filling a wetlond to occommodate wheeled txDoms on irrigation devices is allowed If the fill does not Impede natural drainage. Before fining within a wetland con occur, the proposoi must first hove gone through an octlon criteria or sequencing. The sequence involves 1) avoiding the wetland altogether, 2) minimizing the impocts. or>d 3) mitigating for the impacts. Filling a wetland requires o Section 404 (Cleon Woter Act) permit and compensotoiN' mitigation is required. The mitigation may be occompiished by restoring drained weftonds or the conversion of upland oreos into wetlands. The principle of 'no net loss of viretionds' is followed. Forming of wetlands Is allowed os long os the octivity does not change the course, current, or cross-section of o wetlond bosin. 1. Wetland mitigation is allowed when the impact is justifiable (such os the construction of roodwoy fills), m these coses, the protected waters permits must include provisions to compensate for me detrimental ospects of Impact. 2.3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) The Corps defines wetlands as those oreos that are Inundated or soturoted by surfoce or grocmdwater ot o frequerKy and duration sufficient to support, ond under normol circumstances do support, a prevoience of hydrophytic vegetation typteoDy odopted for life in saturated soil conditions, wetland Types I through 8 are included without any size limitations 2.3.3 Board of Water and Soli Resources (BWSR) Under State low , BWSR Is responsible for tne implementation of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The 1987 Federal Monuol tor atycfOrono Or^Suriiea Water Hanagement Plan 2-$ Goals and PoPdes [ b a c L u 11 11 (1 IL 11 II I L I L Identifying and Delineating Wetlands is used to identify and delineate wetlonds. M wetlands Itxjt meet the critefio of the Act, legordless of type and size, are under BWSR lurtsdiction, except the puPBc waters of the stote regulated by tb® DNR- Drainage or fill of wetlonds. wholly or portioiv. is not allowed unless ample sequencing analysis is performed and tne orea impacted Is replaced by restoring or cieoimg wetlonds of of leost equal public value under on approved replacement plan. 2.3.4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCAJ Wetlands are defined os on woters of the stote tnot are tronsitionoi between terrestrial ond oquotic systems v/here the water table Is usually at or near the surface of the land, or the land fs covered with Shallow water. Wetlands must also hove the three attributes of soils, vegetotion, ond hydrology. All wetlond types ore covered without size restrictions. A v/etland compensotion progrom requiring sequencing must be followed when physical alterations of wetlands result in the pollution of a wetland. Such octivitles are permitted through Section 401 of the Cleon Water Act. The Section 401 Woter Quality Certification is Issued bosed on the water quouty criteria set forth in Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. Under current United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, there ore no exemptions for agriculturoi lend uses. j 2.4 B est Management Practices (BMP s) The protection of existing waterbodies os well os the correction of existing water quolHy problems require the use of opproprtate plonning principles and the consistent appBcotion of BMPs to new developmenfs. The BMPs address the foliowirrg issues In the context of this SWMP: • The control of urban non-point source poiiutonts, • Site planning principles for the control of erosion, pollution, ond sedimentation, and • Surfoce water management practices for the control of water quoiiry. This SWMP adopts and supports the recommendotions outlined In the MPCA's ‘Protecting Wafer Qualify 'n Urban Areas', BVVSR s Otyo/Orvno Dr9ft5uff^\Mgr Management Plan 2-9 Goafs and PoSdea u ’Minnesoto Erosion ond Sediment Control Construction Site Ptonning Hondbook*. and the EPAs “Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (tJURP),* and any future revisions to these monuois. jk 2.5 C ity Oroinances The City hos established a numt'»r of otdinonces for the control ond management of the woter resources. The ordinances ate summoiized In the following sections A cropland eroson and sediment control otdlnonce needs to be implemented to comply with the Minnehaho Creek Watershed Monogement Plan 2.5.1 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control This ordinance sets forth the rules and regulations to control lend distubonces. land fin, soil storage, and erosion ond sediment control resulting from land deveiopnient ot atterotion activities 2.5.2 Wetland Systems District TNs ofdinonce ensures the protection of the oburxtont wetland resources in the City through preservation, conservotton, and management principles. The ordinance stipulates regulated octivitles. mitigation requirements, and buffer strip protection zones for the management of the wetlands The City of Orono is the Locol Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Consetvotion Act (WCA) The regulations set forth by the WCA hove been adopted by the City to odminister the WCA os the IGU. 2.5.3 Shoreiand District The shoreiand ordinance protects the interests of tne public health, safety, ond v/elfare by oroviding for the Viflse subdivision, use, ond development of land odjocent to public woters. The ordinance specifies the size, type, location, and setbacks for a'l proposed developments odjocent to public waters 2.5.4 Floodplain District This ordinonce identifies the criteria for those oreos thot ore to be included in the floodplain district. The district provides protection ond preservotion of woteiwoys and floodplains that cony, discharge, or ore inundoted by o regionoi flood. The Intent of the district to restrict filling or altering of those oreos that If left unrestricted could result in loss of property or life, or extroordinory public expenditures that ore a result of floodplain protection. CtfOtOnro DnHSurfta Water Management Plan 210 Goals and PoPoes “Minnesota Etosion and Sediment Control Construction Site Planning Handbook-, ond the EPA s •Nationwide Urban Runoff Piogrom (NURP).' ond any future revisions to these monuols. A 2.5 C ity Ordinances The City has established a number of oroinonces for the cot iftoi and marKigement of the wofet resources. The ordmonces ore summarized in the following sections. A croplond erosion and sediment control otdirvjnce needs to be implemented to comply with the Minnehoho Creek Watershed Monogement Plan. 2.5.1 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control This ordinonce sets forth the rules atxl regulotions to control lend disturbances, tend fill, soil storoge, and erosion and sediment control resulting from land development or alteration octivities. 2.5.2 O^etland Systems District This ordirxance ensures the protection of the aburxJanf wetland resources m the City through preservoton. conservation, and management principles. The ordinance stipuiotes regulated octivitles. mitigation requirements. orxJ buffer strip protecton zones lor the monogement of the wetlonds The City of Orono Is fhe Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The regulations set forth by fhe WCA have been adopted by the City to odminister the WCA os the LGU. 2.5.3 Shoreland District The shorelond ordinance protects the interests of the public health, sofety, ond • .reifore by oroviding for the v/ise subdivision, use, and development of land adjacent to public woters. The ordinonce specifies the size. type, location, ond setbocks for on proposed developments odjacent to public waters. 2.5.4 Floodplain DIstria This ordinonce identifies the criteria for those oreos fhot ore to be included in the floodplain district. The district provides protection ond preservation of waterways and floodplains that cany, discharge, or ore Inundated by a regionoi flood. Tr*e intent of the district to restricf filling or altering of those oreos that if left unrestricted could result in loss of property or life, or extroordlnory pubTic expenditures that are a result of floodplain protection. City of Orono DnttSurUce WMtr MKugement Pan 210 GoilsanaPePdO J I L C L (I E [! E 4 II L L i L 3. Physical Environment ^3.1 Topography Most of 0(ono con be described os genfiy lo steebV loBing 'vltr* nuTnerous depressions, many of which confoin wefionds Along the shorelines of Lone Minnetonko. the tenom consists of steep 'knob' hills thot shoroly grcde down to the shoreline, low lying areas just a few feet obove lake level, or wetlands tnot extend away from the moin body of %vater. Elevations generoiiy decreose from north to south, with a high elevafion of obout 1060 feet in tne northwestern port of the City to the surface elevation of Loke Minnetonka. 93C feet ^ 3.2 GEOLOGY The geology of tne region surrounding Otono is the result of two different geologic processes: <• Warm, shallow seos covered the orea and created cond'tions for the formation of sedimentory rocks These lormotions ore oresent as oeatock in the area. <• Glociai processes hove resulted in the deve'opment of surficioi geology, oixl .iterefore. *^e cu"ent londforms The geology of the City con generoiiy c. i«_.octef'2eci as over TOO feet of gkxlal till ond . overlying sedimentary bedrock. 3.2.1 Bedrock Geolo The bedrocK units present beneotn the CHy are marine sodimentory rocks prir 'drily of the Upper Combrian io Midad Ordovlclon oges {450 to 500r million years old). Ronging from deeper, older bearock to reioiivety shoiiow/young bedrock, tne geologic units present in Jude the St. Lc.vtence/Franconio formotion, Jordan Sandston . the Pioirie du Chien grouo ond Peter Sandstone. 3.2.2 Surface Geology Giocdi influence on this oreo began around 2.5 million vears ago and continued until c ,out 10,000 years ogo However. *he londscope trot we have today was oimost entirety influenced by activity between 30.000 and 16,000 yeas ago The dommont geologicol feotuie m Orono is the lem' an; of the delerioiating Grontsburg suoiobe of the Wisconsin giociation, when covered the CtyofOnno DnnSurtace Water Hantgemvit ?ttn Physica. ."'nreonrent k f I oiea unKi obcxjf 16.000 veofs coo. The londscope of Otono wos formed by tnree giocioi otoceises: • the Lonsdoie-Lerdoi Till Region, which left mounds of giociol drift (small rocks uo to b-cuiders) ihof vivere "dropped out" of ine glacier os it 'srood st r fof o period of time and then refteoted . tne Emmons-Fo' ooult fvtotoine formed hills where variaPty sized till (rocks ond bou'oers) was pushed to the edge of an odvoncing glocer • irregularly shaped dep'es'ions. referred fo os "kettles*, were formed oy loige c ocks c' ce ond were ftiied os the ice melted After giociotion ended, tne hiiis v/ere "worn down" due to noturol processes, resulting in tne roUrg londscope witn filled depress ons A 3.3 Surface Water Resources 3.3.1 Lake Minnetonka Surloce woter runoff from Orono droins ’o Mmnenoha Creek's uppei vvofershed (the entire Loke M.nreronko dromoge area) ond flows through ports of three suowotersheds. • Ciossen Creek . Pointer Creek . Long Lake Creek Lake Minnetonka and its Poys hove o surface area of 22.6 squore miles, ond ate DNR Protected oters. The loke drains ran oreo of approximately 126 sauore m es. has a maximum depth of 101 feel, ond nos an outlet suifoce eievoton of 930 feet. otyof Orono Droit SurUce water NantgementPlm 3-2 Phyacet environment \ 3.3.2 Streams Inere are three nameo s'recims that ftow info or through Orono. They ore Ciossen Creek, wnich f ows from Ciossen Loke into Stubbs Boy; Pointet Creek, which flows 'rom Kauino Lake into the west Arm vio Jennirtgs Lake; and long Lc<e Creek, which origlrxjtes (rom *..'0 lokes In Medina, flows tnrougn uong Lake ond into Tonogei Loke. All three ore ot leost portio ’V d'tcned ond tne latter two are ONR protected. There ore o few m.r.Of streams that flow into the OYs boys, lokes, ond numerous wetionds (some of which ore closed basins). I II c c li c tl n L II t 11, L I I L L 3.3.3 Lakes Ofono tnciudes a portion of the mom body of Loko Minneton<o, wh ch s conskjefed the ’tower toke* There ore severe; ooiocent ond hydfouiicaiiy conr>ected waterbodies Ihot ore referred to os "boys" of the lake or ore distinct takes. tt is thought that these lokes ond boys histoncoiiy existed sin nilof to their current form, ond may hovo been connected into novigobie, open water os a result of dredging ond excovotion. Of the many lakes c"o boys that are part of Loke Minnofonxo. the following ore at leas* partially In Orono Sc/ Coimo". Ssy C^•Jtol Be/ Forest Loko Fiencn lake lofovono Bov Mo^wof Bov f *Oftn Arm Peovev Loko West Aim Sm.fh Bov StuotssBoy TonoQef 1^0 A very smell part of Mooney Loko (mostly in Ptymoutnj arxJ the following lakes aie in Orono "uphill’ from Loke Minnefonko: LOT.Q Lake Loke CioMen Ockovs Lake lydia'd loko The moioriN' of these takes ore kettle takes that were formed by targe b ocks of ice tnot become stationarv while gloctai deposits seftiea around them As the ice m ki, they filled the ’kettles' they hod formed. As o result of notuot p. jcesses that have occurred since the e.v* of gioctai octivity. mlnerol sediments and decofTioosing plant moieriois were o ^ posited in these lakes and hove c oted their current configuration They vary in depth and shape, ronging from rourtaish to very irregi^ and from less trion ten fee: in depth to a deep spot of 88 feet In Browns Bay. 3.3.4 Wetlands As stotea above, a lorge percentoge of the wetland oosins in Orono cevetoped in the depressions creoted by glacial processes. Wettanas oiso occur in the nearly flat, sometimes extensive shoreline areas of Lake Mmnetonko. These ore also considered depress orx)l wettonds. Otyof Orono 3J PnyskMl Em»rofvnent According to the ftotionol Wettond lnvsn»otv Excotsror. Mojrvd, and Homei quod mops, tne we* onds in Ofono ore mostv sna;'0'.v, emergent morsnes. there ore lesser n jmbets of shtup. forested, fresh meadow, ond shoiiow open v/o*e* v/etiond types scattered throughout the City. Generolly. ♦"e US-.VS Circulor 39 ctassifica»ion of these wetionds ir>ciudes Types 1 through 7. More information oDout wetioncs in Crcno con be found in Section 5 of this SWMP. 3.3.S DNR Protected Waters Most of the takes ond several ot ne v.et onds. along wth one virotercourse (Long Lake Creek) -ave ceen identified os DfjR Protected Waters The Piotectea wa*ers and Wetlands Map * of 4 for Hennepin County contoins the DNl designation tor each of these protected wotertxxfles. j 3.4 Soils There ore three major soil ossoC'Otions In the City of Orono. The ossoc.ofion in the eostern region of C*c''0 is Lester • Peaty Muck This ossoclotion Is defined os ro" o~o miy m.eoum textured and modorotely fine textured soils r c* dove oped m giocoi til'. Tne western holt of Orono consists c ‘ "le £*'h • Kitt.enny • Peaty Muck ossoclotion, gently undulating tc n tiy. r—.edium textured and moderofely fine textured sons tr,T deve oped m glacial tin B:g Isiond located in Lake Minnetor.^o ore tne nortneasrern 1/d" of Orono consists of the Hoyden ■ Cordo. a • Peaty Muck ossoclot'on This soil IS known for neorty leve' *o roiiir-.g medium textured and moderotety fine textured soils me* deve oped in gkocioi till. A 3.5 Groundwater Resources Groundwater aquifers povide water suppV for the City Che area of concern is the Interaction of g*our'ov.ater orxi surfoce v/oter resources. 3.5.1 Aquifers In the City of Orono. there ore several sources of groundwater, or •aquifers*. Of these, there ore three sign ficonf oquiiers f'om wtitch grourKtwater is curreriiiy being used; ❖ The quaternory. or water tabe aqu fer. is found in gtocicl oeposits. CtyofOmK Draft Surtax Water Management Pt»f J-* Physical Emircnment d I ❖ Tne St. Poter cs-ifer. 'cund in a loyef of so'dstone |ust below me giociaidepos'j ano ❖ The Pioirie du C-'.en-.c-don dquifer. found m adjoining dotomiie-sonorone ceowtne St. Peter fomotion Most private wei's oong .vitn those of the Ct/. d'ow water from the Ptoirte du Chien-vC'dan aquifer complex. Tne St. Peter ond quoternoiv oquife s ore w*i 2ed primorilv os domesnc well sources. Wen velds and wcer roc e elevations in the auofemarv aquifer ore dependent on tocoi cc'c^ions. in this pxjrt of Hen'epin County, grouno.vote: flow in the Proirie du Chien-Jordan oa- fer is generally to the east soumeast. Gtoundwafet eie.otions r.rough Orono ore coout 900 feet (as compared to sur'ooe e e motions of 930 to 1C60 feet) In the quaternai\' cauife*. groundwater flow is generally oriented from northeast ic scutnv.est to obout the midao of Long LoXe. ortd then generally no'"' to south. This moy vary locoiiy due to the influence of surfoce v/o*e' bodes, the effects of v/eiis. and areas of high aquifer rec r o ge = evotions of groundwater range from obout 970 feet in the nc""ieas‘ corner to 930 ot the LOke Mmnetonko shoreline In oodition to the -nowr oquifers, oreas of perched groundwater have been encc-'itereo Perched groundwater occurs aoove deposits of tow-cemecc -y cloy or silt. The cay or sitt oeposrts ore apparonfiy of lirr -ed oreol extent. Perched groundwoter can intersect me gro.'d su'^oce to create wetlands or ponds. 3.5,2 Surface Water fnteractfon There are two reascns to oe concerned about water qua' ty when considering surface ana groundwoter interoction. First, since the water fable oqj ‘S' intersects wrth many of 'he loxes ond wetlands in the City, the q-c:ity of me water tobie aquifer may potentially hove on effect c' the Cry's surface water resources Second, there ore some locot c''s where surface waters and wofer tobie aquife's moy come in cc"oct '.••■‘•n the Proirie au Ch en - Jordan aquifer. Because grourrowater. odUcuiorty me Pioi'ie du Chein-Jordan oquifsr, provides cotopie water for tne res'Oents ond busirtesses of Orono. it is cons cerea *o be on Impuftant resource when cortsidering wots'-ned '"anagement. AJso, grounctwoter imparts o dry of Orono Draft Surface hVatar Management Ptan 3-5 Phystcai environment significani contfiDution to the quaBty of v.etiofKJs and other surfoce wotei features that hove gtoundwoter cs a hydroiog'C component. /a 3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.6.) Natural Communities and Species of Special Concern Accofdtng to the Coun^ ^.okjgiCQl Survsv. a noturoi communltv is o portcuior ossembicge of ftoto and fau''a that hove a unique set of cnofoctetistics. Examples ate o ’diy p'd'tie’. or in the case of Orono, on area of ’mople bosswood fc'esf (big woods). Areas that may rxjt be dominated by a notutol community con nonef^eless be considered importont oreos Tho'e mo'/ be individuoi occurrences of ’O'e, threatened, or endongered species tixjt con oiso be considered votuobte resources. The County Btotogicol Survey mop for Corver. Hennepin, and Scon Counties (No 18.1998) indiccras that there are records of the to owing voiuobie resources bemg located m the City ot Orono. Detoiied information can be rec jested from the DNR Noturoi Heritoge Prog-om. <• A 5.moli portion of mopie-bosswc c-d forest and cortoii marsh v^itnin Bdlief Paric Reserve 'n the '.?v notihwesr part of the City. ❖ A mople-bosswood forest referred to as Lov/iy Woods neoi the middie/westem edge of the City. •> Noerenberg Memorloi Porx ona Saraen oiong the nomen ond eastern shores oi Crystal Boy and Moxvireii Bay. respectively- ❖ A small wet meodow and mop.e-cosswood forest on Big isiond There ore also h.ro element occurrence records (EO) of state or federoiiy listed animo s and one EO of o stote or federally listed plant on Big isiond ❖ An EO for a srote or federoiV listed onimol on the west shore of Corman &ay. and one cn the ooutndory between Orono and Tonka Boy along Highway 1 9. •> Two state Of federa'ry hsted EOs at t.ne channel behveen Crystal Bay and North Arm. ❖ The Ferndale f^orsh (owned by T-e Nature Conservancy) al the eastern edge of tne City, jus* south of Highv/oy 1 5. ❖ Mople-basswood forest, wet meadow, mixed hordwood swomp, famaracic swamp, ond tnree state or feaeroiiy listed ayoyoom OnnSurtia/MefMttugementPlan J-tf Physiol Emkonment I _ 1 - J1 ♦ J I I II I li II n IIk 11 L L L L EOs in tho Wood RiU Sfote Scientific ond Noturd Area (SNA) in me northeostem co»net c me City. <• Mapie bosswooci ond lowiond nardwood forests in the port.on of tne woisfekJ v/oods SNA in Orono oiong its middlo/nofthern boundoty. There moy be oti er oreos fnat hove "femnonr noturoi communities it should also be noted that tne EOs do not necessofily fooresent existing occurrences of plant or animal spectes However, the DNR should be consulted prior to ony construction octivities at or near the EO locations. Ttie "oreas' listed obove ore also ccnsiderea voluobie resources tn their own pght 3.6.2 Fish and Wildlife loi:e Minnetonka otTd its cays ate considered to be a prime gome fish lake, supporting nine species of game fish including muskie, boss, and perch. Non game fish such os butthead ono carp are also present. The wildlife of a given area is dependent on the type of hobitaf found in that o'eo Prairie, forest aixJ wenand/loko oreos ore the primoiy tiabitai types found In Orono. with the largest portions being forest ond weiand'iake Sirce the shai'ow portions of lakes ore technically wetland areas, we vyiil refer to two pnmory hobiiat typet; woods and wetionds Although there nxiy be some distinction between me v^tldlite found in woods and in wetlands, most species found in eiihc ' depend. In pah. on the other hobitot type. For example, while o wood duck builds Its nests in targe trees, it feeds in sho ’ ow or deep marsh areas: ond while deer spend a lot of time in wooded oreos, mey depend on wetlands for drinking water aixJ cover Other species found in the woods and iwettands of Orono ore ^,pical of the 'metro ore a' subset ot species found in similar habiot throughout central Minnesota This suDset IS slightly less diverse due to the pressures that ore put on hobitot by the oeveiopment of urbon oreas. Some ot the typicot species Include numerous waterfowl, raptors ond songpiids, small mammals like robbitr mink ond squirrels, and siighity larger mommols like fox coyote, and deer CtyofCrsrc Draft Suiftce Water Management Man 3-7 Physk^ Environment 1 E L E C E C E 'E L L E 4. Technical Background ^]4.1 General Since the mid 1960s. slormwaler management authorities have emphasized the use of stormwater ponding. Ponding significantly reduces the size of downstream storm sewer conduits. This reduction in facility size not only reduces the capital expenditure required, but also decreases the outflow rates into downstream waterbodies thereby minimizing flooding potentiol. Pre-development outflow rates could be achieved by utilizing this principle as development occurs. Water Quantity Downstream reaches of a drainage basin often develop earlier than the remainder of the basin. When this occurs, drainage structures installed in eorty development may be sized for only the present runoff without consideration for the increased rate and quantity of stormwater runoff that will result as land in the upper reaches ot the watershed is developed. Providing stormwater ponding oreas within the surface water system reduces the required capacity of downstream trunk sewers. The decieose in discharge rate results in smaller pipes, reduced overland flow, and a more cost-effective system. Ponding areas can also be planned and integroted into recreational oreas to maximize developable acreage and enhance a park/wi!dlife corridor. Ponding improves habitat by providing diversity favorable to a variety ot plants and animals. Water Quality In waterbodies with very high phosphorus concentrations, algae blooms may occur coloring the water green and releasing strong odors os they decoy. Algae eventuolly sink to the lake bottom and decay, resulting in a decrease in the dissolved oxygen supply in the water. Toxic chemicals can kill the fish and microoigonisms within the waterbody, disrupting the noturol biologicol balance. OtyofOrono DrBftSurtKe Mter Management PIsn 41 technica/ Badkgroitnd I ) Release of phosphorus can sometimes cause nuisance algae blooms, which can cause fish kills several ways; through interfering with re-aeration, by excluding light necessory for photosynthesis in the lower areas thereby reducing oxygen, and by using up oxygen through the respiration process that takes place within a bloom. In the wintertime, respiration causes the depletion of oxygen vwthin the water column. This, combined v«lh ice covering the lake, which prevents oxygen from dissolving in the water from the atmosphere, can cause mojor fish kills in the winter. Bullheads can resist the low oxygen content of these waters in the winter, and thus could become the dominant fish. With the intent of protecting lakes and wetlands from accelerated eutrophication, this plan requires erosion and sediment control practices and establishes policies for the treatment of runoff. ❖ ❖ 4.1.1 Design Considerations The design of a surface water system involves the following aspects: ❖ The determination of the anticipated runoff The selection of a runoff conveyance method The delineation of ponding areas and floodplains for stofoge. sediment flapping and nutrient assimilation The identification of high px.ority waterbodies The development of measures to maintain/enhance water qualify In addition, decisions must be made as to the degree of flood protection thot is economically justified for an area. Once these factors have been determined, the system can be designed based on an economical combination of stormwater storage volume, storm conduit capacity, and water quality improvements. ❖ ❖ Design of a surface water management system takes both stormwater and snowmelt runoff info account. These factors ore considered in a defined period of time, which is referred to as an "evenr. CftyofOnono Dr9ft5urf^ WMer Management Plan 42 Technkat Background i I k i k Iu I 1 4.1.2 Drainage Districts Orono has been divided eighteen primary drainage aisfricts according fo the major waterbody to which the runoff eventuolly drains. The physical characteristics of each drainage district can be found in Section 6. System Description. Drainage districts were then divided into subdistricts based on the topography of the districts. 4.1.3 Runoff and Land Use Surface Water Runoff Runoff is defined as that portion ot precipitation or meltwater that flows over the ground surface during and for a short time after, a storm or snowmelt event. The quantity of runoff is dependent on the intensity of the event, the amount of antecedent soil moisture, the length of the event, and the type and slope of surface that the runoff flows over. The intensity of a storm is described by the amount of rainfall that occurs over o given time intervat. A specific roinfall amount over a given period of time will stofistically occur at a given interval, usually described in years. This is called the return frequency. A return frequency designates the average period of time during which a single storm of o specific magnitude is expected to occur. Thus, the degree of protection offorded by storm sewer facilities is determined by selecting a return frequency to be used as a basis for design. For the SWMP, a 5-yeor, 24-hour storm event was used for the storm sewer design, while the greater of the lOO-year, 24-hour rainfall event, and the 100-year, tO-day snowmelt event wos used for overland drainage and pond storage design. A 5-year storm (3.6 inches in 24-hours) has a 20 percent chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year whereas a 1 00-year, 24-hour storm (6 inches in 24-hours) has a 1 perce”* chance. A 100-year, 10-day snowmelt event (7.2 inches of runoff in ten days) has a I percent chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year. OtyofOnno Dntt Surt^ water Management 4-J VeOinkal ead^round These return periods are used throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area and have been used for the design of the existing stormwater facilities in Orono. The ten-day snowmelt event is utilized by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their hydroulic analysis of the wotershed and is required for hydraulic analysis in local surface wafer management plans. Complete protection against large, infrequent storms wilh return intervals greater than 100 years are typically justified only for important flood control projects. For most developing areas like Orono, the cost of constructing a large capocity surface water system tends to be much greater than the predicted cost of property damage thot may result from flooding coused by an event that exceeds the capacity of the design system. Runoff caused by evenfs greater than design events will be handled by ponding in low spots In streets for short periods of time and by outflow via overland drainoge routes. This short term flooding ond overland drainage will minimize damage to property. Overland drainage routes for emergency overflows should be maintained wherever possible. Land Use The runoff coefficient used in hydrologic modeling for this SWMP represents the volume of rainfall or snowmelt that is anticipated to flow overland and is based on several factors, including land use. Land use olso influences the runoff curve number |CN), which represents the ability of soil to infiltrate water. Under conditions where an area is developing, tne values of the runoff coefficient will increase concurrently wilh increases in tne amount of impervious surfaces caused by street surfacing, building construction, and grading. Average runoff coefficients and CN values for each land use were used in design of surface wafer facilities in undeveloped areas. Far the modeling of exisfing facilities. CN values were determined for each type of development in each subdistrict. Runoff coefficients and equivalent CN values for antecedent moisture condition II are presented in Toble 4.1. Ocyof Orono DranSurftce WMer Mtnagemnt Plan 4-4 Technical Badsgnouna 4 % [ li II L li C 4c i i !i I The primary issues of surface wafer management include capture and conveyance, storage, and treafmenf of runoff fo improve wafer quality. While the date and principles reloting lo each of these subjects of consideration is intermingled and overtopping, there are distinct methods to model that data info solutions for the management of surface water runoff in Orono. The following sections identify and describe the modeling methodology utilized for each of these subjects. Table 4.1 Runoff Coefficiants Modeling Capture and Conveyance of Runoff The trunk storm sewer design presented in this SWMP is based on the Rational Method, which involves the selectiofi and/or computation of lime of concentration and runoff coefficient. The time of concentration is f'e time required for the runoff from a storm to become established and for the fbw from the most remote point (in time, not distance) of the drainage area fo reach the design point. Runoff Coefficient (C)Curve Number CN 1 Land Uee eLycar 10-yaar 10<Hfear Partes and Pubkc Land 014 018 0 29 58 Golf Course 017 022 0 33 61 Ponding Areas 097 097 0 98 99 SF Rural Reskientiat (Avg lot size >5 acres)018 023 034 62 ! SF Residential (Avg lot size 1-5 acres)027 i^ 0 32 0 44 "1 r-7- J SF Residential (Avg lot size <1 acre)0 30 0 35 0 47 70 t Townhomes 0 59 0 63 0 72 85 Seasonal R^reational 0 14 018 029 11 “ Commercial, Industrial 0 57 0 61 070 84 Other As required by City Engineer OtyotOrono I Dr9ftSinf9<x Water 4-S TecMcB/Backgn II is assumed that al the lime of concentralion, the entire drainage area contributes runoff to the design point, consequently the maximum rate of njnoff will occur at ti'ct time for a specific design event. Once the time cf concentration is determined, the average roinfoli intensity for tho design storm frequency of occurrence can be taken 'rom a precipitation frequency curve chart such as Figure 4.1. A minimum time of concentration of 15 minutes wos selected for design of the trunk storm sewer system. Shorter times nay be used in laferol system design. The percentoge of rainfall foiling on an oreo that runs off and must be collected by a storm sewer facility is dependent on wotershed variables such as soil permeability, slope, vegetation, surface depressions, land use, and antecedent soil moisture. These factors are taken into consideration when selecting o runoff coefficient |C) in the Rational Method. Modeling Storage of Runoff Computer modeling of stormwater quantities for pond des-gn was done ■ ing HydroCAD. Modeling was done using o runoff curve number for a drainage area, a time of concenirotion. a 24-hour roinfoli volume of 6 inches and SCS rainfall disfribt* on Type II. or a 7.2 inch ten-day event with antecedent mc rure condition III for snowmelt conditions. The hvdrograph resulting from a typical single-family residential rjpo of 20 acres is illustrated in Figure ^ .2. The time of vneentration used to develop this h\ drograph is 30 minutes and the runoff curve number is 72, vsivch corresponds to a typical single-family residenlial deveiof. ment in the City o* Orono. A lypicol outlet-'ating curve from a prr d can be plotted as shown in Figure 4.2. The groph co.tes*:\' ds to a six-inch orifice v.i'n a total head of five feet resulting iro' •' a difference o‘ five feet between t e normal e nd high water levels. The result ng outflow hydros'ocn fo be routed downstream is illustrated by the dashed ire in Figure 4.3. ayoTOono DnHStMfKxWMtrMtntgtmentPUn 4-6 TefMat Btdcgroigtd ill I 1 I— I— l_ «__ PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY CURVE Bonestroo Rosenc ORONO, MINNESOTA SURFACE WATER MAN/vGEMENT PLAN FIGURE 4.1 Anderfik A Associates £nglnt«rs A ArcMivcts < • *.....^_____ The routing of hydrographs in this SWMP was done for each district. An example of the type of hydrogiaph that results from routing several ponds is shown in Figure 4.3. The solid line represents the hydrograph from direct runoff and incoming flow from upstream ponds, while the dashed line represents the outflow from that particular pond. The lag time indicated in Figure 4.3 represents the time span between the inflow and outflow peaks. The lag time is significant as it represents the attenuation of peak flows at each pond and generally shows that the peaks are not occurring at the same time. This implies that the direct runoff to a pond has generally passed through to the downstream trunk system before the inflow of large volumes of runoff from upstream ponds. Modeling Treatment of Runoff Since if is not economically feasible to sample and monitor the quality of all wolerbc ' es in the City, PcndNet was used to estimate and predict future water quality considering anticipated storage conditions. PondNet was selected because it meets the following conditions: ❖ It can predict phosphorus and runoff quantities from different land use types. ❖ It can predict phosphorus yield rates before and after urban development occurs. ❖ It can predict the phosphorus concentration in storm runoff flowing through o large number of ponds. ❖ It can predict stormwater treatment parameters to acNeve a specified level of treatment. ❖ It is user-friendly. PondNet is available on spreadsheet software. It is based on measured (empirical) data and was developed from data collected as part of the Environmental Protection Agency Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). PondNet con estimate the phosphorus removal efficiency of a large number of hydraulically connected ponds, as well as removal as a function of wet pond volume, depth, and configuration of the pond. It is not suited for large, deep waterbodies. For these, a specialized lake model would be needed. « i! Oiyo^Omno OnttSurf^ Witer Hinagment PIm 4-6 Techmal BKkgnund L II L il U c L I L L L L L L Values for average phosphorus concentrations, average annual summer runoff coefficients, and the resulting phosphorus export coefficients were determined for use in PondNet. These values are shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Phoaphonia Concontrationa and Export Coefficienta Land Uaa Modal Paramatera P Concentration (PPt») Runoff Coefficient* P Export Coefficient (ibe/ac) Porks and Pubic Land 200 007 0.14 Golf Course 450 on 0.51 SF Rural Restdenttol {Avg lot size >6 ocres)450 0.12 0.56 SF Residential) Avg. lot size 1 -5 ocres)450 0.19 0.88 SF Residential |Avg. lot stze < 1 acre)450 0.22 1.02 Townhomes 500 0.51 2.62 Seasonal Recreolionol 200 0.07 0.14 Commerciot. Industrial 600 0.49 302 Other As required by City Engineer •2-yeof »rorm Irequefcy Export coefficients reflect a large increase in nutrient loading as land use changes from open space/agriculturol to urban. The main reason for this increase is the large increase in runoff rote and volume, caused by the amount of impervious area, which washes off pollutant buildup from those surfaces. OtyofOrono Draft Surface Water Management Plan 49 Technical Background B SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HYDROGRAPH Tc=30 MIN TYPICAL ORIFICE OUTLET ficotf an TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL HYDROGRAPH AND ORIFICE OUTLET RATING CURVE I! I L( i Bonestroo ORONO. MINNESOTA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN \< 39\1399S063\CA9\0AG\ 13963A09 CMJ 10-2-00 FIGURE 4.2 Rosene 5 Andcriik 4 |\]| Associates ing(n«*r$ d ArcMMCtI MDC I ■ t J. > I [ I [ [ L C I I I L L L L POND 1 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW TYPICAL ORIFICE OUTLET POND 2 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW TIME (hours) TYPICAL POND INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPHS l/lj Bonestroo — - Rosene Andertik & |\J| AssociatesORONO, MINNESOTA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN \ 133\ 13998C63\CAO\OWC\ 13963W 10 DWG 10 -2-00 FIGURE 4.3 ewq>i»—n d Arzntfcra ^4.2 C apturb and C omveyancb of Runoff 4.2.1 Capture of Runoff The ability of inlet structures to capture runoff is impc'*ant. considering the expense of storm sewers. Inadequc'e inlet capacity could result In underutilized storm sewers a- d potential flooding of private property. Intake structtres should be liberally provided at all low points where stormwoter collects and at points where overland flow is to be intercepted. Inlets should be spaced to eliminate o»'erland flow in excess of 1.000 feet on swales and/or streets end 600 feet on collector and arterial routes. Low areas with catch basins may become small de ’ention ponds performing like pressure relief valves (water rtshing out in some locations). For this reason, it is extremely important to ensure that these low areas have acceptable over'ond drainage routes (emergency overflows) with proper conveyance capacity. 4.2.2 Conveyance of Runoff Storm Stwers Storm sewers are the actual conduits used to transp:’" stormwater runoff. The capacity of the storm sewer conduit is dependent on the pipe slope and diameter, and rojghness of the inside of the pipe. Computations for storm sewe* conduit capacity are based on the Manning's formula. Although lateral systems are designed for five-year s*orm events, their performance must be analyzed for storrrs exceeding the design storm. It should be anticipated that surcharging of the system would occur when the des gn storm is exceeded. During surcharging, the system works os a closed conduit and the pipe network becomes pressurized v/ith different pressure heads throughout the system. Open Channels Open channels are recommended where flows and small grade differences prohibit the economical construct on of a sewer pipe, and in areas where open channel drainage may Otyo/Omno Dnn Surface mterManagmentPtan 4-J2 Technicai Background u II L' - i t L [ L C d L L L L L L L enhance a development ’s aesthetic qualities. A minimum 2 per cent slope should be maintained in unlined channels and overland drainage routes whenever possible. Slopes of less than 2 per cent and greater than 1 cercen* are difficult to construct ond mointain, and require an jnderdrain system. Slopes less than 1.0 percent ore not ollowed. Side slopes should be a maximum of 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) with gentler slopes being very desirable. Where space permits, slopes should be cut back to the existing ground level. Riprap should be provided at all junctions of oper chan.nels. where storm sewers discharge into a channel, and where high flows cannot be avoided. The design velocity of on open channel should be sufficiently low to prevent erosion. Periodic cleaning of on open channel is required to ensure that the design capacity is maintained. Therefore, all channels should be designed to allow easy access for equipment including a 12-foot wide maintenance path with 15 percent maximum grade at storm sewer outfal s road crossings, and connections to other channels or st'eams. Special Conaiderationa Oufl9h Effective energy dissipation devices or stilling basins to prevent stream bank or channel erosion at all stormwater outfalls should be provided. The following recommendations should be kept in mind when designing an outlet: 1. Inlet and outlet pipes of stormwater ponds should be extended to the normal water level whenever possible. 2. Outfalls with velocities of less than 4 feet pe^ second (fps) that project flows downstream into the channel in a direction at less than 30 degrees from the normal channel axis generally do not require energ/ dissipaters or stilling basins, but do require riprap protection. 3. Where an energy dissipater is used, it should be sized to provide an average outlet velocity of less than 6 fps. unless riprap is also used. In the latter case, the average outlet velocity should not exceed 8 fps. OtyofOrono Draft Surl^ water Management Plan 4-lJ Technical Background 4. Where outlet velocities exceed 8 fps. the design should be based on the unique site conditions present. Submergence of the outlet or installation of a stilling basin must be approved by the City Engineer when excess ve outlet velocities are experienced. 5. Riprap should be provided at all outlets to on adequate depth below the channel grade and to a height above the outfall or channel bottom. It should be placed over o suitably graded filter material and filter fabnc to ensure that soil particles do not migrate through the riprap and reduce its stability. Riprap should be placed to a tn'ckness at least 2.5 times the mean rock diameter so os to ensure that it will not be undermined or rendered ineffective by displacement. 6. Overiand drainage routes where velocities exceed 8 fps should be reviewed and approved by the City. Permanent turf reinforcement mots must be provided if velocities exceed 7 fps. Manholes Proper design of a storm sewer system requires that all sewer lines be prov ded with access through manholes for maintenance and repair operations. Spacing of manholes should be no greater than 500 feet for sewer lines 18-30 inches in diameter. Intervals on larger diameter lines can be increased since the pipe is large for a person to physically enter the p oe for maintenance. Manholes should be provided a* a’l junction, alignment, or grade change points. Sanitary Sewer Storm drainage facilities and sanitary sewer lines are designed to take advantage of natural contours and usuotly follow a ravine, creek, or gully. In some areas, water could enter the sanitary sev%er system, causing capacity problems and added costs for treatment of stormwafer. Therefore, sanitary manholes subject to temporary inundation should be equipped with watertight castings, and added precautions should be taken in construction of these manholes to prevent the entrance of stormwater. Manholes located near ponds should be raised above the 100-yi water level. fi y If 1 Cryo^Orano Ora/tSurt^HWtrMBnsffementPtM 4-J4 TetMca! Background L I i L i i i I L L L Future storm sewer construction should include provisions for improving the water tightness of nearby sanitary manholes. All newly constructed sanitary manholes in the vicinity of ponds and open channels should be waterproof. ^ 4.3 Storage of Runoff Ponding areas as recommended in the SWMP are important to maintain stability of creeks and natural corridors. Ponds provide the necessary storage to retain high intensity storm runoff peaks and reduce flooding downstream. The storage requirement for each pond must be maintained to prevent the flooding of property. Discharge rates computed for each pond area must also be maintained to ensure that the storage volume provided is used, and downstream flows are not exceeded. Peak flows indicated in the SWMP for proposed basins occur at the high water level, usually under pressurized conditions. The numerous natural depressions found throughout Orono hove been incorporated into the SWMP as ponding areas. Because capture and conveyance of runoff represent a sizable investment for the community, this investment should be efficiently utilized by ponding stormwater in designated areas and using smeller diameter pipes for outlets. In effect, storm sewer pipes will be used more efficiently since an equal volume of water is discharged at a lesser rate. Additional benefits of runoff storage facilities include: ❖ Improvement of water quality by allowing nutrients and sediments carried by runoff to settle below the pond normal water level •> Return of stormwater to groundwater by restricting the outflow rate from ponds ^ Water amenities in developments for aesthetic, recreational and wildlife purposes An ideol stormwater pond has a large surface area with gradually sloping sides, combined to provide substantial storage volume and treatment. In ponds that do not have desired ponding capacity, a variety of ways can be used ta Increase capacity. Oty of Orono Dr^SwfiooWottrmnagementPtan 4-JS Technical Background The two most common ways ore constructing a dike to block Q drainage way and create on additional artificial pond, or by enlarging an existing pond or wetland to increase storage capacity. Increases in storage provided by these methods will reduce the size of the overtlow pipe required and will result in savings in storm sewer construction costs for the City. 4.3.1 Standards Most ponds In the system collect woler fror^ large drainage areas. To provide proper protection for adjacent property, the design storm frequency for ponding areas is the maximum flood from a Type II. 24-hour. 100-year rainfall event (6 Inches of rain in 24-hours); or a ten-day. 100-yeor r-..noff event (7.2 inches of runoff over 10 days). These criteria are compared to a five-year. 24-hour storm for the design of storm sewer piping. The minimum elevation for the lowest exposed floor or opening of buildings near ponds must be two feet above the 100-year high wafer level. The City may reauire additional freeboard for landlocked areas or ponds wnere emergency overflows cannof be provided. Overland f'ow routes should be incorporated into the design of ponds and maintained during development. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of structures that are adjacent to ponds should be indicated on the site grading plan and should be certified by the builder during basement construction to ensure adequate freeboard. Normal water elevations recommended in the SWMP should be reviewed and adjusted when more precise topographic information and grading plans are ovailab'e at the time of development. The normal water elevations and surface areas of basins recommended in the SWMP are not intended to be rigid and can be aajusted in tinal design if necessary. All ponds indicated on system maps should ce reevaluated during final design when all factors affecting runoff, water quality, storage, and seepage of the pond have been determined. Locations hove been selected to generolly take advantage of natural depressions ond therefore minimize required excavation. y OtyofOrono DraltSurtbce Waterf4an»gemer^Pttn 4-16 Technical Background I 1 L t L L D L L L 4.3.2 Rate Control Basins Basins designed primarily for stormwater runoff rote control normally contain no water during dry weather. Tnese basins are usually located i''. a naturally occurring depression and are created by the consiruction of an embankrnen* across the natural drainageway. The controlled outlet of tn s type of basin is located to provide complete drainage of the basin. Inlets discharging into the area ore normally located at the upper end of the basin so that some overland flow exists from any storm condition. A shallow ditch-shoped drainageway should be constructed in these ponds to confine overland flow from the inlets to the outlets during storms of low intensity and during arowdown periods. In cases where development and economics allow, a small diameter pipe could be placed below t^e basin bottom to allow low flows to be carried d rectly to the outlet. This would help eliminate nuisonce flows and ere s on of the basin bottom during on average small stem. 4.3.3 Pond Outlets Special attention has been given in this SWMP to ponds with planned outlet capacities of 2 cfs or less. Ponds are often provided with a \7 outlet without flow restrictions, which results in outflow rotes greater than desired. Ponds with oversized outlets reduce the flow capacity in downstream pipes and tend to empty sooner than anticipated. This problem con be resolved v.-ith construction of outlet control structures such as orifices, which ore recommended for many ponds (see Appendix C). Outlet control ST'jctures are designed to reduce tne outflov/ from a pond to a level that is lower than with a cuivert. Outlets smaller than 1 2 ” must be reviewed and approved by City staff. >4^4.4 Treatment of Runoff Maintaining the highest quality of water practical in the surface wafer management system is one of the goals of the Orono Surface Water Management Plan. The four mam reasons for degradation of water quality are: Oty of Orono Dr»ft Surges Water Management Ptan 417 Te-c*'nk»l Background ❖ Erosion ond sedimenfation ❖ Solids and chemicals (including salts) from street sanding ❖ Composted decay around ponds ❖ Fertilizers and other chemicals The best way to achieve and maintain high water quality in wetlands and lakes is to prevent sediments, nutrients, and other maferials from entering the storm drainage system. Identification of the source and implementation of reasonable control measures can minimize the degradation of the water quality in Orono's waterbodies. 4.4.1 Control of Suspended Solids Entering Runoff Regulatory Requiramenta Erosion and sediment central during construction is critical. BMPs recommended by PCA should be followed at all construction sites. A permit issued by the PCA is required for construction activities exceeding certain thresholds. Developers are required to provide temporary settling ponds to treat site runoff. These ponds ore intended to prevent the introduction of sediment into the runoff conveyance system and are required to function until grading has ceased and adequate cover has been established. Temporary ponding during the mass-grading phase will be required to retain six inches of runoff from the entire site. Temporary ponds should be provided with emergency overflows to ensure that serious property damage does not occur during high intensity storms while the ponds ore in use. After topsoil and seeding is done on the site, a pond can be reduced so thot it retains only two inches of runoff. After 75 percent of the site has been developed, pond requirements are revised to PondNet standards as outlined in this SWMP. Sediment Removal Ideally, some sort of solids removal system should be instolled wherever a storm sewer outlets into a pond. In certain cases, settling chamber (sump) catch basins or manholes can be provided In storm sewers prior to discharging into ponds. OtyofOrono Dr^ SurtiKe Wtter Msnsgement Plan 4-18 T^hmat Background 71 1 i: [ L L iL I L L L I I L L These can pfovide effective removal of sand and gravel, which may be flushed down the storm sewer from streets or highways, but are ineffective in the removal of finer particles such as silts and clays. Use of this type of catch basin or manhole should be limited to areas that can be regularly maintained and can realistically intercept sand trom winter sanding operolions and gravel from driveways or construction. Sedimentation basins are one-cell ponds with open water to a typical mean depth of tour feel. Storage volume for discharge rale control Is acquired by a differential in water levels. The outlet operates by gravity when the water elevation of the pond is above the normal water level. This type of pond allows large suspended solids to settle below the normal water level and thus be removed from wafer draining downstream. Basin efficiency should remove particles larger then approximately 5-10 microns. Access must be provided to allow periodic removal of sediment. A solids removal structure must be regularly maintained if It is to remain effective. Since maintenance is the controlling factor in the long-term performance of sediment control measures, ponds are recommended over sump monholes. Sump manholes, if numerous, often go without maintenance. When a sediment basin outlet is located below the normal water surface, the basin can serve to confine floating solids thot may otherwise enter a downstream pond or lake. If a major spill of a hazardous product such as fuel oil occurs, it would be retained within the basin and provide a point of easy access for prompt cleanup. In addition to outfall skimming, the surface of the pond should be skimmed once or twice a year to remove floating solids. Even with the best and most expensive solids removal system, contamination of ponds and lakes will occur unless careful alfention is given during development and continually thereafter in the use of the land. Developers must utilize the best management practices to minimize erosion during the mass grading of the land and building construction. OtvofOnno Dr»n WMer Mtnagement PIsn 419 Technical Bxkground Property owners must use care in the development of their lawns and open areos. Debris is frequently raked from town oreas before and after sodd'ng and left in the street gutters which, if not cleaned up. will be washed into the storm sewer, eventually reaching ponding oreas. After development is complete, streets must be kept clean by conscientious efforts from citizens to avoid littering or poor housekeeping practices, and by frequent street sweeping to remove sand. dirt, and litter before it washes into the storm sewer system. Chemicals such as calcium chloride must be minimized in ice control programs on streets and highways. 4.4.2 Water Quality Ponds For water quolity purposes, the ideal stormwater pond has a wet storage volume greater than or equal to the volume of runoff from a 2.5-inch rainstorm under full projected watershed development conditions. Th s volume will typically satisfy NURP requirements and PondNet phosphorus removal levels. The side slopes of any pond should not be steeper than 4:1 and. where possible, the first foot below the normal water level should not be steeper than 10:1 for safety reasons. Based on the dota shown in Table 4.3. it can be assu'^ed that water quolity ponds that reduce phosphorus loading, by 60 percent under standard runoff concentrations will also reduce heavy metals by 70 percent and sediments by 90 percent. Table 4.3 Benefits of Wet Detention Ponds Pollutsnt Averaoe Reduction (%) Lead 70 Zmc 70 Bactflfta 70 Diazinon (pesUade)17 Pnthaiate 80 Setfiment 90 OtyofOrono DranSUrt^ Water Managemet^ Plan 4-20 Technical Background treotment is requirecJ befcxe droinoge into these v;etionds. in some coses these wetlands con octuolV be enhonced and utilized for stormwater purposes Py roising their water levels or through excavation, in other situotlons. simply restoring these wetlonds will provide sufficient treatment for downstreom waterbodies arxJ improve the wildlife habitat and aesthetics of the wetlond. A 5.5 Protection Strategies Wetlands within the Crty are protected by stote ond federal regulations that address filling, draining, orxJ excavation. The protection strategies in Table 6.3 protect wetlands from potentiol Impact from stormwater, which is not under federal or state regulation. Table 5.3 Wetland Protection Strategies Wetland Susceptibility Protection Strategy High Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing conditions for a 100-Year storm Susceptiblity Quality; Limit loadings to predevelopmenl loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) Moderate Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing - conditions plus 0.5’ for a 100-Year storm. Susceptibility Quality; Limit loadings to predevelopment loadings multiplier by 2 (0.28 Lbs/AcATr). Slight Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing conditions plus 1.0* for a 100-Year storm. Susceptibiirty Quality: Limit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb). Least Quantity; No quantity requirement. Susceptibility Quality; Limit concentration to 225 ppb. OtyofOrooo DnftSuficeWtterMantgtmentPlan 5-6 l¥eO»nds Pond outlet structures should be designed to skim me surface flow from ponds discharging into high quality waterbodies, and ponds in areas prone to spills that can contaminate the environment. Skimming the flow can remove undesi'oble floating debris and substances. The design velocity of water flowing through the orifice should be I fps for storm events less than a five-year storm event to prevent suction ot bottom sediment or floating debris from above. It is desirable to create a pond with natural appearance. Figure 4.4 is an example of a more naturally shaped nutrient removal basin. Also included in this figure are guidelines for wetland and upland plantings in and around the cond. These plantings will improve the treatment efficiency of the pond as well as providing better aesthetics and wildlife habtat. Vegetative Filter Basina Basins identified as vegetative filler basins are inte''ded to be designed as three-cell pond systems. The first two cells should be similar to a nutrient removal basin. The third ce' should be a shallow, highly vegetated cell containing wetland species with high nutrient and pollutant uptake character sr>s. Submerged berms must be incorporated into the cesign to promote plug flow throughout the pond. Tne thira cell should be terraced to provide a mean depth of 0-2 feet. Tne maximum water level fluctuation for the 10-year, 24-hour storm should generally not exceed two feet to protect veaeta‘Ion in the third cell. This will require some additional mode Ing be performed once specific development data is available. Wetland mitigation and banking credits may be aoilabie from wetlands created from this type of bas'n. Ru es of WCA and the Corps of Engineers should be consulted during final design to determine the availability of wetland credits and specific design requirements 4.4.3 Alternative Water Quality Improvement Methods If the topography of the development or lot allows for a water quality pond, a water quality pond will be required. However, a pond may not be possible on some sites. The treatment of CtyofOrooo OnttSurt»aWait»Hanigmm*PI» 4-22 Techrycat Background L I L L L L L L L typical TRgc; =J^NT!^JC ARQJNO PONtSS NOTE- PLANTIN':? SHOLLD BE A M'NIMUM CP 3 0' HORlZO'.*i..V FROM TmE NWL •=-:g =LA.\r\-s L L COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE (CA lPER) BLACK WILLOA So/'^ /tiffro 1’MIN RED & Silver maple dt 4ce' $3CChor>num 1’MIN GREEN ASM rrcmnus pennsyt^n ca 1“MIN BuR OA<C^e'VuS macroco'po 1'MIN p :\o Plan TINGS COMMON NAME sciENT'r': name depth of PLANTING (R) OlANT.NC rate (ROCTSTOOK/PCNO ACREAGE) RIVER Bulrush Senpus totals 00-30 200 sorrsTEM B ulrush Sc>rp^/i .3'Out 05-30 300 BUR-REED Sporgonijfr t.yco'pufn 00-1.0 200 BROAD-LEAVED ARROWHEAD Sagittorz ct fo/c 0 0-2 5 ICO HARDSTEM BULRUSH Sc>rpuS 2 C-3 0 20C total 1000 NOTE: INOIVIOUAL SPEOES SHOULD BE C=:.3EO N CLUMPS OF 3-5 PLANTS ^iTH 10 FOOT SPACING. FOR UPLAND SEEDING BETWEEN THE NWL AND HWL USE MNDOT SEED MIX 25A. FOLLOW MNDOT SEEDING PROCEDU=^ES FO.n NATIVE GRASS SEED-NG. POND PLANTING PLAN ORONO. MINNESOTA FIGURE 4.4 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN \IJ»\'3Me363\C*0\E(l0\r39SJ/.'2 0*C -K '0-2-03 iJi Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik d Associates engintmn A ArcMtactt runoff from these sites should remain a high priority. Therefore, alternative methods for water quality treatment should be put in place. For the purpose of this SWMP. alternative water quality improvement methods refer to a set of practices and/or devices that do not rely solely on conventional ponding methods to treat surface water runoff. These methods can be used in conjunction with ponds or as stand-alone solutions. Stormwater filters typically include the following common elements: 1. Utilize some kind of filtering media (e.g., sand, gravel, peot) 2. They often incorporate a vegetative component 3. They are generally to be used for areas of five acres or less 4. They are not Intended for volume or rate control 5. Most are offline Design Consideratione The following topics must be considered when designing a successful stormwater filter: ❖ Inflow should be regulated to divert or allow the desired amount of flow into the system ❖ There should be some level of debris/coarse material removal prior to discharge into the system The appropriate media should be selected for the desired pollutant removal, hydraulics, and to avoid clogging ❖ Outflow should be directed to the correct conveyance system Most of the methods are fairly simple, low cost, and low maintenance. Examples range from maintaining a vegetated buffer strip along shorelines to installation of a mechanical device in areas with limited space. Below is a discussion of the general categories of alternative methods. Some specific examples are given, but there may be other/new methods in the future that fall into a given category. Also see Figure 4.5. OtyofOrono OnttSml^ water Mantgmmt Plan 4-24 TecMcat Background y < L >' B -I 1 Ji I II v,9.rnm . L..^ L.-, L__ L WATER QUALITY ALTERNATIVES Cir.' OF ORONO. MN r.URrACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN I 3 hVIff. 10 1/-00 FIGURE 4.5 111 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers ft Architects 11 Each site should be evaluated according to the tollowing guidelines to determine the appropriate alternative. • Space consumption • Minimum head ot two teet (up to 8 feet) • Maintenance • Flow quantity • Cost • Soil conditions • Expected pollutant removal Biofiltration Syatems These systems (biofilters) function by slowing down or retaining small flows for a short period of time to remove some level of pollutants from the runoff. Basically, runoff flows through an area of dense vegetation. Ideally, the vegetation consists of native, deep-rooted grasses and forbs. If a biofilter were put in place in a turf situation, it would be best if the grass were not treated, irrigated, or mowed frequently. Biotilters shoutd be designed to withstand the effects of high flows and allow for safe conveyance. Following are a few examples: ❖ Vegetated channels o Drainage channel o Grass channel o Dry or wet swale •> niter strips and buffer strips Bioretention and Media Filtration Syatems Bioretention and media filters (see Table 4.4) are typically small excavated areas, such as a sub-cut channels or trenches, that have a perforated pipe mostly buried within the media. They function by allowing water to slowly pass through the filter to remove pollutants. Following are a few examples: ❖ Bioretention filter (parking lot) ❖ Sand filters (surface, underground, perimeter) ♦ Organic filters (typically peat or compost) ♦ Pocket sand filter ❖ Submerged gravel filter OtyotOrono Dn/tSurtfceWiter Management Ptin 4-26 Techncaf Background I 11 L J I L I L [ L Roadside Settings Biofillers and media filters can be reconfigured to be suited for implementation in certain situations along the roads o*’ Orono. Higher rates and volumes of flow, as well as additions pollutant levels and other factors associated with roos.vay runoff should be taken into consideration. Example s'tuatior.s include median islands, wide right-of-way, and situa* ons like CR 15 between Tanager Lake and Browns Bay. No dcta reloting to the effectiveness of these methods in those situations was found. Table 4.4 Bioretention and Media Filtration Methoda L Altemattva Nutrtofit Ramoval Coarse t Fins Sediment Removal 1 Maintenance Interval 1 Description L FUter/Bufftr Stripa Yes Coarse 1 5 years 1 A minimum of j *5-30 should be rsstricted from ' movtxg L Araaa Yes Coarse and Fine 10 years f 1 30' V. se ; -.egetabo'* media c-!d/or tcpsoil. j 1 taye's 1 jnde'5'ound : d'amage system L Biorttontion andMMtIa Fiirsrt Yes Coarse and Fine 10 years 30 V, de vegetabon. *.:p501 a-d ’of filter meoia. .nde'g round d'amage system Mechanical Devicea These devices (see Table 4.5) are ideal for situations whic.^'. space is a limitation. Mechanical devices are typicalusea in situations of greater than 30 percent Imperviousness but wiin limited capacity for treatment of large impervious areas. Tn s can be compensated by utilizing these devices in ser es. or in combination with bioretention or biofiltering practices OtyofOrono OnttSurfxe Wtter Management Pi»n 4^27 Technical Sackgrevrd Table 4.5 Mechanical Devices 1 Alternative "Flrat Flu»h" Davice Stormcaptor Stormtroat Syatam V2 B1 Stomiwatar Traatmant Syatam Nutrient Removal Coarse / Fine Sedinoent Removal Coarse Coarse and Firw Coarse and Fine Coarse Maintenance Interval Yearly As needed 3-5 years As needed Description Manhole structure underground system ' NWnttnanc* costs should b« considered Lake Frontage Settings Lakefront settings ore an opportunity for property owners to minimize impacts to their respective lake or boy. Variations of the methods described above, with oquotic/wefland plants, con be utilized in these situations. Lakefront methods improve water quality in a number of ways, including protecting the shoreline from erosion, trapping nutrients before entering a waterbody, and minimizing migration of pollutants into the main body of wafer. A side benefit is on attractive lakefront setting that provides habitat for o variety of fish and wildlife. Tabis 4.5 Lake Frontage Tschniquas OtyofOrono Dnft&Ktace WMer Management PIsn 4-28 TecMcal Background i I Altarnaliva Nutriant Ramoval Coarta / Fin# Sadimant Ramoval Mainttnanca Intarval Daacription Aquaacaping Yes Coarse 2 yaars Aquabc plantings along shoreline 1 Shoralina ' Flltar/Buffar Strips Yes Coarse 5 years A minimum of 15 -30 should be restricted from mowing Landacaping Yes Coarse 2 years Grade agamst flow, avoid direct runoff, longer travel time Shoralina Wat/Finrabon Piantinga Yes Coarse ar^d Fine 1 5 years Two-foot wide wet ditch with aquabc and wetland plants L 5. Wetlands Management L L L L L The terrain In most of Oforx) con be describeo os gently rotting, consisting of steep, short slopes and numerous depressions, many of which contain ponds or wetlands Wetlands provide a variety of services (called -functions" in this report) valued by the City and its residents. Wetlarxls are a part of the natural surface vrater system in the City, and help to maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, provide food ond hoo.tot for wildlife, and provide open spaces and natural landscapes many residents enjoy. A partial wetland inventory was conaucted as part of the S'^VMP. The wetland inventory is a strategic effort by the City to establish the location, type, and size of wetiarxis within the City. The irrventorv provided the bosis to assess the functions ond reioted values of a potion of the City's wetlands, and to identify opportunities to enhofKe the City's wetiorxl base One outcome of this effort was the developrrtent of storm water protection standards to presehe the ecologicoi integrity of the City's v/ettands os undeveloped oreos become developed in odditon. this effort will allow the City to develop buffer strip standards for v/etiands os per the requirement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ^5.1 Water Quality Impacts to Wetlands Water quality plays a significant role in the overall quality of a wetland. When the quality of the incoming woter declines, the wetlands plant community may change to fewer numbers of species and retain only those species that are tolerant of high nutrient and sediment foods. Once a wetlands plant community is changed, the wetland's character and ecosystem will change, often to a less valuable system in terms of biodiversity, habitat for wildlife, and aesthetic enjoyment Urbon development con degrade wetiond systems. With the passage of wetland protection leg^lation at the federal and state level and more frequent use of water quality ponding, the rate of degrodation has been greatly slowed. However, with Intensive land development and ogricuiturai proctices. there continues to be some degradation of wetlands. The focus of the wetland legislation hos been to preserve the volues ond functions of the wetlonds. OtfOfOrvno OmtSutfioe Management Plan 5-i mtanOs I! 4 5.2 Water Quahtitt impacts to Wetlands In tne recent post, surface water manogement plans have protected wetlands from nutrients but not water (luctuotlor^ or durotion of inundation, m foct. it wos common to use wetlands to reduce flooding potential through sizing storm sewer pipes to maximize bounce and detention time m wetlonds. In 1 994 the State of Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, which Included 24 representatives from a vorlety of agencies and 2 representatives from cities, wrote a document called GuK/once For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmett Runoff Impacts To Wetlands. This document Is based on a literature search and input from the Storm Water Advisory Group. The findings of the Storm Water Advisory Group were that there is a brood range of tolerance omong wetlands to urbon stormwoter Input. Sonne wetlonds (e g., bogs and fer^) ore sensitive to ony disturbance and will show signs of degrodation with even low-ievel inputs of urbon stormwater. On the other harKl. some wetlonds (e g., floodplain forests) ore better odopteO to handle the ftucruatlng water levels and influx of sediment often associated w th urban storm water /i 5.3 A ssessment of Wetlands As stated earner, the City's current objective Is to protect ond/or enhance wetlands thot may be directly affected by future stormwater discharge when development and redevelopment occurs. Therefore, only those wetlands located within tv^nty feet of a proposed or existing stormwater outlet pipe were inventoried os part of the SWMP. The City Intends to look at the remaining wetlands as funding opportunities become avoiiabie. 5.3.1 Stormwater Protection Assessment The Guidance For Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts To Wetionds^NOs the source nnateflal for the determination of wetlond sensitivity to stormwater. This document classifies \wetlonds by their susceptibility to urbon stormwater Inputs The categories ore divided into highly susceptible, moderately susceptible, slightly susceptible, ond least susceptible. A copy of wettond community descriptions for eoch susceptibriry class os described by the GiMonce For Evc^uattng Urban Storm» ayoTOrono DnHSurtbceWMarManagmen(PI»n 5-2 WtHtnds I I I L L II L L L L L L L Water and Snowmett Rurx>ff ^pacts To WetlarKis \% presented in Appendix H. Each category describes different wetland types Including piont communities orKl hydrology. The wationds' sensitivity to urtDon stormwater Input Is deperxlent on the v/etlorkd type (Circulor 39) and the compositron of Its plont community. 5.3.2 Planning Assessment A secondory goal of the wetlarxj Inventory was to help the City make planning and Wetland Corrservotion Act decisions. In support of the secondary goal, o function and related value assessn^ent was completed. The Informatbn collected from this assessment was used to develop a ciossificotion for buffer strip standards based on the functions and related values of a wetland. A buffer strip is dn urbisturbed vegetated area adjacent to a wetland that is an Integral part of protecting the wetland ecosystem through filtering pollutants and providing adjacent habitat. The current Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards for buffer strip wbths are based on wetland size and dre presented in Table 5. l Table 5.1 Buffer Stripe for Varying Wetland Sizee Size of Wetland Width of Buffer Zones 0-1 acre 1 16.5 feet 1 - 2 5 acres 20 feet 2 5 - 5 acres 25 feet > 5 acres 35 feet 5.3.3 Functional Assessment The New Hampshire Method, slightly modified to adopt it for the conditions present In Ororx), was used for the furrctional ossessment of wetlands. MnRAM (Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology) was then shortened ond used in conjuration with the New Hampshire Method. The intent of combining these methods was to oibw for city staff to assist In future assessments of wetionds. The New Hampshire Method Is designed to be “user friendly and is speclfbdity set up so non-scientists con fill out the method. The MnRAM is a technicol method that needs to be filled out by o OtyofOrono OrfftSurt^ Water MtntgementPlin 5-J Wettands A u wetland scientist it was necessory to Include MnRAM because the New Hampshire Method does no* adequatelv oddress norol diversity. Floral diversHy is an imccronl factor when making decisior»s regarding stormwater orKi buffer strip protection. The New Hompshire Method onov.^ for a comparison between v^etionds wItWn a project boundary. It Is one of the few methods tnat gives on ocnjol number rankng from 0 to 1. with 0 being the lowest and 1 beng the highest. Tr^is allows for easy comparison of wetland functional values. Tne method addresses up to 14 functorxji values of wetionds. which are listed In Table 5.2. ii Table 5.2 Functional Values Under the New Hampshire Method 1.Ecological integrity 8.Groundwater use potential *" 2.Wildlife habitat 9.Sediment trapping 3.Fish habitat 10.Nutrient attenuation ^ 4.Educational potential 11.Shoreline anchoring * 5.Visual/aesthetic quality 12.Urban quality of life 6.Water-based recreation 13.Historical site potential 7.Flood control potential 14.Noteworthiness Of these 14 functional values, tn-e City chose the foliowir^g three for ossessment of tr.e wetlands Identified for the SWMP: • Ecological Integrity • vyiidlife Habitat • VisuaVAesthetiC Quality The Ecotogk:oi integrtfyf\}VcVc/r\o> value helps determine the degree of human influences on T.e wetland. The Wildlife functional ve ue does not attempt to evaluate the wetland as habitat for a particular \wiidiife species. Instead. It ossesses the overoll suitoblfity of a wetland for that group of wildlife species that is associated with wet arxJs. atyofOnno One surma water Mmagemtnt Plan 5-r Witlands i I t L L L II L L L rL L The Visual-Aesthetic QjafityionVs the wei:ancfs scenic beauty. It foclors In :ne how the wetland looks from tre pfirrxyy viewing location. A summofy ot the functonol volue indices tor eoch ot the wetlands is presented in bar graph form In Appendjr I. The MnRAM was used to deterr.^9 the floral diverslty/integrity of tne wetland. A 5.4 Stormwater Protection Classification FOR Wetlands The goal of the marxjgement strategy is to maintain or enhance the ecoicg col lntegfl^’ of the wetlands n the City The foiiowtng wetland management classifications and orotection strategies are based on a wetlands susceptibility to stornr«v;ater Impocts (i.e., water fluctuation. Inundation period, ana nutrient loading). Wetlands within the City were clossified under four cotegories; High Stormwater Susceptibility. Moderate Stormwater Susceptibility. Slight Stormwater SuscepUbility. and Least Stornnwater Susceptibility. 5.4.1 High Stormwater Susceptibility Wetlands not fall under this category a*e nghiy susceptible to both quontity and quolity impacts which can occur from stormwater aitd therefore nave the highest degree of protection. 5.4.2 Moderate Stormwater Susceptibility These wet'onds have characteristics that rr.ake them moderately susceptic 9 to quantity and quality Impacts that can occur from stormwote' This ciossi' cation provides for a protection strategy that Is less stringent than wetlands In the category of High Stormwater SusceptiD-i.ty but provides the r>eeded p'otecton to maintoln the choracte''stics found in these wetlonds. 5.4.3 Slight Stormwater Susceptibility These we* ends are siighty susceptible to mpacts that can occur from storm^vater orxj thus hove less strirtgent protection tnon Moderate Stormwater Susceptibility, but they hove protection strategies sufficient to protect their charoc*erlstics. 5.4.4 Least Stormwater Susceptibility These ciossificatiorts were given to wetlands that ore degraded (e.g.. cutivated. nnonotyplc reed carxjry grass) or lack wetland choroctenstics. These wetlonds have chorocterlstlcs that cannot be impacted by stormwater. No prior quantity and limited quality OfyofOrono Dn/tSurt^¥lltterHan»genmntPtan 55 Wetitndi B treatment is required before droirxjge into these v/otionds. In some coses these wetlands con octuolly be enhanced and utilized for stormwater purposes by raising their water levels or through excavation. In other situations, simply restoring these wetlands will provide sufficient treatment for dovmstreom waterbodies and Improve the wildlife habitat and aesthetics of the wetland. A 5.5 Protbction Strategies Wetlands within the City ore protected by stote ond federal regulations that address fillirvg. draining, and excavation. The protection strategies in Toble 5.3 protect wetlands from potentlol impact from stormwater, which is not under federal or state regulation. Table 5.3 Wetland Protection Strategiea Wetland Suaceptfbility Protection Strategy High Susceptiblity Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing conditions for a 100-Year storm Quality: Limit loadings to predevelopmenl loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) Moderate Susceptibility Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing conditions plus 0.5* for a 100-Year storm. Quality: Limit loadings to predeveiopment loadings muitiplie. by 2 (0.28 Lbs/AcATr). Slight Susceptibility Quantity: Maintain HWL bounce at or below existing conditions plus 1.0’ for a 100-Year storm. Quality: Limit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb). Least Susceptibility Quantity: No quantity requirement. Quality: Limit concentration to 225 ppb. OtfotOrono Dmlt Surface Water MsfugementPUn 5-6 Wetlands I t I I n H L L L L A 5.6 Wetland R estoration/Emhancements Fouf wetland complexes have been identified as high prioflty restotation/enhancement sites. Additional wetlands will likely be Identified at the time of a complete wetlond inventoiv for the entire City. Funding sources for the wetland restoration/enhancement sites can come from a voriety of sources that include: • The City's Capital Improvement Progrom • BWSR progrom to reploce wet:arxJs lost due to project Impocts on existing public roads • DNR Conservation Partners and Environmental Partnership Grants • DNR Metro Greenwoys Grant • Soli and Water Conservation District Grants • Minnehoho Creek Watershed District A summary of eoch of the wetland restorotiorVenhancement sites follows. Erx>ugh information wos collected to begin the process of applying for grants. The cost presented in the following wetland restoration site descriptions are approximate and may be modified if odditonol information becomes available. 5.6.1 Wetland PC-L-31 Approximate Site Size: 10 Acres Township 118N Range 23 W Section 31 (See Wettand and Waterbody Classification Map for location) Watershed Name; Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed Number: 20 City Watershed Nome: Painter Creek General Description of Site This wetland is located In the upstream portion of the Painter Creek Watershed. A tributory of Painter Creek bisects the wetland. McCulley Road Is located at the south end of the wetland Approxlmatety 85 percent of the wetland is a wet meadow and 1 5 percent is a lowland hardwood swamp. The wet meadow Is dominated by reed canary grass wttn patches of willow located in the middle. The lowlond hordwood swamp is dominated by wtHow and cottonwood. OtyofOrono DnltSurfSoe water Mmtagmnent Plan 57 WeOvids The Polrrtef Creek rributoty has been ditched thrcxjgh the wetlarKJ. A lateral ditch connects with the Painter Creek tributary. These ditches hove portto ly drained the wetkjrxj arxl contributed to the degraded condition of the basin. Rmstontion Obj9ctiv9 and Proposed ConMtnxHon This site is high profile due to Its location adjacent to the Luce Line Troii and within land publicly owned by the City. The goals for wetland restoration will include the following; • Control runoff rotes to Painter Creek • Restore rtotive oiverslty of wetland vegetation. irx:tucfing wet meadow and emergent morsh plont communities • Enhorrce the wildlife ar»d aesthetic viewing of the wetiond for the public using the Luce Lirte Trail ■ Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corridor 2. Complete two controlled bcvns of the wetiond site to aid In controlling the reed canory gross. Provide o spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed canary grass. 3. Plant a diverse mix of wet meadow grasses and forbs in the wet meadow. OtyofOvno DnnSurfKeWMarManagtmentPlan >* ij Slept In th9 propound w^Unnd mtontton tneludn die following: ^ \. Construct a series of low berms across the ditch to eliminate ( the scope end effect of the ditch. - 5-8 Wet/tndt L L L L 11 L Table 5.4 Project Cost for Wetland PC-L-31 L L L L Tatks ^j t Oesciiplion Approximate Coat Surveys |Field and topographic sunrey of site $ 3,000 Design Complete site design including draft plan and final construction documents $ 8,000 Meetings I surrounding $ 1,300 Permits 1 I Obtain necessary permits $ 2,000 Complete two prescribed burns and spot herbicide treatment to control exotics S 3,000 Restoration Seed with wet meadow mix $ 15,000 1 Construction of low berms across ditch $30,000 Approximate Project Coat 162,300 _ai(See Wettond I 5.6.2 Wetland PC-M-31 (Approximate Site Size: 13.5 Acres) Township nSN Ronge 23 W Section ond Woterbodv Classification Map for location) Watershed Name: Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed Number: 20 City Wotershed Nome: Painter Creek General Dnsertption of Sito: This wetiarrO is located in the upstream portion of the Painter Creek Wotershed. A tributary of Painter Creek bisects the wetiarxl. McCulley Rood is located at the rrorth end of the wetiarKl The wetland contains the following approximately communities and species. • 40 percent Shallow Morsh - cattail, lake sedge, water piantom • 40 percent Wet Meodow - reed canary grass, stirrgrng rvettle. giant goldenrod, carex spp. • 20 percent Shrub swamp - willow OtyofOrono Omt Surtax Water Managment Plan S-9 »Mands !1 The Painter Creek tritxjtary has been ditched through the wetland. A lateral ditch connects with the Painter Creek tributary olorrg the trail. Tnese ditches hove portioiiy drained the wetland and contributed to the degraded condition of the basm. l?wforif/Ofi Otii9CtiV9 mnd Construction Rroposod: This site is high profile due to its locaton odjocentto the Luce Line Troll and within land publicly owned by the City. The goals for wetland restoration wSl incluoe the following: ii • Control runoff rates to Pointer Creek ■ Restore rxitlve diversity of wetland vegetation. lrx:luding wet meadow ond emergent marsh plant communities • Enhance the vrtldiife and oesihetlc viewing of the wetlond for the public usirtg the Luce Line Trai • Enhance the Painter Creek wildlife corridor L Stops in tho proposod wotlsnd rostorstlon Includo the following: 1 . Construct a control structure at the outlet of the wetland. 2 Complete two controlled bums of the wetlarxj site to old in controlling the reed canary grass and cattail Provide a spot _ treatment of herbicide to further control reed conory grass. ~ 3. Plant a c*versemlx of wet meodow grosses ond foitx In the wetmeodow.-1 U atyofOnno DnltSurlSaWeterMoogrnmtPOn 5-10 mtPndt I I E L [ L L I L L L L Tabit 5.5 Prpfact Coat For PC-M-31 TaaKa Description Approximate Coat Surveys Field and topographic sun/ey of site |$ 2.000 Design 1 Complete site design including draft plan and final construction documents 1 $ 4.000 Meetings Meetings with City staff and surrounding landowners $ 1,300 Permits Obtain necessary permits $ 2.000 Complete 2 prescribed burns and spot herbicide treatment to control exotics $ 3.000 Restoration Seed with wet meadow mix S 7.500 Construction of control structure $15,000 Approximate Project Coat $34,800 5.6.3 Wetland LL-G-26 (ONR 834W) (Appfoximate Ste Size: 14.5 Acres) Township 118N Range 23 W Section 26 (See Wetlond and WoterDody Clossiflcotion Mop for location) Watershed Name; Mississippi River (Metro) Watershed Number: 20 City Watershed Name: Long Lake Genera/ Oeacr/pf/on of Sit9: This wetland is located in the lower portion of the Long Loke watershed lust upstream of Long Lake. This location provides for on excellent opportunity for water quality treatment. It currently has a ditch that is approximately 10 feet wide orxl exterxJs down the center of the wetland. Water flows through the ditch ra*her than across the entire wettarKi. creating a concfitlon in which tne wetlond has limited nutrient removal capabilities. The wetland area is not urxjer City ownership, however, the topographic relief to the v^tlond would confine the limits of the project to the wetland. The atyofOnno Draft Surt^ Vi^ttr Management POn 511 WeOands 11 wettood Is cunently a shollow nrxjfsh ond wet meodow dominated bv reed canary grass ond cattail. Rmstoration Ot(/«cdVM tmd Canttruction Pnpo*9d: • Restore hydrology to the wetland bosin with a control structure at the outlet (rrKiy require a berm upstream of the driveway, dependent on driveway etevoNon). • Provide water quality treatment for Long Lake. • Enhance the wBdfife and aesthetics furxittoriol values of the wetlond. • Restore the wetlond plant community along tne frlr>ges of the wetland. Sfpn in th9 proposed wttmnd r—tontion inciudn die following: 1. Construct a control structure at the outlet of the wetlond. 2. Complete two controled bums of the wetland site to aid in controlling the reed canary gross and cattail orrd increase the nutrient uptake of the wetland with new growth of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to furtrver control reed canary grass. 3. Seed orxs/or plant emergents along the fringe of the wetlarxj. OtyofOrano Dn/tSurtkceWttw Management Ptmt I: 0 L 5-12 Wetlands 1*'—-r*' Tab!* 5.6 Protect Coat for Wetland U-G-26 L L L L L L L ■ Componanta Deacription Approximate Coat Sun/eys Field and topographic survey of site S 2.000 Design Complete site design including draft plan and final construction documents $ 5,000 Permits Obtain necessary permits S 2.000 Meetings Meetings with City staff and surrounding landowners 1 i $ 1.300 1 1---------------------1 Land and Legal Purchase of easements around wetland or access to control structure j n ' $ 9,300 ; k -1 Complete 2 prescribed bums and spot herbicide treatment to control exotics 1 $ 3.000 1 Restoration Seed and/or plant fringe areas j $ 7.500 1 Construction of control structure 1 S 20.000 Approximate Project Coat $50,100 — -------1 —.——I 5.6.4 WetUmdSB-e-31 (DNR 1 40P) (Appfoxfrnate Wetlond Size: 65 Acres / Restoration Site 35 Acres) Township 11BN& 117N Range 23 W Section 31 &3 (See Wetland and Waterbody Classiflcatlon Mop for location) Watershed Name: Mississippi Rtver (Metro) Watershed Number (If known); 20 City Watershed Nome: Stubbs Bay Gtnara/Daacffptfon ofSif: This wetland is located in the lower portion of the Stubbs Bay watershed lust upstream of Stubbs Bay and south of the Luce Line Troll. This location provides an excellent opportunity for water quairty treatment ond enharx:ed aesthetics ond wiidMe habitat for the users of the Luce Line Troll, it currently has a nr»aln ditch with two laterals. The cStches have partially drained the wet meadow portion atyofOmno t3nttSUrtiK» mttrMtfugementn^ 5IJ Wettinds of the wetland. Wotet f ows through the cfitch rather tnon ocross the entire wetland, creating a condition In which the wetland has Bmited nutr.ent removal capobHIties. The portion of the weticnd that should be considered for restoration is a 35-ocre wet meaoow community that is predomirxantiy reed canary gross. There ore currently Isolated portions of higher quality sedge meadow that contoin takebank sedge, blue joint grass, jo® pyeweed. and boneser. A tomarock swamp Is located in the northwest portion of the wetlond at a higher elevation (approximately 033 • 836) tnon the wet meadow (833) Raising water levels to restore tne wet meadow would r^eed to be limited to the 833 elevation to protect the tamarock swamp from inundation. Permonent inundation in tomorock swamps can cause mortoWy. The wetland area is not urxler public ownership and one driveway crosses the wettand to gam access to a house that is located between the Luce Line Trail and the wetland. Rutontion Obj9Ctiv9s and Construction Proposod: ■ Provide water Quality treatment for Stubbs Bay ■ Enhance the wildlife and aesthetics functional values of the wetland • Restore the wetlana plant community within the reed canary grass portion of wefcnd • Restore hydrology to the wetland basin with a series of ditch blocks and a berm with a control structure. Stops in tho proposod wotlsnd rostorotion inciudo tho following: 1. Constax:t o berm and control structure at the outlet of the wetlond. 2.Complete two controlled bums of the wetlond site to aid In controlling the reed conary grass and increose the nutrient uptake of the weiand with new growm of vegetation. Provide a spot treatment of herbicide to further control reed carory grass. 3. Seed selected portions of the wettand with wetland grass ondforbs. I OyofOcno DnftSurlSa outer MantgmentPPn I 5-14 wetlands L Tabto 6.7 Protect Cost f6r Wsttand SB^-31 L I L I L i L L L 6. System Description A 6.1. QBNBRAL The Clfy of Orono wos divided Into eighteen mojcf d'Qtnoge districts os shown on the Surtoce water System Mop (at the oock of the report) arxj are designated os shown in Table 6.1 TabIsS.I Major Drainagt Districts Drainaga district Abbreviatioii Drainaga District Abbraviadon - Browns Bay ;BB Maxwe*i Bay !MB Carman Bay |CB 1 Mooney Lake i 1 MO j Crystal Bay CY r , Nortn ATn [NA I Forest Lake FL Painter C'eek .PC FrerKh Lake |FR 1 Peavey La<e PL -j Hadley Lake HA Smitf' 58/SM 1 Lafayette Bay LF 1 \ Stubbs Say SB Lake Classen LC j j TanagerLa<e T*- i Long Lake LL ; , West Arm WA 1 All drolnoge districts ore within the Minnehaha Cree< Watershed District. Each of these mojor drainage districts was men further subdivided into subdistricts that are Identified first Cv the d'oinoge district In which they reside followed by o number. Generally, tbe numbering system storts at the upstream end of tre district and numerically Increases toward the district outlet. T'^e oreos for these drainage subdistricts are presented in Appendix A Ponding oreos. storm sewer locations, and open channels ore shown on the Surface Water System Map. The storm sewer conveyance system is broken into segments by ncde designotions. These nodes identify the odcStlon of flow into the svstem from drainage areas or pond outflows. The rxxJe-by-node capocity ar>d the size of the existing and proposed storm sewer pipes is presented m Appendix B. Pond data, including type, tributary area, pond oreo. 1 I i OCfOfOnno Dr^5urflKeW»ttrH»n»gmentPldn 6-1 System Oexriptlon storoge volume, normoi ond Ngh v/oter levels, ond pond outflows ofe presented in Appendix C. These pond design details ore presented for the tOO-year event. In oddition, pond normal water levels, high water levels, and peair outfiov/s ore presented in Appendix D for the 1 -year and 10-year e/ents. Water quality pond data ore presented In Appendix E The pipe sizes, channel sizes, and copacit es Indicated for each segment of the proposed system ore based on assumed pipe and channel grades. While the pipe size and grade can be changed In the final design, the pipe capacity of each segment should not be changed without additional hydraulic arvdlysis. Peak porxj outflow rates given in Aopend ces C and D are based on dtechorge through either a pipe or special outlet structure with the pond at the high water level, in the case of a two-stage, or other, outlet structure, suitable comouter modeling of the finoi design Is required. A 6.2 Browns Bay ❖ Drainage Area: 408 ocres ❖ Number of Ponds; 21 ❖ Major Lakes: Browns Bay Browns Bay district is located in soutneostern Ororo. The Woodhitl Gdf Course occupies o rrxjiorlty cf the ditrict. The foDowIng is a summary of special issues and recommendations for this district. OtyofOmno DnltSt0l^W»ttrM»ntgenmiPI$n I !1 The storage volume and outflow rote of a pond should be preserved for eoch ponding orea to successfully maintain the Integrity of the storm droinoge system. Pond areas and water levels may change in the final design of me ponding area to best suit the proposed development. Core must be exercised so that outflow rates do not impede the performonce of the downstream drainage facilities. 62 System Descriteon 6.2.1 Water Quantity BB-P9 - During the 100-year storm event, the adjocent driveway wiD old as an emergency overflow to prevent structural damoge to the neorby homes. It is recommended tho: the driveway remain at its L L L L L L L L L L current elevation This overtoixJ drainoge Is directed into the WoodhiH Counrr/ Club Golf Course. BB-Pl 5 hos 0 1 CC-yeor HWL of 933.7. which results In Fox Street being overtopc^ by oppfoximately 3.5 inches. To ollevlote the flooding It is recommended that Fox Street be raised by 1.0 foot. 6.2.2 Water Ouall^ BB-P2 - This pond discharges into BB-P4. which hos been classified os a high storm .voter susceptibity wettar>d. The nutrient discharge should be restricted to 0.14 Ibs/oc/yeor to prevent degrodation of this pristine wet ond. BB-P4 - This wos Classified os a high stormwater susceptibility wetlorxa. curreTv located In a golf course. Water quolily ponds hove been proposed to treat runoff prior to discharge into this wettarrd. A 6.3 C arman Bat ♦ OfOirKsge A'rO. 146 ocres 6 Number of =oncis; 7 6 Major Lakes Cormon Bay Cormon Boy c s"‘ct is icccrted In the southern portion of the City. The droirxige f cm this district drains directly into the bay by overland drain cge or through piping systems. The foltowlrrg is a summory of tne specbl Issues arid recommerxJations for this district. 6.3.1 Water Quantity CB-P2 - The pcr<jng lot located just to the north of this ponding areo may hove mirc' flooa ng due to larger storm events. CB-P4 - This is c snrx3li oepresslon located In a homeowners yard. The drainage c ea doesn't require a trunk storm sewer to be installed. Ho\ve/er. If tne homeowner Is having flooding problems during large stc^m events, drain tile may help alleviate the problem. CB-P5. P7. P8. =9 - All of these ponding oreas have been studied m the Kelly Avenue Drainoge Report, completed In January of 1995. The report suggests utiliing a smoH lift station to remedy the flooding probie.ms. Please refer to that report for further detofls. atyofOnno DnttSurlha Wtter Msnsjemer^ Plan 5-J Systtm Description CB-Pl 0 - This is a smoll depression located in a homeownei's yord. The droinoge area doesn't require a trunk storm sewer to be Instaned. if the homeowner is having flooding problems, drain tile rrxjy help alleviate the problem. CB-Pl 1 - Cunentty this small depression is located within a park. It is recommended that both a water quality and quantrty pond be constructed to treat the runoff from this district prior to discharging directty Into the lake. If the City desires reducing flooding in the pork. 3* 15" RCP pipes should be installed. 6.3.2 Water Quality CB-3 drains directty info Carman Boy causing sedimentation and erosion control problems. This pipe network drains a large amount of impervious surfoces. To decreose the omount of poUutonts entering Cormon Bay. It Is strongly recommended thot o multiple cell water quality pond be Installed. A 6.4 CRYSTAL BAT 6 Drainage Area: 22 acres 6 Number of Ponds: 2 6 Major Lakes: Crystal Boy Crystal Boy district is located in the south central section of the City. Most of this district is located along shoreline and drains directty Into the boy. The following Is a summary of special Issues ond recommerrdatlons for this district. 6.4.1 Water Quantity CY-PI • Durirrg a 100-year storm event, a 21" outlet structure allows for 0.8 ft of freeboard on the odjacent roodway. The culvert grade should be evaluated cotefuliy during the reconstruction of me roadway. 6.4.2 Water Quality No specific woter quollty Issues or recommendations are Identified for this district. A 6.5 Forest Lake 6 Drairoge Area: 601 ocres (incKjding the take) 6 Number of Ponds: 15 6 MojorLokes: FaestLoke OtfOfOrono Oran Surt^ water MsnsgementPImt 6-4 System OtachpOon L L L I t L I L L L L L L Thirty-four acres from Mlnnetrlsta is routed through this dlstncf, eventually draining into the late. This distnct drains from the north through a golf course ond then into the late. A large majority of this district is currently developed. The foiiovvlng is a summaiy of the special issues and recommendations for this district. 6.5.1 Water Otiamfty FL-P33 - This area will require excavoton and cortstructlon of a berm to provide additional storage for the direct runoff ond 34 ocres outside the city Timits. Two 1 5' pipes ore recommended as outlet structures. FL-P3 - Ihe Invert of the outlet structure needs to be lowered to provide erx)ugh cover and oflow for more storage and flow copocity due to surchorging effects. FL-P4. P5. P9. and PI 0 are located on the golf course. These ponding areas will temporarily flood durirtg lorge storm events. FL-P7 - The recommended outlet for this por»d Is 2 - 18' orch pipes, m a 1 00-year storm event, there vwli be opproximoteiv 1 .7 feet of freeboard to the lowest opening of the adjacent building structure. FL-Pl 2 - The driveway separating ponds FL-P1 2 and PI 3 vrlil incu some flooding, ft is recommended that this pond size be increased to 2.1 ocre-feet. to reduce the potentiai for flooding the homeowner. The ravine located to the east should be rrx)nitored for erosion potentlol. 6.5.2 Water Quality FL-P6 hos been clossified as a least susceptible wetiarxj. in turn. It discharges Into FL-Pl 3. which is a moderotely susceptible wetland. It is strongly recommended that FL-P6 be utilized os a multi-cell pond to treat the runoff before discharging Into FL-Pl 3. A 6.6 FRENCH LAK£ 6 Drainage Area: 890 acres (Including the late) ♦ Number of Ponds: 6 Major Lakes: 32 French Late atyofOmo Dr^SUrtlKeWtterHMgementPItn &5 System Desmption I Frefx:h Loke district is kxoted in the southern holf of Orono. The area drains through a series of culverts and finally discharges into the marsh surrounding the old sewer logoon. This nxjrsh drairrs Into French Lake arxJ then into Lake Mlnrretonka. The following Is a sumnnarv of the speclol Issues and recommerxJatlons for this district. 6.6.1 Water Quantl^ FR-P2 - It is recommended that ponds FR Pl ond P2 be connected with an equalizer pipe to provide 1.6 feet of freeboard from the rood to the HWL for a 100-yeor storm event. FR-P3 - The existing 24' CMP should be replaced with o 24' RCP. This will provide 1.6 feet of freeboard between the roadway artd the HWL of the pond during a 100-yeor storm event. FR-F9 - It is recommended that a 15" orifice be Installed on the existing 36' culvert to reduce peak dischorge into downstream ponds. FR-PIO -It Is recommended that flow be maintained to 7 cfs to provide flood protection downstream FR-Pl 3 - It should be verified that the ditch olong the Luce Line Troll is maintained. FR-Pl 6 - During a 100-year storm event. 1 foot of freeboord will be provided between the HWL and the adjacent driveways. FR-Pl 8 - Excavation arrd the construction of a berm will be required to provide 12.5 acre-ft of storage. Two 18' arch outlet stajctures should be installed. FR-Pl 8 & PI9 - It Is recommended that these ponds be separated with berms. The Installotion of a rate control structure to pxovide protection downstream is recommended. FR ?21 - During a 1 OO-yeor storm event less than 1 foot of freeboard will be provided between the HWL and the adjacent driveways. PR-P22 - It is recommerxjed that 2-36* arch pipes be installed. During large storm events the roadway will act os an emergency spiiiv^. therefore Its elevatton should rrot be ottered. atyof Orono Dn/tSutfyaWHer Management fltn 6-6 System Deaaipbon L [ L L L L L L L L L L FR-P29 - During a lOO-yeor storm event opprowmately 1.2 feet of f'eeboofd will be provided for the odjocent driveways 6.6.2 Water Qualify PondsFR*Q18ondQ19arelobeledosoptionoiporxl!ng The water quality ponds labeled os optional ore kxotions where it would be ber»eflclal to have o water quoiity porxl. These locations offer an opportunity for homeowners/businesses to contribute to the quoUty of the r>earby wetlaixts/porKis by constructing a water quality porxl. The costs for these ponding areas hove DQt been Included in the cost analysis for this report A 6.7 Hadley Lake 57 acres 4 None within Orono 6 Drainage Area: 6 Number of Ponds: 6 Major Lokes: This district Is located on the northeast side of the Oty. The northern portion of this district drains Into Hadley Marsh and then into the City of Wayzoto The southern portion drains through o weiiord locoted along the Luce Line TroJ and then combines with the drainage from Hadley Marsh. The following is o summery of tne special issues and recommendations for this district. 6.7.1 Water Quantify HA-P5 - This IS a small ponding area that ixas been designated by FEMA as a floodplain. In a 100-year storm event, the east side of Chevy Chose Drive will be overtopped by opproxinxitely six inches. Due to the foct that this road is the emergency overflow. It is essentlol thot the elevation of this road not be altered. HA-P7 - This pond allows for only 0.5 ’ of freeboard from the 100- year HWL to Northgate Rood. To provide an emergency overflow for events of greater magnitude. It is recommerxJed that the rood remain ot the existing elevation. 6.7.2 Water Qualify No Specific water quality Issues or recommendations are indicated for this district. A 6.8 Lafayette Bay 6 Drainage Area: 68 acres Oty of Orono Dr^ Surface Water Nsntgement Plan 6-7 System DeempOon ❖ Numbef of Ponds: ❖ Major Lakes: 20 Lafayette Bov Lafayette Boy district Is located In south centrol Orono. The district otxits the City of Minnetonka Beoch. Since this district is odjacent to a bay. there is a significant amount of direct runoff. The following Is a summary of the speciol issues and recommendotiorTS for this district. 6.a.1 Water Quantity LF-PI - This ponding area is landlocked. LF-P3 - A portion of this ponding area Is located in the City of Minnetonko Beach LF-P4 - This depression is located in a resWenfs yard. If flooding occurs drain tile should be Installed to reduce flooding potential 6.8.2 Water Quality No specific water quality Issues or recommendotions are indicated for this district. A 6.9 L ak£ Classen ❖ Drainage A'ea: 995 acres (Including the lake) 6 Number of Ponds: 4 ❖ Major Lakes: Lake Classen The Lake Classen District is located In the north centrol portion of the City. Loke Ciossen droir»s through a series of marshes, ponds, oixt channels into Stubbs Boy. The following Is a summary of the special Issues and recommendations for this district. 6.9. t Water Quantity LC-PO - Currently Loke Ciossen discharges through 2-36* cutverts It is recommended trxit a 24- orifice be installed on the outlets to reduce the discharge downstream. LC-P3 ond LC-P6 - Currently this district contains an apple orchard. Since this oreo is zoned for Industrial sites. stobWzotion measures should be implemented on the existing channel to prevent erosion from collecting In the wetland. 1 Ofycf Orono Oran Surface Worn MonogementPian Sfstrnn Dexriioon L I L I L L I L L L L L LC-PIO - During a KX)-vecy storm event, tne driveway wi txive only 1.5 of freeboard. The drh/ewoy shouldn't be raised; It is designated as the area’s emergency spillway LC-Pl 2 - The building structue curentfy ot elevation of 996.0 wW only be provided with 1.8 ft of freeboard LC-Pl 4 - This ponding orea is landlocked. LC-Pl 7 - To provide odditlonal protection for both the roadway and homes surrounding the depression oreo. It is recommended that another 15' RCP culvert be Installed LC-Al 8 - To provide odequate dranage and freeboard protection, the mstoBotion of 2-18' RCP orch oipes is recommended. LC-P22 - This area drains by means of a ravine/swale ar»d then through 2-36' RCP arch pipes. This ravine should be monitored for erosion problems prior to developnrrent. LC-P24 - This district contoins a ravine that eventually drains Into Stubbs Bay. The ravine will only provide 1.4 ft of freeboord to the existing driveway. This driveway shouldn't be altered os It acts os on emergency spillway. This ravine should be monitored for erosion problems prior to further development. LC-P26 - This district originoiiy drained through a culvert underneath Fox Street. To reduce the flooding potential of homes on the north side of Fox Street, rt is recommended thot 2-18' arch pipes direct ainoff to the ditch system located on the south side of Fox Street. LC-P27 - The ponding aea located within this subdistrict needs to be expanded to me south. It is recommended that the outlet be replaced v4th on 18' arch pipe. LC-P28 - This pond collects most of the upstream porvilng In the northern hoif of me Loke Oossen District. A dom regu ates the rate of flow dov^reom. If the dam fa ts. It is recommended that on orifice be Instoiied on the 48" culvert to reduce the outflow velocities. 6.9.2 Water QuallQr LC-P5 has been classified as a moderately susceptible vretlond. The proposed lond use surroundir^ the wetland is commercial/industrial. It Is strongly recommended that multiple cell OtyofOrono Dn/tSui^WHerMansgementPbn 6-9 System Deaafption poods be recMfecl for the developments dschorging Into this wetland. To monitor the nutrient loadings presently dischargir^ into LC-P5. monitoring stations should be instailed at the ^t and the outlet of this wetland. LC-P5 dischorges Into LC-Pt 1. which is clossifled as a highly susceptible wetland. LC-Pl 1 has been classified os a highly susceptible wetland. To monitor the nutrient loadings presently discharging into LC-Pl 1. rrx)nitorlng stations should be ir^taiied at the inlet and the outlet of this wetland. It Is strongly recommended that multiple cell ponds be required for the developnnents discharging Into this wetland. LC-Ql 5 is labeled os an optional pond The water quality ponds lobeied os optional ore locations where it would be beneficial to hove a water quality pond Installed These locations offer an opportunity for homeowners/businesses to contribute to the quality of the neorby wetlands/ponds by constructing a water quality pond. The costs for these ponding areas have ngt been Included m the cost anolysis for this report. LC-Ql000 is located along the shoreline of Stubbs Buy. The ravines and culverts that drain into the bay hove been depositing sedlmentotion creating sand deltas, installing a waler quality pond or implementing stabilization proctices on the rovtne wW help reduce further sedimentation In the bay. A 6.10 Long Lake Drainoge Area: 2,629 ocres (Including the lake orxJ the City of Long Lake) ❖ Number of Ponds: 52 MaiorLokes: Long Lake. Dickeys Loke The following is a summary of the specdl Issues ond recommendations for this district. 6.10.1 Water QuentlQf LL-P4 - This Is the low area In subdtetrict U-A4. It should be verified that d drdindge swole exists from this low porxjing oreo to the culvert located under Highway 6. The HWL of this ponding area Is 1004.7. which allows for 1.3' of freeboard for an existing home and 0.2* of freeboord for the driveway. atyoTOrono Draft 5urt^W»terMansgementPltn &J0 System DescrtpOon L I L I L L C I L L L L L L LL-Pl 72 - The reccxnmended outlet for this pond is a 15' RCP cutveft. In a 1 CX)*year storm event, there wi be opproximateV 0.8' of Ireeboord between the HWL and the driveway. LI-P34 > This is o ravine that discharges Into Long Loke. A 100-year storm event produces velocities that ore capable of eroding the ravine. To protect the water quality of Long Lake, It Is recommerided that the ravine be evaluated for erosion problems otxj that meosures are implemented to repair and stabilize any problem areos. LL-P53 - This is o ravine that exoerlerrces high velocities from a 100- yeor storm event. It is recommended that erosion control measures be implemented in the ravine. LL-P561 - This ponding orea only provides only 1 foot of freeboord from the rood to the HWL for a 100-year storm event. LL-P47. LL-P62, LL-P68 ore landlocked ponds. 6.10.2 Water QuallQf LL-P30. olso known os Dickeys Loke, hos a significant amount of land that drains directly Into It. It is recommended that water quality porxls be installed arourxj the perimeter of the lake to filter the water before it reaches the lake. LL-P86 is located downstr* \m of a long chain of wetlands. This pxDnding area is currently classified os a leost susceptible porxj. This porxJ, however, dschorges Into LL-P661 . a nnoderoteiy susceptible wetland. If is strongly recommended that the nutrient loadings presently dischorging Into LL-P561 be monitored. A monitoring station should be installed at the Inlet and the outlet of LL-P56. It is recommended that this ponding orea be utilized as a treatment bosin before discharging Into LL-P561. A 6.11 BI axwell B ay 6 Droinoge Areo: 580 acres (including the loke) ❖ Number of Ponds: 6 MojorLokes: 8 Maxwell Bay OyofOnno DnttSurt^W»»Man»gmentPlBn 6-11 System Description The Maxwell Bay district is located In the central portion of the City. Most of this district drains dIrecIty into the loke. The following is a summaiy of special issues and recommendotlorw for this district. 6.11.1 Water Quantt^ MB-P2 - A 4“ orifice Should be Installed on the outlet to control the peak discharge to reduc‘d flooding potential in downstream ponding. MB-P4 - This ponding orea only provides 1.2 feet of freeboard from the driveway to the HWL for a 1 00-year storm event. MB-9 - A small drainage area allows this subdistrict to remain landlocked. 6.11.2 Water Quall^ fslo specific water quaflty Issues or recommerxJations are indicated for this dIstTict. A 6.12 Mooney Lake 6 Drairx>ge Area: 49 acres 6 Number of Porrds: 3 6 Moior Lakes; N/A The Mooney Loke District Is In the northeost comer of the City and drains to Mooney Lake, which Is located in both Otorx) and Plymouth. The following Is a summary of special issues and recommendations for this district. 6.12.1 Water Quantify ML-P4 - This is presently a lanc*ocked bosin. It should be verified that the emergency overflow route into Mooney Lake is clear of debris. 6.12.2 Water OiiaJJ^ No Specific water quality issues or recommendations are indicated for this district. A 6.13 NORTH ARH 6 Droinoge Area: 775 acres (irrcluding the lake) 6 Number of Poixls: 9 ♦ Major Lokes: North Arm atyofOrono Dralt Surface water M»n»gement PUn $-12 System DesaipOon L I I L L I L L L L The drainage area for the North Arm district Is located In the western half of the Oty. The northern holf of the cfistrlct drolns Into o lorge wetland just north of North Arm. The southern half of the disnict drains directty Into North Arm. The following Is a summary c-f special issues and recommendations for this district. 6.13.1 Water Quantity NA-P2 - It Is recommended that a berm be constructed to provide additional storage for this subdistriefs drainage area. NA-P3 - The porxJIng oreo only provides 1.7 feet of freeboard from the driveway to the HWL of the 100-year storm event. NA-P4 is a landlocked pond. NA-P8.1 & P8.2 ore directly adjacent to North Arm. Large storm events wlB couse mirxx flooding of driveways ond roodways. NA-P9 - This ponding area wW have a tendency to flood during large storm events. The roadway needs to be maintained at the current elevation to provide on emergency spWwoy. 6.13.2 Water Ouatity No Specific water quality issues or recommendations ore Indicated for trils district. A 6.14PAIIITBRCREBR ❖ Dromoge Area: 1.350 ocres ❖ Number of Ponds: 30 ❖ Mojor Lakes: Loke Katrina in Medirxa Pointer Creek district is located m the rTorthwest comer of the City. Most of this district consists of large meyshy wetlands. Lake Katrina drains from the north (Medina) Into Pomter Creek, which In turn, drairts to Jennings Lake, ond eventually the West Arm. The following is a summary of speckal issues and recommendations for this district. 6.14.1 WaterOuanUty PC-P6 - Currently this pofKUng oreo hos a brood-crested v/elr os on outlet structure. Construction of a berm and a 15* RCP outlet Is recommerxled as a rate control structure. atyofOnno DrattSUrDtoeWi^HanagtmentPlan 6-J3 System DesenpOon i PC-P9 - Requires excavaticxi to pxovicJe 0.09 Acre-feet of storoge. PC-Pl 0 is currently too smoil for the proposed development in trJs subdistnct. When this area is developed. 0.34 acre-feet of storoge win be necessory. PC-P24 - This ponding area is landiocked. PC-P30 - The roadway abutting this ponding orea vAii only have 0.7 feet of freeboard during large storm events PC-P42 - The outlet of this ponding oreo wiii ce routed along the ditch orea into PC-P39. This char>ge was necessory to protect a home at an elevation of 978.9. A berm should be built along me north side of the pond to odd protection for me home. PC-PO & Lake Katrina - The MInnehoho Creek Wote'shed District hos been concerned about the hydraulics of both Lake Katrina and Pomtef Creek due to the high population of beavers Irving in these two marshes. The outlet structures should be rrronitored arrd regulony maintolned to reduce flooding problems due to the beavers. 6.14.2 Water Quality PC-Pl and PC-P99 have been classified os moderoTety susceptioie. It Is strongly recommended that the Inflows and the outflows be monitored to determine the levels of phospnorur and other minerals entenng and leaving these wetlarrds Three cell ponds should be instaUed where topography permits PC-Pl 8 wetland hos been classified as a least susceptible wetland. It is recommended that this wetiofKl be utilized as a multiple cell water quality pond to treat the runoff before discho'ging to wetland PC-H-31 m subdistnct PC-19. ■ i PC-Q99 is labeled os optional ponding for locations where it would be beneficial to have a water quality pond installed. These locations offer on opportunity for homeowners/busiresses to contribute to the quality of the nearby wetiands/oonds by constructing a water quoBty pond. The costs for these ponding areas have ooi been included In the cost onolysis for this report. f j OtyofOrono Dr»/tSdrthogW0terM*nsgemef^Ptin S-14 ^stmOexhpbon L t L L L L L L L L A 6.18 PsAvcr Lake ❖ Drolnoge Area:561 acres ♦ Number of Ponds:15 ♦ Mqjor Lokes:Peavey Lake Peavey Lake district is located In the southeastern portion of the City. The Wayzota Country Club covers o torge majority of this district. The following is a summory of the special Issues and lecommerxJotions for this district. 6.15.1 Water Quantity Droifxjge through the golf course Is currently through dram tiles and corrugated metoi pipe. During large storm events, tne go*f course will have a tendency to experience temporary flooding. PI P2 - The roodway will hove only 1.6 feet of protection during a 100-year storm event. The location of emergency spillways should be verified. PL-PI. P4. P5. PI 1. ond PI 3 - These ponds ore on located withm the Wayzota Country Club. Lorge storm events may cause some temporary flood'ng on the fairways. PL-P8 - The roadway between this pond and PL-Pl 2 win be inunoated during larger storm events. Since the roodway is a loop, there shouldn't be any problems with access to the adjacent homes. Due to the fact that this rood is the emergerx:y overflow for events of greater magnitude than the 100-year storm event, It is recommerxled that the road remoln at the existing elevation. 6.15.2 Water Quality No Specific v^er quality issues or recommerxlations are indicated for this district. At 6.16 Smith Bay ♦ DromogeArea: 55ocres ♦ Number of Ponds: 2 ♦ Major Lokes: Smith Bay The Smith Bay district is located m the south central section of the City. Most of the land drains directly into the lake. The following is a OfyoTOroiJO OmrSurt^mtarMantgmnentPItn 6-15 S^sttmOtaapOon summary of the special issues and recommendations for this district. 6.16.1 Water Quantity SM-Pl - This pondirrg area Is larrdlocked. 6.16.2 Water Quality No specifc water quality Issues of recommendations are mdteated for this district. A 6.17 Stubbs Bat 6 Drainage A ea; 6 Number of Ponds; ♦ Mojor Lakes: 955 ocres (itTcludirrg the lake) 18 Stubbs Bay The Stubbs Boy district Is located on the west side of me City This district drains to Stubbs Bay mrough a series of ponds and channels. The following Is a summary of the special Issues and recommendations for mis district. 6.17.1 WaterQuantIty SB-P6 - This depressional area seems to be a feediot currently. The depression has enough storage to remoin landlocked. - k SB-P9 - This ponding orea Is a large marshy orea. During a 100- year storm event, the ponding area only provides 1.4 ft of freeboard between me HWL arrd me adjacent driveway. SB-P12 - It Is recommerxled that an 18’ orifice be irrstaned on the existing 24* RCP outlet to restrict the outflow from mis pond. SB-P15 - This subdistrict Is currently drained mrough a swale. During arid after development, increased runoff may cause the swale to become unstable. It is recommended that erosion control ond stobilization measures be Implemented In the swale. SB-P92 - In a 100-yeor storm event, there will be only 0.5 feet and 1.0 feet of freeboard to the driveway and buHdng. respectively. SB-P23 - This portdirrg area Is landlocked. 6.17.2 Water Quality S8-P3 was classified as a least susceptible wetland, it is recommended that mis wetland be utilized to treat the runoff to the moderately susceptible SB-P5. atyofOrono DnftSurtyoemftrMtnagenmltPlan 6-J6 System Deaerpaen L t L L I L L L L L L SB-P9 is located olong the shoreline ot the large nnarsh to the north of Stubbs Bay. To protect the water quaHty of Stubbs Bay, It is recommended that the ravine be evaluated for erosion problems and that meosues are Implemented to repair ar>d stabilize any problem areos. A 6.18 T ahaqer Lake ♦ Drainoge Area: 1.219 ocres (including the lake) ❖ Number of Ponds: 30 ^ Motor Lokes; Tonoger Lake Tanager Lake district Is located In the south central section of Oforx). The drainage In this district Is directed to Long Loke Creek. Long Loke Creek winds through the Tonoger Lake district ond eventually discharges Into Tonoger Lake. This district is rrxjlnly wettoTKls with several high points for future development. The following is a sumrrxjry ot the speclol Issues and recommendations for this district. 6.18.1 Water Quantl^ TL-P4 - The 60’ RCP outlet structure for Long Loke Creek should be nxyiltored for high velocities. If erosion problems are evident, riprap should be installed. TL-P7 - During a \ 00-year storm event, this ponding area win provide only 0 5 feet of freeboard to the actjacent driveway. TL-Pl 5 - This ponding area Is located on the golf course. The golf course will Incur some flooding during the lorger storm events. To ensure proper droinage. the outlet stajctures should be cleaned out periodically. TL-Pl 9 - Currently this ponding areo does not have on outlet. By Installing 2-12" culverts. 1.1 feet of freeboard will be provided. Raising the road grode is also on option during reconstruction. TL-P21 - This pord Is lordlocked. Back-to-back 100-yeor storm events will have a small amount of overlond flow Into pond TL-Pl 3. TL-P2522 - It Is recommerded that during reconstruction, the rood be raised 1 foot to provde odequate freeboord. This pording area collects runoff from subdistricts TL-25 ard TL-22. During a 100-year event, the pond win rise to the lowest elevation on the roodway. OtyofOrono DnItSurttce water Msn»gementPI»n S-I7 System Description 7L-P23 - Thfe is a londlcx:lced pond. TL-P28 - This Is 0 landiociced basin. TL-P29 & P36 - There Is onV i Toot of freeboord on the driveways and foodways abutting these poncing orecK. TL-P37 - This poncing cjreo Is a tandocked bc»ln. For larger storms on emergenc:y spillway directs overflow along the rollrood. protecting the homes near this porxi. 6.18.2 Water Quality TL-P3. P28. P31 and P33 were classified as leost susceptible. However, they ecach drain !.nto moderately susceptible wettands. tt Is reccxnmerKled that these wetlonds be utilized by creating mulHple cell woter quality ponds to treat the runoff before discharging into the moderatety susceptible wetlonds. wf 6.19 WEST Arm •6 Drainage Area; 83 acres ♦ Number of Ponds: 6 ♦ Major Lakes: West Arm The West Arm cfistrtct is located in the southwest comer of the City. This dstrlct cjrdns Into West Arm through swales, ponds, cjnd marshes. A large portion of the district currently drains directly into the bay. The following is a summary of the special Issues and recommendatlcxis for this district. 6.19.1 Water Quantity WA-P2 - During o 100*yeor storm event, the ponding area wW only provide 1 foot of freebcxjrd between the HWL ond on cxJjcx:ent home. The roodway will be acting as the emergency spillway. It Is strongly recommended that the rocxiway elevation not be roised. 6.19.2 Water Quality No specific water quality Issues cx recommendations are Indicated for this district. 1 ayo^Onono DnnSurt^W^ManagemeMPtmt 6-18 Systm OexrtpOon L I L L L L L I L L 7. Implementation The success of this SWMP is dependent on the amount of support directed towards implementation. Three keys to the success of the SWMP ore: 1 . Effective implementation 2. A thorough education and public involvement program 3. A practical, affordable Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) This section of the SWMP addresses these key issues in the following way: ❖ Sections 7.1 and 7.2 discuss water quantity and quality management, respectively. In general terms ♦ Sections 7.2.1 to 7.2.8 explain the City’s strategy tor managing water quality on a slightly more detailed, task-oriented basis. The tables suggest actions to be taken by various porties. a practical timeframe (from SWMP approval date) and estimated costs of stoff and/or consultant involvement in strategy implementation. The capital cost for “in-the-ground" projects is found in Section 7.5. ♦ Similar to 7.2. Section 7.3 and its subsections introduce us to the City’s proposed education program and then summarizes in tables similar to Section 7.2. the City’s strategy to Implement the program ❖ Cost estimates for construction of the overall surface water management system are presented In Section 7.4 ♦ The CIP outlined In Sect,on 7.5 discusses the activities proposed for the five-year period beginning at SWMP adoption. Also provided are the capital costs, land costs, and potential funding source(s) for each activity 1 /r 7.1 Water Quartity BfANAOEMSirr The storm water management system, illustrated on the surface water system map. consists of storm sewers, ditches, swales, emergency overflows, and ponds to collect, store, and convey surface water runoff. The appendices provide information on pipe sizes, excavation volumes, and costs for these runoff quantity management features. The facilities presented are trunk facilities, which address surface water management on a regional basis. In addition to trunk facilities, lateral facilities will be needed to address on site, local runoff issues. Developers ore typically required to provide the lateral facilities. A 7.2 Water Quality Management Management of the quality of Orono’s water resources requires a hoi stic approach. Treatment of runoff is not the only way to improve water quality, nor is traditional ponding the only woy to treat runoff. Improvement of water quality wilt toke a determined effort b/ several parties using a variety of practices and methods aimed at minimizing the effects of nutrients and sediments, among other pollutants. This SWMP begins the process of initiating the halistic approach tnat the City takes towards water quality improvement. This section lays out the strategy, needed for an effective effort, to be implemented by the City of Orono. In this SWMP. the City establishes water quality treatment standards for runoff that eventually enters its water resources. These standards are the foundation on which to implement the rest of the plan. The next step is to monitor water quality goals per drainage district. At the same time, the City feels strongly that measuring the effectiveness of the SWMP is a necessary part of the overall plan. Annual monitoring of the quality of outflow from each district is a criticol tool for assessing the effectiveness of the SWMP. OtyofOvno Draft Surt^ Water Mwiasement Plan 72 Ir-afemenMon r 1 i W ? Table 7.1 Water Quality Evaluation Strategy L I I I I L I I L L L L L I Action Ham Timtframa Raaponalbia Party<t) Eatimatad Cost (1) Compite a hst of target P' concentrations for major wateroodies per MCWD^4 - 6 months Staff 1500 Develop an actions/strategies plan for each district to meet water quality goals 10-38 months SUiff 11.000 (• 600 per oistnct) Monitor drainage district effluent for P 6-10 months, then annually Staff. MCWO 22.500 (4500 per year) ' P • ptetohoroui. : Fro<n MCvsD watr ’ Resources Monogenr>enl Plan. Appendui L 7.2.1 Alternative Management Methods In the infrequent cases that regional roncfs connot be built, other effective alternative methods that can u- uf Technical discussion of alternal Tiuihods is provided in "ection 4.4.3. Also see Figu: ^.t. The following outlines the process of selecting an c'*ernotive treatment method; • S'tes that are suitable fo. alternative methods. • Sites with isufficient amount of land space for a safe ponding arer. • Where topog.i -phy (i.e. steep slopes) will not allow a ponding c ea. • Sites with . itficient space/hydraulic head, end where cost for on alternative is reasonoble. • Choosing the most effective alternative for the site. • Sites with less than K percent imp>e.’vious surfaces should use a non-mechanical device. • Lots with greater than 10 percent but less than 30 percent impervious surfoces can use o mechanical device and/or a combination of mechanical and non-mechanical methods. See Rgure 4.5 • Small lots with greater than 30 percent impervious surfaces should use. in series, a combination of non mechanical and mechanical. • Lakeshore lots - see Section 4.4.3 • Each site should be evaluated according to the guidelines explained in Section 4.4.3 - Design Coniiderations OtyafOrono Or$n Suffice il/IMtrM»nBg»Tfentfibn 7-J Impkmenaoon Treatment Options for Areas Draining into the Lake or High and Moderate Quality Wetlands, or for Sites with Physical Restrictions Figure 7.1 Alternative Methods Flowchart - i h. i L I I L L L L L L 7.2.2 Baseline Water Quality In order to effectively manage the quality of the water resources in Orono. it is necessary to determine the current quality of wetlands and waterbodies within the City. From this data, a reference standord can be established from which to track water qualify trends. Without a determination on the water quality, it would be difficult to determine the effectiveness of water quality improvement strategies and to justify the resources allocated to those strotegies. Therefore, one of the first tasks to be done is to develop a database of existing conditions, set up to keep track of water quality trends. A water quoiity file should be established for each of the eighteen receiving waterbodies (See Section 6.0) and for each of the four priority wetlands (See Section 5.6). At a minimum, the water quality file should be set up to track water clap*'^ (Secchi disk readings) and total phosphorus for lake bays and floral diversity for wetlands. Coordination between staff and MCWD to interpret the data available to dote In terms of assigning an initic’' water quality ranking, for the lo e bays ond Long Lake, is a first step. City staff can initiate a monitoring program for wetlands. The water quality classification system is outlined in Section 7.2.3. Waterbodies Long Lake and several of the lake bays of Lake Minnetonka have been the subject of research and monitoring over the past few years. As a result, there is data available on the water quality of these waterbodies. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the primary agency with data on most of these waterbodies. Date is available at the MCWD website on these bays and lakes ’: Brown's Bay Maxwell Bay Spring Park Bay Forest Lake Crystal Bay North Arm Stubbs Bay Long Lake Lafayette Bay West Arm • Cormon Boy ond French loke ore currentty not being trocked by MCWD. Oty of Orono Draft Surt^ Water Managemer^ Plan 7-5 !mp!e me naaon Watfands The general quality of a given wetland is typically described in terms of the condition of its floral (vegetative) community. Four priority welland restoration sites were among the eighty- five wetlands evaluated for floral diversity (among other criteria) for this SWMP. The City has floral diversity data, which can serve as baseline information from which to keep track of water quality, for these wetlands: PC-L-31 LL-G-26 PC-M-31 SB-E-31 Tabla 7.2 Batalina Watar Quality Stratagy 7.2.3 Monitoring Water Quality One objective of this SWMP is to limit the total phosphorus being delivered to waterbodies and wetlands, in accordance with parameters established by MCWD. These parameters set phosphorus-loading limits intended to arrest degradation of receiving waters and eventually improve their water quality. Waterbodiaa Mo'^.toring the qualify of 16 of 13 receiving waterbodies in the City is currently being performed by MCWD. Using the Met Council's "Lake Quality Report Card", this data can be utilized by City staff for water quality monitoring. There are two waterbodies not currently being monitored by MCWD: they are Carman Bay and French Lake. Depending on the level of detail desired, monitonng of these resources can be accomplished either of the following options: QtyofOrono DnttSurt^mterHan^gmtntPltn 7-6 brtfUementatJon Action ICain timaframa r^esponaibla Party<a) Eathnatad Coat (S) Create Water Quality file*3 monins Staff 3.000 Research and coordinate with MCWD 4 monins Staff. MCWD 1.S00 * ssign baseline Water Quality score 5 months | Staff. MCWD 2.500 • • I L I L L L L L L L L L 1. Citizens Lake Monitoring Program • involves citizen volunteers talcing Secchi disk readirgs at regular time Intervals at a set location near the ceepest part of the lake. Secchi disk '■eadings are a nominal, but reasonable indicator of vy/oter quality. Minimci ‘ime required by staff for program preparation ond administration. 2. Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program - also involves citizen volunteers working with the Met Council to take samples and Secchi disk readings at regular time intervals at a set location near the deepest par of the lake. Yields a full range of water quality indicators as analyzed by the Met Council. Like the lakes being monitored by MCWD. water quality is reported in the form of a ' lake Quality Report Card", by the Met Council. In addition, there ore two situofions thot merit cont {deration fcx woter quality monitoring. At two of the wetland redoration sites, there Is a single outlet discharging I.n ‘o Long Lake (from Wetland LL-G-26) and into Stubbs Bay (from Wetland SB-E-31). Monitoring outflow at those two locations would allow the City to measure the affect of the restcxotdn on the quality of the water flowing to these two lakes. Coordination with MCWD. Hennepin Par<$, and/or the Met Council is highly recommended. Wetlands At a selected time during the growing seoson. each of the restored wetlands should be assessed using the same methods used for the initial sun/ey. This Is recommended fo be done on an annual basis until such a time that the wetland quality, surrounding land use. and runoff patterns oecome static. Summary After creating a Wa*ei Quality file and ass gning initial values for eacn receiving waterbodies and wetlands, monitoring of those resources is recommended on an annual basis. City staff can obtain the report card for each for the sixteen currently monitored waterbodies by visiting the MCWD website OtyefCmno Dransuf^ water Management Plan in^,!ementation each year. For Carman Bay and French Lake, the City can update the water quality tile based on the intormation collected by the selected program, and be reported in terms similar to the Wafer Quality Report Card. Wetlands can be monitored annually and assessment data can bo used to update their Water Quality file. The quality of each wetland can be reported in terms similar to the Water Quality Report Card. The results of fhe annual wafer quality monitoring program need to be reported to the City Council and/or as deemed appropriate by the Council. Table 7.3 Water Quality Monitoring Strategy Action Item Evaluate and select a method for Carman Bay and French Lake Timeframe 1 nwnth Responsible ! Estimated Cost Pafty(s) (!) Staff, MCWD . 1.500 -f H Consider monitoring effluent from kfentified outlets Assess ftorlsic quality of wetland restoratKxi sites 1 month Update and report water quality Me for each lake and selected wetland 8 months, then annually 10 months, then annually Staff. MCWD. Hen Parks Met Counol 1,500 Staff 7.500 (1500 per year) Staff 12.500 (2500 per year) 7.2.4 New Developmeni/Rcdevelopment Regarding water quality management, both development of previously undisturbed land and redevelopment of improved parcels present similar challenges. In both cases, extensive site preparation like clearing/grubbing and/or grading is likely. The City can coordinate with the developer or property owner, to come up with the optimum water quality management method and approach that meets the City’s requirements and is practical for the proposed site. Figure 7.2 provides a guide tor city staff and interested parties to Identify the stormwater improvements needed tor the new development or for redevelopment. atyofOrono 7 ’8 DnltSurt^ Water Man»gementPI»n Implementatton A I I I [ I L L L L L L Is there a regional water qualit) pond lacilit)' idenlilied in the SWMP? Is it located on site? Is it lakeshore property? H ^ The Cit>' will require the construction of the water quality fadlit> Both water quality and quantity trunk fees Water quantit) and qualit> tnink fees apply. 60Vo nutrient removal is desired. Water quality treatment is requir^ City staff will determine which, if any, treatment techniques are suitable. BMPs required. Cash payment acccpte%S in lieu of Vo removal not obtained. See Figure 7.3 Water quality and quantity trunk fees apply. Tlic implementation of BMPs will be required to treat the increase in phosphorus levels due to new construction. \ Arc there areas draining directly intu the lake or wetland?The City will construct the downstream facility when funding is available. See Table S J for wetland protection strategies City staff will determine which, if any. ’reatment techniques are suitable. BMPs are required Water quality treatment is required. City suff will determine which treatment techniques are suitable. Cash accepted in lieu o(% removal not obuined. Set Figi«* T J City of Orono SWMP Figure 7.2 New Development Flowchart ^ J Table 7.4 New Oevelopment/Redevelopment Strategy Action Item Evaluate s<te plan based on the 'New Development Flowchart* Coordinate with property owrter Timeframe Responsible Party(s) Estimated Cost (S) Ongoing Staff 1.500 per site (total unknown) Ongoing Staff 1.500 per site (total unknown) 7.2.5 Developed Areas In keeping v\/ith Orono’s holistic approach, the City will seek opportunities to mcorpoiofe water quality improvement measures in areas that are fully developed: in effect retrofitting developed areas for water quality management. The objective will be to identify pollutant laden-runoff sources that also have on- or nearby-site conditions that might allow some mitigating measure to be put info place. After identification of these sources, the City has the option of traditional ponding and/o*^ alternative measures to retrofit developed a»^eas to contribute to overall water quality improvement. This has already occurred to a limited extent, as seen in some of the priority sites identified in the Capital Improvement Plan ’s (CIP) Section 7.5.2. The City should continue this process and attempt to work additional sites into the current CiP period, make special provisions for certain situations, or use the new information for development of the next CIP period. Table 7.5 Developed Areas Strategy Action Item Timeframe Responsible Party(s) Estimated Cost {%) Choose the appropriate method to match 10‘d retrofitting opportunities 6-18 months Staff. MCWO 1 1800 1 Identify additional retrofitting sites and choose appropnate method 24 - 36 months i Staff. MCWD 1.200 per Site (total unknown) Inrplement retrofitting methods Ongoing, start at 8 months Staff 1,500 per site (total unknown) QtyofOrono Draft SurtStce Witer Management Plan 7-JO Implementation i I I L I i L I L L L I L L L 7.2.6 Roadside Discharges Discharge of polluto'‘.t$, notably salt, sediment, oil, and debris from Orono’s roadv.ays is an area of cor.cern in terms of water quality managemert. In particular, there are several stretches of roadway that he .-e very little space between the road surface and a lake or wetland. The City has identified a few locations where it may be possible to install some technique that could mitigate -ne impact of road runoff. See Table 7.18. Accordingly, the Ci*y can determine the best way to Improve the quality of this ru'-off and then identify other potential roadside settings a-d appropriate methods. Table 7.6 Roadaida DIacharga Strategy Action Item Crioose the appropnate method to match tdentir)6d rt^side settings Identify additional retrofitting sites and choose appropnate method Implement retrofitting nvethods 24 - 30 months 36 • 48 nxmths Ongoing, start at 30 months Reaponsibte P«rty(a) Sta'i'. MCWD Staff. MCV/D Staff Eatimalid Coat (« 1.800 1.500 12,000 (1.500 per site) 7.7 7 Ravine Stabilization Several potential s^ies have been identified based on cursory visual analysis of knewn or suspected eroding ravines. These sites are identified or the system map. Of these, a few have been identified as priorities In the CIP. A process to develop a cost estimate needs *o be initiated for each of these sites. Acfual stabilization is targeted to take place in tne current CIP period. An inventory of addiriona! sites is also needed. Closer evoluotion of several factors can be used to determine tT e order in which they should be addressed. This can be completed in this Ci.^ period, while a course of action and stabilization efforts con take place in the future. OfyotOrono Df9/tSurfioe Water Management Ptsn 7-11 ImplementMofl Table 7.7 Ravine Stabilization Strategy Action Item Complete a closer evaluation of currently identifted sles ard prioritize among them Develop a course of act'on for each Imptement staMizahon methods Complete a closer evaluation of additional sites, prioritize them Timeframe 3 - 6 nwnths 6 • 12 months 18-48 months 48 • 60 months Reaponalble P»rty(a| Staff Staff Staff Staff Eatimateci Coat {%) 12.800 (1600 per site) 12.000 (1500 per site) 12 000 (1500 per site) 3.200 7.2.8 Phosphorus Use Reduction The Orono City Council and staff recognize that current fertilizing practices result in excess nutrients, primarily phosphoro js. are in th*^ runoff from commercial and residential properties. Further, the City recognizes thot excess phosphorous is a significant contributor to the degradation of oil wetlands and waterbodies in the City. It is the inten* of the City to make an effort to reduce excess phosphorous runoff through ordinances, education, and city policy. This effort is discussed further in the next section. Table 7.8 Phoaphorua Reduction Strategy ' Acbon Item Timeframe Reaponalble Pmty(e) Eedmet^Coatw Reviev' City’s u$o of phosphorous fertilizers, reduce where possible 4 - 6 months staff 2,500 Develop o public oworeness program (see Section 7 3.3)6* 18 months Staff. MCWD, Met Counci 7.000 Develop ordinonce regorcfing the use of phosphorous ferlii zers 18-42 months Stoff. Cify Council. Hennepin Porks ± 12.000. includes public involvement Otyof Orono Draft Suffice Vfiter MansgemetU Plan 7-12 InyjkmentaHon - i >c7.3 Education Prooran L L I I I L L L L L Successful implementatior* of the SWMP requires that the Individuals and groups involved have a clear understanding of the objectives and management policies. Informing staff and the public of SWMP components is a primary goal of the education program. For this plan to be effective. City residents, staff, elected officials, developers, and consulting firms need to be inforrr.ed of its pertinent policies. The target audiences for the education program can be described in three groups; staff, residents, and development community. Each of these groups needs a thorough understanding of the manner in which they impact water quality, and the major objectives and policies of the SWMP. For instance. City residents should be informed about the negative impacts of excessive phosphorus fertilizer, while developers need a sound understanding of the use of PondNet ond how to implement good housekeeping measures. The specific informational needs of each group and possible training mechanisms are discussed below. Not* - because fneif livelihood or propefty is located in Orono. iocal business and comrnefcial propefty owners should be included in the educotion progrom as residents. 7.3.1 City Staff The range of staff implementation responsibilities including: ❖ Maintain nutrient detention basin efficiencies and storm sewer operability ❖ Implement a spill response and street sweeping program ❖ Enforce SWMP policies and recommendations <► Enforce BMPs for new all construction activities ❖ Initiate a phosphorus-free fertilizer program ❖ Respond to public inquiries about the SWMP ❖ Develop annual budgets to implement the SWMP <* Oversee the use of PondNet in reviewing the impact of new developments on water quality ❖ Plan coordination and delivery of education programs to the public, school groups and other organizations Qty of Orono Dr^Sufl^WttvMmagmentPton 7-13 Implementation r City staff will also have overall SWMP management duties. Therefore, all staff members need to have a basic understanding of the SWMP. In-house training sessions at staff meetings should be adequate to provide the necessary information. In addition, vorious City departments' staff need to be trained in their particular areas of responsibility. The spill response program should be handled by the public works, parks, tire, and/or police departments. Training should be provided on the proper methods of containing, neutralizing and disposing of spills of oil, gasoline, pesticides, and other hazardous material. A crucial factor to emphasize is that spilled moteriols should not be washed into the storm sewer system. Oil absorbent materials should be available for use in spill containment and clean-up. Table 7.9 City Staff Education Strategy Action flam Timtfhuna Raapontiblo Party(t) Eatifnatad Coat Update spill response pregram and partiopants 24-30 months To be determined 4000 Introduce the SWMP to ail City staff 3 - 6 months 1 Staff i 3.000 7.3.2 City Residents’ Education Program In order to obtain necessary political and economic support for successful SWMP implementation, it is vital to inform City residents about basic water quality concepts, policies, and recommendations in the SWMP. the progress of water quality improvement efforts in Orono. and ho..* residents can play an important role in improving water quality. Inspiring reasc''.aUe resident expectations will also be helpful to maintain public support for the SWMP. Initial education efforts should address the following issues; • Ihe causes of poor water quality • the way the SWMP addresses these problems • how lakes and wetlands ae classified and managed. • the Cify's policies. Otyof Orono Draft SurfiKO Water Management 7‘14 ImfjtemenMon I I I I I I L L I I I I L L Initial inforniation can be presented via a public heanng, City newsletter, and/or press releases to local papers. Slide shows and videos concerning water quality could also be provided to area schools. An ongoing resident education program should address: • good housekeeping practices • fertilizers and yard care • waterbody and watershed management • solid/hazardous wastes • the use of storm sewe's for disposal of motor oil. antifreeze, pesticides, paints, solvents, etc. • disposal iw nations for these materials Periodic updates on water quality, the progress of the SWMP. and information on specific improvement projects keeps the public involved in the overall water quality Improvement process. The City newsletter and press releases to local papers are good methods to spread this infon notion. In oo City staff should take odvantac,e of the oppcriuoities provided by locci service duos and church groups to speak at meetings. Finally, special efforts sliuuld be made to crordinate educational and environmental awareness programs with the school district. Programs should focus on K ough 12 science classes and possibly adult community educui: n These groups u:e constant y ’n need of speakers, an J would likely wecon ie requests from the City to provide information on water quality and watershed management. OtyccOrono OnttSUrtha mberMantgrntntPUn 7-15 ImplemtntaSco Tabis 7.10 Raaidanta' Education Stratagy Action Mmti Develop the framework of an ed program and introduce it to residents Develop the elements of each segment ID d m the framework Titnaframa 12-15 months 15-24 months Conduct public tnib workshopfs) on water quality and the SWMP Conduct public mfb workshop(s) on housekeeping, fertilizers and walersned stewardship Seek other information sharing opportunities to inform and update residents on water quality in the City Develop ar. nitiate a K-12 info program for K-4**, b-S"*. and 9-12th 24 - 27 months 33 - 36 months 24 months ongoing 24 months, ongoing Ratponaibla Paity(a) Staff. MCWD. Hen Parks. Met Council Saff. MCWD. Hen Parvs. Met Council. ONR Staff Hen Pa'KS. DNR Star Hen Parks. DNR Sta*f Hen Pa*KS. DNR Staff. Hen Parks DNR Eatimatad Coat (*) 4000 Unknown 3500 3500 Unknown Unknown 7.3.3 Public Involvement Three very important educational tools that can be implemented in Orono are a storm sewer stenciling program, o phosphorus-free fertilizer program, and o butter strip program. The residents who become involved in t^-ese programs gain an interest and concern to*’ the environment surrounding t.»;om Once a few individuals are educated about water quality degradation, they con educate their neighbors. Without the active support of a ded'^cled group of C‘ty residents, educotion of the general population coj d be very difficult. Storm Sawer Stenciling A storm sewer stenciling program Is one way to educate and get all »he residents of Orono involved. Messages can be painioa near catch basins or ottier inlots, and con help residents be more aware that debris thrown or washed down Into the drainage system eventually drains to Lake Minnetonka. OtyofOnno DranSut^ Water Hin^gmentPtan hnph 7-16 Won \ Tabl« 7.10 RMidtnts' Education Strategy Actfon Item Raapontibla Paity(a) bttimated Co»t < (1) Develop the framework of an ed program and introduce it to residents 12-15 months Staff. MCWD. Hen Parks. Met Council 4000 Develop the elements of each segment ID’d in the framework 15*24 months Saff, MCWD. Hen Parvs. Met Council. DNR Unknown Conduct public mfb workshop(s) on water quality and the SWMP 24 • 27 months Staff Hen Pa'KS. DNR 3500 ______________1 Conduct public info workshop(s) on housekeeping, fertlizers and watershed stewardship 33 - 36 months Saff Hen Parks. DNR 3500 Seek other information sharing opportunities to inform and update residents on water quality m the City 24 months, ongoing Staff. Hen Pa'ks. DNR Unknown Develop an. iretiate a K-12 info program for K-4* 5-8". and 9-12th 24 months, ongoing Saff. Hen Parks. DNR Unknown 7.3.3 Public Involvement Three very important educational tools that can be implemented in Orono are o storm sewer stenciling program, a phosphorus-free fertilizer program, and o buffer strip program. The residents v/ho become involved in t^-ese programs nair an interest and concern fo» the environment surrounding tnem. Once a few Individuals are educated about water quality degradation, they can educate their neighbors. Without the active support of a dedicated group of C^ty residents, education of the general population coj d be very difficult. Storm Sower StanclUng A sfonr sev/er stenciling program is one vvoy to educate and get all the residents of Oiono involved. Messages con be painiud near catch basins or ottier inks end can help residents be more aware that debris thrown or washed down Into the drainage system eventually draif's to Lake Minnetonka. City of Orono 7-16 DrwnSurtK»W»terM§nagementPlan In^itumnltmion L I L I L L L L I L L The MPCA offers these and other stenciling templates: • “Dump No Waste - Drains to Lake ” <• “ Keep Pollutants Out - Drains to Lake ” By involving residents, they also feel as though they are part of the water quality solution. Photphorut-free Fertilizer A phosphorus-free fertilizer program encourages fertilizer retailers to sell and promote phosphorus-free fertilizer. Retailers are also encouraged to educate consumers on the benefits of utilizing phosphorus-free fertilizer with pamphlets and flyers. Flyers should help explain the effects of phosphorus on ponds, rivers, and lakes. The public should be informed that: • most lawns do not require a lot of phosphorus fertilizer • lawn Irrigation rates should not be excessive for their soil • preventing runoff high in nu*rients from running into streets and gutters can make a difference • soil test kits are availoble for residents to collect small soil samples to be analyzed for the need of fertilizer Buffer Stripe A buffer is a mixture of grasses and other plants allowed to grow naturally along the shoreline of a lake or along the margin of a wetland. Buffers act as filters, removing particles and debris from runoff prior to entering the waterbody. Buffer strip plantings are able to handle damp conditions and minor flow velocities, and can also provide an aesthetically pleasing view. A buffer strip program would involve residents that live on lakeshore property. Typically, runoff from lakefront properties droins overland and directly into tne lake, and does not have an opportunity to be properly treated. Since runoff from these lots can [collecfivelyl have a notable impact on water quality In Lake Minnetonka, buffer strips can be a very important method in the water quality improvement toolbox. Otyc/Orono WMer HansgementPUn 7-17 Implemenution MCWD has Initiated same pilat projects for buffer strips and alternative landscaping tor lakefront settings. The City should consider publicizing the results of these projects to encourage Orono lakefront landowners to embrace these or similar practices. Table 7.11 Public Involvement Strategy Action ttam Timaframa Ratfonaibia Party(a) Eatimalad Coat (!) Develop a basic framework lor the public involvement process 30 • 36 months Staff. MCWD. DNR. Met Council 1 2000 Soiiot residents for involvement and engage them in developofient 36 - 42 months Residents, staff. DNR. MCWD. Met Council 4500 Start the pubbc involvement program 42-60 months Residents, staff 4000 7.3.4 Development Community The SWMP will have a major impact on the development community. Therefore, informing developers and the'r consulting engineers of SWMP requirements Is an important component of the education program. In addition to a basic understanding of overall SWMP policies, the development community should have a good understanding of reasons for the development of the policies impacting their activities. They will also need a thorough understanding of the use of PondNet. Specifically, developers and consultants must understand the impact of development on wafer quality. Much of the necessary information can be disseminated to developers In an Information packet during the preliminary plot stage. The information packet should contain pertinent policies impacting development and basic informotion on the use of PondNet in determining necessary pond design information. The packet should also contain City standards regarding runoff coefficients and phosphorus export coefficients. OtyofOrvno Draft SuHbceWMr Management 7 ’18 Implementation I I I i I i L i i I L Table 7.12 Davalopara* Educatton Strategy Action Item Prepare an inrormation packet on the SWMP and PondNet Conduct workshop on the SWMP and PondNet distntxjte the info pack Timeframe 3 - 6 months 6 - 9 months, repeat at 36 Reapontible Party(a) Staff Staff Estimated Cost (t) 3000 3000 Air A Cost Analysis One of the primory objectives of this report was to estimate the cost of completing the entire surface water management system (the system). The cost analysis completed for the system estimates is described in the following paragraphs. Dollar amounts presented In this report ore based on 1998 construction costs and can be related to the January 1998 Minneapolis ENR Construction Cost Index of 5852. Future cost changes in the proposed facilities should account for changes in this index. During Interim periods between full evaluation of projected costs, capital recovery procedures can be related to this index. A summary of cost estimates for construction of the entire surface water management system presented in Table 7.13 Detailed cost estimates for ponds and pipes are presented in Appendix F on a subdistrict basis. Engineering, capitalized Interest, and administration costs plus a 10% contingency factor are included in the costs. All storm sewers that serve as detention pond outlets are considered to be trunk facilities. For purposes of ostimating costs, the system is considered to include all facilities shown on the system map. and will be complete only when the City of Orono is fully developed. Therefore, it is likely that construction of the entire system will be spread out over an extended period of time, perhops up to 50 years. Hence, system costs will be incurred over a similor peiiod. OtyofOrono Dr^SurfceWHerManagmtmPtw 7-19 I/nptementstion Tabl« 7.13 Syslam Costa by Drainsgs District Drainsgs District Browns Bay Carman Bay Crystal Bay Forest Late French Late Hadley Late Lafayette Bay Lake Classen Long Lake System Costs <S) $353,000 $221,000 $23,000 $615,000 $656,000 $95,000 $100,000 $2,097,000 $1,971,000 Drateiage District Maxwell Bay Mooney Late North Arm Patnter Creek Peavey Late Stubbs Bay Smith Bay Tanager Late west Arm TOTAL System Costs (I) $263,000 $51,000 $524,000 $1,22U,000 $211,000 $1,090,000 $21,000 $1,237,000 $64,000 $10,812,000 Proposed runoff storage ponds and water quality ponds ore considered to be part of the system. Excavation, outlet structures, and other costs associated with these ponds ore included in the cost estimates. Details on the runoff storage ponds can be found in Appendices C & D. and information on water quality ponds is in Appendix E. The general location of each these ponds is shown on system maps. C apital Improvement Plan (CIP) Another primary objective of the Orono SWMP is to creote a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to layout tho surface water management system improvements that will be needed over the next five years. Another important aspect of the SWMP Is to provide information on the costs associated with installing the system. The identification of system Improvements to be completed over the next five years is driven by three primary factors: Otyof Orono Dr^Surfkx Water Hantgemtnt Plan 720 Impkme/eaOon i I 1. L L I II I L L 1 . Construction of system improvements associated with new development on twelve parcels Identified by City staff os those parcels that are likely to be developed in this period 2. Construction of system improvements in areas of Orono that are already developed 3. Implementation and/or construction of techniques or system improvements that are aimed at protection and/or enhancement of priority wetlands or lake boys 7.5.1 CIP Activities The tables in this section summarize the costs ossociated with capital expenditures, construction costs, and land acquisition costs to gel surface water management features "in the ground". Most of the projects can be described as either water quality ponds or stormwater sewer trunk pipes. The information provided in the wetland restoration section (5.6) of this report is also summarized for CIP planning purposes. The City has also identified actions, outside of infrastructure construction, that should be addressed during this CIP period. These potential projects are considered to be priority projects and are found in Section 7.5.2. Water Quality Orono's system has been designed using a regional approach to maximize the efficiency of the system and keep costs low. The projects listed in Table 7.14 represent the construction of ponds for water qualify improvement. The location of these ponds can be determined on the system map. Land acquisition costs are included in the figures below and are based on an estimafed cost of $20,000 per acre. Rnancing for these projects will be obtained from trunk fees as described in Section 7.6. Oty of Orono Drift 5urf^\flMerManaffementP1»n 7-21 ImpfemenaOon TabI* 7.14 Water Quality Projacte for Davtioping Areas Pond FLQ13 LC-Q7 PC-Q23 FR-Q9 FR-Q29 TL-Q13 Coate ($) 26.000 15,000 17.000 13.000 27.000 140.000 NA-Q2 3 PC-031 LL-Q21 TL-Q31 LL-Q52.1 LC-Q113 TOTAL Coats ($) 19.000 11,000 13.000 9.000 15.000 21.000 $326,000 Water Quantity The projecls listed in Table 7.15 represent installation of trunk sewer pipes and outlets for water quantity ponds, except as noted for one overland drainage swale. Under description is the subdistrict in which the pipe or p>ipes are locoted. The location of these features can be determined on the system map. Storm sewer easement costs are not included in these figures. Financing for these projects will be obtained from trunk fees as described in Section 7.6. Tabla 7.15 Water Quantity Projacte for Davaloping Araaa Daacription Coata (l)baacfjption Coated) CB-1 10.000 FL-13 52.000 NA-2 33.000 LC-7 3.C00 PC-33 (2)’30.000 PC-31 35000 PC-20 (Overland Swale)3.000 FR-9(2)’96.000 TL-31 6.000 FR-29 1 28.000 LC-17 6.000 TOTAL j $302,000 ' mdicaiei mot nvo p<pei wt m insiaied ^ mese tuodbtrtcts. costs reOects me total tor bom Otyo<Onon0 DnnSurtlKaW»terHm»gementPlmi 722 ln^)lemenUbon U It 1 i 1 L [ I [ t L [ L L L L L WtUands These projects hove been discussed In greater detail in Section 5.6. The data below shows anticipated costs for each project. Land acquisition is typically not required, but coordination with landowners is highly recommended. Costs below include surveys, design, coordination, permits, and the restoration. Financing for wetland restoration projects could come from stormwater utility fees and/or grants and cost-sharing. Table 7.16 Wbtland Restoration Projects PC-L-31 LL-G-26 CosMi) 62,000 50.000 Wetland PC-M-31 SB-E-31 TOTAL Coetd) 35 000 65.000 $212,000 7.5.2 Priorities Coordination with City staff has yielded the following preliminary list of priority wetlands and lake bays. Table 7.17 Priority Reeources Priority Priority Watlaod WatHbodiM Rattofatton SItat Stubbs Bay PC-L-31 Carman Bay PC-M-31 Forast Lake LL-G-26 Tanager Lake SB-E-31 The City has also Identified ponds and water quality projects, not directly related to new development, which should be pursued in conjunction with the 5-year CIP. They ore listed in Table 7.18 by site location within their respective drainage distiict. The level of priority is noted in parentheses. Included ore ponds to be constructed, ravine stabilization projects. Installation of pipes, and location for water quality techniques in roadside settings. OtyofOrono Dr9ttSur1^watarMan»gementPI» 7-23 Tabto 7.18 Priority CIP Pro|ocls DMcriplion (Priority Uvol) Coata^ (S) Daaaription (Prioi^ Laval) Costs' (1) Carman Bay Stubbs Bay Pond CB-Q3 (1)19.000 Pond SB-Q16 (1)15,000 Roadside techniques along Blaine Ave in subdistrlcts CB-0 and CB-2 (11) 9,000 Ravine stabilization in subdistrict LC-23 (1)108,000 Pond CB-Q9 (1)20,000 Pond LC-Q1000 (1)33.000 Foreet Lake Pond SB-Q9.1 (II)110,000 Ravine stabtlization in subdistrict FL-19 (1)63.000 Ravine stabilization in subdistrict SB>9 (II)135,000 Pond FL-Q15(I)16.000 Pond SB -Q5 (II)13,000 Roadside techniques in subdistrict FL-0 (II)18.000 Ravine stabilization in subdistrict SB>5 (II)68,000 Ravine stabilization in subdistrict FL-20 (0 108,000 Pond SB-011 (II)23,000 Maxwell Bay Roadside techniques along Bayside Road (II)30,000 Pond MB-Q7 (II)47,000 Roadside techniques along Tonkawa Road (II)15.000 North Arm Tanager Lake Ravine stabilization in subdistrict NA-0, extending SW from node 596(1) 72.000 Study flow at top ef sub- district TL-11/node 901 (1)19.000^ Pond NA<Q9 (1)47,000 Roadside techniques along Browns Road S (II)27,000 Ravine stabilization at north end of subdistrict NA-0. near pond NA-Q8000 (II) 72,000 Roadside techniques along Shoreline Drive (II)27,w00 Ravine stabilization at north end of subdistrict NA-O (II)72,000 TOTAL 1.188.000 ' For pond*, coats indude land aoqwsition costs, for roadsido pro(acts cost art asUnatas only basad on S30 par hnar Idol*, for rs^irta stabUaabon. costs ar* astimatss orVy basad on par Snaar foot* * Study coat* of $4000 par yaar for four yaars. plus aubal purctiasa of sarTpiatg aduaxnam S3 000 * par tmaar loot costs rapraaant an svarsga ovar tha langOi of Ota ptoiact sta I L 1 J L L I 1 I L L L L L L Wafer quality ponds in developed areas, rovine stabilizafion projects, roadside technique projects, and water quality studies ore typically funded by stormwater utility fees, and could possibly be supplemented by grants or cost-sharing arrangements. Table 7.19 CIP Summary CIPONactive Total Coats SWMP Implementation Strategies'136.100* S326.000 water Quantity - New Development $302,000 Wetland Restoration Projects $212,000 Prionty Projects • Developed Areas $1,186,000 TOTAL $2,028,000 ' found in Syrians 7 7 ond 7 3 • Do«*» rtor incKxie onkrvown cotti in Tablet 7 4. 7 5. 7 10 AfZ.6 System Financing It is the desire and intent of the City’s leadership to establish an equitable and fair system to fund infrastructure for both new development in the City and for areas that are already developed. The City Council has decided that as a matter of policy, the residents of Orono should not have to pay for system Improvements associated with new development. On the other hand, residents of Orono should bear some responsibility for operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the existing system, as well as improvements aimed at priority wetlands and waterbodies. Funds for some activities in the CIP are available through grants or cost-sharing. See Table 7.22. The tl.meframe for improvements depends on development and future MUSA expansions. Storm sewers and water quality improvements should be constructed and assessed os development occurs. Oty of Orono Draft Sutfxx Managemtrrt Plan 725 Implementation Education ond water quality monitoring programs are to be financed by the City and potentiolly through grants/cost sharing opportunities. 7.6.1 New Development New development requires construction of ponds and pipes to accommodate Increased runoff. The City of Orono requires the developer of a parcel to pay for Infrastructure needed to minimize impact associated with development of that parcel. The mechanism to have developers pay for surface water management features is through a one-time "trunk fee". In general, trunk fees are calculated by dividing the total cost of system construction, by the number of developable acres the system will serve. However, the City's approach to applying trunk fees is to do so In five-year increments to mirror the typical CIP period. Therefore, the trunk fees proposed In this SWMP reflect estimated system construction costs associated with the development of twelve parcels that staff has identified as likely to be developed In this five-year CIP period. See Table 7.20. The land uses projected for these 12 parcels are representative of the type of development that may occur in Orono In the foreseeable future. Trunk fees will be revisited sometime in year four or five of this period to determine if adjustments are necessary for the next CIP period. It is anticipated that the majority of development in the City will be in the form of 2-acre single-family residential (SFR) parcels. Therefore. 2-acre SFR parcels were designated as the standard by which an "equivalent factor" was determined for each of the other types of development, as shown In Table 7.20. As such, the 2-acre SFR has an equivalent factor of 1.0. OfyofOnno Draft SUrtStce iVItter Man^ffement Pl»n 7-26 ImpfemenOtnn 11 ii »» IM* I [ L C L L L L L L L L L L Other land uses generate runoff at rates that reflect their respective amounts of impervious surface. For insfance. on the some two acres that may have been used for one home under the 2-acre SFR. there would be four homes under the '/a-acre SFR. The four homes/driveways/walks/efc. would generate a proportionately higher amount of runoff. At the same time, one home under the 5-acre SFR acres is going to generate considerably less runoff. The following equation illustrates how the "base" truak fee was computed. CH •• Itpywiitlift til ■ fvOTk Pm •tAmiHtiMn f Pm ■ MM Therefore, an equivalent factor, based on accepted runoff coefficients (see Section 4.1.3). was assigned to each land use. The base fee of $2,670 per acre was then multiplied by the pertinent equivalent factor to determine the trunk fees for each of the land use designations. Table 7.20 Trunk Fees Per Acre, Adjusted Per Land Use Land Um Equivalant Factor Adjuatad Fm, par Acra (1) Watar Quality trunk Fm’ Watar Quantify, Trunk Faa ’ ! VS acre SFR 1.48 3,950 1780 2175 1 acre SFR 1 32 3.525 1590 1940 j 2 acre SFR 1.00 2,670 1205 1470 1 t 5 acre SFR 08 2.140 965 1180 Commercial/Industrial 24 6.410 2885 3525 ' 5% oi toioi trunk tee. irt $ per oc/e. > 65% ol total hunk tee. m S pe« ocre The justification for charging a trunk fee is that a regional system will be developed to manage water quantify and quality. The proposed system of ponds and pipes has been designed to take ultimate future development, anticipated land uses, and site characteristics info account. OtyofOnno DnIiSuilketWHBrManagtmentPItn 7-27 ImplementtOon j So while certain features of a regional system may no! be physically located on a given development site, they still convey, treat, and/or store runoff from that site. 7.6.2 Expansion of Existing Structure Many expans-on projects take p'ace in fully developed areas and therefore don't require new pipes and/or ponds. But. because of increased runoff from increased impervious area, there is additional pressure on existing pipes and/or ponds. In fact, it is likely that the water quality treatment part system could not accommodate add tonal runoff. Therefore, the property ov/ner should be responsible for water quality treatment. As part of the overall system, the City intends to update and/or expand water quality treatment. The equitable way for a property owner fo bear the expense for his or her portion of the system upgrade is to pay a portion of the water quality trunk fee based an the square footage of the expansion. See Table 7.21 . Table 7.21 Water Quality Trunk Fee Schedule Araa of Expansion FMSchadulad) Residential'CoimnflndMat* 0 -1000 square feet % tnink fee » $460 Vi trunk fee = S955 1001 - 2000 square feet */» trunk fee » $930 % trunk fee = $1935 > 2000 square feet Full trunk fee • $1385 Full trunk fee » $2685 • Ave^oge residenKoi wotor quoMy tru'-.k (ee i S' sas per acre. lee« bosed or' ihb Ague > Convnerciai/indutMa! water quo^V *99 » S 2885 per ocre. tees Posed on this figure There will also be instances of exoansion to private homes or businesses that are situated in lakefront settings ar adjacent to wetlands. In many cases, properties in this setting discharge runoff directly into the lake or wetland. OtyofOrono On/t Suffice Weter Management Plan 728 bnpkmentebon L I I L li I U L L L L L While this type ot drainage may not tax existing intrastructure. It does put a bu.den on the water quality of nearby lakes or wetlands. So treatment of runoff will be required on-site using traditional or alternative methods. Be It a lakefront setting or not. the City will require that treatment ot runoff from an expansion project site be coordinated as demonstrated in Rgure 7.3. 7.6.3 Developed Areas Maintaining and updating the existing infrastructure will continue to be needed tor developed areas. And it should be noted that as system features for new developments come on line they become part ot the expanding existing infrastructure. The current ossessment policy of the City is to finance storm drainage facilities through a special assessment against benefiting properties. All land withir^ a drainage area is considered to be benefiting since land contributes runoff to the surface water system. OtyofOrono Dnft Surface W»terHsn»gemeinPI»n 7-29 Implement ation The City is evaluating the teasibility ot developing and initiating a “stormwater utility". A stormwater utility, os being considered, would come in the form of an ongoing fee to residential and commercial properly owners. The funds generated from this fee would be used to upgrade and maintain the existing system. As with the trunk fee described earlier, utility rates are based on land use. Accordingly, rates for commercial, industrial, ond high-density residentiat areas would be higher than for low- density residential areas because these areas typically have more Impervious area, which increases the amount and rate of runoff, which result in the need for larger storm sewer pipes. Runoff from parking areas in commercial and industrial areas olso generally contains a significantly higher amount of pollutants. This is an additional factor to consider in determining assessment rates for water qua'ity improvements. 7.6.4 Grants There are a number of opportunities to obtain funding, typically in the form of cost-sharing, from various state and federal agencies, and occasionally from private foundations. Table 7.22 presents a few of the better-known grants available from certain agencies: it is not intended to be a comprehensive list. It should be noted, that while some of these grants are not intended to fund construction of pipes and ponds, they can contribute to the City’s overall surface water management efforts by improving habitat, educating system users, and promating innovative techniques. The amount of funds available, specific project objective and/or cost-share requirements vary between grant programs and. to some exte from year ta year. OtyofOrono DnftSwf^W»tmM»n»gementPI»n 7-JC7 Impknmtation I Ad - > I L [ L li D L I t L L L L L. Tabl« 7.22 Grant/Cost Sharing Opportunitiaa Sourca Nama of Grant Program Proiact Ot^oc^oo Mat Council Local water Resources Manaaement Plan waterbody / wetland assessment, ordinance development MetroEnvironment Partnership In the ground water quality efforts, education programs BWSR ChaNenge Grant Watershed planning PCA Clean Water Partnership / Section 319 Water quaWy and habitat improvement Feedtot Grants Reduce feedtot runoff impacts DNR'Metro Greenway Natural resource inventories, greenway corridor planning - '1 Community Environmental P.vtnership Public awareness n>atertals. clean-up projects Conservation Partners Habitat enhancement research/sunrey projects MCWD Cost sharing and in-kind agreements water quality monitoring The River Network Watershed Assistance Grant water quality and habitat improvement Audubon Society Watershed Stewardship Program Public awareness, landowner coordination, easements US Fish&VWdbfe Service Nottti Ameitan WaSands Conservason Act. 1 Standard Grants Program. 2. Small Grants Program Long-term conservation of wetlands and aseodated uplarnfs through habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement ERA Several programs addressing water quality, flooding, habitat etc ' ONR has levofol rrore gran? progrorm that moy pwlain to IhisSWMP CfyefOvno On/tSUri^i^^Uer Management Pl»n 73i rmptementaaon L C D 0 D L D [ L L L L I L 8. Summary and R ecommendations A 8.1 Summary The Ofono Surface Water Management Plan has auol purposes: tt will sefve os a guide for the construction of surface water management facilities arxJ provide a basis for a consistent approach to lake and wetland protection The following Issues have been addressed in this SV/MP: ❖ Division of the City Into drainage districts ana subdistricts based on contour maps, grading pkans and naturoi topography ❖ Determirration of runoff under ultimate land use conditions ❖ Layout orxJ sizing of trunk storm sewers arxj open chonr^e s ❖ Determination of storage volumes, high water leve s, or d peak outflows of oil required ponding oreos ❖ Identification and classification of selected v/etlonas ❖ Development of wetlarvd monogement poicies to ensure compliance with iocol. state, and federoi wettard regulations ❖ Recommendations for education of City residents, stotf. end development community ❖ Estimation of Implementation costs, priorities, ana sv'stem financing The primary function of an urban surface water management system is to minimize economic loss and irconvenience aue to periodic flooding of streets and otrrer low-lying areas. AdequoteV desigrred drainage faciiities minimize hazards and inconvenience ossocioted with flooding and protect or enhonce water q jolity. To provide flood protection for odjacent property, the design stoin interval for pordrng areos is a ICO-yeor storm, compared to o 5- year storm for design of storm sewer piping. To provide an additlordi safety factor, the lowest opening or exposed floor of a structure In a developnnent should be ot leost two feet obove the calculated high water level of the pond. The lov/est exposed floor elevations of structures that are adjacent to ponds should oe OtyofOrono DnftSui^oe WMtr M»n»gement Ptsn Sumnwy snd RecommemUtfons i, certified by the buldef during bosement constructon to ensure odequate freeboard. The numerous rxjtuol oepressions found throughout Orono hove been Incorporoted Into the Surfoce Water r/anogement Plan as porrding areas. The effective use of ponding oreas enaoles the installation of outflow sewers with reduced capacities Prudent investment in storm sewers colls for porxiing stormwater In designated ponding areas end using smaller diameter pipes as outfall i.nes. Equally as Important as tiood controt and cost considerations Is the use of ponding areas to; ❖ Improve water quality ❖ Return stormwater to the groundwater table ❖ Increase water amenities in developments for oesthetic. recreation orxJ wMdWe For water quality ponds, wet volume is the most important consideration The area and depth of the porxJs nxiy differ from the values in this SWMP, but the wet volume must be provided so that the prescribed phosphorus loading of the system Is not exceeded it con oe ossumed that water quality porxJs that reduce phosphorus loadings by 60 percent from standard rurxjff cohcer.tfations will also reduce heavy metal concentrotions by 70 percent orx3 suspended sediment by 90 percent. PondNet was selected for use In Orono to predict phosphorus concentrations An ultimate corxJitlons model v/os developed for eoch arainage district based on projected future land use. Different sets of improvements under full development were onotyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in key waterbodies. The trunk storm sewer system alignments and pond locations shown in this SWMP are conceptual In nature. Future development will determine the exact locotlohs. The proposed oiignments follow natural drainogeways and the existing slope of the terroin wherever possible; therefore, variations from proposed alignments should be kept to a mininryum. Pipe sizes orx3 chonnel widths ore oiso general since they are based on assumed slopes and land uses. n\ Otyof Orono Dr»n Smfioo Wattr Monogement Plan Summary and Recommendations I [ L E L [ L L L L L I ft is extremely important thot eoch orea be reevaluated at the time ot final design to confirm the criteria used in this SWMP and to rrK3ke any changes that a proposed development may dictate. Special consideration must be given to areas thot develop differentty than shoN^n In the Comprehensive Pion. especially when a higner runoff coefficient may result All storm sewer focilitles. especially those conveying large quontitles of water at high velocities, should be designed with efficient hydraulic charocterlstics. Special ottention should be given to those lines that have extreme slopes and create high hydrauHc neods. Best Management Proctices (BMPs) recommerx3ed by the MPCA should be followed wherever necessary, and the City's existing erosion control ordinarx:e snouid be strongly enforced. A 8.2 R ecommendations The following recommendations are presented for the City Council s consideration based upon the data compiled in this SWMP: The Surfoce Water Management Plan os presented herein be adopted by the Otv of Orono ❖ Recommended ponding oreos should be estabitshed and mode part of the surface water management system ❖ Review procedures should be standardized to erasure all development within the City is In compliance with existing wetiar»d regulations ❖ Ponds In new developments should be constructed os required by the SWMP to provide nutrient removal. ❖ Hydrologic analysis should be required before changing pond high water levels ❖ Finoi high viroter levels governing building elevations odjocent to ponding oreos and floodplains should be estoblished as developnnent occurs or when drainage fociilties are constructed ❖ Overflow routes should be estoblished and mointained to provide relief during storm corxiltions that nrxjy exceed design conditions ❖ A surfoce water system nrxjlntenarx:e progrom should be established to ensure successful operation OtyofOnno On/tSUrAceMter Management Pfbn Summary and Recommendations OfyoTOrono DranSurt^W»t*fM»ntgementPl9n A Water Quollty Monitoring Program for selected recreational wotertxxJies should be developed by the City, in cooperation with the appropriate agency for point arxl non point sources of pollution Erosion ond sediment control criteria for new developments should be enforced An education program for City retidents. stoff. ond the development community should be implemented Amendments to the SWMP should be odopted and Implemented as warranted by future conditions, technology, standards or regulations As discussed in Section 5. four wetlands should be restored and monitored Water quar/ techniques should be oppied. where possible, in roadside settings, with special consideration given to narrow roadways with lake and/or wetland on both sides Ravine stabilization should be considered an integral port of water quality improvement Priortty sites should be Identified and their solutions Implemented In an appropriate timefrome The plon should be updated in 2007-2010. or earlier If needed Summary and RecommmxtaOons i I E E [ G G D C LI D 1 I II L IL I L Sample Pages from Appendices (A full set of the appendices can be made available if you wish to review a specific area) APPENDIX A DRAINAGE AREAS DrilAa00 Atm BROWNS BAY Arta (acraa) Drainao# Area Area (acrea) BB-1 29 BB-11 22 BB-2 20 BB-12 80 BB-3 B BB-13 17 BB-4 23 BB-14 28 BB-S 17 BB-15 36 BB^15 BB-16 14 BB-7 7 BB-17 26 BB-8 12 BB-18 7 BB-9 19 BB-19 6 BB-10 8 BB-20 4 BB-21 10 TOTAL-408 CARMAN BAY I li li 1: I Dralnaga Area Dralnaga Area 1Area(acrea)Area (acrea) CB*1 36 cb-7 16 CB-2 27 CB-8 6 CB-3 10 CB-9 5 CB-4 5 CB*10 6 CB-5 17 CB-11 7 CB-6 11 TOTAL-148 - CRYSTAL BAY - Dralnaga Area Area (acrea)•• CY-1 14 CY-2 8 TOTAL-22 I L i i I i L i L i BASIN ID FROM NODE BROWNS BAY BB-1 BB-2 BB-4 BB^ 6B^ BB-7 BB-B BB-9 BB-10 BB-12 B3-12 BB-12 B3-14 BB-IS BB-16 BB-16 BB-17 BB-18 BB-21 2 5 9 3 4 25 23 7 27 10 11 13 15 29 21 19 32 17 33 CARMAN BAY APPENDIX B EXISTING PROPOSED PIPES TO NODE LENGTH (ft) SIZE fin) BB-Q1 1 BB-P4 10 4 8 BB-Q7.1 22 4 26 11 BB-P12 LL-P50 14 BB-P17 20 18 BB-P21 BB-P16 OSA 109 211 664 358 918 341 323 279 94 971 380 125 79 52 40 110 52 95 86 24 10VCP 18VCP 4 10 15 6BCW 10VCP 15 16 18 24 15 24 15 18 15 IS 24 FLOY/ (cfs) STATUS 41 2.8 59 02 15 55 12 19 134 52 134 129 3 67 52 62 5.5 PROPOSED PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED CB1 50 51 66 12 EXISTING CB-1 52 51 53 12 EXISTING CB-1 51 53 262 15 EXISTING CB-1 S3 54 46 15 EXISTING CB-1 54 58 37 21 EXISTING CB-1 55 54 142 15 EXISTING CB-1 56 55 117 15 EXISTING CB-1 57 56 57 12 EXISTING CB-1 58 59 147 21 EXISTING CB-1 59 60 111 21 EXISTING CB-1 49 CB-P2 200 15 48 PROPOSED CB-2 47 OSA 461 15 56 PROPOSED CB-3 61 62 234 18 95 PROPOSED CB-3 62 CB-Q3 396 21 16 PROPOSED CB-5 64 63 127 12 CMP EXISTING CB-6 46 CB-Q6 264 12 4 PROPOSED CB-7 66 CB-P8 93 12 5 EXISTING CB-8 69 CB-P9 57 18 EXISTING CB-8 67 WA-P6 680 6PVC PROPOSED CB-9 70 WA-P4 235 6PVC EXISTING CB-11 45 CRYSTAL BAY OSA 314 3-15-17.9 PROPOSED CY-1 81 OSA 358 21 9 PROPOSED CY-2 82 OSA 19 5BCW 28 PROPOSED I L mmi: APPENDIX C 10Q.YEAR POflP DfSICW poNnt TRIBUTARY AREA POND AREA POND AREA STORAGE NORMAL HIGH POND (ACRES) ©NWL ©HWL VOLUME WATER WATER OUTFLOW DIRECT PONDED TOTAL (ACRES) (ACRFS) (AC-FT) LF.VFL LEVEL (CFS) OUTLET STRUCTURE DROWNS DAY B8^1 BB4>2 B0-P3 B8-P4 BB-P5 B8-P6 B8-P7 B8-P8 B8P9 OBP10 BB-P11 BB4>12 BB-P13 BB-P14 BB-P15 BB-P16 BB^17 B84>18 BB-P19 BB^O BB-P21 29 17 40 01 37 21 9554 9562 38 2rRCP 20 50 70 0.1 51 69 9509 9540 31 KTVCPonpian 8 8 0.1 07 1.3 854.4 9508 P7 rvCP on plan 23 212 235 02 1.5 2.6 948.4 9502 0.1 18*VCPonplan 17 17 00 01 01 950.7 9521 98 No BB^5 on plan 15 IS 03 19 Z5 956.1 9582 02 4"PVC 7 7 02 05 05 961.8 9633 54 15-RCP 12 12 0.1 12 10 9604 9612 116 6*BCW 19 10 2.5 78 27 959.9 960 9 1.9 10"VCP on plan 8 7 IS 01 08 07 954 2 950 0 132 24“ RCP 22 12 34 11 33 8.3 940 0 944.1 00 lO'BCW 80 28 108 01 125 79 9299 932 0 137 24“ RCP 17 17 01 25 29 939.3 941.4 00 lO’BCW 28 28 4.0 4.2 37 934.0 934 9 30 15-RCP 30 15 51 20 11.2 6.8 931.5 933.7 6.7 24“ RCP 14 7 21 0.0 1.6 10 926.9 9301 140 15TICP418-RCP 20 55 81 1.0 89 87 931.0 9324 52 15-RCP 7 7 00 04 06 929.3 9320 03 15-RCP 0 21 27 0.0 00 00 927.2.920.7 212 No BB-P15 on map 4 •- 4 05 0.7 0.5 934.0 934.7 1.0 No B8-P20 on map 10 81 91 0.4 2.4 19 930.5 0315 55 No BB-P21 on map oe^ tini uttii lilNitti l^fctr.Tr - Appendix H - Sunimar>' of Wetland Susceptibility to Degradation bv Storm Water Input i. Highly Sttfceptibic Welland Tvpts Sedge Meadows Sedge meadow’s ore dominated by the sedges (Cypcraceae) growing on saturated soils. Most of the sedges present arc in the genus Carex, but also present arc those of Eleochoris (spike rushes), Scirpus (bulrushes), and Cyperus (nutgrasses). Grasses (Gramincac). especially Canada bluejoint grass, and true rushes (Juncus), may also be present. The forb species arc diverse but scattered, and may flower poorly under intense competition with the sedges. Soils arc usually composed of peat or muck. Some sedges, especially the hummock sedge, form hummocks that may be accentuated by grazing and frost action. The pcat/muck and hummocks are composed of undccayed fibrous roots and rhizomes. Sedge meadows often grade into shallow marshes, calcareous fens, low prairies, and bogs. Occasional fires stimulate spring gro\vth of the sedges while setting back invading woody vegetation. There are over 150 species of Carex in Minnesota and Wisconsin, many of w hich arc found in wetland habitats. Because they have specific habitat requirements, Carex arc good indicator of environmental conditions such as soil and water chemistry , water levels, shading, silt depositing, and floating mats. The fertile organic soils associated with sedge meadows have traditionally been used for muck farming. The lowering of water tables through artificial drainage is suspected of causing shrub invasion in some of the reramning sedge meadows. Li |j 11 1L t. Bogs are a specialized wetland type found on saturated, acid peat sols that arc low in nutrients. They support a unique assemblage of trees, low shrubs, and herbs grow ing on a mat of sphagnum moss (Cunis 1971). In Minnesota and Wisconsin, most bogs arc found north of the vegetation tension zone. Bogs arc one stage in succession from open water lake to climax mcsic hardwood forest (Curtis 1971). The bog originates on a floating mat of sedges, w hich becomes colonized by sphagnum mosses. As the mat gradually thickens and becomes more stable, it is invaded by the evergreen shrubs of the heath family (Ericaceae). Eventually, ta.marack and black spruce can be supported by the mat. The final stage of succession is, theoretically, climax mesic hardwood forest. Note that succession is rarely without interruption. It is typically a series of advancements and setbacks, primarily du • ’.o fire. Also note that there arc similar successional patterns for other wetland plant communities. H-1 t L C L L G L D D L ti L I i L H i t I The values and uses of include Imrvestinu of sphagum moss, aesthetics, and conversion to commercial cranberry production. Coniferous Bogs Coniferous bogs arc similar to open bogs in plant community composition and structure except that mature trees (dbh greater than six inches) of black spruce and/or tamarack arc the domtnanl species growing on the sphagnum moss mat. Sphagnum moss is still the dominant groundla>cr species, and a few sedges, orchids, and pitcher plants, that have endured the shaded conditions arc often present, along uilh tlic heath family (Ericaceae) shrubs. Black spruce and the heath family shrubs vc characteristic only of acid peats such as inosc associated with sphagnum moss mats, whereas tamarack can grow in calcareous peats as well, such as those of northern white cedar swamps. Open Bogs Open bogs arc composed of a carpet of liv ing sphagnum moss growing over a layer of acid peat. Herbs and/or the low shrubs of the heath family (Ericaceae) colonize the sphagnum moss mat. Scattered, usually immature or stunted (dbh less than six inches) trees of black spruce and or tamarack may be present Lack of forest is probably due to: conditions too wet for the tree species; sphagnum moss mat too thin to support trees; recurrent fires: summer rrosis; and or lack of a seed source for the tree species. Cnlcnrious Fens Calcareous fens arc the rarest wetland plant community in Minnesota and isconsin. ar.u probably one of Uie rarest in North America. There are plant communities of wet, seepage sites that have on internal flow of ground water rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates, and sometimes calcium and magnesium sulfates as well (Curtis 1971). The calcium and magnesium bicarbonates and sulfates precipitate out at the surface, creating a harsh, alkaline soil conditions. Only a select group of calcium-tolerant plants, referred to as calciphilcs. can sun ive these conditions. Characteristic species include shrubby cinquefoil, sterile sedge, fen beak-rash. Ohio gotdenrod. common valerian and lesser fringed gentian. Also included arc species di>r.mct from the tundra, alpine meadow's, and salt marshes. Therefore, calcareous fens ha\ e t>ecn re.erred to as a hybrid communit}* by Curtis (1971). Calcareous fen communities in general have a disproportionate number of rare, threatened, and endangered plant species as compared to other plant communities in the Great Lakes region. Trout streams are often associated with calcareous fens because of the cold pure water provided by the springs and seepages. Low, Wet, and Fresh Prairies Prairies are open, herbaceous plant communities covered by low growing plants dominate by native grass-like species; at least half of the vegciaiivc cover is made up of inie grasses (Curtis H-2 1971). Low prairies include both wet and wet-mesic prairies as described by Curtis (1971). These communities ore similar to fresh (ssei) meadows, but are dominated by native grasses and forbs associated with the prairies, such as prairie cord-grass, bug blucstcm, ga> tcater. New England aster, culver's root, prairie dock, and sawtooth sunflower. Low prairie comrr.unslies only occur south of the vegetation tension zone, although a few low prairie species may be found in sandy barrens and wet swales north of the te.ision zcrtc. Coniferous Swamps Coniferous swamps are forested wetlands dominated by lowland conifers, primarily northern while cedar and tamarack, growing on soils that are saturated during much of the growing season, and that may be inundated by as much as a foot of standing w^icr. Soils arc usually organic (pcai/muck) and can vcr>’ from nutrient-poor to acid, to fertile and al.kaline cr neutral. Tamarack typically dominates on the former soils, and northern white cedar on the Utter. A sphagnum moss mat is not present. Coniferous swamps occur primarily in and north of the vegetation tension zone. Lowland Hardwood Sw amps Lowland hardwood swamp are dominated by deciduous hardwood trees, and have soils that arc saturated during much of the growing season, and may be inundated by as much as a foot ot sanding water (Shaw and Fredinc 1971). Dominant trees include black ash. red maple, yellow birch, and south of the vegetation zone, silver maple. Northern white cedar can be a subdominant species in stands north of the vegetation tension zone. American elm is still an important component in this community, although its numbers have been greatly reduced by Dutch dm disease. These communities arc commonly found on ancient lake basins. Moderately Susceptible Wetland Tspci Shnib-carrs Shrub-carrs arc plant communities composed of tall, deciduous shrubs grow ing on saturated to seasonally flooded soils. They arc usually domi.nated by willows and/or red-osier dogwt)od. and sometimes silky dogw ood. Shrub-cans usually retain some of the forbs, grasses, and sedges of the inland fresh meadow s. These communities arc common both north and south of the vegetation tension zone. It should be noted that three alien (non-native) shrub species not illustrated in this guide are invading shrub-carrs. especially where disturba.nces such as drainage and pasturing have occurred. These ore honeysuckle (Lanicera x bella), fen buckthorn {Rhammis frangula), and common buckthorn {Rhamnus cathartica). Alder ThickeU Alder thickets are a tall, deciduous shrub community similar to shrub-carrs except that speckled alder is dominant. Speckled alder can pioneer exposed peat or alluvial soils because of its tiny seeds and ability to fix nitrogen. Alder thickets arc generally found in and north of the vegetation tension zone. H-3 M i 1 1 I I I i It It L in 'D L [1 L C L L L L L Speckled alder may occur as a monoi>pe. but the alder thicket comntunily can have a diversity o: shrubs including high-bii<ih cranberrv {l"ibiiniuni irilohum), sweet gale (A/yr/a/yv/Ze). and common winterberrv holly Ule.x verticillula). Fresh Meadows Fresh (wet) meadows arc dominated by grasses, such as red-top grass and reed canar>- grass, and by forbs such as giant goldenrod, growing on saturated soils. The gross family (Gramineae) and aster family (Compositae) are well represented in fresh (wet) meadows. The forbs and grasses of these meadows are characterized b> less competitive, more nutrient demanding, and often shorter-lived species that, the sedges of the sedge meadow community. Therefore, fresh (wet) meadows probably represent younger communities that indicate recent disturbances and degradation of other inland fresh meadows by drainage, siltation, cultivation, pasturing, peat fires, ond'or temporary flooding. Once established, the forbs and grasses of the fresh (wet) meadow community ma> persist for extended periods of time. Shallow Marshes Shallow marsh plant communities have soils that are saturated to inundated, by standing water up to six inches in depth, throughout most of the growing season (Shaw and Frcdine 1971) Herbaceous emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, arrowheads, and lake sedges characterize this community. 3. Slightly Susceptible Wetland Types Shallow Open Water Communities Shallow open water plant communities generally have water depths of less than 6.6 feet (2 meters). Submergent. floating, and floating-leaved aquatic vegetation including pondweeds. water-lilies, water milfoil, coontail, and duckweeds characterize this wetland type. Size can \xy from one-quarter-acre pond, to a long oxbow of a river or shallow bay of a lake. Floating vegetation may or may not be present depending upon the effects of the season, wind, and availability of nutrients. Shallow open water communities differ from deep and shallow marshes in that they are seldom, if ever, drawn down. As a result, emergent aquatic vegetation cannot become established. Shallow open water communities can provide important habitat for waterfowls, terns, furbearers, fish, frogs, turtles, and aquatic invertebrates. For example, the submergent plants and aquatic invertebrates provide food for waterfowl, which is especially important during migration. The permanent to semi-permanent water regime of these deep-water w etlands result in their being especially important for waterfowl production in drought years when other wetlands have become dry. Also provided is habitat for spawiiing beds and nursery areas for both game and nongamc fish. Finely, thee areas of open water provide a valuable aesthetic resource important to municipalities and to property values. H-4 L Floodplain Forests Floodplain forests are wetlands dominated by mature, deciduous hardwood trees growing on alluvial soils associated with riverine systems. The soils arc inundated during flood events, but arc usually somew hat w ell-drained for much of the growing season (Shaw and Frcdine 1971). The most characteristic feature of floodplains is the alluv iai soil that is constantly being deposited in some locations while being eroded away in others. Floodplain forests typically include the northern and southern vvcl-mcsic hardwood forest associations described by Curtis (1971). Dominant hardwoods include silver maple, green ask, river birch, eastern cottonwood, American elm, and black willow. The herbaceous groundlaycr is commonly composed of jeweled and nettles. Floodplain forest have a great diversity of plant and animal species because they serve as migration corridors. Some of the many species of w ildlife that inhabit floodplain forc.sts are wood duck, barred owl, herons, egrets, and a variety of songbirds. Pools within the forest may provide habitat for amphibians and invertebrates, while adjoining areas of open sand may provide habitat for reptiles. During high water periods these forests even provide habitat for fish. Floodplain forests are extremely important for flood wet storage. Diking of floodplain forests to allow development or agricultural use can aggravate both upstream and downstream flooding impacts. Deep Marsh Deep marsh plant communities have standing water depths of between six inches and three or more feet during most of the growing season (Shaw and Frcdine 1971). Herbaceous emergent, floating, floating-leaved, and submergent vegetation occurs in this community, with the major dominance by cattails, hardsicnt bulrush, pickerclwecd and ’or giant bur-reed. Seasonally Flooded Basins Seasonally flooded basins arc poorly drained, shallow depressions that may have standing water for a few weeks each year, but ore usiwlly dry for much of the growing season. These basins may be kettles in glacial deposits, low spots in outwash plains, or depressions in floodplains. They arc frequently cultivated. However, when these basins are not cultivated, wetland vegetation can become established. Ty pical species include smartweeds. beggarticks, nut- grasses, and wild millet. One unique aspect of seasonally flooded basins is that the alternating periods of flood and drought can eliminate perennial plants so that aimual plant species typically dominate the community. Seasonally flooded basins arc important fer waterfowl and shorebirds. These temporao' water holding basins frequently have an abundance of plant seeds and invertebrates, w hich makes them ideal feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowls and shorebirds. In spring, seasonally flooded basins are used as pairing ponds by ducks, and the abundant invertebrate population provides a protein-rich diet for egg-laying hens. H-5 11 1 I I I I I I t I L I k I i i t L I I I 4. Least Sutceotlblc Wetland Types The baseline condition of some wetlands ma> be already degraded to such an extent ilui storm water input would not cause any additional adverse impacts. Cultivated hydric soils, dredge/fill disposal sites and some gravel pits are examples of this condition. Source: “Draft Guidance for Evaluating Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts to Wetlands'*, Stale of Minnesota Stor.awater Advisor Group, July, 1994. H-6 WolInncI Functions and Rolalod Values X«nc 0> > 06 ra c ozc £ 04 m im y_4 a Ecological Intogrily ■ Wildlife Habitat □ VisuaI/Aor.!lictic □ Floral Diversity / Integrity M025-A BB-35-A BB-2-B BB-2C BB-2D BB-2-E S3-31A SB-31-B SB-31-C SB-31-D Wetland ID ( .1 .I,. ^ i L L L L /VCityUmits MUSA■w/-. /\y Drainage District Boundary Drainage Subdistrict Boundary Subdistrict iDSB-11 /\y Existing Pipe /\/ Proposed Pipe /\/ Open Channei or Ravine Existing Node Proposed Node ■ Proposed Lift Station - Fiared End Section (FES) d Ravine Stabiiization Site ‘ 'AL Stormwater Susceptibiiity (Wetlands) High Moderate Siight Least Wetiand Not Inventoried Wetlabel ID DNR Protected Water Body Lake Stormwater Pond Pond ID s: Normal Water Level High Water Level Water Quality Ponds A Optional Water Quality Pond A Proposed Water Quality Pond i-- Water Quality Pond ID 1000 2000 Svirface W City Surface Wate; sag&g* '■■■»«■«■> »■..«» MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 (M262S MORGAN NELSON, Continued) Lind<|ubt moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2625, 3145 Jamestown Road, granting of a variance to average lakeshorc setback and a variance to the 150 foot setback from the OIIWL of Lake Classen. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #2633 JEROME LAGUE, 2138 SHADVWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:52 p.m. - 7:07 p.m. Paul Lague. Applicant's son, was present TIw Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Boftenberg staled the Applicant is requesting a \ariance to replace a lakeside second story deck Tlic proposed deck is to be 14' by 56’ and located approximately 86 feet from Lake Minnetonka, On the w est end of the proposed deck w ill be a ramp for accessing the \ard The ramp is 84 square feet The old deck was in a deteriorated slate and has been removed Dottenberg stated the deck/ramp w ill encroach 8 feet into the average lakeshorc setback. The residence was built in 1975 in its present location The adjacent residence to the north has been tom down and a new residence is being built further back on its lot to meet the average lakeshorc setback, making the deck protrude further into the avciage lakeshorc setback than previously. Dottenberg stated the lakeside patio of approximately 500 square feet w ill not increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-350 ’ zone because it is on top of the bnck patio which is already counted as hardcover. The ramp on the west end of the proposed deck will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-250’ zone by approxinuitcly 84 square feet Dottenberg stated a \ ariance to hardcover m the 75-250* zone is required as well as a variance to the average lakeshorc setback to permit the 8 foot encroachment City Staff recommends approval of the variance to builu the deck and ramp Laguc had no additional comments to Staff s report Hawn stated the Planning Commission tvpicaily docs not permit addiuonal hardcover, but docs allow the residents to replace what is currently existing Hawn stated the ramp is an issue in this application Ibwn inquired whether the deck could be reduced slightly. Laguc stated he could possiblv moke the ramp slight!) narrow Lague stated he has a picture showing the previous deck, noting what is proposed is the exact same deck. Hawn slated that is her understanding as vvoll. Lindquist stated the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the deck by 84 square feet Laguc inquired whether it was a hardcover issue. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («^2633 JEROME LAGl'E, Continued) Hawn stated it is a haidcovcr issue since the sire of the deck is proposed to be 84 square feet larger in size than what existed. Hawn stated when the existing hardcover exceeds the amount that is allowed under Code, the Planning Commission t>pically will only allow replacement of what currently exists and docs not allow that amount of hardcover to be increased. Hawn commented since they arc routincl)' faced w ith requests to increase hardcover, they need to be consistent in tlieir approvals. Lague stated his father is out of town and he was unaware that tlicrc was an issue w ith this request. Lague inquired whether some landscape plastic and rock could be removed in order to allow the size of deck being proposed Hawn stated the Planning Commission docs not trade rock and plastic for hardcover in other areas. Hawn suggested that perhaps the deck could be reduced or redesigned to meet the current hardcover Lindquist inquired how big the current deck is. Lague stated the deck is 14' by 36'. Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking to reduce the size of the deck to 84 square feet. Lindquist stated the Applicant would be allowed a 420 square foot deck. Stoddard stated the <Hhcr issue deals w ith the average lakeshore setback Stoddard inquired whether there were an> letters from the neighbors rebtng to this project Lague stated the new neighbors have not moved in yet ami to his knowledge there is not a letter in the file. Weinberger stated the adjoining residence was recently tom down, which changes the average lakeshore setback Stoddard inquired how far tlic deck would be from the lakeshore. Botten' erg stated the new deck will be located 86 feet from the lakeshore. Weinberger staled the Applicant is requesting equal replacement of the existing deck. Stoddard inquired whether this encroachment will permit the adjoining propertv owner from encroaching into the average lakeshore setback Weinberger stated this application should not impact the average lakeshore setback on the adjoining property. Lindquist reiterated the Applicant w ill need to reduce the size of the deck or ramp to meet w hat currently exists Lague commented that there has alwavs been a ramp on this deck. Lague presented a picture of the deck and ramp to the Planning Commission. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (M2633 JEROME LAGUE, Continued) Stoddard commented it was his understanding there was no ramp pre^ously. Hawn stated that was her understanding as well. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission generally will allow replacement of what is existing. Hawn stated the building permit does not show rcphccmcnt of the ramp Weinberger stated the existing deck was built quite a few >cars ago and the City docs not have a re\‘iscd plan showing the ramp. Hawn stated since the picture obviously shows the ramp did exist, she does not have a problem allow ing replacement of the deck and ramp. Smith commented this appears to be a replacement situation rather than an increase in hardcover. Hawn stated the hardcover figures contained in the Planner's Report apparently arc incorrect, noting they arc dealing with 84 square feet Hawn stated since the deck and ramp have been removed, it will be difficult to verify the previous hardcover. TiKrrc were no public comments relating to this application. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application M2633, 2138 Shndywood Road, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75*250' zone and a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit replacement of a deck and ramp to be no more than 588 total square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn noted the Applicant has previously indicated to Staff that he would be willing to remove the existing landscape fabric arid rock Hawn inquired whether they arc still willing to do so, Lague stated tlicy would be. (IV4) 112636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3235 IVY PLACE, VARIANCES. 7:07 p.m. - 8:02 p.m. Gary and Susan Cable, Applicants, were present. 'The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to allow hardcover in excess of 2S percent for a new house and driveway. The Applicants had previously been granted a demolition permit to remove the pnncipal and accessory buildings on the property. The house has since been removed. The propert) owners have rcqreslcd a variance to keep the existing 8' bv 12* ice house located on the property PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLF^ Continued) Weinberger stated the Applicants have been uorking with Staff to develop a plan which meets some of tlic objectives and ordinances of the City. Weinberger slated originally the Applicants were proposing a larger house, w iih the revised pbn calling for a smaller sized house. The Applicants have been issued a building permit on the revised plan, which is under the 25 percent allowable hardcover. Weinberger stated the ice house is located on the lakeshore of the propertv' approximately 47 feet from the lakeshore On lakeshore lots, accessory buildings arc not permitted to be located closer to the lakeshore than the principal building on Uie property, not w ithin 75 feet of the lakeshore, and not within the a\crage lakeshore setback Weinberger stated a visual inspection conducted of the ice house indicates that replacement of the foundation may be required at some lime in the near future Typically the City of Orono requires variances to do anything other than replacement of siding or the roof which have been considered cosmetic work dial would not extend the life of the structure. The Applicants have indicated they would like to replace the foundation in the future, which would require variances Weinberger stated in order to allow the tee house to stay, the City would need to allow the hardcover in the 0-75' zone to remain Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the driveway The Applicants at the time the building permit was issued, had agreed to remove the third stall to the garage which would have been needed to be served bv the driveway Weinberger stated the amount of driveway being proposed to scrv ice all three garage stalls was not feasible and additional hardcover would liave been required in order to access all three garage stalls In order to receive the building permit, tlic propertv owners reduced the size of the driveway and redesigned the driveway to allow better access to the two remaining stalls Weinberger slated another issue for consideration is whether additional hardcover consisting of 100 square feel would be allowed on the propertv in order to access the third garage stall if approved Weinberger noted the previous residence had approximately 50 percent hardcover, with the proposed house being built at approximately 26 percent liardcov er with the third garage stall. Weinberger stated tlie Applicants arc requesting a longer driveway in order to protect the trees and to build the house in the existing topography, which will keep the elevation of the house down and allow a better view of the lake. Weinberger noted the entire house meets the av erage lakeshore setback Cable commented it has been a clulicnge to meet the City's lurdcover requirements, which tlicy were unaware of at the time they purchased the propertv Cable stated they would like to begin construction on the new residence prior to the ground freezing Cable indicated they have reduced the size of the house and garage in order to meet the structural coverage limit. Cable commented they would like to preserve the ice house, noting it has existed since the 1800$. Cable commented Uiey would ^so like an additional 100 square feet of hardcov er tor some landscaping they would like to do PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondiiy, November 20,2000 (02636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Stoddard stated the Planning Commission tends to limit structural cmerage on new construction to 15 percent and 25 percem hardcover. Hawn concurred that the 15 percent structural coverage will need to be adhered to. Hawn stated the City typically does not allo>v any hardcover within the 0*75’ zone, noting the City has ordinances in pl^ which permits replacement of those structures only under certain circumstances. Hawn commented she personally is unsure about what plan is being presented to the Planning Commission tonight, noting the Planning Commission is not here to design the Applicant ’s house and driveway. Hawn stated she would like to know exactly what hardcover the Planning Commission is being asked to consider Hawn stated if the ice house remains, the third stall of the garage and driveway will probably not be approved. Berg inquired whether there w ill be a front sidewalk between the front entry and the driveway. Weinberger staled the Applicants are proposing a sidewalk Weinberger stated the building permit docs not show a sidewalk Smith inquired w hether the sidewalk is included in the 100 additional square feet of hardcover. Weinberger stated that is included in the 100 square feet Weinberger stated the 50 feet of excess hardcov er docs include the ice house. Smith commented it is her opinion if the Applicants wish to keep the ice house, they may do so, but tliat they w ill need to come back before the Planning Commission at the time the foundation of the ice house is proposed to be replaced Smith stated typically the City does not approve repbeement of foundations for stn‘cturcs located w ithm the 0*75' zone. Lindquist commented in his view the ire house should be removed if the Applicants want the additional hardcover Smith stated the decision to keep the ice house is up to the Applicants Lindquist stated if the ice house remains, the amount of hardcover should be limited to 25 percent. Smith stated she would be in agreement with the 25 percent hardcover limit Hawn inquired whether they need to look at top of the bluff requirements, noting there is a steep dropoff. Weinberger stated there is no bluff situation on this property. Lindquist inquired how many square feet they are over on the hardcover. PAGES > 1^'.. ■■ _rJitfiil MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (M2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Weinberger stated the total amount of hardcover proposed without including the sidewalk based on the building permit, with no driveway to the third stall of the garage, is 50 square feet over what is allowed. Weinberger slated in order to complete the dri>cwa> and sidewalk, another additional 100 square feet of hardcover w ould be required, which brings it up to 150 square feet over what is allowed. Smith commented the Applicant w ill need to decide whether he would like to keep the ice house or liave the additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk Nygard stated just because the foundation of the ice house has been damaged b> the elements over the years, the Applicant should not be restricted from replacing that foundation in tlie futura. Nygard stated the remainder of the structure appears to be fairly solid and the Applicant should be allowed to make improvements to the foundation if he so desires N>gard stated he docs have some concerns regarding the third stall to the garage and no drive«a> There were no public comments rebting to this application. Mrs Cable commented the neighbor would like to see the ice house remain as well. Smith stated it is the responsibility of the City to protect the lakcshcre by limiting what is allowed to be built wiUim the 0*75' zone Berg stated the Citv *s present Code requires the building to be removed if the foundation needs to be replaced Hawn commented the hardcover is contingent upon whether the ice house remains Nvgard stated he would like to sec the hardcover remain within the Z5 percent limit with or w ithout the ice house Smith moved to recommend approval of Application ##2636,3235 Ivy Place, granting of a hardcover variance to permit 100 square feet over the 25 percent limit, which would include a sidewalk but not a driveway In front of a third stall, for total hardcover in the amount of 3,396 square feet. NO SECOND. Hawn stated in her view since this is new construction, there is no juitification for the additional hardcover. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the house relocated. Hawn stated she would like to see the ice house removed and their plans rev ised to c.xclude the third garage stall in order to meet the 25 percent limit. Stoddard stated in order to keep the ice house, the Applicant w ill need to reduce the size of the garage or house somewhat. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 20,2000 (W2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Nygnrd stated the Planning Commission is firm on the 15 percent structural coverage limit and the 25 percent hardcom limit on new construetkm Cable stated thev would like to keep the house in the proposed location in order to prwerve the existing trees Cable stated he is doubtful whether the size of the house can be reduced an>- further. Mrs. Cable eommented thej- have five children, with some bedrooms being located above the garage. Ibwu stated she is unsure cxaaly what they arc being asked to approve since they do not has c a plan in front of them outlining all of the items being requested Smith stated w hat is in front of them do« include the icc house, w ith the amount of hardens cr being in e.\cess of the 25 percent limit. Hawn stated she can either make a motion denying the application or table the matter to allow the Applicant time to decide whether to keep the ice house Hawn inquired why a building permit was issued prior to the variance being approved Weinberger stated a building permit was issued on the revised plan, noting that they were under the 25 percent hardcover limit and met all the required setbacks Weinberger staled the Applicants arc requesting the additional hardcosxr in order to keep the ice house and expand the driveway area, along with a sidewalk Berg noted the plan has changed since the building permit was issued Hawn commented in her view she docs not see a hardship. Berg commented she also is confused b\ exactly what is being requested since there is no plan outlining the changes before them Lindquist stated he would be in fasor of deny ing the sariance and letting the building permit stand. Hawn stated she was in agreement with Lindquist. Hawn noted the demolition permit called for the ice house to be removed. Mrs Cable stated they were never informed the ice house had to be removed. Gaffron inquired whether the City had a suney at the time the demolition permit was issued A gentleman in the audience indicated he docs not know. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Application 2636,3235 Ivy* Place, based on the additional hardcover being requested in cicess of the 25 percent limit from the time the original building permit was issued, ------------------------- PAGE 10 " MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondayt November 20,2000 (N2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Cootimied) Stoddard noted if this application is denied, he would need to wait for si.x montlis before submitting a ne>v application. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his application tabled ILiwn stated that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires Mrs Cable inquired whctlicr thc>‘ could still proceed with construction of the residence as originally proposed Hawn stated they could proceed with construction in accordance with the building permit. liiwn stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until Jonuaiy at tlie earliest Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the additional hardcover for tlic driveway and sidewalk Hawn inquired w hether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the driveway and sidewalk meeting Uie 25 percent hardcover limit and removal of the ice house Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the sidewalk possibly consisting of stepping stones. Lindquist stated if this application is denied, they could still proceed under the building pennit. Lindquist stated they need to stay within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the property Smith commented if ilic ice house is removed, that would give the Applicants an additional 96 feet of hardcover. Hawn reiterated the Planning Commission typically docs not grant any vananccs to stmctural coverage or liardcovcr on new construction I lawn recommended the Applicants revise their plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building official Mrs. Cable inquired whether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they decide to keep it at this time. Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more than 25 percent of the foundation is replaced. Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of the structure, the repairs arc not permitted. Gaffron stated it w ould be 50 percent of the value at the time it became non-conforming. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled Cable stated they would like their application tabled. Lindquist rescinded his motion PAGE 11 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application tt2636.3235 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. (M) #2634/2635 G & G Holding Company, 1130 •& 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variance, 8:03 p.m. - 8:54 p.m. JoEllcn Hurr, G & G Holding Company, appeared on behalf of Stanley and Luella Goldberg lltc Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Weinberger stated this is a n\o-part application, with eonsidcration being gi\cn to a lot line rearrangement of the property, vacation of a platted undc\ eloped alley, and a variance request to permit construction of an accessory structure between the principal structure and the front property line Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting vacation of the platted alley Tlic alley presently IS undeveloped and has not been used for public travel flic only public pur|X)se the alley currently serves is to provide sewer serv ice The City of Orono docs not intend to develop or maintain this alley A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it serv es as the only public access for tlic lot located at 114U Loma Linda A condition of the vacation would require an access and utility easement over the jiortion of the vacated alley that is used for sewer serv ICC Weinberger stated vacation of the alley may be justified since it docs not serv e a public serv ice outside of the sewer serv icc Weinberger stated if the vacation of the alley is approv ed, the lot line rearrangement would be between the two parcels shown as Parcel A and Parcel B Parcel B is currently developed with a cabin consisting of approximately 50U square feet in size. The second parcel is currently vacate, with a possible request in the future to construct a structure on this property. Weinberger stated iialf of the vacated public alley would be transferred to Parcel A, with the other lialf being vacated Weinberger stated tlicre arc four parcels m common ownership in this area by the same property owner, with an amendment being completed to allow the entire 20 feet of the vacated alley to become part of Parcel A Weinberger stated a portion of the vacated alley would also be transferred to Parcel B. with a small portion of Parcel A becoming a part of Parcel B as part of the lot line rearrangement Weinberger stated Parcel B would be increased by 30 feet and would result in a developed 8,500 square foot parcel Parcel A would increase in size by approxinutely 1,500 square feet Weinberger staled both parcels would be developed subsequent to the vacation and lot line rearrangement, with both lots being under the minimum one acre requirement for this district These lots would then be considered as record lots, which would require variances to lot width PAGE 12 MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (#2634/2635 GAG HOLDING COMPANY. Continued) and lot area for each of the lots. Weinberger staled due to the lot line rearrangement, Uie front property lines would change and become narrower. Weinberger staled Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the request for the s acalion of the allc> and lot line rearrangement prior to the variance part of the application being heard. Staff is recommending approi'al of the lot line rearrangement and vacation of the alley Hurr stated she has no additional comments to Staff s report but would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission ma> have Bill Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Ascnuc. inquired whether the serv ice road would stay in its current location. Weinberger stated that would renum as the driveway access to the property Weinberger stated the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement allow s for the tw o lots to become larger in size and to reduce the need for setbacks Jeff Johnson, 1145 Loma Linda Avenue, slated he did provide a letter to the Cit\ regarding this application Weinberger stated he docs liavc the letter in the file. Weinberger suicd the letter indicates he is against the variance to allow lot lines or building size or hardcover which would restrict his view of the lake In addition, the property owners should hav e been aware of the size of the lots ond building requirements prior to purchase and should not pose a hardship on the adjoining property. Johnson stated he was told there would be no encroachment into the lot line Weinberger staled as proposed, if the allev is vacated and a portion of the scrv ice road becomes part of Parcel A, the defined front propertv line would be along Lonu Linda, which would require a 30 foot setback to the south propertv line Weinberger stated the closest any structure could be built to the propertv line would be 3U feet, with the old requirement being 35 feet from the edge of Uic sen ice road Hurr commented they arc not constructing any building on Parcel B Hurr staled they arc not proposing any variances to the 30 foot setback at this time Hurr noted that trees could be planted which would in essence block his view as much as a building would Nygard inquired how the 15 percent structural coverage rule applies to this small lot. Weinberger staled 1 ^ percent of the lot would allow a footprint of 2,100 square feet, which could be affected by any existing hardcover on the property Weinberger stated they will not know vvliat is being proposed until they request a building permit. Hawn commented it is possible in her view that a house could potentially impact his view even though his lot is located downhill Hawn noted the height of the building could not exceed 30 feet. PAGE 13 i MINITESOF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (W2634/263S G & G HOLDING COMPANY. Continued) Stoddard commented he personally docs not ha\e a problem with vacating the alley-, but inquired whether they would l>c able to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hurr stated they arc proposing to construct a house consisting of 1,297 square feet. Hurt stated it would not be possible to construct a garage on this property, noting the property owners use this property seasonally. Hurr stated Parcel .A would lose its lake \ icw, w ith Parcel B haiing a view of the lake. Lindquist inquired whether the City has a hutery of \acatuig scr> ice roads Weinberger stated to his knowledge the City has vacated some serv ice roads Weinberger commented the CHy has a number of roads that have been platted between properties but if those arc not needed and the properties arc combined, the City has vacated them Weinberger stated the determining factor is whether the road services a public purpose Hawn commented she has a problem with one of the lots being only 30 feet w ide. Hurr stated it is 50 feet wide Weinberger stated it is really 50 feet and not the 30 feet noted in the report. Hawn noted tlic lot w idth on Parcel A has been reduced from 147.21 down to 100 feet Hurr stated she did speak with Staff rcgardine that, noting she is not sure where the 147 feet comes from. Weinberger stated this width would be 147 feet, but technically llic lot width is the nanower of the two on Loma Linda. Weinberger slated there really has not been a cliangc, but a property has gone tax forfeit, which is no longer part of the property Weinberger stated the dimensions have not changed but merely where the front property line is being considered Lindquist stated he would be in fa\or of the \eeatioo if the setback remained the same Hurr inquired what setback they would have wiili tlic vacation Weinberger staled they would have a 50 foot *:tback Hurr commented they would have a 50 foot setback but would be emitlcd to plant trees in that area Lindquist stated once the alley is vacated, it becomes their property. Weinberger stated currently they have a 35 foot setback. Lindquist staled they can cither vote on it tonight or ubic the application P.\GE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («2634/2635 G & G HOLDING COMPANY, CONTINUED) Hurr staled the Planning Commission could \t)tc on the \-acalion, with a condition of appro\*al being a 50 foot setback Hawn commented the Applicant could request the City Council to reduce the setback. Hurr commented in her view the Planning Commission is limiting an already small lot by iiKrcasing the setback. Hurr stated the intent with the \^cation was to increase the size of the lots. Lindquist stated the Plannmg Commission has a nsponsibility to maintain the neighbor's sight lines Hurr stated the 50 foot setback will restrict this lot b\ luniting the buildoble area Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application 112634/2635, 1130 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, granting of a lot line rearrangement and vacation of the platted undeveloped alley, with the understanding there will be a 50 foot setback on Parcel A for all structures. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Weinberger stated also as part of this application the Applicants arc proposing to construct a new residence on proposed Parcel B llic plans would include a 1.237 square foot house to replace the c.xisting cabin and removal of the parking and dri\ c area located w ithin the vacated right*of-wa> . The Applicants arc requesting a hardco\er s-anance to allow 29,8 percent of hardcover in the 75*250* bkcshorc setback where 25 pcrcait is allowed Weinberger indicated the Applicants x'c not proposing a garage on this property In the past the City has seen applications that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for a garage Weinberger stated a garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed since it is restricted from development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house The property owners have indicated they do not intend to build a garage on this lot Weinberger stated it would be impossible to locate a garage on this lot without the need for a vaiiancc due to the snull size of the lot and the uiilitx casement that will exist on this lot Wcinbcrgt*r stated the Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking space's per dwelling unit, w ith the Applieants show ing hardcover for one space Staff is recommending an additional space be adde'd, which will increase hardcover Stiff docs have some concerns regarding the amount of hardcov er on this lot. but due to the snull size ut the lot. Staff would allow some overage in the amount of hardcover on the lot to permit a reasonable sized house to be constructed on tiic property and to provide sufficient parking space. Weinberger noted the size of the property is being mcrcascd with the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement Hurr Slated the driveway could perhaps be reduced slightly from the 10 feet Lindquist inquired what the amount of hardcover will be on this lot. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (M2634/263S GAG HOLDING COMPANY, Continued) Weinberger ftated the amount of hardcover aWowxd in the 75-250* zone ts 1.187 square fc^ with the Airplicants proposing 1.177 square feet Weinberger noi^ Uie changes rwommem . by Staff arc incorporaUul into the hare'eover calculation and would result in the hardcover bci. , over by 589 square feet. Weinberger indicated almost ooe-half of the hardcover w to accommodate onsite parking as required by ordinance Weinberger noted the structuic is u cr the amount allowed Hurr commented there is a discrepancy in tlic surv eys and the size of the lots Hurr indicated Bockmann's residence does not meet the 75 setback Beckmann stated his survey indicates a different number Hurr stated his survev- shows 42 feet to the lakcshore. with U»c survev for the Goldberp showing 22 feet. Hurr stated she did discuss tliis issue witli Bockmann Hurr commented another wsuc was iliat the average lakcshore setback used for the Bockmann house was the ho^ locat^ across the street, which was the incorrect lakcshore setback Hurr stated if the Goldbergs sunev* is used, the Bockmann house docs not meet the 75 foot setback. Lindquist inquired whether the Goldbergs’ survey is recent Hurr replied that it is. Undquist stated he needs to deal with the surv ev- in front of him Jeff Johnson commented it was his understanding the house next to this property also used the current driveway. Hurr stated that property has access off of Loma Linda. Hurr noted tlut property owner lias utilized the driveway in the past. Lindquist noted it is a public driveway. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is basically looking at a request to construct a house on this lot. Hurr slated the total hardcover on the lot would be 1.417 square feet t mdquist stated it was his understanding ilie lurdcover was 1.717 square feet Weinberger slated the 1.777 square foot of hardcover includes the proposed house and the Staffs proposed parking area and driveway. Staff is recommending if the plan is approved, it be approved with the 1.777 square feet of hardcover. Hawn commented the Applicants have the right to have 15 percent or 1,500 square feel, whichever is greater, in structural coverage, which the Applicants do meet. Hawn slated the amount of hardcov er being added is required by ordinance for the additional parking space. Hawn stated in her opinion she docs not see any wav the amount of hardcov er could be reduced Lindquist stated he is in agreement with Hawn and docs not have a problem w ith the variance ------------------------------------------------PAGE 16 ” MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 (02634/2635 G&C HOLDING COMPANY, Continued) Smith inquired what the 1,777 square feet equates in terms of percentages. Weinberger staled tliat would be 37 4 percent Smith stated the Planning Commission is basically approving new construction. Hawn stated the house, which is under the 1 .500 square feet, is already o\xr the amount of hardcover allowed for this lot Nygard staled due to the utility and sewer easement, the Applicants aic limited in the area where they could const met tlic parking area Hurt stated if the same 42 fool measurement was used as on the adjoining propertj, the hardcover amount would be reduced to 27 9 percent I lurr stated she was told b> Gronberg that tJic distance is 33 feet and not 22 feet Hurt stated the hardcover could possiblv be under 30 percent depending on what survxy number was used Lindquist moved, lUwn seconded, to recommend approval of Application 1/2634/2635, 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, permitting structural coverage in the amount of 1,237 square feet, and granting of a hardcover variance for hardcover in the 75-250’ lone in the amount of 1.777 square feet, with the understanding that no additional hardcover will be permitted on this parcel. VOTE* Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hurr noted the Applicants arc not requesting any setback variances on this application (Recess taken from 8:54 - 9KI2 p.m.) Items 9,10, and 11 were heard after Item No. 7. («5) W2637 WILLIAM AND NADINE MCGUIRE, 315 WOODIIILL ROAD, VARIANCE. 9:03 p.m. - 9:07 p.m. Luther Hockray. Pro|K’rty Manager, appeared on behalf of the McGuires The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger si.ated tlie Applicants are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a 21 5* by 115* accessory stmeture between the pnncipal stmeture and the front property line. The south lot line would be considered the front lot line by Orono Cc The accessory stmeture is proposed to be a tennis court pavilion, which will be located 135 feet from the fruit property line where the residence is located 285 feet The proposed location for the accessory stmeture is adjacent to the existing tennis court Weinberger staled the proposed location is the best spot on this property foi this stmeture A building permit was issued to conslmct the foundation of the pavilion with the understanding the variance application for the accessory stmeture may not be approved PAGE 17 y i MINUTES OF THE ORONO P* ANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 (<^2637 WILLIAM AND NADINE MCGUIRE, Continued) Weinberger stated the impact to the adjoining residences will be minimal, with the structure not being visible during the summer months due to the heavily wooded slope to llic south Stnictural covciage and hardcover arc not an issue w ith this application. Stair is recommending approval of the vanance to build a tennis pavilion nc.xi to the existing tennis court. Hockray stated the pavilion will be located near a heavily wooded area and will not be visible to the neighbors There were no public comment regarding this application Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application M2637* \MIIiam nnd Nadine McGuire, 315 Woodhill Road, granting of a variance to permit an accessory structure to be located closer to the street lot line than the principal residence. VOTE: Ayes6,NavsO. (M6) M2642 PATRICK & KRISTEN BURTON, 2601 RAINEY ROAD, VARIANCE, 9:07 p.m. - 9:16 p.m. Kurt Baldwin, Landscape aichitcct, appeared on behalf of the Buttons T*-: Certificate of Ma.'m , and Ai ..’a ' **0^103000 were noted Weinberger the Applicants arc kckin^ approval for driveway construction through a ‘.land This lot was crcat<-d in 1988, with the approval of the plat of ‘Trees to Be”. The ‘liccs to Be development created Outlo, U os .1 corridor <br future private rood access to the lot In 1988, when this subdivision was approved, approval for access over the wetland was not granted fbr.vcvcr. .*vt that time it was noted approval would be required when the lot was developed \V. nberger stated at the time the subdivision was apprewed, a flovvage and conservation easement was token over the wetlands rcquinng a variarcc to the terms and conditions of the flovvage and conservation casement Weinberger stated because the proposal is for less than 5U0 cubic yards of fill, a land aliciaiior pemut can be gra.ntcd at Suff level when the fill approval is granted The App'*cants arc proposing to encroach upon the wetland with less than 125 cubic yards of fill to con ruct the driv eway The wetland is a Type - wetland and not a city piotcctcd wetland TI1C total wetland area impacted is approximately 1,5'K) square feet The Applicants have aUo Si:bmittcd an application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnet for wetland alteration and is scheduled to be heard on November 28,2000. Weinberger stated the Applicants have submitted a statement of hardship in that the only access to the property is via Outlot B with a driveway at the north end of the property across the wetland PACT \S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondiy, November 20,2000 (#2642 PATRICK A KRISTEN BURTON. Contioued) Staff recommends approval of a variance to the conditions of the Flowage and Conserv atirn Easement to allow the proposed wetland fill for driveway access subject to Mmncliaha Creek Watershed review and appro\til Baldwin stated the Applicants would like to commence construction in the early spring and need the drivevNay across the wetland in order to access the remaiaing parcel. Baldwin stated they have looked at a number of other options in order to gain access to this property, but feel this is the only as’ailabic site axailable for access Baldwin requested approval of this application be made contingent upon the WCWD review and approval, nouag the Board w ill be reviewing this matter prior to the upcoming City Council meeting Hawn stated the Planning Commission has made that a condition of approval in other applications. There w ere no public comments relating to this application Nygard inquired how big the wetland is. Baldwin stated the wetland is less than one acre and is a Type I to II. Baldwin stated the wetland has been delineated by a wetbnd specialist and docs not show the typical soils found in a normal wetland. Stoddard noted for the record this is not a City protected wetland Stoddard stated he would be in favor of granting the dnveway due to the limited land available for access to a brger plat of land located behind it and docs not set a precedent Stod lard staled in his view tins is a unique piece of properly with a very narrou inlet to a large piece of land Hawn commented this access point was also contcmpbicd a number of years ago and the Planning Commission is following the guidelines set down previously by the City Council Hnw n moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application M2642, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a variance to the conditions of the Flowage and Conservation Easement to allow the proposed wetland fill for driveway access subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, with the understanding the fill required for this access is less than 500 cubic yards. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. (W7) M2631 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoni. g Cede - Residential PUD, 9:16 p.m. - 9:58 p.m. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission reviewed this zoning code amendment at their lost Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled following a short discussion The Planning Commission later reviewed this amendment at their October 18,2000 work session Gaflron stated according to those two discussions. Staff has incorporat«i some rev isions to tlie amendment. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (W2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) Gaffron stated the purpose of this zoning code amendment is to allow the Cit> to meet some of its housing goals that are documented in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for higher densit>‘ housing in specified areas of the City. The revised draft of the ordinance docs incorporate some of the suggestions and standards that were outlined in the October 10 memorandum as it relates to architectural standards and landscaping It also incorporates standards that apply both to single family detached bousing and to attached mulii-faimly housing units GafTron stated the amendment has standards in place for single family detached that generally reflect a one*third of an acre lot size, lot width of 90 feet, lot depth of 125 feet, with appropriate setbacks. The amendment also addresses issues relating to accessory structures and parking within the RPUD District Also contained within the ordinance arc sections relating to attached dwelling units Gaffron stated an addition to those standards for an attached dwelling unit aic standards relating to landscaping and architectural standards that rebte to both single family and anached dwelling units. Gaffron noted this oidtnancc docs not incorporate a height requirement or a height restriction Gaffron stated Staff has omitted that because the intent of the ordinance is to create cations and opportunities lor housing txpes that do not currently exist within Orono Gaffrem stated currcnily all of Orono's districts have a height limit of 30 feet or two and a half stories. In order to meet higher density housing, it nu> be neccssarx to construct buildings that arc three stories, which would result in the structure exceeding the 30 foot height restriction Gaffron indicated the Orono Amber application, which is to be reviewed tonight by the Planning Commission, is in fact a three stor> situation, and has an aserage height of about 38 feet, with some portions of the building being 48 feet m height and some facades at 50 feet. Gaffron stated the City has a choice of incorporating a height standard into this ordinance or omitting that language and incorporating some guidelines that could be used for construction of thistspe. Ga‘*Von stated the City may also want to review why the City has height restnctions in place Gaffron noted the City his l,c:ght restrictions to lir.it the visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood, to niainlain the light air and open space enjosed by that site and the adjoining properties, and to stay w ithin the limitations of local fire fighting capabilities Gaffron comment^ most multi-famiK dwelling units will be located within areas that contain sewer and water along with a requirement that the units contain a sprinkler ssstem Gaffron stated there could be some other reasons for wanting to limit height of a structure in a particular area Without a height standard, the dc\eloper would have an opportunits to demonstrate to the Cit> why that height should allowed Gaffron commented this is a PUD ordinance, which is creating a zoning distnct that can only be zoned by having a PUD process, which takes a 4/5’s vote to ctiangc any property to Uic RPUD District. Gaffron stated if the Phnning Commission w ishes to discuss the ordinance in more detail, he would be w illing to answer any questions the., iriay have on it. Staff is recommending approval of this zoning code amendment. Gaffron stated in his \icw- this ordinance allows the Cit;. on an PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (M2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued^ interim basis with the ability to develop not only the site in question but it also gives the City the opportunity and a method for dealing with some of the other sites within the City that have been reguided for multi-family housing Gaflron staled SialT will be reMcwing in the future the way the zoning districts and the PUD code is set up. Pat Crayhill. Anomey-at-Law, commented he has concerns regarding this ordinance amendment since it may impact their development and they liavc not had a chance to review it to see how n would affect Hicir project. Gaffron indicated this ordinance amendment will also be discussed at the upcoming Cit> Council meeting Gaffron noted Orono's City Ordinances do not require a first or a second reading of the ordinance They require a review by the Planning Commission, a recommendation, and then a review by the City Council Ricliard Flint, Council Member, commented in his view there should be a licight restriction in the ordinance amendment Gaffron stated height is measured by Orono’s Code for a peaked or a pitched roof uses the average of the highest gable. It also savs on the ground end, especially on a sloped lot. you look at either the high side of either the highest point w here the ground abuts the building or ten feet above the lowest point wherever the ground hits the building, whichever is lowest. Hawn commented in her opinion there should be some guidelines contained within the ordinance to give some guidance to developers and to members of the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated her personal preference would be to sec the height c.\prcsscd in stories rather than feet t .'cause it will give more Icewav in terms of design. Gaffron commented most stones arc tvpicallv ten feet in height Ma> or Jabbour stated due to the reguiding of some areas of the C**y, inis ordinance is needed to help address the issues raised by multi-family housing Jabbour noted this zoning ordinance deals with other sites w ithin the City and should be considered a citv -w ide ordinance rattier tlian being specific to one particular lot. Stoddard commented the proposal for the senior housing facility has prompted th*s zoning code amendment. Stoddard noted the City Council has approved the new Comprehensive Plan which identifies some areas withm the City that are ripe for rezomng and could be utilized for life cycle housing not available elsewhere in Orono Nygard inquired wliat the local fire department is capable of handling in terms of height of the structures Gaffron stated the fire department has ladders that reach up to 28 feet. Gaffron noted the Cit> currently has houses that e.\ceed 28 feet in height. Gaffron stated height is not necessarily a limiting factor but it is an issue that needs to be discussed PAGE 21 ii » K MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 20.2000 M263I ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. Continued) Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission should have some flcxibiliiy in determining the height of fhe building Smith inquired how the Planning Commission should determine whether a structure is an appropriate size if no guidelines arc in place Lindquist stated a five to six story building ma>' be appropriate along the nc%v Highwav 12 corridor but not appropriate elsewhere w iihin the City. Lindquist stated the height of the building should be taken into consideration with the topography of the land and the surrounding area. Gaffron stated in cverv case where the residential PUD will be in affect, the City will be rezomng to a residential PUD and will be adjacent mostly to residential areas and possibly some commercial Gaffron recommended a different siandard for set for those areas that lie within a residential area llian those within a commercial district Gaffron stated Uic Planning Commission may also want to look at setbacks in relation to height Berg commented in her \ icw there should be some guidelines in plate for developers that eomc to the City to give them some direction on what the Planning Commission and City Council would like to sec for development Gaffron stated the City currentlv has an application for a senior housing facility that is not presentiv allowed in anv district. GafTron stated the residential PUD will create a new zoning district which will allow multi-family dwelling units and create some guidelines and standards to help give some direction for Uut t\pc of development Gaffron stated he w ould like some direction from the Planning Commission as it relates to this ordinance amendment Hawn commented she would like to sec some height slandaiiis incorporated into the amendment. Hawn stated she would like to limit the number of stories on lakeside properties as well as give some flexibility to height depending on the area and other factors Hawn stated she also would like to see a ratio to setbacks incorporated into the amendment, i c., the larger llic setback, the taller the building can be Gaffron staled there is a section in the code that does talk about setbacks and relates setbacks to height. Nvgard commented in his \ icw Uie height rcstricuon needs to be clear and well defined. Nvgard stated in his opinion amthing over three stories is ambitious and would be difficult to approve. Negard stated he w ould like to sec the buildings not exceed the height of the ircetops Smith stated she would like to see some standards relating to height incorporated into the amendment but would also like some flexibility. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this matter to a work session m December. Berg stated she would like to discuss this amendment more indepth, noting she has a number of questions on some items contained within the ordinance PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (#2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) Lindquist commented in his view overall this is a good document in principal and he would prefer to deal with the height r^nctions on a per umt basis. Berg stated the Planning Commission needs to look at the height of the structure, where it is located, what is adjacent to, and that there needs to be some guidelines in place to help give direction to thw developers Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2631, Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Residential P.U.D., to a work session in November or December. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#9) #2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45 Stoddard moved, N>'gard seconded, to table Application #2638 2U>ning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45, to a work session in November or December in conjunction with Application #2631. VOTE: .\yes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52 Stoddard moved, N jard seconded, to table Application #2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52, to a work session in November or December in conjunction with Application #2631. VOTE: .Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2640/2641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, P.U.DJSubdivision/ Rezoning/Commcrcial Site Plan Review, 10:01 p.m. -11:32 p.m. Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar, appeared Weinberger staled the Applicant has submitted an application for a two lot plat of a 6 7 acre property. The Applicant is proposing rc^oning for the two properties fi n. the B-l, Retail Sales Business Distnet to B-6/PUD for office use of the proposed west parcel, and RPUD/PUD for multi-family residential use of Uic proposed cast parcel 1 iic intended use of Uic properties arc a three story, 70 unit senior housing project, and a 23,000 square foot office building Weinberger noted the subject parcel is platted as Outlet f, Suganvoods, which is the parcel immediately south of the Sugamoods neighborhood The only buffer betw een the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40 foot wide platted outlet that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association Restrictions were placed on each lot w ithin the Suganvoods neighborhood Uut prohibits removal of trees greater than two inches in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the prt^osed development In order for any development to occur on the property, the lot would need to be replattcd PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («64(V2641 ORONO AMBAR, Continued) Weinberger staled Uicy at .proposing to rezone this property, which requires a comprehensive plan amendment to change Ihe guided land uac dcsigiution for at least Lot 2. The rezoning would allow Lot I, which is proposed to have a 23,000 square foot office building constructed on it, to be rezoned to the B-6 District. The second rezoning would be to rezone Lot 2 to the RPUD, which would establish standards for a multi-family residential senior use of the building. The Applicant is proposing to construct a three-story, 70 unit senior housing facility. TIic housing would be similar to other senior housing facilities Weinberger stated tlic 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the revised Comprehensive Plan has this area guided for commercial use. The proposed senior housing would not fit under this designation, which results in the need for a comprehensive plan amendment for Lot 2 Weinberger stated Section 10 .^3 defines the standards and review process for a Higliway 12 PUD. which is really Uic umbrella for this process being put in e 'o .i:\wv rczonin j to occur on this property. Weinberger noted Section 10.52 defines special requirements for rezoning along tlie Highway 12 corridor. Tlic Applicant has provided site plans for both projects Weinberger noted a site plan review is required for each individual lot tommcrrial site plan will txpically in\ol\e all of tlic reviews lliat are typically involved in any type of site plan review, including such things as landscaping, parking, lighting, traffic flow, building height, setbacks, architectural materials, screening, and any other design nr use issues that exist Wcinbcrgei noted this is a preliminary plat application, w hich also invols es replatting and subdivision of the two lots Lot 2 consuls of approximately four acres in size and would ho*Jse the senior housing facility fhe 70 units would result in a density of 17 5 units per acre on the property, which is higher tlian any other zoning district within the City of Orono, therefore the RPUD ordinance would apply in this ease The RPUD would rely hea\ ily on tlic Comprehensive Plan desigmition for the lot to guide the h! towards tiic type of uses and densities that would be allowed on this property The RPUD should also provide those incentives that arc consistent with Orono's housing ^ ^al. and includes modifications to regular density requirements. Tlie housing goal in this case is tc provide moderately pneed senior housing Weinberger stated the office use being proposed for Lot I would not require a comprehensive plan amendment since the underlying land designation is for commercial use for the entire site Lot 1 consists of 2.1 acres Weinberger noted the Applicant arc looking for a conceptual plan review and approval at this time Weinberger slated the preliminary plat would fall u’lder the preliminary plat standards Because this is a non-residcntial plat, the City has the option of applying additional requirements that the City would help this development fit wnhin the neightuirhood and to protect adjacent areas from any nuisance uses on the property. Weinberger staled some of those prov isions would include permanent landscape buffer strips and any other additional screening or design elements that would help it fit into the neighborhood better The /Applicant is proposing to plat Lot I as an mdividual let. Lot 2 would be platted creating a building witli 70 units, which would be accomplished by creating 70 separate ta.\ parcels and MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 PAGE 24 (M2640/264I ORONO AMBAR, Continued) 70 separate legal descriptions Under this type of plat, the units would be eventually owned by a non-profit organization and each unit would be rented to an individual occupant. Surrounding this individual lot is the Suganvoods neighborhood to the north Weinberger noted a 40 fool outlot exists between this development and SuganvxKxts. which is owned by the Homeowners Association There arc also covenants and restrictions in place within the Sugarvvood development that prohibit the removal of any trees greater llian tw o inches in diameter. Weinberger noted there arc five lots that actually abut to this proposed development To the soulli is tlic existing Highway 12, which is proposed to be relocated, and the existing Highway 12 would eventually be turned over and maintained by Hennepin County. Located cast of this development is Brown Road, and as part of the Highway 12 relocation, would form a complete lighted intersection with existing Highway 12. Weinberger indicated the City is considering the various methods tliat arc available to oficr financial assistance to this project Some options the City will be considering is the creation of a TIF District for this area, lax abatement or bonding for the project that would allow this type of development to occur and to keep the rents affordable Weinberger noted the City Council has not made a determination on vvlial type of financing should be offered at this time Weinberger stated the office building would consist of a 23.000 square foot office building with a 21 stall parking area underneath the building The actual size of the building is 172 feet by 80 feet, with the 80 feet being exposed to the residential areas to the north Tlic building is designed to have a step-up appearance to lessen or soften the visual impact to the adjoining area Weinberger noted one portion of the building would consist of one story, with the remainder of the building being two stones One access point would be off of the existing Highway 12 corridor Proposed landscaping on the sue fer tlie oflicc use consists of a number of plantings around the property and within the parking area Weinberger noted the landscaping could be subject to additional requirements at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council W'ciiibcrgcr stated one setback issue tliat needs to be addressed further would be the setback between the building and the interior property line, which is sliown at 30 feet. The B-6 district requires a 35 foot setback Weinberger stated another issue for consideration is the height of tlic building, noting that llic building docs meet Ihe 30 foot maximum height restriction for the B-6 district. W'cinbcrgcr indicated the proposed tower on the building would have a defined height of 32 feet, which is an architectural and design element on the building to help break up the facade of the striicuirc Weinberger stated the senior housing facility has a clock tower on the Higliway IJ side of the building and also incorporates some of the same design elements as the proposed office building. W cinberger noted this facility would also have a step down from three stories to two stones, which helps to make the mass of the building appear less Due to the topogiaphv of tlie land, half of the building would be located at a lower height, with the other half of the building being ten feet higher in elevation W'einberger noted the portion of the building facing Highwav 12 would consist of the three stories W cinberger stated the setbacks tliat would apply in this situation arc up for some discussion in relation to the RPUD ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require setbacks based on PAGE 25 mi MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («2(^2641 ORONO AMBAR. Continued) building height in addition to minimum setbacks on the property The plan before the Planning Commission shows 40 feet between the building and the nortlicm property line and 30 feet where the garage entrance is located and the inienor property 'ine Discussions have been held betw een Staff and the developer about the possibility of mo\ ing the building fiirthcr to the south Weinberger noted a pood has been constructed in the area which is designed to handle the water runoff from Highway 12 Weinberger noted the pond is owned and operated by Mn/DOT. Weinberger stated the other access to this site would be off of Brown Road and could be located closer to the pond should the building be relocated slightly However, this would result in tlic removal of some mature trees on the site Weinberger stated the developer is proposing one space on the interior of the building for each individual unit with the senior housing complex, with 83 outdoor spaces being shown for use b>- guests to the building Weinberger stated the City Engineer .vould like to keep the extenor parking awa> from the mam traveled portion of the road Weinberger stated a portion of the parking area could be relocated closer to tlie building, with outdoor parking only on the north side of the road Weinberger stated the road would be by easement and would not be platted, which would allow a lesser setback Weinberger stated the Plonnii^ Commission should be advised that per the Highway 12 PUD provisions by which this review will occur underneath, this proposal is in a general concept Stage, which is equivalent to a prehmmarv plat application. However, the Citv Council may hold a second public hearing as allowed under the PL D ordinance and would require a 3/5’s vote Weinberger stated under the PUD ordinance, there is a mandatory 60 dav requirement for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, and because the Planning Commission docs not meet in December, this application would go bey ond the 60 day limit Weinberger noted the developer may prefer to have a recommendation on this matter before the end of the year ratlier than tabling of the application Dunbar commented he would like to address two items rclatini; to the ofTicc building Dunbar stated the five foot variance on the cast side could be adjusted to 35 feet, which would eliminate the variance request In an attempt to get the office building to look more like tlic housing in the area, the tower has Uen eliminated and would not result in the need for any variances Dunbar stated their intent is to get a concept and a site plan that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. City Council, and the ncighboihood Dunbar indicated thev have a tight time frame m which to gel this project approved, and requested that concept approval be given as soon as possible Dunbar stated they arc willing to work with the City and the neighborhood in order to .address the issues satisfactorily. Dunbar indicated two neighborhood meetings have been held with the local residents. Dunbar stated they have attempted to locate the narrowest portion of the ofl cc building next tr* *he neighborhood and to limit it to one story, with an 80 foot setback, to limit the impact on die residential area Dunbar stated they would like to preserve die vegetation in the front and place some additional screening along the building Dunbar commented they havc attempted to make the office building appear more residential looking to make it more appealing and to blend in P.AGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 ((V2644V264I ORONO AMUAK, Continued) with the adjoining residential area. Dunbar as it relates to the senior housing facility, they ha\e redueed the number of outdoor parking stalls to 50 and arc considering the possibility of increasing the indoor parking to 84 spaces Dunbar noted they arc looking at Staff s concerns and are attempting to adless those. Dunbar stated they could also rcmo\ c the tower incorporated into the senior housing facility. Dunbar indicated they will need to discuss with the City Council any financing that c<mld he made available on this project. Dunbar noted a non-profit organization would own this facility once constructed, w ith the mission of the non-profit to pre vide moderately priced senior housing, which is somewhat dependent on the amount of financing provided by the City Evelyn Schommer. 2106 Suganvood Dri\c, inquired whether any family members w ild be able to reside with the senior residents Dunbar stated under state law they arc not permitted to have family members li\c in the senior housing facility unless they arc married Schommer inquired whether there would be balconies on the building and what they would be used for. Dunbar stated they arc planning balconies on the facility, which will be used for sitting. Dunbar indicated there will be no clectncal outlets located on the outside of the buildmg for the decks A resident m the audience inquired about tlic lighting and air-conditioning of the building Dunbar staled there will be air-conditioning units available in each individual unit. GafTron noted the City will rcouirc recessed outdoor lighting Dunbar stated they need to construct a 70 unit facility ut order to help keep the rent increases to a nunimum Karl Berg. 2112, Suganvood Drive, commented he has a number of issues he would like to sec addressed Berg stated he would like to sec the scn ice road pass in front of the property Berg inquired about the height of the buildmg and lighting at night. Berg commented in his view the senior housing development would make a good neighbor, with the concept plan being more positive than negative GafTron indicated the City could incorporate a height restriction for this zoning district if they should elect to do so. Schommer commented the neighbors would like to oe kept updated on the progress of this project. PAGE 27 i MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («264<V264I ORONO AMBAR, Continued) GafTron stated the City could give notice to the afTcctcd property owners GafTron noted the City normally docs not mail out indi\ idual notice of the upcoming meetings once the public hearing has been held GafTron stated the City could send out individual notice of upcoming meetings if the Planning Commission so desired. Berg requested the president of the Sugarwood Homeowner s Association be given notice of any upcoming meetings concerning tins application Hawn commented she is unsure what action or recommendation the Planning Commission should give at this time since the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the City. Hawn stated in her opinion this appears to be a good plan, noting she would like to see a bufter along the front of the building Hawn requested the neighbors’ concerns and comments be kept in mind when revisions are being made to the plan Lindquist noted he is in agreement conceptually with the plan Berg commented she is glad the developer is working with the neighbors. Smith inquired whether the building nuicrials could be specified. GafTron stated the RPUD process will allow the Planning Commission to dictate what tlKV would like to see for this development Stoddard stated in his opinion more discussion is needed regarding the height of the building and the parking. Nygard inquired how nun> cmplosccs there would be Dunbar indicated 42 parking stalls would be available to staff, with the majority of the parking area being utilized on the weekends Pat Brakeman. Sugarwood. stated his major concern is with the size of the project and landscaping for the wintertime Brakeman stated he would like some idea of the developer’s agenda for this project Brakeman stated in his view the City does not need a citv-widc ordinance in place prior to dealing with this project GafTron stated Orono’s current ordinances do not allow this tvpe of density beyond wlut's in the current zoning districts, and that this ordinance is needed to permit this type of housing Dunbar stated he will need to meet with the City Council regarding the available financing before bcin .’ able to proceed much further Dunbar stated he would like to get some direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on which direction they would like this project to go. Berg commented she is aware of other senior housing facilities consisting of two 30 unit buildings rather than one large building Berg suggested this application be tobicd until the ordinance amendment is adopted PAGE 28